After nine months of muddling around Raleigh, bringing more bad headlines to the state, the legislature finally passed its budget. Now, we better buckle our seat belts. The real mischief is about to begin.
Legislative leaders say they will adjourn on September 30. That gives them almost two more weeks of damage. They’ve got a number of bills lined up that could really hurt the state. Last night, some of those bills surfaced.
The legislature announced they are privatizing Medicaid. They’re scrapping the system that has been proven to save the state money while providing quality care to our citizens. They’re replacing it with a brand new system that’s based on competition, of course, and had problems in other states. They are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Instead of fixing what was broken, they’re scrapping it all and gambling on the health care of our most vulnerable citizens.
It’s really about priorities. They’re more interested in saving money than providing quality care. The people who will be hurt don’t vote Republican anyway.
They also announced they’re moving all 2016 primaries to March 15 instead of the first Tuesday in May. That’s more folly than anything. Republicans want to have more influence over picking the GOP presidential nominee and don’t want to pay for two primaries. Democrats have also mentioned something about trying to influence a court ruling that could change districts, but that’s more speculation than anything.
The move just adds uncertainty to an uncertain system. They don’t know what will be going on in the primary next year. Back in 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton found themselves still battling for the Democratic primary in May. At that point, North Carolina became a more important state than it would have been earlier in the cycle. Republicans might find the same thing. The nominees could be still be decided before March 15 or holding an election at the same time as a bunch of larger states, North Carolina could find itself less important, rather than more so. Beware the Ides of March.
There’s also an environmental “reform” bill hiding in the building somewhere. Reform for Republicans means less money, less regulation, or both. Regardless, it’s probably bad for our air and water.
The TABOR bill is also somewhere. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, as it’s called, would hamstring government and hurt our schools and universities. Colorado is the only state that has passed a TABOR amendment and they’ve been trying to circumvent it ever since. It’s a bad idea that every other state has rejected. Not here, though. The Senate wants to put it on the ballot in March. Let’s hope the House has better sense.
I’m sure there’s other stuff out there but some of it will be hard to see until it’s passed. Over the next eleven days a flurry of bills will be flying through the legislature as the clock winds down. Like a hangover after a long bender, we’ll find out how much damage is done after the party is over and the guests have gone home.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Ebrun:
You just might want to learn how to figure out who you are replying to. That’s about a half dozen times you’ve responded to my post but called me “D.g.” But perhaps it’s just your way of making sure you can continue to roil and confound this thread…..
And if you cannot understand that I meant “free” of cost to my friend while she was in Spain, I cannot help you. And thanks once again for giving me a lecture that I do not need.
Finally, I’ll again show followers of this thread how you operate:
In your earliest mention of wait times, you said/speculated that the wait for care would be long in Europe or Canada: You said:
“You will probably be put on a long waiting list, if you can get one at all, for such procedures in France, the UK, Canada and other nations with nationalized health care systems.”
Then, when challenged on your Europe claim, you switched your point-making to just Canada. You said: “Wow, Two days to get an MRI in the U.S. You’re talking months in Canada.”
Then, you continued to make your case about long Canadian wait times: “”I have a daughter who lives in Canada, she’s a joint US/Canadian citizen, and I have learned from her how difficult it is to get an MRI there and how long it takes even if one is approved by the government-run medical bureaucracy in Canada.”
Then, suddenly, in your most recent reply to Norma, you back-pedal on Canadian wait times: “The latest medical technology is readily available throughout the U.S. I’ve had similar experiences and was able to get an MRI as soon as I could get to the facility. I am not so sure that is the case in Canada or other countries with nationalized health care.”
“….not so sure that is the case in Canada…..”??
So which is it, Ebrun? Are you certain, or unsure, or, as I believe, just making it all up as you go along about wait times in countries that have nationalized health/medical care??
Sorry for getting you confused with D.g. A.L. But you have to admit, all you liberals sound alike. I’ll try to get you some more authoritative information on wait times in Canada.
But in the meantime, if you don’t understand the principles of basic economics, I cannot help you.
Ebrun:
I don’t need “some more authoritative information on wait times in Canada.” You do. You’re the one who made the long-wait-time assertion, not me.
And thanks for indirectly, but still quite clearly, answering my last question. You were never certain about wait times in those countries, but rather just made “facts” up as you trolled along.
Management of MRI Wait Lists in Canada
Derek J. Emery, MD, Alan J. Forster, MD, MSc, Kaveh G. Shojania, MD, Stephanie Magnan, BSc, Michelle Tubman, MSc, and Thomas E. Feasby, MD
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
Excessive wait times for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are a major problem in the Canadian healthcare system. To determine how requests for MRI studies are managed, the authors performed a survey of public MRI facilities in Canada. Ninety-six per cent had some method to triage MRI requests. However, only 42% had documented guidelines for prioritization, and none employed quality assurance methods to ensure that guidelines were followed. Target timelines for each prioritization category varied widely. Sixteen per cent of centres were not able to meet their target timelines for any prioritization category, and 45% of centres met target times only for some prioritization categories. Strategies for dealing with wait lists primarily involved attempts to increase capacity. No centres attempted to reduce wait times by decreasing inappropriate requests.
A.L., note in particular the first sentence of this research abstract.
One is never sent a complete source citation by a neo-con. But, never mind. I found the actual published findings.
Yes, I’ll agree that it looks like Canada (not France, not UK, not other countries) HAD wait-list issues. I say HAD because the publication was issued in 2009 but based on findings of a survey taken over 9 years ago. Nine years ago (2006), Americans had to wait longer for their MRIs too—much longer than we do today.
The study also noted how Canadian medical centers were fast obtaining additional MRI units to help address the issue, and it also suggested that wait listing in 2006 may have been exacerbated by over-prescription of the still relatively new MRI technology.
Would like to see a more recent study.
And, I will remind you that I never argued that Canadian medical care was superior to US care………
A More Recent Study https://www.cihi.ca/en/types-of-care/specialized-services/medical-imaging
This from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2013 report:
2011-12 Canadian rate of MRIs; 49 per 1,000 population.
2011-12 US rate of MRIs; 98 per 1,000 population
2011-12 Canadian rate of CT scans, 126 per 1,000 population.
2011-12 U.S. rate of CT scans, 265 per 1,000 population.
U.S.. rate double rate in Canada for MRIs, more than double for CI scans. This from Canada’s health information agency.
Scans per population doesn’t speak to wait times at all. Could reflect anything from a healthier Canadian population or over-prescribing in the US
Duck, dodge, deny, distort, equivocate, quibble, shift blame, engage in specious reasoning. Pure sophistry at its best—or worst?
Glad to see you have reached the point of self-realization.
And if you were a scientist, you would have simply agreed with my last post.
Here’s some more info on MRI access in British Columbia., Canada.
http://www.bcliving.ca/health/mri-scans-waiting-for-public-health-care-vs-paying-for-a-private-mri-clinic
MRI wait lists in BC Canada were 12-18 months long. But residents could go to a private clinic in BC for a much shorter wait if they were willing to pay out-of-pocket $699 in Vancouver and $875 in Victoria. The article also points out as of 2010, that there were 6 MRI scanners in Canada per a million residents vs 26.6 per million residents in the U.S.
Better and more recent information, Ebrun. I’m willing to accept that in one country with nationalized public health care, i.e., Canada, getting one specific diagnostic test, an MRI, is problematic in terms of wait time. The articles you have shared of course say nothing about the situation existing in other European countries or about getting any of the other diagnostic tests you first mentioned.
And before going on Medicare, please remember that a US citizen might easily pay over $800 month (and not get any coverage until deductibles are eclipsed) for private health insurance compared to Canada’s free public program coverage, Looking at it that way, is paying $800 in Canada for a needed rare MRI at a private provider all that remarkable?
Norma:
Your experience is not unlike that of most people I know. Yes, getting health care in the US can frequently be had in very timely fashion.
But this whole matter came up because Ebrun implied that one could not get similar timely care in France/Europe. To be exact, he said “You will probably be put on a long waiting list, if you can get one at all, for such procedures in France, the UK, Canada and other nations with nationalized health care systems.”
I challenged his assessment, based upon just about every report I’ve received from family and friends would have traveled to Europe. Those that needed care there, or had family/friends who lived there, have all related no long waits, and were very pleased with the care and personal touch received.
Ebrun’s response was to shift his case-in-point to fit his narrative (a common trolling maneuver), giving an example he’s heard of involving Canada.
(I did not relate it earlier, but, just this summer a friend of mine toured Spain and France, and cut her finger badly while sightseeing the French Pyrenees. She went to a clinic there, saw the US equivalent of a Physician’s Assistant immediately, and was taken care of—for free).
D.g. Her care wasn’t “free.” Some how it was paid for, just not by the patient. If Spain wants to pay for emergency care for American tourists, that great–for the tourist. However, it’s not so great for those in Spain who pay the bills for subsidized care. Inevitably, not charging patients for there own care increases more demand for care and drives up the cost of care for everyone. Sorry to bring you back to basics, but these are concepts right out of ECON 101.
D.G., if you want to go to France when you get sick or need medical care, go for it. I’ll seek medical care here in the U.S where I can get an MRI, cat scan, echocardiogram, ultrasound, cardioversion and most other diagnostic technologies within days if not hours. You will probably be put on a long waiting list, if you can get one at all, for such procedures in France, the UK, Canada and other nations with nationalized health care systems.
The phony ratings by the World Health Organization, itself dominated by Socialist governments, are a sham, as pointed by American medical scholar Scott Atlas:
In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America’s Health Care
Author: Scott W. Atlas MD
ISBN: 978-0-8179-1444-8
Pub Date: January 03, 2012
The real facts on America’s health care dilemma.
Medical care in the United States has been loudly and repeatedly derided as inferior in comparison to health care systems in much of the developed world and even in some relatively undeveloped nations. In Excellent Health offers an alternative view of the much maligned state of health care in America, challenging the statistics often cited as evidence that medical care in the United States is substandard and poor in value relative to that of other countries. Rather than relying on purely subjective judgments about equity and fairness, the book provides extensive, detailed evidence with which to answer the paramount question when considering quality of health care: “Where would you rather be when you are sick?”
Here again D.G., is a treatise based on factual analysis rather than on subjective opinions. You would be wise to take Dr. Atlas’ analysis into account before you fly off to some foreign nation to receive medical care.
Ebron:
You must really think two things: (1) that we are all idiots here ready to lap up your stances, explanations and frequent misrepresentions; and (2) we are unable to determine whether a source has a lean in its point of view.
To start, despite what you imply, one can get “MRI, cat scan, echocardiogram, ultrasound, cardioversion and most other diagnostic technologies” in Europe; it’s not a Third World continent. Your assertion that one would have to wait days is bogus and misleading. By my wife’s, daughter’s, mother’s, all my acquaintances’, and my own experiences, one must often “wait days” in the US for those tests to be scheduled and administered. Unless it’s an absolute emergency, an American rarely walks into their doctor’s office here in the States and “gets” an MRI or ultrasound that same day. I have had two back surgeries in the last two years, and it took 2-4 days each time to schedule/get MRIs. Secondly, every single person (close to two dozen) I know who has traveled or lived in those countries report nothing but positive stories about the high quality and timeliness of health care received or observed there —- equal to (not better than and not worse than) what one gets in the US. So stop making stuff up to fit your narrative.
And please don’t regale us with words of awe and adoration about frequent FOX News medical contributor, arch-conservative Hoover Institution faculty member, and well-known anti-Obamacare zealot Scott Atlas’ supposedly unbiased offerings. He’s chosen his conservative workplace, his publisher, and his media outlets to fit his political and policy stances. So don’t tell us his offerings are wholly objective, because they aren’t…..
I’ll take U.S. health care any day over nationalized health care and believe Dr.Atlas’ rigorous research over left wing zealots’ critiques of American health care. I have received echocardiograms on the same day as prescribed (had to wait over an hour), ultra sounds within one day, appointments for MRIs within one or two days, cardioversion the same week. I’ll admit the MRIs were done before Obamacare kicked in, so I’ll grant your point that it may take much longer now.
I have a daughter who lives in Canada, she’s a joint US/Canadian citizen, and I have learned from her how difficult it is to get an MRI there and how long it takes even if one is approved by the government-run medical bureaucracy in Canada.
Here’s a description of the problems states can face by expanding Medicaid:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/01/19/how-jan-brewer-walked-arizona-into-obamacares-medicaid-expansion-trap/
BTW, I just learned that the feds will pay 100% of Medicaid expansion costs only through 2016.
As you reside in a neo-con information echo-chamber, you are expected to believe FOX contributor Dr. Atlas’ research is rigorous and unbiased and without political or ideological motivation. Enjoy that blissful state of mind.
And you are also expected to trust that a 2.5 year-old, anti-Medicaid-expansion commentary in pro-business Forbes magazine is also relevant today and unbiased. Enjoy believing in dated info from a non-neutral source.
And lastly, you are fully expected to make a claim about changed percentages of Medicaid costs to be covered by the feds without citing a source or without providing what the percentages will be. But I’ll provide that percentage figure to you (for the third time): the feds will pay 90% of costs for new enrollees in states that expand Medicaid until 2020.
:
PS Thanks, A.L., for letting me know Scott Atlas is a regular on Fox News. I’ve never caught his appearance, but I’ll watch for him in the future.
Here’s Atlas’ archive at FOX News:
http://www.foxnews.com/archive/scott-atlas/index.html
Wow,Two days to get an MRI in the U.S. You’re talking months in Canada
Wow, D.g., I find it hard to believe liberals like you really believe that the European health care system, with its emphasis on socialized medicine, is superior to American health care. This suggests to me the anti-American strain that seems implicit is so much of left wing criticism about just about every aspect of American democratic capitalism.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Through personal experience, I am quite content with the health care I am receiving here in the U.S. and am convinced its the best in the world. All I can say to you critics of just about everything American is: Be careful what you wish for. It just might come to fruition.
I have been following these comments and must advise you that I have over the past few years been able to schedule both an MRI and a SCAT scan at my convenience in both NYC and Charlotte within a few days, or in the case of an emergency within a half hour. My situation is not unusual. I do have to schedule annual check ups several weeks in advance, but that is for the simple reason that my doctor sets aside a specific block of time each week for annual check ups. Rest of the time, I am able to get an appointment either in a few days or in one instance, a matter of three/four hours.
That’s exactly my point, Norma. The latest medical technology is readily available throughout the U.S. I’ve had similar experiences and was able to get an MRI as soon as I could get to the facility. I am not so sure that is the case in Canada or other countries with nationalized health care.
disgusted:
Ebrun takes it to a whole new level. He will post something incorrect or off-base, be challenged on it, continue on by double-downing with his same point, and then, when shown to be wrong in so many ways by several posters, will take one of your own counterpoints, claim it as his own, and throw it back at you in lecturing voice. True trolling genius!
I have come across many internet posters who use all sort of debating techniques to chafe their opposition, but, to Ebrun’s credit, he is a master and innovator at the craft.
Talk about shrewd debating techniques, you’re pretty good yourself, D.g. Criticize an opponent by pretending to be complementary. One is baited to thank you for the insult, but I won’t go that far. But I do enjoy an intellectual confrontation as long as we can eschew the personal insults.
Thanks at least for acknowledging that $10B in Medicaid support was “turned down,” and that patients who would have been “newly eligible” and receiving health care benefits under ACA and its Medicaid expansion were left out in the cold, coverage-wise. Nice to see a bit of honesty and “owning it” on your part. Estimates have all said that the NCGOP’s “opting out” decision kept between 400-500,000 NC’ers from coverage. But then again, I’m sure you are still proud of that decision…
Medicaid reimbursements resulted in substantial cost overruns for years that were diverting state funds from public education and other spending priorities. Can you imagine what an additional half a million clients would do to state budget priorities, not to mention the adverse impacts on availability of care from private providers. There are a number of free or low cost medical clinics throughout the state that provide services to those low income individuals (not families who are eligible for Medicaid now) without health insurance.
Sure, Ebrun. Classic neo-con discourse tactics. Don’t address challenges to your position, but rather avoid answers, divert the topic, provide limited/false info, and obfuscate whenever possible.
I don’t have to “imagine what an additional half million clients would do to a state budget” because the feds would have paid all expanded care expenses from 2014 until 2020, and 90% of it thereafter. Forget that little “factoid”?
Your saying “not to mention the adverse impacts on availability of care from private providers,” just shows that you just don’t want healthcare for all those who need it (can’t have the great unwashed your waiting room, can you?).
And, just as your sort says that charities can end poverty and homelessness without help from government (when they can’t), you imply that there are free clinics that all half-million low-income NC’ers can go for affordable or free care (which is bogus). You are laughably predictable in your point-making and callousness.
If the state didn’t turn down 10 BILLION dollars in Federal Medicaid money there would be no overrun.
That’s wrong. The Medicaid money the state turned down under Obamacare would have been for newly eligible Medicaid patients. It was not to help ease cost overruns under the existing Medicaid program with its huge cost overruns that had been reoccurring for years even before Obamacare.
Sorry, I did make a typo. The Medicaid funds available under Obamacare would be FOR newly eligible recipients since Obamacare greatly expanded Medicaid eligibility.
But you’ll have do do your own research on Medicaid cost overruns in NC, which occurred for many years under both Democrat and Republican control of the state budget process.
You note that expansion of Medicaid comes from “federal taxes.” Sure, but last time I checked NC residents are required to pay federal taxes. In reality, expansion of Medicaid is financed through borrowing, so state participation merely adds to the national debt. You might not have to deal with it now, but you grand kids will.
And Dg, do you remember that old sage advice: ” If you think medical care is expensive now, just wait till its free.” That’s happening before our very eyes and accessibility is being reduced at the same time. Note how many physicians are refusing to take Medicaid patients at a time when liberals want to dramatically increase those eligible for this “free” care.
You, Ebrun, are in full “walking back” mode and resorting to word-play now as you try to divert and confuse on the topic.
The explanation of your “so-called” typo (it’s not a typo, BTW; it is incorrect/poor word usage) does not serve as any sort of explanation for your points/position. It is offered to simply roil and misdirect the thread.
And you are trying to misinform again. Medicaid is not paid for via federal borrowing; it’s paid for by federal taxes. Period.
No, we don’t have to do our “own research on Medicaid cost overruns in NC” to understand that not expanding Medicaid is adversely and unnecessarily hurting a half million near-poor NC’ers, or to see that NC residents are paying billions in federal Medicaid taxes but the state is getting no benefit back—all because the NCGOP is playing petty politics (and hating on this POTUS) by not expanding eligibility.
My, you’ve even turned to that old device used by your ilk when all your other arguments fail to hold water—you wring you hands over the national debt and imply that the richest nation in the world can’t afford to spend money on the health of its disadvantaged citizens.
But, really, thanks for the marvelous demonstration of neo-con tactics in public discourse. Watching your ideology-driven handiwork has been educational.
I have to agree with disgusted. You’ve got to be a Republican operative……..
You’ve proven once again that’s its hard for liberals to deal with facts that contradict their political views. Ignore them and you can create that placebo effect.
But if you don’t think that the U.S. government is borrowing money to pay for entitlement programs like Medicaid, you really are stuck in fantasyland.
Hah! Another response (how many does that make now?) from Ebrun that ignores the points made in a post he’s responding to.
He’s proven once again that it’s hard for neo-cons to offer true facts or respond directly when their misinformation is challenged.
It’s best people carefully scrutinize and contest whatever these folks offer up. Similarly, I’ve learned to follow their “misdirects” (i.e., those points they clearly avoid responding to). Doing less than that gives them an open field for their rote bullet-pointing.
Disgusted: I admire you. Your patience and civil responses to what the Ebrun types offer up in the public debate on this topic and others are really remarkable. As you’ve likely noticed, I still have work to do on not letting their claptrap get under my skin………
I think you are confused between the national DEBT and the annual DEFICIT.
While the deficit will go up and down, the national DEBT INCREASES WHENEVER there is an annual deficit. That’s Econ 101, D.g..(BTW, the deficit is projected to rise rapidly again toward the end of the decade).
Your lack of knowledge regarding Medicaid cost overruns in NC just shows me you are unfamiliar with the state budgetary process. But you’re not alone. Most liberals have little understanding that the state’s budget must be balanced and how that is accomplished.
Under Medicaid, those eligible (based on income levels) are children and their families, the elderly and the disabled. Under Medicaid expansion, everyone with an income under around 138 percent of the poverty level would be eligible. In effect, this would make childless couples and single adults eligible, as well as increasing the income eligibility limits for those already eligible (i.e., children, their parents, elderly and disabled).
The expansion would be funded only to the extent that would be needed to cover the costs of the new enrollees at 90/10 federal /state split for the first several years.The state would still have to cover the cost of the original eligible enrollees at a much higher level. ( If I remember correctly, the current federal/state funding percentage is 65/35).
Eventually, the state would have to fund ALL enrollees at a much higher level, probably 65/35. This represents a substantial threat to future state revenues and is one reason why over 26 states have not accepted the Medicaid expansion
Thanks so much for the pedantic lecture, replete again with incorrect information, Ebrun.
Again, it’s 100% fed payment from 2104 to 2010, 90% fed / 10% state thereafter.
And, as with the topic of future SCOTUS rulings on Voter ID, you are again citing your own personal clairvoyance as a source of information when arguing that the share will be 65% / 35% in the future.
Your constant misrepresentation of truth and facts is tedious and should be an embarrassment to you. But I guess trolls have no shame. Plus, you’ve made it perfectly clear that you will be relentless in your mission to deliberately muddle, misdirect, and confound the discussion.
I am disappointed to see A.L., that like so many on the left, when you start to lose an argument on the facts, you resort to personal insults. I’ll not respond in kind, but point out that the federal/state share of traditional Medicaid reimbursements has been 65/35 for years and there would have to be new federal legislation to change that formula.
Dg, here’s little gem for you from Healthcare.gov, the official web site of the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Not the phrase “millions of Americans.”
How can I get health care if I fall into the coverage gap?
“The health care law has expanded funding to community health centers, which provide primary care for millions of Americans. These centers provide services on a sliding scale based on your income. Find a community health center near you.”
Why are we maintaining a health care system that is the most expensive in the world?Because it is the best in the world. Unfortunately, Obamacare will result in a decrease in quality while increasing costs for all but those receiving government subsidized insurance.
Here’s some more info on Medicaid cost overruns in NC:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=10532
Meidcaid has been “proven to save the state money”? Are you serious? Medicaid cost overruns plagued the state budget for years. Can it be that you are a George Orwell clone trying to replicate “1984” all over again?
I had a mild headache before reading of all this absolute insanity. Now I need serious pain medication. There is nothing worse in political life than stupid people who are also self righteous and cannot learn from others experiences. Privatize Medicaid!*&!$# Pass TABOR*!?$**^!! Perhaps all these legislators can become Cabinet members for a Trump administration. Then we can all become emigrants.
I really don’t se a problem with moving the primary election early. 2008 was a very odd election so I would not count on NC still being in the mix every May.
You are so right, Thomas.
Of all the possible actions, TABOR is the really scary one.
Yes, NC is a already a state, like a few others (e.g., KS. MI, and WS come to mind) that’s been turned on its head politically, socially, and fiscally. No doubt, NC has rightfully been made a national laughingstock for some of its legislative efforts (e.g., sea-level rise, possum-dropping, magistrate-SSM, declining $10B in federal Medicaid dollars, and let’s not forget the bill to create a state religion).
But, with a TABOR self-imposing severe limits on the state’s future flexibility and capacity to allocate and invest state resources in critically-needed ways, NC would become the only state that chose to put itself square in the cross-hairs of fiscal chaos, and be viewed as a state run by the extreme crazies.
Again, as you have said, only one state has passed a TABOR (CO), and they’ve had to hold two subsequent referendums and pass many bills to try (many fiscal experts say unsuccessfully) to fix budget issues the TABOR has caused. And, if passed here, NC’s long-held Triple-A credit rating, a rarity among states, will suffer quickly, as bond ratings agencies view TABOR as ideological-driven but fiscally irresponsible. This will force the state —and thus all of us taxpayers— to pay more every time the state needs to borrow.
With the economic future always uncertain, why would any sane government want to hamstring itself by limiting its options to address issues/emergencies or to invest in economic opportunities? Then again, sanity does not rule the roost in the GOP-led NCGA.
TABOR would be a disaster.