Posted: 09/08/09 01:34
by Dave Mindeman
The last day of the state fair offered the GOP Governor candidates a forum for speaking out on the issues. Well, at least they were trying. MPR has a good summary and some quotes in an online story today.
Of course the main topic was healthcare....and predictably, all of them opposed the public option. But let's take a look at some of the quotes in the article:
Marty Seifert: Seifert said in order for the party to defeat the Democrats' proposed health care legislation, they must offer more than vocal opposition. "We need to come up with positive alternatives: tort reform, we need to come up with tax credits for people who can't afford insurance, universal shopping for insurance......If you can buy your car insurance from a lizard down in Maryland, you should be able to buy your health insurance from another state as well." Seifert says four health insurers have a monopoly in the state. He says that's about 88 percent of the private health market. He wants the market to open up to more companies so that people have more affordable health care choices.
Seifert continues to offer the totally debunked idea that tort reform would somehow work wonders on the cost of healthcare. Numerous studies have proved...(yes, proved) that this is not the case at all. Yet, Seifert continues to offer a false solution as a reason to critique any other proposal that might actually work. It is the same game he plays when continuing to portray Minnesota as some kind of welfare magnet -- another ploy that has been rendered a complete fabrication by real studies. But we will continue to hear it ad nauseum if Seifert is the candidate.
And "tax credits for people who can't afford insurance". Gee, Marty, you ever looked at who those people are? A lot of them are gambling on bypassing insurance because they don't have enough income to pay much in the way of taxes either. Tax credits....yea right, that's the answer.
And how often are we going to hear about more competition for insurance. Do you really believe that out of state insurers are going to be able to compete with the four big guns already established here? People aren't hurting for choices -- it's the choices allowed by insurance companies that are hurting us. They get to choose whom they insure and whom they cancel. And the number of claims denials is outrageous.
Sounds like Seifert has been reading too many insurance company memos.
David Hann: "In addition to what we're trying to do at the national level with healthcare, in addition to that being unconstitutional, it doesn't work, I can't think of one thing that federal government has done where we can say they are the most efficient and lowest cost provider of a good or service," he said. "Why we would turn over a huge sector of our economy to the federal government, to politicians and bureaucrats, is beyond me."
First of all, Hann (and many of the Republican candidates) keep going into this unconstitutional meme. If health care is not providing for "the general welfare", what is? Might want to pull our National Guard out of any Constitutionally negated "pre-emptive" wars without a Congressional declaration, if that is the case you want to make. But the real problem with Hann's argument is two fold. First, it has been well documented that Medicare is much more cost efficient than any private health insurer. And second, if the government is never a low cost, efficient provider, than why make the argument that a "public-option" would be unfair competition? And, as I have said over and over, give me a government bureaucrat over a health insurance bureaucrat any day, any time.
Tom Emmer: Emmer said the real issue at hand has to do with competition. He said there shouldn't be any government mandates and people should have the power to make their own decisions. "We've got the best health care in the world folks," he said. "The issue, if there is any, is access and cost. So let's address access and cost. And I would hope that my friends who are up here with me would all take the stand that if they are governor, Minnesota they will not accept a federally mandated health care system. We can take care of Minnesota ourselves."
Emmer has some problems as well. If you don't want any government mandates, how would you get rid of the problem that has bi-partisan agreement -- pre-existing conditions. Does anyone believe that this problem will be corrected by the insurance companies themselves? I don't think even Emmer believes that one. And there is agreement that America has the best health care providers in the world -- they are just not accessible to everyone. The Arab Sheiks and Royal families get it -- but Americans with no money....no insurance coverage... --not available. Costs are going to increase forever until we break this cycle of employment dependency, non-portability, pre-existing condition exemptions, and uninsured emergency room care giving. You can't address those problems with private insurers alone -- it can't and won't happen. And Emmer really doesn't care because all the Republicans want here is to get rid of any potential reform. Simple as that.
Pat Anderson: People also wanted to know how the candidates would solve the state's deficit. Anderson had a simple answer. "Shrinking government, that's the priority. We're going to have a $4 [billion] to $7 billion deficit facing the next governor, and there is no room for shifting and picking around the edges so we have to fundamentally downsize our state government." Anderson says the state cannot afford to raise taxes and it should live within its means.
We have been shrinking and cutting budgets ever since Pawlenty took office -- and we are still looking at a $4-7 billion deficit. Anderson wants a fundamental downsizing. Simple answer? Of course it's simple to say, but simple answers can have complicated consequences. What she really means is massive health care cuts (which drop more of the poor off the rolls) and deep cuts to education. That is the ONLY WAY she can do it! That is the bulk of our budget. It is easy to talk about downsizing government when you don't have to (or refuse to) give specifics.
Paul Kohls: State representative Paul Kohls of Victoria said the state should tackle the highest priorities and learn how to do those things well. He said he's running his campaign with three priorities: public education, public safety, and roads and bridges. "We need somebody who is willing to set priorities and somebody who is willing to say no to things that aren't priorities because sometimes no is the right answer. We have to do certain things and we have to do them well. We have to be willing to take some risk and do them better tomorrow than we are doing today if we want Minnesota to be a better state."
Three priorities -- Public education, public safety, and Roads/Bridges. Again, health care is not? He's saying no to that apparently. And as for roads and bridges -- I assume that he read the MnDOT report about the $50 billion deficit over the next 10 years? What does it mean to do roads and bridges "well" if you have that kind of short fall? Kohls' votes on transportation in the past would have made that shortfall even bigger, so how are we to assume he can fix it? "We have to be willing to take some risk".....by risk is he telling us that we have to take our chances on infrastructure....again?
There simply aren't any new ideas from the Republicans. They are simply repeating the same failed ideas that we have spent the last decade trying to overcome.
Republicans are paving a road alright -- to Minnesota's financial ruin.
