Our Bloggers

Dividing the Middle Class

With health care legislation, we are seeing an attempt to separate the middle class into two groups. The non-union middle class which will see huge taxes on their hard earned health insurance. The unionized middle class will be exempted, as a political payback.

If the health bill is passed with the union exemption and all other middle-class Americans are clobbered with huge tax increases, this may well go down in history as one of the most audacious and transparent examples of special interest group politics driving policy in the wrong direction.

The good hard-working union folks in my area know this is wrong and purely political. Many of them tell me, if the tax is not good for one group, it is not good for all groups!

(Editor’s note: Laura Brod is a state representative in Minnesota. This first appeared on her Facebook page and is reprinted with permission.)

Special Interest Politics on Display

If this deal to exempt union workers from the proposed new health care tax holds, it may well go down in the history books as one of the most brazen, shocking, and transparent examples of special interest politics.

Exempting employees who belong to unions from paying this tax while forcing all others to pay the tax is beyond logic and defies common sense. No wonder Americans are angry about how this legislation is being cobbled together and fearful of what it means for them.

Create State Compacts, Not DC Bureaucracies

Rather than the House version of the health care legislation which creates a Health Choices Czar or the Senate version, which puts the National Insurance Commissioners at the helm, a much better option would be to let the states set up our own insurance compact directed by the states for the states.

The Council of State Governments is an organization that already sets up compacts for states that are driven by and voted on by the participating states. The mechanism is already there to expand insurance opportunities, ensure access and flexible plans for consumers, lower costs, AND not trample on state’s rights. This is the direction we should be going– an innovative state like Minnesota will be weighed down by the DC bureaucracy.

The President Should Speak Less, Listen More

It is always great to have a sitting president visit Minnesota  — regardless of party affiliation.

While President Obama briefly mentioned Mayo Clinic in his speech in Minneapolis last week, it would have been far more instructive for him, and the nation, had he gone to Rochester to see the cutting-edge treatments developed there. Despite President Obama's rhetorical reference to Mayo as an example of what is right, his "new plan" includes proposals that are antithetical to what makes Mayo work for so many people. Better listening might lead to better policy — policy that relies more on what Mayo has learned about bringing teamwork to bear on the best interests of the individual, and less on the heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy.

The president could have gone to Medtronic – a global leader with a reputation for innovation such as the integrated insulin pump/glucose monitoring device that improves outcomes and the lives of those with diabetes. Or, he could have met with the folks at Medtronic to listen to them talk about how his tax proposals will impact their ability to create and retain jobs in Minnesota, or in the United States, for that matter.

Of course, he could have taken time to visit the University of Minnesota – consistently ranked as one of the top hospitals for health outcomes and for efforts related to childhood cancers and autism therapies.

But he didn't. He came to Minnesota to give a partisan speech to generate support for his dea of "reform." Unfortunately, when you spend so much time telling people why you're right you can never really hear people trying to tell you that you might be wrong.

Minnesotans already know that our state is a proven incubator for cost-cutting ideas and cutting-edge healthcare technologies. All of us, regardless of party affiliation, must be concerned that these innovations may be at risk if we get this "reform" wrong.

We should also all agree that reining in health care costs is a must — the fiscal foundation of our country is at risk. Health-care spending accounts for approximately one-sixth of our national economy, and because of that, getting it right is critical.

Unfortunately, President Obama came to Minnesota to tell us what we must change in order to conform to a narrow Washington view of how our health care system should work. He came to Minnesota to tell us that he was going to take some of our ideas, combine them with some of their ideas – put them through the Washington, D.C., spin cycle – and hope that something good comes out he can call reform.

Further nationalizing health care should concern all of us. The Medicare program is an example of how federal management of health care is in need of fundamental reform and is actually short-changing states like Minnesota. Reforming Medicare to erase the outrageous inequities is something on which Republicans and Democrats in Minnesota agree — a great opportunity for common ground.

The president also has talked about how eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" in Medicare must be undertaken. I completely agree, and I suspect any tax-paying Minnesotan would, too.

But it underscores the problem with the current state of Washington thinking: If we know there is massive waste, fraud and abuse in the billions of dollars we currently spend on health care in this country, should we not address that before creating another huge government bureaucracy that will generate even greater waste, fraud and abuse?

The president can regain the trust of the people and actually pass meaningful reform if he's candid about what's working in health care, what's broken and what the solutions require. But if he relies solely on lofty words that gloss over the serious flaws in bringing even more government control to health care, he won't receive the citizens' trust.

The president came to Minnesota to give a partisan speech before a partisan crowd. And I respect his right to do this. But, Mr. President, the time for good speeches is past. It's time to listen to those who have already made health care reform work and who have made a difference. It is time to put action over words.

It's time to put the real ability, talents and skills of some of our nation's proven leaders in this arena – many from Minnesota – to work bringing forward solutions that ensure that any health reform does just that: work.

Developing a New Model to Pay for Long-Term Care

Long-term care is something that everyone should think about, but most of us don't. We should start having a honest conversation about the long term-care needs of our family members as well as the funding pressures on public systems for those who cannot provide for their own needs.

Home care, assisted living and similar services are expensive necessities that many people will need, yet aren’t prepared to pay for. Along with Minnesota State Rep. Paul Thissen (D-Minneapolis), I have introduced legislation that seeks to help Minnesotans save for these services and remain as independent as possible, while recognizing that our state can't keep doing things the same way we’ve been doing them.

The Minnesota Long-Term Care Savings Plan would allow Minnesotans to create tax-advantaged personal savings accounts to pay for future long-term care and service needs, ranging from home health aides to assistive technology to nursing care. This account is meant to be both flexible and multi-generational in design.

Significant demographic changes are coming our way. Policymakers need to pay attention to them now, rather than continue to assess issues in two-year increments that usually coincide with elections and budget cycles. Around the year 2020, for the first time in our state’s history, Minnesotans over 65 will outnumber kids. This demographic shift brings with it significant challenges as well as opportunities.

Personal responsibility needs to be part of the Minnesota response to this historic demographic shift. The legislation that we are moving forward is not a silver bullet to the long term care funding challenge. But it is one of the steps we need to take to change the mindset that people have about our own responsibility for the long-term care needs of our own family members. This type of approach will create a better and more sustainable balance between personal and public spending for long-term care.

The legislation is designed to reward individuals and families for planning ahead, while giving them greater personal control in accessing the services they desire to live as fully and independently as possible.

The plan is patterned after an initiative in Nebraska. Minnesotans would be able to open a tax-advantaged savings account. They deposit money for future long-term care and service needs as well as for purchasing long term care insurance.

The account would work much like a tax-advantaged 529 college savings plan. Contributors would be allowed a state income tax deduction. An account holder would be able to pass unused funds to a designated heir, underscoring the point that planning for aging services is a multi-generational responsibility.

Demographics and the trajectory of spending tell us we have to do things differently going forward. Historically, families took care of loved ones, but clearly, we live in a more mobile society which makes it more difficult for families to do that. This bill is a 21st-century update to that approach, and is designed to help families plan ahead and save resources they’ll need for the services and care required to enjoy life.