November 14-15, 2016
Nov 14 01:53 Return of the Nutroots lefties Nov 14 03:09 Gov. Dayton's MNsure fearmongering Nov 14 11:00 Dayton-DFL MNsure alternative Nov 15 01:03 Statistics explain the MNsure crisis Nov 15 03:29 FNS, Dems in disarray edition Nov 15 13:01 Exploring Trump's mandate Nov 15 22:32 MNsure squeeze expanding
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Return of the Nutroots lefties
It's impossible to think that the Nutroots lefties aren't intent on holding onto their hold of the DNC after reading this article. These people aren't willing to admit that most people think they're nuts. For instance, when Katrina Vanden Heuvel spoke, she said the "people in South Carolina who run hotels, who understand -- self-interest. They will be overrun by rivers and water if they don't deal -- deal with climate crisis."
What idiot thinks that they're going to win back coal miners and steel workers talking like that? I don't doubt that Ms. Vanden Heuvel thinks that. Even if it's true, which it isn't, why would a coal miner support Ms. Vanden Heuvel's policies? Hardline progressives like Ms. Vanden Heuvel simply don't appeal to blue collar workers because their worship of the environment turns huge parts of the upper Midwest off politically.
Salena Zito highlights the Democrats' disdain for blue collar workers in this article . Think of what the difference between the Democratic Party of LBJ, Hubert Humphrey and Pat Moynihan and the Democratic Party of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. Then read Ms. Zito's column, which says "Since then white, traditional-values, working-class, predominantly male voters have been severed from their party so they could build an urban- and cosmopolitan-centered coalition of minorities, elites and women."
For that matter, think of the difference between Mrs. Clinton's disdain for Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin vs. President Clinton's attention to those states. The contrast is stunning. Watch this video and tell me that this reminds you of the Democratic Party of 25 years ago:
If this is the new identity of the Democratic Party, they'd better prepare to lose lots of races in the 2018 midterms.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2016 1:53 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton's MNsure fearmongering
This article highlights the difficult position Gov. Dayton and the DFL painted themselves into when they created MNsure while enthusiastically praising the ACA. Now that health insurance premiums sold on the individual market have increased by up to 67% this year after increasing by up to 54% last year, it isn't difficult convincing Minnesota farmers that they need something different. They're already demanding change.
Gov. Dayton is attempting to sound tough when he said "It's a great political slogan. I think it had a major impact on some of the legislative races. But it's another thing to deal with the reality of what you put in its place. They better look before they push us over the cliff."
Gov. Dayton, quit with the fearmongering. Nobody's talking about anything radical. In fact, Matt Dean, the chair of the House HHS Finance Committee and a member of the House HHS Reform Committee, "said Minnesota should replace the Affordable Care Act with its old approach, a high-risk pool to cover ill and expensive consumers who previously couldn't get health insurance." Before the ACA, Minnesota's uninsured rate was 7.2% in 2007. Of those that didn't have insurance, 50% of them were eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, meaning Minnesota's effective uninsured rate was a spectacular 96.4%. I can't wait to hear Gov. Dayton explain how maintaining a 96.4% insured rate is the equivalent of pushing people "over the cliff." Then again, the Democrats' Agenda Project shadow group, did put this disgustingly dishonest ad together:
With Democrats, the only thing we shouldn't expect is them doing the right thing the first time.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2016 3:09 AM
No comments.
Dayton-DFL MNsure alternative
I wrote this post to highlight Gov. Dayton's fearmongering on the MNsure/ACA reform. This weekend, he said "It's a great political slogan. I think it had a major impact on some of the legislative races. But it's another thing to deal with the reality of what you put in its place. They better look before they push us over the cliff."
In the post, I replied "Gov. Dayton, quit with the fearmongering. Nobody's talking about anything radical. In fact, Matt Dean, the chair of the House HHS Finance Committee and a member of the House HHS Reform Committee, 'said Minnesota should replace the Affordable Care Act with its old approach, a high-risk pool to cover ill and expensive consumers who previously couldn't get health insurance.'"
The truth is that the only thing that Gov. Dayton and the DFL have proposed thus far to 'fix' MNsure is a one-time bailout of people making too much to qualify for federal subsidies. Both sides agree that that's necessary in the short-term. That isn't controversial but it isn't the complete fix for Minnesota's health insurance crisis, either.
Medica has reached its self-imposed limits of policies sold through the individual markets. One-time rebates won't fix that. This article highlights the problem facing hundreds of Minnesota families:
Medica has hit its enrollment cap for those buying through the MNsure state-run exchange, meaning only one option for people in dozens of Greater Minnesota counties who want to switch to a new health plan.
In those counties, the only option left is Blue Plus, which is the most expensive plan offered. Gov. Dayton and the DFL haven't proposed a single solution to these families' situation. By definition, isn't not proposing a plan that fixes these families' situation is the equivalent of pushing these families off a financial cliff?
It's worth noting that there's no need to wait. The caps were agreed to by the Dayton administration. That means this is a Minnesota-only problem. It requires a fix from Minnesota's politicians.
It's clear that Republicans are leading on this issue. Greg Davids, the chair of the House Taxes Committee, put forward the outline for MNsure/ACA reform . Chairman Davids' proposal includes fixing things like cost, accessibility, families keeping their doctors and providing families more options in terms of more insurers in all parts of the state.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL are one-trick ponies. They haven't proposed fixing anything. They've proposed maintaining the status quo. That isn't leadership. That's political cowardice, coupled with the DFL's usual dose of demagoguery.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2016 11:00 AM
No comments.
Statistics explain the MNsure crisis
David Montgomery of the Pi-Press has done Minnesotans a great service with this article . Specifically, he dug into some statistics that explain why MNsure is failing. These statistics fit into 3 categories in Montgomery's article: too many sick people, costs vary widely and the "premium cliff."
Starting with the category titled too many sick people, I was astonished when Montgomery wrote "In Minnesota, for example, the most expensive 20 percent of the population paid about 83 percent of total costs, a 2014 study by the Minnesota Department of Health found, a typical figure for the U.S. The most expensive 2 percent alone accounted for 24 percent of spending." That's just the start of the statistics.
Next, he cited the statistic that "But Minnesota's individual market takes this into overdrive. Just 2.2 percent of the roughly 267,000 Minnesotans on the individual market in 2015 caused almost 50 percent of health costs, a Department of Commerce study found." Here's why that last statistic is important:
This 2.2 percent, about 6,000 people, averaged about $100,000 per person per year - a total of $600 million.
The ratio of healthy people to unhealthy people means that insurance companies are paying out huge payments to hospitals. The bad news for these health insurance providers is that they aren't getting the revenue they expected from policies sold to healthy people. That imbalance creates a crisis that's impossible to overcome.
The other thing that's contributing to the crisis many people are feeling is called the "premium cliff":
So while a 60-year-old St. Paul resident earning $45,000 a year might pay 9.5 percent of his or her income in premiums, that person could pay almost 20 percent of their income in premiums if they earned $50,000 per year, according to data from the Department of Commerce.
It's even starker for a Rochester resident, subject to that region's higher premiums. The Department of Commerce data shows a 60-year-old on the individual market could face premiums nearing 30 percent of their income if they're just over the poverty line.
Remember that this just takes into account the premiums being paid by these individuals. It isn't factoring in these people's deductibles. Their deductibles would put these people one catastrophe away from financial hardship.
This isn't affordable care. It's expensive care. Think about this: a healthy person living in Rochester making $50,000 a year would pay $18,300 in premiums before factoring in his deductible. That individual is better off paying the fine and saving the money they'd spend on the premiums. If they stay healthy, they've saved more than $15,000 by not buying health insurance.
The individual with health issues can't afford to not buy health insurance. That individual is likely to purchase a gold plan with a modest co-pay rather than dealing with an expensive deductible. This post isn't complete without this graphic:
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:03 AM
No comments.
FNS, Dems in disarray edition
This past Sunday, Chris Wallace's panel broke things down beautifully why Hillary Clinton lost . One of the eye-popping exchanges came when Chris Wallace asked "You know, George, one of the things that, and we've been around too long probably, we shouldn't tell people that, but one of the things I'm always amused by is at the end of a campaign, the winning campaign, they were all geniuses. The losing campaign, they were all dopes. The winning party, they're on the course to building a permanent majority in the country. The losing campaign is in tatters. How much of that is actually true?"
Will's response was "Well, the losing party here is in tatters. The Republican Party is as strong as it's been since the 1920s and probably more. Broad and deep. Sixty-nine of 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by the Republicans. Twenty-four states, they have the Republican governor and the entire control of the legislature. Only six states have Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. Thirty-four Republican governors. That means if you're looking for a deeper bench for presidential candidates for the Democratic Party, you have to start with 16 governors is all they've got. Furthermore, one-third of the House caucus of the Democratic Party are from three states, Massachusetts, New York and California."
Think about that set of statistics in terms of its implications to the Democratic Party and its ability to regain control of the US House of Representatives. A total of 24 states with 185 congressional districts are controlled by Republican governors working with GOP majorities in their legislatures. With Republicans totally controlling the redistricting process in those 24 states, the odds of Democrats regaining control of the US House in the next 3-4 election cycles are slim at best.
Then there's this:
WILL: They were united by Barack Obama. They were united by an agenda. Chuck said people felt forgotten by -- no, I think they felt condescended to. And there's something about progressivism that just is condescension. We know what your healthcare ought to be, be quiet and take your medicine. We know how much water should come through your shower head. We know what kind of toilets you ought to have. We're going to change your light bulbs, be quiet and take our direction, and people are tired of it.
LANE: Yes. Well, I -- I have to say, I'll take that as a friendly amendment, George. And I also think, just when we're talking about factors here, I think environmentalism in a usual way worked against the Democratic Party this year. I did a little back of the envelope coalition about the most coal dependent states in terms of electricity generation in this country. There are 25 most dependent, 20 of them Trump carried. He carried Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, which are the three most coal dependent states in terms of electricity generation. That power plan to focus on global warming and stuff that he pushed with a relatively thin legal basis might have provided the small -- a part, at least, of the small margin that contributed to his defeat.
Think about what Charles Lane hinted at. He essentially said that the Democrats' siding with the environmental activist wing of their party finally caught up with them. Trump identified these blue collar voters as swing voters, then courted them, telling them that he'd be their voice in DC. Mr. Trump promised to take on the EPA if elected. He promised to be their champion.
Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he didn't promise to retrain coal miners who lost their jobs due to her eliminating their jobs in favor of green energy jobs. That's when Pennsylvania and Ohio knew that they'd have a champion in the White House.
The Democratic Party is so indebted to the environmental activist wing of their party that it's almost inconceivable that they'll be a majority party in the House in the foreseeable future.
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:29 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 15-Nov-16 09:59 AM
And yet they still hold all the statewide offices and the MN Senate here in MN. Even Rick Nolan won, again. When are they going to pay that price HERE? and how?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-16 12:26 PM
First, we'll win the governorship in 2018. Next, the legislators that are serving now will eventually defeat Franken. Third, when we get serious about messaging, we'll start winning the constitutional offices. Finally, our state party chair panders too often to the special interests. That needs to stop ASAP.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 15-Nov-16 10:01 AM
Oops. Forgot, the GOP flipped the Senate. Flip the Governor and we finally get some common sense?
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 16-Nov-16 10:01 AM
I see a bit of a catch-22 here. Until we win the Secretary of State's office I don't see any election offering an honest result that includes a Republican win. And until we start getting a clear, consistent message out over and above the ABM-MSM media megaphone, we won't elect a governor OR a constitutional office.
Trump won while being seriously outspent because he ignored special interests, political correctness and "demographics" and said (with some bluster) the simple truth.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-16 07:58 PM
There isn't a catch-22 there. If last Tuesday's election should've taught us anything, it's that a terrible candidate can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democrats don't have a legitimate candidate to run for governor if Amy Klobuchar doesn't run. The other candidates (Bakk, Thissen, Walz & Flint-Smith) are pathetic candidate.
Second, events matter. There's a pretty good chance that Democrats will dig in their heels over ACA reform. That's their Holy Grail. Meanwhile, the public will side with Republicans because they've actually got a reasonable-sounding, appealing plan to fix the MNsure/ACA crisis.
Look at how Angie Craig outspent Jason Lewis. It's something like 3 or 4-to-1. How'd that work out for Ms. Craig? The thing we must learn from this is that candidate quality & message is infinitely more important than spending lots of money & having the SecState in your pocket.
Exploring Trump's mandate
Last Tuesday night, Donald Trump was given a mandate on multiple issues. One of the issues that he received a mandate on was energy. In state after state, especially in the battleground states, Mr. Trump tapped into the frustration felt by blue collar voters. These voters have frequently been classified as angry white voters by the MSM. Whether that's an intentional mischaracterization or whether it's a simple mistake, it isn't accurate.
These voters told the nation that they were tired of Democrats hurting coal mining by constantly siding with the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party. In Rust Belt state after Rust Belt state, voters voted Donald Trump in overwhelming numbers. While there aren't exit polls highlighting this statistic, there's a different yardstick to measure that mandate. It's called voter turnout. In the Great Lakes states, the proof was obvious from the start of the night.
Another mandate that voters gave to Mr. Trump and Republicans was on the issue of health care reform. Here in Minnesota, Republicans increased the size of their majority in the House of Representatives and flipped the Senate because of the MNsure/ACA crisis in the state and because of increased turnout in rural Minnesota thanks to Donald Trump.
Another way of judging the size of the mandate is that Trump won 30 of the 50 states. Of the battleground states, Mrs. Clinton won 3 (New Hampshire, Nevada and Virginia) states with a total of 23 electoral votes while Mr. Trump won 6 (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida) with a total of 108 electoral votes.
President Trump will implement his policies because Democrats are in disarray and because the issues he's fighting for are popular. Think of it this way. Would you want to be one of the 9 Democratic senators in states that Trump won after voting against fixing the ACA? There's a term for that. That's called political suicide.
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:01 PM
No comments.
MNsure squeeze expanding
When open enrollment first came on the horizon, the DFL instantly said that MNsure "only" directly affected 250,000 people. I've frequently challenged that assertion because it doesn't paint the entire picture. While it's technically true, it's only true due to the qualifier "directly."
The secret to the spin is that qualifier. The PR people don't want others to know that insurance companies losing money in the individual market bleeds into other markets. For instance, Blue Cross lost $500,000,000 on the individual market last year. (That's why they've announced that they won't participate in the individual market anymore.)
It isn't a stretch to think that Blue Cross's $500,000,000 loss last year caused them to cut expenses elsewhere. Unfortunately, cutting expenses carries a human price with it. One of the people affected by Blue Cross's decision is Sarah Gill, a Kindergarten teacher in the Sartell-St. Stephen School District. Ms. Gill has 3 children, ages 6,5 and 2. Her youngest child, Aiden, "was diagnosed with a rare birth defect called congenital diaphragmatic hernia at 22 weeks gestation and was given a 50 percent survival rate. I chose Sartell Pediatrics in 2013 after learning about Aiden's diagnosis and I needed a pediatrician who was willing to answer all my questions, close to my home and work, and easily available for appointments. I want my children to continue to receive their medical care at Sartell Pediatrics because of the exceptional care of the doctors and staff there. The doctors and staff know my family and my children's medical history, especially Aiden's. Aiden's diagnosis and medical care is rare and unique and many doctors have not treated patients with this condition. The doctors and staff at Sartell Pediatrics have gone above and beyond for my family."
Sartell Pediatrics is part of a network called Integrity Health Network. This afternoon, I spoke with Jill Smith, the administrator at Sartell Pediatrics. She told me that IHN negotiates contracts with the insurance companies, which allows them to focus on improving health care practices. She told me "We're proud to be part of Integrity Health Network and we would like to continue to have them negotiate our contracts with Blue Cross and other insurance providers. Sartell Pediatrics, among the other Integrity Health Network clinics, are some of the most cost-effective providers in the region. Data released by Minnesota Community Measurement in early October highlights Sartell Pediatrics with the 5th lowest total cost of pediatric care in the state . These are good health care providers and we are concerned about the negative impact on access and costs due to Blue Cross's decision."
I've confirmed that other provider networks are getting dropped by Blue Cross and that they're being told it's for financial reasons. Since Blue Cross isn't in the individual market anymore, their decisions are affecting people not in the individual market. It isn't a stretch to think that MNsure is just the tip of the iceberg that's negatively affecting health care in Minnesota. The information I've gathered indicates that the money being lost by health insurance companies in the individual market, aka MNsure, is narrowing the size of networks while driving up premiums.
If Gov. Dayton and the DFL don't step up and fix all of the problems involved in Minnesota's health care crisis, voters should vote the DFL out of office in 2018. This crisis isn't just about too-high premium prices. This crisis is about deductibles being totally unaffordable, accessibility being difficult and network and options being too limited.
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:32 PM
No comments.
