Type to search

Fact-Checking Elected Officials On The Affordable Care Act Repeal

Congress Headlines Health Politics Top News US

Fact-Checking Elected Officials On The Affordable Care Act Repeal

Share
Sen.RoyBlunt_1467117418506_9233295_ver1.0

Reprinted with permission from ProPublica. This story was co-published with Kaiser Health News, Stat and Vox.

Dismayed by the results of the 2016 election, Meg Godfrey decided she needed to do more than vote, share social media posts, and sign online petitions. So she went to the website of Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and typed a note in support of the Affordable Care Act.

“I asked him to use my tax dollars to provide health care to his constituents just like my tax dollars provide health care for him and his family,” she said she wrote.

A short while later, Godfrey received an email reply from Blunt, essentially a form letter explaining why he supported the law’s repeal. “When President Obama signed this bill into law, he assured Americans that they would be able to keep their plans and doctors, while promising choice and affordability,” Blunt wrote. “Since the law has gone into effect, I have heard from countless Missourians who were unable to keep their insurance plans and/or providers.”

The email then gave a number of statistics to buttress Blunt’s position that the law is failing.

But something about the letter didn’t sit right with Godfrey, so she forwarded the email to ProPublica, asking us to fact-check it. Our assessment: The note was misleading and lacked important context.

That led ProPublica to wonder about the accuracy of responses sent to constituents by other members of the House and Senate on the Affordable Care Act and its future. Today, ProPublica is teaming with journalists at Kaiser Health News, Stat and Vox to gather those missives from our readers. On Monday, House Republican leaders unveiled their official proposal to repeal and replace the law. As the legislative debate begins in earnest, we plan to look at the representations made by elected officials from both parties and share what we find.

ProPublica asked Timothy Jost, an ACA expert and emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, to review Blunt’s email. “Some of this information is inaccurate, the rest of it is spin,” he concluded.

A spokesman for Blunt provided citations for the data in the senator’s note but did not respond to a follow-up email.

Jost helped us break down Blunt’s message:

Blunt’s email:

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
The 4.7 million figure comes from an Associated Press article from December 2013, but subsequent analyses determined that the figure was actually quite a bit lower, 2.6 million. More than that, the uninsured rate in Missouri dropped from 13 percent in 2013 to 9.8 percent in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available.

Analysis: The 4.7 million figure came from an Associated Press article from December 2013, Blunt’s office said. Subsequent analyses, however, showed that the figure was overstated. Two researchers from the Urban Institute, writing in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that the number was closer to 2.6 million. Moreover, Jost notes, the Obama administration said states could allow insurers to leave transitional plans in place after Jan. 1, 2014. Missouri was one of the states that did so. “So if a plan was cancelled in Missouri, it was the decision of the insurer, not a federal requirement,” Jost wrote.

Blunt’s email: “This year, Missourians who purchase health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges will see an average of a 25 percent increase on their premium.”

Analysis: The average premium for a Missouri plan did indeed increase by 25 percent this year, according to ACAsignups.net, a website that tracks the law and was cited by Blunt’s office. But that isn’t the entire story. First, the vast majority of marketplace enrollees in Missouri and nationwide receive hefty subsidies that reduce their cost.

Second, if you step out of the aggregate and look instead at a hypothetical person shopping for an affordable plan, the increase is lower. The Obama administration often compared monthly premiums for a 27-year-old in a benchmark plan (the plan upon which the government calculates subsidies). In Missouri, the premium actually decreased from $235 to $233 between 2014 and 2015. It increased 10 percent in 2016 and another 18 percent, to $305, for this year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But most enrollees aren’t paying the sticker price. Some 78 percent of Missouri marketplace consumers in 2016 could obtain coverage for $100 or less per month in 2017, after accounting for subsidies from the government, federal data shows.

Blunt’s email: “In addition to increased costs, families in Missouri and across the nation have lost the ability to choose a plan that best suits their health care needs. Missourians in 97 of 114 counties and the city of St. Louis will only have one option on the exchange.”

Selected portion of a source document hosted by DocumentCloud
According to Politifact Missouri, the majority of the state’s population — 63 percent — lives in the other 17 counties and one city that continue to have at least two insurance choices.

Analysis: Blunt is technically correct, but again the statistic lacks context, according to Politifact Missouri. “According to the U.S. Census Bureau, of Missouri’s roughly 6 million residents, about 63 percent live in the 17 counties and one city that will continue to have at least two provider choices,” the fact-checker wrote in February.

What’s missing: Blunt’s email did not mention that more than 200,000 Missourians receive coverage through the Affordable Care Act exchanges. It also didn’t mention that health insurance premiums routinely increased by large amounts before the law took effect and that many Missourians with preexisting conditions effectively had no insurers to pick from, Jost said.

The number of people without insurance has gone down under the ACA, falling from 13 percent in 2013 to 9.8 percent in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Blunt spokesman Brian Hart declined to say how many people have written the senator about the ACA and what percentage of them were for or against the law.

Godfrey, who wrote to Blunt, is currently employed as a brand communications manager for a lighting manufacturer. She and her husband live in Northern California but are moving to St. Louis later this year. “I’m getting a head-start on my political activism in the state,” she wrote in an email to ProPublica. “We had planned to retire and get insurance on the exchange. Now we still plan to move but will, most likely, continue to work until we are eligible for Medicare.”

Godfrey, 62, said Blunt’s response to her was “infuriating.”

“I asked about what he was doing to take care of the people who elected him and he spouted misleading statistics,” she wrote. “I am surprised he didn’t bring up death panels [which do not exist]. I hate being treated like an idiot.”

IMAGE: Wiki Commons

Tags:

44 Comments

  1. Charles van Rotterdam March 10, 2017

    “I’m surprised he didn’t bring up death panels”

    The real death panel is the Republican Party which now controls Congress. Scary!

    Reply
    1. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

      Poor Charlie, yes there are death panels in obozocare. No matter, obozocare is on its way out. Hell Pelosi still doesn’t know what’s in it.

      Reply
      1. InGen12 March 11, 2017

        Care to point out in the ACA where it mentions “death panels”??

        Reply
        1. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

          Be glad to: Section 1233 of HR 3200. Counselors and physicians SHALL discuss “end of life alternatives” and “how to make the most of your present physical condition”.
          The word SHALL means they MUST do the above actions, that are predicated on the patient’s age and current health.
          So if grandma is 83, had a knee replaced 10 years ago and now needs another knee replacement ($30k), the “death panel” could decide that her life expectancy is not worth the cost.
          Or if Uncle Joe needs cancer treatment and he’s 87, the “panel” could decide the $100k is not justified.
          You can easily read “death panel” into the above scenarios.
          The FAKE MSM and Dems proudly claim “there are no words that specifically say death panel”. That’s how they convince low information lefties into believing that death panels don’t exist.
          These are the same FAKE MSM that told you that HilIARY was leading in the polls and would win in a landslide. This video is a great example of the FAKE MSM and their FAKE news.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0TaegQ-kw

          Reply
          1. ⭐️ I Am Helpy ⭐️ March 11, 2017

            DEATH PANELS!!!1

            Just when I thought it was IMPOSSIBLE for you to get any stupider!

            You are Jim Hoft and I claim my $10.

            Reply
          2. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Hey HELLpy, the Pathetic poster of lies and earner of the title “usually inaccurate”: with a 12.67% accuracy rating, why do you even bother to make any posts? Yup, I just love the way you tried to refute my accurate posts about death panels. When your accuracy rate is over 95% like mine, it’s difficult to keep pushing it higher, but that’s what is happening to mine. That is something that you’ll never know or experience.

            Reply
          3. ⭐️ I Am Helpy ⭐️ March 11, 2017

            So still no quote, huh. Another gold star for me!

            Reply
          4. iamproteus March 12, 2017

            Misinformedvoter,
            Section 1233 of HR 3200 does not mean any of the things you posted. It simply says that physicians are obligated to discuss matters important to older patients AT THEIR REQUEST (at the expense of Medicare if it has been at least 5 years since the last such discussion). For your convenience, I did a copy and paste of the relevant passage:

            Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
            (A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

            (B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

            (C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

            (D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations.

            (E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

            For more in-depth coverage of the subject, please see:
            > http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

            Either you are misinformed or are blatantly lying. To be honest, I must say that based on the many other posts of yours that I have read, I am leaning heavily toward the latter. In the future, please spare us of your (likely intentional) mis-interpretations of important matters.

            Reply
  2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 10, 2017

    Another classic example that our political system has gone from mildly adversarial as an offshoot of the contentious nature of Whigs versus Tories exported to America, to one in which governance starts out with the premise that to do so there must be tension, and it must remain high to get things done. This is as ridiculous as expecting a rider expecting her horse to gallop off after she has its legs tied, and such a basis for governing is doomed despite making what seems to be progress.

    Any progress made under such circumstances will be short-lived due to one side in disagreement according to some pre-condition that the purpose is to govern through fierce competition, with the losing side expected to sabotage the effort as a rule of this governance game. This is a major flaw in any form of governance relying on rancor and competitiveness when the welfare of society is at stake. Which is why the election of President Obama was doomed from the start in making substantial and meaningful change; both Parties approached the matter of election, legislating, and executing policy by starting out immediately insisting that they steadfastly would oppose Obama. How can any agreement, meaningful consultation, and resolution be arrived at? And if a resolution does come out of the gladiatorial battle, will the “losing” party graciously consent to give the majority decision even a chance to fail on its own?

    The Baha’i process of governance, as clearly set down in Writings of Baha’u’llah, exemplified and expatiated on by Abdu’l Baha, and later, Shoghi Effendi, sets humanity and societies on a fresh new approach to governance, without the bickering, posturing, lobbying crap, and back-stabbing, allowing for frank and earnest conversation and consultation on any issue, and letting the majority vote carry. There follows a revolutionary and unheard of requirement after the decision is agreed on: If an individual(s) felt the decision was wrong, they are exhorted to abide with acquiescence, and to go a step further and wholeheartedly support the decision; after the decision is implemented but later it turns out to have been a mistake, all the parties regroup, assess what went wrong, have more consultation, reach consensus on an alternative decision, give it a try, and if that works, then everyone is happy and no sense of remorse and/or bitterness that one’s original idea turned out to be without merit is allowed to be harbored by that person(s).

    What a vast difference in the approach to governance would be achieved if both Parties started out on this vastly superior methodology, even if only approximating this process. Something to consider. This approach works in any setting, from family consulting, to work situations, and running of affairs in villages comprised mostly or entirely of Baha’is, in communities on a larger scale in urban areas, or at the national level and international level by National Spiritual Assemblies and at level of The Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel.

    For now, we have to suffer with an outdated functional, yet dysfunctional, system dependent on an adversarial approach, while millions wait and fret about their health coverage unnecessarily in the interim before legislators develop some intelligence, learn, decorum, and learn to consult and reach consensus without bitterness.

    Reply
    1. dbtheonly March 10, 2017

      Aaron,

      I decry the rancorous nature of politics as much as you.

      But I do not see that “both sides do it”. Going back as far as President Clinton, we find Republicans shutting down the government in pursuit of their own goals. We see the Republican Senate Leader announce the goal of insuring President Obama being a one term President on the first day of his Administration. We see that same Republican lead filibusters of anything that might be agreeable to President Obama, including one of his ow

      Reply
    2. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

      Boy, you just love trying to promote your FAKE religion don’t you.
      obozocare is finally on its way out. Hell, to this day, Pelosi still doesn’t know what’s in it.

      Reply
      1. bobnstuff March 11, 2017

        We have Obamacare lite replacing it. I hate to point this out to you but the Republicans are not repealing the ACA, they can’t, they don’t have the votes so they are just taking out as much as they can and if you thought it was bad before just wait. 20 million people lose their insurance and the government goes $600 billion deeper in the hole. The Tabloid Conservative are getting the fuzzy end of the lollypop again and they don’t have the wit to know it. The Republicans in Washington as well as Trump will tell you anything they think they can sell you and truth isn’t important.

        Reply
        1. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

          Enough votes? Sure they do. Good old Harry R. made sure of that by using the nuclear option.
          No, it’s not obozocare lite.
          By the time the holes are fixed, the important elements will remain, but those who have kids until 26 or have pre-existing conditions, will end up paying more for their insurance. As it should be.
          Pre-existing is done in all forms of insurance. Home owners who have multiple indoor claims pay more and have a hard time switching to another company. Drivers with accidents pay more and have difficultly switching.
          The number of folks who obtained insurance from obozocare was only about 4 million, as many others dropped the worthless insurance they were offered.
          Many parts of the country have ZERO options to chose from now and many are paying quadruple premiums and are dropping out.
          Obozocare is collapsing of its own holes. Doing nothing to repeal and replace it would be the fault of the Dems for passing it in the first place. Hell Pelosi still doesn’t now what’s in it!

          Reply
          1. ⭐️ I Am Helpy ⭐️ March 11, 2017

            Yes it’s “collapsing” (enormously successful).

            You. Are. An. Idiot.

            Reply
          2. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Hey HELLpy, the Pathetic poster of lies and earner of the title “usually inaccurate”: insurance rates quadrupling in many states; large areas left with NO carriers at all. Yup, keep up those inaccurate posts.

            Reply
          3. ⭐️ I Am Helpy ⭐️ March 11, 2017

            Uh huh. So still no quote, huh. Another gold star for me!

            Reply
          4. bobnstuff March 11, 2017

            You need 60 vote to bring a bill to the floor, that hasn’t changed. You are confused with approving a nomination for a post, that can be done with a simple majority. I don’t know where you get you “facts” from but you need to go check them. Forbes Mag says 17 million got insurance because of the ACA and in the very first year Fox says 10.3 million.
            http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/07/23/study-finds-103m-uninsured-gained-coverage-under-aca.html
            http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/241259-17m-gained-insurance-under-obamacare-study-finds
            15 million could lose the insurance under Obamacare 2.0
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/03/07/15-million-people-could-lose-health-insurance-under-the-gops-obamacare-replacement/#77fbbdaf5f16
            All this and a $600 million increase in debt for our government.

            Reply
          5. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Nice try Bob, but once more you are incorrect. OK, 17 million MAY have signed up for insurance, but 12 million already had insurance before! The real net increase in insured is closer to 2-3 million. The reason is that many who had insurance lost theirs when their employer opted out or reduced their hours so they didn’t qualify.
            And yes, the GOP can pass their version of the health care without any Dem votes. Remember obozo saying he had a “pen and a phone”. Well it will work for this too.
            And just think of the fallout for the Dems when the GOP repeals obozocare and then the Dems won’t approve a replacement! With more Dems running in 2018 for seats, it would be political disaster for the Dems to try and block any replacement plan the GOP puts on the table.
            As it is, the Dems will lose seats in 2018 and even running Oprah will not provide a serious challenge to President Trump in 2020. With the number of illegals dropping 40% from last year and the economy raging along (and unions have started to switch their support from the Dems to President Trump) it looks pretty bleak for the Dems going forward.
            Even obozo’s behind the scenes antics will not save the Dems.
            Oh there are plenty of hanger on ‘ers like you and ID1, and Aofp, etc, but the voters abandoned the Dems in droves during the 2016 election. Most will not return since the voters realize what President Trump told them “what have you got to lose”. They did some soul searching a realized that the Dems have been pandering to get their votes and then doing nothing to make their lives better.
            When you analyze the magnitude of President Trump’s MANDATE victory, the Dems have every reason to fear disappearing. You low information folks just don’t realize what horrible shape your party is in.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0TaegQ-kw

            Reply
          6. bobnstuff March 11, 2017

            You are wrong once again, Even Fox said these were the numbers for people getting insurance who didn’t have any before. We cut the uninsured numbers down by 17%. Go check some numbers like I did. The Congress can not repeal the ACA they can only change item dealing with the money.

            “But, as the Examiner points out, their plan to repeal Obamacare is another example of not being good at this legislating thing. They like that they can get around a Senate filibuster by using the Budget Reconciliation process, but the only things that can be included in a Budget Reconciliation bill are things that affect the budget. So, they can repeal the way revenues are raised in Obamacare but they can’t repeal the regulatory scheme that makes it tick.”
            http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/05/why-the-gop-cant-repeal-obamacare/
            As far as the Democrats paying a price from blocking the Republicans, don’t bet on it. The ACA isn’t as unpopular as the Tabloids tell you and the current replacement bill isn’t even supported by a number of republicans. If Trump doesn’t get his act together soon and if he doesn’t get congress to do his bidding the Democrats can us it against the republicans. Trump has set expectations high and set a very short timeline to get things done. It just isn’t going to happen.

            Reply
          7. InformedVoter March 12, 2017

            Poor Bob, still posting FAKE stuff. You lost this argument last year when we debated how many more were insured by obozocare. The number of uninsured adults dropped from 14% to 11%. No way is that 3% equal to 17%! Even with your common core based education you can’t perfume that pig!
            The GOP can cut off the funds that are feeding obozocare. The tabloids claim that 80% approve obozocare, but everyone knows that number is FAKE. The unpopularity of obozocare is north of 65%, who want it repealed or replaced.
            Right now, all those paid for actors who are going to the townhall meetings have not fixed the Dems problems.
            President Trump has gained enormous support in just 3 months! From stopping illegal immigration, saving and creating jobs, and just about anything he did to undo the harm obozo did in 8 years have been tremendous pluses for him.
            You say it won’t happen, but you said he wouldn’t last through the primaries, then you said he wouldn’t even be around for the election. Your predictions have been pretty much 0% accurate, just reflecting your wish list and not reality.

            Reply
          8. bobnstuff March 12, 2017

            As I have said you are a Tabloid Conservative, All you keep saying is the Fake Facts from the Tabloids. Trump has created no new jobs, He hasn’t even saved jobs. Trump is still the least popular Newly elected President in history and the congress can’t repeal the ACA. Also We are much better off as a nation then we were eight years ago. You can repeat your myths and lies all you want but it changes nothing. Also go see what a Tabloid is before you make any more of a fool of yourself although I think you are real close to a persons limit on being a fool.

            Reply
          9. InformedVoter March 14, 2017

            Poor Bob, still using FAKE facts from the FAKE MSM. Yes, President Trump DID save several thousand jobs, PERSONALLY. And yes that he PERSONALLY was involved in the possible creation of over 60000 jobs. Neither of these PERSONAL actions were ever done by obozo.
            As to President Trump’s positive rating, it’s almost 60%, when responders didn’t have to worry about getting labeled a racist or bigot. Using the same filter with obozo, puts his approval rating south of 40%.
            And NO, our nation is NOT better off now than 8 years ago. The economy sucked under obozo; we became a second rate world power; we were openly mocked by the foreign press; obozocare is collapsing under its own weight. Shall I continue?

            Reply
          10. bobnstuff March 14, 2017

            To bad you are so easy to fool. If you check most of those jobs he “saved” never were going anywhere. Those job he has created were planned long before Trump was elected. You are falling for PR movers instead of looking up the facts. Trump has a well under 50% rating on all but one poll and even that one is showing below 50%. You really need st stop reading only Tabloids and read some reliable news sources from time to time.

            Reply
          11. InformedVoter March 14, 2017

            You just keep believing the FAKE MSM spin, just like you believed that HilLIARy was going to win in a landslide!
            I chose to believe Mark Fields, Ford CEO, and Bill Ford. and CEO Son, and all the others who support President Trump’s claim.
            You keep posting information that helps to prove you are low information, brainwashed, close-minded and just about any other description for being naive to still believe the FAKE MSM. Perhaps that’s why you get your “logic” shredded so easily.
            And yes, President Trump’s approval rating is climbing to near 60% while obozo’s has fallen to below 40%.

            Reply
          12. bobnstuff March 14, 2017

            Everything Mr Fields said had been announced before.Some went back to 2013. You should try reading the WSJ and the car magazines. Trump had nothing to do with any of it. The Mexican Plant was scraped in April do to low sales of cars. The investment plans were started in 2013 and expanded twice since then.If read my link. Even the only poll that put Trump above 50% today dropped him back down.
            http://www.inquisitr.com/4056873/donald-trump-approval-ratings-today-still-historically-low-and-diving/

            Reply
          13. InformedVoter March 15, 2017

            Oh, Bob, you can continue to provide left-leaning polls all you wish. What you’re going to end up with is the same result as the FAKE left-leaning polls that showed HilLIARy was go to win.
            Prior to the election, President Trump singled out Ford Motor about putting jobs out of the country. Mark Field strongly objected saying for every job that gets shipped out, another job is created and so the UAW numbers didn’t go down.
            When President Trump won, a few days later, Fields asked Bill Ford, who is on speaking terms with President Trump, to call President Trump and tell him they CHANGED their plans and the jobs at the KTP would remain in the USA. A month later, Fields announced that Ford had CHANGED their plan to invest $700 million in Mexico and instead would invest the money in Michigan and create new jobs in the USA.
            The above information that Ford CHANGED their minds was published in The Detroit Free Press (as liberal a rag that a newspaper can get). They stopped short of saying President Trump was responsible, they they CLEARLY stated that Ford had CHANGED their plans. They were pleased that the $700 million was going to be in Michigan instead of Mexico.
            You can refer to your obviously altered timeline news sources all you wish, but Ford Motor DID CHANGE their plans.

            Reply
          14. bobnstuff March 15, 2017

            http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/trump-effect-ford-cancels-1-6-billion-mexican-plant.html/
            The plans to cancel were public before Trump was elected. The beginning of the change in plans came in Oct. 2015 when the decided to move the F159 line to Ohio. That was when small cars was going to Mexico, which they still are doing but since small car sales are way down they don’t need to expand. The focus is moving to electric cars and they decided that they needed hi tech instead of cheep labor for those. This is all market driven and Trump had nothing to do with it.

            Reply
          15. InformedVoter March 15, 2017

            Balderdash! Every time you make a post, you move the date further and further earlier!
            I shall not trust your obviously tainted sources and chose to believe Mark Fields, Bill Ford and (I hate to admit it) the Detroit Free Press. All three claim the CHANGE was made AFTER the November, 2016 election.
            Thus, while the Free Press didn’t give the credit to President Trump, they did state in no uncertain terms “we were pleased with the CHANGE in plans that Ford Motor made to NOW invest $700 million in Michigan”.
            It can’t get any clearer than that!
            Hence, President Trump’s election DID have an affect. As a matter of fact, the Detroit Free Press even went so far as to question how long it would take for GM to join Ford and FCA in announcing plans to relocate factory or UAW jobs back into the US. That was made AFTER the election, so if President Trump getting elected has nothing to do with FCA and Ford changes, then why would they challenge GM to join the party?
            You have been proven wrong on the auto bailout, TARP, obozocare premiums and coverage and the winner of the election. Time for you to change your information.

            Reply
          16. iamproteus March 12, 2017

            Mis-informedvoter, while your foolish antics do provide a certain degree of comic relief, your outright lies are becoming tiresome. Hell, you aren’t even smart enough to know that the period of time between January 20 and March 12 is LESS than 2 months instead of the 3 months you assert! A quick question for you; where did you find support for your statement that Trump “has gained enormous support in just 3 months”? I only ask because every source I have seen says just the opposite!

            Reply
          17. dpaano March 14, 2017

            It’s a fact that over 80% of this nation’s population do NOT want Obamacare repealed. Unfortunately, our politicians don’t care WHAT we think or want!

            Reply
      2. ⭐️ I Am Helpy ⭐️ March 11, 2017

        What a surprise. You don’t care about freedom of religion or anything else in the Constitution. Big deal, we already knew you were a hypocrite and a bigot. Better follow me around for a couple of days yelling at a javascript autoreply!

        Reply
        1. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

          Hey HELLpy, the Pathetic poster of lies and earner of the title “usually inaccurate”: AofP keeps trying to impress folks by pushing off his FAKE religion. Still yet another inaccurate post by you. No surprise there.

          Reply
          1. ⭐️ I Am Helpy ⭐️ March 11, 2017

            Oh no. So still no quote, huh. Another gold star for me!

            Reply
          2. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Hey HELLpy, the Pathetic poster of lies and earner of the title “usually inaccurate”: you will be visited by three ghosts from the death panel.

            Reply
          3. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Hey HELLpy, the Pathetic poster of lies and earner of the title “usually inaccurate”: expect the first at the stroke of 1.

            Reply
          4. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Hey HELLpy, the Pathetic poster of lies and earner of the title “usually inaccurate”: expect the second at the stroke of 2

            Reply
          5. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Hey HELLpy, the Pathetic poster of lies and earner of the title “usually inaccurate”: expect the third at the stroke of 3

            Reply
          6. bobnstuff March 11, 2017

            You should change your name to uninfornedVoter. I guess you are a member of the new party, the Tabloid Conservatives.

            Reply
          7. InformedVoter March 11, 2017

            Bob, you know not about what you post. HELLpy still claims that Deb W-S didn’t resign because of the email leaks. he also says that the auto bailout out made billions of profit (it lost $9.2 billion). He is so inaccurate that he’s been tagged “usually inaccurate”.
            Meanwhile, your little poke at me fell flat. You claimed HilIARy would win by a near landslide because the FAKE MSM polls showed she was winning. I provided links that showed that the polls were FAKE and she was actually losing. That’s the way it’s been for the past several months. You low information, bigoted, close-minded, brainwashed crowd keep making stupid statements and I keep posting the truth (usually found in foreign sources – these are the same sources that didn’t fawn over obozo and reported his failures (many)).
            It’s ironic that you would even dare to call me “uninformed” since it’s obvious that I’m better informed than you and most of your low information fellow posters.
            I just love destroying you lefties … you just can’t seem to handle the truth!

            Reply
  3. Dapper Dan March 11, 2017

    So what’s more important to Sen. Blunt ? The concerns his constituents have for losing their medical coverage or trying to please the GOP overlords ? That’s a rhetorical question since I already know the answer

    Reply
  4. ray March 11, 2017

    I think most of the people in the USA are idiots,they keep voting for the party that thinks they are idiots.

    Reply
  5. Independent1 March 11, 2017

    This is the kind of response that people will get from Republican politicians who have determine they want to be pathological lying Mafia types during their political careers. Republicans like Roy Blunt, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Darrell Issa and on and on are essentially no different than Donald Trump with respect to consistently being untruthful. So asking any of these weasels a question, or expecting any real kind of help from them, is generally a total waste of time. Because all anyone is generally going to get from them in response is like with Blunt a political runaround based on fabrications of reality; and with as many distorted statistics as these weasels can come up with.

    Reply
    1. dpaano March 14, 2017

      But, if more of us call them out on it, they might get the idea that we aren’t as uninformed as they think we are!!!

      Reply
  6. dpaano March 14, 2017

    The big problem is that most politicians think we ARE idiots and that they can lie to us and because we’re “not that bright when it comes to politics,” we’ll believe their every word! Unfortunately, that is not the case, especially nowadays. Since 45 was elected, people have become VERY informed about politics and VERY informed about the lies that they’ve been told by their representatives! It’s going to show up when the midterms come around and many of them will find themselves out of jobs!! We’re not dumb, guys, and we’re getting more informed every day!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.