Author Archives: Joe Loveland

About Joe Loveland

I've worked for politicians, a PR firm, corporations, nonprofits, and state and federal government. Since 2000, I've run a PR and marketing sole proprietorship. I think politics is important, maddening, humorous and good fodder for a spirited conversation. So, I hang out here when I need a break from life.

Would Vikings Have Doubled Down On Priefer If Accused Of Racial Slurs?

Posted on by

Al_Campanis_Nightline-2When Los Angles Dodgers General Manager Al Campanis said black players “may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager,” he was quickly fired.

When Minnesota Vikings punting coach Mike Priefer was accused of saying something much more violent and radical about gay people, the Vikings gave him a vote of confidence before the issue was properly investigated.

That’s messed up.

Imagine if a Minnesota Twins pitcher accused pitching coach Rick Anderson of saying the things Priefer is accused of saying:

“Coach Anderson would ask me if I had been defending the black people recently and denounce as disgusting the idea that a mixed race couple would kiss, and he would constantly belittle or demean any idea of acceptance or tolerance.

Another time, Coach Anderson made a joking remark about me leading the Martin Luther King Day parade. As we sat down in our chairs, Coach Anderson, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: “We should round up all the black people, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows.”

Would the Minnesota Twins shrug off such an accusation?  Would they announce him as their guy for next year before an investigation was completed?  Not a chance.

Watching this, you have to conclude that there is an ugly double standard at work here.  It is  much more acceptable to use gay hate speech in the professional sports world than racial hate speech.

To be clear, I’m not concluding that Coach Priefer is guilty.  The matter needs to be fairly investigated.  But giving the accused a professional vote of confidence in the midst of the investigation is a boneheaded PR move. Worse than that, it is an act of its own form of institutional bigotry.

Here is what I keep asking myself:  If Mr. Kluwe made up this story, why wouldn’t he fabricate a story where there are no witnesses and evidence involved, so he wouldn’t be forced to produce witnesses and evidence?  Because there are claims of witnesses and text messages, at this stage Kluwe’s charge can’t be prematurely dismissed as obviously groundless.

Again, there is a double standard at play here.  If Coach Priefer had allegedly castigated Kluwe for marching in a Martin Luther King parade, the Vikings would have taken this much more seriously.   If Priefer were accused of saying that  people with black skin should be murdered en masse, the Vikings would not have announced yesterday that they were doubling down on him.

There was a time when spewing racial hate speech was much more acceptable among professional sports coaches.  No more.  But with gay speech, we clearly have a ways to go.

– Loveland

A New Nickname For Minnesota’s New Stadium

Posted on by

The_Dome_Deflated-3The stadium formerly known as Mall of America Field at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome” (MOAF@HHHM) obviously screamed out for shorthand, or a nickname.  So most of us just called it “The Dome,” much to the chagrin of the MOAF@HHHM brand managers.

“The Dome” was a bite-sized and descriptive label, so it worked better for ordinary people. “Metrodome,” “Thunderdome,” or “Homerdome” were occasionally in the mix, but usually it was simply “The Dome.”

But now that “The Dome” has been popped in spectacularly anticlimactic fashion, stadium officials are focusing on naming the replacement.   The corporate auction over naming rights probably will lead to a name that will be a mouthful, and therefore probably will be replaced by the masses with a new nickname.

Vikings_Stadium-2So what will we use as a shorthand reference for our new sports palace?  I’m hoping the nickname will be derived from the nature of the structure itself, as “The Dome” was.  When the shorthand is derived from the corporate name –  see “the bank” and “TCF Bank Stadium” – that strikes me as selling out to The Man.  Taxpayers paid significantly more to finance the stadium than the corporate sponsor, so I hate for the nickname to give the suits all the credit.

Like “The Dome,” the new nickname should be 1) concise and simple and 2) descriptive of a differentiating feature of the building.  Here are few options to spark  community brainstorming:

  • The Ship.  We’re told the architects were going for a Viking ship look with their design.  Therefore, calling the stadium “The Ship” could help architecturally challenged citizens like me appreciate the method behind the madness.  The park to the west then could be the Ship Yard, The Dock, or something corny like that.  To get more authentic, we could call it the Knarr, Karve, or Faerring.  But that’s probably too Scandi-geeky, even for Minnesota.
  • The Hipsterdome.  Minneapolis hipsters can’t like anything that the masses like, such as pro football stadia.  If they sided with the masses, they wouldn’t be hipsters.  However, if the non-hipster masses express disapproval for the controversial modernist design,  hipster contrarians would feel compelled to embrace it to show that they alone can see the genius in the design.  In that case, “Hipsterdome” would give Minneapolis hipsters ownership, or blame, depending on your opinion of the design.
  • The Oops.  I kind of like the unusual design, but I’m not sure it’s beautiful.  It’s asymmetrical form is reminiscent of everyone’s first “oops” pottery project.   It’s misshapen and lopsided, but, doggone it, it’s our misshapen and lopsided.  For some, dubbing it “The Oops” would represent a celebration of the beauty of bold non-conformity.  For others, “The Oops” would serve as a populist critique of the fancy pants architect, who clearly is “not from here.”
  • The Cheeseball.  Get it?  You know, because it looks like a cheeseball after the  guests have hacked it up?   You seriously don’t see that??!
  • The Sunporch.  Our new stadium will have the largest transparent roof in the world, and the largest casement windows in the world.  In other words, the Wilfs are constructing  the world’s largest sunporch.  You know, one of those pre-fab transparent porches that are always tempting pale, Vitamin D-deprived Minnesotans at the Home Shows?  In the middle of a brutal winter, what midwesterner doesn’t want to spend time battling Seasonal Affective Disorder in “The Sunporch?”
  • The Artless Museum.  The Vikings stadium design seems derivative of the Weisman Art Musem and Walker Art Museum, so “The Artless Museum” would help people understand the differentiation among those three buildings. That is, this is the chunky building that contains no art.   “The Artless Museum” also would serve as commentary on the quality of the home team on permanent display.
  • The Rohrschach.  If you asked 100 Minnesotans what this amorphous new stadium  looks like, you might get 100 more different answers.  So rather than having a nickname that forces a single interpretation on everyone, maybe we should nickname it after the psychological inkblot test that allows for an unlimited number of interpretations.
  • The AntiDome.   It’s the AntiDome because the jagged, asymmetrical shape is the polar opposite of the smooth, symmetrical Dome.  It’s the AntiDome because it overcomes the things we hated about the Dome – the drabness, the frumpyness, and the shabby amenities.   The Dome is dead, long live the AntiDome.

Ok, maybe I’m not entirely serious about all of these options.  If you think you can do better, add your voice.  Like it or not, with a community project as prominent and distinctive as this one, nicknaming will happen.  So how about we give it some collective thought?

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post also was featured in streets.mn, Twin Cities Daily Planet, and Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

MNsure Ads: 10,000 Reasons We Already Know About

Posted on by

paul_bunyan_mnsure_tree-2For about five months now, MNsure ads have repeatedly told us:  “Minnesota is the land of 10,000 reasons to get health insurance.”  To educate us of this fact, the ads have portrayed a variety of health calamidies befalling Minnesota icon Paul Bunyan.  Incidents involving crushed private parts are particularly popular.

MNsure’s ad agency seems convinced that as soon as Minnesotans understand that they could face Bunyan-esque health problems without health insurance, they will surf on over to mnsure.com.  But at this stage of the game, that message isn’t sufficient.  Repeatedly telling Minnesotans that  coverage brings treatments is like telling us that parkas bring warmth.  We get that.  If Minnesotans somehow didn’t know that self-evident fact before the MNsure ads, they darn sure do five months into the multi-million dollar campaign.

So how about we share some motivating information that many DON’T know?

Sharing New News About MNsure

For example, the ads could tell Minnesotans that if they don’t get coverage by March 31st, they have to pay a large government penalty.   That would seem to be a pretty motivating piece of information, and research shows that about a third of the population doesn’t know about the penalty, and 8 out of 10 don’t know about the deadline.

Or the ads could explain how health coverage has never been more affordable for thousands of Minnesotans.  That also would seem to be a pretty motivating fact, yet research shows that a whopping 69% of Americans don’t know about new premium tax credits and other financial assistance.  Among the young  people who are so key to making the Obamacare risk pools stable, awareness about financial assistance is even lower.

Minnesota has a particularly good story to tell on the affordability front, because MNsure is offering the lowest premiums in the nation.  So, why isn’t MNsure telling that story?

“Newly affordable” and “mandatory a few weeks from now” are messages that are motivating and new news.  And as far as I can tell, they are missing from MNsure’s current ads.

Bye Bye Bunyan

So it’s time to retire the sophomoric Paul Bunyan hilarity.  As MNsure enters the home stretch toward the March 31st deadline, it should switch to  a much more utilitarian message.  Rough example:

Young adult:

Why did I use MnSURE to get health coverage?   Not because I think buying insurance is fun.  It’s no more fun than buying car insurance, which I also have to do.

No, I did it to avoid  a double hit.

First I did it to avoid a looming government penalty.  If you haven’t heard, there is a big penalty that kicks in March 31 for anyone who isn’t covered.  And it gets bigger over time.

Second, I did it to avoid the crippling medical bills that can come from being uninsured.

And the good news is, getting coverage on MNsure was more affordable than I expected.   Minnesota’s MNsure site offers the lowest average premiums of any state, and over two-thirds of the uninsured are eligible for help to make coverage more affordable.

So, no missed deadline.  No penalty.  No medical bankruptcy.  And more affordable than I expected. www.mnsure.com

I’m not an ad copy writer, so someone can write a much better ad than this.  But you get the general idea.

When the MNsure ads launched in September 2013, the light approach maybe made sense.  Five months later, WE GET THE JOKE ALREADY.  Now it’s time for MNsure to tell Minnesotans some things they don’t already know.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Why Minnesota Might Be Planning TOO MUCH Road Expansion

Posted on by

MnSHIP_cover-2The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) released a new 20-year plan in December 2013 – the Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP).  Spoiler alert:  MnSHIP says we need more money to build more road capacity.

MnSHIP says much more than that, but adding road capacity is a central theme, as has been the case for many years with such long-range plans.  At first blush,  the call for increased road capacity seems like the most unassailable part of the plan.  After all, Minnesota’s population is expected to increase over the next 20 years.

But the call for additional road capacity could ultimately turn out to be the most flawed part of the plan.   Here’s why:  One term you won’t see in MnSHIP is “driverless car.”

Are Driverless Cars Feasible?

When I was a lad, the science fiction cartoon The Jetsons offered  the dream of flying personal vehicles, which, alas, have not materialized.  That has made many of us skeptical about subsequent predictions about revolutionary transportation technology, such as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and driverless vehicles.

Google_driverless_care_on_street-2But driverless cars are far less speculative that flying cars.  Google, one of the wealthiest corporations on the planet, has been investing heavily in a driverless car.  Their test vehicle has logged over half a million miles, and it has never had an accident while the computer was driving.

Based on their tests to date, Google founder Sergey Brin predicts that Google will have autonomous cars available for the general public by 2017.   Again, this isn’t some penniless, garage-based tinkerer expressing his utopian pipe dream.  This is the founder of a company bringing in almost $15 billion in revenue per year.  This is someone who has already produced a prototype that is successfully operating on the streets and has been legalized for use in California, Florida and Nevada.

Beyond Google, just about every major auto manufacturer is engaged in developing this technology.  If Google doesn’t nail the driverless car assignment, one of their well-resourced and experienced competitors might.

Model_T_bad_roads-2Ignoring driverless cars in a 20-year transportation plan beginning in 2013 plan may turn out to be akin to ignoring horseless carriages in a 20-year transportation plan written in 1903.  Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903, and by 1923 Ford was flooding 2,000,000 Model T cars per year onto an overwhelmed infrastructure.

Consumer Buy-In?

But will consumers really surrender control of their vehicles to a computer?  In 2017, the first year Google predicts that driverless cars will be available to consumers, we won’t see mass consumer buy-in.  It will take time for the skeptical masses to observe the early adaptors.  But within the 20-year sweep of the MnSHIP era, broader consumer buy-in is certainly a distinct possibility.

Google_driverless_car-2Safety Advantages.   Driverless vehicles could offer consumers significant advantages.  Any life insurance underwriter can tell you that driving is one of the most dangerous tasks any of us regularly undertake, and driverless vehicles offer the hope of vastly improved safety.    Though human egos makes us skeptical of this truth, computer drivers have the capacity to be much more attentive, reliable and quick to react to danger than even the most skilled human drivers.  In this way, the computers have the potential to keep us safer than human drivers can.

Time-Saving Advantages.  Driverless cars also can offer us more of life’s most precious and limited commodity — time.  Distance sensors and computers allow computer-driven vehicles to safely follow each other at much closer distances and higher speeds than human-driven cars, making for shorter, less congested and less stressful trips.

If driverless cars can supply Americans with more time, less stress, lower insurance rates, and less death and suffering, consumers will demand it.  If policymakers further stimulate such consumer demand with incentives, such as tax breaks or dedicated lanes that offer faster and safer service, the revolution could happen even more quickly.

“Game Changer”

At first blush, the dawn of the driverless car era doesn’t seem to have implications for a transportation plan like MnSHIP.  After all, we would still need roads for those driverless vehicles, right?

While we would still need roads in the era of driverless cars, we might need much less road capacity, and different kinds of road capacity.

Both because of fewer crashes and  vehicles that can follow each other more closely at higher speeds, we might need much less road capacity to serve travel demand.   How much less?  Patcharinee Tientrakool of Columbia University estimates that autonomous vehicles could improve capacity by 43%.  Driverless vehicles that can coordinate with other driverless vehicles would increase capacity by 273%.

Adeel Lari, a transportation expert and former MnDOT leader who is now at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, points out that in the 1960s traffic engineers were taught that highway capacity maxed out at around 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour.  With improved traffic management methods and technology, Lari and his MnDOT colleagues later found they could briefly push capacity as high as 2,600 vehicles per lane per hour.

Temporarily moving from 2,000 to 2,600 vehicles per lane per hour was a huge improvement.  But driverless cars could push capacity to a jaw-dropping 6,000 vehicles per lane per hour or higher, which Lari calls a “game changer.”

Transportation Planning Implications

For MnDOT, here’s how “the game” could rapidly change:

  • Less Road Capacity?  Minnesotans might need much less road capacity at a much lower taxpayer cost.
  • Narrower Lanes?  We also might be able to use narrower lanes, since driverless cars could reliably navigate tight spaces, and squeeze more vehicles through choke points in the process.
  • Dedicated Lanes?   In the interim period when both human drivers and computer drivers are sharing the roads, it might make sense to have dedicated lanes for driverless vehicles, to keep them safe from more erratic and less skilled human drivers.
  • More sprawl?  If driverless cars allow for shorter and less stressful trips,  people may  feel free to move further away from their jobs and other destinations.  If they do, the increased sprawl would impact infrastructure needs.
  • Gas Tax Alternative?  Safer driverless vehicles might be able to be much lighter, and therefore be more fuel efficient.  Additionally, less stop-and-go traffic would also save fuel.  While these changes would be good for the environment and energy security, they also would mean less gas tax revenue available for maintaining and retrofitting the transportation infrastructure.

These are just a few of the kinds of issues transportation leaders should be analyzing. Land use planners have their own set of issues to analyze.

MnDOT, and its MnSHIP collaborators at the Met Council, are wise not to construct MnSHIP on an assumption that mass use of driverless vehicles is imminent.  I’m not naive about all the variables that could delay or stop the successful development and deployment of this technology, or the public acceptance of it.

But in a 20-year plan, it is an oversight to ignore the potential implications of an issue as distinctly possible as driverless vehicles.  MnSHIP should call on MnDOT and Met Council leaders to closely monitor and analyze the pace of driverless vehicle development, and consumer buy-in, so they could, if necessary, swiftly adjust their plans to fit a newly emerging reality.   After all, the transition to driverless cars will be no time for vision-less planning.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also republished in MinnPost and streets.mn.

Vikings Should Investigate Priefer Bigotry Charges Before Making Him Head Coach

Posted on by

Chris_KleweLast year I wrote a blog post asking the question “Is Chris Klewe Getting A Same Sex Divorce?”  I asked whether the Vikings punter, who had the best punting statistics in Vikings history according to KFAN Vikings analyst Paul Allen, was replaced by a Vikings coach who opposes same sex marriage because of his vocal support for same-sex marriage.

But whatever the real reason(s) for Mr. Klewe’s firing, new information shared by Klewe may need to be factored into the Vikings’ pending decision about its next Head Coach.

In a lengthy Huffington Post piece released today, Klewe shared several stories of allegedly disgusting encounters with his Special Teams Coach Mike Priefer, who is reportedly the leading internal candidate to replace Leslie Frazier as Vikings Head Coach.  Klewe claimed Priefer’s tone changed after Klewe starting speaking out for gay rights:

Throughout the months of September, October, and November, Minnesota Vikings special-teams coordinator Mike Priefer would use homophobic language in my presence. He had not done so during minicamps or fall camp that year, nor had he done so during the 2011 season. He would ask me if I had written any letters defending “the gays” recently and denounce as disgusting the idea that two men would kiss, and he would constantly belittle or demean any idea of acceptance or tolerance. I tried to laugh these off while also responding with the notion that perhaps they were human beings who deserved to be treated as human beings. Mike Priefer also said on multiple occasions that I would wind up burning in hell with the gays, and that the only truth was Jesus Christ and the Bible. He said all this in a semi-joking tone, and I responded in kind, as I felt a yelling match with my coach over human rights would greatly diminish my chances of remaining employed. I felt uncomfortable each time Mike Priefer said these things. After all, he was directly responsible for reviewing my job performance, but I hoped that after the vote concluded in Minnesota his behavior would taper off and eventually stop.

According to Klewe, all pretenses of joking went away as time went on:

Near the end of November, several teammates and I were walking into a specialist meeting with Coach Priefer. We were laughing over one of the recent articles I had written supporting same-sex marriage rights, and one of my teammates made a joking remark about me leading the Pride parade. As we sat down in our chairs, Mike Priefer, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: “We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows.” The room grew intensely quiet, and none of the players said a word for the rest of the meeting. The atmosphere was decidedly tense. I had never had an interaction that hostile with any of my teammates on this issue—some didn’t agree with me, but our conversations were always civil and respectful. Afterward, several told me that what Mike Priefer had said was “messed up.”

Messed up indeed.  If this account is accurate, Priefer has proven that he can’t separate his personal bigotry from his coaching job.  That’s a huge problem.

It will be very difficult to get players to publicly corroborate Klewe’s version of the stories, because current players obviously have every reason to avoid offending coaches who hold their multi-million dollar careers in their hands.  Special teams players especially tend to be “on the bubble” between being on and off the team.  Therefore, they will be particularly careful about what they say about the people who make decisions about final cuts.

But this is why I’m inclined to believe Mr. Klewe:  If Klewe were making this whole thing up, why he would be citing rants that happened in front of large groups of other players?  Love him or hate him, Klewe is a bright guy, and he could surely fabricate more bulletproof lies, such as tirades that he alone witnessed.

Reasonable football fans can disagree about whether Mr. Klewe should have been replaced as the Vikings punter.  In his piece, Klewe himself acknowledged that his high veteran salary and his age were likely contributory factors, in combination with his outspokenness.

But reasonable people should be able to agree that anyone who rants about killing an entire class of humans because of who they love should not be representing the State of Minnesota as the head coach of our most popular professional sports team, a team that is now being heavily subsidized by Minnesota taxpayers.

Vikings owner Zygi Wilf should be able to learn whether Klewe’s accounts are true.  Confidential one-on-one inquiries with other other special players who were at the meetings Klewe references should reveal the truth.  If Wilf finds that Klewe’s accounts about Priefer are true, or even half true, Priefer’s name should be immediately removed from the Vikings’ list of Head Coach candidates.

– Loveland

Now Is The Winter of Our MNbamacare Discontent

Posted on by

So much political analysis is focused on the short-term:  “Which side won yesterday’s news cycle.” But unless it’s the day before an election, such short-term analyses aren’t particularly meaningful.

Hand_of_cards-2The more useful question to ask is this: “On the next Election Day, would I rather be playing the proponents’ or opponents’ hand?”     Applying that question to the issue of MNsure and Obamacare, I’d  much rather be playing the supporters’ hand.

Public relations-wise, MNsure has definitely “lost” many a news cycle over the last several months.  Security breaches, website crashes, protracted customer service waits, and data transfer blunders.  And as we all know, when the going got tough, the tough got going, to a Costa Rican beach, a particularly damaging episode.

These things all hurt, and I don’t mean to diminish them.  MNsure and Obamacare supporters have been dealt bad cards in recent days.  If you’re only focused on the short-term history, it looks like reform supporters might have a very bad political hand to play in the 2014 elections.

But forget about December 2013 for a moment, and consider how things will look like on November 4, 2014.

What GOP Will Be Proposing To Eliminate In 2014

By Election Day 2014, eliminating the reforms will be a more difficult sell, because by that time the reforms will have touched millions of lives in pretty significant ways.  Republican candidates will need to make the case “I will eliminate something that has…”

PAID MILLIONS IN REBATES.  Produced millions of dollars in rebates paid by insurance companies to thousands of Minnesotans and millions of Americans, thanks to an Obamacare provision authored by Minnesota’s U.S. Senator Al Franken.  The provision limits the proportion of premium dollars insurers can use for non-health care expenses, and requires that the difference be paid back in customer rebates.

HELPED THE MOST VULNERABLE MINNESOTANS.  Got 95,000 of Minnesota’s most vulnerable citizens efficiently covered in Medicaid, including about 12,000 uninsured Minnesotans whose medical expenses were being shifted to insured Minnesotans.

COVERED UNINSURED YOUNG ADULTS.  Covered 35,000 Minnesota young adults, who otherwise would have been uninsured and now are able to stay on their parents health policy until age 26.

MADE PRIVATE COVERAGE MORE FEASIBLE.  Offered lower costs in the marketplace to 382,595 Minnesotans who are uninsured or otherwise eligible for subsidies.

HELPED CONTROL HEALTH EXPENDITURES.  Contributed, along with state and health plan-driven reforms, to the slowest growth of health care expenditures since the state began tracking expenses in the mid 1990s, which will immensely help Minnesota’s future fiscal and economic outlook.

ELIMINATED CO-PAYS FOR PREVENTATIVE HEALTH SERVICES.  More than 1.4 million Minnesotans no longer have to shell out co-pays for preventative health care, because of an Obamacare requirement.  This includes things like flu shots, colonoscopies, mammograms and well-child check-ups.

DELIVERED LOWEST PREMIUMS IN THE NATION.  Created a simple-to-understand — though still not simple to use — apples-to-apples insurance marketplace that has prompted competitors to offer Minnesota consumers the lowest insurance premiums in the nation.

ENDED PRE-EXISTING CONDITION BANS.  Made it illegal for private insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing health conditions, something that impacts many of the 2.3 million Minnesotans who have some type of pre-existing condition.

Presentation1Again, I don’t intend to sugar coat the current situation.  It’s been a rough few months for Obamacare and MNsure supporters.  The exchange website, call center, and management problems need to be improved as soon as possible.  Now most definitely is the winter of MNbamacare supporters’ discontent.

But come next fall,  Republican candidates, who offer no viable health care reform plan of their own, will have a very difficult time making the case for elimination of reforms that have been producing strong benefits for millions of Minnesotans.  “Elect me, to increase our rate of uninsurance again!”  “Elect me, to eliminate what you want to work better.”  “Elect me, to bring back pre-existing condition bans for your family!”

MNsure and Obamacare’s 2013 frailties aside, trying to take away those widespread benefits will be a very difficult political hand for the GOP to play in the 2014 elections.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also republished in MinnPost, and featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

About That Anti-MNsure Poster Child

Posted on by

Emily_Litella_Never_Mind-2After writing a letter-to-the-editor to a weekly newspaper complaining about MNSure rates, Jennifer Slater of Mabel, Minnesota was used by Republican operatives as a national poster child in their anti-Affordable Care Act crusade.

In late November, the following Slafter accusation was all the rage in the national media and conservative blogosphere.

“All we ever heard about Obamacare is that it would lower our deductibles and premiums,” said Jennifer Slafter, 40 of Mabel, Minn. “That’s just not what’s happened.”

The exchange’s Blue Cross Blue Shield plan was $1,087 a month with a $6,000 deductible, while a Medica plan was $877 a month with a $12,700 deductible. Both are steeper than their current plan.

Conservatives ate this up.  Type the first few words of that quote into Google, and you’ll see it appearing about 10,400 times in news publications such as CNNMoney and conservative blogs. Slafter was everywhere.

But it turns out that Slafter was a premature poster child.  In paragraph 14 of a 16-paragraph Associated Press follow-up article, we recently learned something new about Slafter’s experience:

Since first going public, (Slafter) said the Fillmore County family found out it is likely eligible for more federal subsidies to help pay for coverage than initially thought. She now doesn’t anticipate the family losing money in the conversion next year.

If you search the first few words of that correction, you see that the article containing the correction appeared three times, buried at the end of a very long article.   As far as I can tell, the correction article does not appear in any of the publications that ran the original article reporting the false claim.

Slafter doesn’t seem to have political motives.  She just was confused by a confusing system and she was sincerely concerned.  It can happen to anyone, and it’s not her fault that she was used as a political pawn by cynical operatives.

Though Slafter’s much publicized assertion that she would be paying more now seems to be  false, she still finds the system too complex and worries about being able to pay the deductibles. I feel her pain on both fronts, though it should be noted that nothing her conservative promoters are offering would help on those two fronts, because they are offering nothing other than the badly broken status quo system.   The best way to reduce complexity for consumers and  remove deductibles would be a single payer payer system, which Slafter’s conservative promoters vehemently oppose.

Again, the false assertion gets over 10,000 placements in the conservative echo chamber, while the correction gets 3 hits in the 14th paragraph of the follow-up article.  As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also republished on MinnPost.

The Daytonomics-Walkernomics Border Battle, MNsure and Our Addiction To Instant Analysis

Posted on by

Because journalists believe their audiences won’t tolerate nuance and ambiguity, they recruit  political analysts who are certain, clear and decisive over those who are unsure, equivocal and astraddle.  As a result, a kind of Punditry Darwinism plays out, where only the cocksure survive to deliver a steady stream of provocative instant analysis informed by little to no evidence.

MNsure’s Premature Death Proclamation

Take MNsure, Minnesota’s fledgling online tool for comparing and buying health insurance. When MNsure enrollment started slowly in its first month, Minnesota’s conservative talk radio pundits immediately declared it a train wreck, and this instant analysis has dominated the coverage to date.

MNsure may ultimately be a train wreck.  After all, covering uninsured Americans has always been a very difficult task.  But the immediate post-launch period is not a sensible time to make that judgment.

Romneycare_enrollment_chart-2Historical data shows that consumers don’t tend to purchase health insurance the way they purchase Xbox 360s, lined up outside the store on launch day.  Quite the opposite, most consumers purchase insurance at the very last moment possible.  Purchasing an expensive service that you hope to never use is just not very satisfying, so most of us procrastinate.

I’m not pulling this assertion out of my pundit posterior.   In Massachusetts, just 123 early adapters stepped forward during their first month, and it didn’t get much better the second month.  Instead, the big rush came just prior to the open enrollment deadline, when people face the prospect of a missed deadline and financial penalty.

It turns out that pulling the plug on the Massachusetts exchange when it only had 123 customers would not have been a wise decision for Commonwealth citizens, because  Romneycare ultimately was worth the wait.  After a few years of growing pains, Massachusetts’ Obamacare-like reforms increased the ranks of the insured to 97%.  This puts states like Minnesota (91% insured) to shame, not to mention Chris Christie’s New Jersey (84% insured) or Ted Cruz’s Texas (76% insured).

Declaring a trainwreck just as a new train is lurching out of the depot is ludicrous.  As much as it pains the cognoscenti, at this stage they need to be saying the four little words that might  get them deleted out of reporters’ speed dials – “I don’t know yet.”

Daytonomics The Winner Already?

Then there is the Minnesota-Wiscoonsin border battle over state fiscal policy.  In a New York Times commentary piece that has been widely shared via social media, a University of Minnesota professor and pundit recently declared that Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton’s Keynesian approach to state fiscal policy has been more successful than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s austerity approach.  His conclusion:

“The lesson from the upper Midwest is that rigid anti-tax dogma fails to deliver a convincing optimistic vision that widens economic opportunity and security.”

To his credit, the University of Minnesota professor does include  caveats, such as “firm answers will require more time and more data.”  But in the rush to be a clear and certain pundit who can get past the New York Times gatekeepers, the professor ultimately declared Daytononomics triumphant.

Here’s the problem with that:  Daytonomics is very much in its infancy.  Most of Governor Dayton’s most progressive policies are only now being put into effect, so the state of Minnesota’s economy can’t yet be attributed to the Daytonomics.

It’s true that Dayton has been in office for three years now.  But, with the exception of Dayton’s expansion of Medicaid to 95,000 uninsured Minnesotans, the lion’s share of his progressive agenda — the improvements to education and other government services funded by tax increases on the wealthy — passed just a few months ago, after the 2011-2012 GOP-controlled Legislature was vanquished and could no longer block Dayton’s progressive policies.

Just as President Obama could not be fairly blamed for the 2008-2009 economic meltdown that played out before he could put his policies into place, Governor Dayton cannot be fairly celebrated for a better-than-average state economy when most of his progressive policies are only now being put into place.  As a liberal, I hope Daytonomics bests Walkernomics, and expect it will.  But it’s much too early to declare a winner.

As a public relations guy, I understand why the media wants  commentators who give their audience instant gratification through instant analysis.  But as a citizen, I worry about what all of this instant gratification does to us.

Psychologists find that children who can’t learn to delay gratification at an early age are much less likely to succeed in later life.  The research indicates that the ability to delay gratification is absolutely key for success in school, marriages, friendships, health and jobs.  The young kids who can’t learn to stop themselves from consuming marshmallows become the adults who can’t stop themselves from consuming the adult versions of marshmallows.

Given that research, what kind of democracy will we become if journalists, pundits and voters can’t learn to wait to make policy judgements until evidence is available to inform our debates?

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in MinnPost and Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

CliffsNotes On Minnesota’s ACA Implementation Debate

Posted on by

Cliff_s_Notes_ACA_Debate_Implementation-2For those who haven’t been closely following the debate in Minnesota over implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”), here are  CliffsNotes to get you up-to-speed.

Minnesota conservatives, whose presidential standard bearer’s greatest policy achievement was successfully pioneering the use of insurance exchanges in Massachusetts, desperately tried to stop the Minnesota liberals from implementing the federal Affordable Care Act’s Massachusetts-like insurance exchange, until they later criticized liberals for not making the exchanges effective enough, though they still wanted to eliminate them, even after Minnesota’s exchange produced the lowest premiums in the nation, are now criticizing the liberals for being, well, you know,” flip-floppers.”

Minnesota conservatives are outraged that liberals first wanted to require better health coverage for individuals imperiled by junk policies that don’t cover the type of preventative care services needed to avert expensive and lethal health problems, but then supported restoration of the old junk policies when the junk plan ban was criticized, but later decided to ban the junk policies after all, because they learned that banning them was unpopular with the insurance industry.

Make sense now?

– Loveland

Context Matters in Minimum Wage Debate

Posted on by

Real_value_of_minimum_wage_since_1968-2In 2014, the Minnesota Legislature will enact a long overdue minimum wage adjustment.  A large majority of Minnesotans support an increase and the DFL controls the House, Senate and Governor’s office, so the stars are finally aligned for 357,000 of Minnesota’s workers and 137,000 of their children.  If self-defeating bi-cameral bickering can be put aside, the only real suspense should be about the amount of the minimum wage adjustment.

This year, the House passed legislation to set Minnesota’s minimum wage at $9.50 per hour, but it was rejected due to howls of outrage from the business lobby and Senate DFLers.  They maintained that $9.50 per hour was extravagant.

Compared to What?

At first blush, I understand why a jump from as low as $4.90 per hour to $9.50 per hour could seem excessive.  But Minnesota’s minimum wage hasn’t been adjusted in a very long time, and plenty of successful economies are operating very successfully with a much higher minimum wage.  Here is some context for this debate:

  • $5.15:  Georgia minimum wage (lowest in the U.S.)
  • $4.90-$5.25-$6.15:   Minnesota minimum wage for trainees, small businesses, and large businesses respectively.
  • $7.25: Federal minimum wage.
  • $7.25:  Minimum wage in ND, NE, SD, TX, WV, WI and many other states.
  • $7.75:  2013 Minnesota Senate-passed minimum wage (not enacted).
  • $9.00:  National Democrats’ recommendation:  The federal minimum wage increase endorsed by President Obama in 2013 (accompanied with an automatic annual adjustment for inflation).
  • $9.19:  Washington state’s minimum wage (highest among the states).
  • $9.50:  2013 Minnesota House-passed minimum wage (not enacted).
  • $9.95:  Canadian minimum wage.
  • $10.70:  What the U.S. minimum wage in 1968 would be today if it had kept pace with cost-of-living increases.
  • $10.93:  Dutch minimum wage.
  • $11.09:  Irish minimum wage.
  • $12.09:  French minimum wage.
  • $16.88:  Australian minimum wage.

So, the House-recommended level does look generous compared to the Minnesota’s embarrassingly stingy status quo.  But the 2013 House-enacted minimum wage looks downright miserly compared to what Americans were paid in the Nixon era, what many peer nation employers are paying, and what it actually takes Americans to cover the costs of basic needs.

The Floor for Negotiations

Minnesota’s cost-of-living is 105% of the national cost-of-living, a bit higher than average.  Therefore, Minnesota’s minimum wage should be a bit higher than federal minimum wage to have the same purchasing power.  One hundred and five percent of the $9.00 per hour recommended by President Obama would be $9.45 per hour, almost exactly what the Minnesota House enacted in 2013.

A minimum wage of $9.45 per hour is nowhere near what American workers were paid when in the Nixon era, or what contemporary Americans actually need to make ends meet, but it would represents modest progress.

Given that progressives saw minimum wage adjustments vetoed by Minnesota Republican Governor’s five times over a 14-year span, they also need to push, as President Obama is, for an annual inflation adjustment to prevent effective annual wage cuts in the future.   It makes no sense to fight for a decade and a half to win an adjustment only to watch workers’ wages effectively shrivel year-after-year.

Moving from $4.90 per hour to $9.45 per hour sounds exorbitant to leaders who haven’t done their homework.  In 2014, Minnesota’s working poor need those leaders to do their homework.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost.

Jerry-in-the-Box Should Be Gophers’ Permanent Model

Posted on by

claeys_sidelines_yelling_-_Google_SearchOn September 16, 2013, I proposed that Minnesota Golden Gophers head football coach Jerry Kill manage his epilepsy, and his program’s reputation, by delegating stressful game management duties to a trusted assistant, while Head Coach Kill manages big picture issues from a less stressful, climate controlled sky box.

At that time, I don’t remember anyone else taking that position. While others were having a spirited “status quo v. let Kill go” argument, I proposed the non-traditional  Jerry-in-the-box model compromise:

The University has every right to ask Coach Kill to do everything he can to manage his disease, and accepting a revised role like this would be one important thing he can do to manage his disease.

It’s too simplistic for Kill supporters to say “epilepsy is a disease, therefore it’s discriminatory to judge him based on the implications of his disease.”  It’s equally simplistic to say “there’s no role for epileptics in big time college football.”

There’s a role for a talented epileptic coach like Jerry Kill, but it may not be the exact role played by other Head Coaches.  There’s a happy medium here, and I hope (Gophers Athletic Director Norwood) Teague and Kill can find it.

The Jerry-in-the-box model was adopted by Kill four games ago, and the team is on an unlikely four-game Big 10 winning streak.

As I said earlier, this approach is the best way to put Kill’s health first, avoid losing him, and show potential recruits that the Gophers situation is stable. I’m quite sure Kill only agreed to temporarily move to the box, while he recovers and learns how to better manage his seizures.  But really, why not make it the Gophers’ permanent model?

– Loveland

5 Crucial DFL To-Dos For The 2014 Session

Posted on by

Minnesota_Legislature_To_Do_List-2The Minnesota DFL is in serious danger of losing ground in the 2014 elections.  A primary reason is turnout – too many DFLers traditionally tend to stay home in years when there isn’t a high profile presidential race.  But there are policy steps that the DFL can take during the 2014 to  improve their chance of bucking the historic trend of Democratic setbacks in off-year elections.

INCREASE  MINIMUM WAGE. Minnesota’s minimum wage is lower than the federal minimum wage, despite the fact that our overall per capita income is the 11th highest in the nation.  Shameful.   Six decades of data show the claims that increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment are unfounded. Only one-quarter of Minnesotans support keeping the minimum wage this low.  The DFL needs to show its electoral base, and moderate swing voters, that it is helping the most vulnerable workers make ends meet in a shaky economy.  Petty DFL-on-DFL infighting killed a minimum wage increase last year, which was an embarrassment to a party that needs to show that it is mature enough to lead the state.  That can’t happen again.

PASS A MODEST BONDING BILL.  It’s a bonding year at the Legislature, so much of the session’s news coverage will be focused on the bonding bill.    The DFL needs to show that it is a) making job-creating infrastructure investments but b) not breaking the bank, as Republicans will reflexively claim.  Passing a smart bonding bill that costs about as much as average bonding bills in the Pawlenty and Carlson eras will show moderate voters that the DFL can get things done, and be trusted to control the purse strings another couple of years.

SPOTLIGHT GOP SUPPORT OF SHUTDOWNS.  The federal government shutdown in 2013 and the Minnesota government shutdown in 2011 have left Republicans’ approval ratings at historic lows.  Government shutdowns are a very toxic political issue for Republicans right now.   But in politics, time heals all wounds.  Therefore, the DFL needs to find new ways remind moderate voters that GOP legislators still are stubbornly refusing to swear off of their reckless government shutdown fetish.  Maybe that means holding votes on legislation to require a supermajority vote for the enactment of shutdowns.  Maybe that means requiring votes on legislation to dock the future pay for legislators who support shutdowns.   Those votes can be used in the 2014 election to breathe new life into the Republicans most damaging political baggage from the 2011 and 2013 shutdown debacles.

GIVE THE REPUBLICANS THE MICROPHONE.  The DFL legislators’ best electoral weapon remains Republican legislators.  When it comes to appealing to swing voters, there are a group of Tea Party-supported GOP legislators who tend to be their own worst enemies.  For instance, they compare food stamps to feeding wild animals and use the floor to drive their anti-gay obsessions.  For a party that tends to keep digging their hole deeper, my advice to the DFL is to refrain from taking their shovel away.  In fact, give them a backhoe.   Don’t unnecessarily limit debates.  Don’t interrupt.  Give their radical bills hearings.  All the while, keep the video recorder on, and share their extremeness via social media and the news media.

GET WORK DONE ON TIME.  Voters don’t pay attention to 99% of the legislative machinations during sessions, but they do notice when legislative gridlock causes missed end-of-session deadlines.   For swing voters, a missed deadline is an easy-to-understand symbol of immaturity, irresponsibility and incompetence.  The father of the modern Democratic party, Franklin D. Roosevelt, advised “be sincere, be brief, be seated.”  Modern DFLers should take FDR’s advice to heart.  Imagine how pleasantly surprised swing voters would be to read a spring 2014 headline reading “DFL Leaders Quietly Finish Legislative Business A Day Early.”  Easier said than done, I know, but it should not be underestimated how symbolically important making that deadline is to middle-of-the-road swing voters.  An early adjournment should be a top priority for DFL leaders.

Most of the moderate swing voters who will determine the 2014 elections don’t pay close attention to legislative minutiae.  They simply want state leaders who are passing a few constructive and popular bills, avoiding embarrassments, and  keeping the government  running on budget and on time.  In the 2014 legislative session, that’s what DFL leaders should strive to deliver.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured by MinnPost’s Blog Cabin and Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

 

MN GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Demand Target and Best Buy Shutdown Their Online Retailing

Posted on by

Target_Missoni_crashMinneapolis, Minn. — Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidates today demanded that home state retailers Target and Best Buy  pull out of online marketing because of serious technical meltdowns associated with their respective commercial websites.

The Republican candidates’ criticism of the local private retailers was consistent with harsh criticism they have leveled at the government-run website MnSure.com, Minnesota’s new online venue for comparing and purchasing private insurance policies offered in association with the federal Affordable Care Act.  A Minnesota Department of Commerce analysis finds that MnSure offers the lowest prices in the nation and has proven to be a popular destination for Minnesotans, but MnSure website visitors have also been subjected to frustrating delays and bugs.

The three Republican candidates ordinarily stress that  private companies are superior to  government-run initiatives.  But today the candidates pointed out that Minnesota-based Best Buy and Target also experienced MnSure-like launch problems, and therefore also should terminate their online retailing operations.

In September 2011, Target Corporation was publicly humiliated when its website crashed during a crucial launch of  a much anticipated Missoni-designed clothing line, infuriating its  customers.  At the time, a New York Times article noted:

The Target.com site was wiped out for most of the day; the company said that demand for items was higher than it was on a typical day after Thanksgiving, and that is usually the biggest shopping day of the year.

A few months later in 2011,  sheepish Best Buy officials had to notify customers that it would not be able to fill their orders in time for Christmas, because the electronics retail giant had underestimated the initial demand for its products. USA Today reported:

The largest U.S. specialty electronics retailer said late Wednesday that overwhelming demand for some products from Bestbuy.com has led to a problem redeeming online orders made in November and December.

The Minneapolis company declined Thursday to specify how many orders are affected or which products are out of stock.

“I would do anything I could to end them,” said Minnesota Senator Dave Thompson, said of Best Buy and Target.

“I don’t believe it can be fixed,” added Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson about the retail giants’ glitches.

“It just isn’t going to work,” agreed former Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Zellers.

Note:  This post is satirical, and not true.  Though the quotes above are the exact words the candidates used about MnSure in August 2013, the candidates have not, to the best of our knowledge, made the same demands of Best Buy and Target.

This post was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs, and republished on MinnPost.

Paulsen and Kline Finally Support A Jobs Bill

Posted on by

Erik_Paulsen_John_KlineIn the past, I’ve been critical of Minnesota Republican  Congressmen John Kline and Erik Paulsen for not doing enough to address America’s chronic unemployment problem.  But I have to hand it to them, because yesterday they passed legislation ending the government shutdown that will immediately put 800,000 Americans back to work, and stabilize the economic position of many others.  That’s fantastic news.

Unfortunately, Paulsen and Kline haven’t always been so strong supporting job creation for Americans.  They both refused to support President Obama’s 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that, according to the independent, non-partisan organization FactCheck.org, created a whole lot of jobs:

“…the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has “[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points” and “[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.”

Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.”

Paulsen and Kline have also refused to support pending legislation proposed by President Obama, the American Jobs Act, that, according to private sector experts, would stimulate millions of more jobs:

Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi: “The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. Zandi, who was briefed on the plan before the president’s speech, forecast passage of the entire jobs package would add 2 percentage points to economic growth next year and bring down the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point compared with current policy, under which a temporary payroll tax cut and an extended unemployment benefits both expire Dec. 31.”

This morning Economic Forecasting FirmMacroeconomic Advisers issued a report: “We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term. The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would: Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013. Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.”

…Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said, “The President’s proposed combination of personal and business tax relief, targeted spending to support infrastructure, and aid to states offers several direct and innovative ways of creating jobs and bolstering our economy. The President’s focus on assisting small business is spot on, since small business is the engine of job creation.”

Finally, Paulsen and Kline have refused to support legislation to end the “sequester” of billions of dollars federal funds.  CBO economists say lifting these spending cuts would immediately add millions more jobs for the American people.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that keeping the spending cuts from sequestration in place through fiscal 2014 would cost up to 1.6 million jobs.

Canceling the cuts, on the other hand, would yield between 300,000 to 1.6 million new jobs, with the most likely outcome being the addition of 900,000, the CBO said.

“Those changes would increase the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.7 percent and increase the level of employment by 0.9 million in the third quarter of calendar year 2014 (the end of fiscal year 2014) relative to the levels projected under current law,” the report states.

Again, these are the job creation bills that Kline and Paulsen have historically refused to support.

But I do want to give credit where credit is due.  The bipartisan legislation Paulsen and Kline supported yesterday will immediately put 800,000 more Americans back to work, and end a government shutdown that will have cost taxpayers, according to Standard and Poors, about $24 billion.  That’s $24 billion that isn’t circulating in the economy creating jobs.

Forget that Kline and Paulsen originally did nothing to speak out against their fellow House Republicans who were giddy in forcing these 800,000 Americans out of work.  At long last, Paulsen and Kline have supported a jobs bill.  Here’s hoping it’s the beginning of a trend.

– Loveland

Note:  This post also was featured in Minnpost’s Blog Cabin.

The Minnesota Legislator Salary Shutdown Act of 2014

Posted on by

carrot_and_stick_vintage_photoSometimes good policy and good politics intersect.  Fixing the problem of ideological extremists shutting down governments with a steady stream of ransom demands is one of those instances.   Any legislator who could figure out a way to reduce the frequency of hugely unpopular shutdowns would further the cause of a more stable democracy, as well as harvest political benefits with three-fourths of voters.

I recently promoted the idea of challenging candidates to pledge to not shutdown government, to effectively increase the political price for shutdowns.  But another way to address the problem it is to increase the personal price for shutdowns.

I therefore propose the Minnesota Legislator Pay Shutdown Act of 2014:

Whereas, reaching consensus and keeping government services operating is the job of the Minnesota legislators;

Whereas, government shutdowns are a clear indication that Minnesota legislators are not doing their jobs;

Therefore, be it resolved that any Minnesota state legislator who supports legislation that results in a government shutdown shall be ineligible to draw their state government salary for a period of one year.

Nobody would ever accuse me of being a legislative draftsman, so this language is obviously illustrative only.  Legislative staffers would need to substitute murky legalese so that virtually no one ultimately could understand it.  But you get the general idea.

Is that fair or just demagogic blogger bluster?  Well, people from surgeons to salespeople have “pay-for-performance” pay models.   So why not legislators?

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

When Government Ceases To Be An Abstraction

Posted on by

shutdown__sign“Oh wait, don’t shutdown the monuments for millions of visitors.  That’s mean-spirited political theater.  Oh wait, don’t shutdown veterans benefits.  That’s un-American.  Oh wait, don’t stop protecting us against infectious diseases, food-borne illnesses and environmental catastrophes.  That endangers public health.  Oh wait, don’t delay passport and visa applications, bankruptcy court cases, small business loans and mortgage applications.  That hurts our economy.  Oh wait, don’t furlough workers in my home state who buy stuff from my home state businesses.  That hurts Main Street.  We only shut down a nameless, faceless abstract stereotype called ‘big government,’ not that stuff.”

This is the noise coming from the congressional Republicans who were reportedly “giddy” when they first shutdown the government, and now are blaming President Obama when confronted with the effects of an overwhelmingly unpopular shutdown.

Anatomy of the GOP Miscalculation

How did Republicans make such a massive miscalculation?  In large part, they misread public opinion polls that consistently say the American people want “less government spending.”   This emboldened them.

But what they apparently didn’t read were the public opinion polls that broke government down to its component services.  That research makes it clear that a majority of Americans absolutely do not want to cut government services.

According to one Pew Resarch poll, only 32% of Americans want to cut unemployment benefits, 24% want to cut aid to the poor, 22% want to cut environmental protection, 20% want to cut government research, 17% want to cut roads and infrastructure, 14% want to cut combatting crime, and 10% want to cut education.   The truth is, the fans of cutting government are a fringe minority of Americans.

It’s not just veterans and memorials that Americans want to protect.  A majority of Americans oppose cuts in any of the 19 major areas Pew asked about, and they most certainly don’t want to shut down those services altogether.

Obamacare:  Abstract v. Specifics

The same is true of the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.”  As an abstraction, Obamacare faces some opposition, though less than most believe.  Only one in five (20%) Americans want to repeal it in its entirety, while a majority of Americans either want to keep it or strengthen it.

While there are concerns about Obamacare as an abstraction, a Reuters poll shows that the component parts of it are overwhelmingly popular.

  • Allowing 6.6 million young adults to be covered on their parents’ policies until age 26?  61 percent of American support it.
  • Requiring companies with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance for employees?  72 percent of Americans support it.
  • Banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health problems?  82 percent of Americans support it, including 78% of Republicans.

If you think a government shutdown is unpopular, just try to shutdown Obamacare in 2014 or 2015.  As soon as Americans understand that repealing Obamacare would re-empower insurance corporations to deny coverage to their sick family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, you would have 82 percent of Americans, and 78% of Republicans, up in arms.

Government in the abstract is quite unpopular, while government in the specific is quite popular.  If any good could come of this fiasco, it would be the Republicans learning this fundamental lesson about  the American people they represent.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also re-published in Minnpost.

Which MN Candidates Will Sign The Pull-The-Plug Pledge?

Posted on by

Pull_the_plugAs a general matter, I despise campaign pledges.  Candidates are continually badgered by interest groups to pledge in writing that they will always do X, or never do Y.

The Problem With Pledges

The problem with most pledges is the “always” or “never” parts of them.  The world changes, and policy positions therefore sometimes need to change with them.

  • Pledging to not increase taxes today may make sense at one point in history, but a few years later the circumstances may have changed dramatically.
  • Pledging to support a policy or project now may make sense, but not after surprising new information surfaces.
  • Pledging to tax millionaires may make sense at a time when they’re not paying their fair share, but not a few years later when circumstances may have changed.

So sometimes making policy shifts isn’t  a sign of weakness or dishonesty, as pledge enforcers often claim.  Sometimes, shifting is a sign of courage, vision and integrity.

That’s why I don’t like most campaign pledges.

Pull-the-Plug Pledge

But I came across a pledge the other day that fits our times, and has an infinite shelf life.  South Dakota congressional candidate Rick Weiland challenged all congressional candidates to sign this simple pledge:

“I hereby pledge that, if elected to represent you, I will never vote to shut down your government, or to place your government in default, in order to force it to act, or to prevent it from acting, on unrelated issues.” 

As a voter, I want to know where every Minnesota congressional candidate stands on this Pull-The-Plug Pledge.

Flat_line-2If there are candidates out there who think it is acceptable from them to pull the plug on the American people’s government and economy, that is their right.  But it’s also the right of the overwhelming 72% percent of Americans who oppose the Republicans’ current plug-pulling scheme to be forewarned of a congressional candidate’s position on that  issue, so that they can vote with their eyes wide open.

Yes, Americans and their policymakers must always be able to make their government a different size and shape as future circumstances dictate.  This pledge doesn’t prevent them from having such flexibility. It simply says it’s not acceptable to completely pull the plug on the American economy and government.

So, Tim Walz, Mike Benson, John Kline, Mike Obermuller, Paula Overby, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Erik Paulsen, Tom Emmer, Rhonda Sivarajah, Phil Krinkie, John Pederson, Judy Adams, Collin Pederson, Rick Nolan, Stewart Mills III, Monti Moreno, Chris Dahlberg, Mike McFadden, Julianne Ortman, Jim Abeler, and Al Franken, will you sign the Pull-The-Plug Pledge?

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota‘s Best of the Blogs.

Rep. Ellison’s Ultimatum: Single Payer or Government Shutdown

Posted on by

SatireSaint Paul, Minn. –U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)  announced today that he is leading a progressive effort to shut down the federal government until a single payer health insurance system replaces the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed in 2010, further complicating the federal budget impasse.

“The private insurance exchanges used in the ACA were never what progressives wanted, so ‘we the people’ have decided to make a principled stand against them,” said Ellison, Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  The Caucus has long advocated for a single payer system in which the government would fund and operate a single insurance pool for all Americans, similar to how Medicare has long been structured for older Americans.

Rep. Ellison’s rhetoric was eerily similar to that of his fellow House Republicans, who have pushed for replacing the Affordable Care Act with the status quo system.  Under the current system, 48 million Americans are uninsured and health costs are among the highest in the industrialized world.

Rep. Ellison said his caucus is pushing legislation authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) to essentially build on and expand the federal Medicare program.  Under the bill, all Americans would be guaranteed access to health care regardless of an ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions.

Just as Tea Party-backed House conservatives advocated in 2009 for preserving the status quo private health insurance system, House progressives pushed for a single payer approach in 2009. But neither side was able to muster sufficient votes to enact their preferred policy.

Still Ellison points to an Associated Press poll finding that 65% of Americans agree that “the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.”  Ellison also noted an NPR poll shows that 93 percent of Americans believe that the number of uninsured under the status quo system that the Republicans are fighting to preserve is a “serious problem.”

“When House Republicans finally agree to open up the government again, we’re going to shut it down if they don’t support our single payer approach,” Ellison said.  “House Republicans shut down the government to maintain a status quo insurance system that almost all Americans believe is a serious problem, so progressives can damn sure shut it down over something that two-thirds of Americans support.”

Rep. Ellison said he has offered to compromise with Republicans by offering to delay the implementation of the single payer system by a year.  Ellison has also offered to allow private insurers to sell Medigap-like supplemental health insurance plans.  However, Ellison says Republicans are refusing to even discuss compromise.

In a related development, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced that he would move to re-shut down the federal government if House Republican lawmakers didn’t pass his legislation to require background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online.  A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that 86% of Americans support such background checks.  Despite this overwhelming public support, Manchin’s bill was rejected by House Republicans in April 2013.  Manchin also demanded a new credenza for his office.

NOTE:  If it is not obvious to you, THIS IS SATIRE.  IT IS NOT A TRUE STORY. Representatives Ellison, Conyers, and Manchin are much too responsible to shutdown the government when they don’t get their way in the democratic process.

This post was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Related post:  Bachmann Vindicated:  Industrialized Nations Continue Rush to Replicate U.S. Health Care System

– Loveland

Learning To Lose With MnSure

Posted on by

Bunyan_woodpeckerIn case you haven’t heard, Republicans hate health insurance exchanges like MnSure. While the conservative Heritage Foundation developed the approach, conservative leaders like Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Orrin Hatch endorsed it, and conservative standard bearer Mitt Romney pioneered it, contemporary conservatives have come to despise it since it was adopted by President Obama.

Conservatives now prefer to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines governed by federal regulations, instead of the current system of state-by-state regulation of insurance products.  But there isn’t sufficient political support to enact the conservatives’ preferred interstate competition approach.

I feel my conservative friends’ pain, because my preferred approach also doesn’t have enough political support to become law, and I also don’t love insurance exchanges like MnSure.  I’d much rather have a single payer system — the system that delivers the best care and value in other industrialized nations — than this competitive private sector exchange model.  However, since there wasn’t sufficient political support for my first choice, my fallback preference was to authorize a “public option”—a Medicare-for-All — competing against private options to test which model is more efficient and effective.

But alas, after a long, fair and considered congressional debate, I lost on both my first and second choices.  Now I and all Americans have to accept the private competitive exchange model that prevailed in the democratic arena.

Memo to my Republican friends:  That’s how losing works in a democracy.  You have to accept the outcome of the democratic process, and move on like an adult.

While insurance exchanges like MnSure were far from my preferred option, there are things I like about them.  For the first time, they require products to be directly comparable, so that a lightly informed consumer like me can actually do apples-to-apples shopping, or silver plan-to-silver plan shopping.

That represents a significant improvement that will reshape the marketplace in a somewhat more consumer-friendly way. With private and non-profit insurers required to create directly comparable products, insurers now know that many consumers are going to buy the more affordable apple over the comparatively expensive apple.  That puts consumer demand pressure on insurers to offer the most affordable apple possible, just as airlines have constant demand pressure to offer the most affordable ticket to New York City via online marketplaces like Kayak, Orbitz and Travelocity.

Whether we’re talking about Kayak or MnSure, the widespread availability and use of the Internet makes this kind of comparison shopping possible.  Social media and advertising guru Simon Mainwaring is among those those who have written about how the Internet changes modern marketplaces:

“More than ever before, consumers have the ability to unify their voices and coalesce their buying power to influence corporate behaviors.”

So far, this type of “coalesced buying power” is showing promise.  In Minnesota’s competitive exchange, we are seeing among the lowest premium prices in the nation.  That’s a tribute to Minnesota’s non-profit health insurance companies, the state health care model that Republican Governor Arne Carlson significantly shaped and the exchange model that Republicans developed, supported and pioneered.

In life and in policy making, sometimes we don’t get our first choice, or even our second choice.   Liberals like me certainly didn’t get our first or second choice in the 2010 federal health reform debate.  But that doesn’t mean that some good can’t come from the third choice, if we’re adult enough to give it a chance, instead of working overtime to sabotage it.

So my conservative friends, on the launch day for MnSure, join me in belting out those healing Stephen Stills lyrics:  “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with.”

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Time for Obamacare Supporters To Let Their Light Shine

Posted on by

insurance_denialObamacare is easy to misunderstand.  It’s complex, confusing and heavily demagogued, and those things all plant seeds of doubt in a lightly informed citizenry.  Given the barrage of lies flying around, it astounds me that a majority either still want to keep it or make it stronger.

But as Senator Ted Cruz and many others can tell you, it is very easy to whip about a third of the population into a fervor over Obamacare.  Listening to Cruz, Boehner and the boys discuss Obamacare, you’d think the End Times are nigh.

One of their favorite tactics is the ritualistic burning of the Obamacare Card.   Though there is no such thing as an Obamacare Card, a conservative group called Freedomworks printed up a batch of faux cards so they could burn them in the public square.

The minority intent on repealing Obamacare has created a good visual with the card burnings.  Now, the majority of Americans who either want to maintain or strengthen Obamacare need to create a memorable counter visual.

I nominate burning insurance rejection documents.  For decades, insurance companies have been denying health coverage for seriously ill Americans, because seriously ill people are expensive and unprofitable to cover.   I’m not blaming insurance companies for doing this, because we have built a system that effectively requires them to deny coverage to those with expensive medical needs.  After all, any insurance company that started covering the most sick, expensive patients would be run out of business, because they wouldn’t be able to compete against competitors who reject the most sick, expensive patients.  Unless all insurance companies are mandated to cover these folks, none will.

Everyone agrees that these denials have tragic consequences for an enormous group of ailing Americans.    According to research by the Commonweath Fund:

An estimated 9 million were turned down or charged a higher price because of a health problem, or had a preexisting condition excluded from their coverage.

The tragedies that stem from such denials are widespread.  Non-treatment.  Under-treatment. Inefficient and ineffective treatment.  Bankruptcies driven by mountains of unpayable medical bills.  Cost-shifting to the rest of us.

No more.  Starting with the insurance policies going on sale  October 1, 2013, Obamacare makes it illegal for any insurance company to ever again deny coverage based on a preexisting condition.  As a result, 9 million of some of the sickest Americans finally will be eligible for coverage, and if you get sick or hurt in the future, so will you.

This Obamacare-mandated change is revolutionary for those who have been rejected in the past, and for any of us who could be denied in the future, which is all of us.  It is a vastly under-appreciated aspect of Obamacare.

bonfire_celebrationSo to celebrate this momentous occasion, let’s burn some insurance company rejection documents.  Since there are 9 million lives impacted, let’s burn 9 million denial documents. Just as fake Obamacare Cards needed to be produced for theatrical effect, symbolic rejection documents would have to be recreated.  (Most people don’t save their rejection letters to put into their baby books.)

Imagine what that blaze would represent.  Coverage denial for victims of all types of cancer, diabetes, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, quadriplegia, Parkinson’s disease, AIDS/HIV and countless other ailments?  Up in smoke.  Coverage denial for patients in desperate need of doctor-recommended medications?  Burn, baby, burn.

Think about it.  Never again will any of your desperately ill family members, friends, co-workers and neighbors receive a coverage rejection letter again.  The banning of pre-existing condition denials is now a reality, thanks to Obamacare.  Let’s tell that story.  Let’s create that visual.  Let’s have that celebration.  Supporters of Obamacare should quit cowering in the shadows of the Obamacare Card burnings, and let that light shine brightly.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.