Tim Pawlenty has a “solution” that’s really pretty horrifying — just stop treating the uninsured.
Appearing on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta Van Sustren” last night, Pawlenty said the federal law that mandates ER treatment should be repealed.
“Well, for one thing you could do is change the federal law so that not every ER is required to treat everybody who comes in the door, even if they have a minor condition,” Pawlenty said. “They should be — if you have a minor condition, instead of being at the really expensive ER, you should be at the primary care clinic.”
I don’t feel that I can adequately express just how horrible that is. Pawlenty doesn’t want to make it easier for people to get primary care, but then he wants to tell them they can’t get care from the one place that won’t turn them away, because they should be going to primary care. I’m sure they are painfully aware of that fact — Pawlenty’s plan adds insult to life-threatening injury.
Regular readers of the blog should know that I don’t say things like this lightly, but Pawlenty’s plan will lead to the death of thousands of thousands of people very year. Who exactly is to decide what is a major injury worthy of attention and what should be turned away? How do you tell when an ailment is minor, and when it’s simply a symptom of a much larger problem? Either it’s the hospitals, and thousands of people will be turned away in the name of profits, or it’s the government, and then Pawlenty has created the same sort of government intervention in the market he claims to want to avoid.
The thing is, Pawlenty is 100 percent right that we need to find a solution to the problem of the uninsured relying on emergency rooms. I just have the exact opposite solution — instead of refusing care, we should make sure everyone is insured. Remember, we’re already paying the costs for the uninsured to use the emergency room. As long as we’re subsidizing their care anyway, why not be subsidizing a decent insurance plan that could actually get them primary care instead of emergency care?
The headline should read: Democrats choose park trails over the uninsured homeless. When a Republican cuts a budget, which is rarely a cut but more like a decrease of what has been asked for, they are chided for not caring. But when Democrats refuse to prioritize and don’t say no to ANYTHING, EVER, then they are lauded as being compassionate. If the Democrats could pass a bonding bill in the $650 million range like Pawlenty has proposed, then the interest savings on the debt could go a long ways in helping save GAMC. Looks like its the Dems who are cutting off GAMC this year.
Really? Pawlenty spouts idiocy about refusing emergency care to the poor, and this whole mess is somehow the democrats’ fault? Pretty balsy claim on your part.
I suspect you were never “with” dems. Your nom de plume is misleading.
“when Democrats refuse to prioritize and don’t say no to ANYTHING, EVER, then they are lauded as being compassionate.”
Well, considering that the DFL budget that was vetoed by Pawlenty last term used SPENDING CUTS to cover 1/3 of the budget gap, your categorical statement avove is unambiguously and unarguably wrong. Since you would make such a statement that facts can be immediately, easily, and conclusively corraled to rebut, it’s reasonable to assume that you have an ideological approach to politics. Given that, I don’t see that what you have to say really carries much weight, or that any reasonable counter-argument would have be worthwhile.
“it’s reasonable to assume that you have an ideological approach to politics.”
Aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black?
Not really, since I generally have accurate facts to back up what I say. You can disagree with my opinions or the conclusions I draw from them, but facts are facts.
In any case, you’ve never shown yourself to be someone who understands the difference between the two.
Please expand on the specifics of those proposed DFL spending cuts. Since about 80% of the state budget is K-12 education and health and human services, there must have been some painful choices made on your side of the aisle, as well.
“Please expand on the specifics of those proposed DFL spending cuts. Since about 80% of the state budget is K-12 education and health and human services, there must have been some painful choices made on your side of the aisle, as well.”
Ummm…why don’t you look it up? I don’t know the details, but I do know that the DFL proposed budget broke the shortfall into thirds: 1/3 would have been covered thru budgeted spending cuts, 1/3 thru revenue increases, and 1/3 through accounting shifts. Beyond that, you’re just as capable of looking up the details as I am, assuming your browser can go any place but mnpublius and the Wall Street Journal opinion pages.
Um-m-m-m…well, I just figured that you had those “facts” right at your finger tips. I’m just wondering where the 2 billion in cuts were going to occur, comparable according to your stats, to the 2 billion in “revenue increases” that were proposed.
Aren’t you curious as to specific programs, bureaucracies, departments the DFL had slated for downsizing?
This is, after all, your claim, so I’d just as soon you use your apparently superior ability to do research and let me know what you find.
“Um-m-m-m…well, I just figured that you had those “facts” right at your finger tips. I’m just wondering where the 2 billion in cuts were going to occur, comparable according to your stats, to the 2 billion in “revenue increases” that were proposed.”
Prove me wrong.
Good luck.
So, in other words, you got nuthin’.
“So, in other words, you got nuthin’.”
Actually I do.
It’s just this: how much time and effort should one spend arguing with people whose “facts” are incorrect, and are easily proven to be incorrect? Every time one of you ideologues post some sort of obviously incorrect information that clearly comes from an incestuous pool of like-minded people, is it really my duty to post proofs from objective reality that clearly display that you are wrong?
The way I have described the DFL budget is accurate. I do have backup evidence for it. However, I am not interested in constantly fetching facts for grown adults who have the same internet access that I do and who could- if they spent a minimum of effort- be factually correct.
Ultimately, I’m actually fine with you having different opinions that me. I’m fine with you being conservative. What I’m NOT fine with is the mental laziness I regularly see that produces an endless string of falsehoods and ideological pablum.
Kathy, go ahead: see if you can find information about the DFL budget. Prove to me you’re capable of doing something other than going to the websites of like-minded conservatives, and then coming here and parroting what you were told to think. We are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. I’m no longer interested in being the research librarian for people who should have every bit the same capability as I do to get their facts straight.
*Sigh* Two posts stuck in “Awaiting Moderation”. Oh well…
Your comments being stuck in that particular designation is a touch of ironic whimsy, don’t you think?
Kathy, you’re the one that’s really offered nothing here in terms of rebuttal. You ask the question:
Aren’t you curious as to specific programs, bureaucracies, departments the DFL had slated for downsizing?
You must have the answer. Enlighten us please.
Richard…you’re so mired in knee-jerk go-for-the-conservative- throat attitude that you can’t even recognize a legitimate question. And theoko, your haughty non-answer to said legitimate question doesn’t fool any of us. The idea that you KNOW where and how Dems planned to make 2 billion dollars worth of budget cuts but are unwilling to “share your facts” is absurd.
“Yeah, I got sumpthin’ but I’m not tellin’ you” is pretty junior high. Or, it’s just part of the “we’re so smart and you’re so dumb” mentality that anchors leftist ideology and makes you all feel so special and superior.
Well, darlin, it’s still your claim and therefore your job to substantiate it. If you can’t, then I still maintain that you got nuthin’ except lots of that hollow “hope and change” that has proven to be such a boon to us all.
“And theoko, your haughty non-answer to said legitimate question doesn’t fool any of us.”
Actually, I did answer: twice. It’s not my fault the responses have gotten caught up in “Awaiting moderation”. I’ve seen that message before- it’s an occassional problem with this site that the owners have acknowledged. When this has happened before, the posts have eventually cleared, and you’ll see by the date and time when I posted them. I have nothing to hide because I’m right. In the posts awaiting clearance, I have multiple links proving my statement.
In any case, the IMPORTANT thing here is: was I right? Was the DFL budget one that broke the shortfall roughly in thirds, one of the thirds being spending cuts?
Independent research done by anyone will confirm that I was right, and the person I responded to was wrong. That you refuse to do such follow up is a reflection on you.
What we learned through this is that you are more interested in playing high-school “gotcha” games than in debating with facts. You have no intellectual integrity.
Whatever the democrats do, Pawlenty will not play ball. He is in full-on teabagger mode now. he will do NOTHING that could make him appear moderate. It would demolish his credibility at places like CPAC where he placed, um…last in the straw poll.
Yep, lojasmo you are a genius. Big bad pawlenty isn’t going to play ball, you called it.
I think even thehill.com article calls Pawlenty out on such foolishness:
“Supporters of the federal law would content that many people go to ERs precisely because they do not have the insurance to pay for a primary care physician.”
Its also a fallacy that people are going to emergency rooms with splinters and paper cuts, as Pawlenty seems to suggest. People visiting the emergency room usually do so because they are actually experiencing a medical emergency.
I’d like for Pawlenty the Presidential contender to be just a bit more of a policy wonk. Taking swings at narrow slices of legislation, such as this ER rule, is soundbyte politics. For the record, I generally think T-Paw the Gov has been a very good public servant, at least for the first term and a half, but statements like this are just silly.
Piece it together with a broader policy, and then it could make sense. How about providing bridge funding to hospitals so they can convert part of their ER to a walk-in clinic (the innovative ones are doing this on their own, already). THEN, and only then, change the law so patients with minor conditions don’t have to be seen by a doctor in the ER, but can be seen by a Nurse Practioner in the walk-in clinic.
Just one idea. But Pawlenty needs to forget about soundbytes.