Just caught an article in an on-line magazine called “Pacfic Standard,” which bills itself as a “magazine for readers interested in working toward forward-looking changes to private behavior and public policy.”
In an article touting Democrat Candidate Billie Sutton, there are few interesting passages…
It’s early yet in the election cycle, but his message seems to be working. Over my visit, I met two sitting Republican state senators, a former GOP attorney general, a GOP-appointed former state supreme court justice, and dozens of Republican-identified businesspeople who are ready to support Billie Sutton.
and…
After Sutton works the room and delivers a version of his standard pitch, there’s a surprise. A man named Bruce Odson, who turns out to be the owner of several newspapers in that part of the state, has been listening from near the door. He suddenly pushes into the room and starts to talk about his lifelong support for South Dakota Republicans. He touts all the money he’s raised for former GOP governors and says that he knows “every elected Republican politician in the whole region by first name.” But this time, Odson announces, “I’m supporting Billie Sutton.
and…
He doesn’t mind that his political opponents disagree on many issues, but he seems genuinely irked when partisan ideology gets in the way of problem-solving, as with the current regime’s objections to Medicaid expansion, for example, which Sutton strongly supports. He tells me that, in the last legislative session, he was part of a team of lawmakers who worked out how to expand Medicaid without raising spending (the details involved improving federal funding for Native American health care and using the savings to the state to expand Medicaid), but that the legislature rejected the measure owing solely to the “partisan divide” over Obamacare.
Three points in the article that drew my attention. Take note of the claims that…
- Two GOP State Senators are ‘ready’ to support Sutton?
- Bruce Odson, the owner of ‘several newspapers,’ is supporting Billie Sutton, and
- Billie Sutton supports Obamacare in the form of Medicaid expansion
Regarding point #1, talk is cheap, especially for a puff piece without putting names on the line. If the article is going to claim that two Republican Senators are supporting Billie, why wouldn’t it name them? Wouldn’t that be newsworthy? Like I said, talk is cheap.
Point #2 – With the talk about Bruce Odson owning ‘several’ newspapers, it looks like several is defined here as ‘two.’ (The Southern Union County Leader-Courier, and the Dakota Dunes/N. Sioux City Times). One with a circulation of 1400, and the other with a circulation of 800. And by Odson declaring to everyone that he’s “supporting Billie Sutton,” doesn’t that kind of throw any objectivity and non-partisanship on his and the newspaper’s part out the window?
I mean, I’m a partisan political blog, and I wear my heart on my sleeve. But a newspaper publisher doing that? An editorial endorsement right before the election is rare enough anymore, but it’s pretty unheard for a newspaper publisher to openly ally himself with a candidate. When the publisher declares he’s supporting a specific candidate, it seemingly announces that the municipal newspaper of public record for the area is going to be anything but fair and unbiased.
If the newspaper publisher is declaring his support for Sutton, I’m guessing Republicans shouldn’t bother spending money there? Direct Mail is relatively inexpensive, you know.
And for the third and final takeaway, that Sutton is supporting Obamacare in the form of Medicaid expansion? He might try to hide being a Democrat, but there are some things that will cling to him.
Especially support for Obamacare.
We know Pat, pro-life Republicans only care about making sure people are born. After that, they don’t care if you die as long as it doesn’t effect their checkbook. Pro-birth is what you should call yourselves. Sutton has a lot of support from Repubs over No Accomplishments Noem.
Billie sutton…….Is an advid campaign finance reform candidate. Yet he himself has taken in over 400,000 dollars of other peoples failed campaign dollars.
He preaches transparency yet he hides behind the notion of himself being pro-life and has voted against bills in the senate for certain birthing rights.
Also to state he has ” A lot” of support from democrats is quite interesting and intriguing. I would like to see all of this support you are speaking of.
Sure he may be a good guy and have a fair amount of good ideas, but in the grand scheme of things South Dakota would go backwards with him in office.
Anonymous at 9:54: where Medicaid is expanded, the opioid crisis goes into high gear. That’s about all Medicaid is good for, drugs. Actually diagnosing and treating painful conditions is a money-loser. If you can keep the patients happy with narcotics, that’s where the money is. This was really obvious in NH where deaths due to opioid addiction increased exponentially following the expansion of Medicaid.
Anne, I would argue that the opioid problem falls on the physicians willing to prescribe various amounts of narcotics. In our great state we have Matt Michels leading a charge on this problem already and we don’t even have Medicaid expanded yet. I would have faith in his cause and know our physicians would be more apprehensive to prescribe these medications especially when they know there is an addiction there already.
I hate to say it but we already have a universal healthcare system and it’s called the emergency room. We are
Already paying for it with health care costs sky rocketing because of this. Why not put a more cost effective plan in place?
We already have two single-payer systems in place, the Indian Health Service and the VA.
The IHS runs out of money around June of every year, and doesn’t pay their bills, which is the reason there is so much enthusiasm for shifting those costs to the state, via Medicaid. It’s the federal government’s responsibility to pay the tribal members medical bills, it is the state’s responsibility to pay for Medicaid.
This is a thinly disguised effort to get the state to pay for the IHS. Sometimes we hear the argument “we have to meet our treaty obligations.” First, the state didn’t sign any treaties, the feds did. Second, the treaty never promised comprehensive medical care, it promised one doctor living in a $3000 house by the river. It’s possibly the worst case of mission creep in the history of the United States. We don’t need it creeping into our state budget.
anon 9;54 . . ” pro-life Republicans only care about making sure people are born. After that, they don’t care if you die as long as it doesn’t effect their checkbook..” Many reports show that Republicans give much more to charities than the Dems. Just one example of many . . .
https://www.quora.com/Which-party-members-make-more-charitable-contributions-Republicans-or-Democrats
I would assume that basically you would support government (taxpayer-funded) minimum living income, universal healthcare, free college, etc. The thing people like you don’t ever talk about is how it is legitimately going to be paid for. Total dependence on government is not an American ideal, and it hasn’t worked anywhere on this globe that it has been tried.
Sutton is going to lose big, so just get ready for it. He can wear all the cowboy hats he wants and wear it to bed, but there are people who don’t get swayed by such things.
Um, no. I am talking healthcare. Big difference. There is no ER education services that someone can go to and not be turned down for on education. ER is driving healthcare costs up. Have you noticed how expensive health insurance is now. The cost is getting passed onto us. That is why I say we are already paying for it. Let’s find a more cost effective strategy.
Just saying, you don’t know much about this. Statistically, the people using the ER are already on Medicaid. That’s who goes there to get their medical care, not the uninsured, not the privately insured, it is the people on Medicaid, utilizing ER services at 2-3X the rate of everybody else. Increasing the number of people on Medicaid just makes this works
Where do you think the 40,000 plus who are uninsured go for their medical needs in SD? Just asking seriously, since you know so much about this. Those Medicaid customers are paying customers. Their bills get paid. It is the uninsured who drive costs up. Avera and Sanford don’t just graciously whip away a 250,000 doctor bill. That cost gets paid for by increasing insurers bills thus increasing insurance premiums. We are getting taxed one way or another for this. Why are you against finding more cost efficient means to address this problem?
I could post a dozen links to reports of the problem of Medicaid enrollees using hospital emergency departments more than anybody else. Uninsured and privately insured use their own money so they avail themselves of clinic services.
Yes, it was popularly believed that Medicaid expansion would result in people going elsewhere for non-emergency care. The people who believed that have been proven wrong; the more people you have on Medicaid, the more people you have going to the ER.
” And by Odson declaring to everyone that he’s “supporting Billie Sutton,” doesn’t that kind of throw any objectivity and non-partisanship on his and the newspaper’s part out the window?
Seriously? I guess it’s only okay if Rupert Murdoch does it.
i don’t know if i will survive having my belief in the veracity of the southern union county leader-courier dashed like that. ouch.
re: medicaid expansion – – the problem with sutton’s solution as presented in the article, is where it hinges on previously untapped federal funding. federally funded things which start out ok most often turn into the unfunded mandates with which every government struggles. the state majority is correct to keep saying no to the medicaid expansion as presented, and to resume the battle to open up insuring across state lines, and multi-state risk pools and the like, which were a possibility at the start of this weird collectivist century.
solid, reasonable points
I will never forget a hospital administrator’s complaint about the IHS: “they’ll authorize a helicopter ride around the world but they’ll never pay for it.”
This problem of the IHS not paying for what they are supposed to is why so many people in health care administration want to push Medicaid for tribal members, they want to get paid, by somebody. They want to shift the cost of IHS to the state.
And if the federal government is not adequately funding the IHS, why does anybody think they will make good on their promise to fund Medicaid?
Anyone want to speculate on who the GOP Senators supporting Billie might be? If it’s true, that is.
Curd is pretty friendly with Billie and was supporting Jackley (same with Maher). Soholt is all about Medicaid expansion so agrees with Billie more on that. RC moderates like Partridge or Solano?
IF Shad Olson gets in the C Party nomination race as is potentially predicted (this is based on tea leaves and rumor mill, and not facts), the race will be shook up. It would then throw the race potentially to Sutton. Has anyone heard if there is an alternative to Area 51 Hubble in the C party convention?
It would be huge.
Huge as in a huge joke. Like the time Shad claimed:
“I knew the nuts and bolts of EB-5 and the missing millions long prior to the mysterious shotgun suicide of Richard Benda and had cultivated inside contacts with members of Canadian government and a gutsy Toronto newspaper reporter who had already trod the same parallel road of investment-for-citizenship, only to have the Crown pull the plug years ago after it was learned the entire charade turned into a convenient money laundering depot and infiltration spigot for the Chinese mob.“
Just what the race needs. A conspiracy theorist.
re: shad candidacy – mind blown
I don’t think it would do anything to the race… except to provide hubbelesque entertainment.
i just marvel at man’s capacity for self deception.