They may not have made a convincing case, but they made it to enough people to get the first job done! Organizers of the "Any Willing Provider" initiative have submitted 29,000 signatures to the Secretary of State to place that measure on the 2014 South Dakota ballot.
29,000—wow! Organizer Emmett Reistroffer took an issue that's more complicated than the Democrats' minimum-wage initiative, harder to explain fully and honestly in seconds, and still managed to collect 3,000 more signatures than the Democrats. Maybe Independent gubernatorial candiate Mike Myers helped push the issue along with his call to bust the trusts. Maybe framing it as "Patient Choice" in an environment where the GOP scream machine has conditioned people to think they are losing medical choice at the hands of other regulations greased the signature-gathering process.
Or maybe the well-heeled doctors backing "Any Willing Provider" just had the money to hire lots of petition hawkers.
Whichever way, well done, Emmett! I always look forward to a chance for more public policy discourse and more items to mark on my ballot.
It's hard to know what accounts for the discrepancy in number of signatures, but it could be as simple as funding--who could afford more field staff to take the petition more places.
However, my money would be on the simplest explanation: The titles of the initiatives themselves. Any minimum-wage increase is automatically going to alienate the Fox "news" segment of the population, which is significant in Our Fair State. Meanwhile, regardless of how confusing the actual initiative might be, "Any Willing Provider" sounds like Freedom™ with extra freedom berries on top. It's like asking people to sign a petition for puppies and sunshine.
Every time I went to the post office there was sorry to say some grungy libertarian with a clipboard. Only once was I asked to sign. The seller didn't know his product and I did. No sale.
I'd buy that, Chris! My friend Toby's experience with these signature gatherers wasn't as bad as Vincent's, but he agreed that the petitioneers he encountered in Brookings didn't seem well-versed in their "product." Nonetheless, they got lots of signatures. Perhaps quantity of gatherers outperforms quality? Or perhaps Vincent and Toby simply lucked out and saw the worst gatherers?
I need a lot more education on the consequences of this measure but I'm afraid it will pass for the reasons Chris S. stated, what red blooded American doesn't love freedom?
Will this measure make it harder for insurance companies to negotiate lower prices by not having the in or out of network hammer to use against providers, or will insurance companies be able to more easily lower health care costs by establishing low ball reimbursment rates that providers can accept or refuse knowing someone will accept them?
I need someone much more knowledgeable than I am to explain this measure.
Jackley is supposed to explain the details of this mystery to all of us lackeys that still do not get it. I think that you are correct Mr. Nemec in being out in the dark on this one. Maybe the key to it all is to see who is the money behind it and then we can see who will be the benefactors and draw our own conclusions. The project or magical mystery tour, of selling this unknown to the 29,000 of us yokels, was impressive. Right now, insurance agents and encyclopedia salesfolks are wanting to know how they did it so they can replicate it for sales.
Jerry's admonition to follow the money might be the best advice on this measure. We might follow it to the doctors or we might follow it to the insurance companies or we might follow it to the giant medical corporations who dominate healthcare in South Dakota. I doubt we'll follow it to consumers pocketbooks.
We really need a non-biased third party to study this measure and develop a voter guide listing pros and cons.
Democracy for sale is kind of our new meme Mr. Nemec and it should sicken us all. We see that a corporation is now the same as a human for better or worse. If that does not cause one to pause, nothing will. Yet we welcome that as the new us. Maybe South Dakota is the test tube for a new provocative sales approach to sell an empty bottle with this "willing provider" slogan. As we all know, there is no substance to this, so 29,000 of us just bought into a vacuum, or they are brilliant. Maybe in the end, we shall find that the "Willing provider" is actually something like a brothel that peddles marijuana on the side.
Brothels that also peddle marijuana would be a more transparent business model than most of the health care "industry".
One thing that no one discusses to much is the high costs of the medical providers and the hospitals themselves. Somehow we tend to look at them as the great and powerful that are above question. They put a stick in your mug and make you say awww and then bill you whatever it is they feel is correct for the moment. The patient is out a couple of hundred bucks and his foot still hurts. The racket they have going is really kind of a cartel that price gouges with impunity. I have seen the CPT books and you could actually use them as an anvil if the need suited you.
Prof. David Schultz wrote a passionate post criticizing ACA sharply. He offers sound support for consideration. schultzstake.blogspot.com
A passionate post? Not hardly, more like the same ole same ole. Look, we all get it, it is a republican idea. Since when is an idea identified as being good or bad simply because of party affiliation. This is not so simple. In my view, we need to at least let it all fall into place before we make a call to kill it or praise it. I suppose the fact that pre-existing conditions are no long involved or that coverage limits are no longer applicable or that women do not pay more than men or that children can stay on their parents plan until age 26 regardless of status, etc etc. That is all there now. In January, my wife gets a better plan for a significant saving to us. Thanks Republicans or whomever.
I have read the blog from Schulz in the past and know that he has his opinion on how the world spins. Good for him, but his words are like all that we see, words that are only there to help us think for ourselves. In this case, I feel that he is way to far ahead of himself and should calm down with the rhetoric of party affiliation and their good points and bad points. We are all American here first.
Now, what is his opinion of the willing provider?
Jerry, I read Schultz's stuff on a regular basis and have listened to him in different media and venues here in MN. He's generally level headed and thoughtful. He's not a ranter and he's not partisan. In fact, I've felt that he leans just a little to the left.
I don't discount his opinions. On the other hand, I don't agree with him every time, but I do find him enlightening.
One of the conclusions I've drawn from all the work and writing about ACA is that single payer really is the only way to go.
Deb, I could not agree more with you about the single payer. We do not have it yet and this is the best we could get under the circumstances. Yes Obama had a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, but what kind of Democrats? Take a look at Blanche Lincoln or even our own Stephanie, or Bacus they would not allow it period. Why is it so difficult to understand that sometimes you need to compromise to deliver change, any kind of change. I am confident that as the years go by, we shall have a single payer in the not to distant future through that little magic called voting. We can start right here in South Dakota and get rid of some sorry weight that holds us all back.
Schultz may not seem partisan, but in this rant, he comes across that way.
Despite all the criticism heaped on these poor college kids for their methods, they seem to have been wildly successful. And now that they are legislating from the masses instead of through the legislatures like they should be, they will probably win. The various Howites, who are all backing Mr. Nelson this year, would be wise to take some notes from these young people for their next insaner initiative.