On Monday, I attended a candidate’s forum sponsored by the Rhode Island Health Center Association. Federal candidates Lincoln Chafee, Jon Scott, Rod Driver, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patrick Kennedy and James Langevin; and state candidates Don Carcieri, Reginald Centracchio, Charles Fogarty and Elizabeth Roberts all gave answers to questions about health care asked by moderator Bill “Rap Man”(*) Rappleye of WJAR-TV.
Felice J. Freyer reported on the forum in the Projo. The tone of her article suggests that, taken as a whole, she wasn’t exactly blown away by the answers to the questions that she heard…
Given impending cuts in Medicaid on the federal level, Channel 10 (WJAR) political reporter Bill Rappleye asked, would you use state money to fill the gaps, or would you prefer to increase fees or limit eligibility in a state-run health program for the poor and disabled….Mr. Freyer quotes Sheldon Whitehouse’s call for universal coverage of some sort…
Of the 10 candidates at the Rhode Island Health Center Association’s annual meeting, only one or two (depending on how you take their answers) would go on record favoring either of these unpopular options.
Governor Carcieri, a Republican who is running for reelection, said he has appointed a team to look for ways to save money in Medicaid….Rodney Driver, an independent running for U.S. House in the second district, against U.S. Rep. James Langevin, favored having the state make up any federal losses in Medicaid funding. The state can do this by cutting back on waste, fraud and abuse within the budget, Driver said.
The other candidates did little more than decry the Medicaid situation. Medicaid, which is financed jointly by the state and federal governments, is a growing portion of state budgets as medical costs increase and the number of uninsured people grows.
There were few specific, direct answers to any of the three questions posed to each candidate….
It’s a system that is screaming out for reform….We simply have to get universal coverage.Former Attorney General Whitehouse wasn’t the only Democrat at the forum who supports a so-called universal solution. Congressman Langevin and Senator Roberts both mentioned the goal universal health care in their responses. Congressman Kennedy talked about healthcare as a moral problem. And Lieutenant Governor Fogarty has put forth a proposal for mandatory health coverage for all Rhode Islanders as part of his campaign.
The unanimity on universality may be the cause of the lack of specifics that Ms. Freyer decries, at least on the Democratic side. Democrats invoke “universal health care” like the words themselves are a magical incantation that will solve the problem. (To be fair, Congressman Langevin does have specific ideas about extending the health plan offered to Federal employees to all citizens, and Lieutenant Governor Fogarty has put forth a plan similar the Massachusetts mandatory-coverage plan that is detailed in its implementation, if not in how it will be funded). But when Sheldon Whitehouse, or Patrick Kennedy, or Elizabeth Roberts use the term “universal”, we don’t know quite what they mean, because universal coverage can mean many different things…
- At one extreme, universal coverage could mean a single-payer, government run system where government insurance is the only health insurance allowed and supplemental insurance is made illegal.
- At the other end, universal coverage could also mean a government run system as a base, with people allowed to purchase additional coverage from a private system. (I think, for example, this is what a country like Australia does).
The second idea, while blunting the effects of rationing in theory, would most likely lead to a system with some people being stuck in a poor-quality government program, others paying for better quality private coverage, and a never-ending political tension for new “funding formulas” to transfer more resources into the government program. In short, government would do to health care what it’s done to public education over the past forty years.
The important thing to bear in mind is that the mixture of public and private in any healthcare reform is not a “detail that needs to be worked out”, it is a choice that needs to be made up front. Politicians who favor universal care need to be honest with the public about exactly what they are proposing…
(*)I’m just reporting how the hosting organization referred to their esteemed moderator. [Open full post]
(UPDATE: The first paragraph of this post has been modified to reflect RI Future’s timely correction of their original post.)
Over at RI Future, they are attempting to propagate the progressive fever-swamp fantasy they repeated the erroneous assertion (since corrected) that the Military Commissions Act affects the right of American citizens to petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus. As we’ve explained here and here in detail, it’s not true. The MCA applies only to aliens, not citizens.
And while we’re on the subject, is there anybody on the progressive left willing to join the long-term campaign to help bring about the right of citizens in North Korea or Iran to petition their own governments for Habeas Corpus, or do the progs regard those issues as “none of our business”?
Two for the price of one:
Question 7: Fort Adams State Park Recreation and Restoration Bonds
Approval of this question will allow for the State of Rhode Island to issue general obligation bonds, refunding bonds, and temporary notes in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 for improvements to the Fort Adams State Park in Newport.
Project Costs – $3,984,000 in principal w/ $2,962,865 in Interest (6% over 20 years) plus approximately $28,000 in issuance costs. TOTAL: $6,974,764. {Source PDF}.
The ProJo says no and thinks that the City of Newport and private groups should step up to the plate on this one. I’m not very familiar with the technicalities of state vs. municipal funding, but, given that Fort Adams a “State” Park, I don’t know if this is possible. I’ll have to assume it is.
Question 7: Department of Environmental Management Bonds
Approval of this question will allow for the State of Rhode Island to issue general obligation bonds, refunding bonds, and temporary notes in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 for the Local Recreation Development Program.
Project Costs – $2,988,000 in principal w/ $2,222,149 in Interest (6% over 20 years) plus approximately $21,000 in issuance costs. TOTAL: $5,231,073. {Source PDF}.
The ProJo opposes it for sound reasons: its really all for local projects to benefit individual communities–something this bond and the Fort Adams have in common–and the administration of the funds is a mystery. Besides, as emphasized by the ProJo:
[Open full post]….maybe without the handout from the state, school committees and other negotiators would drive better bargains with their unions.
Help the Animals…but wisely!
Question 6: Roger Williams Park Zoo Bonds
Approval of this question will allow for the State of Rhode Island to issue general obligation bonds, refunding bonds, and temporary notes in an amount not to exceed $11,000,000 for improvements to the Roger Williams Park Zoo in Providence.
Project Costs – $10,956,000 in principal w/ $8,147,880 in Interest (6% over 20 years) plus approximately $77,000 in issuance costs. TOTAL: $19,180,602. {Source PDF}.
Noting that the zoo is Rhode Island’s most visited attraction, the ProJo supports this bond, despite some questions regarding the zoo’s administrative apparatus.
Several years ago, the Providence parks superintendent, Nancy Derrig, retired after a controversy involving irregular administrative methods meant to insulate the park from a municipality that regarded the zoo’s admission fees as a convenient cash cow. Clearly, the zoo (and the park) are what they are now because Ms. Derrig took risks to protect them from city politics.
Today, this has changed. The city pays the Rhode Island Zoological Society to run the zoo, which no longer has much administrative contact with the city — or with its most logical alternative parent, the state. The arrangement seems a bit too unmoored from responsible authority for so important a civic institution.
…. The money’s disbursement would be administered by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, which would funnel it through the city bidding process into contracts to carry out the zoo-expansion program designed by the Zoological Society.
In spite of the zoo’s unsettled administrative status, we support the bond issue, which would help fund its $35 million plan to upgrade existing exhibits, to create new ones and to boost its research facilities…
Approval of the bond issue would create momentum to give the zoo to the state, which can exert oversight and serve as a responsible parent for one of Rhode Island’s — and, indeed, southeastern New England’s — greatest treasures. So please vote yes on Question 6.
My family has a season pass to the zoo and visit frequently. It hasn’t been the same since the polar bears died, but renovation is underway and it is still an enjoyable experience. It also generates $13.5 million annually for the state. I’m not crazy about having the DEM administer the money by “funnelling” it through the “competitive” bidding process. Also, this bond is only a portion of the money required, according to The Rhode Island Zoological Society:
In addition to money from the $11-million bond issue, zoo officials hope to finance the project with $4 million already secured from a 2004 bond issue and $20 million in private donations.
Officials said $6 million in private donations has already been raised.
The RI Zoological Society believes these improvements are necessary to maintain the “bang for the buck” that the state gets from the zoo. However, it strikes me as more fiscally responsible to shore up the few leaks in the zoo–get more polar bears!–rather than embarking on a grand and expensive reimagining of the zoo. Use the already appropriated bond money and the private donations to deal with the top priorities. Save the wishlist–and the taxpayer dollars–for a more propitious time. If you want to help the zoo out, donate!
[Open full post]Pope John Paul II was elected Pope on this day in 1978.
This posting contains links to many articles about him:
John Paul II, Requiescat in pacem
Two additional postings about Pope John Paul II:
Follow Me: John Paul II Roused Us From a Lethargic Faith
A Poignant Reflection on John Paul II
When we started Anchor Rising, we decided early on that we wouldn’t take issue positions or endorse candidates as a group. As a corollary to that, we generally don’t make pitches for campaign contributions for particular candidates. With about three weeks left in this election cycle, however, I’m going to put forth a generic campaign pitch.
Nobody who is not a professional fundraiser likes talking about money in politics. But when you need to reach thousands of people in a municipal constituency, or ten thousand people in a General Assembly district, or twenty-thousand in a State Senate district, or seven-hundred thousand in a statewide election in order to make a case for why you should be elected, going door-to-door to and meeting people face-to-face can only take you so far. Things like direct mailings and advertisements in community papers — tangible items costing tangible money — need to be a part of the process of a candidate getting his or her ideas out.
Though it seems late in the day, donations can still be meaningful in this election cycle. A little extra money might make the difference between a half-page ad and a full-page ad in a community weekly, or an extra round of mailings, or even getting an ad on to radio or TV. So if there is a candidate that you would like to see elected, but don’t think that your neighbors have heard enough about him or her, there’s a good chance that that candidate might still be able to make good use of a campaign donation. And if you are concerned that campaign money you give might not be well spent, don’t be shy about asking a candidate what the money will go towards before signing the check. Candidates with a shot at winning will have definite ideas about where they will be spending their money and what ideas they will be talking about.
Question 4: Higher Education Bonds:
Approval of this question will allow for the State of Rhode Island to issue general obligation bonds, refunding bonds, and temporary notes in an amount not to exceed $65,000,000 for the construction of a new college of pharmacy building at the University of Rhode Island and $7,790,000 for renovations to the former Department of Children, Youth and Families facilities at Rhode Island College.
Project Costs – $72,498,840 in principal w/ $53,916,745 in Interest (6% over 20 years) plus approximately $500,000 in issuance costs. TOTAL: $126,923,278. {Source PDF}.
The ProJo explained many of the physical justificiation for this expenditure on expansion.
As Andrew noted in a previous post, Rhode Island ranks 46th in the nation in higher education spending. Having state of the art research facilities such as those proposed at URI will (hopefully) translate into economic development within the state. Brown University and many other colleges nationwide (MIT, Duke, etc)–in addition to being centers of higher learning–are also viable economic engines unto themselves.
The 128 loop in Boston became a technology Hub largely because of its close proximity to so many research universities with new workers churned out every year. By having such a substantial pool of pharmacists at URI, the state could benefit by being more attractive to pharmaceutical companies and could also obtain research grants from private industry. Such research could be translated into new products coveted by the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, investing in improvements to the URI school of pharmacology can net the state of Rhode Island long term economic benefits.
The argument can be made that pharmaceutical companies should be tapped to pay for the URI facilities. The problem is: they won’t. They’ll send their attention to another state that will foot the bill.
Economic development is a multi-faceted endeavor. Making higher education more attractive to outside economic interests via a short term investment can translate into many practical benefits–higher employment, better paying jobs, etc.–that will help our perpetually sluggish economy. It’s not a quick fix–like a casino–but it will be a very signficant brick in building a more solid foundation for Rhode Island’s 21st century economy.
My Conclusion: YES ON 4.
The unsigned editorial in Sunday’s Projo concerning Judge Francis Darigan’s role in the Derderian/Station fire plea deal shows no cognizance about what the general public finds disquieting about it…
Under our system, defendants have a right to plea-bargain before a trial with prosecutors, a judge has the power to approve or reject such deals, and to impose sentences, and the public has no right to a full-blown trial. That system generally works reasonably well to protect the innocent and secure justice.The editorial board’s implication is that the Attorney General negotiated a deal with the defense which Judge Darigan then approved. But if the 3 sides involved (prosecution, defense and judge) all agreed that this is what happened, there would be no controversy surrounding the Judge’s role.
The controversy exists because there is no agreement on a common version of events. The Attorney General insists that Judge Darigan accepted a plea and imposed sentences while negotiations were still ongoing between prosecution and defense, the defense says the final sentences were taken directly from a proposal made by the AG’s office and Judge Darigan has suggested that both the Attorney General and defense asked him to end the process and impose sentences.
So, depending on whose version of events the Projo editorial board had in mind when they wrote their editorial, they are either saying that a) they don’t see an accountability problem when a life-tenure judge overrules the prosecutorial judgment of an elected law enforcement official and negotiates a plea on his own or that b) they don’t believe the Attorney General’s description of events, and they do believe that Judge Darigan acted only after the AG gave some form of consent to the deal. [Open full post]
According to Edward Fitzpatrick in today’s Projo, Attorney General Candidates Patrick Lynch and Bill Harsch have agreed upon a schedule of three debates…
- Friday, October 20, WPRO-AM (The Dan Yorke Show)
- Sunday, October 22, WPRI-TV (CBS 12)
- Sunday, November 5, WJAR-TV (NBC 10)
Over on the Autonomist, Rhode Island blogger D. Alighieri is seeing the reality in Iraq for himself. So far, he’s put up video of his bounce in Jordan and a first impression of Baghdad:
Yesterday, a car bomb exploded a few miles from here. I watched the black plume boil towards the sky.
This place is surreal. And very edgy.
In an exercise in empathy, I’m reminded of a pillar of smoke that I noticed in the distance yesterday morning as I crossed the Newport Bridge on my way to a Jamestown construction site. It is surreal merely to imagine such proximity to war and inspires prayers of safe passage for those who needn’t pretend.
[Open full post]