Clearest Contrast(s) of the Night #1: Right to Choose
The Senate candidates were asked about their position on a woman's right to choose. Trey gave what I thought was a very clear, well-spoken progressive position: that such matters should be private decisions between a woman, her family, doctor and clergy and that government should stay the h*** out. (That's actually what he said.) This got applause from the audience. Gene Yaw said he was pro-life, with rape, incest, and health of the mother being the only reasons for exception. One person clapped for him, kind of awkwardly. I don't actually remember what Mike Dincher said, but I think it was also basically the Republican position (criminalizing abortion).
Most Unnecessary Question of the Night:
The House candidates were asked about their position on landowners' royalties for natural gas drilling. Since this isn't really very relevant for Union or Snyder counties, it was kind of an awkward moment. This was one of the questions from the audience, written on an index card and pre-screened by the LWV -- it was kind of strange that it was selected.
Clearest Contrast of the Night #2: State Employees/Retirees
The House candidates were asked whether they would support a bill to give cost-of-living increases to state retirees, who haven't had one in at least 7 years while state legislators have voted to increase their own pensions. Russ gave a long answer about cost-of-living increases being a complicated issue and needing actuaries to look at the problem. Steve said: "Yes, I would."
Most Slightly Absurd Statement of the Night:
When House candidates were asked a question about what they would do to get the Shamokin Dam Thruway back on track, Russ Fairchild claimed it had been a "priority" of his, ever since the project was first conceived... in 1968! And yet, we still have no Thruway. Hmm. I think I could see little question marks appear over the audience members' heads.
Clearest Contrast of the Night #3: Healthcare
The Senate candidates were asked about what we can do to reduce healthcare costs. Trey made a bolder statement than Obama in this regard, saying that we should realize we are eventually headed toward a single-payer system like the rest of the civilized world, and we should start preparing for it to make the transition effective and financially responsible. He quoted a statistic that Pennsylvania has a low uninsured rate, with ~92% of the population insured; however, almost half of this is government-sponsored insurance anyway (including Medicare, Medicaid, and the state employees' insurance program). He talked about the need to reduce emergency room visits by uninsured people that are hurting the hospitals.
Yaw and Dincher gave similar answers, with Yaw saying that he was absolutely opposed to government-run insurance because the government wasn't effective at running anything. (Trey later shot back at this, pointing out that we have some very effective government services like police and fire companies (I would have added the USPS), and that Medicare spends about 5-6% of its costs on overhead, whereas some private insurance companies spend up to 50%.) Yaw also made some point about healthcare costs being hard to reduce, because if "a machine" (I assume he meant like an MRI machine) cost $1 million, then that's what the hospital has to spend. He also suggested that the U.S. adopt a strategy like Massachusetts where, since Romney's tenure as governor, they have a mandate that citizens must purchase health insurance, just as PA drivers must purchase car insurance before they can drive a car. Dincher generally advocated a "free market" approach, saying that Americans don't "check their receipt" when they leave a doctor's office or hospital like they do when they leave a regular store, and so the problem is there's no incentive for "smart shopping" or cost containment.
I don't pretend to know a whole lot about this issue, but I do know a little bit, in that I generally work in the healthcare industry. For a good source of information on the subject (and especially healthcare costs in Massachusetts), I recommend Boston University's School of Public Health website. There, some of the things you quickly learn are:
- Trey's point about Medicare spending less on overhead than private insurers is absolutely correct.
- Massachusetts (with its insurance mandate) has the highest healthcare spending in the world -- $62.1B in 2006, which is 33% above even the U.S. average, which in turn is higher than any other country.
- Healthcare costs absorbed 1/4th of U.S. economic growth from 2000-2005.
- U.S. prices for prescription drugs are 81% above foreign prices.
My understanding is that increases in health insurance premiums have far outpaced inflation or spending on any other sector of the economy in the last decade, and it's due to a combination of increased administrative costs, more expensive new drugs and technology, waste, and fraud/error. And contrary to what Yaw implied, the new drugs and technology costs are not the biggest of those driving factors.
Best (Only) Joke of the Night:
Steve thanked the LWV for hosting the forum, and for printing the "Voter's Guide" that includes bios, descriptions and photos of all the candidates. Steve apologized for not realizing that he was supposed to send in his high school yearbook photo (as Russ Fairchild seems to have done, see PDF link above).
Overall, it was a good, civil discussion of issues without any mudslinging or personal attacks, which is always nice to see. I understand why the LWV likes the format it uses, but it would have been nice to allow the moderator a chance to follow up on questions, or to take more informal feedback from the audience. As it was, with very strictly-timed responses and not much opportunity to build one question onto another, it seemed a little more rigid than it needed to be.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment