When I began my campaign last summer, I vowed that my campaign would be a discussion of the issues and not personal attacks. This is why I have written a series of editorials on the issues. My most recent one was on health care. In the editorials I sometimes contrast my position with that of my opponent, but I never refer to him personally, and have never slandered his character or questioned his motives. By this measure, Rod Hamilton's recent letter in your paper was disappointing. I assume calling me a perennial candidate was meant to be an insult, but I am no more "perennial" than Rod. Luckily, I am not easily offended.
In his letter, Rod claims that my comments on his record are laughable, but he does not explain his position on health care. As I am writing this letter, I have in front of me a direct mail piece titled "Rod Hamilton for State Representative" that describes Rod's position on health care as "encouraging more health insurance companies to enter the Minnesota market." Now on the surface that sounds just fine, but the plan Hamilton promotes would allow companies that sell coverage in other states to sell policies in Minnesota, even if they do not meet Minnesota consumer protection standards. Hamilton voted for this proposal on April 10, 2008 (HJ 10049 -- just so you know I have my facts straight). By my sights, this means allowing insurance companies to sell substandard and inadequate coverage.
The voters of our district deserve a discussion of the issues as they make their voting decision. I have made my positions on health care clear. Improving efficiencies and allowing more people to purchase insurance through Minnesota Care are just two things I will do to help working families reduce the burden of health insurance. Rod Hamilton could have written a letter detailing his position his position on health care and explaining his vote. He did not.
