Thoughts From Reading the King v. Burwell Transcript

I took a little time to read the transcript from today's Supreme Court oral arguments in King v. Burwell.

If you want to read the transcript, you can find it here. It's always a dicey proposition to read anything into how the Justices will rule from their questions/comments at oral argument, but here are a few of my impressions:

1. Justice Ginsburg immediately jumped on the issue of standing from the get-go. After some back and forth, and with what ultimately seemed like a concession from the Government, the likelihood of kicking the case out on a lack of standing seems extremely remote.

2. Justice Kagan seemed to have gotten the better of Petitioner's counsel with her hypothetical about law-clerks and memo writing, but Alito jumped to the rescue with such a good response that even Kagan remarked of Alito "He's good."

3. The real question seems to be where Justice Kennedy is going to land. He seems to want to say that the Petitioner's argument necessarily requires the conclusion that conditioning subsidies on states setting up the exchanges is coercive, and would therefore be unconstitutional. Obviously, this would result in disruption of everyone who got a subsidy in the states where HHS set up the exchanges, and Kennedy seemed loathe to make that leap. Petitioner's counsel responded to Kennedy by observing that the government hadn't made that that argument, and Kennedy says "Sometimes we think of things the government doesn't".

4. Carrying that last point further, the real question seems to be whether Kennedy is willing to interpret the statute in a manner that avoids having to find the statute to be unconstitutional under the avoidance doctrine. I think that Kennedy wants to say it's unconstitutional, but I think he's concerned with the resulting effects of what happens if he makes that finding. Ultimately, I think he'll avoid doing so, and the Government's position will prevail.

5. The Government's counsel took a little bit of a shot at Congress when Justice Scalia pressed him on why the Congress wouldn't just amend the statute if the Court accepts the Petitioner's position. Scalia says "You really think Congress is just going to sit there while ­­ while all of these disastrous consequences ensue?" and the Government's lawyer responds somewhat tongue-in-cheek with "Well...this Congress, Your Honor? I...I..." to which there's some general laughter at Congress' expense.

Ultimately, I think the Government will win this because I think the easy place for Kennedy to land is that there is a little bit of ambiguity in the statute, so you go with the interpretation that doesn't render the statute unconstitutional. That' just my guess, anyway. I would be surprised if the Court did something radical and essentially forced Congress and President Obama to fix the law.

Supreme Court Accepts Obamacare Subsidies Case

Remember the Halbig case? Well, that issue is now going to the Supreme Court. Just today, the Supreme Court accepted a case (King v. Burwell) which is the same question.

Interestingly, with King, the lower court ruled that the subsidies apply everywhere, so the administration won. Don't forget, the Supreme Court doesn't have to take this case. They could have just refused to take it and let that decision stand. However, SCOTUS decided to take the case, and you need four votes to accept a case.

So are there now four votes to overturn King and say that the ACA does not allow for subsidies to federally established exchanges? Perhaps so. That would be big.

This could be a very interesting case to watch.

"I think liberals really do not understand emotionally the extent to which the Tea Party was created by the Affordable Care Act and the feeling that its government was simply steamrolling it. "

"From the Tea Party's perspective, you had an unpopular program that should have died in the same way, and for the same reasons, that Social Security privatization did: because sensible politicians saw that, no matter how ardently they and their base might desire it, this was out of step with what the majority of the country wanted."

Thoughts on Halbig, the ACA, and Suing the President

Had an interesting post bring up some thoughts over at Brad's blog. This is what got my train of thought rolling:

"I think what he [The President] did was react to criticism and complaints, and try to make the implementation less onerous and painful to those complaining, or likely to complain. To give the law a chance to start working, if only partially. Whether he had the authority to postpone implementation of parts of the law is something I don’t know enough to judge." -Brad

Complaints and criticism of a law do not convey authority to the executive branch to delay enforcement of existing law. I hope that's a fairly non-controversial statement. If you disagree with that proposition, then you'll be happy to know that in a Caskey Administration, I may choose to simply delay enforcement of the capital gains tax, or delay enforcement of the minimum wage laws. How does that sound? Not so great, right?

The executive (on multiple occasions) has unilaterally delayed the enforcement of the employer mandate. That's a fact. No part of the ACA allows this.

I think it's fairly obvious that he did it solely for political purposes, but I would certainly concede that to be my opinion. Nevertheless, the motive for delaying enforcement of the law is irrelevant for our purposes here.

Some more history: The Republicans do not like this law. They have never liked this law. Not one Republican voted for this law. In fact, the law had to be pushed through Congress using arcane rules to avoid a conference committee after the election of Scott Brown, on the platform of opposing the ACA.

Congress basically ignored the will of the people and did an end run around the normal procedures of legislation to produce this law. It's now the law, after surviving a constitutional challenge ending at SCOUTS, on a 5-4 decision.

So here we sit. The supporters of this law are now so dedicated to holding onto it, they are willing to chuck principles aside to keep it.

For instance, people are willing to simply let the executive pick and choose what parts of the law he wants to selectively enforce so as to not subject the public to the full force of the law as written - which would arouse the anger of the public, and be politically negative for Democrats. This is short term political gain, for long term bad precedent. It's bad precedent to allow the executive to selectively enforce any law. If you think selective enforcement of the law is OK, then you really haven't thought it through.

Additionally, the Halbig suit: The relevant statutory language says that only state exchanges get the subsidy. It's clear. That's what the text of the law says. However, if you do that, then the law essentially collapses, as a significant number of states didn't set up exchanges.

Obviously, the people who wrote the law never considered that states might simply refuse to set up exchanges. (To quote Rick Perry: "oops") The non-lawyer defenders of the ACA are now reduced to saying "Hey, man, it was a typo" while their lawyers are saying "Ummmm yeah....this text is ambiguous, so we need to rely on Chevron Deference to the IRS in it's rule-making authority here" (What the Fourth Circuit did.) To me, the first argument is laughable, and the second argument is weak to the point of being almost laughable.

Now, Brad may not have heard about this lawsuit, but people have been talking about it for a long time. Pretty much since the law was passed, and as Nancy Pelosi said "We learned what was in it". This isn't new.

Halbig only became a problem now that lots of states have refused to set up exchanges. But normally, issues like Halbig aren't a problem, because the executive just goes back to Congress and they pass a new law to make some changes. However, the executive doesn't want to do that, because that would mean negotiating with the Republicans, and that's apparently not on the table.

Accordingly, rather than openly acknowledge the problem and concede that the law needs additional legislation, you have the executive defending a tenuous legal position and hoping the Courts will hold their nose and bail him out, since he doesn't want to involve the legislative branch in the legislative process and involve the will of the people again.

Keep in mind, Halbig isn't a constitutional question. It's simple statutory construction. The Supreme Court has pretty consistently ruled that statutory construction pretty much starts and ends with WHAT DOES THE FOX TEXT SAY? We write down laws with words, with a commonly understood meaning for a reason, sports-fans.

It's the job of courts to read statutes as written. If they need fixing rather than reading, that's the job of Congress. I really don't think that SCOTUS is going to bail out the administration on this. I can bore you with some law on this, but just take my word for it that this isn't a controversial issue when you boil it down to the statutory construction. If SCOTUS grants cert, my guess is they'll uphold the statute as written and basically tell the government to go fix it on their own - using the legislative process. That's just my guess. Anything's possible. (By the way If you don't believe judges should be originalist/textualist, then I don't see how you can also want them to be life-tenured & unelected, but that's a whole 'nother debate.)

Now....why are the Republicans doing this? They want the law enforced as written to highlight how horrible it is and to highlight the bad precedent being set here. Ulysses S. Grant said: "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."

That's basically the premise here. You want the ACA? Then take it. Take it good and hard.

Having said that, I think the Congressional suit against the President is stupid. Congress doesn't need to sue the President. Congress is the most powerful branch of government. They are just refusing to flex the muscle. It's called the power of the purse. (Stuff Madison Said, Vol. II)

Federal Appellate Court Rules Most ACA Subsides are Illegal.

Oh, sure. Interpret the actual language of the statute. That's crazy.

Basically what happened here is the law says subsidies can only be paid to policies written on state exchanges. Obama then rewrote the law to include the federal exchange because...he wanted to.

This Court said ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.

Expect some shrieking from the left in 3....2....1...

New York Health Insurers Request 20% Rate HIke

A 20% increase over last year. I thought Obamacare was supposed to stop this. It's almost like this law wasn't really well thought out.

Medicaid Is Costing States More Money Than Expected - Also Medicare Doesn't Really Work Anyway

Gee, who could have possibly predicted that a government program would be more expensive than originally forecast?

Before President Obama's law expanded Medicaid eligibility, millions of people who were already entitled to its safety-net coverage were not enrolled. Those same people are now signing up in unexpectedly high numbers, partly because of publicity about getting insured under the law.

For states red or blue, the catch is that they must use more of their own money to cover this particular group.

You know, there are lots of folks who are arguing for South Carolina to expand Medicaid because it's "free money" from the federal government. As seems to now be the case, South Carolina's Medicaid expenses are going to be going up anyway.

This also doesn't address the more important fact that Medicaid doesn't actually improve medical outcomes for people relative to being uninsured.

Ultimately, the authors concluded that, “This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured health outcomes in the first two years, but it did increase use of health services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”

So, the study suggests that expanding Medicaid is one way of reducing financial pressure on low-income groups, but it’s costly and does not improve their health.

Another interesting finding was that though medical spending increased among Medicaid enrollees due to more prescription drug usage and doctors’ visits, the study “did not find significant changes in visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions.” This undercuts another favorite talking point of liberals, which is that expanding insurance actually saves money by reducing costly emergency room visits.

But hey, for some people, the only way to improve a failing government program is to enlarge it.

GOP Candidate for Iowa Senate Seat Makes An Interesting Ad

Here's an ad from Joni Ernst, who is one of the GOP candidates for Iowa's Senate Seat. It's kind of in the same vein as all the Sarah Palin-esqe stuff. She cruises in on a motorcycle, and then...well, just watch.

Thoughts? It kind of reminds me of (now Sentator) Joe Manchin's campaign ad where he shot a hole in the Obamacare bill with a rifle.

I guess we'll see how this plays out with Iowa voters. How does it play out with you?

Sporting Clays Open Thread

I'll be breaking some clays this afternoon, so y'all will have to talk among yourselves. If you're good, I'll bring you some more content later tonight.

Possible topics for discussion:

1. MSNBC host doesn't know what Animal Farm is about. English teachers everywhere shake their collective heads.
2. 2.45 Million enrollees didn't pay their Obamacare premiums. Oh, you mean this insurance stuff costs money? Who knew?
3. Abortion Bill advances through SC Legislature. This will bring South Carolina almost into line with certain highly conservative, oppressive regimes that have a 14 week abortion cutoff.....like France.

As always, you can follow me on Christian Mingle.

Why I'm Not Interested in Writing About Obamacare Right Now

Because it's utterly pointless.

If you truly want to judge the success or failure of the new healthcare law, you have to have information. You have to have data. We don't have any of it. Apparently, the federal government either can't or won't release the information we need. The government is either incompetent or intentionally withholding information. Either way, we ain't got anything to talk about.

Oh, the White House keeps trumpeting the number of "sign-ups" like it's the gospel, but no one knows anything. Until the following information is known, no one knows anything:

1. The actual number of enrollees (you know, people who have paid premiums) at the federal and state-level exchanges.
2. The demographic breakdowns of the enrollees.
3. The number of enrollees who had health care prior to enrolling, but whose health insurance was cancelled due to new regulations promulgated under the ACA.

Until we know this information, it's useless to claim the law is a failure or that's it's a success. My guess is that since this information isn't readily being released by the White House, it's probably not good for the ACA.

This is simply a modest request for some transparency. The people of the United States aren't being given even the most basic of information about this law. In an open and free society, we get information and debate how things are going. Until we have the information, having a debate is pointless.

Until then, I'm going to post about things that aren't pointless. Like this picture of a bear and three cubs.

See? That's much better.

The Hobby Lobby Case and Jeffrey Toobin Continuing His Hackery

UPDATED IN BOLD TO GET A LITTLE MORE TECHNICAL/LEGALISTIC

Awhile back, I wrote a post called "Jeffrey Toobin Is a Hack". I was reminded of this when Ann Althouse wrote a post today on a similar topic: Toobin's Hackery. Althouse calls his piece on the Hobby Lobby Oral arguments "embarrassingly bad" I commend it to you only to demonstrate that my opinion of Toobin's hackery abounds all over the internet.

Anyway, you don't come here to get bad analysis, so if you want some actual, good analysis of the Hobby Lobby case, I am going to send you over to SCOTUSblog. 

My short and sweet thought is that an employer's failing to pay for an employee's preferred form of birth control is not a denial of that employee's ability to use that form of birth control. The employer not preventing the employee from using the birth control, the employer is simply saying they won't pay for it.

And that's fine.

But now you have a law (Obamacare) that says employers have to provide basically every type of birth control. And to be really technical about it, the actual law doesn't say that. HHS is issuing regulations that say this because Congress didn't explicitly want to take the heat for mandating the birth control requirement. This is an important issue, because regulations issued by HHS can be changed...by HHS. Regulations aren't as strong as federal statues.

So now, you have an employer (Hobby Lobby) that claims a sincere religious belief would be violated by complying with the regulation promulgated under the law, but claiming protection under a federal statute.

And so now you have a complicated problem. You have to balance the employer's religious beliefs against the compelling government interest (the regulation). Also, you've got to deal with a federal law (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) passed in 1993 that basically says you have to apply "strict scrutiny" to laws that burden religious views, even if the law is religiously neutral - which is what we have here.

Note, the government's position concedes that the RFRA applies to for profit corporations, but they're basically asking the Supreme Court to ignore that.

Strict scrutiny is basically a death knell for anything that has to pass through it, so my guess is that the Court will apply the RFRA and issue a very narrow decision allowing Hobby Lobby an exemption based on religious grounds.

One big problem for the government is getting out from under the RFRA, and Toobin doesn't even mention the statue in his stupid little write up!

Also, It's not going to help the government's case that so many other waivers have been granted. It's hard to argue that there's a compelling government interest in this specific case when the government itself has given other entities a pass.

But that's just me.

Rocky Balboa Is Smarter Than Norman Ornstein

I'll admit, I don't have a degree in math. I don't excel at it. I don't particularly enjoy it. My forte lies in other things. I have the utmost respect for my friends who are engineers or have hard science degrees. Much like fire, poisonous snakes, and VX gas, I have a healthy respect for math.

The second you don't respect this, it kills you.

Accordingly, I don't try to mess around with math without making darn sure that I'm doing it correctly and following the rules.

Some goof named Norman Ornstein doesn't excel at math either. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he doesn't have the same healthy respect for math that I do. When you don't have a healthy respect for something that you can't control, you get into trouble.

Norman Ornstein got himself into trouble with math. Here, see if you can spot the problem:

The first iteration of KidSave, in simple terms, was this: Each year, for every one of the 4 million newborns in America, the federal government would put $1,000 in a designated savings account. The payment would be financed by using 1 percent of annual payroll-tax revenues. Then, for the first five years of a child's life, the $500 child tax credit would be added to that account, with a subsidy for poor people who pay no income. The accounts would be administered the same way as the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan...under the initial KidSave proposal, the funds could not be withdrawn until age 65, when, through the miracle of compound interest, they would represent a hefty nest egg. At 5 percent annual growth, an individual would have almost $700,000.

Since I'm not Euler, I'm going to break this down a bit. The Federal government is going to give every baby a $1,000 in an account. Then each year (for five years) the feds drop $500 more dollars into the account. So on the child's fifth birthday, they'll have $3,500.00 of principal. (and maybe a little interest over those five years) With me so far? So we're maybe at $4,100.00 with the interest at year five.

As an aside, who the heck gets a 5% rate of return? If you know anywhere that guarantees a 5% rate of return these days, send me an e-mail. Banks around here are paying less than 1%. But let's just leave that aside. Assume that your old buddy Ornstein has a magical bank that pays 5%. If you put your $4,100.00 in there, at the end of sixty years, will you have "almost $700,000.00"?

No. No, you will not.

Hint, it's not even close. Not. Even. Close. The link above has the more detailed fisking.

If you're a "math person" (or just have some common sense) you'll immediately realize that you can't take $4,100.00 and turn it into "almost $700,000" with a 5% interest rate over sixty years. It's just not possible. Perhaps the best line of the piece above is as follows:

I am no finance guy, but it was immediately obvious to me that Ornstein’s numbers are ridiculous. If you could turn $3,500 into $700,000 in 60 years at 5%, I wouldn’t be practicing law these days. As Rocky said to his two goldfish, “If you guys could sing and dance, I wouldn’t be doin’ this.” Money, unfortunately, does not sing and dance as hypothesized by Ornstein.

Yo, how's about some compound interest?

Math. It doesn't care about your good intentions. It's just going to do its thing. So show some respect, sucker. Also, for all y'all out there defending Obamacare, I have news for you. Math is coming.

Obamacare and Touching the Hot Stove

Remember the Employer Mandate? The law says it shall take effect in 2014. It still says that. But that's just what the law says.

How did you learn not to touch this?

Last summer, the Obama Administration unilaterally delayed the Employer Mandate so that it wouldn't take effect until 2015. I'm not sure why Obama decided to delay implementation of such a great part of his super great law, but apparently, you don't need Congress to change laws or anything. So the Executive Branch just said Don't worry about the law, we're changing it. Because...well...nevermind.

So, 2014 is here. Time to start gearing up for the Employer Mandate next year, right? Well, actually no. Now that this year is here, the Obama Administration has decided that the Employer Mandate will be delayed again. They're going to implement it for some employers, but not others, and partially for some. Until 2017...or whenever, yo

Even though that's not what the law actually says.

Now, the real question is cui bono? Who benefits? Well, obviously the businesses who aren't faced with the massive costs of this imposing law benefit. But the White House isn't delaying the Employer Mandate to benefit the businesses. If they wanted to benefit the businesses, they wouldn't have passed the Employer Mandate at all. But they did. The law passed, and now we're seeing the President unilaterally walk it back, year by year. Why?

It's obviously to spare his friends in Congressional elections this fall the pain at the voting booth. It's a nakedly politically motivated violation of the law from the Executive Branch. Read that sentence again. Got it?

You know, if Republicans had any lick of sense, they would do do everything in their power to make sure the Employer Mandate hits this year. America elected a President and a bunch of politicians who passed this healthcare mess. But the same people keep easing back away from it. They know that everyone will feel tons of pain when the law actually goes into effect. So they keep delaying it. Maybe it's time to put the Employer Mandate into effect. Maybe it's time to feel some pain. Maybe it's time for America to touch the hot stove -- and burn its hand. 

When you burn your hand, you'll learn not to touch the stove again. Maybe next time you won't touch the damn stove when I tell you not too.

Top Headlines Thread (Russian Toilet Instructions Edition)

FRIDAY!

Here's a look around at the top five headlines I'm seeing today:

1. Jay Leno Says Farewell to the "Tonight Show": After a long run, he's finally leaving. I've seen plenty of criticism of Leno from people who say he's really dull, but I always thought he was pretty funny. My guess is he'll find some way to keep telling jokes for a living.

2. Charleston School of Law to Possibly Merge With the College of Charleston?: It appears that the State Legislature gets the final say on whether the Charleston School of Law can be sold to a private group, and that's not a sure thing. Accordingly the College of Charleston is looking into it. Law Schools can be quite a cash cow, since they don't require much overhead and rake in tuition dollars.

3. SC Legislature has Bill to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks: If I remember correctly, this was the same thing proposed in Texas that (by her opposition) propelled Wendy Davis to the forefront of national politics. Could we see a similar phenomenon here in South Carolina? If so, which state legislator is the most likely to be the face of the opposition to this law?

4. Four Ways Obamacare Hurts Millennials: Spoiler alert -- Young people are helping pay for the older, sicker people's coverage.

5. Want to Buy a Gun? Be Glad You Don't Live In Massachusetts: Hey, it could be worse. I hear China has some pretty tough restrictions on guns as well.

Yeah, yeah yeah...the Winter Olympics are starting, too. I guess that's news. The real news is all the problems that are going on with the logistics. Russia is weird, though. Here is a sign that is above toilets in Russian Hotels

 What's that on the bottom left? Do some people fish in toilets? Is this a Russian thing? I also like the bottom right one. Is that guy doing "air drums" on the toilet with a beer bottle?

That's all I got for some Friday AM links.

Why I'm Fine to Let Chris Christie Drown

Not literally drown. I mean politically.

Prior to the lane-closings on the GW Bridge turning into an abuse of power scandal for Governor Christie, he was viewed as one of the primary front-runners for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016. He has been described as a practical governor who was willing to work across party lines to advance his state's interest, and that he was a "moderate".

That is certainly true. However, I would like to recap a little recent history for everyone:

2008: McCain gets the GOP nomination for President because he was a pragmatic moderate who had worked across the aisle to get things done. He lost.

2012: Romney gets the GOP nomination for President because he was a moderate who had worked across the aisle in his home state of Massachusetts to pass a health insurance regulatory scheme that was the forerunner of Obamacare. He lost.

So, does the GOP really want to nominate another moderate republican candidate who has worked across the aisle for the 2016 Presidential race? What's the definition of insanity, again?

There are two basic reasons I don’t want to see Christie be the GOP nominee besides historical precedent. He supports immigration amnesty and he accepted ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion in his state. If he had only done one of these, there would only be a red flag. Both of these are a disqualification to me.

Here's the thing. No matter what anyone says, one of the major points of the 2016 debate will be Obamacare. It will likely be a flaming train-wreck of a program. The GOP cannot have a nominee that is tainted by the program.

Remember back in 1940 when Winston Churchill won the Prime Minister job? He won because he wasn't tainted by the Munich Accord. He was always against appeasement of Hitler, and the men who had either tried to do so or had accepted the trying were not able to convince enough of the electorate that they were the men for the job.

Christie won't be able to convince enough of the electorate that he's the man for the job because he's tainted by his going along with Obamacare's medicaid expansion. It's Romney all over again.

Get someone who isn't tainted. 

Question for All the Central Planners Out There

Question for all the super-smart central planners out there: How do you lower the cost of a product or service?

It is an iron-clad rule of economics: The only way to reduce cost is to increase supply or decrease demand. 

Forget reducing demand. That's not happening, because we're not talking about a luxury good like wine or iPods. We're talking about getting your head stitched up when you fall off a ladder, or getting your gall bladder out. Demand isn't going anywhere, so that leaves us with the supply of health care. Not health insurance. Health care.

And Obamacare does nothing to address cost, because it doesn't increase the supply of health care. If you wanted to increase the supply of health care, you could come up with lots of ways to do that. However it does nothing of the kind.

In fact, Obamacare is chock-block full of policies and regulations that further artificially limit supply.

A bill that increased the supply of health care--not health insurance!--would be a bill with majority support.

Alas, the same folks who wrote this failure of a law will likely be the ones to write the single-payer law to follow.

And. Here. We. Go.

But in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Humana disclosed to investors, "as a result of the December 2013 federal and state regulatory changes allowing certain individuals to remain in their previously existing off-exchange health plans, the Company now expects the risk mix of members enrolling through the health insurance exchanges to be more adverse than previously expected."

Can you say "death spiral"?

Math doesn't care about your good intentions. It just likes to watch the world burn.

Obamacare Actually Cancels More Plans Than It Creates

Remember way back, a long time ago? Back when we were debating Obamacare having Obamacare shoved down our throats because it would result in more insured people? For our own good, of course.

Yeah, about that.

More than 4.7 million Americans had their health insurance canceled as a result of any of the thousand-plus-page law’s new rules, The Associated Press reports, but the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed Tuesday that between federal and state exchanges, just two million Americans have signed up for Obamacare coverage. (RELATED: Obama administration announces net loss of at least 3 million insurance plans)

So, we're down 3 million insurance plans due to this law. I guess this is what the Ivy-League folks call a "sub-optimal" outcome, right? I'm only asking because I'm a moron from South Carolina.

Just to recap: Less people have insurance, it costs more, and it covers less.

That's one hellava a system you came up with, guys.

Monday Before Christmas - You Got Your Shopping Done?

Make sure to get all the Christmas shopping done, y'all. If you're still trying to decide on what to get your wife/girlfriend, I saw this ad.

I've taken care of everyone except for three people, and they'll all be getting something from Morganelli's.

In other news, today is the last day to sign up for Obamacare!

Enjoy your Christmas. If you get a chance, gather the whole family around, and enjoy the best Christmas movie ever.

Sunday Morning Thread - Test Taking Tips

No, the Obamacare website isn't fixed yet, but I did make you some tasty french toast. Don't worry, french toast makes everything better.

On an unrelated note, here are some funny answers to test questions from what appear to be elementary school and middle school students. A few of my favorites are:

1. Name the quadrilateral.

2. How do you change centimeters to meters.

Duh.

Study hard, kids.