Reed surges ahead of Clark on website content. Tarryl Clark only has a video, for those who waste time on that; not anything for those who prefer reading.
Next is an extended excerpt of the Reed oped, from the Reed website, here, since she does not link over to the published item:
In his recent address on health care, President Obama outlined his vision for wide-ranging reforms. He invited political leaders to improve on his plan rather than simply tear it down. As a candidate for the 6th District House seat, this proposal is offered in that spirit.
The president's plan provides for many things, including coverage for uninsured Americans, a laudable and necessary goal. However, it must go further to address the core issue of health care reform: reducing the cost.
Coverage and cost issues must be addressed at the same time.
If we extend coverage to all Americans before we reduce cost, we add massively to the national debt. And we increase the competitive disadvantage faced by our businesses in a global marketplace.
If we decrease the cost of care but do nothing to extend the insurance system, we leave 47 million Americans uninsured. And we expose most Americans to the risk of losing coverage if they lose their jobs.
Neither of these outcomes is acceptable.
Much has already been said about coverage. So let's talk about cost. Why are health care costs in America out of control? The diagnosis is pretty simple. Costs are out of control because the payment incentives are toxic.
Insurers do not have incentives for insuring the sickest people. They do better financially when they avoid the sick people and spend more on profitable administrative services. Doctors and hospitals are not paid for keeping us healthy or providing great care. They do better financially when they provide high-end, back-end procedures. Even worse, they are punished by a loss of income when they prevent disease and complications.
In the current debate, we've heard very little about reforming the toxic payment system. Yet there are many alternatives that have been used elsewhere in the country and right here in Minnesota. None are perfect, but all are better than the status quo.
My proposal for reforming the payment system and putting a lid on costs is twofold. First, legislation should ensure that the federal government's (i.e., Medicare's) payment system is changed to reward best care and best value. Second, Minnesota should seek a massive waiver from many of the federal bureaucratic rules that stifle creativity and penalize best care.
The bargain should be this: If Minnesota aggressively undertakes real health care reform that makes the insurance system work for all people, prioritizes prevention, covers everybody with a basic benefit set, and changes the way providers are paid, then the federal government will give our state all necessary flexibility.
This ducks or disfavors both single payer, and public option. I cannot support anything less than public option, much like Rep. Kieth Ellison's commitment. But it is cogently arguing for reform of the payment incentives structure for providers, and that is sound. Clark has yet to state a position, on her website, or for that matter to the best of my knowledge, in any public manner whatsoever.
ENDORSEMENTS
This is from emailings, not from publications I can link to, but, Reed first:
My name is Dr. Steve Miles. I ran for US Senate in 2000. I lost and found other ways to serve.
I ask you to support Dr. Maureen Reed for US Congress.
The 2010 Sixth Congressional District is the most critical race in Minnesota. Maureen Reed has a strong background of community service, as a physician, as a member of the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, as a business person and as a volunteer. She is the best of what Minnesota stands for. She is smart, well-informed, civic minded, has deep roots, and has a strong family life. She thinks before she speaks. She works on problems.
Maureen is the alternative to Michelle Bachmann. Unlike Michelle Bachman:
· Maureen will not call on the media to expose who in Congress is pro-America and who is anti-America.
· Maureen will not say that carbon dioxide is unrelated to global warming or charge that AmeriCorps might set up mandatory political reeducation camps.
· Maureen will be part of the solution, not part of the problem. She will work on health care reform rather than promise to fast against it.
Maureen Reed has the real world expertise to work on issues like affordable health care and affordable higher education. The Sixth District is neither Red nor Blue. It requires a centrist candidate with a big heart and a strong work ethic.
Maureen Reed has my support.
I respected Miles as a candidate, and know of one person from Ramsey I respect who went on from the DFL precinct caucus to the Senate District DFL caucus as a Miles delegate. For me the endorsement counts. Even though it is one doctor with ties to the profession supporting another.
Measured in terms of DFL ordinary politics and figures, Clark got more, via a Walter Mondale endorsement and a nod from the building trades, again learning this by email:
Together, we’ve supported lots of causes and campaigns over the years, many of them near and dear to our hearts. But few campaigns present us with the opportunity to make as significant a change as in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District.
That’s why I’m supporting Tarryl Clark in her campaign for Congress. And I hope you’ll join me today.
I believe that Tarryl Clark can lead the 6th District in a new direction. She will unite us behind positive solutions – a stark change from the controversial comments and partisan rancor we’ve seen over the past few years. She will focus her time and efforts on listening to her constituents and turning ideas into action.
She’s already done it here in Minnesota. Tarryl is a vigorous campaigner and a tireless leader in the Minnesota Senate.
As a community advocate and then as State Senator, Tarryl has always stood up for Minnesota’s working families. From raising the minimum wage to ensuring our seniors aren’t scammed by predatory lenders; from ensuring access to early childhood education to investing in our state’s treasured colleges and universities; from building services to reintegrate our veterans to building our transportation infrastructure, Tarryl has always fought for the needs of families and our communities.
I’m proud to call Tarryl my friend, and know that she will make a tremendous Member of Congress.
That's it, for what I know of new individual endorsements. Then there is another Clark union endorsement from today's email:
The Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council announced today they have endorsed Tarryl Clark in her campaign for Minnesota's 6th Congressional District seat.
"In the Senate, Tarryl Clark has been a strong voice for Minnesota's working families," said Harry Melander, President of the Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council. "From fair wages to job creation, Tarryl has stood with us. We've worked together on legislation including bills which would create 'vertical' construction jobs, bringing Labor together with other community partners to stimulate job creation. We know she'll continue to stand up for hard-working Minnesotans in Congress, and we're proud to endorse her."
The Minnesota Building and Construction Trades represent more than 45,000 construction workers across Minnesota, including thousands in the 6th Congressional District. The Council has provided leadership and advocacy for construction workers in Minnesota for 60 years.
...................
For a different race, showing that endorsement season is upon us even before leaves fall, there is this email:
I am writing to invite you to join me in supporting Senator John Marty for Governor.
As chair of the House of Representatives K-12 Education Finance Division, as well as a former teacher, PTA president, and school board member, I care deeply about the education of all students. That's why I enthusiastically endorse John Marty. His thoughtful, far-sighted education policies embrace a broad curriculum for educating the whole child - John's vision is exactly what we need to enable every child to graduate ready for success.
Among the gubernatorial candidates, John is peerless in his commitment to properly funding and reforming our E-12 education system. I cannot stress the urgency of this enough. We are not building a 21st century economy when current high school students are projected to have a lower graduation rate than their parents' generation, a trend seen in no other industrialized nation. John Marty is committed to reversing this trend through progressive reforms, including the New Minnesota Miracle.
John's bold, ethical leadership and progressive vision is exactlly what Minnesota needs. I urge you to join me in supporting John Marty for Governor!
Rep. Mindy Greiling
Chair, K-12 Finance Division, Minnesota House of Representatives
I like John Marty. This is not an endorsement, he is not the only good candidate, but I like him and Steve Kelley. Each knows the importance of maintaining the excellence of the U. Minn. Twin Cities Campus post-graduate programs in science, math, and the professions. All post graduate faculties take time to build to excellence, but can be dismembered quickly by funding interruption and lack of commitment. Pawlenty's been complacent that way. We need a governor more in tune with societal need.
........................
I never have thought much about endorsements, it's sort of like saying "Brett Farve drinks Coors" to me, but it's there for those who care.
I give Reed the lead on getting something out on position, but really, saying cut waste and be sensible while looking to cover everyone, is a bit like jello. It jiggles a lot, rather than being really solid.
There is single payer.
There is public option.
There is beyond those two, wasting time.
So far, neither of the five candidates in the Sixth District [Bachmann and Immelman as GOP, Reed and Anderson as IP, and Reed and Clark as DFL] have taken a stance.
Thus far, I presume the batch of them favor wasting time. I await one to break ranks and say something.
________________
Thanks to an anonymous comment to an earlier post, on the Reed op-ed update.
_______UPDATE_______
I have again read the Reed op-ed, and the gist of it is:
My proposal for reforming the payment system and putting a lid on costs is twofold. First, legislation should ensure that the federal government's (i.e., Medicare's) payment system is changed to reward best care and best value. Second, Minnesota should seek a massive waiver from many of the federal bureaucratic rules that stifle creativity and penalize best care.
The bargain should be this: If Minnesota aggressively undertakes real health care reform that makes the insurance system work for all people, prioritizes prevention, covers everybody with a basic benefit set, and changes the way providers are paid, then the federal government will give our state all necessary flexibility.
Her point is that management, her area of experience and expertise, can give a sufficient answer, along with State [not federal] will and capability, to fix things.
The word "Medicare" is used in context of asserting payment incentives are mis-prioritized, and that the paperwork and rules are too burdensome.
That fits with my claim, extend Medicare to all, and then look at what in Medicare is counterproductive and needs change. Extend it, then tune it.
The problem is she does not embrace the "extend it" part. She is vague about that, not suggesting it as a policy, but saying, as a hypothetical:
If we extend coverage to all Americans before we reduce cost, we add massively to the national debt. And we increase the competitive disadvantage faced by our businesses in a global marketplace.
The position is that fat is in the system and we trim the fat, thus avoiding how cash should be raised, i.e., who should be taxed differently to raise new revenue. There is the implicit claim that all can somehow be covered without raising more federal revenue. That seems unrealistic, but convenient. Also the claim about "competitive disadvantage" has implied presumptions about tax burden. That it would fall on corporations in international commerce. If the worker-unfriendly US practice of making insurance available on favorable terms through employers is changed people would be less - far less - fearful of losing a job. Employers, as a group would not like that. A docile uneasy labor force is preferred - by them.
In summary, if you buy into the premise that there is so much waste and fat in the system that trimming will allow everyone to somehow be covered without the need to adjust federal revenues [i.e., to increase taxes overall, and to alter tax distribution] then you are free to duck the revenue questions.
Creative thoughts, such as taxing insurers separately from the taxation of other businesses, and capping executive compensation via extreme taxation of higher brackets and revision of capital gains law to disfavor stock option management profiteering would raise income to match extending coverage. Together with trimming the fat, a more realistic picture arises.
Bottom line - if cost cutting were the only answer needed, a major question is how in the world so much waste got into things in the first place. Greed and lobbying power of the care providers, the HMOs, and of Big Pharma, clearly exist. Reed seems a bit unrealistic about that situation being easily reformed, on a permanent basis. If reducing waste is an entire answer then there need to be major systemic changes to the forces that, out of greed and self-interest, have quietly over time built waste into the system in a way that waste benefits their prosperity. They will not give it up easily, and if the system is changed those now gaming the system will find new ways to game things, under any set of new rules.
Bottom line - Reed has a grasp on a part of the answer, in very general terms, with a host of devils lurking to inhabit details. The big question, the relative roles into the future of federal government, private insurance, and state government she seems to answer in terms of State action, with no suggestion of specific change elsewhere, beyond rule changes and payment incentive changes in Medicare - without any suggestion or thought to extending Medicare to all.
Tarryl Clark needs to articulate a position. She cannot just skate on endorsements. Either Reed or Clark would be a vast improvement over the status quo publicity hound we now have. Clark needs to show she would be a better option than Reed, or that Reed somehow "cannot win" while she, Clark, can.
As to the incumbent, a breakthrough question is circulating on the Internet that awaits mainstream media attention. The effort is a name-one-thing-Michele-Bachmann-has-done-for-the-Sixth-District challenge to her supporters. So far, it has gotten comic results, there not being any positive response out of the Bachmannistanis.
See, here and here, for detail.
I will send an email to Eric Black, of MinnPost, a mainstream media person who has given the Sixth District some attention, and in it I will suggest he take that question to the Bachmann congressional office staff, to see if they have an answer. I believe he should at least cover the fact that the question is circulating around the web with, so far, no answer of substance provided by any Bachmann supporters. That is news, and it should be more widely reported. Strib and PiPress might even notice it and shift their biases enough to report the fact that nobody, so far, has proven able to name a single thing Bachmann has done for the district.
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
A question -- With Reed saying she seeks both the DFL and IP endorsement for the Sixth District, has there been any news seen by anyone, about her IP end of things? For instance, it would be expected Peter Hutchinson of the IP would be endorsing her. Has that yet happened? If not, why would that be? He picked her as part of his ticket last cycle, that has to mean an endorsement would be pro forma, if she wanted that to happen. Does she not want him to speak up? Would there be a tactical reason for her to keep that end of her ambitions silent, for now?
_______FURTHER UPDATE________
Concerning Michele Bachmann - things are hard for those in the district. We need a worker bee, not a queen bee. The existence of the Bachmann Challenge suggests the old saying - all talk, no action. All sizzle, no steak.
I still see Tarryl Clark's proven ability to campaign hard and win belief and trust in predominantly "conservative" locales to be the biggest factor at play, this cycle.
That raises the question of where Reed will end up, while now saying she is seeking a dual endorsement.
One expects Bob Anderson to again run on the IP ticket as he did during the DFL's 2008 Tinklenberg experiment. Either Anderson will be the sole IP ballot choice [if Reed is DFL-endorsed or causes a DFL primary] or he will face Reed in an IP primary where, because of the governor's race and possible GOP and DFL primaries there, most primary voters likely will ignore the IP. As has frequently been the case except for Ventura, the IP is a complicating wild-card without strong chances for a win.
From his campaign website, this link, we can certainly see Bob Anderson is alive and well. And keeping himself in the thick of things, with respect to IP potential events and decision making. He still is in the hunt for the Congressional Sixth District seat, and not showing signs of withdrawing at this point. Have a look at the website. I think it would be very premature at this point for anyone to discount Bob Anderson as a viable IP candidate, again, in 2010.
________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Largely in line with the Reed op-ed, there is MPR reporting on thoughts arising from Mayo Clinic; this link. Things said in the reporting seem sound. I have seen with a family member where conferencing among a surgical staff together with informative non-cursory consultations between surgeon and patient led to an extended post-op stay but to an ultimately successful procedure, with conservative attention to other options prior to the patient-made decision to operate. Several informed decisions were made, and the system worked as it should. Luckily, the coverage was there - that's the only caveat. Were coverage lacking, who is to say what might have happened.