Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Clinton Campaign Colluding With State Parties

It has recently been uncovered by local newspapers that Colorado's state Democratic party miscounted caucus election results shorting Bernie Sanders delegates. This wasn't the real controversy though. What was alarming was that the state party alerted the Clinton campaign five weeks ago but not the Bernie Sanders campaign and neither came forward until confronted by journalists.

What makes this matter even more interesting was that similar events took place in Nevada during the state convention when members of the credentials committee were communicating with the Clinton campaign but not the Sanders campaign causing a revolt with both sides levying accusations of cheating with Clinton supporters attempting to trespass and arrest members who sought neutral workings within the party.

There is also reports of Clinton campaign or supporter misconduct involving the Iowa caucuses and the party's refusal to do a recount and Bill Clinton's disregard for electioneering laws and the establishment's blind eye towards his actions and you have a pattern of collusion between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic party.

While some superdelegates and media outlets are waking up now that Trump is beginning to falter and Clinton's coronation does not appear to be as certain now, these actions are rather troublesome and probably do more to bolster Sanders' claims and invigorate his supporters than aNY speech the candidate may give. 

Friday, February 12, 2016

Post-Democratic Debate Analysis - Bernie Stays On Message, Offers More Depth/Hillary Tries New Tactics

Thursday night saw the Democratic side hold their sixth debate, featuring former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  This was the second debate featuring just the two, as other contender Martin O'Malley dropped out of the race following his poor showing during Iowa's caucuses.  This debate featured a shift in tactics for Clinton.  Her previous attacks against Sanders proved unsuccessful in slowing his momentum.  In the past Clinton has framed herself as the defender of President Obama's legacy and attacked Sanders as being unrealistic, even levying such odd attacks as claiming he had a very pro-gun background and collected money from Wall Street (which by her own admission is not a bad thing).  Clinton had even brought out the surrogates with her daughter and husband going on the attack making claims like Bernie attempting to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (which was categorically untrue).

Here are a few of the observations The Midnight Review has made from last night's debate:

"I think that the best analysis that I've seen based on Senator Sanders plans is that it would probably increase the size of the federal government by about 40%, but what is most concerning to me is that in looking at the plans -- let's take healthcare for example."

Clinton made the argument that Bernie Sanders' plans would increase the size of the federal government by about 40% but what exactly does that mean?  She claims every progressive economist believes his plan is bad but she fails to make mention of a single one.  Sanders doesn't either but he rarely name drops like his opponent but her claim is completely untrue.  Democratic socialist economist and professor Gerald Friedman, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, found median income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the Congressional Budget Office's $59,300.  He had also predicted poverty would drop to a record low of 6% and the unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.  

While other economists believe Friedman to be overly optimistic, there have been 170 top economists who recently backed Sanders' plan -a far cry of the zero Clinton claimed in her debate.  Sanders, instead of defending his policies should have at least mentioned this fact. 

There is also question about what exactly these supposed increases mean.  Is Clinton trying to say public sector employment would rise (thus contributing to lower unemployment numbers)?  Is she simply looking at the price tag?  

Clinton's attack is odd for another reason - it sounds as if the current Republican field drafted this response.  Clinton is worried about growing the government?  Not only that, Clinton has repeatedly stated in her responses that she shares the same goal as Bernie and would like to achieve these great progressive policies over time, so in actuality, when she attacks Bernie for trying to grow the government she is also calling her own policy positions into question.

"I can only say that we both share the goal of universal health care coverage. You know, before it was called Obamacare, it was called Hillarycare. And I took on the drug companies and I took on the insurance companies to try to get us universal health care coverage."

This point ties into the previous one - if she shares the same goals as Bernie, why is she attacking the costs associated with them?

Not only that, Clinton tries to tie Hillarycare to Obamacare by insisting they are the same thing.  She rolled out this rhetoric in recent weeks and it may make a great soundbite.  This line may be intended to try and sway Bernie's younger voters who are not familiar with Hillary's role in healthcare reform in the 90s into thinking that Hillary invented Obamacare but one would have to look at her actions after Hillarycare failed.  First of all, Hillarycare was not a predecessor of the president's plan.  His was more similar to policies pushed by conservative organization The Heritage Foundation and like Mitt Romney's plan he implemented in Massachussetts while her plan had gone farther, but it seems she has given up on the plan for universal health that she pushed even during her run for president in 2008 in exchange for incrementalism.  Her current approach capitulates to the idea that voters will remain apathetic and Republicans will still control a significant percentage of the government - hardly the kind of optimistic go-get'um rhetoric one would expect from the potential leader of the party.  

"You're referring to a Super PAC that we don't coordinate with, that was set up to support President Obama, that has now decided that they want to support me. They are the ones who should respond to any questions."

This response by Hillary was really cold and she quickly pivoted to ground currently held by Bernie Sanders.  She started touting her donations (which are still dwarfed by Sanders' by almost double).  

"I'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750 thousand donors, and the vast majority of them are giving small contributions," Clinton said.

This is nothing when compared to his contributors but her defense still shows that she still has not come up with an effective response.  Similar to her flustered deflection of why Goldman Sachs paid her what they did for her speeches, Clinton wanted to throw this question away as soon as it was asked and placed all responsibility with that of the Super PAC and went on to do her Bernie Sanders impersonation as best as she could.

"I think that is the real key here. We both have a lot of small donors. I think that sets us apart from a lot of what's happening right now on the Republican side."

In her response she shifted focus to the Super PAC, pretended to be a person representing the people just like Bernie Sanders, and then directed people to look at Republicans, who she insinuates are the real benefactors of such organizations and billionaires. 

This ties into another point Clinton tried to make throughout the debate - she is the reason behind all of Obama's accomplishments.

"As we all remember, Senator Obama, when he ran against me, was against the war in Iraq. And yet when he won, he turned to me, trusting my judgment, my experience, to become secretary of state...

I think it's important to look at what the most important counterterrorism judgment of the first four years of the Obama administration was, and that was the very difficult decision as to whether or not to advise the president to go after bin Laden.

I looked at the evidence. I looked at the intelligence. I got the briefings. I recommended that the president go forward. It was a hard choice... I'm proud that I gave him that advice."  

This was obviously Clinton pushing back on the Sanders comments regarding the difference between experience and judgement and she delivered it with an all-familiar response - that she was behind a lot of the major policy achievements of the Obama administration, thus making her the standard bearer for his legacy and the one true choice to defend it from Republicans.  Just look at her comparing Hillarycare and Obamacare or taking credit for the Iran talks under current Secretary of State John Kerry ("I put together the coalition that imposed the sanctions on Iran that got us to the negotiating table to put a lid on their nuclear weapons program").

Overall, Clinton tried to not only tie her campaign to the president, who still remains popular within his own party, but she actually tried to take credit for many of his signature achievements.  

This ties in well with what was perhaps Sanders' best foreign policy comments to date - the Henry Kissinger exchange.

"You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America. So if we want to pick and choose -- and I certainly do -- people I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it's a big, complicated world out there."

Clinton's response was very Donald Trump or Sarah Palin-like (think newspaper question).  She basically said that she listens to lots of people on lots of things because the world is very complicated.  This led to Bernie's triumphant history lesson in which he basically summed up his foreign policy reasoning by describing the actions and subsequent chain of events that stemmed from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger under President Richard Nixon, which drew parallels to the events that immediately followed the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the vote for war.  He also was able to tie in foreign policy to his central domestic policy message by pointing to the consequences of Kissinger's opening up of China.  

Some people may have thought Bernie's response was out-dated by referencing Kissinger and that this would go over his Millennial supporters' heads but as anyone could see, this reference would play well with the older supporters of Clinton while younger, more tech-savvy Bernie backers would easily research and understand the references made by Sanders (as is evidenced by the fact that "Kissinger" is now trending online).

"I certainly agree with FDR for all the reasons Senator Sanders said. And I agree about the role that he played both in war and in peace on the economy and defeating fascism around the world. I would choose Nelson Mandela for his generosity of heart, his understanding of the need for reconciliation."

This quote is especially interesting because it highlights Clinton's racial pandering.  While Bernie gave thoughtful responses, Clinton responded with a "What he said" and added a "Nelson Mandela," but she didn't elaborate, instead giving some generic mention of generosity and forgiveness.  Never mind the fact that Mandela, like Bernie Sanders, was a democratic socialist, Clinton's campaign has been full of race cards designed to help her out in the upcoming South Carolina primary.  This may be why she has consistently brought up the water crisis in Flint, Michigan seemingly out of nowhere and why her campaign has seemed to try and minimize their tie in Iowa and loss in New Hampshire (and potential loss in Nevada) by throwing out racial statistics like claiming "it's still a state that is 80 percent white voters."  This line is designed to paint Bernie as the white people's candidate and Clinton as the candidate for all.

And here is perhaps the most telling quote about what a Clinton presidency might be:

"You don't go tell Muslim nations you want them to be part of a coalition when you have a leading candidate for president of the United States who insults their religion."

Hillary Clinton will have a term of inaction because of Republican opposition, and to think she could get anything done with a congress that has held more hearings on a manufactured controversy like Benghazi (which centers around their belief Clinton ordered the special forces to stand down so that four American embassy workers and diplomats could be killed by terrorists) is just laughable.  Clinton says in this quote that she would not even engage the Middle East so long as Republicans continue with their anti-Islamic rhetoric, and since she has already conceded that if she wins the presidency Democrats will still be relegated to a minority party in both chambers of congress, she acknowledges that her only achievement would be being the first female president of the United States.  Her incremental approach sounds great when debating someone like Bernie Sanders but had Obama assumed the presidency with such an approach, healthcare reform probably would have never happened, as well as any of Obama's other signature achievements - the same ones Clinton is now taking credit for.

Basically, Clinton, while very experienced, intelligent, and hard working, is no visionary, and her current strategy on achieving progressive goals using an incremental method would just lead to a strengthening of the conservatives on the right, much like what we witnessed during the 90s.

Bernie on the other hand stayed on message, expanding on his overall message and definitely showed his policy chops by attacking Clinton's judgement by referencing the actions of Henry Kissinger.  He still needs to work on his rebuttals.  While Clinton has surely done hours of debate prep combing through Bernie's record and testing lines of attack, Bernie typically pivots to his overall narrative of income inequality and class struggle.  He could add a little more teeth to his performances if he went after Clinton, like that time Clinton said she would not be influenced by money, opening the door for Bernie to reference that time she flip-flopped on that bankruptcy bill. 

Clinton always performs well but seems to be trying to find a line of attack that works.  Her speaking style has also fluctuated, ranging from compassionate to forced outrage.  She is essentially rolling the dice each time she speaks hoping to find a winner.  Bernie is consistent.  Sometimes too consistent, but always on point.  

Thursday, February 4, 2016

The Midnight Review Endorses Bernie Sanders

While the activity of this blog has decreased significantly over the last couple of years due to a variety of life events (namely the birth of my first child and work matters), the level of interest in politics and current events has remained the same, if not grown.  This blog was started in 2009 as a response to the ridiculous narrative that emerged and dominated conservative politics.  I had been a registered Republican and had always viewed my positions as "moderate," maintaining socially liberal views, experimental to moderate domestic policy concepts, and occasionally crossing over with mixed ideas on foreign policy and international relations.  I felt that my presence in the party could help "control the crazy" and keep the right-wing Christian xenophobic nut jobs from taking control.  During the 2008 campaign I was excited.  From my research I was interested in John McCain.  I was not quite a fan of Hillary Clinton but Barack Obama was invigorating and presented a fresh new look at the Washington business-as-usual way of doing things.  I had hoped for some good debate between McCain and Obama.  While I had voted for President Bush in the past, falling victim to the myth of compassionate conservatism, I had started to become disillusioned with the party.  I thought McCain had the potential to hit the reset button but it was too late.

He selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate and the rest was history.  The Republican party had spiraled into a giant anti-everything party that avoided all rhyme and reason for the sole purpose of maintaining power for those who were already in control.  Their attack on everything, labeled as a fight against government overreach, was a lie and they worked to dismantle the fundamentals of society so that they could accumulate wealth and power for the upper echelons of society.  To make matters worse, they argued for a Christian nation and wished to impose their religious beliefs upon everyone.  I ended up voting for Obama both in 2008 and 2012.

I kept my party affiliation to try and prevent the ridiculous campaigns of candidates like Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney from taking root but the conservative echo chamber was too strong.  I looked forward to the 2016 election hoping that the Republican autopsy report would yield more moderate and competent candidates but they failed to materialize.  Instead we got nearly two dozen candidates ranging from a ego-maniacal billionaire and narcoleptic neurosurgeon to a delusional corporate executive and yet another Bush.  On the Democratic side was the expected run of Hillary Clinton, the hope of a Joe Biden candidacy, and then the eventual announcement of Bernie Sanders.

While I viewed Hillary Clinton as extremely intelligent and qualified, I found her to be very distrustful.  I had the impression that all her positions came only after they would test positive in focus groups.  Reading about her record, her official statements and policy positions, and her behavior on the campaign trail, I still did not like her but viewed her as the lesser of the two evils.  I was hoping for a Biden run but that never happened but then Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy.

Bernie Sanders first showed up on my radar during his nearly nine hour filibuster nearly 6 years ago.  After he announced his run I red more about his personal history, his beliefs, and his intentions.  His stated goals of his campaign were reminiscent of Obama's 2008 campaign, but where as Obama tried to compromise with Republicans and then eventually got stuck in numerous political quagmires (while eking out some impressive accomplishments), I had found Sanders to be even more ambitious and presented himself as the galvanizing figure the Democratic party was so desperately in need of.  Hillary Clinton has framed herself as the cautious defender of the status quo and of Obama's achievements, insisting that if she does not win everything would be dismantled, but her presumption that she would be the nominee had failed to unite the coalition Obama built and which Sanders intended to grow.  You also had more independently-minded folks like me, who were essentially kicked out of the GOP for being to moderate or a "RINO."

The proposals made by Sanders made sense.  We have tried it the conservative way for nearly 40 years.  Republicans have pushed the goal posts far to the right that even Democrats like Obama and Hillary Clinton started appearing to be more like Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s.  I had felt that there was no harm in trying other methods and thought that would be the "fiscally responsible" thing to do.  Universal health care, free tuition, capital punishment or drug policy reform - all reasonable and important tasks to undertake.  While Republicans have built an impressive game on the local level (gerrymandering, court packing, etc.), Democrats seemed to lack the guts and seem to retreat into the defensive in hopes of preserving any gains they may have made, no matter how small.  Sanders was proposing much more and that promise to get voters to the polls for a "revolution" of sorts is what we need.

For that reasoning The Midnight Review is endorsing Bernie Sanders for the Democrat primary and 2016 presidential election.  

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Republicans Propose Gerrymandered Districts To Replace Gerrymandered Districts

Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
If you have never seen the text above don't feel bad.  Apparently the Republicans in Florida never did either.  Above is the constitutional amendment Floridian voters overwhelmingly approved four years ago during the 2010 midterm elections.  In response to the new constitutional amendment calling for geographically compact and demographically balanced districts, state Republicans, with the aid of lobbyists and political operatives, redrew Florida's congressional districts to maximize Republican votes.

How did they do this?

They carved out every minority neighborhood and democratic stronghold from Orlando to Jacksonville - a 200 mile "compact" stretch.  And don't forget college town Gainesville.  All these areas were shoved into one single "safe" Democratic district held by Corrine Brown, effectively making several other "safe" Republican districts.

These gerrymandered districts were called out by a federal judge in July as being blatant power grabs by the majority party and ordered them redrawn.  So what did Republicans do?

Virtually nothing.

While they gave Brown's "safe" district a little more conservative voters and added some minority neighborhoods to Daniel Webster's conservative district, they also took away a huge swath of Osceola, an area that is 47.8 percent Hispanic (25%of the population being Puerto Ricans), from his district, so essentially the only change was making Corrine Brown's district a little less "safe" while maintaining every adjoining Republican district.

How are these districts constitutional?

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Supreme Court Decisions - Unions Could Use The New Ruling To Unload The Free-loaders

Earlier this week the Supreme Court of the United States released two controversial rulings that seemingly flew in the face of hundreds of years of legal precedence, as well as past rulings from the conservative justices currently sitting on the court. 

In one case, Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, the so-called "religious" closely-held company decided that since Barack Obama won election and passed his signature health care law they all of a sudden opposed certain provisions that they previously had no problem covering. Their argument: claim the new law violated their religious convictions as a corporation and that abiding by the neutral and beneficial law would cause an undue hardship on their ability to be good religious what-nots. The conservative justices ignored all the hypocrisy, such as the fact that the corporation used scientifically-debunked data to claim birth control was "abortifacients," that despite opposing the birth control mandate the sincerely religious corporation invested money for another employee benefit (401k) into the corporations that produce previously mentioned birth control, and that prior to the passage of the law the religiousness of the corporation did not conflict with providing the birth control in states that required coverage.  This ruling has also led to such "religious" companies to drop birth control coverage because they believe birth control is murder, like Trijicon, Inc., the firearms aiming systems manufacturer.

That is right.  A company that designs tools to improve killing is upset about covering medicines for their employees because they believe those medicines equate to killing.


The other case was Harris v. Quinn, which ruled that the First Amendment prevents unions from collecting  dues from workers who do not wish to associate or support those unions, despite benefiting from the bargaining conducted by the union.  While I can understand the rationale behind this ruling, I have one huge gripe about it - the conservative justices have no problem extending First Amendment protections to workers (so long as those workers oppose unions) and corporations, but extending those protections to a union?


The reason for a union collecting agency fees from workers who do not wish to join but benefit from the bargaining is that the law requires a union to represent everyone despite not everyone wanting to join.  If a union has to represent a worker regardless then there is no incentive for a worker to join - they can sit back and reap the benefits.  The Supreme Court said this is okay, because forcing someone to pay the union violates their right to freely associate with anyone they want.

This is where the unions may be able to benefit from this ruling.  They could also claim that by having to represent the free-loaders they (as in the workers who have decided to unionize and become a collective force) are being forced to associate with those who wish to ride on their coattails.  If unions were freed to only represent those who join, they could negotiate better terms for their members while those workers who believe they would fare better if they negotiated on their wold be free to do so, and enjoy their reduced benefits and wages as a result.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Marco Rubio's Memorial Day Advertising

Tell me if this fundraising ad from Marco Rubio's Reclaim America PAC is in bad taste:

First of all, what is "happy" about the observation and remembrance of those who have dedicated and sacrificed their lives for this nation?  Memorial Day is not just another occasion to have a 3-day weekend and barbecue, or in Rubio's world, an opportunity to fund-raise off of the deaths of service men and women. 

Monday, February 3, 2014

Why Obama's Federal Pay Executive Order Doesn't Matter

President Obama has recently caused Republicans to scream and throw a tantrum regarding his State of the Union address calling for action and the use of executive orders to find solutions around Congress's inaction, more specifically his latest promise to issue an executive order increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 per hour to just over $10 ($10.10 to be exact).

Why does the hysteria from conservatives not matter at all?

Ignoring the fact that Obama has issued much, much less executive orders than his last few Republican counterparts, a simple comparison can be made between an executive order made by his predecessor George W. Bush over a decade ago (and more than once) and Obama's December 23rd, 2013 executive order issuing a 1 percent raise to federal workers.  

Executive Order 13282, titled "Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay," was issued December 31st, 2002.  It dealt with federal pay.

Executive Order 13655, titled "Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay," was issued December 23rd, 2013.  It too dealt with federal pay.

The only difference was that when George W. Bush used his executive power to increase the rate of pay for federal workers Republicans did not weep for the death of the Constitution. 

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Fox News Misrepresents Filibuster Reform

Fox News had this plastered on their front page Thursday morning:

Why is this interesting?  Because Fox News cites the quote from Republicans that this is a "raw power grab" - a variation on the "court packing" theme the GOP were pushing recently with the blocking of yet another qualified judicial nominee - and insist that the Democrats have weakened the ability to "block" nominations - an admission that Republicans are not seeking healthy debate.  The article also incites fear in the right-wing base by insisting this makes it easier to make lifetime appointments while ignoring the fact that Republicans argued in the past against the blocking of judicial nominees.

Throughout the entire history of the United State of America, over half of the filibusters have been incurred by Republicans during President Obama's administration proving the widespread abuse of the procedural maneuver by congressional Republicans.  In the most recent nomination fights in which the GOP blocked qualified nominees, they held up the process by citing either unrelated reasons or imaginary controversies (see "court packing").  Democrats had then negotiated with Senate Republicans to get a vote only for GOP to eventually renege on their promises.

While many warn the Democrats that the pendulum swings both ways, a reasonable prediction would be that Republicans will further their push to repeal the direct election of senators so that gerrymandered state houses can appoint their party members to power.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Pam Bondi's Death Panels

"I want Florida to have the power to decide your medical treatments!"
Florida's Tea Party Attorney General has made the news in her push to ban a public initiative legalizing medical marijuana in the southeast state, but in doing so Bondi had revealed conservative's desire to grow governmental control over our lives and personal decisions.  While the right's "War On Women" is well documented, Bondi decided to step up to the plate on another front - legalized marijuana - and shed some light on the GOP's intentions.

"The ballot title and summary suggest that the amendment would allow medical marijuana in narrow, defined, circumstances, and only for patients with 'debilitating diseases.' But if the amendment passed, Florida law would allow marijuana in limitless situations," she said. "So long as a physician held the opinion that the drug use 'would likely outweigh' the risks, Florida would be powerless to stop it."

So the get this clear, Bondi believes the State of Florida should make decisions about your health - not you and your doctor.  Have a debilitating disease or chronic ailment?  Doctor prescribes medical marijuana?  Sorry.  Pam Bondi and her death panelists have decided to deny medical treatment a trained professional has deemed necessary.  What Bondi implied in her statement is a slippery slope.

And I thought the GOP was supposed to be the party of limited government.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Fox News Hypes ACA Prices, Uses Right-Wing Lobbyist As Proof Law Sucks!

 While every other media outlet is reporting on the government shut down, Fox News has not lost their anti-Obama focus and have been headlining story after story about the evils of the Affordable Care Act.  Their most recent article claims the law has caused a spike in premiums all across the nation using as proof anonymous stories from conservative legislators reading notes from "Phil" and "Mike," but their lead-in account regarded a family man by the name of Andy Mangione.  What Fox News doesn't tell you is that Mangione is a small government conservative lobbyist who has worked for giant pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Inc., Invacare Corporation, and Humana Inc.

"Andy Mangione, who lives in Louisville, Ky. with his wife Amy and their two boys," reads the Fox News article, "is doing the same thing millions of people are doing --trying to figure out how much his insurance will cost under ObamaCare."

This account of course comes from a blog post family man Andy made on the AMAC website.

What is the AMAC?

The AMAC, or Association of Mature American Citizens, claims to be the "conservative alternative to the AARP" and believes that the "present system of State regulations and free enterprise has proven satisfactory for over 85% of our citizens" in providing health care.  Presumably they come to that figure by citing United States Census Bureau statistics that show roughly 15% of Americans, or 48.6 million people, lack health insurance.  Do you think those 48.6 million people are uninsured because they are satisfied with the current system?

In Mangione's blog post he insists that his family premium would more then double under the health care law and provides a link to a document that alleges to prove the health care law will put his family into financial ruin.  The problem with that is if you actually click on the link and read the letter Mangione received it states that he could pick one of two options.

Option A is his current policy, which costs $333.65, and Option B, which costs $965.07, but as the Fox News article states, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation site, Mangione could be eligible for a $414 monthly subsidy bringing Option B to $551.07.  That would be a 65% increase in premiums but the two policies differ slightly with Option B having a lower deductible, lower out-of-pocket coinsurance, essential health benefits, and children's dental.

So in reality, Mangione's premiums did not skyrocket - they would either stay the same if Option A is chosen or they would raise 65% with Option B, but Mangione would receive greater coverage and less upfront costs (typically the premiums are higher when the deductible is lower, and there is a $5300 difference between the two policies family deductible).  And as the letter states, if Option A is chosen, come the end of 2014 new ACA compliant options will be made available, giving Mangione time to prepare and decide what choice is best for his family.

Here was the title of Andy's blog post:

Now considering the facts would you say that headline is accurate or extremely disingenuous?