Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met for coffee early this morning in downtown Warrensburg with Johnson County Democrats (and anyone else who showed up). She spoke at length about the 2014 election, the Missouri General Assembly, Medicaid expansion, the Affordable Care Act, and also took questions.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) in Warrensburg – October 8, 2014.

[….]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ….I have watched, from afar, Jefferson City. And, you know, um, I’ve spent some time in Jefferson City. And it isn’t as if I don’t understand what this state is. I think you all know I get Missouri….I get that there are a lot of conservative people in this state. But if you step back from it and you look and you see that I have been elected and reelected statewide four times. [Governor] Jay Nixon has been elected and reelected state, in statewide office one, two, three, four, five, six times. [Secretary of State] Jason Kander was elected, [State Treasurer] Clint Zweifel was elected, [Attorney General] Chris Koster was elected. All of these are Democrats that are winning statewide. Now how do you reconcile that with the Missouri legislature, because the Missouri legislature is way, way, way to the right? It’s so far to the right you can hardly see it on the horizon. And the reason that’s happened is because of two things. One, they controlled redistricting, but, more importantly is because they have recruited candidates, funded candidates, and helped candidates run and win and….we behaved, well, you know, that Jeff City, it just is hopeless. You know, they’re in charge and there’s nothing we can do. Well, they cast votes that are completely out of step with most Missourians. I guarantee you they’re out of step with the people that would be in Gary [Grigsby]’s district [51st Legislative District]. Um, I could go through a list. I mean, how many Missourians want them to be spending time on Sharia law? Um, how many Missourians really think Agenda 21 is a problem? How many Missourians think it’s a good idea to tell the local sheriff and the local police department that if they’re gonna work on an interdisciplinary task force with Federal officers they could go to jail if they arrest somebody in that effort that has a gun that’s prohibited by the Federal government. They wanted to put local law enforcement in jail for cooperating in a Federal investigation that could involve guns. I mean, this is crazy time….

[….]

…You know what people of this state want from their state legislature? They want good roads and bridges, they want good public education, and they want to make sure that their money is being spent wisely. They don’t want rape victims to have to wait three days to terminate a pregnancy that their rapist caused. They don’t want that. Vast majority of Missourians do not want that….

[….]

Question: …You must fight, the Democrats must fight no matter what happens in November, it [the Affordable Care Act – “Obamacare”] must not be repealed.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, it won’t be repealed as long as, uh, Barrack Obama is President of the United States. Um, and I do, I will tell you that I think our, I’m traveling next week on behalf of my colleagues, I do think that, um, we are in pretty good shape. It’s gonna be close across the country. Um, but I will be surprised if we don’t hold on….

[….]

….The election that will determine the future of health care reform in this country, as to whether or not we continue down the path, will be, um, electing Hillary Clinton in, in twenty-sixteen. I will be back here and this place will be full, wall to wall, with people, I hope, working, um, on behalf of Hillary Clinton in twenty-sixteen.

Question: I think the one, the one issue that the state Republicans are the most opposite of their constituents is on Medicaid expansion. Because, a lot of my Republican friends, that is the one thing that they are really the most distressed about, is that we haven’t expanded Medicaid in the state and we didn’t accept the Federal money, because they have family members who should be Medicaid eligible and are not. And I see that’s just the most vulnerable issue for these, for, you know, at least our state representatives is that they didn’t support that.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): There are, we have three hundred thousand Missourians, so you can speak to this when people that you, you talk to them, we have three hundred thousand Missourians who are working. You know, when people hear Medicaid I think they think of people that aren’t working. These are people that are working. They are working two and three jobs. They are making too little money to get on the [ACA] exchanges, but they make more money than they can do to get Medicaid. So, the, the weird thing is that, um, you know, we’ve got this gap. And that is all because they have turned down the Federal money that would, that would expand. [voice: “Our Federal money.”]  Our Federal money is going to other states for their health care. And it is really hurting rural Missouri, uh, because in many rural communities the number one employer is the hospital. And these hospitals are dying on the vine. I mean, they are desperate. And that’s the irony, is the reddest parts of the state are gonna suffer the most  ’cause that’s where a lot of the working poor are, people that are working two or three minimum wage jobs and don’t have insurance at work. And they can’t, they can’t get on the exchanges and they don’t qualify for Medicaid. Um, so it is really crazy. I mean, it would be, imagine if the Republicans said, you know, we’re not gonna take Federal Highway funding. They might cut it off some day so we better not take it. [laughter[ Let’s just not take Federal highway funding. We don’t want our money that we’ve paid, come back for our highways, because it’s the Federal government. And they might cut it off some day and then we’d be left holding the bag. And I’m like, well, I think you’re holding the bag now because, guess where all those people are going for health care? They’re going to hospitals who are treating them and then they’re passing on the bills to Missourians. It’s like a huge hidden tax increase. It’s craziness. And the only reason they won’t expand it is because they think it’s connected to Obamacare. So, it’s about the political messaging of Obamacare, it’s not about Missourians. It’s really unbelievable….

[….]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [center] with Gary Grigsby (D) [left], the Democratic Party candidate in the 51st Legislative District,

at an early morning coffee in downtown Warrensburg – October 8, 2014.

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler

Throwback Thursday! #TBT [….] 12:42 PM – 2 Oct 2014

One respondent didn’t appreciate the sophomoric attempt at humor:

John Wells ‏@JDubMo

@RepHartzler Hilarious. If only you worked to improve government instead of shutting it down. 12:49 PM – 2 Oct 2014

Zing.

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

We were told #Obamacare wouldn’t fund abortions; nonpartisan GAO report says otherwise #brokenpromises [….] 7:22 AM – 16 Sep 2014

There is a link to a press release for the republican Majority Leader, not the Government Accountability Office report.

A constituent reply:

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler Obamacare has brought insurance to millions of Americans without insurance. Is that pro-life or not? 8:18 AM – 16 Sep 2014

Good question. No answer yet, just crickets.

The summary of the report from the Government Accountability Office:

[….]

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), insurance plans offered in health insurance exchanges-known as qualified health plans (QHP)-may cover abortion services as a benefit consistent with federal and state law. Federal law applicable to QHPs for the 2014 benefit year prohibits the use of federal funds made available to offset the cost of QHP coverage to pay for abortion services except where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an abortion is performed. QHPs may cover abortion services that do not meet that exception (referred to as non-excepted abortion services), but state law may restrict the circumstances under which coverage can be provided. For the 2014 benefit year, 17 states do not allow QHPs to provide non-excepted abortion services, and 6 states permit the coverage of such services only in certain limited circumstances. Among the remaining 28 states (including the District of Columbia) with no such laws, in 5 states all QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services; in 15 states some QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services; and in 8 states no QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services. Nationally, 1,036 QHPs in these 28 states cover non-excepted abortion services and 1,062 QHPs do not.

Of the 18 issuers from which GAO obtained information-which offered nearly one-quarter of the QHPs covering non-excepted abortion services in the 28 states-all but three issuers indicated that the benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions. All 18 issuers also indicated that their abortion services benefit is subject to the same requirements as other benefits, such as enrollee out-of-pocket costs-including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance-and prior authorization requirements, all of which can vary depending on the location where the service is provided. To estimate the cost of the coverage of non-excepted abortion services, issuers indicated that they generally reviewed historical costs for these procedures. All but one of the issuers from which GAO obtained information estimated the cost of coverage of non-excepted abortion services to be less than $1 per enrollee per month-the minimum amount required to be estimated under PPACA for these services, and all but two of these issuers rounded the amount up to $1 to comply with PPACA. The highest cost estimated by the issuers GAO collected information from was $1.10 per enrollee per month. Fifteen issuers and a state-based exchange which bills enrollees on behalf of issuers did not itemize the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion services coverage on enrollees’ bills nor indicate that they sent a separate bill for that premium amount. Six issuers GAO contacted indicated that they provided information about coverage for abortion services to consumers before they enrolled in QHPs, while others indicated that consumers shopping for QHPs would need to call the issuer to obtain such information.

[….]

PPACA requires QHPs to cover a package of essential health benefits. While this package does not include abortion services, QHPs may cover those services, consistent with federal and state law. GAO was asked to provide a list of QHPs that do and that do not cover abortion services and for additional information on issues related to that coverage. This report describes whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage for the 2014 benefit year and provides additional information-such as the scope and the cost of non-excepted abortion services coverage-for selected QHPs that cover such services.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Evidently Representative Hartzler (r) doesn’t expect anyone to read the actual report, just the breathless right wingnut press release.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) on the IRS, today via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Just passed spending bill which stops IRS Conferences & videos, stops targeting by IRS, & prohibits IRS from enforcing Obamacare. 12:47 PM – 16 Jul 2014

I suppose in the future the IRS will just have to rely on spontaneous confessions from tax scofflaws.

As has become the norm, a few very interesting replies:

Alexandra ‏@aliemalie

.@RepHartzler aren’t you suing to enforce Obamacare? why are you now telling the IRS not to enforce Obamacare? so confusing! 12:48 PM – 16 Jul 2014

Heh. Good questions. You were expecting consistency?

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler And is a great boon to tax cheats. 3:37 PM – 16 Jul 2014

For the right wingnut republicans in Congress that’s a feature, not a bug.

Oopsie.

Governor Jay Nixon vetoed SB 508 today. In his veto message [pdf] he pointedly made reference to a major error in the bill due to its cut and paste origins from a right wingnut American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) template:

Governor of Missouri

[….]

July 7, 2014

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 508 entitled:

[….]

I disapprove of House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 508. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 508 contains a number of worthwhile provisions that can become law with my action on other legislation. However, this legislation does not receive my approval due to a significant drafting error.

House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 508 would impose additional restrictions on the licensure of an individual as a “navigator,” one who provides information or services in connection with eligibility, enrollment, or the program certification of any health benefit exchange operating pursuant to the Affordable care Act. Section 376.2004.6 of the bill would require an applicant for a navigator license to submit two full sets of fingerprints to the Missouri Highway patrol “for the purpose of obtaining a state and federal criminal records check under section 43.540 and Public Law 92-554 [sic].”

The bill’s reference to Public Law 92-554 should be to Public Law 92-544. This mistaken reference to Public Law 92-554, which deals with alcohol abuse and prevention, instead of to Public Law 92-544, which deals with federal criminal records, was included in model legislation developed by the American legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) entitled the “Navigator Background Check Act,”….

[….]

It appears that in copying and pasting from the ALEC model act, the General Assembly failed to correct this incorrect reference to Public Law 92-554.[….] While some may believe that such an error is “close enough” for a model act, it cannot be allowed to become the law of this State. Particularly in an area of the law that is subject of ongoing litigation, a glaring defect such as this cannot simply be ignored. Accordingly, this measure does not receive my approval.

In accordance with the above-stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 508 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

Heh. If they were in junior high school the General Assembly would get an “F” on the assignment. Come to think of it, they are still in junior high school. And they deserve the grade.

The Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores [pdf] summarized:

Alexandra ‏@aliemalie

Shorter #SCOTUS: Corporations are people, women are not. #HobbyLobby 9:23 AM – 30 Jun 2014

And other commentary:

A. N. Devers ‏@andevers

Women take birth control for medical health reasons, not for religious reasons. They are now imposing other people’s religions on employees. 9:26 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Adam Griffiths ‏@adamgriffiths

It’s probably a good thing that on days like today #SCOTUS has that buffer zone, no? 9:21 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Jessica Podhola ‏@jessicapodhola

I’m incorporating. I’ll have more rights that way. #SCOTUS #waronwomen 9:35 AM – 30 Jun 2014

jess mcintosh ‏@jess_mc

Good thing elections never hinge on the votes of women. 9:31 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Just a bit of sarcasm:

MrJM ‏@MisterJayEm

Great News!!1! The Court’s narrow decisions only affect: 1) working women’s reproductive rights & 2) work traditionally performed by women. 9:36 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Andrew Shaughnessy ‏@andrewshag

Founders would roll over to know that corporations held stronger power than people in the eyes of #SCOTUS 9:27 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Imani ABL ‏@AngryBlackLady

So #SCOTUS refuses to recognize that women’s repro healthcare is actually healthcare. Which is sweet. And by “sweet” I mean “typical.” 9:33 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Top Conservative Cat ‏@TeaPartyCat

Supreme Court rules that corporations have the right to impose a theocracy on their employees, but limited that right to Christian men. 9:47 AM – 30 Jun 2014

David Waldman ‏@KagroX

If you own enough stock, you can write your own exceptions to federal law. That’s pretty cool. 10:00 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Hailey ‏@haileym77

I suppose that my greatest mistake in life was being born as a female rather than as a corporation. #HobbyLobby #SCOTUS 11:03 AM – 30 Jun 2014

Thanks for nothing, Ralph.

Remember back in 2011 when Rep. Ann Wagner was running to be the Republican National Committee chair? Specifically when she tried to outman the men on the candidate list when it came to gun love?:

Republican National Committee chair candidate Ann Wagner blew away the competition when Grover Norquist asked each candidate at today’s debate how many guns they own.

“About 16,” replied Wagner, whose family actually just got a new gun case for Christmas.

Current RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Mario Cino don’t own any guys. Reince Priebus has five, and Saul Anuzis said he feels “very inadequate” owning just four.

Back in those days you had to feel for poor Ann who, as one of the few women with a stomach strong enough for our modern GOP, had to cope with all that angry, old, white testosterone. Especially since, when push came to shove,  her 16 guns weren’t enough to prevail against Reince Pirebus’ teeensy, tiny five.

Recently, however, given the party’s need to attract women, and the few that the party has to hand, Wagner has seen her star ascending – to the extent that she has become one of the players involved in helping select a new GOP majority leader now that Eric Cantor has been tea-partied out of the Congress. Consequently, given Wagner’s status in the GOP’s effort at female outreach, our task over the next few weeks is to be alert for a possible change in her pronouncements on the topic of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare).

Why, you may ask? Wagner, after all has been running in tandem with the repeal-the-ACA crowd, and, true to her faux woman of the people stance, has regularly solicited ACA horror stories that she can pass along without real verification, but with an “I told you so” smirk instead. Why, you ask, should she change? Simply because there’s a big problem with this strategy. Most of the horror stories have proven to be bogus and all the signs are that the Affordable Care Act is succeeding. Consequently, as Greg Sargent observes, the GOP is scrambling to develop a new rhetorical tack:

Reuters reports GOP officials have conducted reams of research to retool their message, with an emphasis on appealing to women. The problem: Balancing the base’s demand for an undying commitment to obliterating the law with swing voters’ desire to keep the good things in it. Solution: Use the phrase “start over” instead of “repeal,” because “start over” supposedly resonates with women.

It’ll be interesting to see if this new direction takes with the members of the Missouri delegation, but especially with Wagner – precisely because she’s not only a woman, but a woman of the sort that the GOP establishment hopes can speak effectively to female swing voters. It’s going to be fun watching to see how emphatically Wagner adopts this line if at all. If she does, these are, according to Sargent, the points to watch for:

The new “start over” message will not paper over the basic problem Republicans face here, which is that they want the base to thrill at their anti-Obamacare zeal while also reassuring swing voters they can have the good stuff in the law without the bad. Indeed, as you watch this “new” message, keep an eye on whether GOP candidates actually do call for “starting over” in any meaningful or substantive sense. Instead, you’ll likely hear them claim they want to “start over” while mouthing support for the law’s goals of expanding affordable coverage and consumer protections, while refusing to take a stand on whether key aspects of it – such as the Medicaid expansion – should actually be done away with.

If Wagner and the other Missouri GOPers do decide that “start over” is the way to go, we need to make sure that they have a good story about how they are going to replace the benefits that the ACA has given to Missourians. A recent Department of Health and Human Services report tells us that the average insurance premium for Missourians getting insurance through the ACA exchanges is only $59. Without ACA subsidies, premiums for similar private market insurance would have cost on average $344; the ACA subsidized insurance is 85% cheaper.

If Wagner, specifically, starts talking about “starting over” we need to hold her feet to the fire and demand to know how what she has in mind would work better than the ACA. There are better systems out there, but I’m willing to bet that hardcore Republicans would never sign on to them. Instead, As Sargent noted in an earlier article about the effort of Republicans to maneuvre around the incipient success of Obamacare:

… surely these Republican evasions are also newsworthy. They go right to the heart of the GOP’s approach to the central policy debate of the Obama era, shedding light on Republicans’ widespread inability to mount an even remotely credible policy response to fundamental questions that debate raises about how, or whether, government should act to expand health care to the poor. And they cast doubt on the veracity of the Obamacare-is-a-disaster political narrative that is central to the highly consequential midterm elections now underway. All this should be part of the story.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, is working in spite of GOP obstruction. 152,335 Missourians, 29% more than projected, signed up for insurance via Healthcare.gov. 300,000 more low income uninsured Missourians would have insurance today if Missouri’s GOP lawmakers weren’t still relying on the ACA shuck and jive job they’ve been pulling for the last several years to pay off.

The fact that Obamacare’s proving itself out there in the real world means that some GOPers are struggling to find  another con-job they can pull come election time this year. Which explains this little opus from Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4):

It has been almost 20 months since four Americans were killed during a terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But the White House has deliberately and consistently obstructed efforts by Congress and the media to learn the truth about the Obama Administration’s reaction to this attack, and recently disclosed White House emails indicate the facts might have been intentionally altered to create a false narrative of the tragic events. As a co-sponsor of legislation calling for an investigative Select Committee, I applaud this action. The families of those brutally killed in Benghazi and all Americans demand accountability. The stonewalling must end; the truth must be heard.

Yep. Benghazi. Stale, but our Vicky’s not the swiftest pony in the stable, and beggars can’t be choosers – even when the latest Benghazi “smoking gun” seems to have misfired. In the words of a former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, “dude, this was two years ago,” and there’s no more there there than there was then. I don’t want to be too hard on Vicky though; she’s not the only GOPer who thinks Benghazi is the perfect fallback – today Speaker Boehner announced the formation a select committee to investigate the issue yet again, based on “new” evidence that tells us nothing we didn’t already know.

Of course, some folks don’t seem to have gotten the message about a possible election strategy pivot. Take Senator Roy Blunt. I got this email message from our man in Washington today:

President Obama’s so-called “victory lap” on ObamaCare may have been a bit premature. According to a recent survey, only 38% of Americans think the president’s health care law is working.

Maybe that’s because so many people have experienced skyrocketing premiums and job losses as a result of this flawed law. On top of that, we recently learned that the disastrous ObamaCare website is far from finished, and is estimated to cost taxpayers $121 million before the second round of enrollments – $30 million more than the Obama Administration estimated a few months ago. The president’s own approval rating has dropped to 37%. To make matters worse for President Obama, early results show that only two-thirds of individuals that signed up for the ObamaCare exchanges actually paid their enrollment premiums.

Every day, I receive stories from Missourians who are concerned about the president’s health care overhaul. And almost every week, I go to the Senate floor to share those experiences.    

As tired as I get of trying to correct straighten out all Roy’s errors, somebody’s got to keep pointing out that he’s got it all wrong:

* Could some well-meaning soul out there tell Roy that the ACA poll numbers he cites include negative ratings from those of us on the left who want a real “socialist” health care system, single payer or Medicare for all, something along those lines. But most of us wouldn’t want to get rid of the ACA if its all we’re going to get right now – and it is. And as for those who bought into the GOP line on Obamacare, they aren’t to blame. It’s hard to resist the flood of misrepresentation and outright lies with which GOPers have been flooding a compliant news media. But never fear, the dupes are going to figure out soon enough that they’ve been had.

* Health care spending is rising because more uninsured people are getting care at last. But sorry, Roy, healthcare costs aren’t “skyrocketing.” Insurance premiums are lower than expected and many insurance companies are predicting stable or even lower costs next year thanks to the success of the exchanges. The success of the ACA could even lower automobile insurance rates!

* To date the only documented job losses I know about that are related to the ACA are taking place in states like Missouri that are refusing to expand Medicaid under the provisions of the law. As a result, hospitals and clinics are being forced to close and numerous new jobs that would have been created are also forfeit.

* Only two-thirds of the people who signed up for Obamacare have paid their premiums? Really, Roy? You ought to know better than to parrot the House Energy and Commerce Committee report that produced that figure unless you want to get called out with the GOP fools on the Committee who thought we wouldn’t notice how they were cooking the books. If you’re not more careful, you’ll have to choke down your share of the crow they’re now eating.

* As for the stories about Missourians who’re suffering from the ravages of Obamacare, I’ve heard some of these whines – most of us have – and all I can say is that I hope that even a small percentage of the stories you manage to dredge up hold up better than most have done so far. As the Los Angeles Times Michael Hiltzik observes, “virtually every yarn promoted by Republicans or conservatives about people hurt by the Affordable Care Act has deflated like a pricked balloon on the merest examination.”

Do you sometimes think that Senator Blunt just isn’t even trying anymore? Of course, if the alternative is more Benghazi, à la Vicky Hartzler, perhaps he’s better off to keep on with the same ol’, same ol’ ACA drivel. After all, even if it’s probably true that you really can confuse some of the people all of the time – and, to judge by our congressional delegation, lots of those people seem to live in Missouri – the lame Benghazi narrative by itself won’t reverse the tide of diminishing returns.

* Last paragraph edited for clarity.

It looks like one more year will come and go with no Obamacare Medicaid expansion. Why won’t the Republican fools in Jefferson City do what’s right when it comes to Medicaid? Temper tantrums because the GOP doesn’t like the scary black man in the white house and want to scuttle his legacy? Sure. Pandering to special interests who don’t want to pay their fair share? Of course. Efforts to insure failure of government run social programs that would otherwise deflect power from the GOP? That too. And there’s certainly plenty of delusional thinking, not to mention the ugly, retrograde political ideologies that have resurfaced in recent years.

Martin Longman speculates that the tantrum over Obamacare has extended so long and has been played out so passionately and so irrationally that there’s no way now for the committed GOP to retreat:

What’s interesting is that the Republicans’ are so dependent on ObamaCare being unpopular that they have to try to convince people it is failing even though it certainly is not. It’s not enough to point at polls about the law because those polls will change over time. They have to try to keep the polls low any way they can. One way to do that is to keep the myth alive among their base. Another way is to misinform as many people outside their circle as possible. Finally, they can work the refs in the media to the best of their ability, but that isn’t going to work anymore for media that aren’t formally or informally working for the Republican Party.

All undoubtedly true. But what this GOP miscalculation means in practical terms for Missouri is that no matter how empty their opposition is shown to be, the hardcore deadenders that populate many of the GOP seats in the Jefferson City will fight until their last breath against Obamacare, so, since Medicaid expansion under the program would be a big win, it can’t be allowed.  

This irrational animus is the sole reason why state Senator John Lamping (R-19), when confronted with efforts from those in his own party to find a way to take a good deal without losing face, insisted no way, “this is done. It’s not happening. Go find something else to do.” It’s why state Senator Kurt Schaefer (R-19) thinks an opportunity to do something to help his constituents is a “problem,” whining about “why is this somehow now our problem, and our immediate problem that has to be solved by us before the end of the session, when we didn’t create this problem?” It’s kind of like  having a meltdown when you win the lottery because you’re too stupid to figure out how to claim the prize.

But reality’s a bitch and, as they say, what goes round comes round, so sooner or later reality will catch up with the particular butt-end of the GOP that is now running the Republican show. Small solace though, since meanwhile, Missouri, currently ranked 39th in the nation for health outcomes, will continue to hover around the bottom, and, what’s even worse, people will actually, needlessly, die just so a few Republican diehards can save face and can continue to insist for a few more years that Obamacare really is a harbringer of Armageddon.  

Today, via Twitter, Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) weighed in on corporations holding religious beliefs:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

At #SCOTUS to stand w/ the Green family to run their businesses w/o government forcing them to violate their faith.[….]8:33 AM – 25 Mar 2014

Uh, if a corporation doesn’t believe in blood transfusions does that mean they can’t be covered by their employees’ health insurance policy? If a corporation is pacifist and it doesn’t want to pay for a war does it have to pay taxes? Just asking.

Interesting. Representative Hartzler (r) isn’t too busy to hang out at the Supreme Court, but was maybe too busy to hold open town halls in the district during the last legislative break?

Someone else noticed:

curtis whitworth ‏@curtiswhitworth

@RepHartzler nothing like a photo op to play to your religious base. I can’t wait to vote you out. 8:37 AM – 25 Mar 2014

That was within four minutes.

And, within five minutes:

Cody Welton ‏@acoupstick

@RepHartzler CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!!!! Stop undermining the rights of actual, real people. #howmucharetheypayingyou 8:38 AM – 25 Mar 2014

Oh, by the way:

Cody Welton ‏@acoupstick

@RepHartzler by the way, abortifacients are not actually a medically or scientifically recognized thing. Please feel free to join reality. 8:43 AM – 25 Mar 2014

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”:  

Huk ‏@hukolac

@RepHartzler As the Princess Bride would say: http://bit.ly/1h6vcXn 12:08 PM – 25 Mar 2014