Search Results for ‘own health care’
Jon Corzine has recently introduced a plan in New Jersey to force many of that state’s 566 municipalities to merge together. New Jersey has almost no county government and most local governmental functions are performed at the municipal level. However, over the half of the municipalities in New Jersey have a population of less than 10,000 and the resulting map looks like that of Germany in the Middle Ages, a landscape speckled throughout by innumerable miniature jurisdictions, each of which have their own police force, fire department and school system. The result is a massive wastage of taxpayer money as services are duplicated and triplicated within miles of each other.
Iowa has a similar problem. Iowa has 99 counties with a median population of about 16,000. In a state with a declining tax base and a shrinking rural population, this is totally inefficient. The result is that the State Legislature is forced to subsidize many county governments who can’t bear the costs of having their auditor, recorder, attorney, etc. The reason that there are so many counties in Iowa was so that no one would be more than one day’s wagon ride away from their courthouse. In the age of the automobile, when most rural Iowans drive 20 miles to go grocery shopping at Super Wal Mart, it is strange that there is still a pressing need to keep a County Recorder so close at hand.
Iowa has no need for 99 county courthouses or 99 county attorneys or replicating all the functions of county government 99 times throughout the state. That is why County Consolidation is so important. County consolidation is a good government that both liberals and conservatives can support. For conservatives, it means reducing taxes and the size of government. There are basic efficiencies of scale that can be achieved consolidating services which will save rural taxpayers money. In addition, it reduces the size of government. For liberals and progressives, it frees up government funds to be used on health care or education rather than maintaining a multiplicity of deputy auditors throughout rural Iowa.
Having 99 counties is wasteful and archaic. If Iowa can reduce the number of counties down to 50 or even 75, it would easily save tens of millions of dollars every year and help reduce taxes throughout the state. It is sensible, it is logical and it needs to happen.
March 23rd, 2008
Hillary Clinton held a event this afternoon in a coffeeshop in Newton. It was a small event, maybe 80 people were there. Christine Vilsack spoke briefly and introduced the senator, stating that she supports Clinton because her extensive experience will allow her to get results in Washington.
Clinton herself spoke for a half hour. She called for universal health care and attacked insurance company bureacracies for making it hard for ordinary Iowans to receive inexpensive medical treatment. Also, she spoke in favor of college education being more accessible and inexpensive for everyone. There was a lot of applause for that. However, when she voiced her support for a women’s right to choose, there was a mixed response from the crowd.
She spoke out against the corruption by lobbyists and large corporations in Washington, asking for a return to honesty in the political arena. The crowd seemed to find this message quite appealing.
She gave the most attention to the subject of Iraq, when she stated that the U.S. had helped Iraqis and given Iraqis the chance to form a stable government in their country, but that it was time to take the troops out and let the Iraqis form a stable government for themselves. She did not outline a plan for withdrawal. However, when she next brought up Iran, she spoke out against the lack of diplomatic talks with Iran by the U.S. and asked for “diplomatic solutions” to the nuclear issue.
At the end, Clinton graciously thanked the crowd and asked for support. She took only a few questions. One man asked how much Senators earn a month. She fielded it fluidly, giving her guess in the six-figure range and taking it as an opportunity to claim that she had not voted for any pay increases in Congress. The next question came from a woman from Progress Industries, asking for Clinton’s support for people with disabilities in the workplace. She championed Tom Harkin as the leader of rights for people with disabilities in Congress, but did not go into much detail about her own position. The last question was hard to near and not repeated, but her response was to speak against the Bush administration for bypassing the UN before the invasion of Iraq.
She ended the event by mingling with the crowd and answering a few questions individually.
April 21st, 2007
I had intended to liveblog this event but got stuck in an overflow room with no option of standing in the back. I’m not sure how many updates I’ll be posting as this event starts in a few minutes…
…that situation has been remedied. Read on for liveblogging. Sorry for typos, etc., but this is all being typed on a Blackberry pseudo-keyboard.
State rep Mark Smith is on now talking about the successes Dems have had in Iowa and about history. He compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Then he makes sure to note that he hasn’t endorsed anyone yet and that it’s too early for him to make an endorsement.
Obama is on now. He thanks Mark Smith and volunteers who helped with the event. He says Iowa and Illinois are a lot alike, except Illinois has Chicago.
…He’s going over his bio and tieing that in to the purpose of politics…
Now he’s on to the issues. Goes down list of problems we face; gets applause at the end when he says he was against the war from the beginning. Casts himself as Washington outsider and gets more applause. It sounds like he hasn’t quite memorized his stump speech yet, because it has been a little choppy.
Says we can use ethanol just like Brazil. Says using incentives can make capitalism earth-friendly.
Mentions his senate bill on Iraq withdrawal and gets applause again. Says diplomacy is the answer and alludes to Marshall plan.
He is finishing his speech by talking about the importance of us getting involved and finally mentions briefly that he had a lot of small donors during the last quarter
Now questions…
First questionis on universal health care. Obama talks about preventative health care as part of the solution. He talks about obesity as an example of the problem, but he sounded a little critical of fat people - oops.
This answer is taking too long considering everyone already knows his position as it has been defined. .
Next question is from a peace activist on Israel and Palestine. Obama starts tip toeing…
Religious conflict between shia and sunni predates Israel, he says, dodging the original question.
Obama does believe that Israel-Palestine is serving to perpetuate problems in the reason.
He calls for two-state solution. Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop terrorism. US must be a part of negotiations. My pro-Israel friend just said Obamas answer won his vote.
Sandy shaver from UAW/Maytag asks about outsourcing. It turns out Barack Obama is against it.
Solution one is stop giving tax benefits for outsourcing.
Solution two is improving infrastructure like broadband.
Solution three is spending a lot of money on green technology (on the scale of the Manhattan project, he says).
Finally Obama says he supports both free trade and fair trade. My Econ major friends roll their eyes a but but it sounds good to me
That was all his answer to the outsourcing question.
Next question from a teacher is whether he will consult teachers on his education plans. He says his sister is a teacher (and yes, he will).
Everyone has to work to improve education: parents, students, community, etc.
Obama says he does support some of NCLB’s goals, including higher standards for students. But he thinks it needs to be more sensitive to individual students, and he thinks the funding situation needs reform.
Also he wants to increase teacher pay tied to some accountability measures.
Cute kid asks about year-round school. Obama says he might like the idea of changing the school calendar to avoid one long summer break.
Next question comes from an Iowan with a mental disability on employment possibilities. Obama praises tom harkin forhis work on the issue and promises to get one of his staff to help Him get in touch withthe right people.
Next question is ,what has happened to our democratic party? Dems are too friendly to big business and too soft on immigration.
Obama says you can’t be pro-worker without also being pro-employer. Question-asker isn’t satisfied and asks more specifically about immigration.
Obama supports more secure border and better I’d verification. But he also thinks that those people who are here can’t - and shouldn’t - be sent home.
Last question comes from a student about how expensive college is. He says student loan systemshould be reformed so banks are no longer making money on kids.
Obama is also in favor of expanding national service programs and offering to pay for education for kids who go into certain important professions (like teaching).
He closes by waving a supporter cardsnd asking is to get involved. More thoughts later
April 6th, 2007
Health care is shaping up to be the most important issue in the United States for the first time since the early 1990s in the coming election. It is an issue that all the Democratic candidates have been addressing here in Iowa and one that they will continue to address until the caucuses. A recent New York Times poll gives a lot of perspective about how the candidates are and should be addressing the issue. According to the poll, 90% of Americans think our health care system needs either fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt and a disproportionate percentage of Americans, 62%, trust Democrats to improve the health care system. One may think this is an easy chance for Democratic candidates to push a massive reform like a single payer health care system but popular opinion about health care reform is much more complex than it seems.
64% of Americans think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, which is an increase of 10% since 1996 and by a 2 to 1 margin, Americans think its worth paying higher taxes so everyone can have health insurance. When asked on the details of health care plans, Americans favor a single payer solution over the current model by a margin of 47 to 38 percent. However there is a big gap between how people percieve health care in general in the U.S. and their own individual health care coverage. While 57% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the state of health care in the United States, only 20% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with their own health care. This trend also holds with the cost of health care. A whopping 81% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. but only a bare majority, 53%, are dissatisified with the cost of their own health care.
Only one candidate has introduced a health care plan so far, John Edwards. His health care plan tries to balance the concerns expressed in the poll of universal coverage without affecting people who already have health insurance. Unfortunately, it comes across as a little complex as a result. The poll results belied this. People who expressed an opinion about it favored the plan by a margin of over 2 to 1. However, nearly half of all poll respondents were unsure, which is a sure sign that it confused a lot of people.
This deftly illustrates the problems that candidates face. When like John Edwards, or Bill Clinton in his first term, they fix our dysfunctional health care system while taking into account the relative satisfaction that individuals feel about their personal health care plans, the result is confusion. However, if you try to set up a single payer plan, it makes people afraid that they will lose their health care. The result gives a candidate two difficult choices between what type of health care plan to propose. John Edwards has already picked one option and it will be interesting to see what the other candidates do.
March 1st, 2007
While the tempest in a teapot has been raging about the comments that Obama backer David Geffen made about Hillary Clinton, it’s worth noting that Obama, who was in Iowa last night, has acquired some questionable supporters. Obama has freely accepted the support of someone with known links to transvestite prostitutes, of a person who’s publicly made anti-Semitic remarks and, most appallingly, of Ben Stiller.
It’s highly doubtful that Hillary Clinton will attack Obama for his links with the man responsible Meet The Fockers (although that film was more appalling than any comment David Geffen has made or ever could make). But the basic point is who cares? It is one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Obama on his position on Iraq, his lack of anything remotely resembling a healthcare plan or on any other substantive issue. Those attacks produce real debate that actually matters. But attacking Obama because someone who wrote him a check said something nasty to Maureen Dowd is meaningless. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, it doesn’t effect the life of a single person and it doesn’t produce any meaningful debate.
Presidential primaries, like any other election, are fundamentally about negativity. Presidential primaries specifically arose to keep political bosses from sweeping party conflicts under the carpet to broker political deals. They are about replacing compromise with conflict. Primaries are about candidates competing to see whose vision of their party is the most compelling and about testing each candidate to see who can best hold up under the enormous strain and pressure of a general election. However, not all negative attacks are created equal. They can point out clear flaws in candidate’s programs like when George H.W. Bush described Ronald Reagan’s plan for tax cuts for the rich as “voodoo economics” and lead to important debate. But when they’re just pointless attacks for the sake of scoring some easy points in the press like Hillary Clinton’s on David Geffen, it contributes nothing to the public arena and degrades the entire political process.
February 22nd, 2007
In the midst of the stupidity over bloggers and the stupidity over his house, it’s worth noting that John Edwards presented a pretty significant and detailed heath care plan last week. The plan, which was analyzed in detail by Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic, provides universal health care but does so through the use of tax credits to create and fund entities for groups of peopuyle to purchase insurance called “health markets” as well as through an “individual mandate” which is a requirement that everyone b insured. It also allows Medicare to compete with private insurers to provide coverage to people through health markets. It is a complex plan that would be funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Although it has the advantage of “giving people who have insurance something they lack now–more security and more choice–without taking away their coverage,” the complexity this engenders makes it difficult to sell. As Cohn notes “grafting universal coverage onto an already complicated system inevitably means drawing up a complicated plan. That’s not particularly helpful in the current media environment.”
The alternative is a straightforward single payer system like that in a bill before Congress, HR 676, that was introduced by John Conyers (and co-sponsored by Dave Loebsack.) This is the system used in the rest of the western world, which leads to significantly lower health care costs than what we have. A single payer plan would be much more effective but is considered less politically feasible. As a result, it is doubtful that any other serious candidate will advocate for it (as opposed to hopeless publicity seekers). However, it is still possible. The national debate on health care is moving increasingly towards a single payer solution. Edwards, by introducing his plan, laid down his marker but, as the debate develops, other candidates who either seek to flank him on the left or merely keep up with the national debate may introduce single payer plans similar to HR 676. In meantime, we will just have to wait and see what their policy teams cook up.
Barack Obama pledged in his annoucement yesterday that “we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president’s first term.” However, he hasn’t unveiled his plan yet. In the meantime, John Edwards has been the first candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan. It may not be perfect but it is definitely worthy of respect.
February 11th, 2007
I suppose the “hearts Huckabee” line is going to catch on soon and then become very, very uncool, so I’m sorry about that.
Today, though, Republican Presidential Candidate and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee announced endorsements from Blue Bunny Bob Vanderplaats, best known for losing a statewide election a few months back, and Danny Carroll, former President Pro Tem of the Iowa House representing Grinnell. He lost last November, too.
But more importantly, recall the story we broke last October, detailing how Danny Carroll is implicated in a scandal that made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court and resulted in the suspension of a lawyer’s license to practice. Basically, he helped the lawyer steal over $40,000 (and a free trip to Vegas) from a struggling old lady in Grinnell.
Well, I guess we can always trust Danny Carroll to “stick to his principles,” eh? We can if you believe Mike Huckabee himself:
Danny Carroll earned great respect during 12 years in the General Assembly as a conservative leader who always held true and firm true to his principles yet worked so successfully with people from across the political spectrum to accomplish meaningful results in health care, tax policy, education and economic development. Iowa ’s social conservatives know that Danny Carroll has always been a clear, strong voice on the issues that matter most to them.
It sounds like, not only is Mike Huckabee talking out of the side of his mouth, but Crooked Danny Carroll might be positioning himself to run for something again. We will be watching him.
January 31st, 2007
The Boz drew a huge crowd to Main Lounge last night for a rally in anticipation of campus satellite voting this Monday. Students were not only treated to their svelte Congressman but got to see Eric Palmer, Mari Culver and Steve Mauro (Mike Mauro’s son).
Steve (he looks like his dad) went first and did a good job of stressing the importance of the oft-overlooked Secretary of State position. He said Mauro will push for more “safety, security and integrity” and will continue the great job Culver has done in increasing voter access. He assured the crowd that Mauro will fight for a paper trail in all of Iowa’s 99 counties. It’s good to know that the ball won’t be dropped when Chet moves on up.
Next, school favorite Eric Palmer spoke. He seemed really fired up and told us that his number one priority is increasing the minimum wage. Palmer has been getting better every time I see him—he’s always full of energy and nothing ever sounds canned. After tonight, I’ve no doubt that anyone who sees Palmer and Carroll next to one another will choose the former. Carroll is just too stiff and has that sleazy Nussle polish. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think Carroll had “gone Washington” too. Maybe he’s been rubbing elbows with Newt too often.
After Palmer was Mari Culver, Chet’s “brunette better half.” She stressed the need for continued progress in Iowa and Culver’s long commitment to increasing civic participation as Secretary of State. She noted that during Culver’s tenure, voting among 18-24 years olds had increased 50% (since 1996) and that Iowa moved from 11th to 6th in the country in voter turnout. She said that Culver had education as a top priority and would move to bring teacher salary to at least the national average and get tuition at the state’s universities under control. While Nussle may claim to focus on education, Mari pointed out that Jimmy boy voted through the largest cuts in student loan funding in history. Mari is quite good.
Following Mari was the main attraction—the Boz. He started by telling us that, although we hear it every few years, this really is the most important election “in my [his] lifetime.” He said that America was in danger of losing its promise and that he wanted to ensure that his grandchildren had the same opportunities that he did. He seemed so energized that he didn’t need to say a word to assuage doubts about his health, but he stressed that he felt better than he had in years, and that he was more prepared for Congress than he had ever been before. He said he wasn’t about to “go fishing” anytime soon—he wants to “die with my boots on.” He said that a Democratic majority could start to rebuild what has been lost during repuglican control these last few years—America, he said, needs to start being a “good neighbor” abroad and working with allies to accomplish common goals.
I’m glad Boswell stressed universal values and the ability to reach a common understanding in foreign policy—his message was far from the gloom and doom fated war of civilizations that the Bush clan drums up everyday. I think Boswell understands (and I’m projecting now) that for all the radicals in the Middle East there are good people who care about the same things that families in America do—to lose sight of that basic commonality is dangerous because it leads us to dwell on and thus increase our differences. It makes us pugnacious when diplomacy is called for, pugnacious when prudence is called for. Recognizing that diplomacy is possible doesn’t mean that we won’t fight radicals and keep America safe. I think Boswell understands, unlike the condescending fear mongers in the Bush administration, that Americans don’t have to be scared into strength or leadership.
October 4th, 2006
The economy of central Iowa — and, in particular, the area immediately around us in Grinnell — took a huge blow yesterday, when Whirlpool executives announced that they planned to close the Maytag plant in Newton in 2007. The city of Newton was practically built around Maytag, which was founded in Newton over 100 years ago, and which currently employs 1,200 Newton residents. So that’s 1,200 jobs that won’t be in Newton anymore in a year and a half.
Drew has already posted about the impact this might have on the Boswell-Lamberti congressional race, and the IDP followed his lead this morning in a press release that made roughly the same arguments:
“The merger was anti-competitive, as Rep. Boswell warned, and has now resulted in a devastating loss of jobs in Newton,” said Mike Milligan, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. “Jeff Lamberti’s poor decision to back the merger ignored other potential buyers of Maytag who wanted to keep the operations working in Newton. And now, worst of all, he is trying to avoid accountability.”
In fact, the IDP’s entire main page is dominated by various incumbents’ comments on the Maytag announcement. They know what I don’t think anyone has wanted to say out loud yet: incumbents get blamed for stuff like this, even when they shouldn’t be. Everyone reading this probably already knows that it’s not Vilsack’s fault and it’s not Boswell’s fault, but — unless the IDP and the politicians themselves get the word out really, really well — it’s going to hurt incumbents in the polls. So we really need to work on this now. Especially if union support goes down in the area, it could hurt Boswell a lot.
But I’m very interested to see what kind of an impact this is going to have on the surrounding area, including Grinnell and Marshalltown. Something tells me that jobs are going to get a lot harder to find here, too, as more people start competing for the same number of jobs.
What are some things we can do to solve the problem? Well, in this poorly written Register article (hopefully it’ll get cleaned up by an editor soon), I found this particularly interesting:
Robert Henderson, a Maytag union representative, said health care costs and the rising cost of health insurance likely contributed to the plant closing. He also said top managers and other white collar workers will continue to have insurance while others will lose out.
That sounds like something the Democrats in Des Moines are trying to fix, so hopefully they’ll be able to take care of that soon. And since most of this post has been a downer, I’ll close with another quote from the Register piece — this time a kind-of funny one:
Maytag workers learned the news shortly after 8 a.m. today. After the news was delivered, officials closed the plant for the day, said Maytag workers, who had gathered at Snook Inn Sandwich Shop. Workers were expected to report back to work on Thursday.
“I’m still digesting it,” said Carroll Simbro, as he ate cheesy potatoes and fried eggs.
May 10th, 2006
I haven’t seen anyone else comment about the most recent Rasmussen Iowa poll, so I’ll point out a few highlights. First and foremost is the fact that every single Democratic candidate has made gains on Nussle, culminating in Culver now reaching a 6 point lead over Nussle. Reading further into the Poll, however, and we can see just how polarized politics, and particularly “hot-button issues” are becoming in Iowa. For example, even though the primary hasn’t happened yet, only 12% of voters have not made up their mind about Nussle, a guaranteed candidate. Seems like a lot of money is going to be wasted this summer and fall preaching to either the choir or deaf ears. If only campaign money could be spent on something more important…like the things the politicians are promising (you know, crazy stuff, such as.. education, or health care).
In other news, the Register reports that Mike Johanns, former Gov. of Nebraska and current Secretary of Agriculture, has now learned what everyone in Iowa has known for years: the current subsidy system is broken.
One of my favorite senators, our Tom Harkin, is bringing a resolution to the Senate that calls for America to withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31st at the latest. Another of my favorites, Russ Feingold, is trying to attach similar legislation to emergency spending bills. I give props to those in Congress who are willing to stand up and offer actual time frames for bringing home the troops, rather than politicians who just proffer vagueries and false promises as they see more and more Americans lose favor with the war.
In more national news, it appears Karl Rove has returned to what he does best: trying to get Americans to remember that Democrats are the enemy, not terrorists or insurgents. I guess we really do have them nervous about 2006. I for one will enjoy Bush’s final two years as the lamest of lame duck presidents ever to exist.
May 8th, 2006
Previous Posts
