Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Here's One You Don't Hear Too Often

"Vote for me and I'll take away your kids' access to healthcare."

That appears to be the unofficial motto of the Bill Brady campaign.

I had no intention of posting anything about the Governor's visit to D.C. to pitch the All Kids program, but when I saw the following statement, I had to chime in:
But state Sen. Bill Brady, an All Kids critic and Republican candidate for governor, predicted many families would be attracted by low-cost treatment for their children's serious diseases.

"Unfortunately, the governor lives in Never-Never Land," said Brady, who promises to try to halt the program if he is elected. (emphasis added)
While I supported the bill, I still think that the jury is still inevitably out on how well the program is going to work once it's up and running. But it's one thing for Brady to say that he opposed the legislation, but to actually campaign on taking away insurance from families is one of the most poorly thought through ideas I've heard in a long time.

Although I guess that if his plan is to make people forget about the assinine commercials of Oberweis flying over Soldier Field in a helicopter while playing on people's prejudices, he may have just succeeded.

13 Comments:

At December 12, 2005 at 11:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John,

There's a case going on in Chicago right now that I'd like to know which side you stand on.

Dramatic court battle now being waged in Chicago.

Chicago - Twenty-five years ago Bill Benson, a former Illinois Department of Revenue investigator, began a cross-country trip across the forty-eight states that comprised the Union in 1913 seeking documentary evidence regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment. This was a most important undertaking, because the government uses the 16th Amendment as its sole authority to tax an individual’s wages and salaries.

DOJ Lawsuit Against Bill Benson

Feds Desparate To Shut Up Bill Benson

Checkmate

Judge In Benson Case Ignores Seventh Circuit Ruling

Bill Benson's website is here...

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com

In this case do you stand with Bill Benson or against Bill Benson?

Also a brief explanation of your stance on this case would be appreciated.

A concerned Citizen

 
At December 13, 2005 at 7:18 AM, Blogger Hon. John Fritchey said...

Don't know when I'll get a chance to go through the links you sent me, but I'll try at some point.

 
At December 13, 2005 at 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you.

 
At December 13, 2005 at 11:25 AM, Blogger Bill said...

I think Brady was the guy that called social security and medicare "welfare". Way to be in the mainstream dude!
With possible opponents like Judy, Brady and Nitwitz, Rod has nothing to worry about.

 
At December 13, 2005 at 5:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely, Bill. Obie is top of the stack.

 
At December 13, 2005 at 11:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spend, spend, spend. You're like a woman with her husband's credit card.

Now, I'm all for healthcare for kids, but come on, this is a transparent campaign tactic.

 
At December 14, 2005 at 7:05 AM, Blogger Bill said...

The program will be paid for by savings from instituting efficiencies and savings in other state health care programs. John is right that it is critical that the program get off to a smooth start and that it is well managed. I have great faith in the governor's staff to get this done. All this whining about credit cards and overspending is the real campaign tactic.

 
At December 15, 2005 at 11:51 AM, Anonymous Edward Bryant said...

Even under the cynical view that the Gov. is pushing this program as a means to gain public support for reelection at least he is doing SOMETHING on healthcare. The current political climate in Congress makes it clear that the federal government will do nothing to make healthcare affordable.

Is this program the answer? Let's give it a chance and I hope it at least helps. What's the alternative? Continue to do nothing?

P.S., I also loved the comment made jokingly on the Colbert Report that implied the program was bad because the children covered by it might grow up to be supporters of universal coverage.

 
At December 16, 2005 at 1:51 AM, Anonymous Someone who knows said...

Three things that most people outside of HFS and GOMB don't know:

1. The medical savings numbers for the "efficiencies" realized by managed care are grossly overstated due to the necessary "managed care" enrollment phase-in approach HFS will have to employ. The first-year savings numbers assumed fully mature Primary Care Case Management(PCCM) and Disease Management(DM) models; HFS will not come anywhere close to the savings promised in the first year.

2. The start-up costs necessay to administer the PCCM program were not included in the Governor's savings estimates and the administrative costs for disease management were grossly understated. This means that the savings that everyone read about in the newspapers and the General Assembly was briefed upon by HFS and GOMB are inaccurate. In fact, the managed care part of the AllKids payment equation may actually be a net cost in the first year, not a savings. This will be a big big deal budgetarily.

3. AllKids will operate on top of a Medicaid and KidCare framework. Same bad provider rates, better pay cycles for a small number of services. Right now,the Medicaid and KidCare programs have serious access to care problems, so imagine how hard it will be to integrate 50,000 or so kids into a medical delivery sysytem that is already saturated due to poor payments.

The AllKids idea, from the beginning, was formulated in a cloak and dagger manner by the Governor's staff. Unfortunately, the result of politicizing children's healthcare is that the General Assembly and the public are now stuck with an ill-conceived, unpaid for, program instead of a meaningful and fully-analyzed program. And the taxpaxing public will never know until after the election cycle.

 
At December 16, 2005 at 7:04 AM, Blogger Bill said...

While someone who supposedly knows may have some salient points, the real issue is that now children of working class families will have access to affordable health insurance. How much it will cost and how it will be paid for is up to the governor, the legislature and the agencies to work out.
The public will support revenue enhancements, if necessary, to fund children's health care and their education. Our state, under the governor's leadership, has become the national leader in advocating for children.
What we need now is courage and hard work to make sure that this program works. The voting public will settle for nothing less from our elected officials AND our state employees.

 
At December 16, 2005 at 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,

I happen to agree that guaranteeing access to affordable healthcare should be the goal of government(not necessarily state government, but rather federal).

My point was that the Governor and his staff, in a clandestine and poorly conceived manner, put together a program that is seriously flawed, and put forth savings numbers from Medicaid managed care that are grossly inaccurate. Unfortunately, the Governor and his advisors politicized the issue for re-election purposes which was evident in the way the program was fast tracked during the veto session.

If the Governor and his staff truly believed in the cause, they would have had open debate during the spring session, and they would have allowed for better analysis of the costs and savings. Now the taxpayers of Illinois are stuck with a noble concept being executed through an inappropriate, ill-prepared service delivery system. And the promises to pay through managed care efficiencies in Medicaid are, especially in the first year, are simply inaccurate.

 
At December 16, 2005 at 11:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,

As an unofficial spokesperson of the governor, are you leaking that he will go back on his no tax increase pledge?

Personally, I don't think that's a good idea. His unwillingness to raise taxes is the major reason I will strongly support him for a second term.

 
At December 17, 2005 at 9:53 AM, Blogger Bill said...

I am, by no neans, a spokesman for anybody but myself. I support Blaogjevich because I believe that he represents, for the most part, the concept that gov't needs to serve and protect its citizens. I personally would not mind a tax increase if health care and education were the beneficiaries.
The governor at this point, I think, feels otherwise. If he can continue his agenda of helping the children and the less fortunate in this state through efficiencies and savings from whereever, that is great. If he can't then I would strongly suppoprt a tax increase but, then again, Im not running for anything.As far as his motives, political or otherwise, who cares? He is getting the job done and is willing to take the heat.

 

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home