My former governor (and possible Presidential candidate in 2012) had an op-ed on health care reform in today's Washington Post that is educational reading.

If you tie money to results, you'll get better results. Unfortunately, government often dumps money into programs without regard to accountability and outcomes. This past week, Democrats in Congress have been busy tinkering with a Washington takeover of the health-care system, but perhaps they should look instead to the states for models of market-driven, patient-centered and quality-focused reform. Rather than taking power away from states, federal health-care reform should use the lessons we've learned tackling this crisis in our back yards.

You would think that this is a secret recipe for health care reform the way things are in DC today but....

In Minnesota, our state employee health-care plan has demonstrated incredible results by linking outcomes to value. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in the health-care network they've selected. However, individuals who use more costly and less-efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket.

Not surprisingly, informed health-care consumers vote wisely with their feet and their wallets. Employees overwhelmingly selected providers who deliver higher quality and lower costs as a result of getting things right the first time. The payoff is straightforward: For two of the past five years, we've had zero percent premium increases in the state employee insurance plan.

Educated health care consumers making educated health care decisions????  What are the odds???????

And like any smart politician he lays out the differences between his plan and the other sides plan...

Instead of returning power to patients and rewarding positive outcomes, many Democrats in Washington want a government-run plan that would require states to comply with dozens of new mandates and regulations. One study by the Lewin Group recently concluded that an estimated 114 million Americans could be displaced from their current coverage under such a plan, and another study by House Republicans said the plan could result in the loss of up to 5 million jobs over the next 10 years.

...and why his plan is the superior one....

In typical fashion, the self-proclaimed experts piecing together this Democratic health-care legislation are focusing on only one leg -- access -- of a three-legged stool that also includes cost and quality. Expanding access to health care is a worthwhile goal. But equal or greater focus should be placed on containing costs for the vast majority of Americans who already have insurance. Those costs will not be contained by a massive expansion of federal programs.

...while taking a swipe at an internal rival as well.

Massachusetts's experience should caution Congress against focusing primarily on access. While the Massachusetts plan has reduced the number of uninsured people, costs have been dramatically higher than expected. The result? Increased taxes and fees. The Boston Globe has reported on a current short-term funding gap and the need to obtain a new federal bailout.

Imagine the scope of tax increases, or additional deficit spending, if that approach is utilized for the entire country.

Not a bad opening salvo from the governor.  Honestly he would make a decent Presidential candidate.  His fiscal credentials are fairly impeccable...as long as he stays away from the subject of "global warming"......