Statewide Commentary: M.A. Option Is Common Sense

The Republican TV ads for November must already be filmed and ready to go. Republicans running for state offices have clearly decided to jump on the bandwagon of opposition to the national health care bill.

And so Republicans in the Legislature — led by gubernatorial candidate, Tom Emmer — walked away from $1.4 billion in health care investments that would have immediately shored up struggling hospitals and clinics and held down your health care premiums. This is cynical politics at its worst and Minnesotans should be outraged.

Here?s the background: Minnesota currently pays the cost of health care for about 82,000 of the poorest, most vulnerable Minnesotans without children using only state tax dollars. But this year, we are being given the opportunity to immediately move those individuals to Medicaid, which means that the federal government would pick up half of the cost of their health care. Taking advantage of the offer would be incredibly beneficial for Minnesota.

Indeed, the deal is so good for Minnesota that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (no fan of federal health care reform) initially offered to include the Medicaid option as

part of the final state budget agreement — until Republican legislators raised such a political ruckus that the governor retreated.

So what does the Republican?s decision to kill the opportunity mean?

First, thousands of health care jobs in Minnesota will be lost at a time when we can ill-afford more unemployment. Local hospitals and clinics will miss out

on dramatically improved reimbursement rates and will suffer millions of dollars in losses instead. And every one of us with private health insurance will experience higher premium increases in the future to make up for those losses.

Moreover, by refusing the new Medicaid option, a cash-strapped state of Minnesota will miss the chance to draw down $1.4 billion in federal funds, money that will now go to other states to help balance their state budgets. Passing up the federal help makes little sense for Minnesota which today only gets back about 76 cents for every federal tax dollar paid to Washington, D.C.

Moreover, we could draw down the $1.4 billion with an investment of $190 million state dollars. It boggles my mind that Republicans, who seemingly pride themselves on their business acumen, would have passed on the opportunity to get back $7.45 for every dollar invested.

But that?s not the worst of it. The same Republicans in the Minnesota House who vehemently oppose the Medicaid option today actually offered and supported an essentially identical proposal to move those 82,000 Minnesotans into Medicaid just one year ago!

So why did the Republican legislators flip-flop and reject the chance to preserve good jobs, hold your health care premiums down and get back some hard-earned federal tax dollars to Minnesota?

The answer is obvious: Electoral politics. The Republicans, from Tom Emmer on down, want to scare the people of Minnesota with the specter of “Obamacare” to gain votes in November.

Don?t buy into the fear-mongering. The Medicaid option is not government take-over of health care. It is simply a fuller utilization of a health care program that began in 1965 and is largely administered by private health insurance companies.

In other words, when a Republican legislator or candidate says he opposes “government take-over of health care”, what he?s really saying is that he wants to get rid of a program that already provides coverage for more than 500,000 Minnesotans each month; more than half of them are children and families, the remaining are seniors and people who have disabilities.

So next time you see Tom Emmer or a Republican legislative candidate, ask him why he doesn?t want Minnesota to get more of your hard-earned federal tax dollars back. Ask him why Republican legislators were overwhelmingly for the Medicaid option before they were against it. And ask him why he is unwilling to stand up for Minnesota hospitals and clinics and fight to preserve Minnesota jobs. And when you go to the polls in November, remember the answers.

Session Summary 2010

Thank you for the privilege of serving you in the State House of Representatives.  The last two years  have been challenging for Minnesota. My top priority has been to make sure our state government is working as a partner with you to jump start private sector job creation, to shield vulnerable families who have lost jobs, health care and homes from the worst ravages of the economy and to put in place reforms and protections to avoid similar catastrophes in the future.

Of course, budget deficits dominated discussions at the Capitol.  Faced with a $6.4 billion deficit in 2009 and a subsequent $3 billion deficit in 2010, I worked to equitably balance the budget, implement reforms, control spending, and bring much-needed revenue into Minnesota.   Cuts were made to most areas of the budget, including deep reductions in health and human services and higher education.  I argued for fairer state taxes on wealthier Minnesotans rather than increased property taxes to fund the most basic of services: police and fire, roads and bridges, and K-12 education.   I also did not just talk about reforming government; I authored and passed several laws that will change the way we do business as a state.

The next legislative session will be even more challenging.  It is clear that our current path — eight years of ideological politics, slashed programs and higher property taxes, and an unwillingness to fundamentally change how we do the business of government — is unsustainable.  I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with you to bring smart and practical new ideas forward – and actually implement them into law.

Thank you for your commitment to Minnesota and for contacting my office with your opinions, thoughts, and concerns.  I am proud to represent Richfield and south Minneapolis in the Minnesota House of Representatives and look forward to continuing to serve district 63A.  I hope to see many of you during the upcoming months.

2010 DFL State Convention Speech

Thissen in Strib: MN needs solutions, not patience

Paul Thissen: Minnesotans need solutions, not patience

The times demand action, persistence and fresh ideas from political leaders.

Thissen votes against GAMC cut on floor

Paul voted against the GAMC cut/compromise bill today.  The full text of his speech on the floor of the Minnesota House is below:

View the video of Paul’s speech here.

By passing this bill, we are once again giving in to a Governor who holds good policy hostage like a playground bully.  This legislation will not work.  As legislators – for the good of Minnesota – we must stop giving in to the Governor.  And we should start today.

I deeply appreciate the hard work of my diligent colleagues who have labored in good faith to protect the poorest, most vulnerable Minnesotans and every one of us who rely on strong hospitals in emergencies and sickness.

I deeply respect and appreciate the work of advocates in the Save GAMC coalition who have worked so hard to be the voice for those who usually have no voice in this building.  Indeed, the only reason I considered voting for this bill is to honor the work of that coalition and thousands of Minnesotans across the state who recognized the immorality of the GAMC veto and took action.

Believe me, I know how hard that work has been.  After Governor Pawlenty vetoed GAMC for the first time last spring, several of us spent the summer traveling Minnesota listening to patients and GAMC recipients, hospitals and health care professionals about how we could make GAMC work for Minnesota.  We visited shelters and homeless camps along the river.  We learned that meaningful and lasting reform required a focus on not only the care delivered in the hospital and clinic, but also helping people stabilize their lives with housing support and chemical dependency treatment.  Regardless of what some may think, real reform does not come cheap.

The culmination of these conversations was a workable piece of legislation that spent less money but protected vulnerable Minnesotans and made sure that hospitals could care for all of their patients.  But the Governor threatened a veto and we blinked.

We reached another compromise – worse policy but workable — which passed this body with a resounding bipartisan vote of 125 to 9.  Yet, despite that overwhelming support both within and outside of the state capitol, Tim Pawlenty again vetoed our GAMC solution.

And on a party line vote, the House Republicans refused to override the veto – with 38 Republicans flip-flopping to back up the bully in the Governor’s office.

The Democrats — with big hearts, good intentions and desperate for a solution — returned to so-called “negotiations” with the Governor.

Now we are left with an unworkable bill.  We all know it.  It is underfunded — $80 million or more less than the Governor’s auto-enrollment proposal.  It is poorly designed.  It will mean job losses.  We’ve heard that from hospitals and other providers from all across the state.  We have heard that from advocates for the clients currently served under GAMC.

We should remember that the simply because the Governor defines reform in three words – “spend less money” –we don’t have to agree with him.  Starvation is not a path to meaningful and lasting reform.  That’s a lesson we all should have learned by now.

Members. there is a fine line between compromise and caving in.  We are not on the right side of that line this time.

Fortunately, we have another option before us.  The passage of federal health reform on Sunday changed the game.  It offered us a different way to serve the people now covered under GAMC.  The details and implications of that proposal need to be explored.  But the Governor’s rejection of that option out of hand with no real understanding of what it means is nearly incomprehensible.

Let’s do the right thing for Minnesotans this time and reject Governor Pawlenty’s bullying.  Let’s stand up for the people of Minnesota.  Let’s extend the current GAMC program for a few months – just as we are doing in this bill – and take a few weeks to figure out whether and how to maximize federal health care dollars for current GAMC recipients.  Let’s do it in consultation with the experts who actually deliver care and serve patients instead of behind closed doors.  And let’s actually enact a policy that works for Minnesota.

Why are we choosing an unworkable surrender when we should be choosing a sensible solution that protects vulnerable Minnesotans and all of us?

We seem to have forgotten that inside-the-Capitol logic is often illogical.   We have done better by vulnerable Minnesotans – our neighbors, friends, siblings, and children – in even the recent past.

Members – let’s not cave in to Governor Pawlenty’s threat to kick the poorest, most vulnerable Minnesotans to the side of the road if we do not do his bidding right now.  This bill is not “the best we can do.”  This proposal is not “better than nothing.”  This bill is not a step forward; it’s a step back.

I urge you to vote No.