Jill Burcum: A familiar plan

  • Article by: Jill Burcum
  • Updated: February 24, 2010 - 6:31 PM

A FAMILIAR PLAN Durenberger sees a lot of his '93 proposal in the Democratic plan

  • 8
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 8 of 8
NoPistnsFeb. 24, 10 8:01 PM

"Asked why the Republican Party embraced his ideas in 1993 but shoots them down now, Durenberger told the national online health news service: 'The main thing that's changed is the definition of a Republican.'" The definition changed when Newt said "compromise equals capitulation", and took the party to where it is now, the party of "No".

24
7
drpanglossFeb. 24, 10 8:13 PM

It doesn't any more. Even business realizes that we need to reform health care if we wish to be globally competitive. Just say no is not a viable governing philosophy.

22
8
nelsonmFeb. 25, 10 8:42 AM

I hope there are enough people of courage and integrity left in Congress to pass this legislation. I'm surmising Durenberger was referring to the likes of Bachmann, Paulsen, Klein and others who view the televised health legislation meeting as "a PR stunt." This is serious business folks; hope you figure that out before its too late.

8
2
jakeywFeb. 25, 1012:01 PM

Romneycare is basically the exact same plan as the current proposal and it has FAILED to deliver on nearly all of its promises. It has only slightly expanded coverage, costs have gone up faster in Mass than in ANY OTHER state in the nation and there is no evidence of improved quality or health in the state. This is a corporate giveaway PLAIN and simple. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric!

3
5
BethjockFeb. 25, 1012:28 PM

I read a wonderful book called Wingnuts which takes on both the left and the right. We are all Americans, or so I thought. The interesting first page in Wingnuts is a quote by John Wayne about President's Kennedys election. "I didn't vote for him, but I wish him the best" or something along those lines. As for the Rush crowd, "I hope he fails." Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

4
1
dankozFeb. 25, 10 6:41 PM

is because they hoped former President Bush would completely destroy our government between his wars and the hard work he put into turning a balanced budget into a trillion dollar a year deficit. They are all angry that he failed and now are hoping to get another Republican into the White House in three years to finish what he started.

2
0
captainken53Feb. 26, 10 9:37 AM

In a State that values increased taxes over increased jobs that ultimately PAY to wipe your backsides, it remains no wonder why after the state, and the nation go broke, you same smart people will be asking: "what happened?" So you want me to agree to have my pocket picked because bigger government, that is unable to run anything efficiently, knows better about my care than me. Oh - Okay, the fact that people died in two world wars in effort to prevent what is about to take place in this nation - I guess should be ignored as well. The presented Concepts of changing this admittedly broken system will break it further and your health care needs will ultimately suffer to much greater degree's than you can imagine. The Best ideas have yet to be seen or brought to the forefront of the media and the Government, as proven yesterday, isn't interested in efficient, good concepts. "MY WAY ONLY" attitudes - yep - pure democracy here!

0
1
bernice3Feb. 26, 10 3:31 PM

Yes, jakeyw. Neither the MassPlan and the Senate plan modeled on it will save money OR achieve universal health care. Last year, Massachusetts told 30,000 legal immigrants they could no longer use the exchange because the state was short of funds. A large Boston hospital sued the state because its payments to it were so low that it will soon have to stop helping indigent people. AND WHAT MISTAKE DID ROMNEY AND THE SENATE MAKE? They failed to follow the Norwegian, Swiss and other European countries with similar systems of making all insurers be non-profits; requiring that they accept all customers and deny no claims; study health care costs each year and limit any increases in premium costs to what insurers need to cover actual costs. In those countries, the common good is served by treating health insurance as we treat public utilities. In Massachusetts and the US Senate, the obscene profits of the insurance industry were protected at the expense of taxpayers and patients having to spend much, much more for insurance than should be necessary.

0
0
  • 1 - 8 of 8

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question