District 36 candidates respond to questions

Three Republican candidates are seeking the party’s nomination for the District 36 House seat vacated this summer by current Pasco County Tax Collector Mike Fasano.

The district comprises coastal Pasco County, west of Little Road. Only registered Republican are eligible to vote in the primary Sept. 17.

Early voting will be permitted Sept. 7 through 14 at the West Pasco Government Center. The winner will face Democrat Amanda Murphy in a special election Oct. 15.

Q: Do you agree with Gov. Rick Scott’s position that Florida should accept federal funding to expand Medicaid and to create health insurance exchanges? If not, how do you propose to improve health coverage for Florida’s 3.8 million uninsured residents?

Answer: (Gunter) No. Because when you dig down, it doesn’t even solve the problem of providing lower income people with quality health care outcomes. Medicaid is broken. It’s rife with fraud. There’s no access. And health care outcomes are the worst of any health care delivery system. But saying no is not acceptable. We must find an answer, and it’s moving heath care to a model of direct relationship between the purchaser and the provider. You do this with giving individuals real control over the health care spending.

Answer: (Harding) Need more time to give a full answer on this; I have not been able to look at a budget for this. I am typically in favor of more state control and not federal programs. There is too much waste in the federal program.

Answer: (Mathieu) I oppose Obamacare. However, until it can or will be repealed, we must address the issue. Accepting federal funding with a guarantee of no unfunded mandate for several years is enticing. However, the future exposure and financial commitment is open ended. Improving our economy and getting our citizens jobs will ease much of the pressure. To improve health coverage for Floridians requires competition and choice in the marketplace.

Q. What do you think needs to be done to “fix” Citizens Insurance?

Answer: (Gunter) In Pasco Citizen’s isn’t the insurer of last resort, it’s the insurer of only resort for most of us. Why, two reasons: hurricanes and old homes, and sinkholes. If we want to move to fix insurance, we have to end the sinkhole craziness. We mandate on the state level to fix the sinkhole and stabilize the home. Well fixing the sinkhole can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars whereas stabilizing the home can be as low as 25,000. If we end the fix the sinkhole mandate, we could see companies coming back into Pasco. Furthermore, the concept you can pump millions of tons of grout into a swiss-cheese ground and it doesn’t move or disappear or hurt the aquifer is silliness. Finally, we must keep the cap rate increases as is because I do not believe you can simply rip something away from people that have relied on this insurance coverage for years.

Answer: (Harding) Bring back competition, and insure homes to their true cost to rebuild (not market value) this would lower everyone’s premiums here.

Answer: (Mathieu) There is no easy solution to “fix” Citizens. Approximately a decade ago the state Legislature created Citizens to address an insurance premium problem. This was a short-term solution. Those that created it in the Legislature are long gone. Allowing the state of Florida to enter a private marketplace is not in the interests of either business or the citizens of Florida.

No exit strategy was developed. If Citizens is to remain an insurance provider of last resort, the risks must be spread on a statewide basis. Citizens is a state insurance company not a private company. With western Pasco County the sink hole center of the state, benefit for local citizens would ensue.

Ultimately, Citizens must go. Appropriate legislation defining coverage’s, regulating sinkhole claims, strict auditing of “expenses” before any rate increase application, strict limits on rate increases and support of an open free market will help.

Lastly, a thorough investigation of all state legislators who have an interest as a vendor for Citizens must be done. This needs to start at the top.

Q. Are there any divisions of state government that should be privatized or outsourced? If so, which one(s)?

Answer: (Gunter) It’s something that should be asked each and every year but isn’t. If we did, I can guarantee you we’ll find programs, divisions, maybe even agencies that have outlived their purpose.

Answer: (Harding) I believe that most government services should be privatized. Competition drives cost down for taxpayers/consumers.

Answer: (Mathieu) I support privatization, when practical and appropriate, of certain governmental functions. The state government performs many ministerial functions which technology has offered solutions which are of low cost. Many of these functions should be privatized. Why should our state government invest in developing technology (especially billing, information services etc…) when the private sector has spent the necessary funds and developed such expertise. These can be privatized.

Major functions such as the Department of Corrections can be problematic because of numerous federal and state laws regarding civil rights. However, routine incarceration, juveniles detention, lower drug offenses may be appropriate for such privatization

Read more here: tbo.com