Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


McFadden video on fixing health care fails to mention the fix

As those who have watched the roll-out of the U.S. Senate candidacy of Republican businessman Mike McFadden know, it has been a candidacy almost devoid of concrete issue positions.

Part of the strategy is to introduce himself as a nice guy who loves his wife and kids, specially coaching his kids’ teams, and thinks America should be a land of opportunity. Part of the rollout has been a series of short videos called “Meet Mike” and “A Minute with Mike.” I previously extracted what little substance I could from the videos, but it wasn’t much other than the nice guy/family man stuff. (I summarized the videos and embedded them all in this post.)

None of those videos even pretended to be about policy stuff or the votes he would cast if he made it to the Senate. Until Monday that is, when the latest video in the “Minute with Mike” series debuted and was devoted to the very central 2014 issue of health care and the Republican demand for something better than Obamacare. McFadden long-ago joined the ranks of Republicans who want to “repeal and replace” the abominable Obamacare, but has not meaningfully described what the replacement should be other than a few nebulous adjectives like “market-based,” although he has said the replacement plan will “help, not hurt, all Americans.”

Now that he has decided to devote a video to the topic, it turns out that he still cannot even hint at how the replacement would work. Below is the full text and the video itself. By the way, I have requested an interview with McFadden and, if it occurs, will give him every opportunity to fill in the blanks. OK, here’s the full script of the latest video:

We have a big issue with our health care system in America. I’ve run a business for 20 years and the fastest growing line-item on my income statement was health care. And hardworking families around America. The fastest growing item on their family balance sheets or income statements is health care. So we have to address health care. We need to fix it. But the unaffordable care act is not the solution.

 I believe in limited but effective government. And the nationalization of one-sixth of the economy is neither limited and I guarantee you, it won’t be effective. It floors me that we would kick this problem to Washington as opposed to dealing with here in Minnesota. It’s gonna be too expensive. We can’t afford it. And this uncertainty about health care, and the complexity around the national regulations about health care, are strangling small and medium-sized businesses. Those are the businesses that I worked with and they’re the ones that are the job creators in this country. And the uncertainty is really, really problematic.

And here’s the video:

Minute With Mike: Obamacare from Mike McFadden on Vimeo.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (42)

  1. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 03/04/2014 - 08:56 am.

    So the answer to “uncertainty” is to work to topple the only unified advance in decades and to push it to the individual states to sort out?

    Let 10,000 flowers blom?

    All the while knowing that the local part-time legislators rely on organizations like ALEC for much of their research and bill writing?

    Seems like a strategy that turns more of the public decisions to private hands (not that the same dynamic doesn’t come into play on the national level, but more and brighter lights shine on the process).

    But I really think that this candidate really does not give a damn about these headline issue other than as a means of mobilizing votes from the rubes.

    His real constituency, the big financial players, as exemplified by his employer Lazard, has already funded him generously to achieve what they want.

    No need for public disclosure on those issues–those are not to be discussed. His key issues will be the slight and initially imperceptible changes in legislation and law that will tilt the tables even further in the favor of big finance.

  2. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/04/2014 - 09:33 am.

    Expensive health care

    Can we afford health care? If not, whose health care specifically can’t we afford? Mr. McFadden has six children. Surely we don’t need to pay the heath care costs for all of them. Perhaps Mr. McFadden should take the opportunity now to tell us which of his kids should be denied health care, as a personal cost savings gesture.

    But seriously, it’s not that I ever disagree with Republican talking points. Yes, health care is too expensive. Yes, it excessively burdens business. Yes, there is too much uncertainty surrounding health care, as 50 states boot these issues between themselves, the federal government, and the courts. The Republican Party has done us all a great service in identifying very real and very serious issues with respect to health care in America. The problem comes in that they have no interest at all in addressing the issues they have raised, and any attempt at all by Democrats to address the issues Republicans rais is guaranteed to come under withering political attack from those very same Republicans. For a telling statistic is that in the House where Republicans have complete control and all the power to do so, they have acted to repeal Obamacare 50 times by latest count, yet have not passed even one alternative proposal.

  3. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/04/2014 - 10:24 am.

    At this point, principle is sufficient

    We already know the following:

    1. He’s for smaller government – so he won’t be voting for any “single payer” plans in the future.
    2. He’s for saving money – so a wide consumer choice will be part of any plan.
    3. He believes in the private sector – so he won’t be imposing any government mandates on anyone.
    4. He believes in states rights – so any plan that involves government at all will be pushed back to the states.
    5. He’s for certainty and simplicity – so any plan won’t be 20,000 pages long with details that no one has read.

    Anything more specific than that would be meaningless since he won’t be the one drafting any senate plan. But we know what his principles are and that’s sufficient for most thinking people.

    What’s Franken’s plan for fixing Obamacare? Seriously.

    • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 03/04/2014 - 11:25 am.

      A shorter statement of Mr. McFaddens beliefs:

      He is in favor of motherhood and apple pie.

      “But we know what his principles are and that’s sufficient for most thinking people.”

      No Dennis, actually in politics it isn’t. As the GOP in Minnesota should have learned by now, it is not sufficient to just say no. No new taxes, no health care solutions, no education solutions, not even attempts at fixing problems.

      This is the reason why the Minnesota GOP is in such sad shape and cannot win a state wide office. There are pockets of Minnesotans who may buy this nonsense at the local level, but overall Minnesota voters are more level headed. And we have the wonderful comparative example in Wisconsin of the results of GOP policies.

      How to “fix” Obamacare? Certainly Senator Franken is willing to work with Republicans in this effort – when they finally wake up. I understand that vote #50 on repealing Obamacare is in the offing. It isn’t going to happen. Work together in finding solutions or be left behind by the public.

      Seriously Dennis, it is pathetic that a candidate as weak as McFadden is put forth by a major party. But I guess money talks.

      My best, Bill

      • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/04/2014 - 12:51 pm.

        What democrats don’t understand

        is that when republicans say “no” to democrat ideas, they’re really saying “yes” to freedom, which is what all of McFadden’s principle do.

        It’s true that not everyone wants to be a free man, so there’s that.

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/04/2014 - 01:19 pm.

          So far

          the only principle that McFadden is interested in is principal.

        • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 03/04/2014 - 01:58 pm.

          …not everyone wants to be a free man….

          Perhaps 50% of the population.

        • Submitted by Eric Snyder on 03/04/2014 - 04:00 pm.

          Guv’mint bad, freedom good

          It’s simply a fallacy to say that when you say ‘no’ to government” you’re automatically saying ‘yes’ to “freedom.” You can only say otherwise if you’re committed to an overly simplistic view of the world, one where ‘glittering generalizations’ rule, and counterexamples are conveniently ignored.

          For instance, if the government tells a drug manufacturer that it can’t release a new drug onto the market until it’s proven to meet some safety requirement, this may indeed be a loss of freedom for the drug company. But this is potentially a trivial loss of freedom for the company compared with the loss of freedom to life, employment, health, and well-being, that consumers might experience if they were to take the drug without it first having been shown to be safe.

          Another example is the Civil Rights Act, which ended, at least in law or theory, much discrimination. Racists (i.e., state’s rights advocates at the time) howled about an attack on their freedom to discriminate. However, their loss of “freedom” to maintain whites only establishments was laughably small in light of the loss of freedom to blacks in terms of being prevented from taking jobs, securing housing, and access to public facilities.

          The idea that the government is involved in a zero-sum game of always taking away freedom is a myth, easily refuted by endless counterexamples.

        • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 03/11/2014 - 10:53 am.

          YES to FREEDOM

          That made me laugh–seriously, it did. What in the world does that mean? According to “Me and Bobby McGee,” “freedom’s just another word for ‘nothing left to lose'”. Even that seems more specific than what the GOP seems to be defining “freedom” as. It’s become a meaningless buzzword. Personally, I don’t want to just be a “free man,” I want that to MEAN something. And that’s the problem with the GOP. The public might just be wisening up to the fact that the “no” to Democrat ideas means nothing more than a tantrum of epic toddler proportions. McFadden has done nothing but illustrate this point one more time.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/04/2014 - 12:40 pm.

      You’ll actually find specific proposals.

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 03/05/2014 - 07:43 am.

      Chauncey Gardner reigns….

      …small government….save money….private sector…states rights….certainty….simple…

      All fuzzy phrases to attract the fuzzy minded.

      Infinite number of possible meanings to attract the largest number of votes.

      Read into that whatever you can imagine.

      …small government….save money….private sector…states rights….certainty….simple…

      Gosh that sounds good.

      Just don’t remember how many times that stick was thrown and how many time you chased for it.

  4. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/04/2014 - 10:33 am.


    Consumer choice which involves a loss of economies of scale and which tends to shift the most expensive forms of health care on the public, tends to increase, not decrease overall costs.

    Generally speaking, the Democratic plan for fixing Obamacare would not be too adopt the Republican proposal we in fact did. This, by the way, created problems both for Democrats, in that we ended up in enacting a far from optimal proposal, and for Republicans in that the system we did create adopted so many Republican features, that it left little for Republicans to advocate.

    • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/04/2014 - 12:02 pm.

      You keep telling yourself that

      the system of government-mandated participation with government-approved plans that lack choice in coverage is a “republican plan” if it makes you feel better about it.

      None of the principles of Obamacare is based on any republican principles of consumer choice, voluntary participation, and state-run versus federally run operations, regardless of what some nameless writer for a republican think tank may have said 20 years ago.

      • Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/04/2014 - 02:17 pm.

        Republican plans

        That it is a Republican plan doesn’t make me feel better about it. Quite the contrary. And politically, it’s a complicating factor since it’s natural constituency can’t support it for partisan reasons, and folks like me have support a plan we don’t like very much, one that is full of problems not of our making.

    • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 03/05/2014 - 08:21 am.


      Hiram, from a historical perspective, you are exactly wrong on this. Consumer choice tends to decrease costs, not increase them. It’s only as choices are narrowed, that costs increase. The reason is simple. If you have 1000 companies working on making a process better, one (or several) will stumble upon a way to improve it. If you have one choice, or even very few, then they calcify and stop innovating.
      In concrete terms, look at satellite shops that offer MRIs and blood work outside of the hospital. They certainly lose any economy of scale and yet they can offer the same service for less. Or, for another example, Lasik is usually covered outside of insurance (shifted to the consumer) and yet the price keeps dropping while the quality improves.
      Diffused systems are simply better than centralized ones.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/05/2014 - 04:18 pm.


        They do -offer- the same service for less; whether they provide it is another problem.
        See the lack of quality control in drug compounding startups.
        The other unfortunate aspect of free markets is that they include companies themselves as commodities. When financing is available, companies find it cheaper to acquire competitors (and their innovations) rather than compete with them.
        And ‘free’ competition is not necessarily stable. Sometimes regulation is necessary to maintain a competitive market. The classic case is the effect of airline deregulation on competition. It resulted in the current ‘hub’ system where individual airlines dominated specific markets, so even though there were many airlines, there was less competition on most routes. We have a good example here, with Delta controlling more than 90% of all flights out of MSP.

        • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 03/06/2014 - 10:00 am.


          I offered some concrete examples. Are you suggesting fraud from MRI or outside bloodwork places? Or about Lasik? If you can provide examples, I’d appreciate it. I’m not sure I understand your complaint about acquiring companies, either. Take a look at the tech industry. We’ve had close to two decades of large companies regularly snapping up smaller ones. Even so, we have no shortage of start ups and smaller companies. We’ve seen big changes in the dominant companies and no doubt we’ll see more.
          The deregulation of the airlines is a big subject and not all of the changes since then have been positive. (The most non-positive things are level of service and legroom.) One thing that has been a huge positive is the drop in price. Before the deregulation of the Carter years, flying wasn’t widely affordable. Now it is. Even in hub locations like MSP. And if you think that DL has too much control, you should probably talk to the airport commission.
          Besides that, the true drivers in savings, aren’t coming from the big legacy airlines, they’re coming from the low cost guys like Southwest. You may not know this, but Southwest had to fight against regulation like the Wright Amendment. Regulation is one of the things that big companies use to keep the little guys out and to keep control for themselves. That’s true in other fields too, of course. And, bringing the discussion back to the awful ACA, regulation there works in favor of large companies that have huge HR divisions and against start ups and smaller companies that may want to expand.

  5. Submitted by Gerald Abrahamson on 03/04/2014 - 10:36 am.

    If he is supposedly so good at business….

    Then shouldn’t he be looking at all the available options and choosing the one that is most effective/efficient and lowest cost?

    That would be SP/UHC, which saves over $1T per year. Perhaps McFadden does NOT want to save the US consumer over $1T per year? If not, why not?

    Funny how a “businessman” doesn’t want to adopt a “business” oriented solution. SP/UHC is both the “lowest cost” AND “most effective/efficient” healthcare delivery system as documented by OECD (US costs are highest, everywhere else costs far less).

    So SP/UHC is the model any rational business would pursue if they were actually seeking cost savings. He needs to explain, in business terms, why he does NOT want to put in place the lowest cost and most effective/efficient healthcare system. Is he afraid the US can not compete? He has already admitted this is a fact because US healthcare costs are, by his own public acknowledgment, too high.

    • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/04/2014 - 12:10 pm.

      Sound business models

      don’t include government mandates, regardless of cost. The government could grow all our food or buy it all wholesale and distribute it to us for free too, but that wouldn’t make it a good idea to people who would rather be free to make their own decisions. Granted, there will always be people who want others to make choices for them.

  6. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/04/2014 - 11:12 am.

    Then shouldn’t he be looking at all the available options and choosing the one that is most effective/efficient and lowest cost?

    I think that would be a good idea, but lowering of cost isn’t driving the decision making process. Lots of people like higher costs because that means higher profits, and those folks have the money to lobby in their own personal interests. I am sure businessman McFadden would be very interested in reducing health care costs for his business but not in ways that would put in jeopardy his own health insurance. What he would no doubt say is that his company gets value from his high compensation which includes his health insurance costs. And since no one, within his corporate culture has the power to resist those claims, or in the alternative, benefit from such claims themselves, they go largely unchallenged.

    The thing of it is, imposing the burden of paying for health care on business is a really stupid idea. We did that for historical reasons that long ago lost ceased to exist. Republicans in this area are right, without ever seeming to understand the extent to which they are right. They complain that health care costs on business are too high without seeming to understand that we really should find a way to shift the cost of health care onto someone else.

  7. Submitted by Lance Groth on 03/04/2014 - 02:30 pm.

    Vague generalities

    Can we dub this guy the Artful Dodger?

  8. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 03/04/2014 - 02:45 pm.

    What will big AL do?

    Will Franken run for re-election embracing Obamacare?

    What McFadden should do is run for election on “hope and change” or the agenda of “fundamentally transforming America.” Such a detailed plan and agenda worked for Obama – and I can’t remember Eric asking for any details?

  9. Submitted by Eric Snyder on 03/04/2014 - 04:14 pm.

    An interesting comment over the holidays

    Present were hard right, radical left and much in between, and yet we all kept the peace and got along.

    A relative who is a staunch conservative Republican as well as the manager of a medium sized manufacturing plant, said he was open to single payer, saying, “All our European competitors have single payer and they’re paying less than we [his company] are for health insurance.”

    An older member of the family, even more conservative, piped up, as he always does, chastising the idea as “socialism.” The other relative didn’t seemed phased by that label. He was more concerned with practical results.

    I left that evening thinking there might be hope for a rationally efficient health care system, one that doesn’t insist on sky-high executive salaries, Wall Street pay-outs, and the standard-practice rip-offs and swindles of the for-profit system.

  10. Submitted by John Roach on 03/04/2014 - 06:00 pm.

    “Market based” solution?

    We already have that. It’s called Obamacare.

    Likewise, the health care economy has not been “nationalized” at all. The providers do not work for and are not paid by the government, and the health insurance companies continue to privatize their profits.

    US companies and consumers will continue to pay far more for health care with poorer results than all of their foreign competitors until we move away from the market based approach to the problem.

    The current very profitable heath care industry will do everything they can to make sure that never happens.

  11. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 03/04/2014 - 06:58 pm.

    Outrage and information

    Those who haven’t read Steven Brill’s piece (available from several websites and in several formats, one of which is really ought to do so. That would provide enough outrage on the part of readers, maybe even Mr. Tester, to last at least a couple of weeks. Then, Mr. Tester and Mr. McFadden should educate themselves by reading T. R. Reid’s “The Healing of America,” which documents – with loads of statistics as well as anecdotes – how the rest of the industrialized world provides better health care for its citizens, at lower cost, and with significantly better health outcomes than is the case here in the U.S.

    Really, bleating “freedom” as a response to a policy proposal you don’t like is simply pathetic. It’s OK that Tester doesn’t like the ACA, but like Mike McFadden, I’ve yet to see on these pages any suggestions from him for alternatives, or links to policy suggestions from others who are better informed, that will do anything meaningful to fix the bloated, expensive, and ineffective health care system we have now.

    This is the only industrialized nation on the planet where a serious injury or illness can bankrupt a family. If he’s at all religious, Mr. Tester should be praying hard every day that such an event doesn’t happen to his own family. He would find out that health insurance policies provide plenty of mandates themselves, are administered by bureaucrats even more faceless and unaccountable than anyone he’d find in a Medicare or Social Security office, and that he might not qualify for benefits he thought he’d paid for.

    That reminds me, by the way, that Medicare and Social Security are among the most cost-efficient agencies Mr. Tester or Mr. McFadden are likely to find. Their administrative costs are a far lower percentage of benefits than any of the major health insurance companies. Part of the reason for that is that their executives are not being paid millions of dollars. Another part might be that their focus is on delivering services to customers rather than making a profit.

    McFadden is spouting right wing horsefeathers in the hope that a lot of unsophisticated voters won’t bother to try to analyze what he’s saying, but will simply accept that dog whistle term “freedom” – however it might be defined by the office-seeker du jour – as some sort of magic fix for any problems. Voters shouldn’t buy it.

    • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 03/04/2014 - 10:16 pm.

      Medicare and Social Security

      are broke. They’re only the paragon of virtue to those who don’t notice who pays the bills.

      I spent some time at the Mayo clinic when I was donating half of my liver. I noticed a huge presence of sheiks and other wealthy people from the Middle East being treated there. Translation? People who can afford the best, come to America to get treated.

      • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 03/05/2014 - 07:29 am.

        Mayo Clinic

        Translation: The poor people who live near the Mayo Clinic can’t afford to go there while the hospitals cater to wealthy foreign clients.

        That handily describes just how broke our system is. We should have a universal single payer system. People should be able to go to any clinic at any time for any ailment and not have any bill when they walk out the door.

      • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 03/05/2014 - 09:24 am.

        Mr Tester wrong on “Sheiks and the Mayo”

        Time to update your knowledge on the matter, Dennis?

        As the old saying goes about anecdotes and facts …

        “After Sept. 11, 2001, many wealthy Middle Eastern patients who regularly traveled to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester stopped coming.”

        “Now, Mayo is going to the Middle East to recapture some of that lost business.”

        “Mayo’s Middle Eastern patient volume halved in 2002. International patient volume, which represents about 3 percent of the clinic’s total volume, fell 20 percent. Although international patients make up a small percentage of the clinic’s patient rolls, they contribute heavily to the clinic’s bottom line because they usually have complex medical problems.”

        “Stiffer U.S. travel regulations make it harder for Middle Eastern patients to travel to Rochester. About 65 percent of Mayo’s international patients need a visa. That process has slowed since Sept. 11.”


        And of course medical tourism by Americans is way up because quite decent medical care is available outside the US for a fraction of the cost here. If you doubt this, Google is your friend.

        My best.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/05/2014 - 05:30 pm.

        When were you at Mayo?

        I noticed more Middle Easterners there 15 years ago than I did two months ago — now most of the ‘Middle Easterners’ work there. I did see some individuals who appeared ‘middle eastern’, but they certainly didn’t look wealthy and I suspect that they were American citizens.
        Now the sheiks go to India which can provide equal quality medical care at a fraction of the price, while some cost savvy Americans are going to Costa Rica.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/05/2014 - 05:24 pm.

      I’ll second the recommendation

      to read T. R. Reid’s “The Healing of America”.
      His description of the German approach is particularly interesting, since it keeps medical payments in the hands of private insurance companies, but with highly regulated standard rates, so that these insurance companies compete to acquire more customers by providing better services, rather than by driving up profit margins.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/06/2014 - 09:18 am.


        There WAS one country whose medical care was no better (though no worse) than ours: England.
        However, they paid half as much for the same thing.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/05/2014 - 05:26 pm.

      You might add the V.A.

      to the list of cost effective medical delivery systems.

  12. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/05/2014 - 06:16 am.

    The brokeness of Medicare and Social Security

    If they are broke, how come their checks don’t bounce?

    • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 03/05/2014 - 08:22 am.


      How can I be broke? There are still checks in my checkbook?

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/05/2014 - 09:22 am.


      they’re backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.
      They are not, and were never intended to be, private businesses.
      To analyze them as if they were is a boojum.
      It’s like asking if the Federal Reserve can go broke (which the Tester’s of the world probably would).

    • Submitted by Rich Crose on 03/05/2014 - 12:09 pm.

      An Easy Fix for Social Security

      The CEO of United Health Group only has Social Security taken out two paychecks –the first and second paycheck of the year. After that, he has reached the SS salary cap of $117K. Most other people get it taken out of their paycheck week after week. Of course, he’ll never have to collect Social Security when he makes $34 million a year –but he can. And he can get the maximum amount!

      Someday I want to be so wealthy that I can slam Social Security as an entitlement.

  13. Submitted by Peder DeFor on 03/05/2014 - 08:24 am.

    Note to GOP Candidates

    If you don’t have detailed plans available at least eight months before an election, don’t bother running or you’ll be ripped to shreds by unfriendly media. Note: this policy will of course not apply to DFL candidates. Simply saying that they want to ‘fix problems’ will be seen as enough detail to go on.

    • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 03/05/2014 - 10:33 am.

      Yes it is all the fault of the unfriendly media that Mr McFadden

      is being asked serious questions about his plans and thoughts on policy for the US Senate.

      This claim is the political equivalent of the last refuge of a scoundrel.

      I thought Chairman Mike was running for the Senate? And he apparently has a lot of spare time. If not he could certainly hire some political consultants to help him formulate his ideas?

      Probably he has and they have advised him to say as little as possible.

      Unfortunately for the GOP in Minnesota, the DFL has demonstrated that they will actually do something about our problems. And we are doing pretty well compared to many other places in the country. Look at Wisconsin or places like South Carolina.

      Just say no(thing) is a losing strategy because voters now see through it. Most of us have seen hockey rinks, soccer fields, basketball courts, and football fields. Familiarity with them is NOT a qualification to be US Senator.

      Mr. McFadden may be in for a rude awakening. It is entirely possible that he will lose the GOP primary – he will certainly lose the GOP endorsement. Folks seem to have heard of Ms. Ortman and Chairman Mike’s disrespect for the GOP endorsement process may be hard for GOP regulars to swallow.

      Why should they slog in the trenches for Chairman Mike who has declared their role irrelevant?

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/06/2014 - 09:23 am.

        Because he’ll throw huge amounts of money

        at TV advertising at the last minute; which will sway the majority of voters who don’t follow the issues carefully.
        He’ll buy all the name recognition he needs:
        ‘I’m Mike McFadden and I approve the message that I paid for’.

      • Submitted by Peder DeFor on 03/06/2014 - 10:14 am.

        Do Something About Problems

        I can’t help but laugh that this assertion that the DFL is all about helping problems comes out about the same time that we hear that large portions of the ACA are again being delayed. I guess those problems weren’t important enough. I also can’t help but chuckle that you’d include Wisconsin on your list of problem areas. That’s the Wisconsin that has fixed it’s budget and is top ten in creating jobs, right? Yeah, who’d want to live there. (And yes, I know that Minnesota is doing well in those respects too.)
        Look, if McFadden is giving vague answers well into the summer, then I’ll agree that he needs to get more specific. Maybe you’re right that he’ll lose out to other GOP candidates. I don’t (as yet) have any dog in that fight. But this repeated attack on him is silly. He’s said that he’s for a market approach to fixing health care. I know what he means and so does any serious GOP voter. He may not be much different than the other two in that regard.
        And there is an enormous double standard going on here. The ACA rollout has been a disaster. Even setting aside the website problems both in Minnesota and nationally, there has been massive disruption in prices and networks. Is anyone asking Franken what he intends to do about this? Why not? Yes, he has a record to run on, but what does it mean in this case? What actions will he support or propose? He’s shown that he won’t complain about delays but not much beside that. What will he do about large increases in premiums and absurdly large deductibles? What will he do about narrower networks? Anything?
        And going back to my point, is MinnPost going to publish half a dozen articles asking him these questions?

  14. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 03/05/2014 - 04:18 pm.

    I know I keep saying this but it’s still true

    The Republicans never believed and still do not believe that we have or ever had a problem much less a crises in health care. They have no fix because they don’t think anything was ever broken. We have/had a health care market and people were/are making money. What more do you want?

  15. Submitted by Richard Helle on 03/11/2014 - 05:31 pm.

    gop’s greatest fear

    The GOP’s greatest fear is that by August, the ACA is largely viewed as up and running At that point the GOP will have nothing for voters

Leave a Reply