Category: The Real Erik Paulsen

An Obligation to Provide Care

There is a key concept often left out of the health care debate and something that politicians seem to continually misunderstand or refuse to acknowledge: that we have an obligation to provide care. This does not necessarily translate to “we as a nation” but “we as clinicians,” who have a moral obligation and, in the case of hospitals, a legal obligation to provide emergency care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. There is a need to acknowledge the moral and deontological sentiment that exists here. This was borne out of many failures and Supreme Court decisions resulting from a refusal to treat people, who then died or had bad outcomes. Patient dumping led to overcrowding of emergency rooms in county hospitals, where turning people away may have been legal but was ethically reprehensible.

The continuing frame of thought that health care is a market-based product is doomed. We may continue on this path for some time, but the end is inevitable; either we finally recognize an obligation to providing care or we allow hospitals to turn people away. It is all well and good to be a congressperson and treat health care as a free-market product, but when you are face to face with the bad effects of this mind-set, you may think differently. When the major groups representing clinicians in the trenches are against what you are doing, you ought to take some time to contemplate this.

Ian Wolfe, Minneapolis
Star Tribune, May 5, 2017

Rep. Paulsen’s Yes Vote on Trumpcare

In voting “yes” on the AHCA, Rep. Erik Paulsen sent a clear signal to voters that he stands with the ultraconservative wing of the GOP and not with his constituents. Rather than insisting on public hearings, a Congressional Budget Office report, transparency in government and, ultimately, affordable health care for all, Paulsen proved he is a party puppet, doing the bidding of Trump and Ryan. The Democratic candidate for president has carried Paulsen’s district in three straight general elections. The Third District is moderate. Paulsen is not. His cover is blown once and for all.

Heidi Strommen, Plymouth
Star Tribune, May 5, 2017

Minnesotans have been ill-served by their representatives.

I am disgusted that every single one of Minnesota’s Republican congressional representatives voted for the American Health Care Act, agreeing to strip away the protections provided by the Affordable Care Act. President Trump repeatedly promised during his campaign not to cut Medicaid; now he’s going to cut it by $800 billion in order to fund a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

More than a million Minnesotans have preexisting conditions. Even if you’re not among them, if you’ve ever found a suspicious lump or mole and felt the fear of possibility, you know how tenuous good health can be. And anyone who considers themselves prolife should be aghast at the idea that a family who “chooses life” for a child with health problems diagnosed in pregnancy will be faced with costs they can never even hope to pay in order to heal a child who will have a preexisting condition from the moment they take their first breath.

Trumpcare even removes preexisting condition protections for people with employer-provided health care! No one is safe from this atrocious bill’s consequences. Reps. Jason Lewis, Erik Paulsen and Tom Emmer should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope all three are voted out in 2018.

Naomi Kritzer, St. Paul
Star Tribune, May 5, 2017

How To Fight The Republicans Who Voted For ‘Trumpcare’

The following article by Tim Marcin of Newsweek was posted on the National Memo website May 5, 2017:

Lots of liberals, and even some conservatives, are upset that House Republicans passed Thursday a health care bill that hadn’t been vetted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for its cost or effects, such as the loss of coverage for millions of Americans, as the CBO estimated for a prior version of the legislation. The GOP was apparently ready for it’s Obamacare replacement and ready for it now—but opponents also were ready to fight back.

Causing particular anger is the provision in the American Health Care Act (AHCA)—often dubbed Trumpcare—that undermines protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions. States would be able to apply for waivers to allow insurers to charge higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It has been estimated some 27 percent of people on the individual market suffer from things that could be considered pre-existing conditions—which under Obamacare included having cancer or being the victim of sexual assault. Continue reading “How To Fight The Republicans Who Voted For ‘Trumpcare’”

Republicans Get Their Health Bill. But It May Cost Them.

For some context on this, Rep. Erik Paulsen voted for this bill even though it was unscored by the Congressional Budget Office, went through hidden negotiations and, from what we’ve been able to see so far, he hadn’t read.  The bill passed by 2 votes.  Minnesota’s 3 Republican members of Congress voted for this bill.  Erik Paulsen is one of those members of Congress.

The following article by Jennifer Steinhauer was posted on the New York Times website May 4, 2017:

Paul D. Ryan, speaker of the House, before the vote on Thursday. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In voting to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, House Republicans finally made progress on a key Trump administration goal and on a campaign promise that they have made for the better part of a decade — but at a potentially steep price.

After failing to get the votes for an original replacement measure in March, Speaker Paul D. Ryan worked tirelessly to do what his predecessor, John A. Boehner, could not, bringing together his most conservative members and their moderate colleagues behind a piece of legislation laden with political peril. Continue reading “Republicans Get Their Health Bill. But It May Cost Them.”

U.S. House health care bill is a big step backward for those with preexisting conditions

The following commentary by the Editorial Board was posted on the Star Tribune website May 4, 2017:

The final total on the vote on the Republicans health care bill was displayed at the Capitol in Washington on Thursday, May 4, 2017. Relieved Republicans muscled their health care bill through the House, taking their biggest step toward dismantling the Obama health care overhaul since Donald Trump took office. HOUSE TELEVISION VIA AP

Today, Bethany Gladhill’s daughter Beatrix is an active 9-year-old who enjoys dance and school. But right after she was born, Beatrix was diagnosed with a heart valve anomaly. After a family job loss, which meant no more employee health benefits, Gladhill soon found that she couldn’t add baby Beatrix to the new health plan she and her husband purchased on the individual market.

Their infant had a “preexisting condition,” their health insurance broker told them. The St. Paul couple, who continue to work as consultants, were stunned. Said Gladhill: “It’s the honest inability as a parent to believe that nobody cares enough about your newborn to cover them with insurance and there is nothing you can do about it.”

Eventually, the family did get coverage for Beatrix through Minnesota’s old “high-risk pool” insurance program, but at a cost — they had to buy a separate plan for her with higher premiums, a narrow medical provider network and two annual deductibles totaling around $10,000. After President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act passed, the couple could finally buy a family plan, one with the same clinics, one set of bills and a deductible of $4,000. “The costs went down by half. It was huge,” Gladhill said. Continue reading “U.S. House health care bill is a big step backward for those with preexisting conditions”

Here’s what you need to know about preexisting conditions in the GOP health plan

The following article by Glenn Kessler was posted on the Washington Post website May 4, 2017:

With House Republicans prepared to take a vote Thursdayon yet another version of a plan to overhaul the 2010 Affordable Care Act, attention has been especially focused on whether Obamacare’s popular prohibition against denying coverage based on preexisting medical conditionswill remain in place. Republicans, from President Trump to lawmakers pushing for the bill, insist that it remains intact, just in different form. Democrats and opponents of the bill say the guarantee is gone or greatly weakened.

Here’s a tweet by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), referring to an amendment added to the bill to attract votes. Continue reading “Here’s what you need to know about preexisting conditions in the GOP health plan”

Rep. Erik Paulsen Votes For Health Care Act; Twitter Reacts

The following article by William Bornhoft of the Patch Staff was posted on the St. Louis Park Patch website May 4, 2017:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Erik Paulsen, who represents the west Twin Cities metro, released the following statement on the passage of the American Health Care Act: “With millions in Minnesota and the United States in need of relief from skyrocketing costs, diminishing choices, and limited access, the status quo under Obamacare is no longer acceptable,” said Paulsen.

“This is just the latest step in reforming our health care system to be more patient-centered, and my focus remains on finding solutions that will make sure Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care. I’m also pleased to see the permanent repeal of the medical device tax included in this effort, which is critical to encourage medical innovation and make life-saving technologies accessible to patients.” Continue reading “Rep. Erik Paulsen Votes For Health Care Act; Twitter Reacts”

This is not the health-care bill that Trump promised

The following article by Phillip Bump was posted on the Washington Post website May 4, 2017:

It was one thing for Donald Trump to pledge on the campaign trail that his plan for health care would assure that every American had coverage. He did so repeatedly, including during a town hall event in February 2016 at which he said his promise to “take care” of everyone might sound as if he was talking about a single-payer system, but he wasn’t. “That’s not single-payer,” he said. “That’s not anything. That’s just human decency.”

It was another thing, though, for Trump to make similar claims after the election. Before the election, it was anything goes in a way that most politicians would avoid. Afterward, one might expect Trump to zero in on his preferences a bit more narrowly, to scrape away the rhetoric and describe, instead, what it was that he wanted to see. Continue reading “This is not the health-care bill that Trump promised”

#badvotes Paulsen Vote Tracker: H.R. 1180 Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017

SUMMARY:  Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to allow private-sector employees the option of selecting compensatory time off in lieu of cash for overtime wages. An employee will be able to choose, based upon a voluntary agreement with his or her employer, to have his or her overtime compensated with paid time off.

H.R. 1180 is an empty promise.  It is designed to look like it will help families but it will harm workers.  It gives employers more control over their employees’ time and money. If an employer asks an employee to take comp time instead of overtime – can they really refuse?  Probably not!

This bill gives employers the right to hold on to their employees overtime wages for months, while giving employees no guarantee that they will be able to take their “comp” time.  Under the Working Families Flexibility Act, if the worker’s request to use comp time is denied, there is no recourse. The worker would have to report to work, or risk being fired. Workers can request that the unused time be cashed out – but, even then, the employer would have up to 30 days to comply..  Also, there is no remedy available if an employer were to go bankrupt or shut down. The bill is now headed to the Senate for further consideration.

Paulsen voted:  YES

TAKEAWAY:  This bill should be renamed “Employer Flexibility Act.”  Of course Erik Paulsen voted for it.

Sources:  http://www.natlawreview.com/article/house-passes-working-families-flexibility-act; http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/331395-working-families-need-higher-wages-and-guaranteed-time-to