So….who's gonna be providing their health care?

So not only does the federal government want a bigger role in health care — the people who brought you Fannie and Freddie have consolidated their ability to control federal loans….What’s that gonna cost you? — well for starters 120 jobs from Wells Fargo mostly in Sioux Falls.

Government power grab or responsible oversight…..I know my opinion — what’s yours?

51 Replies to “So….who's gonna be providing their health care?”

  1. 73*

    Since you wrote this today I was thinking about how I don’t mind the idea of Government providing Health Care for Americans. I don’t like the idea of the Government mandating Americans buy health care. I would much rather provide the S-CHIP service that provide ethanol subsidies or a multitude of other spending that doesn’t keep someone healthy.

    Noems Health Care:
    This is another rediculous story.

    1. 73*

      If it is for a human beings health I’m ok with spending more money than if it is for ethanol subsidies or another non essential product.

      1. Arrowhead

        Kristi this is interesting. I suppose we will also be providing unemployment for the people who lost these jobs. I don’t mind that but it seems the Gov doesn’t understand how to save money.

        I would have thought Noem already had Health Care though. So my real question is why did she change?

  2. William

    The US government has neither the authority, nor the ability, to “provide health care” to everyone. If you expect the government to “be responsible for your health”, do you not expect it to then claim authority over your body and all behavior that might affect your health? If health care is a “right”, then does the government have the authority to “draft” talented individuals into medical school, so that they may become doctors to provide you with the services “your right” entitles you to? The Constitution establishes “negative rights”, those rights that government CAN’T DO TO YOU. If you believe the government should enforce “positive rights”, you’re attempting to force individuals to provide service to the government FOR YOU. Do you favor “drafting” individuals into medical school in order for the government to provide enough doctors, should the government decide what specialties doctors may practice, where they must serve?

    As an employer, the Federal government provides health care plans for employees. I see no hypocrisy in Noem signing up for the federal health care plan, as she’s now a Federal employee. I firmly believe we need to reform our health care and health insurance systems, but until we do, employer provided health care insurance is the norm.

    Personally, I would rather see the Federal “tax break” for health insurance go to individuals, rather than to their employers, and I hope Kristi will support that change. Employer provided health care insurance was first introduced during WWII as a way for employers to “work around” the wage and price controls. There is no coherent rational in linking tax breaks in providing health insurance to employers, rather than individuals. If anything, it distorts the market by encouraging over-utilization.

    1. Arrowhead


      That isn’t totally true. Many Americans get HC from the Fed and it is actually not all that bad.

      I don’t think it should be mandatory but what I’m saying is if we have money to spend on lots of other crap at least HC is something intended to save individuals lives.

      1. William

        Arrowhead, while some forms of government provided health care may be acceptable (indigent) or as a result of military service (veterans) one key consideration regarding the government providing anything is simply this, we DON’T “have money to spend on lots of other crap”.

        Of course the government can just “print” all the money it wants, but I’d prefer we not emulate the Weimar Republic…

  3. Voter

    Thanks William You took the words right out of my mouth!

    The government doesn’t provide healthcare–doctors and nurses provide healthcare. If we didn’t use insurance the entire process would be MUCH less expensive because you wouldn’t have to pay coders, assessors, administrators and even some case managers. You wouldn’t pay sales reps, customer service people or administrative assistants. That is a large number for well paid people who get a large part of their salary from medicaid and medicare (as well as private insurance companies.) The government needs to get out of the insurance business altogether! If they want to provide care to the indigent they should open a clinic just for that purpose. Actually the CHURCHES used to open clinic for that purpose–and even hospitals. That was all good until the government got involved and started FORCING the working public into being “charitable” by levying higher taxes. We should go back to the system that if you voluntarily give to the organizations of your choice–then you do not have to be forced to give by way of taxes. STOP asking the government which has little and/or poor oversight to do the job that the church and other private organizations should do.

      1. William

        WHEN churches owned and operated community hospitals, before the deluge of government programs and regulations, as well as the explosion of malpractice law and medical innovation that can “extend life” far beyond what was possible even 30 years ago, care was available for all and few went bankrupt over medical expenses, even if they were uninsured. Most “church owned” hospitals are part of a corporate structure today, and operate under the same bureaucratic, over-regulated, over-lawyer-ed, system all health care organizations operate under today.

  4. caheidelberger

    If jobs are the only reason to support or oppose a policy, then we ought to legalize prostitution. Consolidating student loans cuts out the middleman and saves taxpayers money. You should be all over that reform.

    1. SD Republican

      And yet at the same time consolidating student loans consolidates government power thus reducing competition and thus hurting both the consumer and the bank (i.e. making the bank lay off 120 employees). I know where you’re going to go with this Cory, so I’m gonna stop you here; what the banks did hurt the consumers in 2008, but that’s a conversation for another day…

  5. mhs

    Corey, the notion that “cutting out the middleman” will save money is a crock. We tried this under Clinton and it was a complete fiasco, remember? Advocates of socializing student loans focus on reduces loan fees, NOT the cost to the taxpayers of public ownership. Today, the federal government does not have the vast infrastructure needed to originate and service millions of loans. Socialization will require a huge investment in systems and tens of thousands of new federal employees.

    The major banks that service loans now do so on systems that also do many other things. The government will have to build a dedicated stand-alone system, eliminating the economies of scale the private sector has. Not to mention adding thousands and thousands of government workers.

    This may save an individual student a few bucks but will cost the rest of us big time.

  6. mhs

    I’ll give you a better example Lee. A number of years ago I met with the senior executive service managers of the BIA on a tribal issue. The effort broke down when we got to the concept of a bank trust company safeguarding the assets. The folks, responsible for billions of federal dollars, could not understand why a financial institution would want to do that.

    I patiently tried to explain the process, the fees, etc. They just couldn’t get it. Worse than the fact they didn’t understand the why, was that they were unwilling to accept the what. Even when I told them 10,000 commercial banks in the country has trust operations, they couldn’t accept the fact that the private sector would do such a thing. Even when presented overwhelming evidence, their minds could not escape their ingrained presumption that government was the only solution.

    Such is the mindset of the career service bureaucrats, the GS 13, 14, and 15 level employees that run our government.

  7. mo joe

    I find it amusing that NO took the subsidized heralth care package from the Govr 72 percent paid by the tax payer.But republicans think thats ok,as No also got threemillion in subsidies so why wouldn’t she take something subsidized.Is Tune on the govt subsidy to.

    1. duggersd

      I have never criticized Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, or Stephanie Herseth for taking the health insurance benefit. This is a benefit offered to federal employees. As such each person is allowed to participate or not. If this is the best you have, you are going nowhere.

  8. Duh

    Mo Joe: I see that you’re still harping on the $3 mil farm subsidy issue. That again is incorrect as to amount and participation regarding Kristi.

    As for the health care inclusion, she’s a federal employee now. No different than if you went to another company and got on their health care plan. In fact, most insurance companies would require you to terminate your plan with your other employer and either get your own or jump on the new employer’s policy. This has nothing to do with Kristi’s opposition to government mandated health care for all.

  9. Lee Schoenbeck

    Mark – to further illustrate your point, those same BIA trust fund issues have now costs the taxpayers over $3.4 billion in the Corbell settelment that the lame-duck congress approved. It probably was accurate for those bureaucrats to think that they were the only ones that could run a trust program the way they do —– because private sector service providers would have been in prison for misappropriation years before the tag got to $3.4 billion!

  10. Terry David

    Can anyone tell me how much money Noem did take if she did not take the $3,000,000.00 farm subsidy? I’d also be interested in the amount taken by her family. I believe we need to gets the facts so that folks stop spreading lies.

    1. Truthinator

      I think the total was around $2.85 million and Kristi owns something like 19% of the family farm partnership. I guess for a lot of people, taking this money is some form of hypocrisy?

    1. Name

      The difference is one is ok with government money and the other is against everything but hers.

      I voted for Noem but this is still an issue i don’t like. Even if I like Noem.

      1. William

        One position is, we need to have a self-sustaining food supply. By the same token, we need to have industrial independence as regards to our military equipment. Both can be legitimately regarded as issues of national security.

        Another position is, we should rely on the world market to produce our goods, it’s best for the consumer and thus raises the living standards of the poor and middle class.

        Both of those positions are valid in an “ideal world”. I think it’s better that we subsidize our military equipment manufacturers and allow our food supply to depend on the free market, but we basically do the opposite…

      1. William

        If I’m not mistaken, Stephanie campaigned last year claiming to be a “fiscally conservative” Democrat.

        The REAL issue, as I see it, is one’s governing philosophy, as opposed to current government practice. Personally, I believe that we should replace the current income tax “monstrosity” with a flat tax, that doesn’t mean that unless, or until, one is adopted I won’t claim legitimate deductions on April 15th 2011.

        Just because one believes that government interference disrupts markets, eliminates a “level playing field” and supports “changing the rules” doesn’t mean that one doesn’t “play by the rules” until such change is accomplished.

  11. mhs

    It’s even worse than that Lee. I wasn’t even working on the personal trust mess. The stuff I was working on were unrelated, recently acquired tribal assets managed by a Bureau agency . . . that already was safekeeing the assets with my company! Senior management was clueless. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right was doing.

  12. MOSES

    As usual Dud if your a true fiscal republican you shouldnt take any subsidy unless your in the milatary like bush pushed for mandatory fund of health care for all veterans who served.DUD

    1. William

      Moses, my question is this, you use the term “mandatory fund(ing) of health care for all veterans”. What exactly do you mean by that? Are you judging the quality of the veterans health care by “mandating” whatever funding level the VA requests? Far too often, government programs are measured by their “inputs” in money spent, rather than “outputs” in quality and value received.

      The VA is NOT unlike any other government agency, in that when any “normal person” looks at their organizational charts, one will find a huge bureaucratic “muddle in the middle” that likely degrades the quality of service, rather than enhancing it.

      I’ve examined a number of agency “org charts” over the past decade and I believe the economist Ronald Coase was correct when he said “government at the present time is so large that it has reached the stage of negative marginal productivity, which means that any additional function it takes on will probably result in more harm than good.”

        1. William

          Well, he WAS just a couple of weeks old 100 years ago (Coase just celebrated his 100th birthday 12/29/2010)! – lol He probably first made that statement about 98 years ago =|;.)

    1. William

      If I’m not mistaken, the purpose of the VA is to provide health care to veterans that are disabled due to their service, it wasn’t designed as a “free health care for life” system for everyone that served. Like all government programs, it’s “mission” has been expanded over the years, but I don’t believe it was ever intended, nor can it afford to become, “free health care for life” for all veterans.

        1. William

          BF, my only point is that historically, “free” veterans health care has been restricted to those that became disabled through a service connection or fell below Congressionally determined income levels. VA provided health care has never, to my knowledge, been available to all veterans. Whether, or not, ALL service members SHOULD be eligible to receive health care through the VA is another issue entirely. BTW, did you know that the VA bills patients’ insurance (if they have insurance)? Also, “free” health care is only available for a veterans service connected disability unless they are rated above a certain percentage (it changes from time to time, I think it’s currently 30%).

        2. William

          BF, if you’ll notice from it’s history, our nation and the Department of Veterans Affairs have a somewhat “checkered past” regarding its treatment of our veterans.

          This history obtained from the official VA website is actually a relatively fair assessment. You’ll note that benefits, particularly compensation and pensions have always been a “political football” and have historically been more limited than they are today. I’ve personally seen the regulations change many times over the past 35 years. At times when Congress has expanded eligibility, they’ve found themselves overwhelmed with new claims and then turned around and re-defined the restrictions…

          Many current veterans and the population at large believe they are entitled to benefits they are not eligible for by VA regulations established by the Congress. I’m not going to debate whether they should be, or not, on this thread, but simply pointing out the history of the VA. Personally, if there is any group of Americans entitled to government provide health care, I argue in favor of our veterans.

  13. MOSES

    VA WAS OPEN TO TO VETERASN IF YOU MADE UNDER A CERTAIN INCOME.I dont qualify for VA health care because my income is to high.

  14. Terry David

    Moses: I did not know that. I assumed that because I served my country that I could use the VA. I never have but thought I could. I believe it is reprehensible to send our troops into harms way and then not give them the medical care they need when they get injured. We all know that some of our vets, ones that need the greatest amount of care, have been neglected. I’m not sure how I feel about income being the deciding factor.

  15. MOSES

    Terry call the dav and they can tell you about priority 8 veterans .If you have no disability they will not take you.I served with the 82nd airborne div during Vietnam and always went where I was told so now I wonder, why they wont open it to all veterans.

    1. William

      Since Moses hasn’t replied yet, I’ll assume he served in the 3rd Brigade.

      “During the Tet Offensive, which swept across the Republic of Vietnam in January 1968, the 3rd Brigade was en route to Chu Lai within 24 hours of receiving its orders. The 3rd Brigade performed combat duties in the Hu? ? Phu Bai area of the I Corps sector. Later the brigade moved south to Saigon, and fought in the Mekong Delta, the Iron Triangle and along the Cambodian border, serving nearly 22 months.”

      Turning point in the war of public opinion – “Although the offensive was a military defeat for the communists, it had a profound effect on the US government and shocked the US public, which had been led to believe by its political and military leaders that the communists were, due to previous defeats, incapable of launching such a massive effort.” – “The NLF executed thousands of residents in the Massacre at Hu?.”

      I don’t usually use Wiki cites, but I found these to be accurate, as far as I can personally evaluate them.

      1. Les

        The 82nd also participated in civil oppression in Detroit and DC in the 60’s. For those who don’t remember or weren’t there, the college protests brought too much light onto Uncle Sam’s real motives in Nam.

        I don’t hold anything against our boys for this or Kent State.

        It was very upsetting for our boys to return home and get shouted at and spit on from a war they did not start nor support for the most part.

        I thought the 82nd left Nam in the late 60’s but must have had some participation in the early 70’s with Moses.

  16. William

    If there is ANY collective group of citizens that have earned government “entitlements”, even if it means we expand the eligibility requirements, I will argue the case for our veterans.

    Along with that, I will argue for the most stringent Congressional oversight, to ensure the funding is effective and veteran focused, rather than on “government as usual” empire building adding layer upon layer of bureaucratic “boxes on the org chart” that creates the “muddle in the middle” that’s representative of “politics as usual”.

  17. MOSES

    Served in milatarty 1972-1974 82nd 321 field artillery.Served at Bragg during Vietnam.V.A opened its doors to veterans then shut out.Many bills introduce for mandatory funding for all veterans.Johnson had some good one Thune even had one but let die in committee.Vietnam veterans were not treated well and even ones in the states, were treared bad.Would never serve again or have my kids serve as how they treated us.Look at the V.A. guidelines on income for veteransTO USE HOSPITAL IF YOU FALL UNDER THESE YOU MIGHT JUST GET.I don’t agree with the system as they always told us we would have health care.