Category: Margaret Anderson Kelliher

by Dave Mindeman

OK, I'm going to try to stop some spinning and sift through some number crunching and get to the chase about something.

Margaret Kelliher has been questioned on her assertion that an early opt into Medicaid via the new Federal Health Plan will get us a 7-1 dollar return to help Minnesota health care.

Two entities have questioned that....

1. EmmerTruth

Of course, the obvious one. So let's hear the argument:

According to Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB), the state will save $430 million in the general fund over the next three years by not early-enrolling in Medicaid.

The folks using this talking point appear to get their numbers from simply dividing $189 million (new money from the state) into the $1.4 billion expected from the federal government in matching funds. This is extremely misleading because they fail to mention the state also has to pay $1.2 billion in order to get the federal match.

At best, early enrollment could bring $1 in federal funds for every $1 the state spends to provide health care for the people enrolled in Medicaid. But since MMB projects significant growth in these programs due to the generous new benefits, it will actually cost the state a lot more – almost half a billion dollars more over three years.

First of all, if you have no intention of paying for something extra is it really a savings? Since Emmer is not going to opt into the Federal program how can he claim to be saving the state that money? If he opts in, he gets Federal dollars. If he doesn't opt in he gets nothing and spends nothing... well, there's the rub.

The whole idea for the early enrollment is to do two things. #1) We FIX GAMC. Yes, I mean really fix it. Emmer would let this bogus current program continue. The one that has everyone in GAMC required to get services at the 4 hospitals that have signed up. Four! For the entire state! Those people are not really covered -- they are dumped. Yes, Emmer, will save money by continuing that program the way it has been set up by this "compromise plan" with Pawlenty....but does it solve the problem. Hell no. #2) The early enrollment folds other programs for the poor into one health care system. It brings in others who are not insured now. And expands coverage for all. Isn't this our goal?

Now, granted, we will continue to pay $1.2 billion in state funds to match the services. Money we have already budgeted to back the current methods of coverage. It is not NEW spending. But with the additional $189 million, we get the new $1.4 billion to really fix and cover Minnesota health care.

So, yes, Kelliher is correct -- we get a 7-1 return. But there is a second entity examining that claim.

2. Poligraph with MPR.

Alright. They pick up a few more of the pertinent facts but the final analysis comes up with a wishy-washy, "Inconclusive". Their evidence as they call it?

Kelliher wants to shift people who get health insurance from two state programs--General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) and MinnesotaCare--into Medical Assistance (MA).

The state and federal governments split the cost of MA. The other two programs don't get any federal funding.

The new federal health care law expands Medicaid coverage to low-income people who don't have insurance now--the same kind of people the state now pays to cover under GAMC and MinnesotaCare - and requires the federal government to match state spending.

For Minnesota, this means shifting patients from GAMC and MinnesotaCare into MA, effectively dissolving most of the two programs that would otherwise cost the state about $1.2 billion over the next three years.

The shift also translates into $1.4 billion in federal dollars. Because the state will have to match federal Medicaid money it will still have to spend the $1.2 billion, plus another $188 million.

The reason the cost goes from $1.2 billion to a combined state and federal total of $2.8 billion is because MA would cover many more people than the two state programs do now and provide enhanced benefits. Under the new federal law all states will have to expand Medicaid in 2014.

OK. GAMC and MinnesotaCare are rolled into Medical Assistance. Everybody under one umbrella. We are covering them now. We are spending money on them now. The difference would be that we would get matching Federal funds. We could cover more people and in the case of GAMC get full and complete coverage.

And here is something else to consider. Has it occurred to anyone that if we roll these programs under one umbrella that we might be able to save some administrative costs? I'm not sure if we will still have to meet income and asset standards the same way, but if they all end up with standards for MA, wouldn't it save on staff and paperwork?

So, if we are going to pay anyway, and if we can attain a goal of covering more people, and if we can fix a program that is already in trouble, and put a process in place that we will be doing anyway in 2014......Why the heck not?

The only things inconclusive here are the reasons for NOT doing it.

Category: Tom Horner

by Dave Mindeman

The news following the Tom Horner IP campaign today is another curious one to deal with. Longshot opponent in the IP primary, Rob Hahn, may have just improved his position quite a bit....thanks to another Horner misstep.

Hahn has called on Horner to withdraw from the campaign. Why? Well, it revolves around Diane Traxler who holds an ownership/partner position with the Bill Morris polling firm Decision Resources and also a leadership position in the Horner campaign....at least for now.

Now this is not illegal although it skirts the boundaries of ethics, and in addition it was all on the public record...so technically, they were not hiding anything....but, still...gee whiz...it just doesn't look right.

Horner dismisses all of this as just attacks on his candidacy. Yea, well, I don't think there would be much too it, if it hadn't been handled quite so shakily.

Decision Resources (which involves Bill Morris and Diane Traxler; gets 20% of Horner's former firm's, (Himlie-Horner) business, and Morris is a personal friend and Traxler works directly with the Horner campaign) has a little too much to do with Horner. And it is getting harder to believe that a poll giving Horner an outlier number of 20%, when every other poll is in the 12-15% range, is accurate.

Decision Resources gave Horner a heads up on the numbers as well. Before all the other campaigns and behind only the Pioneer Press which was promised the exclusive media first results.

Horner, Morris and Traxler all are well aware that a surprising poll number could be utilized for great positive spin. It could boost fund raising and give Horner a much needed uptick at an early and critical stage of the campaign.

Of course, the Republicans went ballistic because their candidate suffered the most in the data. And they did their usual lawsuit thing which most of us dismiss as ho-hum procedures these days. (Incidently, the case has been dismissed today). But the brouhaha has gotten to the point that legitimate questions are being offered. Horner's campaign offered a deflective comment on the situation:

Horner's campaign spokesman, Matt Lewis, declined to comment on Hahn's allegation and the hearings. He did release this one sentence statement: "As a former news producer, Mr. Hahn surely knows that when information is released to the media it is public information."

Which probably means they are looking for a more plausible explanation...and quite frankly, they better figure one out.

An IP candidacy can only thrive when its candidate can embrace and make believable, his or her "outsider" status. Change in the two party system can't come from a person who works the system and depends on political ploys and gimmicks. The IP normally would reject such a candidate and I guess they will be moving toward a decision on that in August. Rob Hahn now has a case he can make... a legitimate case. And Horner must find a way to re-establish himself as not part of the status quo.

Horner may weather the storm. It may all go away, kinda. He has made a living in public relations and he certainly knows how to spin things. But really, doesn't that just prove he is more of an insider than he says he is?

Horner will minimize all this, but all this attention could have been avoided by simply letting the Decision Resources poll run its natural course without taking an early shot at getting publicity by proving to everyone that Horner had inside information. And he could have disclosed his personal relationship with Morris and the dual role of Traxler immediately. Even if it was "public" information -- the slow release of "discoveries" did not help the cause.

I'm not sure how all this will play out with Horner's credibility. Personally, I don't think it will play well.

Category: Tom Emmer

by Dave Mindeman

This Tom Emmer as straight shooter personna seems to be stuck with a lot of qualifers. He's against rail subsidies....except when in Rochester. Now we get to public campaign financing. I remember this one....

"I haven't signed the public subsidy [campaign financing] agreement. I haven't limited myself to the $2.6 or $2.7 million. Because we may be running against somebody like Mark Dayton [former U.S. senator, D-Minn.] who can self-finance up to $8 million. You shouldn't limit yourself and I know my colleague has [agreed] to be part of the public subsidy program. ... I think that's an important distinction," Emmer said to applause.

--March 18th debate with Marty Seifert

Now?

Republican Tom Emmer says he anticipates signing a subsidy agreement that will bring him public campaign dollars despite criticizing a former Minnesota gubernatorial rival for such a move.

Additionally, Emmer gives us his excuse for changing his mind with this backtrack:

Emmer said Wednesday that he was "under the false impression" then that taking the step would have tied his hands financially.

But ironically, Seifert gave him the "correct" impression during the same debate that Emmer criticized Seifert about public money:

"You've signed the subsidy agreement three times, in 2004, 2006 and 2008 (for House races," Seifert said. He added that his signature on the subsidy agreement won't limit him against someone who self-finances because his limit would be raised.

Emmer may be taking a "listening" tour but I doubt it will do much good if he doesn't practice listening in the first place.

So now we have Emmer rooting for Dayton or Entenza to win the primary. That way Emmer can keep the public subsidy and still raise the unlimited amounts to spend that his opponent would be.

Not a bad shell game for a candidate who criticizes everybody for "feeding at the public trough"!