DFLers Senate Hopefuls On Health Care
It should come as no surprise that the leading DFL candidates running for the U.S. Senate next year here in Minnesota are of a universal mind when it comes to health care. They do phrase things a bit differently. The Strib reports that they are varying on the issue, but really what they are saying is the same thing; the difference is how to get there.
Here's the statement from Al Franken:
It's absolutely crucial that we get to universal health care. ... I would mandate that every state go to universal health care, and they do it the way they like -- 51 different laboratories. But I'd mandate one thing, and that's that they do single-payer for all kids. That'll give us a point of comparison, five years out, to say, how does single-payer work, compared with non-single-payer, with a large population ... I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Aside from the fact that Franken doesn't know how many States there are in the Union (there are 50, not 51), he comes down on the side of socializing medicine, starting with our children then foisting it on the rest of us. Anytime government mandates something, it reduces Liberty and raises the costs of what ever service they are mandating.
Here's what jack Nelson-Pellmeyer said:
I'm going to work with every ounce of my being for a national single-payer health care system. The people are way ahead of the politicians on this. If we turn it over to the states, the states are already strapped for funds. ... We have to pay for it with progressive taxes, because the rich in this country have insulated themselves from the common good, and we need to bring them back in. ... If we can't get there, then you compromise. But you don't compromise before you fight.
Again, he wants to socialize medicine and pay for it with a Marxist tax policy at the federal level at pushing an agenda of class warfare. Typical leftist thinking. Let's give everyone a free lunch and make someone else pay for it.
Jim Cohen said:
There needs to be a single-payer, publicly funded, universal health care system in this country. ... This is a moral and constitutional civil right that we have. Everyone should be able to have quality and affordable health care, and we need a system that changes the disastrous administrative costs that we are paying. ... Our insurance companies are bilking the American people.
Again, he is calling for socialized medicine, this time falsely claiming that it is a constitutional civil right. There is no such right anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. As for his claim that everyone should be able to afford quality health care, he is right. The problem is that many people are so addicted to employer provided medical insurance that they have concluded that when you take a job (such as a high tech contractor) where the employer does not provide you health coverage, they are faced with a choice of purchasing their own health coverage, or not buying any. To force the rest of the working Americans to provide that which they are unwilling to provide themselves is contrary with the founding principles of this great country.
As for the bilking of Amercans by the insurance companies: government intervention and the implementation of HMOs has done more to arm the health care system than the individual insurance companies he accuses of "bilking" us. It's also another push for socialist class warfare by demonizing a capitalistic system.
Question: What did Americans do for health care before employers began to routinely offer medical insurance? Answer: They paid for what they used as they used it.
Mike Ciresi is rated as having the more benign position on health care with this statement:
Everybody's arguing about who pays, but nobody is talking about delivering good, effective, universal, accessible health care to people. ... We're spending 70 cents of every dollar on diseases that are preventable, towards the last six months of life. We have to get good preventive health care. ... My plan is to have a federal health board, equivalent to the Federal Reserve Board, that says [to insurers], you want to be a payer? Here's what you have to offer: Cover all preexisting conditions. Covers all essential benefits. It's portable. And it caps administrative costs.
Ciresi's message is a trifle confusing on his 70 cents of every dollar…"towards the last six months of life." I am not sure what he is getting at here. Is he saying that spending money on people in their "last six months of life" is a waste of money and health care resources? Weird statement. Not sure if I want to speculate on what he is getting at, but this could be very important.
His solution: create more Federal Bureaucracy, which means more tax dollars being spent on bureaucrats attempting to find ways to control how Americans live, then dictating to private insurance companies the products they must offer.
Sure, I think insurers should cover preexisting conditions and people that want those types of conditions should expect to pay more for their insurance, just as smokers tend to be charged higher premiums than non-smokers.
Ciresi wants more preventative measures taken. Does this mean he is going to push teaching children that abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies?
Sure, preventative action will go a long ways to reducing the amount of health care usage in this country. Will it be mandated, or will incentives be made to encourage people to adopt a better style of living?
No matter how you slice and dice the four responses, they all come down to wanting to have more government and more taxes and taking away Americans right to control their lives.