Press "Enter" to skip to content

Kristi Noem Justifies Government Health Insurance, Massive Government Spending

Last updated on 2013.10.06

Kristi Noem, Snow-Job QueenKristi Noem, Snow-Job Queen
(click for tiara—photo credit: Hardin's Photography)

Eager reader and fellow citizen Greg Olson submits for the record Congresswoman Kristi Noem's official response on why she's perfectly comfortable taking government-supported health care while trying to take it away from millions of less fortunate Americans.

February 10, 2011

Dear Gregory,

Thank you for contacting me regarding health care. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

Many have been curious about the health insurance available to Members of Congress. Members are eligible for private health insurance under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Members receive the same benefits under the same rules as other federal employees. Part of the premium for their health insurance comes out of their paycheck, very similar to employer-sponsored coverage in the private sector.

I have serious concerns about what implementation of the health care law may mean for South Dakota's families, seniors and small businesses. As enacted, the health care bill cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare, which could reduce health care access and quality for South Dakota seniors.

I have talked with numerous small business owners in South Dakota that have serious concerns about their ability to expand, create jobs, and provide continued health coverage for their employees under this law. Many businesses have already seen significant increases in their health insurance premiums in response to the law. Additionally, the law stands to add more job-hindering taxes and regulations to businesses at a time when our economy is slowly recovering and unemployment remains high.

I support repealing the health care law and replacing it with common-sense solutions that will lower health care costs, expand access, and not break the bank. I support a replacement plan that covers people with pre-existing conditions, allows those under the age of 26 to stay on their parent's policy, permits small businesses to pool together to purchase health insurance at a lower cost, allows individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, and enacts meaningful medical liability reform.

Thanks again for reaching out to my office. I want you to know that I value your thoughts and concerns. Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,
Kristi Noem
Member of Congress

Sixteen of Noem's fellow GOP freshmen have put their money where their mouth is and declined to take government health care. They're sacrificing to stand for their principles. Their principles are wrong, but at least they are consistent.

Our gal Kristi, however, knows no such consistency. She continues to engage in wordplay to make herself sound virtuous. Don't say she's taking government-run taxpayer-supported insurance; she's taking employer-sponsored coverage. Don't say she's against health care reform; she's trying to save us all from cuts in government spending on Medicare. Don't say she's against helping young people and folks with pre-existing conditions get affordable insurance; she wants those things, even though her first big vote in Congress was to repeal those exact things. (Kristi, did you really read the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?)

Perhaps the only person who doesn't see the contradictions in those statements is Kristi Noem herself.

* * *

Update 2011.02.11 08:38 CST: Conservatives keep getting this argument wrong... and demonstrating how hard it is for them to defend their snow princess. Mr. Crissman suggests I should tell my mailman, nurse, and National Weather Service meteorologist to give up their government health insurance. But my mailman, nurse, and meteorologist didn't campaign for public office saying that government health insurance is bad. I want my public servants to have public health insurance, because it's the best, most secure insurance available. It's the insurance we trust to take care of our grandparents. I want everyone to at least have the option to buy that insurance---that's the public option the Republicans and insurance companies can't stand, because it would really cut costs and put the lie to the superiority of private-market insurance... as does Kristi Noem's choice of government-run insurance for her own family.

27 Comments

  1. Ed Randazzo 2011.02.10

    Congresswoman Noem as a duly elected representative of the people of South Dakota is eligible for healthcare coverage as she described. By availing herself of this benefit she is not compromising her principles and values nor is she taking coverage from anyone else. Healthcare coverage is not a right. It is not mandated by the Constitution nor is it an enumerated power of the federal government to force our citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. You can count me as one who doesn't see the "contradictions" in Kristi's statement. I know it's hard or you but just get over yourself and accept the fact that you lost the election already.

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.02.10

    Golly, it's not about me, Ed. Kristi Noem says government health insurance is bad. She trusts government health insurance to take care of her children. Did I misread the part of my parent manual about keeping children and bad things apart?

  3. snapper 2011.02.10

    Kristi is much more attractive nowadays as opposed to when she won that award.

  4. snapper 2011.02.10

    Corey,

    Greg should deffinately write a letter to the editor about this. In fact every reader on this blog should!!!!!!!

    I suggest you watch this video of Noem. Her husband Bryon - Gosh I feel really bad for the guy - in these videos it is obviously hard on him to be making a lot of sacrifices. I feel bad for the guy he looks like he is really struggling and doing his best to be supportive.
    http://www.ksfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=13959932+

  5. snapper 2011.02.10

    Noem is a worse political animal than SHS ever was. (and that is saying something)

  6. Nonnie 2011.02.11

    I don't understand why you consider it wrong for Kristi to sign up for the employer sponsored health insurance just because she happens to work for the govt as her employer. It's no different than if she worked for Gehl and signed up for their health insurance plan. The company pays part of the premium, she pays part. It is nothing like Obamacare. It is her employer sponsored health care benefit, same as you might get as a state employee with the college.

  7. snapper 2011.02.11

    I just wonder where she and Bryon got it before and why they changed?

    I mean she already makes $175,000 (just her) + whatever he makes. That is probably about 3 or 4 times what the average South Dakotan makes. Plus when you throw on $3,000,000 in farm subsidies it starts to not look quite like the average South Dakotan she supposedly was before she won. Even if Kristi only recieved $50,000 a year in subsidies personally it is still more than the average south dakotan makes total.

    Kind of hypocritical in my opinion. Plus she shoots harmless little animals in her spare time. Kind of cruel. - She is like a hot version of that guy on the bike in Raising Arizona.

  8. snapper 2011.02.11

    ok so maybe that is over the top and I was kidding.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.02.11

    No, Linda, it's entirely different when her employer is the federal government, whom the Republicans insist is incapable of managing health insurance. (By the way, as a grad assistant, I get no benefits, nothing but a check. I remain self-insured, as I have for most of my adult life, on a fraction of the money Noem makes.)

  10. Curt 2011.02.11

    Unfortunately I see little difference in her position on this and the SHS position on anything that took place in Washington. Apparently neither did South Dakota voters. It is a stretch to call Noem a hypocrite when she follows in the footsteps of the master hypocrite.

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.02.11

    That misses the point, Curt. Noem's hypocrisy stands independently, regardless of whether any predecessor was a hypocrite. If I tell you your poop stinks, you do not mitigate that stink in the slightest by pointing out that the guy who pooped here yesterday also stank.

  12. slhart 2011.02.11

    The people at Gehl that accept the companies health care benefits aren't trying to prevent other deserving people from having similar benefits.

    [Editor's note: Ding ding ding! You are correct! :-) —CAH]

  13. Curt 2011.02.11

    Cory,

    I agree my response was not "to the point" however this does not mitigate the fact that there is a general hypocrisy of politicians. Your Noem/Health care piece is stating the obvious. I will admit I have come to your blog late in the game and therefore do not know what your editorial stance was on the fact that SHS would deny health care to others while taking it herself and undermine the efforts of her own party. I just feel that you end up making people roll their eyes with posts such as this. Thus you elicit responses such as: "SHS lost. Get over it."

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.02.11

    Perfectly reasonable, Curt. And indeed, I likely caught heck from some Dems for my criticism of SHS's unwillingness to support the public option or bolder health care reform. Some might argue that my agitation undermined support for SHS in a close election. But I stand by that criticism and my criticism of Noem for rejecting the kind of health coverage that their own federal coverage shows would be good for everyone. The issue isn't about getting over the election: if SHS had squeaked out a 48% win, I might well be putting up the same post, asking why our Congresswoman wouldn't support making federal health insurance available to everyone. Noem's hypocrisy remains worthy of discussion; the need for bigger, fairer, more effective health insurance reform remains worthy of even more discussion.

  15. tonyamert 2011.02.11

    Let's simply break down her reasoning. First, her section on why she doesn't support the existing health care reform bill:

    "I have serious concerns about what implementation of the health care law may mean for South Dakota’s families, seniors and small businesses. As enacted, the health care bill cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare, which could reduce health care access and quality for South Dakota seniors.

    I have talked with numerous small business owners in South Dakota that have serious concerns about their ability to expand, create jobs, and provide continued health coverage for their employees under this law. Many businesses have already seen significant increases in their health insurance premiums in response to the law. Additionally, the law stands to add more job-hindering taxes and regulations to businesses at a time when our economy is slowly recovering and unemployment remains high."

    Claims:
    1. 500 million will be removed from medicare. This could reduce the quality/availability of senior health care.
    2. Small businesses may suffer because of increased costs caused by the law.

    So for Noem, this is simply an issue of money. She isn't opposed to government sponsored health care (or believes that it is illegal). She just think it's going to increase costs. This doesn't seem unreasonable. The reforms require insurance companies to quit rescission practices, eliminate caps on coverage, and eliminate pre-existing condition denials. This would of course increase costs for insurance companies because these are the critical tools they use to avoid liability (and boost profits). However, I believe that Noem would support elimination of these tools if you asked her directly.

    So, in my opinion, her position is unrealistic. We can't expect to get more without paying more. Unless of course the pool of insured keeps expanding which decreases costs for all.

    Ed-

    Noem supports government health care programs like medicare. So much so that she wants to make sure that $500 million dollars aren't taken away from it. Doesn't this position conflict with your views?

  16. David Newquist 2011.02.11

    The crock runneth over, and triggereth EPA alerts.

    About Congressional health insurance. As my spouse has worked for both a U.S. senator and representative, I have been on Congressional-sponsored health insurance for most of the last 15 years. For ten of those, I have been eligible for Medicare, but we opted to pay the dependent premium on the Congressional insurance because the benefits are vastly superior and the co-pay is affordable. For a brief time we were on a private policy, which was expensive, kept us in constant contention, and the co-pay was prohibitive for many medical procedures recommended by providers.

    The Congressional insurance is administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield under a contract worked out by the federal government. The government contribution makes affordable a policy that people with middle-class incomes simply could not afford. The premiums for dependents are similarly reasonable with coverage that makes preventive maintenance affordable.

    Congressional health insurance is not comparable to the insurance offered by plans through other employers. Its coverage is more extensive, its premiums and co-pay are affordable and manageable, and the criteria for paying out benefits are clear and straightforward. It is generously subsidized by the government. In other plans, every claim has to pass the first test, which is "Is there any way we can deny this claim?"

    When Noem claims that her acceptance of Congressional health insurance is the same as accepting the health benefits of any employer, she prevaricates, and she must know it. If she doesn't know it, she has a Palinesque grasp of facts. Congressional health insurance is highly subsidized by the U.S. Government, has contractual provisions that guarantee coverage, and has co-pay schedules that enables and encourages those covered not to skip recommended, preventative procedures. The comparison of Congressional health coverage with other employer plans is false on every criterion. As my wife lost her coverage with the election and there is no way that we can continue the premiums on our own, I will be going on Medicare. While it provides coverage, the medical resources I have had for 15 year will not be there, and coverage is restricted.

    The hypocrisy is that Noem is electing to avail herself of a level of coverage that she denies to the general public. The whole idea behind the Affordable Health Care Act was to raise the standard of public coverage closer to what Congressional employees have enjoyed. The Republicans absolutely refuse to address the problem of the now-50 million who have no coverage, the majority of people covered who choose not to obtain recommended procedures because they want to stay within family budgets, and those who have lost or vastly reduced coverage because of unemployment, jobs without benefits available or affordable, and surge in the poverty rate, which excludes an increasing number of people. If they have "common-sense solutions that will lower health care costs, expand access, and not break the bank," it is time to put them on the table. But the formulation of that much-despised health care act was done with input from the insurance industry, the providers, and economists. It is formulation of what is possible, which demands some compromises if the general populace is to receive some equity in health care. The bottom line is that one segment of the populace does not want the other segment to have that benefit. And that fact is what all the dissembling among Republicans is all about.

    As for the hypocrisy of politicians. If they stick to the values of their party, they are exclusionary bigots to those not of that party. If they try to represent the spectrum of their constituency. they are hypocrites.

    The representatives reflect what the people want. And it's about time the progressives in South Dakota understand that the advice to leave the state if you don't like it is the shrewdest advice they will ever get. The voters of South Dakota ultimately shape the political agenda of the elected officials, no matter which party. South Dakota is dependent upon federal subsidies for its economy and its social structures, just don't call it welfare. But semantics aside, the voters are very selective about who shall benefit from that welfare. That is the political fact of life in South Dakota. Kristi can avail herself of health-care insurance because it is what Congress has devised for itself, but for anyone else to want it is a matter of socialistic self-service and greed. No hypocrisy involved, of course.

  17. Charlie Johnson 2011.02.11

    Kristi is consistent-she likes insurance coverage that is heavily subsidized, i.e. federal(did i say FEDERAL) crop insurance-now congressional health insurance. Just like the joke i heard from a used car leader on his radio ad this morning, "Even a blind hog can find a ear of corn once in awhile!!".

  18. Curt 2011.02.11

    Mr. Newquist,

    Are you saying SHS lost because she wasn't republican enough? I say she lost because she moved too far to the right. Her stance on health care is one example of being on the the corporate side of issues. Let's take the 2005 Credit Card Company Protection Act. Responding to my question about why government should be protecting credit card companies that dispense high interest rate cards to those that they knew couldn't afford them and were highly likely to default; SHS stated that it was too easy for people to default and declare bankruptcy. When I replied that, at that time, 50% of bankruptcies were caused by high medical expenses (see any correlation here?) I received no answer. Who's bidding was she doing? Our state's citizens or Denny Sanford's. I think you have a very good point about the citizens not grasping what welfare really looks like. Perhaps during the campaign it would have been a great opportunity for SHS to make that case instead of traveling around the state as the "Independent" Voice for South Dakota. Maybe if SHS and the other Blue Dogs now unemployed would have been at least a little more progressive you and your wife would still have health insurance or at least hope that reasonably priced coverage would be available. Pardon me if all this sounds a little too progressive for a South Dakotan. To me it sound like the right thing to do.

  19. David Newquist 2011.02.12

    Curt,

    I did not venture any conjectures as to why SHS lost. During the campaign, I saw it coming, but I am not sure anything, including a party switch by SHS, could have salvaged it. I agree with your stance, to a large degree. Her voting record created diffidence among a large block of her former supporters. They did not see that it would make much of a difference whether they were represented by SHS or KN. SHS chose not to represent them on health care, same sex marriage, credit cards, and a bunch of other issues. Sam Hurst has the most astute analysis. It probably would not have made any difference in the last analysis, but the support of a large block of progressives was tepid, at best. I think her defeat was the Custer syndrome; she divided her support and got conquered. So did every Democrat in the state. And although my losses are a calculated risk in attaching one's fortunes to political activism, the losses to education and infrastructure and the promotion of corporate subsidies over those services affect the entire state, including those misinformed souls who voted for people who can devise only repressive and frivolous legislation. In 2010, Jesus Christ could not have won an election in South Dakota and most of America. You know, Jew liberal.

    The one thing that might come out of all this is if the Republicans get their way with health care. Maybe the jolt can be enough for people to jerk their sleepy little heads out of their colons.

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.02.12

    Tony, alas, Noem can't even enunciate a coherent fiscal conservative position. She picks and chooses the things she wants to spend money on, and the only clear priniciple emerging is self-interest. It costs more for government to provide her family with really good Congressional health coverage than it would for her her to have Byron write up a policy and pay for it out of their own pocket. And she's not interested in seeing ObamaCare find $500 billion in efficiencies in Medicare; she'd rather spin that as throwing Grandma under the bus to increase her vote count among elderly voters.

  21. Ed Randazzo 2011.02.12

    Kurtz: The sewage that emanates from you is fitting for this blog. Your pathetic attempt at erudition wont hunt either.

  22. snapper 2011.02.13

    Curt,

    With all respect SHS didn't lose because she was too far to the left. Had she voted for Health Care she'd have lost by 10+ in SD. Look at Pomeroy...

    SHS lost because...
    #1 - it was a Republican wave.
    #2 - because she didn't campaign
    #3 - because she sat on the fence on big issues
    #4 - because by not campaigning it appeared to Kristi she was avoiding her constituents
    #5 - And my personal opinion she didn't build personal relationships with South Dakotans in the media and higher ranks of society like Daschle did. She was the princess everyone loved because of her dad and grandpa not because they really had a personal relatoinship with her and she took it for granted.

    SHS lost some enthusiasm from her liberal base but had she voted for health care she wouldn't be setup so well for a rematch in the future. She has some work to do with the libs but just like the tea party needs to learn you can't make everyone pass a purity test or you won't have a majority.

  23. snapper 2011.02.13

    Sorry that first sentance should say to the right not left.

  24. Curt 2011.02.13

    Excuse me? "......needs to learn you can’t make everyone pass a purity test or you won’t have a majority." Who controls the House?

  25. snapper 2011.02.13

    Just look at what the purity test cost the GOP in the Senate primaries.

Comments are closed.