text:
Talk:Abstraction inversion

Facade pattern?
What about the Facade pattern? (Originally asked by Wlievens on 2004-05-16 12:12:29, linked by PJTraill 01:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

Abstraction, and what constitutes abstraction inversion
The enthymeme (syllogism with an unstated premise - PJTraill 23:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)) I see in this entry is that abstraction inversion is bad. Perhaps I misunderstand, but isn't the point of abstraction to put simple wrappers around complex things? High level languages are simple constructs under which, at the lowest level, is assembly language; in general, code for a high level language using a well designed framework or library is very simple, but the assembly language equivalent is so complex that it is utterly beyond the capacity of humans to work with the same operations at the level of machine instructions. Yet by the description given in the article, this would seem to be abstraction inversion, which everyone seems to imply is bad. Similarly, writing functions seems to be an act of abstraction inversion as well: instead of typing out code for an entire sub-routine, the complex subroutine is packaged with a simple function's interface. Is this abstraction inversion and "the incorrect way" or is something amiss in the article, or my understanding? Am I mistaken? Is my example a bad example?

Would somebody who groks this please give a few good examples of what abstraction inversion is, and what it is not, and what the crucial differences are between the two?

FYI, I didn't fundamentally understand the insights behind data abstraction and object-oriented programming until I read the intro to Objective-C (published by Apple), which described abstraction with an analogy of the mechanical watch: the internals of the watch are incredibly complex, full of gears of different ratios, escapement mechanisms, springs, and co-axial shafts, but the interface uses data abstraction (in the mechanical/physical sense) to present us with an elegant, simple interface: two watch arms with their own states (namely, their position relative to the watch face), and a knob to adjust the states. That way, the user never has to bother with how it works (complex), just how to work it (simple). Yet, a casual glance at this seems to show that the watch "creates abstract (or simple) constructs on top of concrete (or complex) constructs. The correct way is considered to be the other way round — to create complex constructs on top of more basic constructs." (Quoted from the Wiki article.)

Is this correct? Is it possible that "the correct way" as described in this article is actually mistaken? Why would anyone want to increase complexity? I want my complexity to be canned away so I don't have to think about or deal with it.

Perhaps the article should be ammended so as to create less confusion. I looked up "abstraction inversion" here in order to clarify my confusion, but it has only furthered it.

(Contributed on 2006-02-03 06:28:19 by Berkana)

 * I agree that the whole thing is dubious, and I hope that the remarks on difficulties recognising it suggest as much, but I have a feeling there is something in it, and it would be useful to disentangle the whole thing. Other articles I have found on the internet have not been any clearer. PJTraill 23:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope usefully extended, standard anti-pattern structure
I hope that my latest series of edits to this article is useful: it is the result of a fair amount of googling, but it may need some restructuring. I feel at any rate that it is becoming clearer what abstraction inversion is really about, in particular the problem of exposing too weak interfaces makes much more sense to me than too simple interfaces.

It also seems to me that we should try to develop a standard structure for anti-pattern articles, something like: PJTraill 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * description
 * symptoms / recognition
 * ill-effects
 * cure
 * examples from the real world
 * a worked example, with code
 * links

Bad Examples
Some of the examples in the "Examples" section are debatable at best, just plain wrong at worst.

 * I'm not really sure why the author thinks that Java's Runnable.run interface is an abstraction inversion.
 * The point about functors in the STL in C++ is wrong, assuming I'm understanding it properly. The STL specifically allows function pointers to be used as functors, so there's generally no need to create a new class (unless you need multiple instances for some reason).
 * The microkernel argument is a bit controversial, and the description does not explain the reason it is thought to be an abstraction inversion (the reader would have to actually read the cited sources to find that out).
 * The Scheme example is useless to any reader that is not intimately familiar with Scheme.
 * Likewise, the Subversion example does not provide any value to a reader that is not familiar with the implementation details of Subversion, since none are provided.

The other examples seem relatively reasonable. However, I think a more concrete example (perhaps including actual code or at least pseudo-code) for this would be extremely helpful to readers.

REggert (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the Scheme example since not only is it useless to those not intimately familiar with Scheme, it's useless to those not intimately familiar with details of many different approaches to implementing full continuations for Scheme. As stated, it's also wrong (with respect to the semantics of Scheme and many common implementation approaches), and moreover misleading (in that people will get the wrong idea about tradeoffs between tail-recursive and imperative looping). Finally, the linked tunes.org discussion is confused: the problem being discussed is to do with the approach to implementing full continuations, not with tail recursion itself, despite what the author thinks. It might make sense to talk about abstraction inversion using full continuations as an example, since they're frequently used to implement many more specialized control structures (exceptions, non-local return, coroutines, partial/delimited continuations), but writing that up effectively starts to look out of place in an "Examples" section. All in all, the Scheme example must go. Leastfixedpoint (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed: " An example from Java is the method, required by the method  ."

This is really an incorrect example since Runnable is an interface, and yes that interface must be implemented by some other class that implements Runnable, but only then could you use the Runnable instance... Otherwise you have a function/method signature definition and nothing else, so it really is not this anti-patter at all.

I think the Math or System libraries could have better examples. Math could, if you for example you used Math.sin and Math.cos used Math.tan, or something like that maybe?? The System library surely must have some examples.

Perhaps this is a java example, if you were to create a Thread that ran on a 100ms timer, and it called the garbage collector - that would be re-implementing the garbage collection in way?? 76.28.198.13 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Even worse, Lua recently added integer types that it uses for whole values. --Steinm07 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Examples still bad
Most examples are still bad as of 2015-01-27. They seem opinionated and poorly supported. It's very hard to understand, from this article and its examples, exactly what Abstraction Inversion is, and how it differs from plain Abstraction. This is a very poor article. 200.0.230.235 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ironic Examples
Along the lines of the example regarding relational databases with weak query interfaces, it might be interesting to cite the Wikipedia itself as a similar case in point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.10.146 (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Using Private-Access-Modifier instead of Protected
At work we use the Eclipse platform. Often when I have the wish to implement the same functionality in my plugin, i run into the problem that the available code cannot be reused because a required methods is marked as private. If it were, one could simply overwritten or call it from a subclass. This leads to copy & paste programming. The interessting thing on that is that this is mentioned in the book "Contributing to Eclipse: Principles, Patterns, and Plug-Ins: Principles, Patterns and Plugins (Eclipse Series)" as normal. I suggest to add Eclipse as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.57.133 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abstraction inversion


text:
GPRS core network

The GPRS core network is the central part of the general packet radio service (GPRS) which allows 2G, 3G and WCDMA mobile networks to transmit Internet Protocol (IP) packets to external networks such as the Internet. The GPRS system is an integrated part of the GSM network switching subsystem.

The network provides mobility management, session management and transport for IP packet services in GSM and WCDMA networks. The core network also provides support for other functions such as billing and lawful interception. It was also proposed, at one stage, to support packet radio services in the US D-AMPS TDMA system, however, in practice, all of these networks have been converted to GSM so this option has become irrelevant.

PRS module is an open standards driven system. The standardization body is the 3GPP.

GPRS tunnelling protocol (GTP)
GPRS Tunnelling Protocol is the defining IP-based protocol of the GPRS core network. Primarily it is the protocol which allows end users of a GSM or WCDMA network to move from place to place while continuing to connect to the Internet as if from one location at the Gateway GPRS support node (GGSN). It does this by carrying the subscriber's data from the subscriber's current serving GPRS support node (SGSN) to the GGSN which is handling the subscriber's session. Three forms of GTP are used by the GPRS core network.

 * GTP-U: for transfer of user data in separated tunnels for each Packet Data Protocol (PDP) context
 * GTP-C: for control reasons including:
 * setup and deletion of PDP contexts;
 * verification of GSN reachability;
 * updates; e.g., as subscribers move from one SGSN to another.

 * GTP' (pronounced "GTP Prime"): for transfer of charging data to the Charging Gateway Function.

GPRS support nodes (GSN)
A GSN is a network node that supports the use of GPRS in the GSM core network. All GSNs should have a Gn interface and support the GPRS tunneling protocol. There are two key variants of the GSN, namely gateway GPRS support node and serving GPRS support node.

Gateway GPRS support node (GGSN)
The gateway GPRS support node (GGSN) is one of two components of the GPRS PS domain. The GGSN together with the SGSN handle packet transmissions between the GPRS network and external packet-switched networks, such as the Internet or an X.25 network.

From an external network's point of view, the GGSN is a router to a "sub-network", because the GGSN ‘hides’ the GPRS infrastructure from the external network. When the GGSN receives data addressed to a specific user, it checks if the user is active. If it is, the GGSN forwards the data to the SGSN serving the mobile user, but if the mobile user is inactive, the data is discarded. In the other direction, mobile-originated packets are routed to the right network by the GGSN.

The GGSN is the anchor point that enables the mobility of the user terminal in the GPRS/UMTS networks. In essence, it carries out the role in GPRS equivalent to the home agent in Mobile IP. It maintains routing necessary to tunnel the protocol data units (PDUs) to the SGSN that services a particular mobile station (MS).

The GGSN converts the GPRS packets coming from the SGSN into the appropriate packet data protocol (PDP) format (e.g., IP or X.25) and sends them out on the corresponding packet data network. In the other direction, PDP addresses of incoming data packets are converted to the GSM address of the destination user. The readdressed packets are sent to the responsible SGSN. For this purpose, the GGSN stores the current SGSN address of the user and his or her profile in its location register. The GGSN is responsible for IP address assignment and is the default router for the connected user equipment (UE). The GGSN also performs authentication and charging functions.

Other functions include subscriber screening, IP pool management and address mapping, QoS and PDP context enforcement.

With LTE scenario the GGSN functionality moves to SAE gateway (with SGSN functionality working in MME).

Serving GPRS support node (SGSN)
The Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) is the node that is serving the MS/UE. The SGSN supports GPRS and/or UMTS. The SGSN keeps track of the location of an individual MS/UE and performs security functions and access control. The SGSN is connected to the GERAN base station system through the Gb or Iu interface and/or to the UTRAN through the Iu interface. A SGSN is responsible for the delivery of data packets from and to the mobile stations within its geographical service area. Its tasks include packet routing and transfer, mobility management (attach/detach and location management), logical link management, and authentication and charging functions. The location register of the SGSN stores location information (e.g., current cell, current VLR) and user profiles (e.g., IMSI, address(es) used in the packet data network) of all GPRS users registered with it.

Common SGSN functions

 * Detunnel GTP packets from the GGSN (downlink)
 * Tunnel IP packets toward the GGSN (uplink)
 * Carry out mobility management when a standby mode mobile moves from one routing area to another routing area
 * Billing a user according to data used.
 * Mobile Equipment Identity Check Procedure (Gf/S13' interfaces).
 * The SMS GMSCs and SMS IWMSCs support SMS transmission via the SGSN.
 * The Offline Charging System (OFCS) collects charging records from SGSNs.
 * The SGSN contains mechanisms for avoiding and handling overload situations.
 * The SGSN communicate with other SGSN(s) and/or MME(s) (Mobility Management Entity) (Gn/S16/S3 interfaces)

GSM/EDGE specific SGSN functions
Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) specific SGSN functions and characteristics are:
 * Maximum data rate of approx. 60 kbit/s (150 kbit/s for EDGE) per subscriber
 * Connect via Frame Relay or IP to the packet control unit using the Gb protocol stack
 * Accept uplink data to form IP packets
 * Encrypt downlink data, decrypt uplink data
 * Carry out mobility management to the level of a cell for connected mode mobiles

WCDMA specific SGSN functions

 * Carry up to about 42 Mbit/s traffic downlink and 5.8 Mbit/s traffic uplink (HSPA+)
 * Tunnel/detunnel downlink/uplink packets toward the radio network controller (RNC)

Access point
An access point is:
 * An IP network to which a mobile set can be connected
 * A set of settings that are used for that connection
 * A particular option in a set of settings in a mobile phone

When a GPRS mobile phone sets up a PDP context, the access point is selected. At this point an Access Point Name (APN) is determined

 * Example: aricenttechnologies.mnc012.mcc345.gprs
 * Example: geocell
 * Example: internet
 * Example: hcl.cisco.ggsn

This access point is then used in a DNS query to a private DNS network. This process (called APN resolution) finally gives the IP address of the GGSN which should serve the access point. At this point a PDP context can be activated.

PDP context
The packet data protocol (PDP; e.g., IP, X.25, FrameRelay) context is a data structure present on both the serving GPRS support node (SGSN) and the gateway GPRS support node (GGSN) which contains the subscriber's session information when the subscriber has an active session. When a mobile wants to use GPRS, it must first attach and then activate a PDP context. This allocates a PDP context data structure in the SGSN that the subscriber is currently visiting and the GGSN serving the subscriber's access point. The data recorded includes

 * Subscriber's IP address
 * Subscriber's IMSI
 * Subscriber's Tunnel Endpoint ID (TEID) at the GGSN
 * Subscriber's Tunnel Endpoint ID (TEID) at the SGSN

Reference points and interfaces
Within the GPRS core network standards, there are a number of interfaces and reference points (logical points of connection that probably share a common physical connection with other reference points). Some of these names can be seen in the network structure diagram on this page.

Interfaces in the GPRS network

 * Ga: The interface serves the CDRs (accounting-records) which are written in the GSN and sent to the charging gateway (CG). This interface uses a GTP-based protocol, with modifications that supports CDRs (Called GTP'  and GTP prime).
 * Gb: Interface between the base station subsystem and the SGSN the transmission protocol could be Frame Relay or IP.
 * Iu: Interface between the Radio Network Controller and the SGSN. The interface exchanges signaling and payload.
 * Gc: Interface between the GGSN and HLR so that the GGSN can get the location details of a mobile station. To avoid implementing MAP/SS7 in the GGSN, this interface is optional. When not present, the GGSN routes inquires to the HLR via an SGSN.
 * Gd: Interface between the SGSN and the SMS Gateway. Can use MAP1, MAP2 or MAP3.
 * Ge: The interface between the SGSN and the service control point (SCP); uses the CAP protocol.
 * Gf: The interface between the SGSN and the Equipment Identity Register (EIR), used for checking the mobile's equipment identity number (IMEI) against a list of reported stolen mobile phones.
 * Gi: IP-based interface between the GGSN and a public data network (PDN) either directly to the Internet or through a WAP gateway.
 * Gmb: The interface between the GGSN and the Broadcast-Multicast Service Center (BM-SC), used for controlling MBMS bearers.
 * Gn: IP-based interface between SGSN and other SGSNs and (internal) GGSNs. DNS also shares this interface. Uses the GTP Protocol.
 * Gp: IP-based interface between internal SGSN and external GGSNs. Between the SGSN and the external GGSN, there is the border gateway (which is essentially a firewall). Also uses the GTP Protocol.
 * Gr: Interface between the SGSN and the HLR. Messages going through this interface uses the MAP3 protocol.
 * Gs: Interface between the SGSN and the MSC (VLR). Uses the BSSAP+ protocol. This interface allows paging and station availability when it performs data transfer. When the station is attached to the GPRS network, the SGSN keeps track of which routing area (RA) the station is attached to. An RA is a part of a larger location area (LA). When a station is paged this information is used to conserve network resources. When the station performs a PDP context, the SGSN has the exact BTS the station is using.
 * Gx: The online policy interface between the GGSN and the charging rules function (CRF). It is used for provisioning service data flow based on charging rules. Uses the diameter protocol.
 * Gy: The online charging interface between the GGSN and the online charging system (OCS). Uses the diameter protocol (DCCA application).
 * Gz: The off-line (CDR-based) charging interface between the GGSN and the Charging system Uses GTP'.
 * Lg: The interface between the SGSN and the Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC), used for location-based services.
 * S3: This interface is defined between the SGSN and the MME and it is used to exchange user and bearer information in inter-system mobility procedures. This interface is implemented using eGTP-C.
 * S4: This interface is defined between the SGSN and the SGW (Serving Gateway). The term "S4-SGSN" refers to a Release-8 SGSN that has at least one set of S4/S3/S16 interfaces enabled.
 * S6d: The interface between SGSN and Home Subscriber Server (HSS). It is a Diameter based interface that is used for transferring subscription and authentication data of the user to HSS for authenticating and authorizing user access.
 * S13': This interface is defined between the SGSN and the EIR (Equipment Identity Register). The S13' interface applies only to the S4-based SGSN. The interface is based on Diameter protocol.
 * S16: This interface is defined between two SGSNs and exclusively uses GTPv2-C.

Main Reference

 * 3GPP TS 23.060 V13.4.0 (2015-09)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: GPRS core network


text:
James Fox (singer)

James Richard Mullett (born 6 April 1976), known professionally as James Fox, is a Welsh pop singer, songwriter, pianist and guitarist. He represented the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 in Istanbul. In 2008, he wrote and recorded the Cardiff City F.C. FA Cup Final song, "Bluebirds Flying High".

Biography
Fox was born in Cardiff and grew up in Gilfach, Bargoed, in the Rhymney Valley, a former mining community in south-east Wales. Inspired by his musician father, Richard, Fox took piano lessons from the age of six, and later taught himself to play guitar, the drums, harmonica and mandolin. He attended Heolddu Comprehensive School.

Fox is a passionate supporter of The Bluebirds, Cardiff City. He regularly turns out for The Bluebirds' charity teams, and played in both of the Legend Matches which marked the team's last game at Ninian Park and first game at Cardiff City Stadium.

Professional career
Fox's professional musical career began at age 15, when along with elder brother Dean he toured the South Wales working man's clubs circuit, in various bands, He worked for twelve years as a singer on cruise ships and in pubs and clubs, both under his real name and the stage name Nick James. In 2000, he formed the boy band Force 5 with his friend Kevin Simm. They worked mainly on Blackpool's Golden Mile, before breaking up when Simm joined Liberty X.

In 2003, he took part in the BBC's Fame Academy and took the stage name James Fox. He came fifth and subsequently appeared on the albums Fame Academy: Bee Gees Special (Polydor, August 2003) and Fame Academy – The Finalists (Polydor, October 2003). He also duetted on the co-written track, "In Your Smile" which appeared on winner Alistair Griffin's début album Bring It On

The following year, he represented the UK in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 with the song "Hold Onto Our Love". It reached number 13 in the UK chart and finished 16th out of 24 finalists at the contest with 29 points. He later claimed that the voting had been biased.

Fox was invited by Wayne David MP to sing the UK's Eurovision entry live at the House of Commons, and also to perform at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office 'Meet the Neighbours' Festival. He was also invited to sing live at the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff.

Fox has performed his original songs across the United Kingdom and the United States of America, including The Bedford at The Canal Room New York and The Regal Room in London, as well as in his home town.

He has supported a number of artists. These include Lulu, Wet Wet Wet, Natasha Bedingfield, Clare Teal, Honey Ryder, Will Young and Tina Turner.

He has performed live for British troops on active service in Afghanistan, Bosnia, The Falkland Islands and Iraq many times, as well as undertaking a number of charity performances. He was invited to perform twice at the Royal British Legion Remembrance Day Festival at the Royal Albert Hall, in the presence of the Queen.

In 2007 he released Six String, a six-track EP of original songs. He wrote "Bluebirds Flying High" which became the official Cardiff City Football Club single for the 2008 FA Cup Final.

In 2008, "Higher" the lead single from Fox's debut album Rocking Chairs And Lemonade was released on his own Plastic Tomato label. The single later became snooker ace Mark Williams entrance music from the 2010 World Snooker Championship onwards. The album included the tracks from Six String, and five other original tunes. That same year he co-wrote and recorded several tracks with Lucie Silvas for inclusion on her third studio album.

On 24 October 2012, Fox launched his single "Landlocked" with a live performance, its profits going to The Royal British legion's annual Poppy Appeal. He was joined on stage by Jon Green on rhythm guitar at the Poppy Appeal Launch gig in Trafalgar Square.

Musical theatre
In 2004, Fox went on to play Judas in the Bill Kenwright touring production of Jesus Christ Superstar to good reviews. Consequently, Tim Rice recommended him for the lead role in the Billy Joel/Twyla Tharp musical Movin' Out in America. Fox won the role, and made his début on Broadway on 6 April 2005. He later joined the North American touring production of Movin' Out.

In March 2006, Fox returned to the UK to take up the role of "Piano Man" in the European première of Movin' Out in The West End at the Apollo Victoria Theatre. Billy Joel said, via a live video link-up at the press launch at Ronnie Scott's jazz club, "I'm particularly pleased that the incredibly talented James Fox will be returning to home turf; he has been wowing audiences here, and he's going to continue to do so there." Between October 2006 and January 2007, Fox rejoined the American tour of Movin' Out, taking time off to return to the UK for a series of gigs. After this, he returned to the UK on a permanent basis.

In July 2010, Fox took the role of Freddie "The American" Trumper in the 2010–2011 UK touring production of the Andersson/Rice/Ulveaus musical Chess, opening in Newcastle.

On 29 September 2012, Fox took over the shared role of Paul McCartney in The Beatles tribute show Let it Be at The Prince of Wales Theatre in London's West End. The show opened to mixed reviews. In June 2013, Fox opened the Beatles themed tribute show Let It Be on Broadway. Fox was the poster boy, starting in the promotional video singing "Let It Be" in the style of Paul McCartney, and on sides of a New York City greyhound bus. Like the West End production the show opened to mixed reviews and closed six weeks into its proposed four-month run. Fox returned to the West End production before quitting in October 2013 after 12 months in the role. Fox returned to Let it Be in the West End in 2014 until the run finished on 20 September 2014.

Discography

 * Singles
 * 2004: "Hold Onto Our Love" (Sony records) UK #13, Wales #7
 * 2008: "Bluebirds Flying High" (Plastic Tomato records) UK #15
 * 2008: "Higher" (Plastic Tomato records)
 * 2009: "Say What You Like"
 * 2010: "Bluebirds Flying High (Playoff Final mix)"
 * 2012: "Landlocked"
 * 2018: "Hope"

 * EP
 * 2007: Six String (Plastic Tomato)

 * Album
 * 2008: Rocking Chairs And Lemonade (Plastic Tomato)

title: James Fox (singer)


text:
Laminectomy

A laminectomy is a surgical procedure that removes a portion of a vertebra called the lamina, which is the roof of the spinal canal. It is a major spine operation with residual scar tissue and may result in postlaminectomy syndrome. Depending on the problem, more conservative treatments (e.g., small endoscopic procedures, without bone removal) may be viable.

Method
The lamina is a posterior arch of the vertebral bone lying between the spinous process (which juts out in the middle) and the more lateral pedicles and the transverse processes of each vertebra. The pair of laminae, along with the spinous process, make up the posterior wall of the bony spinal canal. Although the literal meaning of laminectomy is 'excision of the lamina', a conventional laminectomy in neurosurgery and orthopedics involves excision of the supraspinous ligament and some or all of the spinous process. Removal of these structures with an open technique requires disconnecting the many muscles of the back attached to them. A laminectomy performed as a minimal spinal surgery procedure is a tissue-preserving surgery that leaves more of the muscle intact and spares the spinal process. Another procedure, called the laminotomy, is the removal of a mid-portion of one lamina and may be done either with a conventional open technique or in a minimalistic fashion with the use of tubular retractors and endoscopes.

The reason for lamina removal is rarely, if ever, because the lamina itself is diseased; rather, it is done to break the continuity of the rigid ring of the spinal canal to allow the soft tissues within the canal to: 1) expand (decompress); 2) change the contour of the vertebral column; or 3) permit access to deeper tissue inside the spinal canal. A laminectomy is also the name of a spinal operation that conventionally includes the removal of one or both lamina, as well as other posterior supporting structures of the vertebral column, including ligaments and additional bone. The actual bone removal may be carried out with a variety of surgical tools, including drills, rongeurs and lasers.

The success rate of a laminectomy depends on the specific reason for the operation, as well as proper patient selection and the surgeon's technical ability. The first laminectomy was performed in 1887 by Victor Alexander Haden Horsley, a professor of surgery at University College London. A laminectomy can treat severe spinal stenosis by relieving pressure on the spinal cord or nerve roots, provide access to a tumor or other mass lying in or around the spinal cord, or help in tailoring the contour of the vertebral column to correct a spinal deformity such as kyphosis. A common type of laminectomy is performed to permit the removal or reshaping of a spinal disc as part of a lumbar discectomy. This is a treatment for a herniated, bulging, or degenerated disc.

The recovery period after a laminectomy depends on the specific operative technique, with minimally invasive procedures having significantly shorter recovery periods than open surgery. Removal of substantial amounts of bone and tissue may require additional procedures such as spinal fusion to stabilize the spine and generally require a much longer recovery period than a simple laminectomy.

With spinal fusion, the recovery time may be longer. In some cases after laminectomy and spinal fusion, it may take several months to return to normal activities. Potential complications include bleeding, infection, blood clots, nerve injury, and spinal fluid leak.

For spinal stenosis
Most commonly, a laminectomy is performed to treat spinal stenosis. Spinal stenosis is the single most common diagnosis that leads to spinal surgery, of which a laminectomy represents one component. The lamina of the vertebra is removed or trimmed to widen the spinal canal and create more space for the spinal nerves and thecal sac. Surgical treatment that includes a laminectomy is the most effective remedy for severe spinal stenosis; however, most cases of spinal stenosis are not severe enough to require surgery. When the disabling symptoms of spinal stenosis are primarily neurogenic claudication and the laminectomy is done without spinal fusion, there is generally a more rapid recovery with less blood loss. However, if the spinal column is unstable and fusion is required, the recovery period can last from several months to more than a year, and the likelihood of symptom relief is far less probable.

Results
In most known cases of lumbar and thoracic laminectomies, patients tend to recover slowly, with recurring pain or spinal stenosis persisting for up to 18 months after the procedure. According to a World Health Organization census in 2001, most patients who had undergone a lumbar laminectomy recovered normal function within one year of their operation.

Back surgery can relieve pressure on the spine, but it is not a cure-all for spinal stenosis. There may be considerable pain immediately after the operation, and pain may persist on a longer-term basis. For some people, recovery can take weeks or months and may require long-term occupational and physical therapy. Surgery does not stop the degenerative process and symptoms may reappear within several years.

title: Laminectomy


text:
Cover date

The cover date of a periodical publication is the date displayed on the cover, which is not necessarily the true date of publication (the on-sale date or release date); later cover dates are common in magazine and comic book publishing. More unusually, Le Monde is a daily newspaper published the afternoon before its cover date. For some publications, the cover date may not be found on the cover, but rather on an inside jacket or on an interior page.

Magazines
In the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the standard practice is to display on magazine covers a date which is some weeks or months in the future from the publishing or release date. There are two reasons for this discrepancy: first, to allow magazines to continue appearing "current" to consumers even after they have been on sale for some time (since not all magazines will be sold immediately), and second, to inform newsstands when an unsold magazine can be removed from the stands and returned to the publisher or be destroyed (in this case, the cover date is also the pull date).

Weeklies (such as Time and Newsweek) are generally dated a week ahead. Monthlies (such as National Geographic Magazine) are generally dated a month ahead, and quarterlies are generally dated three months ahead.

In other countries, the cover date usually matches more closely the date of publication, and may indeed be identical where weekly magazines are concerned.

In all markets, it is rare for monthly magazines to indicate a particular day of the month: thus issues are dated May 2016, and so on, whereas weekly magazines may be dated 17 May 2016.

Comic books
The general practice of most mainstream comic book companies since the creation of the comic book in the 1930s was to date individual issues by putting the name of a month (and much later the year as well) on the cover which was generally two months after the release date. For example, a 1951 issue of Superman which had the cover date of July would have been published two months earlier from that date in the month of May, generally speaking. In 1973 the discrepancy between the cover date and the publishing date went from two months to three months. In 1989 the cover date and publishing date discrepancy was changed back to two months, though generally each comic book company now uses its own system.

Of the two major American comic book publishers, DC Comics continues to put cover dates on the cover. Marvel Comics opted against putting cover dates on the cover in October 1999; instead, the "cover" date was moved to the indicia on an interior page.

title: Cover date


text:
Betsy McCaughey

Elizabeth Helen McCaughey (born October 20, 1948 formerly known as Betsy McCaughey Ross), is an American politician who was the lieutenant governor of New York from 1995 to 1998, during the first term of Governor George Pataki. She unsuccessfully sought the Democratic Party nomination for governor after Pataki dropped her from his 1998 ticket, and she ended up on the ballot under the Liberal Party line. In August 2016 the Donald Trump presidential campaign announced that she had joined the campaign as an economic adviser.

A historian by training, with a PhD from Columbia University, McCaughey has, over the years, provided conservative media commentary on US public policy affecting healthcare-related issues. Her 1993 attack on the Clinton healthcare plan was likely a major factor in the initially popular bill's defeat in Congress. Also, it brought her to the attention of Republican Pataki, who chose her as his nominee/running mate. In 2009, her criticisms of the Affordable Care Act, then a bill being debated in Congress again gained significant media attention in television and radio interviews, and it may have specifically inspired the "death panel" claim about the act.

She has been a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and Hudson Institute thinktanks and has written numerous articles and op-eds. She was a member of the boards of directors of medical equipment companies Genta (from 2001 to 2007) and Cantel Medical Corporation, but she resigned in 2009 to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest with her public advocacy against the Affordable Care Act.

From 1995 until their divorce in 2000, she was married to business magnate Wilbur Ross, who went on to serve as Secretary of Commerce during Donald Trump's presidency.

Early life, education, and family
McCaughey and her twin brother, William, were born in Pittsburgh to Ramona Peterken, and her husband Albert, a factory janitor. The family moved around the Northeastern United States for six years before it settled down in Westport, Connecticut, where McCaughey's father did maintenance and later engineering work at a nail clipper factory. McCaughey recalled her parents' difficulty in affording medical treatment: "my brother was a serious asthmatic as a child. I remember my parents sitting at the kitchen table wondering if they could afford to take [him] to the hospital."

McCaughey attended public schools in Westport through the 10th grade, spending much of her free time at the library. After receiving a scholarship, she transferred to a private Massachusetts boarding school, the Mary A. Burnham School, for her last two years of high school, rarely visiting home, then or during her college years.

She received a scholarship to attend Vassar College, where she majored in history. She wrote her senior thesis on Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville, won several fellowships, and received her BA, with distinction, in 1970. McCaughey went on to graduate school at Columbia University in New York City, earning her MA in 1972 and her PhD in constitutional history in 1976.

She won Columbia's Bancroft Dissertation Award in American History in 1976 and her dissertation was published by the prestigious Columbia University Press in 1980, From Loyalist to Founding Father: The Political Odyssey of William Samuel Johnson.

She also contributed a chapter about Johnson to the 1979 book The American Revolution: Changing Perspectives by William M. Fowler and Wallace Coyle.

While completing her PhD, McCaughey trained in the corporate banking department at Chase Manhattan Bank, and she served as a loan officer in the Food, Beverage, and Tobacco Division. She also took courses in accounting at Columbia's School of Business.

McCaughey's father died in 1970 at the age of 60. Her mother, an alcoholic, died the next year of liver disease at the age of 42. In 1972, she married Thomas K. McCaughey, a Yale College graduate she had met in college. He was then moving up as an investment banker. The McCaugheys separated in 1992 and divorced in 1994, with McCaughey and her ex-spouse sharing joint custody of their three daughters. In January 1993, she filed an affidavit in her divorce proceeding in which she said she had no annual earnings from employment during most of the 18 years of her marriage to Thomas, and she had never earned more than $20,000 per year except in 1990, when she "sold an idea to Fox television for a windfall once-in-a-lifetime sum of $75,000".

She married wealthy investment banker and prominent Democratic Party fundraiser Wilbur Ross Jr. in December 1995. He filed for divorce in November 1998.

Academic work, 1977–1988
McCaughey taught history as a visiting assistant professor at Vassar College in 1977–1978 and was a lecturer in 1979–1980. She was an assistant professor at between 1981 and 1983, teaching two classes per year, both at Columbia University Between 1983 and 1984, she had a National Endowment for the Humanities postdoctoral fellowship. From 1986 to 1988, she served as a guest curator at the New-York Historical Society and was responsible for the museum's exhibit commemorating the bicentennial of the US Constitution. She also authored a book, Government by Choice: Inventing the United States Constitution, which cataloged the exhibit.

Policy positions and scholarship, 1989–1993
In the late 1980s, McCaughey briefly considered a career in TV news, but she opted instead for a position as a senior scholar at the Center for the Study of the Presidency, serving from 1989 to 1992. There, she wrote an article, book reviews, and a guest editorial for its journal, Presidential Studies Quarterly (PSQ), and an op-ed in USA Today advocating reform of the Electoral College method of electing the president. She testified at a July 22, 1992, hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and helped produce a report suggesting constitutional amendments to fix perceived flaws in the Electoral College.

McCaughey also wrote op-ed columns that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and USA Today in which she opposed plans involving local and state redistricting to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and she criticized federal court-ordered desegregation of schools in Connecticut and New Jersey. She also supported the nomination of a federal judge, Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court by arguing that he would judge cases there on their merits and not tend to interpret cases in a manner consistent with his conservative beliefs; She also supported a tobacco company in litigation before the Supreme Court and praised the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court decision, restricting abortion rights.

In February 1993, the John M. Olin Foundation funded a fellowship at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, for McCaughey to write a book on race and the legal system to be titled Beyond Pluralism: Overcoming the Narcissism of Minor Differences. McCaughey wrote op-eds over the next six months in The Wall Street Journal and USA Today in which she supported the 1993 selection of a jury from predominately-white, Republican, rural counties for the urban (Memphis)-located retrial of African American and Democratic US Representative Harold Ford, Sr., and praised the 1993 Shaw v. Reno Supreme Court decision, favoring five white voters who said their rights had been infringed upon by redistricting that had been done to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Healthcare reform, 1993–1994
On September 22, 1993, US President Bill Clinton delivered a nationally televised speech about his healthcare reform plan to a joint session of Congress. From September 28 to 30, 1993, First Lady Hillary Clinton, the architect of the universal health care plan, testified about its details before five US congressional committees. The cost of providing insurance for the estimated 37 million people then uninsured was to be covered in part by new taxes on tobacco. On the last day of Hillary Clinton's testimony, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by McCaughey, who wrote that the 239-page draft legislation differed markedly from the White House's public statements and would have "devastating consequences". Citing words and phrases from the draft, she argued that the 77 percent of Americans then covered by insurance would see a downgrade in their policies, and most would not be able to keep their own physicians but be forced into price-controlled health maintenance organizations (HMOs), which would provide only the most basic care. According to McCaughey, the HMO plans would not pay for visits to specialists or for second opinions, and most physicians would be driven out of private practice.

In late November 1993, the bill for the Clinton health care plan of 1993 was introduced in the Congress and made publicly available. The Wall Street Journal then published an op-ed by McCaughey in which said she had pored over the entire bill and concluded that it had price controls that would cause rationing, and the bill was dangerous.

McCaughey expanded her op-eds into a five-page article titled "No Exit", which appeared as the cover story in The New Republic and was published a few days before President Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address. An internal memo by tobacco company Philip Morris, dated March 1994, indicated that representatives of Philip Morris had collaborated with McCaughey when she was writing "No Exit": "Worked off-the-record with Manhattan and writer Betsy McCaughey as part of the input to the three-part exposé in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you. The first part detailed specifics of the plan." (When the memo was discussed in a 2009 story in Rolling Stone, McCaughey declined to comment.)

McCaughey's "No Exit" article was quickly used by conservative officials and commentators seeking to discredit the Clinton plan. Senator Bob Dole, in the Republican Party response to the President's State of the Union, used some of McCaughey's arguments of fewer choices, lower quality, and more government control. Bill Kristol's Project for the Republican Future quickly launched television advertisements featuring quotes from McCaughey's two Wall Street Journal op-ed columns and her The New Republic article. Newsweek columnist George Will used McCaughey's writings as a basis for predicting that the Clinton health plan would kill patients and make it illegal for patients to pay doctors directly for care, with 15-year jail terms for patients who tried to do so.

The Clinton White House press office issued a response to McCaughey's "No Exit" article by arguing that it contained "numerous factual inaccuracies and misleading statements". McCaughey responded that her claims came "straight from the text of the bill". Supporters of the Clinton plan questioned McCaughey's claims, including her statements that "the law will prevent you from going outside the system to buy basic health coverage you think is better" and that "doctor[s] can be paid only by the plan, not by you" by pointing to the text of the legislation such as Section 1003: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting ... An individual from purchasing any health care services."

According to The Washington Post, the "No Exit" article, the White House response, and the ensuing television and radio interviews with McCaughey made her a star: "Her toothy good looks, body-conscious suits, Vassar BA and Columbia PhD reduced right-wingers to mush."

The bill stalled and died in Congress in 1994, and the next year, Clinton was reduced to asking Congress for a series of small, incremental reforms to healthcare. The "No Exit" article won the National Magazine Award for excellence in the public interest. Andrew Sullivan, the editor of The New Republic, later stated that he believed there were flaws in McCaughey's article, but he ran it "as a provocation to debate". In 2006, a new editor recanted the story.

In 2009, The Daily Beast called her "The Woman Who Killed Health Care".

New York Lieutenant Governorship, 1995–1998
Following the national attention McCaughey received in the 1990s healthcare legislation debate, Pataki, a first-term New York state senator who was running for governor, chose her as his running mate. Despite McCaughey's complete lack of experience as a political candidate or officeholder and the fact that Pataki did not personally know McCaughey, Pataki perceived that she was very popular among conservatives, who, at the time, were still suspicious of him and that her public image would make his longshot candidacy more appealing to independent and female voters. Regarding her status as a political rookie, McCaughey said, "Many New Yorkers see that as a plus."

McCaughey said that she accepted the nomination by believing she would be Pataki's "point person on health policy". After winning the election, Pataki told The New York Times, McCaughey would have "very real and significant responsibilities" as lieutenant governor. McCaughey was initially tasked by Pataki to work on education policy and on reducing New York's Medicaid budget. By January 1995, McCaughey had produced a set of recommendations that required cost cutting by hospitals and nursing homes so that the poor did not have to bear the entire burden of balancing the state's Medicaid budget by a reduction of their benefits. However, McCaughey's recommendations were largely ignored.

After Pataki refused to give McCaughey permission to conduct a study into child abuse, she did one anyway and publicly announced its results. McCaughey was publicly critical of the governor's proposed cuts to Medicaid and gave a pro-choice speech without his advance permission. In March 1996, The New York Times reported that McCaughey was locked out of the governor's inner circle because she had violated the "unwritten rules" of the conventional lieutenant governor's role. Rather than following protocol as lieutenant governor by taking a seat with everyone else during Pataki's State of the State address to the legislature in 1996, McCaughey stood for the entire 56 min speech's length, further attracting attention to herself at her governor's expense. In the spring of 1997, Governor Pataki announced that McCaughey would not be his running mate when he ran for re-election in 1998. He later selected New York State Supreme Court Justice Mary Donohue to replace her.

Though she had always voted Republican in presidential elections and taken conservative Republican policy positions, McCaughey suddenly switched her party affiliation to Democrat and soon announced plans to run for governor against Pataki. McCaughey was the early frontrunner for her new party's nomination process, in part because of her statewide name and face recognition and in part because of the financial support of her wealthy then-husband. During her campaign for governor, she was criticized for firing a succession of campaign aides and political advisers and possibly changing her core political beliefs in order to appear more electable to New York voters. As her opinion poll numbers sank, her husband took away more than half of the funds he had pledged to her campaign.

McCaughey was defeated in the Democratic primary election by New York City Councilman Peter Vallone (who then lost the general election to Pataki, 54 percent to 33 percent). McCaughey had earlier received the nomination of the Liberal Party of New York for governor and stayed in the general election. McCaughey's campaign attracted little support, and she received only 1.65 percent of the general vote for governor. Following the election, she divorced and then sued her former husband alleging "$40 million fraud", claiming that he promised to fund her campaign unconditionally.

Life and career since leaving office
McCaughey has worked on patient advocacy and healthcare policy issues since leaving office in 1999. She was senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute beginning in 1999 and an adjunct senior fellow beginning in 2002. She was a member of the board of directors of Genta, a company focused on the delivery of innovative products for cancer treatment from 2001 to her resignation in October 2007. She was also a member of the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corporation, a medical device manufacturer, from 2005 to her resignation in August 2009 to avoid the appearance a conflict of interest while she was engaged in advocacy on healthcare reform legislation.

In 2004, she founded the committee to Reduce Infection Deaths (RID) in reaction to a rise in antibiotic resistant staphylococcus aureus and other hospital-borne infections. The non-profit RID is "devoted solely to providing safer, cleaner, hospital care". She remains the chair and representative of the organization. She has appeared on Fox News, CNN, and many radio shows to discuss her research and how to prevent infection deaths. Her organization's efforts have led to legislation in more than 25 states requiring hospitals to report infections.

American Cancer Society
In August 2007, the American Cancer Society dedicated $15 million to a public awareness campaign on inadequate access to healthcare for the 47 million Americans not covered by insurance. It claimed that there would be a greater decline in cancer deaths if more cases of cancer were diagnosed in the early stages. The society noted that studies had shown that patients without insurance were more than twice as likely to have their cancer diagnosed in the late stages of the disease. One of the cancer society's commercials stated, "We're making progress, but it's not enough if people don't have access to the care that could save their lives."

McCaughey criticized the campaign, saying that it should instead refocus on educating people about cancer prevention and detection. She argued that evidence had shown that the US had higher rates of cancer survival than countries with universal healthcare coverage because of shorter wait times for treatment, better availability of new drugs for therapy, and more frequent cancer screenings. She expanded her argument into a "Brief Analysis" published the following month by the National Center for Policy Analysis in which she maintained that the US was number one in the world in cancer care. Sources for her analysis included a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a non profit, non partisan research organization, and an article in the British medical journal Lancet Oncology, which analyzed 2000–2002 cancer survival figures from Europe. The American Cancer Society responded by citing a study of nearly 600,000 cancer cases that concluded that compared to people with private insurance, uninsured patients in the US were 1.6 times more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis.

2009 stimulus bill
McCaughey published an op-ed on February 9, 2009, and claimed that the Obama administration's pending American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus contained the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, hidden provisions that would harm the health of Americans as well as the healthcare sector of the economy. She argued that the bill would establish two powerful new bureaucracies: the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

McCaughey said the National Coordinator would monitor patients' electronic medical records to ensure that doctors and hospitals treated patients in a way that "the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective" and that doctors and hospitals deviating from the government's "electronically delivered protocols" would be penalized. She said that the Federal Coordinating Council would be composed of appointed bureaucrats charged with a costcutting agenda that would slow the development of new medical products and drugs and ration healthcare for senior citizens. She opined that the bureaucrats would use a comparative effectiveness formula, which, in the United Kingdom, had resulted in a requirement that senior citizens go blind in one eye before the government would pay for a treatment to save the sight in the other eye.

Critics claimed McCaughey's claims were distorted, pointing out that the National Coordinator was not new but had been created five years earlier by George W. Bush and that the 2009 legislation was not about limiting doctors' ability to prescribe treatments but instead establishing a system of electronic records to give physicians complete and accurate information their patients.

FactCheck.org noted that comparative effectiveness research had been funded by the US government for years but agreed with McCaughey that there would be penalties for health providers that did not use the electronic records system. The effectiveness research council was a new initiative, as McCaughey had said. However, supporters of the stimulus bill provision said that research funded would provide additional evidence to guide treatment decisions and save lives and money by avoiding unnecessary, ineffective, or risky treatments.

McCaughey's viewpoint was soon echoed and extended by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and multiple Fox News Channel broadcasters. Republican US Representative Charles Boustany Jr. of Louisiana, a heart surgeon, added that he feared that comparative effectiveness research would be misused by federal bureaucrats to "ration care, to deny life-saving treatment to seniors and disabled people". Other conservatives agreed that the legislation could put the federal government in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship. The stimulus bill was passed with the healthcare-related provisions still included. McCaughey urged their repeal so that their potential impact could be studied further.

2009 healthcare reform bills
McCaughey opposed the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 debated in Congress in 2009. She made allegations about certain provisions of the bills that provided for Medicare payments to physicians for end-of-life and living will counseling and about Ezekiel Emanuel, then an adviser to the Obama administration's budget director and chairman of the bioethics department at the National Institutes of Health. McCaughey's claims may have inspired Sarah Palin's more high-profile claims that the legislation would lead to so-called death panels. The provisions in the legislation that McCaughey advocated against were removed from the bill before it became law.

In July 2009, McCaughey claimed that a section in the pending healthcare legislation, "Advance Care Planning Consultation", actually prescribed "euthanasia for the elderly" because it included provisions that"would make it mandatory—absolutely require—that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner [and inform them how to] decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care ... all to do what's in society's best interest or in your family's best interest and cut your life short."McCaughey's choice of words and analysis were described by The Atlantic James Fallows as inaccurate and sensationalistic. Politifact responded that the end-of-life counseling was voluntary, calling McCaughey's claim a "ridiculous falsehood" and giving it their lowest accuracy rating, "pants on fire". Factcheck.org called the claims "nonsense" and stated that what that section of the bill would actually do is "require Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling sessions helping seniors to plan for end-of-life medical care, including designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice and making decisions about life-sustaining treatment." During an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart which aired on August 20, 2009, McCaughey repeated these assertions about the counselling sessions and referred to the Factcheck.org as "spot-check dot org", claiming they failed to adequately read the House health care bill. In a rebuttal, Factcheck.org stood by their analysis and provided further analysis, which led them to conclude that McCaughey had misinterpreted the bill.

In August 2009, WNYC's On the Media also addressed McCaughey's claims, concluding that the provision actually mandated that the federal government compensate "counseling sessions" on elder law, such as estate planning, "will writing and hospice care".

McCaughey described Emanuel in a New York Post opinion article as a "Deadly Doctor" who advocated healthcare rationing by age and disability. Factcheck.org said this was incorrect and that "Emanuel's meaning is being twisted ... he was talking about a philosophical trend, and ... writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited." An article in Time magazine said that Emanuel "was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources", and quoted Emanuel as saying: "My quotes were just being taken out of context." The New York Times noted that Emanuel had opposed the legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide when such proposals were being debated in the late 1990s.

McCaughey resigned from the Board of Cantel Medical Corporation on August 20, 2009 "to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform", according to a press release by the company. Other reports claimed that she resigned after negative reactions to her performance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart one day earlier.

In an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Meeting on October 6, 2009, McCaughey advocated gradually extending the minimum age for Medicare coverage upward from 65 to 70 in order to keep the Medicare system solvent.

In an August 7, 2012, opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, McCaughey described as "phony" an assertion that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase federal deficits.

In a September 15, 2013, opinion piece in the New York Post entitled "Obamacare will question your sex life", McCaughey wrote: "'Are you sexually active? If so, with one partner, multiple partners or same-sex partners?' Be ready to answer those questions and more the next time you go to the doctor, whether it's the dermatologist or the cardiologist and no matter if the questions are unrelated to why you're seeking medical help. And you can thank the Obama health law." Politifact rated this assertion as "Pants on Fire", and FactCheck.org also called it false.

In an October 25, 2013, appearance on Fox News, McCaughey said that the Affordable Care Act would have the effect of "eviscerating Medicare".

On her Twitter feed and on television, McCaughey stated that members of Congress and other government employees were granted a "special subsidy" and a "premium illegally arranged by Obama" under the Affordable Care Act. Factcheck.org, Politifact, and fact checkers at CNN all found that assertion to be false.

title: Betsy McCaughey


text:
Mount Wellington

Mount Wellington may refer to:

Mountains

 * Mount Wellington (British Columbia), in Canada
 * Mount Wellington (New York), in Otsego County, New York, United States
 * Mount Wellington (Tasmania), in Tasmania, Australia
 * Mount Wellington (Victoria), in Victoria, Australia
 * Maungarei / Mount Wellington, in Auckland, New Zealand

Other

 * University-Mount Wellington, a soccer club in Auckland
 * Mount Wellington Tin Mine, near Truro in Cornwall
 * Mount Wellington, New Zealand, a suburb in Auckland, New Zealand

title: Mount Wellington


text: Talk:Mount Wellington

title: Talk:Mount Wellington