October 12-13, 2009
Oct 12 02:41 What a Bunch Of Wimps Oct 12 08:14 Democrats' Election Strategy: Whining Oct 12 09:48 Subcommittee on a Balanced Budget Oct 13 06:28 Where Disasters Are Called Reform Oct 13 16:28 Smackdown, Vegas Style Oct 13 23:05 Gov. Pawlenty's Health Care Reform Proposal
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
What a Bunch Of Wimps
This AP article makes me sick. Erica Werner insists on telling us that reading bills is difficult. She even quotes legislators who verify that:
Well, have you ever tried reading a bill?I'll admit that it takes a fair amount of patience to read a bill but if you're willing to make that sacrifice, it's quite possible. I totally reject Werner's statement that legislation defies "understanding by anyone without a law degree or years of legislative experience." Besides, it misses the point.
Take Medicaid. An average person might describe it as the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. But to the authors of the House Democrats' health care bill, "The term 'Medicaid' means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act)."
The bill goes on to say, "The terms 'premium plan' and 'premium-plus plan' have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c)."
Like those examples, the legislation is peppered with cross references to other laws or statutes that are never explained, defying understanding by anyone without a law degree or years of legislative experience. Most lawmakers have never read the bills; that's what staff members are for.
"The minutiae of legal drafting is not necessarily related to understanding the concepts in the bill," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who certainly has had his hand in writing laws in nearly 20 years in the House. "You could literally get lost in the forest for the trees" trying to read it, he said.
The truth is that there are an army of lawyers and lobbyists out there who read frequently legislation. Frankly, it isn't like every citizen has to read the entire bill. When H.R. 3200 was published online, King went through the entire bill. I'll cede the fact that he's read alot of legislation in his lifetime but anyone with a bit of intellect and a bunch of patience can read legislation.
The other thing about it being complicated tells me that the legislators purposely wrote it that way. A perfect case in point was the stimulus bill coming out of conference committee. They wrote that bill in such a way that you couldn't find a single earmark in the bill. I thought that strange considering the specific earmarks included in the House stimulus bill.
That bill included money for a rail project between Disneyland and Vegas and $16.1 million for the harvest field mouse. When the conference committee report came out, those things had vanished into thin air. Before you think that they got eliminated, think again.
John Boehner wrote awhile back that the money had gotten appropriated for the harvest field mouse. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
Ms. Werner's article is nothing more than a journalist giving politicians political cover. If you're asking why it won't work, it's because people at townhall after townhall cited specific provisions in H.R. 3200 to the legislators. The citizens knew more about the legislation than the people who will vote on the legislation.
The impenetrability of legislative language is not in itself an argument against posting bills online and letting voters try to figure them out. That happened over the summer with the House's 1,017-page health care bill, with mixed results. Some sections of the bill were taken out of context or misunderstood, often to feed critics' political agendas. At the same time, there was a full airing of concerns that the legislation raised.The legislation got a "full airing" because citizens refuted the talking points that Democratic legislators with specific provisions of H.R. 3200. Had these citizens not read the bill, they wouldn't have been able to refute the talking points that Speaker Pelosi sent home with the legislators. (BTW, that's why this article was written.)
Despite the hubbub, the House bill is not even close to the final product that Obama might ultimately sign into law. And that's another part of the problem. Congress' lawmaking process is such that legislation goes through numerous permutations before being massaged into a final bill that could become law. Along the way, particularly in the Senate, legislating happens on the fly, with bills evolving in real time during committee meetings. Even after debate begins in the Senate, changes are the norm.It isn't a problem. It's an opportunity. Shouldn't we want the people who will be affected by legislation reading the legislation, then giving their senators and representatives input on the provisions they like and dislike?
I know that's a revolutionary concept to some of our legislators but it's how things work best.
But transparency advocates see that argument as part of the problem. They point to instances in which controversial provisions were added quietly, at the 11th hour, unbeknownst to most. Consider this: A provision was tucked into this year's economic stimulus bill in last-minute, closed-door talks that allowed insurance giant American International Group to pay huge executive bonuses.Most importantly, these legislators work for us. If they want to ignore the will of the people, that's their right. It's also their tombstone. Legislators that tell us they'll do things their way might find that their way will put them on a highway. PERMANENTLY!!!
If lawmakers had put the brakes on the process and exposed it to sunlight, that development and others like it might have been avoided, advocates argue.
"People became outraged when they discovered that the norm was for legislators to vote on legislation they hadn't read," said Colin Hanna, head of a group, Let Freedom Ring, that is asking lawmakers to pledge to read health overhaul legislation before voting.
In my speech to the 9/12 TEA Party, I said this:
NO MORE will We The People let you ignore us . NO MORE will We The People believe that all wisdom resides in tiny corridors of Washington, DC or St. Paul, MN. NO MORE will we treat the words from a career politician's mouth like they were etched in stone on Mount Sinai. Instead, We The People will demand that our elected officials be servant leaders who enjoy hearing from us & who value our opinions.NO MORE has become the rallying cry of We The People. The message is clear. It's our way of telling politicians that there's a paradigm shift happening, one that we expect compliance on. If the legislators who theoretically represent us won't listen to our demands, we'll replace them until we get people that pay attention to our demands.
See how simple that is? It's so simple even a politician can figure it out.
Posted Monday, October 12, 2009 2:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 12-Oct-09 06:56 AM
Rumor is that the Rothschilds have long practiced indirection.
Recall also, that you have bills and to understand them after enacted into law you need to read how judges in dispute resolution interpret them. That means walls and walls of shelving to hold the law books, walls and walls of shelving in court clerk offices for case files despite paperless office hopes and effort.
It happens on the state level, in each state in parallel with the federal deluge - and then municipalities feel the instinctual urge to pass ordinances and codes of ordinances.
It is specialized well beyond do unto others sensibility; and the suspicion is that whenever plain language is NOT used somebody is trying to hide injustices and ways and means of hosing unsuspecting citizens.
It does need reform. How long is the tax code, by word count or other measure? Multiply that by three, to get the federal regs. then there are the cases ---
It is part of the cause that citizens have low regard for congress and a high distrust of "what they're up to."
They bring it on themselves.
Besides term limits, how about a law - former senators and former representatives as well as former agency policy makers above a certain civil service pay grade are barred from living within a hundred miles of the border of the District of Columbia.
Then at least they'd have to do their mischief by phone, email, and online social networking.
The DC lunchtime restaurant business would suffer, but is that bad?
Democrats' Election Strategy: Whining
John Harwood's article confirms for me what I've thought for some time. Because they likely won't have a list of accomplishments to run on, the Democrats' strategy will likely be to whine alot about Republicans being extremists. Based on recent electoral history (2006), that strategy isn't likely to work.
Few Democrats next year will be able to match the overwhelming campaign spending advantage enjoyed by Mr. Corzine, a wealthy former Wall Street executive. On the other hand, party strategists hope that economic anxiety will ease next year if Washington acts on health care and energy legislation, both of which Mr. Obama calls vital to long-term economic growth.Basing my opinion on what I've read about the Republicans' recruits, it'll be difficult to demonize the candidates. First, candidates that've stepped forward are 'TEA Party approved', meaning they've won support at local TEA Parties. This explains one reason why independents are swinging in the GOP's direction.
But Mr. Cook argues that voters will continue to see those initiatives as diversions from immediate concerns over high unemployment. For Democrats to win competitive races next year, he said, "the key thing is to disqualify your opponent on a very personal, individual level."
Another reason why this strategy, on a macro level, is doomed for failure is because people are looking for candidates who inspire. There's alot to be gloomy about these days. Why support someone who 'inspires' gloominess? That doesn't make sense. Republican challengers will be able to talk about what they want to accomplish in Washington for their constituents. Democrat incumbents will have to defend their votes from this session. ADVANTAGE: CHALLENGERS.
"They're going to have to play really rough," said Mr. Cook, who pegs Democrats' chances for holding the House next year at only slightly better than even. "For the average Democratic Congressional incumbent, the opposition researcher will be the most important person in the campaign."The opposition researchers will be overrated this year. It didn't work in 2008 (Think Al Franken). People are starved for people with real solutions to the point that they're willing to overlook potential scandals if the candidate has an appealing vision for his/her voters. I'm not saying there are alot of GOP candidates that have skeletons in their closets. Rather, I'm speaking about the impotence of personal attacks.
I've thought for some time that the 'failed policies of the last eight years' line is overrated. It had a certain cache last year but it's lost its appeal recently, mostly because President Obama's and the congressional Democrats' 'accomplishments' aren't seen as successful. Frankly, most people think that the stimulus bill is a failure. They don't think that a national energy tax is something that will make America healthier economically. In fact, they think Cap and Trade will hurt almost everyone and help very few.
When Democrats whine about their GOP challenger as being extremist, the GOP challenger should immediately and forcefully respond by saying that he's being attacked because the Democrat doesn't want the people to know about the Republicans' pro-growth, pro-prosperity vision for America. The Republican should then use that as a launching point to talk about their positive agenda.
This type of rhetoric from the Fringe Media won't help Democrats:
Republicans have worked overtime to block Mr. Obama's proposed solutions on the economy and health care, as became clear last week after the Congressional Budget Office declared that the Senate Finance Committee's proposal would reduce the budget deficit. Instead of crediting Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, the committee chairman, with meeting a main Republican objective, the minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said "the real bill will be written by Democrat leaders in a closed-to-the-public conference room."That isn't what Republicans have done, mostly because President Obama hasn't offered solutions to America's economic difficulties. He's proposed enormous spending as a solution. As HotAir's Allahpundit says, "What could possibly go wrong"???
Had President Obama proposed a bill that focused solely on infrastructure projects and tax cuts for small businesses, we'd be digging out of the hole we're in. Because President Obama didn't focus on that, we're still stuck digging out of economic difficulties.
As I said here , the CBO's rating of the Finance Committee's bill as deficit neutral is meaningless:
I suspect that people will be upset with any of the Democrats' bills, whether it's the Baucus bill, the HELP bill, one of the bills from the House of Representatives or if it's an amalgamation of the various bills. All are loaded with major tax increases, all will result in rationing and all will cost people more money than they're spending now on health care.Factoring in the plethora of major tax increases, the penalties for not obeying the oppressive mandates and the huge unfunded mandate coming from the "substantial expansion" of Medicaid, I'm confident that people aren't seeing the various Democratic plans as a solution.
They certainly don't see Cap and Tax as a solution to their energy woes. They see that as an additional problem, not a solution. To Minnesotans and other northern tier states, Cap and Tax simply means more money going out the door at a time when people's wallets are stretched thin already.
The Democrats' 'season of negativity' campaign strategy won't work. People are looking for solutions. They aren't looking for a congresscritter whose main attribute is saying 'My opponent sucks worse than me. Vote for me.' What this means is that 2010 is shaping up to be a miserable year for Democrats.
All the whining in the world won't change that.
Posted Monday, October 12, 2009 8:19 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 12-Oct-09 03:48 PM
Gary:
I think it did work with Franken. Franken ran about 15% behind the Obama vote for the state of Minnesota. Franken won because:
1. There was a candidate on the ballot that a person who didn't want to vote for Franken voted for.
2. The Franken campaign did a job trying to dirty up Norm Coleman. Remember that lawsuit that I think has been dismissed, links to Ted Stevens, his living arrangement in Washington DC because he's not wealthy.
3. The margin of error that the weak Mccain campaign created. It was like 56% to 41% (Norm basically ran the anti Obama vote). If Mccain was narrow like 52% versus 47% Coleman wins easily.
4. The Franken campaign was ready to create phony votes or at least rescue their votes while preventing the Coleman campaign from getting their votes.
Does that help explain it. One thing you didn't mention is that the Democrats have dramatically lost their intensity edge. Virginia polling data suggests two key groups to the Obama victory (blacks and youth) won't vote in the numbers they did. Instead of a narrow Democrat victory the Republican is coasting to an easy victory.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z. at 13-Oct-09 09:08 AM
Maureen Reed is unhappy with how the unions operate in the Sixth District.
Has that anything to do with your headline?
First, is she a Democrat? I guess that's the first question. If you call yourself a "pundit" Gary, does that make you one, or do you prove something first?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Oct-09 02:40 PM
That's a different subject, Eric. The whining I'm referring to in this post is Democrats going totally negative rather than putting forward a positive agenda.
Subcommittee on a Balanced Budget
Bring Me The News has an interesting post about the newly built Subcommittee on a Balanced Budget. According to Bring MeThe News, the committee members are:
Sen. Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, Rep. Lyndon Carlson, DFL-Crystal, Senate Minority Leader Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester, Senate President James Metzen, DFL-South St. Paul, Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, chair of the Senate's State Government Budget Division, Sen. Dick Cohen, DFL-St. Paul, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, Rep. Thomas Huntley, DFL-Duluth, chair of the House Health Care and Human Services Finance Division, Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, chair of the House Tax Committee, Rep. Loren Solberg, DFL-Grand Rapids, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.Based on my superior observational skills, that's eight pro-tax increase DFL legislators and two pro-growth Republicans. What could possibly go wrong?
Sen. Pogemiller issued this press release:
"We need to have an open and forthright conversation about how we can both tackle the coming budget shortfall and position our state for long-term economic success," Pogemiller said in a released statement.Sen. Pogemiller is totally on the wrong track. What we need is a straightforward conversation on why businesses, people and especially retirees are leaving Minnesota. It's also time that Minnesotans had a straightfoward conversation about whether we should have a 'government needs comes first' approach to governing or whether we should have a 'the people's needs come first' approach.
Until we have that discussion, all the look-good commissions in the world won't solve Minnesota's economic problems. Until we put people first, we'll continue to ride the rollercoaster between feast and famine, aka surpluses and deficits. Putting in place policies that encourage increased entrepreneurial activity is the key to stabilizing Minnesota's economy. It's the path back to consistent economic growth and the return to prosperity.
Proving that they're a one trick pony, the DFL gubernatorial candidates debated which was more committed to raising taxes :
The key question for the public employees is how the candidates will tackle the state's looming $7 billion budget deficit, specifically, whether and how they will raise revenue as part of the solution.Sen. Dayton, get your grubby mitts off We The People's money. It's time that the DFL admitted that "taxing the rich" won't solve the deficit problem. It just helps feed the DFL's spending addiction.
Mark Dayton jumped on the issue first. The state must raise taxes on the wealthiest 10 percent of state households, he said without being asked. That stance makes it hard to raise campaign donations from his family, the former U.S. senator joked, but repeated: "If you do better, you ought to pay more. Read my lips: Tax the rich."
Last year, I attended a townhall meeting called by Rep. Steve Gottwalt. King Banaian was Steve's guest to run through budget numbers and to talk about Minnesota's economy. Of all the statistics covered that day, the statistic that jumped out most at me was that raising the top income tax bracket by 1 percentage point would increase revenues by $300,000,000. While that's undoubtedly a big chunk of money, it's tiny compared to last year's $6,400,000,000 deficit. That tax increase still would've left the state $6,100,000,000 short of a balanced budget.
If Sen. Dayton were honest about his tax-the-rich policy, he'd admit that the best way to solve our deficit problems is by returning to a pro-prosperity approach to the economy. Ronald Reagan was famous for saying that "You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." You can't be pro-prosperity if your policies hurt the job creation engine of the United States, aka small businesses.
I predict that this gubernatorial and legislative candidates will have this conversation this cycle. I don't think that conversation will help the DFL, especially in this TEA Party environment.
This new subcommittee's recommendations are predictable in the sense that the report will say that we need to find new ways to tax the rich. That's because the DFL hasn't proposed any reforms that deliver services at a cheaper price. For the most part, reforms and prosperity aren't part of the DFL's priorities.
Until that changes, the DFL will be a one trick pony. That trick is based on meeting the needs of government first rather than meeting Minnesota families' needs first.
Posted Monday, October 12, 2009 9:48 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 12-Oct-09 09:54 PM
Too many, almost all of them Democrats, simply don't understand what it might feel like to be among the so-called wealthy. Making $250k is somehow viewed as an Oprah-like existence, living the DFL dream of never having to set priorities, steak every night. But of course, they do, and when they lose a few thousand more for a better Minnesota, that's a car purchase, landscaping, remodeling, travel, maybe even job creation put off or eliminated.
Where Disasters Are Called Reform
Loyal readers of this blog know that I've dissected the Finance Committee's health care bill, at least to the extent that's possible. It's kinda impossible to totally dissect the legislation since it isn't technically legislation until it's put into legislative language. According to industry experts, that won't happen until after Lucifer buys ice skates.
Instead of going through all the details again, let's look at what's in it for the various groups who've weighed in on Sen. Baucus's bill, starting with working stiffs.
Thanks to the Finance Committee, this fortunate group will be required to buy health insurance. If they choose to not to take that option, they'll get fined. Of course, the fine will be for substantially less than a health insurance policy will cost. Isn't that a great way to cover everybody? Of course, setting a harsher fine from the outset would mean fewer votes in committee, wouldn't it?
Governors and state legislators get the mother of all unfunded mandates when Medicaid "substantially expands." The states not only have to administer the program; instead, they'll be forced to PAY for the program. What this means is that the Finance Committee is telling state government that state legislators and governors across the nation will be the villains in the public's eyes when they're forced to raise taxes to pay for Medicaid expansion. What a deal, huh???
The Finance Committee didn't want the insurance companies to feel left out so they made a deal with them. In exchange for their early support of the bill, they'd get a massive new group of customers, thanks to the aforementioned mandates on individuals. That support crumbled when people figured out that they were better off buying whatever insurance they wanted and pay the fine rather than buy the policy that the Finance Committee wanted them to purchase.
Not only that but the insurance companies get a new set of headaches, thanks to the bill's provision that says they can't deny people coverage if they have a pre-existing condition like cancer or diabetes. In fact, there's rumors on Capitol Hill that Democrats will impose caps on how much insurance companies can charge for insurance premiums:
They also predicted liberal lawmakers will go harder after the insurers, perhaps by proposing a cap on premiums or solidifying support for the government insurance plan.Isn't that a twist? The government doesn't deliver on their promise, the insurance companies are left holding the proverbial bag and it's the government that's intent on punishing the insurance companies. That's the worst kind of irony.
Bear with me a bit longer. We're not done yet. Another group that's being told that they're going to have to sacrifice are senior citizens. They're being told that the Medicare budget is being cut by $404,000,000,000 over the next 10 years. They've also been told by President Obama that their benefits won't be cut during that time. I can't tell them to take that declaration with a grain of salt.
To digest that whopper, you'll need something more along the size of a salt block.
The Obama administration knows it's telling whoppers because they know that Medicare enrollment is projected to increase by 30 percent over the next decade. Think of this: the Finance Committee bill does nothing to slow the growth of health care costs, which are growing faster than the rate of inflation, but it cuts Medicare's budget by 10 percent while Medicare enrollment is increasing by 30 percent. What could possibly go wrong with that set of dynamics? (Besides everything.)
We still aren't done but there's a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. Companies that manufacture medical devices stand to get hit with a $121,000,000,000 tax increase. In other words, the companies that create things that improve our health are 'rewarded' with a huge tax increase.
Finally, those people who have so-caled Cadillac health insurance policies will get hit with a harsh excise tax. The excise tax is 35 percent of the premiums that exceed the set limits:
Under the Baucus plan, insurers selling a plan costing more than $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family would have to pay a 35 percent excise tax on the excess amount.In other words, if an individual is paying $10,000 for his/her health insurance policy now, they'll bee paying $10,700 after the excise tax is imposed. If a family is paying $25,000 for their health insurance premiums, their bill, including the excise tax, will be $26,400.
Alot of people will say 'Well, it's time that the rich paid more for their insurance.' The thing is that, while corporate executives have Cadillac health care policies, so do the union workers that put together Cadillacs. It's just a hunch but I'm betting that alot of those unionized factory workers don't consider themselves rich fat cats.
Let's summarize this for easy 'digestion'. States have a major expansion of an entitlement dumped in their laps, costing billions of dollars. The states also get to raise taxes on basically everyone with an income to pay for the entitlement/unfunded mandate. Health insurance premiums will jump, thanks to the excise tax and the fines levied when people choose a no-frills policy rather than choosing the expensive government-recommended policy. Companies that make medical devices will see their costs jump thanks to the tax increase headed their direction, too.
Based on that information, everything that needs to be cheaper is actually getting more expensive. That's DC's definition of reform. Well, almost.
There is one thing that's getting squeezed: Medicare. Seniors get their health care rationed.
Only in DC could such a disaster be called reform.
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:34 AM
No comments.
Smackdown, Vegas Style
During one of Rush's monologues yesterday, Rush highlighted a spirited exchange between Gov. Jennnifer Granholm, (D-Mich.), and Steve Wynn, the owner of Wynn Resorts of Wynn Resorts, Las Vegas. It started with Chris Wallace asking Wynn "Do you see any turnaround yet?" Here's Wynn's response:
WYNN: No, in the sense that I think that the priorities of the administration should have been more directly focused on job creation. From the day of the inauguration forward, the priority should have been job creation. And the most powerful weapon and the tool that the government has for that is its tax policy. If the government had used its power to restrain its tax collection they would have given everybody who runs small businesses, large businesses, a chance to hire more people and that could have been done an entirely different way. With eight or $900 billion we could have created four or five million jobs, which would have made a big difference.This method has worked time after time after time. Still, Jennifer Granholm responded with typical liberal criticism:
GRANHOLM: It's just so simplistic to say that! With all due respect, I mean, to say that government has never created a job or increased the standard of living. You know, I mean there...there are a lot of people who are grateful that in this country we have a minimum wage. There are a lot of people who are grateful that they have access to Medicare and Medicaid. And I hope that we get access further to additional health care for those who are un...right now uninsured. I mean, there is a balance here. To say that government is all evil...This is a democracy. It's the greatest country in the world.Talk about hearing what wasn't said!!! That's scary. What's scarier is that Wynn nails it perfectly with this answer to Chris Wallace's question:
WYNN: Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history. For some reason that simple truth has evaded everybody. The only thing that creates an increased standard of living is giving someone a job, the demand for their labor, whether it's you and I, Chris, or anybody else. The people that are paying the price for this juggernaut of federal spending are the middle class and the working class of America.As stellar as it was to listen to Wynn's initial answer, listening to his reply to Gov. Granholm is better:
WYNN: I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that the source of government revenue, the source of well-being in this country is employment. That allows companies to pay taxes, employees to pay taxes. That's the source here and it's gotten out of focus.Gov. Granholm comes off looking foolish for saying that Steve Wynn's approach is simplistic. She's been a total embarrassment as governor. Under her watch, Michigan's economic performance has been awful. Throughout the Bush administration, it was said that "Michigan was a one state recession." With unemployment above 15 percent and climbing, Michigan is an economic basket case.
GRANHOLM: I... I agree.
WYNN: There's no --
GRANHOLM: I agree with you.
WYNN: Okay. That's my point, Governor. I'm not making any other point. And, believe me, ma'am, I've got 20,000 employees. I've had as many as 150,000 families that I've been self-insuring. There's nothing "simplistic" about my approach to this problem.
The majority of the problem comes from Granholm's job-killing tax increases, which have driven businesses from Michigan. How she gets to lecture Steve Wynn, who runs a mega-successful multibillion dollar business, is beyond insane. Considering her penchant for destroying jobs, she doesn't have credibility on economic issues.
Thankfully, Mr. Wynn didn't let her get away with her attacks. Thankfully he reminded everyone of this undeniable truth:
Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history.Government doesn't produce things of value, therefore it can't increase a person's prosperity. It's time that people like Jennifer Granholm admitted that before they bring further ruin on the United States' economy. The best thing that Jennifer Granholm can do to help the economy is get out of the way of entrepreneurs like Mr. Wynn.
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:48 PM
Comment 1 by glen at 15-Oct-09 03:19 PM
While Steve Wynn criticizes the president for not doing enough to create jobs, he has been laying off workers. The quote that he has not laid off anyone in 40 years is just not true
http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/the_revolving_door/revolving_door_wynn_resorts_lays_off_53_employees_from_its_design_department_106794.asp
Gov. Pawlenty's Health Care Reform Proposal
This afternoon, Gov. Pawlenty outlined his plan for reforming Minnesota's health care system. Following the event, his administration issued a statement on his initiatives. First, here's the centerpiece of his reform initiatives:
- Allow Minnesotans to Purchase Health Insurance from Other States
- Require MinnesotaCare and Medical Assistance to Price Health Care Services Based on Quality and Cost
- Include Consumer-Driven Incentives in MinnesotaCare
- The state insurance regulator where the company is domiciled must be accredited by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
- The insurance company must have a certificate of authority in Minnesota.
- The insurance regulator in the state of domicile must review and approve policy forms.
- The insurance company must agree to abide by Minnesota's claims practices and other consumer protection laws.
- The insurance company would be subject to standard Minnesota fees and taxes.
The Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce will determine the top 20 states that are most effective in terms of regulating health insurance policies and have the best health outcomes for their residents. Only policies approved in those states and meeting Minnesota's new criteria could be sold to Minnesotans.These seem like thoughtful guidelines. They appear to certify that insurance companies would only qualify if they were a reputable company.
Require MinnesotaCare & Medical Assistance to Price Health Care Services Based on Quality and CostAgain, this is a reasonable proposal. It's the same logic that's helped flatten out the rate of insurance premium growth for state employees. In 3 of the last 5 years, state employees' health care amounts have stayed flat, undoubtedly because they shopped wisely for health care.
The state employee health care program, Minnesota Advantage, has successfully used a tiered provider system to rein in costs. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in a private market system. However, individuals who use more costly and less efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket. Not surprisingly, informed health care consumers wisely vote with their feet and wallets. This has resulted in no increase in health care amounts paid by employees during three of the last five years and significantly reduced program costs for the state.
Governor Pawlenty is proposing that state-subsidized health care programs, MinnesotaCare and Medical Assistance, also be required to use a tiered provider system. Tiers would be established based on peer grouping results on quality and efficiency from the 2008 health care reform legislation. Based on that peer grouping, enrollees would be required to choose a primary care clinic and would be rewarded for choosing a higher-quality, lower-cost clinic.
The DFL likely won't appreciate the system because it's based on personal responsibility and setting the right priorities.
Develop a Modern MinnesotaCare ProductIf this provision sounds familiar, it's because Gov. Pawlenty's plan adopted Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan. I wasn't certain at first so I contacted Steve, who later confirmed my suspicion.
MinnesotaCare is a state-subsidized health insurance program for Minnesotans at or below 275% of the federal poverty guideline.
The Governor is proposing the state develop a modern MinnesotaCare product for parents between 133% and 275% (250% for single adults) of the federal poverty guideline that includes deductibles and co-payments that are commonly found in the private sector.
Modern MinnesotaCare would provide a higher-deductible insurance product coupled with a state contribution to an EBT card that would be used for out-of-pocket health expenses. Enrollees would be incentivized to choose higher-quality, lower-cost providers in order to maximize the value of the state contribution. Money left over on the card would remain with the enrollee to be used in the following year.
If Gov. Pawlenty runs for president, which I suspect he will, this type of targeted reforms, with its low price tag and solid results, will stand in stark contrast with Mitt Romney's health care plan and in even starker contrast with whichever Obamacare bill eventually passes.
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:05 PM
Comment 1 by apathyboy at 14-Oct-09 09:15 AM
Allowing interstate insurance will require increased Federal Regulation and expanding MNCare (which I believe is not debt-neutral) will add cost. Both are expanding government which will be exploited by his competitor's in the primaries. I don't see him pulling this off unless he pushes hard for tort reform, which should take the edge off the criticism in the primaries.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Oct-09 10:27 AM
Because the DFL holds a big majority, his initiatives unfortunately don't stand a chance in this session. Still, it's good to spell out your priorities.
As for his competition in the primaries, I wouldn't be worried about Romney or Huckabee. Romney will be busy defending his MittCare disaster & Huckabee's main appeal is as a pro-life candidate. Pawlenty is fiercely pro-life, thereby eliminating Huckabee's advantage there.
Comment 2 by Margaret at 14-Oct-09 11:33 AM
So far, color me unimpressed with the quality/cost comparison stuff they've put out. It is very difficult to do quality comparison that satisfies everybody. Is "quality" based on the patient stats at a particular clinic? Doesn't that have a lot to do with the patients who go there? Is quality based on how fast you are treated or how well you are treated? Presumably both. Boiling things like this down to numbers is really difficult and when somebody else is going to determine what the standard of quality is for me and force me to take it (and providers to provide it) it doesn't sound all that great. I'd rather a variety of info being available and me being able to choose what I think is high quality care for me.
