-
Millionaire Rapper, Meet Billionaire Boone
June 1, 2012 | 4 comments
-
Re: Regrets Over Could-Have-Been GOP Contenders
November 2, 2011 | 7 comments
-
The Paul Ryan Primer
December 16, 2010 | 5 comments
-
Tim Pawlenty: Govt Unions Are a Silent Coup
December 13, 2010 | 10 comments
-
Re: Fey Still Isn’t Funny
November 17, 2010 | 10 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Governor Tim Pawlenty still hasn’t announced his 2012 Presidential plans, but one thing’s for sure: He doesn’t want to see Obama’s healthcare plan set foot in Minnesota. AP reports yesterday he ordered state agencies to decline “discretionary” involvement with the federal law “unless otherwise required by law or approved by the Governor’s office.”
Pawlenty’s long been vehemently opposed to the President’s plan and in this op-ed in the Washington Post, laid out his suggestions for the nation, modeled after, you guessed it: Minnesota. They include incentives, pay for performance, and liability reform.
Of course, some are saying this is just his way of projecting himself into the national spotlight for a 2012 race, so he could, in theory, go head to head with Governor Mitt Romney.
Time will tell.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Nicole Russell
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/01/pawlenty-on-healthcare-thanks
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- A Panoply of Beauties
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Nate| 9.1.10 @ 3:52PM
Pawlenty is advocating against a moderate health insurance reform that will permit hundreds of thousands of his constituents to afford insurance;
He is against a bill that beginning this year prevents children from being canceled or rejected by insurance companies;
He is against a bill that this year will make it illegal to dump someone when they get sick;
His is against a bill that in a few years will make it illegal to discriminate against people for "prior conditions."
O yes please tell me more against this champion for the people!!!
Anita| 9.1.10 @ 4:01PM
Nate -- He is against a bill that erects a huge bureaucratic structure that has no discernable function other than to get between doctors and patients.
He is against a bill that will add an estimated $5 trillion to the national debt.
He is against a bill that continues the stupid FEDERAL prohibition against buying insurance across state lines.
He is against a bill that does not incentivize patients to be proactive in their own health care.
He is against a bill that will dictate what procedures are available, and to whom.
He is against a bill that will mandate "standards of care" and thus push innovative and alternative health care out of the US.
Your post sounds like you belong to the "keep your hands off women's uteruses" crowd -- how about let's keep the government's hands off our kidneys as well?
Nate| 9.1.10 @ 11:22PM
Anita,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You've made some strong points here and I'd like to respond to some of them (the best of them):
Buying across state lines disempowers consumers. As conservatives often point out, the further the power source is removed, the harder to influence it. Buying across state lines would allow insurers to go to the states with the fewest protections for consumers and the result would be a NIGHTMARE of bureaucracy and law suits.
About bureaucracy. I agree that it can be frustrating. However, dealing with an insurance company that literally has life and death power over you can be as nightmarish, if not worse. As of now, ACCOUNTANTS stand in the way of doctors and patients most of the time: accountants are not accountable (hah) to the people or to morality or to medical necessity. They are accountable to profits and only profits. This is fine when you're talking about most commodities but not HUMAN BODIES.
The standards of care "mandates" empower physicians, not bureaucrats and not accountants.
As for not incentivizing people to take care of themselves. Look: people take care of themselves when they're receiving good medical care, not the other way around. People learn how to care for themselves in all kinds of ways -- and of course families, churches, and schools have important roles to play. But doctors do too, and always have. Getting the uninsured into doctors offices will make them LESS sick and result in fewer costs to you.
(You DO realize you pay for most of the costs related to the uninsured right now, don't you? It's about 100 billion dollars a year, roughly half being picked up by policy holders and the other half by the government -- i.e. tax payers.)
The COST you mention has to be weighed against the costs of doing nothing, which are higher and less controllable.
As for the government dictating which procedures are available. This is harder to say, and I don't know enough about it. However, the government is largely OUT of the health system created by the bill -- which is why liberals hated it so much. The government is simply getting everyone into the system we have NOW, and those limits on procedures are a part of that system. If this is your concern, you should lobby for a French style social system in which no procedures are limited for anyone at any time.
Warrior | 9.1.10 @ 4:24PM
Nate, you moronic Constitutional clown. Please give me another lesson on the Bill of Rights and tell me where the government has the right to force citizens to buy a product against their will? So now, the productive people of the country will have to pay to subsidize those who choose to have an XBox, large screen TV's, high speed internet and all inclusive cable packages over paying for health care for themselves or their families. Of course in your liberal world personal responsibility doesn't exist.
Nate| 9.1.10 @ 11:27PM
Warrior,
The government has a Constitutional right to impose a TAX. It has since the beginning of the Republic.
And just like the government has the right to tax, it has the right to exempt certain people from that tax for reasons prescribed by law.
If you give to charity, for example, you can lower your tax burden.
Well, it's the same here. If you have health insurance, you are exempted from a tax the government is levying to recoup the 100 billion dollars a year the uninsured cost the health system as a whole. If you don't have health insurance, you have to pay the tax.
No Constitutional problems.
Texas Mom| 9.2.10 @ 8:59AM
The problem is this rewards those who do not prioritize their health. It is the grasshopper and the ant. I know people who thought they didn't need a good insurance plan. They have multiple cars, expensive homes, luxery vacations etc. Then when one of them got cancer they had to beg their neighbors to pay for their $20K deductible. Which we did but I do not want to cover all of those who are not responsible. It is not right to force me to pay for irresponsible people. I would prefer to chose to whom I give my charity funds. Not to mention that this bill once again transfers tax money from responsible states to states like California who waste billions of $$$ every year.
Curtis Rasmussen| 9.1.10 @ 7:27PM
Nate, your marxist douchebag and Obama butt-sniffing poodle,
He is against a bill which dictates what services are available, to whom they are available, and the reimbursement rate to the doctor or hospital.
This means that your doctor has a conflict of interest, being forced to choose between keeping his practice open by suggesting the government approved procedure or the life saving one that could cost him his business.
Wake up, idiot. People will be denied service because the government feels that the cost cannot be justified and has already stated that it can discriminate by age, pushing young tax-paying corvees to the front of the line over our (soon to be dead) elderly.
Affordability? Are you smoking crack? The costs will soon go through the roof as the hard-working taxpayers foot the bill for degenerate slackers like you. Money doesn't grow on trees.
We are about to get hit with the largest tax increase in American History in 2011, all thanks to Obama, the scam-all-us, and death-care. What part of this do you consider to be reasonable?
sandyinohio| 9.1.10 @ 4:08PM
"Champion of the people"? Nate, the people don't need champions, they need to be left alone to make their own decisions about many things, including their own insurance and medical needs, with their doctors or clinicians.
Occam's Tool| 9.1.10 @ 7:40PM
Here in Minnesota we also have the Mayo Clinic, which in my Professional Opinion is the Best Damned Medical Clinic/Hospital setup in the world. And yes, Mayo Med School is more selective than Harvard.
Occam's Tool| 9.1.10 @ 7:43PM
By the way, Nate, have you read Pawlenty's article? It makes sense.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.10 @ 7:44PM
Folks,
Nate,
is too stupid to make those decisions. He NEEDS a bureaucrat to make those deisions for him.
CaN'T YOU GUYS GET IT?
Nate| 9.1.10 @ 11:32PM
Many of you are commenting about "affordability," with greater and lesser levels of civility.
Since the 1980s the earnings of the middle class -- you may have noticed -- have completely STAGNATED.
This is causing our country HUGE economic problems.
One reason for this stagnation is sky-rocketing medical costs, which are increasing at a much higher rate than inflation.
If everyone is IN the health insurance system, those costs can be driven DOWN or at least prevented from sky-rocketing even more.
To do nothing would be utterly insane. Medical costs have destabilized the middle class of this country, and something had to be done or more and more people would be facing the loss of homes and life's savings should someone in their family get sick.
A health system will make this country MORE competitive economically; it will let people MOVE (one of the principles of a dynamic economy's social MOBILITY, a hallmark of function free markets); it will let people plan their lives without having to fear a child's illness will wipe them OUT.
Texas Mom| 9.2.10 @ 9:02AM
How can massive tax increases on the middle class to pay for new entitlements possibly raise their stagnated income? You are ridiculous.
Curtis Rasmussen| 9.2.10 @ 12:01AM
Sanctimonious, childlesss, parentless, unemployed or under-employed marxist prig Nate on civility:
"Nate| 5.17.10 @ 12:11AM
Fuck off. Dolt."
You win Nate. Your civility and graciousness is a shining beacon for all us ignoramuses.
For all other comments see posts above and any news report about the upcoming 2011 tax increase, the largest in US history. Yeah, that will make us more competitive, paying for all the Nates on the dole.
ggoblue| 9.2.10 @ 8:43AM
pawlenty rolled over for the global warming gangsters....i will never trust him with my vote...he climbed in bed with the leftists and they shat the bed...he stinks.