Meg Litts, John Poston vye for House 9A seat

Minnesota House District 9A includes parts of Todd, Wadena and Cass counties. Democrat Meg Litts and Republican John Poston are seeking the seat. The incumbent chose not to run. 

Meg Litts

1. Summarize your background and qualifications.

A passion for public education and public service are hallmarks of how I was raised and have raised our two daughters, both of whom attend MSUM. As a transformational leader working in high poverty schools, I learned to collaborate with others to work strategically towards a shared mission, being actively involved in each community. I have also provided leadership in the DFL as county chair and director. In this region, I have lived in both Todd and Wadena counties and have worked with schools throughout the region, allowing me to see first-hand the needs and interests of our area. 

2. What will your top priority be if elected?

Passing tax and transportation bills within the first 30 days of the session is my priority so that the lives and livelihoods of our district are supported. I will work to adequately fund high speed broadband initiatives to ensure access and equity to information and resources as viable competitors in the global marketplace. I will listen to the voters of 9A to hear their concerns and get their input on proposed bills. Next, I will work collaboratively across the aisle in order to ensure that we are moving forward to get the job done in a timely manner.

3. What are your views on the budget bill that was not passed this session? What should have been done to get both sides to agree on the bill?

While some have suggested that the inclusion of light rail in the bill as the primary obstacle to getting the bonding bill passed, I disagree. When we work as legislators, we represent the constituents in our region but are voting on legislation that supports the needs and interests of all Minnesotans. Folks in District 9 and other regions of rural Minnesota utilize light rail as well as do those in the seven counties it serves. One of the primary obstacles to getting the bonding bill passed this session was lack of leadership to backwards plan the work that needed to be completed. In the House, particularly, bills were not delivered in a timely manner. The bonding bill was not the only one that was not completed, and when legislators are tasked with reading through multiple bills in a very limited time frame, there is not enough time for adequate committee review, discussion, amendments, and time for both house and senate to vote. This is an area where we especially need to make changes particularly as we move into the 2017 session since we will need to build and pass a budget that supports the lives and livelihoods of all Minnesotans. 

4. Should the legislature make changes to MNsure, the state health care exchange? Why or why not? What specific changes would you make?

Both MNSure and the Affordable Care Act have been criticized as we look toward projected increases in premiums for 2017. Similar frustrations were expressed about the online access process as we set up MNSure. As with all major innovations and initiatives, there is a learning curve for implementation and much we learn through the process. We need to make sure we focus on what has worked about the system—the 200,000+ Minnesotans who now have coverage who were either uninsured or underinsured previously as well as the thousands, including myself, who cannot be denied insurance due to preexisting conditions. And it is not acceptable that Minnesotans are facing such huge increases. We need to address the issues that are not working, specifically the impact on our rates due to the group policies negotiated by insurance companies, offsetting them with subsidies. Another area to revisit could be exploring a high risk reinsurance pool to subsidize the cost of the most sick individuals instead of having healthier individuals and families taking on those costs. I do not support elimination of MNSure, and neither did our legislature in this past session, knowing that would leave hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans uninsured.

John Poston

1. Summarize your background and qualifications.

I am a retired retail executive with 40 years of management experience. In my retirement I have become a business owner in the district, I am the founder of a humanitarian food aid organization called Kids Against Hunger – Brainerd Lakes Area. I have served as a city council member and I am currently the Mayor of the City of Lake Shore. I love being involved in our community and world love to help on a bigger scale. I believe my business experience has prepared me for the challenges of this position.

2. What will your top priority be if elected?

I have spent the last 10 months listening to the residents of District 9A and I have heard very clearly that health care and taxes are on the top of their priority list. I will work to repeal or modify MNSure, to make health care affordable again. I will work on tax relief for farmers and small businesses. I will work on tax reform and tax simplification. Minnesotans need tax relief and they deserve to have their tax monies spent in a more responsible way.

3. What are your views on the budget bill that was not passed this session? What should have been done to get both sides to agree on the bill?

There was a lot of good bipartisan work done on the bonding bill. It is a travesty that it was not passed. The main reason it did not pass was due to south west light rail funding. Light rail funding should not be approved, the current light rail system is a disaster, and construction of the new rail system will cost more than $130 million per mile, the system currently cost more than $40 million a year to manage. Nearly 40 percent of the people that ride the existing system do not pay. Minnesota tax payers subsidize more than $20 per ticket. Buses would be less expensive, faster and more flexible! Out State residents should not being paying for this rail system, people riding it should. Both Republicans and Democrats worked hard on this bonding bill but in the end our Governor vetoed the bill over a small miss wording. These types of mistakes happen every year and have always been fixed in the past.

4. Should the legislature make changes to MNsure, the state health care exchange? Why or why not? What specific changes would you make?

MNsure should be repealed, it is a broken system. The cost of the system has now exceded a half a billion dollars, and most people have higher premiums and higher deductibles. Many people cannot afford their health care to get them to their deductible. MNsure raised most Minnesotans premiums by 20 percent year one, 50 percent year two, and year three will be as much as 70 percent. This is not affordable or expectable! We can do better. I believe we should repeal MNsure and start over, we should go back to a free trade system and encourage competition. We should open our borders to insurance providers. Even converting to the federal exchange would be an improvement. Minnesota had one of the best health care systems in the country before MNsure, we need to get back there. Minnesotans deserve better.