Stephanie Miller of Sandusky, Ohio cries on the shoulder of President Obama at a campaign event at Washington Park in Sandusky, Ohio. Miller’s sister died of cancer and said that Obama’s healthcare plan would have given her better treatment options
ThinkProgress: President Obama stopped shaking hands for a moment today so that he could embrace a sobbing woman whose uninsured sister recently died of colon cancer.
The sister of Stephanie Miller, from Sandusky, OH, would have been covered if Obamacare were fully implemented when she got sick. Instead, the woman was left without insurance and couldn’t get the health care she needed.
…. Ms. Miller said her sister, Kelly Hines, died from colon cancer four years ago because she could not afford proper health insurance …. “I thanked him for the getting the Affordable Health Act passed,” she said.
One hundred twenty nine million people have pre-existing conditions. The Affordable Care Act will prevent them from being denied care, either by an individual plan or by an employer. Should Republicans repeal the law, as they have promised, those people could once again find themselves in that situation. Republicans’ only solution is to put people like Miller’s sister into unsustainable, high-risk pools, or force them to go without care.
Remember the creature known as Joe Miller? The Teabagger was so certain he’d win Alaska’s Senate race last year he took to Twitter….
…and then he lost to Lisa Murkowski.
He had planned on running again …. err, good luck with that Tea Bag Joe:
GOPolitico: If Joe Miller is thinking about another political race in Alaska, he’s got considerable work to do repairing his image. That’s according to the state’s premier pollster, Dave Dittman, who is set to release numbers this week that show the former Senate candidate’s approval rating in the tank.
An AlaskaPoll taken in March found that 73 percent of Alaskans view Miller unfavorably, including 53 percent who put themselves in the “very unfavorable” category.
That leaves just 18 percent who view Miller in a favorable fashion. Nine percent are undecided.
On the other hand, residents appear to be content with their current delegation. All three members receive high “excellent or good” approval ratings – with Democratic Sen. Mark Begich at 57 percent, GOP Rep. Don Young at 63 percent and GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski at a sparkling 71 percent.
‘How did the University of Virginia come to publish a version of Lincoln’s inaugural speech that cut crucial words on slavery?’
Matt Seaton (The UK Guardian): ….I was preparing for publication Eric Foner’s article on the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration speech … I went searching for a transcript of the speech to link to. The results of a Google search took me to the site of the University of Virginia’s Miller Centre of Public Affairs; reckoning this a prestigious institution at a public university (founded by Thomas Jefferson, no less), I assumed this would be a reliable link to use …
Then I reached the passage quoted by Eric’s piece, where Lincoln flatly states: “One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”
…I searched the transcript on the Miller Centre site for this sentence but could not find it…. I sent off an email to the Miller Centre staff, alerting them to the fact that they were publishing a misleading, redacted version of Lincoln’s address; and outlining my interpretation that it looked as though the speech had been cut to remove references to slavery… I received an immediate reply; and within an hour, the webpage had been amended and the full text restored.
Since then, I’ve done a full comparison of the cached version of the page and the amended one; at the foot of this article run all the passages that had been omitted from the original…
…the sum of the redactions appeared to have two key effects: first, of toning down or removing entirely Lincoln’s strong assertions of the legitimate authority of the Union before and above the Constitution; and second, as said, of shifting the emphasis away from slavery as the key point of dispute between North and South and towards differences over the precedence and prerogative of individual states v the Union in law-making and enforcement. It is difficult not to see a neo-Confederate agenda in this editing.
It is possible that the erroneous version of Lincoln’s address was published by accident or carelessness. But the alacrity with which a correction was made suggests that Miller Centre executives realised the potential damage to the institution’s reputation of hosting what might appear to be a politically tendentious, “doctored” version of the address.
Having had a polite note from them, thanking me for pointing out the error and confirming the correction, I wrote back saying I was considering writing about it and seeking their comment on several questions (see the questions here)
In contrast to the almost instantaneous earlier response, as yet, I have received no reply to these questions. So the Miller Centre would seem to wish to make no further comment. But given that its online database of the Scripps Library purports to be a vital resource for scholars of public policy, US government and presidential history, I certainly hope they are running some checks.