| © Copyright 2009 eBroadcastMedia.com a division of KDResources, Inc. - All rights reserved |
| Interview with Matt Sakalosky 9-12 Candidate for Congress Wisconsin District 2 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Welcome to The 9-12 Show...
| Show Host Danielle Hampson |
| Transcript Copying Rule |
| Support the 9-12 movement Join our email list |
| INTERVIEW available by clicking on links below |
Candidate: Well, thank you for having me on.
Host: Mr. Sakalosky, with your healthcare background, you are indeed well informed on the problems at hand in this arena. You indicate
having a detail plan to reduce costs and insure affordable healthcare for our country. What is your proposed solution?
Candidate: My proposed solution is actually a multi-faceted solution that’s based within the private market. The first key element would be to
actually help change the tax structure, you know back from where the tax structure about forty years ago actually pulled people into having
employer based plans and by doing that we created both portability problems and a static audience without competition. And 85% of all
employers right now only offer one plan, so we have a static audience. Insurance companies are not competing to get business, a customer,
so what we’d like to do is actually get a full-tax benefits like they do for businesses back to the people. So then people can make a choice on
what plans that they want and then that solves the portability problem of not having it through your employer. Now employers can still get
benefit packages and pay up to, you know, x amount of dollars per month just like they do now. But instead of actually having it in employer-
based administrative plan, the people would be able to choose what type of health plan that they would like, whether it’s an HAS, an HMO, or
whatever it might be, that they can still get that benefit of x dollars per month that their employer is going to pay but they can choose what
best fits their family. And that’s going to create competition for insurance companies to actually be productive at the lowest possible for the
consumer. And then once that happens, people will be more in tuned of what kind of costs they’re incurring within their healthcare, because
right now people do not understand the costs associated with their healthcare. They go in and they just pay a premium and they’re not really
understanding the type of costs that are associated to their healthcare. So changing the tax structure and getting people to buy personal
based plans versus employer based plans solve both portability and the competition issue that we have today. And then the second issue
right now would also be the tort reform. Doctors are practicing and dragging up costs by ordering too many tests just to cover bases so they
don’t get sued. And by, you know, changing the, or reforming the tort reform policies that we have today. This will allow doctors to practice
much more efficiently and that will bring down costs of not having unnecessary tests.
Host: Well, I was actually amazed when I talked to a friend of mine not too long ago who is a retired surgeon, and that’s another added
expense that jacks the cost of healthcare for all of us is the fact that he as a surgeon was paying over $80,000 in just malpractice insurance.
Candidate: Oh, and that’s absolutely correct. And the physicians right now are burdened both on, you know, Medicare costs with you know
they have fixed costs that they’re being paid by the government, which a lot of times don’t cover the costs of the actual procedures that they’re
doing, so they have to make that up in the private sector. And by making, you know, some of the costs up in the private sector, that drives
insurance costs up for everyone. And then in addition to that they also have to add on the additional expense of the, you know, tort reform
that, hey my malpractice insurance is x amount of dollars and that’s added on to every procedure and that gets passed on to the insurance
company. So that is a problem currently.
Host: We are talking everywhere nowadays about healthcare reform. Would that also include maybe a much easier, I would call it more
transparency in the health insurance programs that you also sign up with, because those darn things are so complicated to read, people
don’t even bother to do it. So you know you can say, someone can say well we are transparent because we put everything in black and white
on paper. That may be the case but if those papers are 10 pages or 15 pages long for you to read as a consumer, they know darn well that
the consumers are not going to do that. Nobody would do that. That is one way of hiding things while claiming to be transparent. Is there
any way we could reform that as well so that it makes it easier for the consumer to understand what it is that they’re getting?
Candidate: Well, you know, the basis of that question, I would say a little bit. I would challenge from the standpoint of most consumers, really
85% of all employers right now only offer one insurance plan. And so we have a static audience where you get a job at an employer and
when you, you know, sign the papers to work for the company, you automatically get that insurance plan. So most people are not even
reading what insurance plan they have because they have to take what they’re getting from their employer. So that’s part of the problem right
there which, you know, changing the tax structure to personal plan would be the first step and getting people back engaged into their
healthcare and understanding what types of coverage people, you know, have. And then the second part of that is going to be if you have
competition within the companies and they’re competing for your business, people will choose. If it’s too complicated and you can’t
understand it, then you might have eight or nine others who are doing a much better job of communicating what is covered and what’s not
covered. So just the fact that you create competition for the consumer, companies would have to make it easier to understand and make it
much more available and transparent to the, you know, receiver of that coverage. Here’s what it is. Here’s what it’s not. And it would be
much more clear to them.
Host: Right, well and that’s the ultimate goal. So I agree with you. If the competition can make that, can help in that particular instance, then I’
m all for it. Now let’s go on to another topic. You believe in not just saving but securing our Social Security system. How do you think this
can be done, not just for the short term but for generations to come?
Candidate: Well, right now, you know, the very base of the Social Security, back in FDR days, we have had people pay into the system for
decades and whether you believe Social Security is a program that should have ever came into existence. That’s one argument right there,
but after people have paid into this for decades, we have to make sure that we have it there for the people who have paid into it their entire
lifetime, you cannot just rip the carpet out from under them. So, you know, that’s only fair and you know, there’s two things we have to do with
Social Security and one is to go ahead and solidify the fact that Social Security is going to go broke at some point. You know right now we’re
just writing IOUs and that government, you know. What you’re paying into Social Security just goes into the government revenue and they
spend that on other priorities. Right now we have to put that money aside and actually start, you know, putting that in the bank, not writing
IOUs. And so that’s the first step in making sure that the money that we’re paying into Social Security actually goes to Social Security. The
second step is to actually start offering an option privatizing Social Security, similar to maybe what Bush had been proposing early in his
presidency. You know, over a period of time. This is not something that we can do overnight. We said we’ve got to, again here’s a static
audience from a government agency that we’ve been forced to pay into it so we have to at least honor those obligations that have already
been created. But we have to start looking at the younger generation and how do we get them out from under the hand of Social Security and
give them options where they actually own their own money and their own destiny and therefore the government can’t pull that out from under
them, you know, years later or cut their benefits or things like that. We have to secure the funds right now and people are not talking about it
right now, but within the next ten years, you know, Social Security is going to be in place where we need to be able to not recover from the,
you know, mandates that are already out there. We have to figure out how to pay for that. We already have, you know, these unfunded
liabilities that we have to take care of and then we have to figure out a way to get these people off in the younger age brackets to be able to,
you know, own their own money, have that there at their retirement. And not have the government take that from them and spend it on other
priorities.
Host: Let’s go to energy. You have a three-prong approach to solve our energy challenges. You’re talking about drilling, expanding and
supporting. Would you expand on that approach, please?
Candidate: Well, right now and as part of the 9-12 group, I know they’ve been talking a lot about, you know, we have to secure energy
resources that we have available to us today. Now just because gas has come from $4.00 or $4.50 per gallon down to $2.50 a gallon, we
could spike back up there and be 4, 5 dollars a gallon again. And just because the price has come down it’s, you know, been taken off the
radar from people. But if we would’ve started opening up all of the resources that are available to us two or three years ago, we’d already be
half-way there in securing our future and not have other countries, you know, dictating and saying, you know, we want the price to go up and
being able to manipulate our country just because we’re dependent on, you know, say foreign oil for instance. You know we have plenty of
oil reserves here that was just a big discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. There’s oil out there to be had, if we just open it up and go get it.
Therefore we’re going to – it’s not only a national security problem but it’s an issue that every one of us Americans pay at the gas pump and
our heating bills and everything, you know, just the production of, you know, the costs of manufacturing plants. And you know, those are
resources we have and we’re choosing not to go after those right now. And we have to tap into that so we don’t get caught in the same
situation we were a couple of years ago. I know we also, you know, have, you know, kind of cut our knees off from under us from the nuclear
power perspective. You know that’s a very clean, very safe form of energy that Europe is using very successfully that we’re not allowed to us
right now. We cannot expand a single nuclear power plant in this country which would go a long way to securing our energy or energy needs
as well. So if we use current resources that we have, we can go ahead, secure ourselves. And then as, you know, new forms of energy come
on line, whether you call it green energy, whatever it is, I think everybody would be for any type of energy, whether it be solar, wind, or
whatever it might be. But it has to come to market in a cost-effective manner that is viable for our public which right now we have not proven
it to be. And so while we’ll work in that direction, we also have to in parallel use the resources we have today.
Host: Now you are running against a Republican incumbent who is in his sixth term and who so far is keeping your state’s GOP support.
Now critics say you should not be running against an incumbent from your own party but the public sentiment at this time is very much to, I
will put it in a simplistic manner, throw away all of Congress with possibly very few exemptions. And replace it with fresh new blood such as
yours. In lieu of that, I see the primary is more important in this next election than ever before. Do you see party support or lack thereof
critical to your efforts in your campaign or do you plan to win the hearts of the voters?
Candidate: Well there’s two issues there and that’s party support. The party from an establishment perspective, you know, they are only
going to be maybe 12 or 15 votes in my state as part of the bigger picture of maybe 25 or 30 thousand votes that are going to be cast. So we
are directly going to the people. Now while I’m running on the Republican ticket, I’m running for everybody in the Second District in the state
of Nebraska. And I’m going to represent every citizen in my district the best way that I know how and it’s going to be on common sense and
core principles. And so this isn’t, you know, me versus the incumbent or me versus the other party, this is…. You know I’m just the guy who’s
standing up, who’s concerned about the direction of our country and feel we need better leadership in our district. And right now we have
three candidates in this race. We have the Democrat and then we have the incumbent Republican and so, you know, I’m the other guy in the
race. The other guy is the only guy that hasn’t been in government who’s actually paid payroll, who’s built his own business. I’ve really led
the American dream and I understand what people are looking for and the type of, you know leadership that they’re looking for that’s not
going to be beholden to special interests. They know I’m not a career politician and that I’m really sincere about looking out for what’s best
for our country and protecting our liberties.
Host: You are a first time runner, correct?
Candidate: That is correct.
Host: What is your position on term limits?
Candidate: Technically term limits in the most purest of senses is we have term limits today. You know every time that we have an election,
we can vote people out, which I think in 2010 there’s going to be a little bit of a storm brewing where there’s going to be a lot of people who
used to expect support that’s not going to be there and they’re going to be looking for a new type of leader. Now with that being said, I would
be very much for term limits. I think it has to be run through the states, has to be a, you know, constitutional addition only from the fact if it’s
just a congressional law and depending on what party, they can change terms on that. And I think that, you know when we move in that
direction, we have to make it solid to where it doesn’t change and George Washington said it best when he left after eight years. You know,
he had a chance to you know, possibly become king or something of that nature and you know he understood the liberties and the values
and traditions of what they were trying to create. And he led by example. He said eight years is good enough. And I really think that that’s
the model that we all have to look at following. And you know, our government wasn’t set up to be full of career politicians and they’d make a
lifetime of it. You’re there to serve and you’re there to serve for a purpose. And then you move on with your life and go back to being a
citizen. So I think term limits would be a wonderful thing and would solve a lot of the problems that we have in Washington with lobbyists
and special interests being connected to, you know, certain Representatives. And you know, being beholden to those interests where, you
know as you get that turnover and new fresh perspective, you have people who are leading and much closer to the people.
Host: You’re in full swing with your campaign I believe right now, so how may citizens and supporters help and contact you or your
campaign?
Candidate: We’ve been actually running our campaign since April, so we’re well into our campaign. We have about eight more months to go
to the primary. You know our website’s had 65,000 hits. Many thousands of those are unique hits so we’ve had a lot of interest.
Host: And what is that website, Mr. Sakalosky?
Candidate: It’s MattSak.com, which is M A T T S A K dot com.
Host: Okay, let me repeat that because you’re on a cell phone and the signal was fading away a little bit here. It’s MattSak.com. M A double
T S as in Sam A K dot com.
Candidate: That is correct.
Host: Okay, wonderful. Well, continued good luck with your campaign and thank you very much for being on the program Mr. Sakalosky.
Candidate: Thank you so much for having me.
Host: Mr. Sakalosky, with your healthcare background, you are indeed well informed on the problems at hand in this arena. You indicate
having a detail plan to reduce costs and insure affordable healthcare for our country. What is your proposed solution?
Candidate: My proposed solution is actually a multi-faceted solution that’s based within the private market. The first key element would be to
actually help change the tax structure, you know back from where the tax structure about forty years ago actually pulled people into having
employer based plans and by doing that we created both portability problems and a static audience without competition. And 85% of all
employers right now only offer one plan, so we have a static audience. Insurance companies are not competing to get business, a customer,
so what we’d like to do is actually get a full-tax benefits like they do for businesses back to the people. So then people can make a choice on
what plans that they want and then that solves the portability problem of not having it through your employer. Now employers can still get
benefit packages and pay up to, you know, x amount of dollars per month just like they do now. But instead of actually having it in employer-
based administrative plan, the people would be able to choose what type of health plan that they would like, whether it’s an HAS, an HMO, or
whatever it might be, that they can still get that benefit of x dollars per month that their employer is going to pay but they can choose what
best fits their family. And that’s going to create competition for insurance companies to actually be productive at the lowest possible for the
consumer. And then once that happens, people will be more in tuned of what kind of costs they’re incurring within their healthcare, because
right now people do not understand the costs associated with their healthcare. They go in and they just pay a premium and they’re not really
understanding the type of costs that are associated to their healthcare. So changing the tax structure and getting people to buy personal
based plans versus employer based plans solve both portability and the competition issue that we have today. And then the second issue
right now would also be the tort reform. Doctors are practicing and dragging up costs by ordering too many tests just to cover bases so they
don’t get sued. And by, you know, changing the, or reforming the tort reform policies that we have today. This will allow doctors to practice
much more efficiently and that will bring down costs of not having unnecessary tests.
Host: Well, I was actually amazed when I talked to a friend of mine not too long ago who is a retired surgeon, and that’s another added
expense that jacks the cost of healthcare for all of us is the fact that he as a surgeon was paying over $80,000 in just malpractice insurance.
Candidate: Oh, and that’s absolutely correct. And the physicians right now are burdened both on, you know, Medicare costs with you know
they have fixed costs that they’re being paid by the government, which a lot of times don’t cover the costs of the actual procedures that they’re
doing, so they have to make that up in the private sector. And by making, you know, some of the costs up in the private sector, that drives
insurance costs up for everyone. And then in addition to that they also have to add on the additional expense of the, you know, tort reform
that, hey my malpractice insurance is x amount of dollars and that’s added on to every procedure and that gets passed on to the insurance
company. So that is a problem currently.
Host: We are talking everywhere nowadays about healthcare reform. Would that also include maybe a much easier, I would call it more
transparency in the health insurance programs that you also sign up with, because those darn things are so complicated to read, people
don’t even bother to do it. So you know you can say, someone can say well we are transparent because we put everything in black and white
on paper. That may be the case but if those papers are 10 pages or 15 pages long for you to read as a consumer, they know darn well that
the consumers are not going to do that. Nobody would do that. That is one way of hiding things while claiming to be transparent. Is there
any way we could reform that as well so that it makes it easier for the consumer to understand what it is that they’re getting?
Candidate: Well, you know, the basis of that question, I would say a little bit. I would challenge from the standpoint of most consumers, really
85% of all employers right now only offer one insurance plan. And so we have a static audience where you get a job at an employer and
when you, you know, sign the papers to work for the company, you automatically get that insurance plan. So most people are not even
reading what insurance plan they have because they have to take what they’re getting from their employer. So that’s part of the problem right
there which, you know, changing the tax structure to personal plan would be the first step and getting people back engaged into their
healthcare and understanding what types of coverage people, you know, have. And then the second part of that is going to be if you have
competition within the companies and they’re competing for your business, people will choose. If it’s too complicated and you can’t
understand it, then you might have eight or nine others who are doing a much better job of communicating what is covered and what’s not
covered. So just the fact that you create competition for the consumer, companies would have to make it easier to understand and make it
much more available and transparent to the, you know, receiver of that coverage. Here’s what it is. Here’s what it’s not. And it would be
much more clear to them.
Host: Right, well and that’s the ultimate goal. So I agree with you. If the competition can make that, can help in that particular instance, then I’
m all for it. Now let’s go on to another topic. You believe in not just saving but securing our Social Security system. How do you think this
can be done, not just for the short term but for generations to come?
Candidate: Well, right now, you know, the very base of the Social Security, back in FDR days, we have had people pay into the system for
decades and whether you believe Social Security is a program that should have ever came into existence. That’s one argument right there,
but after people have paid into this for decades, we have to make sure that we have it there for the people who have paid into it their entire
lifetime, you cannot just rip the carpet out from under them. So, you know, that’s only fair and you know, there’s two things we have to do with
Social Security and one is to go ahead and solidify the fact that Social Security is going to go broke at some point. You know right now we’re
just writing IOUs and that government, you know. What you’re paying into Social Security just goes into the government revenue and they
spend that on other priorities. Right now we have to put that money aside and actually start, you know, putting that in the bank, not writing
IOUs. And so that’s the first step in making sure that the money that we’re paying into Social Security actually goes to Social Security. The
second step is to actually start offering an option privatizing Social Security, similar to maybe what Bush had been proposing early in his
presidency. You know, over a period of time. This is not something that we can do overnight. We said we’ve got to, again here’s a static
audience from a government agency that we’ve been forced to pay into it so we have to at least honor those obligations that have already
been created. But we have to start looking at the younger generation and how do we get them out from under the hand of Social Security and
give them options where they actually own their own money and their own destiny and therefore the government can’t pull that out from under
them, you know, years later or cut their benefits or things like that. We have to secure the funds right now and people are not talking about it
right now, but within the next ten years, you know, Social Security is going to be in place where we need to be able to not recover from the,
you know, mandates that are already out there. We have to figure out how to pay for that. We already have, you know, these unfunded
liabilities that we have to take care of and then we have to figure out a way to get these people off in the younger age brackets to be able to,
you know, own their own money, have that there at their retirement. And not have the government take that from them and spend it on other
priorities.
Host: Let’s go to energy. You have a three-prong approach to solve our energy challenges. You’re talking about drilling, expanding and
supporting. Would you expand on that approach, please?
Candidate: Well, right now and as part of the 9-12 group, I know they’ve been talking a lot about, you know, we have to secure energy
resources that we have available to us today. Now just because gas has come from $4.00 or $4.50 per gallon down to $2.50 a gallon, we
could spike back up there and be 4, 5 dollars a gallon again. And just because the price has come down it’s, you know, been taken off the
radar from people. But if we would’ve started opening up all of the resources that are available to us two or three years ago, we’d already be
half-way there in securing our future and not have other countries, you know, dictating and saying, you know, we want the price to go up and
being able to manipulate our country just because we’re dependent on, you know, say foreign oil for instance. You know we have plenty of
oil reserves here that was just a big discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. There’s oil out there to be had, if we just open it up and go get it.
Therefore we’re going to – it’s not only a national security problem but it’s an issue that every one of us Americans pay at the gas pump and
our heating bills and everything, you know, just the production of, you know, the costs of manufacturing plants. And you know, those are
resources we have and we’re choosing not to go after those right now. And we have to tap into that so we don’t get caught in the same
situation we were a couple of years ago. I know we also, you know, have, you know, kind of cut our knees off from under us from the nuclear
power perspective. You know that’s a very clean, very safe form of energy that Europe is using very successfully that we’re not allowed to us
right now. We cannot expand a single nuclear power plant in this country which would go a long way to securing our energy or energy needs
as well. So if we use current resources that we have, we can go ahead, secure ourselves. And then as, you know, new forms of energy come
on line, whether you call it green energy, whatever it is, I think everybody would be for any type of energy, whether it be solar, wind, or
whatever it might be. But it has to come to market in a cost-effective manner that is viable for our public which right now we have not proven
it to be. And so while we’ll work in that direction, we also have to in parallel use the resources we have today.
Host: Now you are running against a Republican incumbent who is in his sixth term and who so far is keeping your state’s GOP support.
Now critics say you should not be running against an incumbent from your own party but the public sentiment at this time is very much to, I
will put it in a simplistic manner, throw away all of Congress with possibly very few exemptions. And replace it with fresh new blood such as
yours. In lieu of that, I see the primary is more important in this next election than ever before. Do you see party support or lack thereof
critical to your efforts in your campaign or do you plan to win the hearts of the voters?
Candidate: Well there’s two issues there and that’s party support. The party from an establishment perspective, you know, they are only
going to be maybe 12 or 15 votes in my state as part of the bigger picture of maybe 25 or 30 thousand votes that are going to be cast. So we
are directly going to the people. Now while I’m running on the Republican ticket, I’m running for everybody in the Second District in the state
of Nebraska. And I’m going to represent every citizen in my district the best way that I know how and it’s going to be on common sense and
core principles. And so this isn’t, you know, me versus the incumbent or me versus the other party, this is…. You know I’m just the guy who’s
standing up, who’s concerned about the direction of our country and feel we need better leadership in our district. And right now we have
three candidates in this race. We have the Democrat and then we have the incumbent Republican and so, you know, I’m the other guy in the
race. The other guy is the only guy that hasn’t been in government who’s actually paid payroll, who’s built his own business. I’ve really led
the American dream and I understand what people are looking for and the type of, you know leadership that they’re looking for that’s not
going to be beholden to special interests. They know I’m not a career politician and that I’m really sincere about looking out for what’s best
for our country and protecting our liberties.
Host: You are a first time runner, correct?
Candidate: That is correct.
Host: What is your position on term limits?
Candidate: Technically term limits in the most purest of senses is we have term limits today. You know every time that we have an election,
we can vote people out, which I think in 2010 there’s going to be a little bit of a storm brewing where there’s going to be a lot of people who
used to expect support that’s not going to be there and they’re going to be looking for a new type of leader. Now with that being said, I would
be very much for term limits. I think it has to be run through the states, has to be a, you know, constitutional addition only from the fact if it’s
just a congressional law and depending on what party, they can change terms on that. And I think that, you know when we move in that
direction, we have to make it solid to where it doesn’t change and George Washington said it best when he left after eight years. You know,
he had a chance to you know, possibly become king or something of that nature and you know he understood the liberties and the values
and traditions of what they were trying to create. And he led by example. He said eight years is good enough. And I really think that that’s
the model that we all have to look at following. And you know, our government wasn’t set up to be full of career politicians and they’d make a
lifetime of it. You’re there to serve and you’re there to serve for a purpose. And then you move on with your life and go back to being a
citizen. So I think term limits would be a wonderful thing and would solve a lot of the problems that we have in Washington with lobbyists
and special interests being connected to, you know, certain Representatives. And you know, being beholden to those interests where, you
know as you get that turnover and new fresh perspective, you have people who are leading and much closer to the people.
Host: You’re in full swing with your campaign I believe right now, so how may citizens and supporters help and contact you or your
campaign?
Candidate: We’ve been actually running our campaign since April, so we’re well into our campaign. We have about eight more months to go
to the primary. You know our website’s had 65,000 hits. Many thousands of those are unique hits so we’ve had a lot of interest.
Host: And what is that website, Mr. Sakalosky?
Candidate: It’s MattSak.com, which is M A T T S A K dot com.
Host: Okay, let me repeat that because you’re on a cell phone and the signal was fading away a little bit here. It’s MattSak.com. M A double
T S as in Sam A K dot com.
Candidate: That is correct.
Host: Okay, wonderful. Well, continued good luck with your campaign and thank you very much for being on the program Mr. Sakalosky.
Candidate: Thank you so much for having me.
| Click arrow to listen to interview |
Members of the media
may use this transcript
in whole or part under
the following
conditions:
1. Prior to copying the
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
transcript is to be used,
as well as its web
address;
b- the title of your article;
c- reporter/writer's full
name & contact
information.
2. Your article must
make reference to this
website as the source
of information.
Bloggers and all other
parties:
Permission may or may
not be granted. Email
your request with your
full name and phone #
for review.
may use this transcript
in whole or part under
the following
conditions:
1. Prior to copying the
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
transcript is to be used,
as well as its web
address;
b- the title of your article;
c- reporter/writer's full
name & contact
information.
2. Your article must
make reference to this
website as the source
of information.
Bloggers and all other
parties:
Permission may or may
not be granted. Email
your request with your
full name and phone #
for review.