Sen Mike Parry and Day Care Unionization Update
KSTP Story: http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2371151.shtml?cat=1
Dayton Commentary in Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/133714878.html
FOX 9 follow up with Sen Koch: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/sports/Dayton%3A-Get-Serious-on-Vikes-Stadium-nov-13-2011
Sen Hann & Federal Grant Money
Interview w/Sen Hann: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/media/index.php?ls=&sid=559
Informational hearing on federal grant money
WHO: Committee Chair, Senator David Hann, Members of Senate HHS Committee
WHAT: Senate HHS Committee Informational Hearing on Federal Grant Money
WHEN: 9:00 AM, Tuesday, November 15, 2011
WHERE: Room 15; State Capitol
Can a state make an insurance exchange work? While Utah is sometimes held up as an example of a market-friendly exchange, it’s not clear that it works.
That’s the contention of John Graham, who says that “an utterly trivial proportion of the exchange’s target market” have benefited. To be fair, new services sometimes take a long time to gain in popularity. But the record isn’t encouraging so far.
The problem with any state exchange–forced on it by the feds or created internally–is that it must be approved by federal officials.
Maybe, after the 2012 elections, more market- and consumer-friendly people will occupy federal offices. Or perhaps–after the Supreme Court ends its term next June–the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) will be history. Even then, however, there will be significant features of the healthcare policy landscape that will blunt the good that an exchange might due.
With Governor Dayton’s move to prod the development of an insurance exchange in Minnesota, it’s worth noting that a leading conservative proponent of exchanges has flipped.
Edmund Haislmaier, of The Heritage Foundation, was an early proponent in conservative circles of the idea of insurance “exchanges.” But in light of recent developments at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services–the overseer of “ObamaCare”–Haislmaier advocates extreme caution, to the point of rejecting federal grants meant to help states design an exchange that complies with ObamaCare.
“The combined effect of these regulations and grant requirements are that a state would have to agree to surrender any last vestiges of meaningful control over how Obamacare is implemented. Thus, a state would now have no more real control over an exchange it set up than over one HHS established.”
Haislmaier had said that states should pursue exchanges as a way to gain some control for themselves in the age of ObamaCare. Now, he tells them to reject federal money, but offers that perhaps they may pursue an exchange without federal money. The hope is that doing so well do some good, and avoid federal strings.
But Michael F. Cannon, of the Cato Institute, argues that even that approach won’t work. He concludes, “Creating any type of Exchange merely lends manpower to ObamaCare’s federal takeover of health care. States should refuse.”