This Is What Passes for Leadership in Illinois?

On Friday, August 11, 2017, Bret Baier - Fox News - attempted to substantively interview Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. The "Gov."made sure it didn't happen.

By interview's end, all I could think of was Charles Durning, who played the "Governor" in the "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" singing "The Sidestep!"

                      "Fellow Texans, I'm proudly standing her to humbly say ...
                       I'm for progress and the flag ....
                       I'm for goodness and for profit and for living clean ...

                       "Ooo, I love to dance the little sidestep
                        Now they see me, now they don't, I've come and gone ...
                        I love to cut a wide swath ... and lead the people on."


BAIER: Chicago’s a sanctuary city. Who are you with on this one, President Trump or Mayor Emanuel?

RAUNER: Well, I can tell you this .. one in seven people in Illinois are immigrants. So this is a very, very big issue. ... Our system is broken. We need ... reform. ... thoughtful rational discussion ....

Did the Governor answer? Or "sidestep?"

BAIER: So why shouldn’t Chicago follow federal law?

RAUNER: Well, I tell you this, the system is broken.

Answer? Or sidestep?

BAIER: You have SB-31 on your desk. According to the Chicago Tribute, the bill would prohibit police from searching, arresting, or detaining a person because of their immigration status, absent a federal criminal warrant. It would also create so-called safe zones in state-funded schools, [and] healthcare centers, ... and block state and local enforcement agencies from creating registries based ... national origin. Are you going to sign that bill?

RAUNER: So, our staff is evaluating that bill right now. ... We are meeting with law enforcement agencies and ... leaders in the state to get their views on it.

BAIER: There are some families who say they’ve lost loved ones because of sanctuary policy and they’re trying to meet with you. Do you want to hear that point of view?

RAUNER: I want to hear everybody’s point of view. ... Our immigration system is broken and we need to have a system that keeps the people of Illinois safe ....

BAIER: ... Do you agree with the president or not that sanctuary cities are a problem – yes or no?

RAUNER: Well, I’d tell you this; what I’d say is immigration in America is broken.

Answers? Or sidesteps?

Baier then replayed an interview with Tom Homan, Acting ICE Director.

HOMAN: Sanctuary cities are a criminal’s biggest friend. ... Sanctuary cities not only endanger public safety, they endanger my law enforcement officers.

BAIER: So do you agree with him?

RAUNER: ... If we have criminals who are in this country and committing crimes, we’ve got to get them out and we’ve got to get them prosecuted. ... We’ve got to keep the people if Illinois safe....

So, did Rauner ever answer any of Baier's questions? Who did Rauner say he was with? President Trump or Mayor Emmanuel? Could he even agree that "Chicago should follow federal law!"


Wearying of Rauner's Immigration "sidestep," Bret Baier looked for a straight answer on "Obamacare."

BAIER: President Trump wants to repeal and replace Obamacare, do you agree?

RAUNER: I can tell you so much of our Affordable Healthcare Act is broken, it needs to be repaired. I’ve expressed concerns about what it might do to some of our most vulnerable residents in Illinois ... The insurance exchanges ... are they broken. Look at the rates ... Insurance companies that are dropping out, we need some big changes in the system.

So did the Governor answer any question or reprise the "Sidestep?" Does he support Mr. Trump's call to "repeal and replace?" What specifically did Rauner mean by "repair?"

BAIER: Is President Trump a good president?

RAUNER: I could tell you this, my job as Governor is to work with every President ....

"Now they see me, now they don't, I've come and gone ...."

Rauner, however, was delighted to take partisan shots at Speaker Madigan has "been in office 35 years," during which time Illinois has "had massive job losses, deficits, biggest unfunded pension liabilities in America, ramped corruption (inaudible) patronage, and that Madigan's recent Income Tax hike "will not fix anything."


To be clear, Madigan has been an utter disaster for Illinois. Now after, listening to Gov. Rauner, I am nauseated - nauseated by a smug, pompous politician who thinks it's clever to "sidestep" the interviewer's question. The voters deserve straight answers. Saying it's "broken" repeatedly, isn't a straight answer. Madigan? Rainer? Phooey! A plague on both their houses!

And if Gov. Rauner thinks he get re-elected by pandering to liberals and eschewing his base, he's nuts. How'd it work for Sen. Kirk?


Posted: QCOline.com September 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

How Long Can Illinois Physicians Afford to See Medicaid Patients?

In 2010, Illinois spent $15.5 billion to provide medical care for the poor, according to a recent Associate Press article. (Up from $7.5 billion in 2000.)

The U.S. Census Bureau says that the 2010 Illinois population was 12,830,632. By simple division, the average cost to each resident of Illinois to pay for medical care for the poor is $1,200 per year.

The same said that under the budget passed by the Illinois Legislature, doctors and hospitals have been promised virtually the same fees for services rendered to those on Medicaid that they had received during the prior year. But the amount budgeted to pay for those fees is $1.2 billion short.

The shortfall, however, is only part of the problem. In addition, there are $6 billion of overdue and unpaid medical bills from prior years. Therefore, next year at this time, it appears that there will be $7.2 billion in unpaid medical bills.

Doctors and hospitals will have to wait longer to be paid. A spokesman for the governor suggests a 30-day payment wait might be expected to increase to 120 days.

But is that for "new" bills, or for the bills already six months overdue? In light of this, what can the doctors and the hospitals say other than, "It's better to be paid money eventually, than not to get it at all."

But if doctors and hospitals know they will get paid "eventually," and "eventually" gets 20 percent longer each year, how long will it be before the doctors and the hospitals can no longer wait for "eventually" to happen?

When you buy food from the grocery store and eat it within a few days, it's a little unfair to promise the grocer you will pay him in six months or so. If your grocer is required to pay within 30 days for the meat and potatoes he sells in his store, how is he going to pay his supplier and employees if you don't pay him?

When I was a boy, our family doctor was Dr. Cahill. I don't ever recall going to his office, but I recall him making a house call when I got the chicken pox. But medicine has changed.

Today the practice of medicine is more complex. The doctor is assisted by a clerk/receptionist, an office nurse, a scheduler, an insurance billing assistant, a Medicare billing assistant, etc.

These employees all have to be paid, and the doctor doesn't have the luxury of telling his staff he will pay them in six months or whenever he "eventually" gets paid by the State of Illinois.

When a doctor is forced to wait six months to be paid for seeing Medicaid patients, he had better have a sufficient number of privately insured patients to allow him to meet his employee payroll, to pay for his malpractice insurance, to pay the rent on his office, to pay himself a reasonable salary, etc.

If he doesn't, he won't be in business when "eventually" finally comes. I don't think Dr. Cahill faced these problems.

I think it is fair to say that the state's ability to pay doctors and hospitals isn't going to improve as long as the economy remains in the doldrums, and tax revenues remain low. But then, what happens when Obamacare kicks in?

What happens to those doctors and hospitals who, because of private insurance payments, are now able to wait six months to be paid for services rendered to Medicaid patients?

If doctors' revenues fall sharply, what does that do to their ability to see Medicaid patients, and wait months to be paid? If doctors has to see more non-Medicaid patients (because those patients no longer have private insurance) to keep their revenues at pre-Obamacare levels, does this mean that the doctors and the hospitals will have less time to see Medicaid patients?

I don't know. But if a doctor is used to a certain level of income, and what he can charge patients is reduced, he will need to see more patients to generate the same income. And I suspect, that means, he will be able to see fewer of the poorest patients.

Especially, if the state cuts fees paid, or turns "eventually" into something even longer.



Posted Online: July 6, 2011, 2:53 p. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com

By John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea



John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.