It’s A Good Thing Dayton Signed A $300M Entitlement…
By Mitch Berg
…because Minnesota underspends on health care and social entitlements.
Really! That’s what the leftyblogs say!
And when they say it, er…ah…:
Just as a debate on Minnesota health care spending rushes in at the Capitol, the Census Bureau offered some numbers to prime the pump.
“State government spending on public welfare was greater than 30 percent of general expenditures in 11 states, led by Minnesota (37.5 percent),” the government numbers bureau said in a news release Wednesday.
The numbers come from the Census’ report on State Government Finances. Dig in to the numbers here.
The article, by Rachel Stassen Berger – mentions:
Worth noting: Although the Capitol debate Wednesday will focus on DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty was in charge when the numbers rose.
As was a DFL-strangled legislature…
January 6th, 2011 at 9:16 am
We’ve transcended just being a welfare magnet to being a welfare super-conductor. Is this the new Minnesota Miracle?
January 6th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Yeah, we could build 1/3 of a Vikings stadium with that money!
January 6th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Closing the spigot of illegal immigration would be a good first start towards curbing the outflow of public dollars. Of course, this would cross the boundaries of “appropriateness” in the state where “nice” is part of our inbreeding. It’s not in the Bible (though it should be) – “nice” is what God demands of Minnesotans. Jesus, rather than being the Son of God ought to be considered the Prince of Niceness, warmth, grooviness and enlightened social consciousness.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:20 am
A few of my “immigrant” (from IL, NC and NM), guffaw at the term! They feel that Minnesota Nice is a bigger myth than globull warming!
January 6th, 2011 at 11:35 am
From just a quick glance at the numbers, it appears to be that big states are compared with small states, large population states with small population states, differences in costs of living are not included (think the difference between living in NYCity and say…Duluth to understand what I mean) and so on. Those don’t seem to be useful comparisons for criticizing what Dayton did. What is important is not only what we would like to spend on health care – say budgeting only for asprin, in a personal budget equivalent, but the need that exists. To continue the analogy, if you break your leg, budgeting only for asprin in anticipation of a headache is insufficient spending. What Dayton did seems to me, from the little I have read, appropriate to the need in Minnesota, and not so disproportionate or excessive, looking at the variety of other factors which influence state spending on health care. I think that criticism of this criteria should apply equally to those writing on the right and the left. Bad choice of criteria, imho.
I suppose, Kermit, the question is not could we build part of a stadium with that money, as it is, 1. is there any federal funds to assist in doing so; and 2. is that a more important priority over health care?
Let your conscience, or your amygdala, be your guide on that last one.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Dog, let me be clear. There ARE NO FEDERAL FUNDS. Washington does not generate one penny. It all comes from taxpayers in the fifty states. Run that through YOUR amygdala (sic).
January 6th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
I really enjoyed this:
This post has been corrected to reflect that the 37.5 percent is a total percentage of spending. The state department of human services also says: “there are health care costs included in the definition of public welfare used by the Census Bureau that we don’t account for in the same way in the state budget.
Translation: “How DARE you bypass our smoke and mirrors!”
January 6th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
dog is competing with teh peevee for most words used to convey meaningless drivel.
Well done, dear, but don’t tarry; that bottle ain’t gonna guzzle itself!
January 6th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Dog Gone said:
“What is important is not only what we would like to spend on health care – say budgeting only for asprin, in a personal budget equivalent, but the need that exists.”
Your retarded economic analogy is entertaining. What exactly is the static “need” for health care, Dog Gone?
“To continue the analogy, if you break your leg, budgeting only for asprin in anticipation of a headache is insufficient spending.”
Did you just trip upon the reason why command economies (you know, the ones with excessive government control) work so inefficiently and not see it? Seems so.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Those don’t seem to be useful comparisons for criticizing what Dayton did.
OK, then! If you say so!
Onward!
No, sorry. Not true. They are perfectly useful; that a state with a relatively high per capita standard of living leads the nation at social welfare spending, and has just widened its lead, is a very useful comparison.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
What is important is not only what we would like to spend on health care – say budgeting only for asprin, in a personal budget equivalent, but the need that exists. To continue the analogy, if you break your leg, budgeting only for asprin in anticipation of a headache is insufficient spending.
Except that your example misses the cause of the problem with almost anti-surgical imprecision.
The demand for catastrophic care (the broken legs and heart attacks) is fuindamentally different from the demand for aspirin. Catastrophic care is pretty inelastic; people need their leg set and their heart attack treated, or the consequences are drastic.
The need for aspirin, or removing plantar warts, treating heartburn, Lasik, bunions, and elective surgery? It’s EXTREMELY elastic. And the elasticity is largely based on price, and who’s paying. There’s a reason emergency room visits for non-life-threatening conditions and OB-GYN are so dad-blamed expensive; they are mandated for the uninsured, but insurance usually pays for them, so hospitals charge more to make up the losses on mandated services. On the other hand, Lasik is never paid by insurance, and the government doesn’t mandate it; the price has been falling steadily since it was introduced, even as the quality rises.
When people have to buy their own aspirin, they go to Walgreens and buy the generic, for 30% cheaper. And the aspirin you pay for yourself costs $3.95 to $5.95 a bottle. The aspirin that insurance pays for at the hospital costs that much or more per tablet. It’s no accident.
It’s an immutable law of economics; if you subsidize something, people will use it if they can. There are limits, of course; if you subsidize emergency care, people will not break their own legs; if you subsidize cosmetic surgery, the price of botox will skyrocket.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
What Dayton did seems to me, from the little I have read, appropriate to the need in Minnesota, and not so disproportionate or excessive, looking at the variety of other factors which influence state spending on health care. I think that criticism of this criteria should apply equally to those writing on the right and the left. Bad choice of criteria, imho.
It might be helpful if you could articulate why the choice is bad, since it seems to me you’re digging for ways to make Dayton look good, even if they’re largely non-sequiturs.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
I suppose, Kermit, the question is not could we build part of a stadium with that money, as it is, 1. is there any federal funds to assist in doing so; and 2. is that a more important priority over health care?
Case in point. Government subsidizes stadiums for cities that won’t or can’t pay for them. The price zooms.
We paid $400,000,000 for the Twins stadium. There were designs for perfectly good stadiums that came in around $150,000,000, when designed the same way I “design” my aspirin-shopping; buying the cheap stuff.
January 6th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Dad gum it, I want my free aspirin. Will Mark Dayton mail it to me, or do0 I need to take public transit to get it? I want the $400,000,000 dollar aspirin, too. None of that generic crap for me!
January 6th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
On another note, re: Lasik, one of the most experienced doctors in the state, practices in Crosby now. It is interesting to note that having the surgery performed there, will save one roughly $750 per eye. That ain’t chump change to most of us.
January 6th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Dad gum it, I want my free aspirin.
Eff you Kermit; where’s my reparations check!
January 7th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Call the Danish embassy.