By Philip Klein on 11.2.09 @ 6:08AM
An interview with Minnesota's Republican governor and
presidential possibility.
With his second term set to expire at the end of next year,
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is widely considered a likely
contender for the 2012 Republican nomination. Pawlenty took a
step toward raising his national profile recently when he formed
a political action committee, called Freedom First. Last Friday,
TAS's Philip Klein spoke to Gov. Pawlenty over the phone
to get his reaction to the Democrats' current health care push.
The following is a transcript of the exchange.
TAS: To start with, since I’m sure
you’ve already read the 1,900 page House health care bill…
Gov. Pawlenty: I stayed up all night reading it.
TAS: Okay, well, what’s your reaction
to it?
Gov. Pawlenty: Well, I think both in detail and
in philosophical direction, I think that it’s a very misguided
piece of legislation. I think this effort is going to go down in
history as one of the biggest bait and switch tactics in modern
political history. You have a promise that we’re going to tackle
costs and make health care more affordable. I think this bill and
the Senate counterpart are going to spend more government money
-- not less. It’s going to cost premium payers more -- not less.
And it’s a big deception.
TAS: Can you talk for a bit about the
expansion in Medicaid? In the Senate bill, Medicaid eligibility
is increased to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, and on
the House side it’s 150 percent. From the perspective of a
governor, how would that affect things at the state level?
Gov. Pawlenty: Well, it will vary from state to
state, because different states have assumed different levels of
responsibility or initiative for those populations, but as a
general rule, it’s going to cost the states more money, and in
many cases it’s going to cost the states dramatically more money.
It’s another unfunded liability from the federal government,
which they will manage as a big federal bureaucracy without much
innovation, without much ability to reform and without much
ability to improve. We’ve seen that already in the existing
Medicaid program, and now they want to expand it and send some of
the bill to the states. I would add that every major entitlement
program that the federal government currently runs is on a
pathway to bankruptcy or insolvency. That includes Social
Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. With that track record, why in
the heck would we give them another one to run and manage? In
addition to moving in the direction of having the federal
government take over the health care system or additional parts
of it, it is just directionally flawed and philosophically
flawed.
TAS: On the Senate side, there’s a
provision that would allow states to opt out of the government
plan. As governor of Minnesota, if the Senate legislation were to
pass as currently designed, would you recommend that the state of
Minnesota opt out of the government plan or opt in?
Gov. Pawlenty: First of all, let’s call this
what it is. This isn’t opt in or opt out, this is government-run
health care, and their rationale for having a government-run
health care plan is that they want to quote “keep the private
sector honest.” That’s what the president and Democratic
members of Congress have said, and it is ludicrous. If you take
that logic to the next step then, if we don’t like the price of
toothpaste are we going to have government-run Wal-Marts or
government-run Targets? If we don’t like the price of gasoline is
government going to takeover the filling stations and oil
refiners in the country like they have done in South America? I
mean, it’s a preposterous mindset. So, they obviously want some
sort of government-run plan, and they’re thrashing about trying
to get the camel’s nose under the tent, or foot in the door. They
couldn’t get it straight up in the bill, so now they’ve focused
on triggers, opt ins, opt outs. I think it should be out of the
bill completely because I think it’s a bad idea. The opt out is a
sham. It’s a charade. The word out of Washington is that if you
were to choose to opt out as a state, you can opt out of the
benefits, but you can’t opt out of the tax increases to support
the benefits. So all you’d be doing is paying for other states’
participation in the program. I don’t like it. I would prefer
that it didn’t exist. I would like Minnesota to opt out, but it
looks like they’re not really allowing you to opt out. It’s a
sham. They’re allowing you to opt out of the benefits, but
they’re not allowing you to opt out of paying for it.
TAS: What about their argument that
it’s not going to derive money from general tax revenue, but only
from the premiums it collects? In other words, that it will be
self-sustaining and won’t need government revenue?
Gov. Pawlenty: First of all, I don’t believe that. But
second of all, managing and operating a plan with the full force
and effect of the government and the police powers of the
government to compete with private enterprise on the marketplace
gives them enormous advantage and they can probably intimidate
some of their competitors. And if they’re going to go into the
marketplace and essentially dictate pricing of what they’re going
to pay providers, that gives them that big of an advantage, and
it’s frightening that they think that’s okay from a philosophical
standpoint.
topics:
Health Care, Tim Pawlenty
