Unless you’ve been under a rock, you’ve heard that Governor Tim Pawlenty has declined the discretionary federal health care money that comes with PPACA:
Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty Tuesday ordered all state agencies to not to submit applications to any health care funding from the federal government related to the health care overhaul.
Any applications must be either required by law or approved by the governor’s office.
Pawlenty, who appears to be gearing up for a run for president in 2012, has long decried the health care overhaul, which opponents call Obamacare, and has pledged to join a lawsuit to undo it.
“Obamacare is an intrusion by the federal government into personal health care matters and it’s an explosion of federal spending that does nothing to make health care more affordable,” Pawlenty said in a news release.
That last sentence is when I wish there were more real reporters. Could you push him on any of those last statements? Just one follow-up question in what I am sure will be any number of articles on what this means for his Presidential bid?
Notice that Gov. Pawlenty isn’t stopping all of PPACA. He even requested money for abstinence only education from PPACA. Nor has he stopped seniors from getting their Medicare donut hole $250 checks (the elderly vote, you know).
But look, if he has a point, I’d like to hear it. I would hope the media would try and seek it out. Help us to understand how this stand helps the people of Minnesota (whom he represents right now). Help us to understand how this helps the businesses of Minnesota, many of whom have already applied for reinsurance grants (they could use the help). Help us to understand how blocking this one tiny piece of the law does more good than harm.
Instead, we get things this (emphasis mine):
Leaving aside now the substantive merits of the Minnesota governor’s executive order, barring some huge development, opposition to ObamaCare will be one of THE animating battles of the war for the Republican nomination. Pawlenty’s move allows him to argue that he stood on the frontlines as an elected official and tried to thwart the law through aggressive means.
“Leaving aside now the substantive merits”? Are you kidding? How about you leave aside the politics of a Presidential election that is more than two years off, is impossible to predict at this time, and likely will go through any number of “Game Changes” between now and then. You can cover those in your next book.
How about you actually explain the substantive merits first?
