0 thoughts on “Pawlenty: Minnesota will not have a public option.

  1. he doesn’t like government run healthcare?! isn’t that precisely what he, as a public employee, has?

    The only reason not to chop the man in tiny bloody bits is if I happen to be wrong about public officials having a form of public insurance/healthcare.

  2. I agree, let’s call it like it is.

    “I don’t like the idea of government run health care. I’ve worked hard for my piece of the pie, and I don’t think the taxpayers deserve what I have.”

  3. Hey, he’s the representative of all of the people of the State, right?

    So how about every one of the State’s citizens’ medical care programs get put into a (metaphorical, statistical) hat and he takes his chances for himself and his family?

    Some of the folk in Minnesota have absolutely gold-plated coverage. Some less. Pays your money, takes your chances Gov!

  4. That’s fine. He’s arguing that the solution to a monopoly is not for the government to enter the market. That’s a valid free-market position. However, either you are in favor of monopolies (and health insurance companies have state-by-state de facto monopolies), or you need to break the monopolies, or you need to regulate them (as most public utilities are). So which does Pawlenty favor: unregulated monopolies, an “open” market without monopolies, or regulated monopolies? Surely he must not be Medicare, Medicaid, and most especially the Veterans Administration.

    Was Pawlenty also against the stimulus package? Against the bank bailouts? Against the bailouts of the car companies? Perhaps he prefers 25% unemployment to government intervention in free markets? That also is a valid free-market position to take. We just have to “call it what it is.”

    Of course, Enron and the California energy market is such a “fine example” of an unregulated free-market solution.

    Yeah, right.

  5. Republican governors opting out will be slitting their political throats when their constituents see how well the plan works in states that don’t opt out (assuming it works of course). They will be guaranteeing a wholesale shift to Democrats at all levels of power. They can spin it all they want but once the word gets out from the other states about how well served the previously under-insured are they are toast.

  6. Doug: Nope. They are creating welfare states and non-welfare states. In ten years “blue states” will be welfare states that always vote democratic and red states will be republican states. The plan is to make the disparity in wealth they’ve worked so hard to create be more geographically distinct.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.