Forget logic, you're supposed to love Obamacare

Yesterday, Ohio Democratic State Rep. Teresa Fedor held a press conference to criticize Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's announcement that he would repeal Obamacare if he were elected. She strategically held the conference on the first day of U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the law.

Of course, no Democratic press conference is complete with an appeal to emotion, so she trotted out the typical tug-at-the-heart-strings examples of what would happen if that evil Romney had his way.

The first was Jack Viren, 67, who said:

"The fact that Mitt Romney would overturn the [Affordable Care Act], which allows my wife to have health insurance, saving us close to $15,000 a year, it's unconscionable and unthinkable. We were just totally grateful to President Obama and the Congress when the Affordable Care Act was passed," Mr. Viren said.

But this isn't true. Earlier in the linked article, Viren admits that his wife had insurance:

Mr. Viren said his wife, Carol, who is 12 years younger than he, was forced by an illness to give up her practice as a lawyer and started running an online business. He said the cost of her coverage, which she obtained through a group, went from $800 a month in 2007 to $1,200 the next year. The couple said the cost would have gone to $1,600 with a $2,500 deductible in 2009, but Mrs. Viren dropped the coverage because they couldn't afford it while also paying about $1,000 a month for prescriptions.

"If she had had to go into the hospital for any period of time it could have forced us into bankruptcy," Mr. Viren said.

So what he's saying is that the costs of being without insurance were going to be less than being with insurance?!?

He then contradicts himself when saying that they chose to risk bankruptcy rather than pay for insurance.

That's liberal logic for you.

They probably supported the Ohio law that allows unmarried 'children' up to the age of 28 to stay on their parents' insurance. The minute Ohio passed this law, our own insurance jumped $1,200 per year!

The problem is that Obamacare doesn't "allow" his wife to have health insurance. She had "access" to health care and willingly chose to reject it.

Instead, they decided to live off others who are paying for Ohio's high risk insurance pool, which subsidizes a limited number of individuals with tax dollars from the rest of us.

So much for personal responsibility.

You may be wondering - what is the Ohio High Risk Pool?

The Ohio High Risk Pool is designed to give uninsured Ohioans with pre-existing conditions access to quality health insurance.

Viren's wife had insurance so the pre-existing condition issue wasn't applicable.

What Viren should have said was that he and his wife made a conscious decision to stop paying for the health insurance they had and now they're glad they can get the rest of us to subsidize the insurance they're currently getting.

We're supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

And we're supposed to want to support an unconstitutional Obamacare as a result?!?

Of course we are.

But that's not all. We're also supposed to hate the millionaires and billionaires who aren't paying their "fair share" - at least according to Sen. Fedor:

"...if more people have to pay more money, especially the millionaires and billionaires, that's part of what is necessary to have a quality nation, and it's part of their fair share of ensuring we have a viable economic future," Ms. Fedor said.

What's fair about 'rich' people paying more while nearly half the nation pays nothing at all? Talk about unfair.

But again, that's liberal logic for you.

Then we have Fran Dymarkowski, 69, who clearly doesn't think things through. Her 'tug-at-the-heart-strings' story was about Medicare:

Mrs. Dymarkowski said her husband, Paul, had a drug-resistant staph infection and that their spending on prescription drugs reached the so-called doughnut hole, a situation in which Medicare stops paying for the coverage.

She said her and her husband's cost was about $3,000 or $4,000 over a two-year period in 2009 and 2010. She said Mr. Dymarkowski's health improved and he has less need of the costly prescriptions.

"For seniors like Paul and me living on limited income through Social Security these costs were not a joke," Ms. Dymarkowski said. "Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing." The Affordable Care Act provided a rebate of $250 in the first year and will continue providing the rebate until the doughnut hole is closed in 2020.

Let's put that into perspective: taking the higher estimated (since Dymarkoski clearly didn't know exactly) amount of $4,000 over a two-year period of time, that works out to $200/month. That's not an insignificant amount when you're relying upon Social Security for your income, but it's not more or less than what others have to pay.

As I previously stated, when Ohio passed the insure-children-to-age-28 law, our insurance went up $100/month. When my husband turned 45, it went up another $100/month, strictly due to actuarial tables having nothing whatsoever to with his excellent state of health. That's $200/month in a two-year period of time - just like Dymarkowkis.

Our income is as 'fixed' as theirs - but we're paying for her rebate with our taxes, and she thinks that's okay.

"Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing."

Really? Does actually think that a $250 per year rebate will help people who see a $200 per month increase in their prescription costs? Granted, it's better than nothing, but not much - and it comes at the cost of sacrificing our Constitution.

Did she actually think about the math before she got up in front of the media?

Apparently not.

Again - we're supposed to feel sorry for her and her husband, ignoring such facts and figures, and embrace Obamacare as a result.

Dymarkowski is happy that Obamacare closed the Medicare doughnut hole, but what about the fact that Obamacare is partially funded by a $500 billion cut in Medicare?!? How does she feel about that?

The Romney campaign responded:

"President Obama is the only president to have slashed $500 billion from Medicare, and he did it to fund Obamacare. Unlike the President, Governor Romney is committed to preserving Medicare for those at or near retirement, and unlike the President he has put forward a plan that will strengthen it for future generations," said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams.

Lest you think this is just political rhetoric, the Washington Post Fact Checker agrees:

In the health care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. In reality, the money is all fungible, but Romney is on relatively solid ground when he says “Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare.”

Does Dymarkowski think that settling for a doughnut hole rebate is sufficient payback for the $500 billion Medicare cut that it cost? Does she even know about the cuts that are helping to pay for her $250 rebate?

No one asked her.

I'm sick of being told by elitist politicians what I must do and how I must "feel." They can tug at the heart strings all they want, but I will not stand by while my liberty, my rights, and my personal property are sacrificed so they can appear to help 'stuck-on-stupid' individuals who can't do their own math or who want to live off others.

And I will NOT forget logic and just love Obamacare.

Democrat OH Senator makes GOP argument for voter registration verification

State Senator Teresa Fedor has penned the following and submitted it to numerous outlets as an op-ed piece. I just want to thank her for making the point of the Ohio Republican Party - that voter registration verification is necessary to protect ALL of Ohio's voters.

But Maggie, you say, that's not the point she's making. Yes, but that is what any logical reading of her piece will show, despite her incorrect interpretation.

She documents some of the basic, typographical and other miscellaneous errors that can occur. She tries to make the point that the very existence of these errors will 'disenfranchise' Joe the Plumber. However, while I will agree that such mismatches can occur, I disagree that verification of the registrations will disenfranchise anyone.

If Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner sends the mismatches back to the local boards of elections, those boards will be able to check with the various individuals and make necessary corrections. Any individual who might have such errors will be able to clarify such inconsistencies and then, when they go to vote on November 4, there will be no issues at the polls. That is the outcome of verifying and sharing the information with the local boards. Individuals who can correct such information PRIOR to the election day will not have to do so on the election day.

How is this a bad thing? It's not. In fact, it's what any logical, common sense approach would indicate is the best course of action.

Fedor also incorrectly summarizes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. She states:

"The United States Supreme Court, in a ruling which I vigorously endorse, agreed with Ohio Secretary of State Brunner and overturned rulings by the U.S. District Court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have forced Brunner to harmonize its list of registered voters with other lists. The court apparently agreed with Secretary of State Brunner that such an effort, undertaken on such short notice, could have created havoc in the Ohio election process and delegitimized the ultimate result in the minds of many voters while undermining the votes of many legitimate voters."

Actually, the Court DID NOT RULE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. They rejected the appeal based on the technicality of 'standing,' saying that the Ohio GOP did not have the ability to bring suit on the issue. The Court did not agree with Brunner on any of the issues, as Fedor incorrectly asserts, nor did they say she did not have to verify the registrations.

Fedor should know better than to fraudulent assert an opinion of a court that was not stated.

Like Brunner, Fedor does not explain how making sure that boards of elections have accurate information on voters 'suppresses the vote' of thousands. In fact, just the opposite is true. If boards of elections have accurate information - information they have verified ahead of time - no votes will be suppressed on November 4th. And the Sixth District Court of Appeals - which DID rule on the merits of the case, agreed.

Sadly, in her effort to promote the Democrat talking points, Fedor makes the case for the Republicans, and exposes her ignorance of the the voting system and the court rulings.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that any media to which she submitted this 'opinion' will fact-check it or ask the questions that would expose the fallacies of her conclusions.


Here is her op-ed piece:

Protecting All of Ohio’s “Joes”
By State Senator Teresa Fedor

The man chosen by McCain handlers to become the iconic face of the 2008 national election’s debate on federal tax policies, has instead become the symbol of something else. Joe the Plumber is now spotlighting a consequence of the Ohio State Republican leaders’ promoted plan to attempt to match voter registration lists with records from other data sources.

Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher – or, in the common parlance, “Joe the Plumber” – is not the man he says he is. Well, at least he isn’t to the Lucas County Board of Elections.

Authorities that attempted initially to check if Wurzelbacher, who lives in Holland-a suburb of Toledo, Ohio, was actually registered to vote in Ohio were told that he was not. But this was inaccurate: Samuel Joe “Worzelbacher” actually was listed in the records of the Lucas County Board of Elections. He voted as a Republican in the March primary.

Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, explained that, when Wurzelbacher updated his voter registration his signature on the form looked more like an “o” than a “u,” The change from a “u” to an “o” was recorded as such when typed into the Lucas County Board of Elections system.

This example of a minor human error could affect the legitimate registration of hundreds of thousands of Ohioans if the Republicans continue their court fight! The agenda being aggressively pressed by the Ohio Republican Party in these court actions- to match the data bases of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles with the various county boards of election- and flag for further examination causes the following voters to be possibly disenfranchised:

· “Joe the Plumber” updated his voter registration when he moved. This is a common and necessary process for registration. However, drivers in Ohio are not required to update the address on their license when they move. Therefore, they can legitimately be in the BMV system with one address, and in the board of elections system at a different address. In a society where many people – particularly younger people, poor people, and minorities many times move more frequently than older or more well-off individuals, this GOP agenda will have the impact of flagging thousands of these voters.

· “Joe the Plumber” has a driver’s license. But voters will be flagged if they do not have a driver’s license. Studies have shown that the elderly, particularly the minority elderly and minorities are generally more likely to not have a driver’s license than others in the community. It is perfectly legal to register for voting with a Social Security card, comparison of records with the BMV could create problems for these voters. Individuals can register with different agencies using variants of their names. For example our friend “Joe the Plumber” could be “S. Joe Wurzelbacher” to the BMV.

· “Joe the Plumber” was a victim of that simple human error when his name was put into the voter list. A single keystroke error; the misreading of an “o” for a “u”, the inadvertent dropping of a middle initial – any one of these small things could result in the flagging of a person’s ability to vote.

Of course, Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher was able to vote in March, despite the discrepancy. And Ohio Republican Party leaders Bob Bennett and Kevin DeWine would probably scream “voter suppression” if board of elections officials, noting the discrepancy in the records, had forced him to vote provisionally in March until the discrepancy were checked out.

But what about the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans – 200,000, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has estimated – who could be affected by the GOP lawsuits? They have not been the subject of Joe’s international scrutiny. News trucks have not set up on their lawns. They are the ordinary “Joes” – and “Janes” – that no one is likely to interview during this campaign. But they have just as much right to be heard – to have their votes counted – just as Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher’s vote was counted last March.

The United States Supreme Court, in a ruling which I vigorously endorse, agreed with Ohio Secretary of State Brunner and overturned rulings by the U.S. District Court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have forced Brunner to harmonize its list of registered voters with other lists. The court apparently agreed with Secretary of State Brunner that such an effort, undertaken on such short notice, could have created havoc in the Ohio election process and delegitimized the ultimate result in the minds of many voters while undermining the votes of many legitimate voters.

This Republican attempt, to suppress the votes of hundreds of thousands of Ohioans in a potentially close election, may have only been temporarily suppressed because of Jennifer Brunner’s aggressive response. Don’t be surprised if there is another “trick up the Republican sleeve” to disrupt our Ohio election.

Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher will have his vote counted in November, despite the human error that could have called it into question. But thousands of others may not be so lucky. With the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, we can ensure that thousands of other Ohioans, with Joe’s recent notoriety, will have their voting rights protected, as well.

And Ohio democracy will be the better for it.