Talking vs. Real Reforms, Real Results
Anyone who’s read this blog knows that I’m a big Laura Brod fan because she’s just a brilliant thinker. This morning, I had the good pleasure of getting an email from Laura containing a link to Laura’s health care op-ed in the Pi-Press.
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.
Since the start of the health care debate, I’ve advocated a patient-centered approach to reform while opposing top-down, one-size-fits-all approaches. The former is embodied at the federal level in the Patients’ Choice Act, co-sponsored by Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Tom Coburn and Richard Burr. The latter can be seen in H.R. 3200, the Kennedy-Dodd legislation or the Baucus bill.
The reason I oppose the Democrats’ bill is because they’re reliant on tax increases, rationing, price controls and major budget cuts to Medicare and because they do nothing to spur innovation that cuts health care costs while improving health care results.
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.
Minnesota has been the healthiest state in the union or it’s finished second seemingly since time began. Minnesota also has one of the lowest uninsured percentages in the nation. In other words, we’re experts in terms of keeping costs under control and improving accessability. We don’t need nationalized health care reform because our system isn’t broken.
It’s easy to identify several major differences between President Obama and President Clinton, the biggest of which is that President Clinton believed in using states as testing laboratories for sweeping reforms. That’s what he used to reform welfare. It isn’t accidental that welfare reform was a great success.
I suspect that the biggest reason why this difference exists is because President Clinton’s training was as governor, where his re-election chances rested on him getting things right whereas President Obama’s re-election chances rested on his ability to deliver a polished speech. If Sen. Obama made a mistake prior to becoming President Obama, it wasn’t a big deal because he was just one of 100 policymakers. If Gov. Clinton made a mistake, it was there for all the world to see. That’s a big deal.
I’ve repeatedly said that government, especially the federal government, is worthless at innovation. At best, they’re a nuisance. At worst, they’re a major hindrance. By comparison, the Mayo Clinic and Medtronic are in the innovation business. They innovate by habit. It’s part of their DNA.
This might possibly be the best question Rep. Brod asks in this op-ed:
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?
President Obama’s biggest weakness in the eyes of the American people is that he’s a spendaholic. Had his stimulus bill been offset with the $500,000,000,000 in wasteful spending that President Obama says is there, he would’ve garnered alot of good will with the American people. He didn’t do that, which is why the American people started flocking to the TEA parties in increasingly large droves.
I’m still skeptical that President Obama is interested in finding $500,000,000,000 in Medicare wasteful spending but that’s another story for another day. Frankly, there’s nothing he’s done that suggests that he’s the least bit worried about the unsustainable spending rate that he’s chosen. If President Obama is wise, something that’s still debatable, he’ll listen to Laura Brod and follow this advice:
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.
Giving polished-sounding speeches is easy. Reforming health care takes hard work and a willingness to listen.
Thus far, President Obama hasn’t shown a willingnes to listen. Thus far, he’s only shown a willingness to make token gestures while maintaining a high level of partisanship.
People don’t care about polished-sounding speeches; they only care whether their lives will be improved. That’s the primary benchmark that Minnesotans and other Americans will judge President Obama’s administration by.
Technorati Tags: Laura Brod, Op-Ed, Health Care, Reform, Innovation, Mayo Clinic, Medtronic, Medicare Cuts, President Obama, Speeches, Democrats
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
September 16th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
it has nothing to do with reform, or making things better it has been said before and I’ll say it again it is control and that is all. they will screw 90% of the population up for what, not a damn thing.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
No matter how dumb he acts, Duh-1 is no idiot or blathering fool. He is incredibly arrogant and self-centered, but no dummy.
That said, and with his power-grabbing agenda, it would be surprising to see him look at successful models of health care reform, and, other than using the clinic’s name because of the positive familiarity the American people have for it, has no intention of doing anything with health care reform that doesn’t increase and consolidate his power.
That’s the way he operated in Illinois (privately and as a state politician), that’s the way he operated as a U.S. senator, and that’s the way he’ll operate twenty years after leaving the Executive branch and government in shambles.