Reform, while desirable in the case of indigent health care in Louisiana, will threaten certain entrenched interests. Thus it is understandable why Michael Butler, LSU Health Sciences Center chief medical officer, might try to present a skewed picture of the quality of indigent care in the state.
Changing the system from a money-given-to-the-institution to a money-follows-the-person regime would pose problems for the charity hospital system run by the Louisiana State University system. Money would flow away from that organization into for-profit and nonprofit providers, in part because patients will choose these other options because of the services available and/or quality of care, and LSU and other state politicians do not want to see that happen because it would mean fewer jobs and less power.
Butler did his best to deny this reality by arguing at a press conference that “[c]ontrary to popular belief, the public hospitals ... are a valued asset for patient care. When people say we are not delivering high quality care, they are not being honest. Most are just too lazy to dig in deeper and pay attention.” Further, he said “There is evidence that charity does better than private.” In fact, as federal statistics show, it is Butler who is not being honest and needs to dig a little deeper and pay attention.
Note that Butler tries to establish two different arguments here, that the charity system is “high quality” and in some ways it is better than the private sector. The first is somewhat misleading: it all depends on how you define “high quality” but, more importantly, what if one could have “highest quality” instead that could come only from outside government hospitals? That connects to the second argument, that if we define the charity system as doing as well as the non-government sector, then perhaps that means there is the “high” or “highest quality” and no significant advantage there could be obtained by shifting more care to private institutions.
But when reviewing federal statistics in four areas, using just as an example the flagship institution in the system, the Medical Center of Louisiana New Orleans (“Big Charity”), it comes up short. These statistics deal with quality in the areas of heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia care, and surgical care improvement/infection prevention. While Big Charity slightly outperforms New Orleans-area non-government hospitals on the first category, it does worse, sometimes much worse, on the other three. The news gets worse for other system hospitals. The other major facility, LSU Health Science Center Shreveport, does a little better relative to its area institutions, but the smaller ones seldom do as well, and sometimes much more badly, on average than their surrounding non-government institutions.
Conclusions drawn in the draft report by the Public Affairs Research Council also cast doubt on the quality of charity hospital indigent care. To quote it, “Overcrowded emergency room and outpatient clinics have caused diagnosis and treatment to be delayed for countless uninsured patients …. Louisiana charity hospitals since the mid-1990s show significant decreases in services delivered while budgets continue to rise.” Butler apparently disputed none of this at the press conference.
Butler trotted out some indicators showing in some areas the system does decently, perhaps even better than the non-government sector. However it is selective and he certainly ignores the substantial evidence that charity hospital performance lags that sector. In doing so, Butler does a disservice to the debate over this issue and appears more as a champion of vested interests than in improving indigent health care in Louisiana.
6.3.07
Report confirms need for LA indigent health care overhaul
I was pleased to see the Louisiana State University Daily Reveille had the brainstorm of serving a public records request on its own administration to pry free a copy of the preliminary report by the Public Affairs Research Council that sent LSU system officials into a tizzy. The report is critical of the money-given-to-the-institution system of indigent health care in Louisiana, while promoting the money-follows-the-person reform resisted by Gov. Kathleen Blanco and the state’s vested health care interests.
However, I am disappointed that I received so little credit in the report, as over the past five months in this space much of what was in this report has already appeared (perhaps in the final draft they will cite my postings). PAR in this report drew almost all of the conclusions that I did: shift to money-follows-the-person to improve quality and efficiency of care, centralize medical education in just a few charity hospitals and dispose of the rest to help achieve these savings, and do not build a grandiose new “Big Charity” hospital in New Orleans as it should be there primarily for medical education, not as a charity provider.
The report makes one excellent point of which I was unaware. Despite medical education of some form occurring in most of the charity system’s units, the report indicates that often these hospitals are behind the times in treatments in many differing areas. Perhaps this is why their outcomes tend to be no better, and are often worse, than nearby non-government institutions. It indicates how a restructuring of medical education could be used to generate more federal dollars for the state in this area.
Disingenuous Montgomery uninterested in lowering taxes
When you get a politician of advanced years and long service such as state Rep. Billy Montgomery, chances are he’s forgotten more about politics than many ever knew. But in his case, some recent statements and actions by him suggest he’s also forgotten more about himself and how to best serve his constituents than they ever would care to know.
Montgomery has prefiled HB 36 which is designed to undo income tax increases courtesy of the so-called “Stelly Plan.” In 2002, the House passed (interestingly enough, the same-named) HB 36 which constitutionally increased these income tax rates, subject to a vote of the people as with any constitutional amendment which led to its narrow adoption.
Montgomery now calls this is mistake. “I believe most people were misled or didn't know exactly what the Stelly Plan did,” he recently said at a public forum. Apparently, “most people” included Montgomery himself, for he was part of the two-thirds legislative majority that voted in favor of HB 36 in 2002. It received exactly the 70 votes needed to pass it along to the Senate. If not misled or he didn’t know exactly the plan’s implications, then by definition he knew what it was about exactly and thereby aided and abetted in misleading people.
Assuming he himself was “misled” or “didn’t know exactly,” being that at the time Montgomery had been a member of the House for 15 years, despite all of that experience, by his own testimony Montgomery appeared to be confused and/or ignorant about the true nature of a bill he was voting on – yet he voted for it anyway rather than opting for a safer vote against. As it was, Montgomery’s vote was the one crucial vote that allowed the measure to continue into law.
In essence, Montgomery is trying to undo what he now calls a mistake, something that by himself alone he could have stopped five years ago had he been a wiser politician. Whether repealing what he foisted on the public years ago now is sufficient penance is one matter. But, the fact is, with this bill Montgomery really isn’t actually asking for an unambiguous tax cut, another matter entirely.
This is because for its provisions to go into effect, his prefiled HB 38 also would have to be passed. Part of that bill would lock in the lower income tax rates. But there’s more to it: another part of the bill would remove the prohibition on the state’s ability to place a sales and use tax on food for home consumption and consumer purchases of natural gas, electricity, water, and prescription drugs.
In other words, Montgomery’s intent is not to cut taxes, it is literally to repeal the Stelly Plan. Because in exchange for lowering income tax rates that by his crucial vote he helped to raise in the first place, he is inviting the Legislature to raise sales taxes. Significantly, these kinds of taxes disproportionately fall upon lower-income families.
The explanation for this behavior is simple: Montgomery, in violation of the spirit of legislative term limits, is running for state Senate District 37 later this year. He has no real interest in cutting taxes because, as his legislative career shows, the Democrat-turned-Republican has been a tax-and-spend liberal and would rather empower government by taking resources from the people than to empower people themselves. He just wants to fool voters in probably the most conservative district in the state into thinking he’s one of them.
If Montgomery were a quality elected official, he would not have made a mistake after 15 years of seasoning he now claims he’s trying to correct. If Montgomery were a true conservative, when the state is sitting on $3.2 billion in surplus funds he would be trying to cut taxes without any chance of raising them in another way, instead of giving with one hand and taking with another – appropriate to his tax-and-spend legislative career.
Either he’s disingenuous, a dunderhead easily misled or confused about his job, or wrong on the issues for District 37. Maybe it’s time for those voters to give Montgomery a retirement he richly deserves. And the guy that should lead him to it is Jay Murrell, but that's a subject for a future posting.
Montgomery has prefiled HB 36 which is designed to undo income tax increases courtesy of the so-called “Stelly Plan.” In 2002, the House passed (interestingly enough, the same-named) HB 36 which constitutionally increased these income tax rates, subject to a vote of the people as with any constitutional amendment which led to its narrow adoption.
Montgomery now calls this is mistake. “I believe most people were misled or didn't know exactly what the Stelly Plan did,” he recently said at a public forum. Apparently, “most people” included Montgomery himself, for he was part of the two-thirds legislative majority that voted in favor of HB 36 in 2002. It received exactly the 70 votes needed to pass it along to the Senate. If not misled or he didn’t know exactly the plan’s implications, then by definition he knew what it was about exactly and thereby aided and abetted in misleading people.
Assuming he himself was “misled” or “didn’t know exactly,” being that at the time Montgomery had been a member of the House for 15 years, despite all of that experience, by his own testimony Montgomery appeared to be confused and/or ignorant about the true nature of a bill he was voting on – yet he voted for it anyway rather than opting for a safer vote against. As it was, Montgomery’s vote was the one crucial vote that allowed the measure to continue into law.
In essence, Montgomery is trying to undo what he now calls a mistake, something that by himself alone he could have stopped five years ago had he been a wiser politician. Whether repealing what he foisted on the public years ago now is sufficient penance is one matter. But, the fact is, with this bill Montgomery really isn’t actually asking for an unambiguous tax cut, another matter entirely.
This is because for its provisions to go into effect, his prefiled HB 38 also would have to be passed. Part of that bill would lock in the lower income tax rates. But there’s more to it: another part of the bill would remove the prohibition on the state’s ability to place a sales and use tax on food for home consumption and consumer purchases of natural gas, electricity, water, and prescription drugs.
In other words, Montgomery’s intent is not to cut taxes, it is literally to repeal the Stelly Plan. Because in exchange for lowering income tax rates that by his crucial vote he helped to raise in the first place, he is inviting the Legislature to raise sales taxes. Significantly, these kinds of taxes disproportionately fall upon lower-income families.
The explanation for this behavior is simple: Montgomery, in violation of the spirit of legislative term limits, is running for state Senate District 37 later this year. He has no real interest in cutting taxes because, as his legislative career shows, the Democrat-turned-Republican has been a tax-and-spend liberal and would rather empower government by taking resources from the people than to empower people themselves. He just wants to fool voters in probably the most conservative district in the state into thinking he’s one of them.
If Montgomery were a quality elected official, he would not have made a mistake after 15 years of seasoning he now claims he’s trying to correct. If Montgomery were a true conservative, when the state is sitting on $3.2 billion in surplus funds he would be trying to cut taxes without any chance of raising them in another way, instead of giving with one hand and taking with another – appropriate to his tax-and-spend legislative career.
Either he’s disingenuous, a dunderhead easily misled or confused about his job, or wrong on the issues for District 37. Maybe it’s time for those voters to give Montgomery a retirement he richly deserves. And the guy that should lead him to it is Jay Murrell, but that's a subject for a future posting.
5.3.07
State's increased cost figures for reform plan dubious
Perhaps the best argument used by opponents of indigent health care reform in Louisiana is that it would cost more money than with the present system. Of course, the argument conveniently ignores that the present cost level helps to produce the worst health outcomes in the nation, and that because reform would make for a more efficient system, that in time better care for less money per patient would result. But it is logical that in the short run, with two systems operating beside each other as the old money-given-to-the-institution system fades away the new money-follows-the-person system will grow, that costs would be higher.
But the revelation of some numbers dealing with indigent care pokes holes in this large increased-cost assertion, even in the short-run – something which the federal government, eager to see the change, has said all along while it’s been the state and the state only that has claimed costs would be quite a bit higher.
Statistics show that money spent on the charity hospital system, some units of which also feature some advanced medical training hard to replicate outside of the public sector, totals $912 million. In addition, $1.1 billion is spent on reimbursements to private institutions dealing with the indigent and those on Medicaid. In other words, over $2 billion is spent mostly on the indigent, with some of it going to medical education and Medicaid reimbursements to institutions. Another $361 million goes to reimbursement of private physicians for Medicaid patients.
In other words, the state spends about $2.4 billion on the indigent and poor (most people on Medicaid would be uninsured without it, essentially making them part of the indigent care system) with some of that used for medical education. It says the indigent portion of that is $935 million, but reform plans it says would cost over twice that.
Reviewing these numbers, the state’s figure doesn’t make sense. Is it arguing that the reform is so expensive that it essentially would double the state’s costs in this area? Then why are other states, some whose relative wealths are similar to Louisiana’s, moving in that direction and no other state maintains a charity system if it’s supposed to work so well? More importantly, does this imply that Louisiana is underfunding care for the poor and indigent by 30 percent presently?
The federal government has conjectured that the real initial extra cost of the system may be as little as $100 million a year. Given that it is hard to believe that a charity system is half the cost of a reformed system where the indigent would be given vouchers to purchase their own health care (then why isn’t every other state doing it?) and that the bulk of $2 billion a year already covers the indigent (which sounds like the state’s estimate, which it never has publicly released the method by which it was calculated, simply is taking most of what is spent on reimbursements to private institutions and saying that is the extra billion), that the federal government’s increased cost projection seems much closer to the truth than the state’s.
But the revelation of some numbers dealing with indigent care pokes holes in this large increased-cost assertion, even in the short-run – something which the federal government, eager to see the change, has said all along while it’s been the state and the state only that has claimed costs would be quite a bit higher.
Statistics show that money spent on the charity hospital system, some units of which also feature some advanced medical training hard to replicate outside of the public sector, totals $912 million. In addition, $1.1 billion is spent on reimbursements to private institutions dealing with the indigent and those on Medicaid. In other words, over $2 billion is spent mostly on the indigent, with some of it going to medical education and Medicaid reimbursements to institutions. Another $361 million goes to reimbursement of private physicians for Medicaid patients.
In other words, the state spends about $2.4 billion on the indigent and poor (most people on Medicaid would be uninsured without it, essentially making them part of the indigent care system) with some of that used for medical education. It says the indigent portion of that is $935 million, but reform plans it says would cost over twice that.
Reviewing these numbers, the state’s figure doesn’t make sense. Is it arguing that the reform is so expensive that it essentially would double the state’s costs in this area? Then why are other states, some whose relative wealths are similar to Louisiana’s, moving in that direction and no other state maintains a charity system if it’s supposed to work so well? More importantly, does this imply that Louisiana is underfunding care for the poor and indigent by 30 percent presently?
The federal government has conjectured that the real initial extra cost of the system may be as little as $100 million a year. Given that it is hard to believe that a charity system is half the cost of a reformed system where the indigent would be given vouchers to purchase their own health care (then why isn’t every other state doing it?) and that the bulk of $2 billion a year already covers the indigent (which sounds like the state’s estimate, which it never has publicly released the method by which it was calculated, simply is taking most of what is spent on reimbursements to private institutions and saying that is the extra billion), that the federal government’s increased cost projection seems much closer to the truth than the state’s.
4.3.07
Make LA state-owned hospitals primarily for teaching
Appropriate to the continuing debate over restructuring of indigent health care in Louisiana with a goal of improving its less efficient, reduced quality-of-outcome nature is whether a best performer in the current charity system can have its characteristics replicated over a larger such system.
Currently, Louisiana in the only state whose indigent health care system relies almost exclusively on a money-goes-to-the-institution rather than a money-follows-the-person system. This has created a situation where the indigent must make pilgrimages to a handful of large institutions for even routine care. The federal government is urging the state to get with the program by revamping the system to allow the indigent to select their own health care options and to make that portable.
Established interests in the state resist ending the institutional bias. They include not just political elites such as Gov. Kathleen Blanco and nursing home operator and state Sen. Joe McPherson, but the Louisiana State University system which has control over the charity hospital system. The federal government mostly has no leverage over trying to influence this change because it has not committed to throwing in extra money as an incentive to pay for transition costs.
28.2.07
Economic development by government does not work
The latest news on Shreveport’s convention center’s finances contained more bad news than boosters of it imagined. Brought to fruition along with its associated hotel by former mayor Keith Hightower, with legislative assistance by current Mayor Cedric Glover, it ran up a larger deficit for the past year than predicted, nearly $2 million – despite the fact it did more business than predicted.
City and operating officials naturally found a number of extraneous factors to try to explain this away, but in doing so ignored the reality that the benefits brought about by the center and its accompanying hotel never will bring greater benefits than costs to the city. Even the simplest analysis of the numbers, using just rough estimates of debt repayment, operating expenses, and generous guesses about tax revenues generated, show only the most unrealistic assumptions forecast anything but annual losses from significant to staggering.
Meanwhile, the city carries a huge debt approaching $1 billion thanks in part to the approximately $150 million spent on these items, while simultaneously it needs hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure repairs with little left on its debt ceiling to take care of them in the near future. Spending the amounts the city blew on these items, combined with the extra borrowing capacity that would have been freed up could have taken care of about half of the infrastructure problems, and the $1 million annually the center is expected to lose (within a decade; officials admit losses will exceed that for now) could have paid for things like improved crime-fighting and athletic conference headquarters with plenty left over.
Policy-makers knew these things, yet built the center and hotel (when the private sector refused to do so) anyway, because of reasons of ego, political gain, and to put more money at the trough so that their friends and special interests could benefit at the public’s expense. But, most importantly of all, they tried to justify this with the ridiculous notion that it is government, not people, who provide the spark for economic development.
Unfortunately, this behavior is not limited to the west bank of the Red River. Bossier City’s leaders also have committed follies of this sort, spending about half of what Shreveport did on an arena and parking garage that also never will have the benefits of their operations exceed their costs without similar wildly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions. Their stupidity is only slightly less because they did it with cash rather than debt – but cash that could have been used to make Bossier City an economic development dream rather than a home for revenue-draining monuments to elected officials.
Both cases should provide ample warning to the citizenry and the prospective voters among them to beware politicians who say economic development comes from spending the people’s money in building buildings rather than allowing citizens to keep it and getting government out of their way.
City and operating officials naturally found a number of extraneous factors to try to explain this away, but in doing so ignored the reality that the benefits brought about by the center and its accompanying hotel never will bring greater benefits than costs to the city. Even the simplest analysis of the numbers, using just rough estimates of debt repayment, operating expenses, and generous guesses about tax revenues generated, show only the most unrealistic assumptions forecast anything but annual losses from significant to staggering.
Meanwhile, the city carries a huge debt approaching $1 billion thanks in part to the approximately $150 million spent on these items, while simultaneously it needs hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure repairs with little left on its debt ceiling to take care of them in the near future. Spending the amounts the city blew on these items, combined with the extra borrowing capacity that would have been freed up could have taken care of about half of the infrastructure problems, and the $1 million annually the center is expected to lose (within a decade; officials admit losses will exceed that for now) could have paid for things like improved crime-fighting and athletic conference headquarters with plenty left over.
Policy-makers knew these things, yet built the center and hotel (when the private sector refused to do so) anyway, because of reasons of ego, political gain, and to put more money at the trough so that their friends and special interests could benefit at the public’s expense. But, most importantly of all, they tried to justify this with the ridiculous notion that it is government, not people, who provide the spark for economic development.
Unfortunately, this behavior is not limited to the west bank of the Red River. Bossier City’s leaders also have committed follies of this sort, spending about half of what Shreveport did on an arena and parking garage that also never will have the benefits of their operations exceed their costs without similar wildly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions. Their stupidity is only slightly less because they did it with cash rather than debt – but cash that could have been used to make Bossier City an economic development dream rather than a home for revenue-draining monuments to elected officials.
Both cases should provide ample warning to the citizenry and the prospective voters among them to beware politicians who say economic development comes from spending the people’s money in building buildings rather than allowing citizens to keep it and getting government out of their way.
27.2.07
Judge's actions usurp authority, deny Odom speedy justice
Nowhere yesterday were the disadvantages of judge-made law more evident than in the actions concerning the corruption trial of Louisiana Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom, risking a just conclusion to the affair and complicating voters’ task in his upcoming reelection bid..
First, Judge Donald Johnson of the 19th state District threw out two of the six counts by substituting his own interpretation of the law. These regarded money laundering, over a technicality where state law appeared only to make illegal such schemes involving cash rather than checks.
Disregarding the fact that legally checks act as cash if they don’t overdraw and are signed by someone with the legal power to do so, and that it was extremely unlikely that the Legislature intended to make money laundering by cash illegal but not that by check, Johnson decided these charges had to be severed from the case. Properly, if he had any doubts at all, Johnson should have investigated legislative intent, which is appropriate for judges to use in gray areas such as this, rather than substitute his own opinion about what he thought the statute meant, which is inappropriate.
The severing of the two counts itself was controversial. Johnson had done the same in an earlier phase of the trial but was overruled by the Louisiana Supreme Court, saying the case had to go together as a package. Prosecutors argued Louisiana law permits only they to decide whether to sever so the entire case should be heard by a higher court. Because prosecutors did not want to go along with Johnson once again taking the law into his own hands, he dismissed the entire case. Fortunately, prosecutors will appeal the action.
Johnson (who has a history of playing fast and loose with judicial interpretation) based his usurpation on a belief that the case, after four years had to “move forward.” But in taking these actions, he actually is slowing down the process by forcing more appeals that, if previous rulings are a guide, will serve only to mandate restarting the process in the first place. (In fact, it has been going on so long that there was question whether Johnson had jurisdiction in the case any more.)
If Odom truly is innocent, he should welcome expeditious efforts to clear his name. Instead, his legal team has seemed to care more about filing motions and trying to stop the trial than to get it over with so he can show his innocence, if he is, to the world
And voters deserve this as well. Already Democrat Odom has drawn Republican state Rep. Mike Strain as an opponent. Dragging out the trial by questionable rulings from Johnson only serves to interject the case squarely into the election itself. Speedy completion of the entire trial, which is what the prosecutors argue will happen if, as they contend, their motion to appeal removes it from Johnson and send it to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, for these reasons is highly desirable.
First, Judge Donald Johnson of the 19th state District threw out two of the six counts by substituting his own interpretation of the law. These regarded money laundering, over a technicality where state law appeared only to make illegal such schemes involving cash rather than checks.
Disregarding the fact that legally checks act as cash if they don’t overdraw and are signed by someone with the legal power to do so, and that it was extremely unlikely that the Legislature intended to make money laundering by cash illegal but not that by check, Johnson decided these charges had to be severed from the case. Properly, if he had any doubts at all, Johnson should have investigated legislative intent, which is appropriate for judges to use in gray areas such as this, rather than substitute his own opinion about what he thought the statute meant, which is inappropriate.
The severing of the two counts itself was controversial. Johnson had done the same in an earlier phase of the trial but was overruled by the Louisiana Supreme Court, saying the case had to go together as a package. Prosecutors argued Louisiana law permits only they to decide whether to sever so the entire case should be heard by a higher court. Because prosecutors did not want to go along with Johnson once again taking the law into his own hands, he dismissed the entire case. Fortunately, prosecutors will appeal the action.
Johnson (who has a history of playing fast and loose with judicial interpretation) based his usurpation on a belief that the case, after four years had to “move forward.” But in taking these actions, he actually is slowing down the process by forcing more appeals that, if previous rulings are a guide, will serve only to mandate restarting the process in the first place. (In fact, it has been going on so long that there was question whether Johnson had jurisdiction in the case any more.)
If Odom truly is innocent, he should welcome expeditious efforts to clear his name. Instead, his legal team has seemed to care more about filing motions and trying to stop the trial than to get it over with so he can show his innocence, if he is, to the world
And voters deserve this as well. Already Democrat Odom has drawn Republican state Rep. Mike Strain as an opponent. Dragging out the trial by questionable rulings from Johnson only serves to interject the case squarely into the election itself. Speedy completion of the entire trial, which is what the prosecutors argue will happen if, as they contend, their motion to appeal removes it from Johnson and send it to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, for these reasons is highly desirable.
26.2.07
Likely GOP LA success may foreshadow 2008 elections
Louisiana Republicans, both candidates and supporters, should take heart that an observer of politics in the state who often displays poor judgment in its analysis has written the Democrats might do well in the 2007 state elections. Such a Pollyanna attitude in the face of present evidence only will serve to make his party’s state fate more miserable in the fall while ignoring that Louisiana GOP gains may signal future national electoral fortunes.
Actually, columnist Wiley Hilburn’s miscalculation at least does not rise to the level of imbecility shown in some of previous efforts – here, it’s just bad judgment. Hilburn argues that Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco shouldn’t do so badly against Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal because (1) Jindal is so closely tied to an “unpopular” Pres. George W. Bush, (2) that Blanco is potentially popular in northern Louisiana which could spread across the state, and (3) the other Democrat candidate Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell can be popular enough to detach votes from Jindal.
None of this is true. Bush may be having troubles in other states, but not Louisiana. The last poll done of his job approval in the state, November, 2006, showed just a narrow 51-47 disapproval of Bush – and as his numbers have gone up nationally in the past three months, he well may have moved into positive territory in the state.
In the only nonpartisan statewide poll of the governor’s race to date (which itself is over a month old), Jindal was cleaning Blanco’s clock by over 25 points. Campbell, as it turns out, essentially takes away just a few percentage points from Blanco only. Interestingly, Jindal’s lead is narrowest in north Louisiana – but it’s still a lead, and this in the least populated region of the state with (using Campbell’s district as a proxy for north Louisiana) over 38 percent of the population being black, means Jindal is pulling 76 percent of the white vote to Blanco’s 13 percent in the region. And, to remind, only six percent in the statewide poll were undecided at this point, meaning Blanco has little room to improve. (Hilburn’s scientific way of countering this evidence – Blanco got what he thought was an enthusiastic reception at two engagements.)
To confirm the absurdity of Hilburn’s supposition, in the past three special election contests with any partisan competition, the insurance commissioner’s race did not even feature a Democrat, for the secretary of state’s contest a Democrat barely made the general election runoff and promptly withdrew, and in the District 1 House race, a Republican swamped the field in a district previously held by a Democrat. A lot can happen over the next nine months, but all signs indicate decent, perhaps spectacular, GOP gains in Louisiana; any Democrat operative lacking cognizance of this to incorporate into his electoral strategy endangers his party’s chances later this year.
And it would not be an accident for the state to be a bellwether for the rest of the country. Witness the GOP mayoral and statehouse wins in 1993 right after Democrat wins the previous year, foreshadowing the big Republican gains of 1994. Or check out the 2005 statehouse gains made by the Democrats preceding last year’s Congressional change in power. With this anticipated result, if also the GOP continues to consolidate power in Mississippi and Republicans retain the Kentucky statehouse, more than likely, rather than a laggard of Democrat national forces as Hilburn muses, Louisiana will turn out to be the leading indicator for 2008 demonstrating recent national Democrat gains were idiosyncratic and temporary.
Actually, columnist Wiley Hilburn’s miscalculation at least does not rise to the level of imbecility shown in some of previous efforts – here, it’s just bad judgment. Hilburn argues that Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco shouldn’t do so badly against Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal because (1) Jindal is so closely tied to an “unpopular” Pres. George W. Bush, (2) that Blanco is potentially popular in northern Louisiana which could spread across the state, and (3) the other Democrat candidate Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell can be popular enough to detach votes from Jindal.
None of this is true. Bush may be having troubles in other states, but not Louisiana. The last poll done of his job approval in the state, November, 2006, showed just a narrow 51-47 disapproval of Bush – and as his numbers have gone up nationally in the past three months, he well may have moved into positive territory in the state.
In the only nonpartisan statewide poll of the governor’s race to date (which itself is over a month old), Jindal was cleaning Blanco’s clock by over 25 points. Campbell, as it turns out, essentially takes away just a few percentage points from Blanco only. Interestingly, Jindal’s lead is narrowest in north Louisiana – but it’s still a lead, and this in the least populated region of the state with (using Campbell’s district as a proxy for north Louisiana) over 38 percent of the population being black, means Jindal is pulling 76 percent of the white vote to Blanco’s 13 percent in the region. And, to remind, only six percent in the statewide poll were undecided at this point, meaning Blanco has little room to improve. (Hilburn’s scientific way of countering this evidence – Blanco got what he thought was an enthusiastic reception at two engagements.)
To confirm the absurdity of Hilburn’s supposition, in the past three special election contests with any partisan competition, the insurance commissioner’s race did not even feature a Democrat, for the secretary of state’s contest a Democrat barely made the general election runoff and promptly withdrew, and in the District 1 House race, a Republican swamped the field in a district previously held by a Democrat. A lot can happen over the next nine months, but all signs indicate decent, perhaps spectacular, GOP gains in Louisiana; any Democrat operative lacking cognizance of this to incorporate into his electoral strategy endangers his party’s chances later this year.
And it would not be an accident for the state to be a bellwether for the rest of the country. Witness the GOP mayoral and statehouse wins in 1993 right after Democrat wins the previous year, foreshadowing the big Republican gains of 1994. Or check out the 2005 statehouse gains made by the Democrats preceding last year’s Congressional change in power. With this anticipated result, if also the GOP continues to consolidate power in Mississippi and Republicans retain the Kentucky statehouse, more than likely, rather than a laggard of Democrat national forces as Hilburn muses, Louisiana will turn out to be the leading indicator for 2008 demonstrating recent national Democrat gains were idiosyncratic and temporary.
25.2.07
LSU system charges of others' bias appears hypocritical
A favorite tactic of those losing an argument is to try to impugn the proponents of the prevailing side. Academicians properly trained particularly try to refute opposing views by pointing to problems of data, research method, and logic in interpretation. Thus, it is sad to see the top academic official in Louisiana’s most prestigious university system trying to discredit study results by trying to shoot the messenger.
Louisiana State University system President Bill Jenkins had harsh words for a study soon to be released by the Public Affairs Research Council, whose contents remain unknown in detail precisely because PAR is circulating its contents to interested parties before making public a final version. It deals with health care redesign in Louisiana.
This is a highly unusual, pre-emptive step, to make public this discontent before report contents even are known. As such, we can speculate that PAR finds the current indigent health care system in the state, largely overseen by LSU hospitals, to be inferior to redesign arguments to move it away from a money-goes-to-the-institution (used only by Louisiana) to a money-follows-the-person regime because that will produce better overall patient outcomes with money being more efficiently spent.
We don’t know this, but from Jenkins’ criticism, that would be the implication, as Jenkins publicly terms it “inaccurate, incomplete, unrealistic and biased.” Whether so is best left to analyzing the report after its release, but Jenkins destroys the credibility of his statement in advance when he then argues the conclusions are tainted as PAR's research was at least partially funded by private health care providers that, as Jenkins contends, “will profit from dismantling the state's existing health care delivery system.”
Never mind that PAR has strict procedures that guard against such bias being introduced into work, much less that any such bias should be obvious in any issued report thus meaning Jenkins’ criticisms at this time are unnecessary and premature. But most laughable is the kettle-calling-the-pot-black situation here, as LSU and the state are just as easily charged with lack of objectivity on this matter.
Let’s think about this, who is Jenkins employed by? That’s right, the LSU Board of Supervisors who have consistently knocked any change in policy that would take hundreds of millions of dollars out of their pockets and reduce their number of employees by thousands. Let’s face it, by their own definition of who is “unbiased” to study the policy, Jenkins and LSU are hypocrites.
Unfortunately, academia in Louisiana often is seen as overly-politicized, and Jenkins’ (and no doubt therefore the Board’s, his employer’s) remarks and actions in this situation do nothing to suggest otherwise. (As an employee of the LSU system of whom technically Jenkins is my boss, the views expressed here obviously are mine and not those of the LSU system or of my direct employer LSUS … but I wish on the matter of health care redesign we agreed.)
Louisiana State University system President Bill Jenkins had harsh words for a study soon to be released by the Public Affairs Research Council, whose contents remain unknown in detail precisely because PAR is circulating its contents to interested parties before making public a final version. It deals with health care redesign in Louisiana.
This is a highly unusual, pre-emptive step, to make public this discontent before report contents even are known. As such, we can speculate that PAR finds the current indigent health care system in the state, largely overseen by LSU hospitals, to be inferior to redesign arguments to move it away from a money-goes-to-the-institution (used only by Louisiana) to a money-follows-the-person regime because that will produce better overall patient outcomes with money being more efficiently spent.
We don’t know this, but from Jenkins’ criticism, that would be the implication, as Jenkins publicly terms it “inaccurate, incomplete, unrealistic and biased.” Whether so is best left to analyzing the report after its release, but Jenkins destroys the credibility of his statement in advance when he then argues the conclusions are tainted as PAR's research was at least partially funded by private health care providers that, as Jenkins contends, “will profit from dismantling the state's existing health care delivery system.”
Never mind that PAR has strict procedures that guard against such bias being introduced into work, much less that any such bias should be obvious in any issued report thus meaning Jenkins’ criticisms at this time are unnecessary and premature. But most laughable is the kettle-calling-the-pot-black situation here, as LSU and the state are just as easily charged with lack of objectivity on this matter.
Let’s think about this, who is Jenkins employed by? That’s right, the LSU Board of Supervisors who have consistently knocked any change in policy that would take hundreds of millions of dollars out of their pockets and reduce their number of employees by thousands. Let’s face it, by their own definition of who is “unbiased” to study the policy, Jenkins and LSU are hypocrites.
Unfortunately, academia in Louisiana often is seen as overly-politicized, and Jenkins’ (and no doubt therefore the Board’s, his employer’s) remarks and actions in this situation do nothing to suggest otherwise. (As an employee of the LSU system of whom technically Jenkins is my boss, the views expressed here obviously are mine and not those of the LSU system or of my direct employer LSUS … but I wish on the matter of health care redesign we agreed.)
24.2.07
Special elections signal trouble for incumbents, Democrats
Two trends concerning 2007 elections to the Louisiana Legislature hypothesize that revulsion against incumbents will magnify to the benefit of Republicans. Special House elections today presented no signs of invalidating either supposition.
While none of the contests obviously featured an incumbent, two of them had a candidate who was a high-profile incumbent in another position. In District 4, Shreveport City Councilman Calvin “Ben” Lester found himself out in the cold, missing a runoff from the all black Democrat field that sent former Caddo Parish Commissioner Patrick Williams and former City Councilman Larry Ferdinand to next month’s election. Lester certainly did not help his own cause with recent ethical problems concerning both campaign finance and legal services issues.
In District 1, current Caddo Parish Commissioner Jim Morris did win (going away) – but he also was a Republican in a formerly Democrat district deemed very vulnerable for takeover as a result of term limits (prematurely in this case becaue of the untimely death of Roy “Hoppy” Hopkins). This result, combined with the special election result for Senate District 16 in December, would seem to indicate that in this kind of district an experienced Republican will do well, but in other districts where term limits have kicked in, woe be an incumbent legislator of any party facing a quality opponent.
A few elections a trend doesn’t make, but simultaneously they demonstrate anti-current-legislative-incumbency and GOP momentum may play big roles in elections later this year.
While none of the contests obviously featured an incumbent, two of them had a candidate who was a high-profile incumbent in another position. In District 4, Shreveport City Councilman Calvin “Ben” Lester found himself out in the cold, missing a runoff from the all black Democrat field that sent former Caddo Parish Commissioner Patrick Williams and former City Councilman Larry Ferdinand to next month’s election. Lester certainly did not help his own cause with recent ethical problems concerning both campaign finance and legal services issues.
In District 1, current Caddo Parish Commissioner Jim Morris did win (going away) – but he also was a Republican in a formerly Democrat district deemed very vulnerable for takeover as a result of term limits (prematurely in this case becaue of the untimely death of Roy “Hoppy” Hopkins). This result, combined with the special election result for Senate District 16 in December, would seem to indicate that in this kind of district an experienced Republican will do well, but in other districts where term limits have kicked in, woe be an incumbent legislator of any party facing a quality opponent.
A few elections a trend doesn’t make, but simultaneously they demonstrate anti-current-legislative-incumbency and GOP momentum may play big roles in elections later this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)