"After reading a couple of Minnpost columns I have become interested in the MN senate race.I know nothing about these folks yet, so I welcome the opportunity to research, listen and learn.
Finally, Mike McFadden offers details on his health-care views
McFadden on how he would deal with his No. 1 worry: U.S. government debt
I think it will be a close race." Laurie
"Laurie, thanks for those posts. They were informative, even though Eric Black is a highly biased leftist. Once you know that, you can learn a lot from reading "between the li[n]es." Jerry
Personally I am thinking Franken will win easily. I mean this is Minnesota, he is the incumbent and he hasn't embarrassed MN as badly as I thought he would.
McFadden for US Senate
Franken for Senate
Real Clear Politics
WP A Break for GOP
WP McFadden / Franken
27 comments:
I am of the opinion that McFadden was endorsed because he has the best chance of raising the money needed to beat Franken's lavish Hollywood-style TV ad campaign of pure fiction. If McFadden can tie Franken to Obama (it's already started-- "Franken votes with Obama 98% of the time" and "the 60th vote for Obamacare") he can win. It depends on whether we have an issues-oriented campaign or a big-money mudslinging contest. McFadden's kind of a nice guy, while Franken has to struggle to project that [false, IMHO] image.
McFadden will need to explain why he wants to take health insurance away from millions of Americans.
==Hiram
I thought that since in 2008 the senate race was tied in a year Dems won big and since mid terms have a lower turnout than presidential years that it might be a close race for Franken, but Cook and Nate Silver both give Franken a strong chance of winning. Also, I think Franken is less disliked than the first time he ran, at least by me.
I think Hiram is right that McFadden's desire to take health insurance away from millions of people will hurt him.
Last, I still think it doesn't matter much who wins as congress doesn't do anything anyway.
"McFadden will need to explain why he wants to take health insurance away from millions of Americans."
Only if part of the Democrats' big-money, big-lie campaign accuses him of it. Just don't expect Franken to explain why HE voted to take health care away from millions of Americans.
A Congress that doesn't do anything would be vastly preferable to the one Al Franken became part of. And now that we have the Obama Imperium, they aren't needed.
I think Congress has done a lot. Mimized tax increases. Minimized spending increases. Blocked giving border jumpers a pardon.
Of course if you support big governnment spending, higher taxes, more welfare and pardoning law breakers... You may see it differrently.
Only if part of the Democrats' big-money, big-lie campaign accuses him of it.
They will.
"Just don't expect Franken to explain why HE voted to take health care away from millions of Americans."
Surely Franken will be asked that, and he will have an answer. And it will be a better answer than McFaden's.
--Hiram
I must say that McFadden's website healthcare plan seems weak to nonexistent....
Kind of... Get rid of ACA and then we will tell you...
Since Obamacare is basically the Republican program, Republicans have a very difficult time coming up with an alternative to it. Any program Republicans would come up with would be a variation on Obamacare and would have the same defects Republicans criticize Obamacare for.
Caught as they are, between a rock and a hard place, Republicans are casting about for any escape from the awkward position they have put themselves in. That's why you see this sort of ideological chaff that's being put out, the notion, for example, that prices for medical procedures should be transparent, implying I guess that we should bid for our medical care on eBay.
--Hiram
If the only thing Republicans succeeded in doing was repealing Obamacare our medical system would be in far better shape than it is WITH O'care in place. If O'care was a Republican idea properly implemented, you would think at least one Republican would have voted for it, but they did not. QED IMHO.
As for what to "replace" it with, that would be better than nothing at all, that is where Republicans do indeed struggle, because properly, the federal government should have ZERO role in health insurance or health care! Indeed, if they were to butt out completely, our costs would be cut by as much as half!
"If the only thing Republicans succeeded in doing was repealing Obamacare our medical system would be in far better shape than it is WITH O'care in place."
Is that what our policy concern should be? The shape of the medical system? McFadden says care should be patient focused. He didn't say care should be medical system focused.
"If O'care was a Republican idea properly implemented, you would think at least one Republican would have voted for it, but they did not."
Huge numbers of Republicans worked on Obamacare. It just turned out that none of them happened to be in Congress. Only a small percentage of America's Republicans are among our 535 members of congress.
--Hiram
As for what to "replace" it with, that would be better than nothing at all, that is where Republicans do indeed struggle,
And I do understand that this is what the Republican position has come down to. They are in favor of nothing. It's up to us to make the case that doing something, even it if it's what Republicans used to want to do, is better than doing nothing. And we will be asking why Republicans repeated from their former position. Why did they think premium supplements were a great idea 6 years ago, but a lousy idea now. Are their reasons partisan? Or are they political?
--Hiram
Jerry,
The previous problems would come back to life if ACA was repealed:
- lack of affordable coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
- premiums too high for many people with lower incomes
And the only way to address these is to mandate that everyone have insurance all the time and to have the middle class and wealthy "healthier" customers pay more than they should have to.
G2A Pre-existing Construction Fraud
Also, please provide some source regarding the 50% cost reduction if government exits healthcare. I just don't see it...
I think tort reform would save more... That fear of big law suits drives a lot of costly behaviors, tests, treatments, etc.
Why should we protect doctors from the full economic damage they cause to patients when they make errors?
Should be "full economic and other damage", not just "full economic damage".
"- lack of affordable coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
- premiums too high for many people with lower incomes
And the only way to address these is to mandate..."
Nonsense. People with pre-existing conditions OUGHT to either pay more for their health insurance, or pay less with temporary or permanent exclusions of the cost of that condition. Many states had "high risk pools" where such insurance could be obtained and, in some cases, eligible for public assistance.
And the fact that premiums were too high are not solved by an individual mandate. Indeed, most of the uninsured are either A) low income and eligible for Medicaid, or B) the "young invincibles" who don't want it, or C) illegal aliens not entitled to public benefits. And the reason premiums are too high is because government, through Medicare and Medicaid in particular, have created a system rife with perverse incentives and unintended consequences. I cannot find the Mayo study that details how this government involvement effectively doubles our cost of healthcare, but it makes perfect sense to me.
And if we are going to worry about premiums being too high, then why don't we repeal Obama care and lower everybody's premiums in one simple stroke?
"Why did they [Republicans] think premium supplements were a great idea 6 years ago, but a lousy idea now.[?]"
It is because what Republicans mean by the term and what Democrats mean by the term are essentially polar opposite propositions. They are still a great idea, if you use the Republican definition.
Sean,
The Doctors don't pay those bills. We the connsumer do..
Just remember that every time you see or hear a lawyer advertisement, you are paying for it.
Jerry,
"It makes perfect sense to me" .... Are you serious?
The point of a medical malpractice system is to compensate people appropriately for preventable medical errors.
The reality is that our system doesn't do that today. In fact, most evidence points to the fact that most victims of medical errors receive little or no compensation (most studies show that number as being around 10%). People who are victims of the same error receive widely differing compensation. And, pursuing a claim can often take years to get any result. Plus, lax enforcement by state licensing boards leads to doctors being allowed to be repeat offenders.
Some other countries have gone to a so-called "no fault" system as it relates to medical malpractice. These systems split the issues of patient compensation from doctor discipline, and lead to more equitable results for people who are the victims of preventable errors.
Of course I'm serious, and I did not forget an emoticon. And there are those that agree with me. Hiram claims that Republicans "don't have a plan" and he is correct in part, but it is because Obamacare is just too complicated to work properly-- a Ferrari designed by an international consortium of schoolkids that don't and can't talk to one another. The correct "replacement" for Obamacare is actually a long series of individual reforms, as suggested here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/after-repeal-of-obamacare-moving-to-patient-centered-market-based-health-care
But the first step in fixing any problem is to stop the hemorrhaging, turn off the water, pick your metaphor, but repeal Obamacare to keep "things" from getting worse.
How exactly is ACA making things worse?
Though I am not excited that I am paying more so others pay less. However I also realize that households earning $40,000/yr are going to find it difficult to pay $10,000 per year for family medical coverage.
Sean,
Healthcare is not like UPS delivering a package from one known address to another known address. Nor is it like flying a jet from Detroit to Shanghai.
My point is that there is going to be a much higher failure rate, even if everyone performs perfectly. That mis-diagnosis, that frustrating infection, that extreme sensitivity to the anethesia, that organ failure, etc, etc, etc.
And it is not the duty of the health care establishment to pay for every case of bad things happening to good people.
I agree that people should get some compensation when it is clear that a system or person failed aggregiously. Now how much, that is the question.
The current system wastes huge amounts of money as the lawyers and plaintiffs try to maximize the benefit / punishment.
My view is that negligence should be determined by a medical review board and not a jury of lay people. How would lay people have any idea what is bad luck and what is negligence?
So in that other system, what is a death worth? How about a missing arm? etc...
Do you have a source we can look at?
Jerry,
People who have been diligent in paying their premiums certainly should not pay higher premiums because they were unfortunate and developed a chronic condition.
Does it really make sense to you that my employer and/or insurance company can get rid of me once problems start occurring? And that I am then doomed to face out rageous premiums just because I am forced to change insurance companies?
Improving Patient Safety and Lowering Malpractice
I liked this one... See the table at the bottom of the document.
New Zealand Plan
Low payouts, no lawyers, health experts determine payout, etc... Who again is going to support this in America?
Certainly not the trial lawyers or the plaintiffs who are looking for big punative settlements.
Post a Comment