Dump Bachmann Readers' Q-and-A with Bachmann Opponent Bob Anderson

Interview

Dump Bachmann readers' Q-and-A with Bachmann opponent Bob Anderson

Here is the online question-and-answer session with 6th District congressional candidate Bob Anderson. Anderson is a dental health technician who lives in Woodbury. He plans to challenge Michele Bachmann in November and hopes to debate with her and the other candidates in a public forum soon.

Anderson is running on the Independence Party (IP) ticket, but did not receive the endorsement of the IP. Instead, the IP decided not to run an endorsed candidate this year and to support DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg.

Anderson's decision to run anyway led this writer to damn him as "just another splitter," a candidate who stood no chance of winning but could help the Bachmann campaign by drawing away votes from her more likely opponents on election day. I don't intend to vote for Mr. Anderson--but after he wrote into the blog I was pleased to find out that he is a forthcoming and personable conservative candidate who is particularly passionate about mental illness health care reforms.

So here are some questions and comments for Bob Anderson, followed by his answers to the commenters. I've put the topics in order, corrected some spelling and some grammar, and left out the commenters' names to make the reading easier.

Comment: (Mr. Anderson said he is) "Not a supporter of Universal Health Care run by the government. Interested in having individuals being able to get the same access as those in employer sponsor's plan."

So, my employer, public school health plan that costs $10,000+ out of pocket in premiums for family coverage and then only covers 80% of costs: He wants that for everyone? And then we can only see a Doctor that Health PArtners authorizes, not our own. Good plan buddy.

Anderson: …thank you for your feedback. What I mean about access and cost is that you should be able to purchase a plan like a health savings account or any major plan available,at the same rate and qualifying eligibility as when you apply under a employee sponsored plan. There should be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, and you should be able to go to the doctor of your choice. You should also be able to take a tax deduction for your premiums and I also think companies that provide great health insurance should receive credit also. Private insurance will have to change their ways if they want to participate in this arena along with government plans. I am not against some participation of government, I just don't think they should be the only choice.

Comment: What does the following quote from Bob Anderson mean? "I am very interested in mental health parity. Michele Bachmann voted against that bill. They own six mental health parity - her and her husband." I have no clue about this issue, or what this refers to, or what it means that Michele and her husband "own six mental health parity."

Anderson: The mental health parity bill originated with Senator Paul Wellstone. The bill has been in congress for over 12 years. The bill would require health insurance companies that offer coverage for mental health, to cover mental and physical equally. They are treated with different co-pays, higher deductibles, less visits allowed, and life time caps. This is and has been one of the most universal forms of discrimination. This illness affects all walks of life, all races, gender, religions, lifestyle preferences ,cultures. Every human being should have the same coverage for your brain illnesses as with any other physical illnesses. Insurance companies have gotten away with this for too long and it is finally time to put an end to it.

Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus own six mental health care clinics with twenty-seven psychologists. One of the most important aspects of this bill would help break down the stigma associated with this disease. I find it unacceptable that anyone in this profession would be against passage of this bill. It is a clear example of putting insurance lobbyist interests head of benefiting society. I welcome the debate with Congresswoman Bachmann on this issue.

(Dump Bachmann contributor Karl Bremer added: "The Mental Health Parity legislation was championed by Wellstone. It would require health insurance companies to provide equal coverage for mental health as well as physical health. I think the writer meant to say "own six mental health clinics, not parity, referring to the Bachmanns' pray-away-the-gay mental health.")

Comment: It sounds like Bob has hold of a very important issue there (mental health parity) and I respect his passion about it. My layman's opinion is that it's not going to resonate very widely in the 6th district (where issues like the economy, energy, transportation, infrastructure, home foreclosures and the wars in the Middle East seem to be dominating the debate.) But I'd like to hear Bob discuss the issue at candidate debates, since so many Minnesota families are affected by it.

Anderson: The parity bill is what drew me into the political arena. I am not a one issue candidate. I will resonate with the people of district 6 because I am the candidate in the race that is most connected with your average everyday working class American. I will not be influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups. My two opponents are a lawyer and a lobbyist!

Comment: I read the media coverage of the debate about the Independence Party's decision to support Tinklenberg. That coverage suggested that your remark about getting God back into the school curriculum cost you support in the IP. Could you tell us exactly what you said at that time, what you meant, and how you'd implement that policy?

Anderson: What I said at the convention and what I still believe, and it is just my personal opinion. I feel that two poor decisions made by public education were to take discipline, and the mention of God out of the public school system. I attended both Catholic grade school and public high school so I am speaking from personal experience. We had strict discipline at the Catholic school but even though it was to a lesser degree, the public education I received at Richfield High School the teachers and staff were the boss and you respected their authority. God was permitted to be mentioned about and they were not promoting any certain religion. I just don't feel it was hurting anything. I am not asking to put God or discipline back into the public education system. I feel parents should have a choice to send their children to the school of choice.

I feel teachers should be able to concentrate on the skills they have achieved to educate students and not have to be putting up with all the distractions of poor behavior because they can't discipline without getting sued. I feel education needs to start in the home, but having saying that I think parents should have a choice in education.

Comment: Bob, could you clarify your position on abortion?

1) Are you in favor of overturning Roe v Wade?

2) If abortion was again illegal, what criminal penalties would you impose on doctors and women who seek abortions?

Anderson: I am not pushing to overturn Roe v Wade but if it came to a vote I would vote to overturn it. As far as criminal penalties, I would hope we would not have many to deal with. I support adoption and counseling to inform and help with healthier options. I feel this issue is not only a woman's choice but also the man's. It takes two to create the pregnancy and I feel it should be a decision for the man and woman.

Comment: If the wife decides that she doesn't want to become pregnant and insists that her husband use condoms, but her husband wants a child or, if he's Catholic, insists upon unprotected sex, what should happen in this situation?

Anderson: I feel decisions about having children should be discussed prior to marriage. If one or the other decides later they want children, they should not have children unless both agree. The couple would have to decide if they can work the issue out,if they can't, should they stay married. It would not be wise to take a chance and the couple would have to take personal responsibility.

Comment: Bob, in the interview you said you supported the IP platform.
The IP platform has this to say about the separation of Church and state:

"We support the separation of church and state for the benefit of all."

Your willingness to remove protection to women and doctors from prosecution and criminal penalties is by your admission, motivated by your religion. Isn't that inconsistent with the IP platform?

Anderson: I am not the endorsed candidate of the Independence party. I am free to have views of my own. I need to follow 75% of the party platform. I would also ask Elwyn Tinklenberg about these issues because he is running as the endorsed candidate of the party. I also believe in separation of Church and state.

Comment: Bob, in the interview you said you supported the IP platform. I just took a look at the the IP Party Platform and it supports PRT:

We support further development of a fully integrated, multimodal transportation system that could include automobiles, light and high speed rail, personal rapid transit (PRT), and High Occupancy Vehicle, high-speed bus lanes.

Do you support the IP platform on PRT?

I'll add that IP 3CD candidate Dave Dillon was an advisor to would be PRT vendorTaxi 2000 and continues to be a supporter of PRT.

Anderson: I feel I am well with in the 75% party platform and again I am not the endorsed candidate. We discussed the PRT issue in the interview and I did not know enough to have an opinion.

Source