Tuesday Talk: Should Minnesotans have access to the Public Option?
October 27th, 2009 at 7:23 am By Chris ShieldsYesterday, we learned that federal health care reform will likely include a public health insurance option in order to ensure prices are competitive. It’s a good move, given the proposal requires all Americans to buy health insurance.
There is a provision, however, that allows individual states to “opt-out” of the public option. In fact, Governor Pawlenty has said he would lead the charge to prevent Minnesotans from accessing the public option. He’s even proposed ending Minnesota’s successful non-profit health insurance model.
What do you think? Should Minnesotans have access to the public option?
LikeTags: Governor Pawlenty, Health Care Reform, Public Option, Tuesday Talk
As long as people can’t get affordable health care,(or any health care) they should access to a public option.
We should have a public option. I wish we could get rid of our dictator governor.
A “Public Option” in which the government sets prices for medical services at rates below costs – such as medicare rates – would cause the end of commercial insurance in the U.S. With over 200 insurers, plus all the self-funded company health plans, there is no lack of competition. Adding one more source wouldn’t by itself doom the existing system. But when the government sets the price it will pay to be a level below any freely negotiated rate the existing companies can achieve, then it will quickly force all the private companies out of the market.
Setting a government mandated price does nothing to reduce the underlying costs. Economics clearly shows that the lower price will lead to higher demand with resulting scarcity. No amount of “hope” can “change” that.
Another Tuesday Talk and yet another Pawlenty bashing session, although this article does set the table to bash Pawlenty. Stop the blame game, and address the issue. It is government health care insurance, and the ability of government to provide a quality program.
“Believe” is the only one who has asked pertinent questions. Anyone care to reply, or do you just want to continue to play politics with this important subject Wise up, government never gets things done cheaper and better than the private sector, ever. The last thing we need is another failed government program. Let’s correct the system that we have.
All you neocons can do is bash and name call. I will bet that you went to a public shcool, look forward to social security, have a government home loan, enjoy safe water and food, drive our roads, enjoy our parks, applaud our electrical grid, love our armed forces and wish that the government did more to regulate Wall Street. Wake up, The government is the primary reason that America is a great place to live. The free markets have failed us time after time. Quit being ingrates.
When you cannot debate the issues, marginalize the dissent. Rather than engage in a discussion of the topic at hand you chose to attack me personally; something I thought this web site monitored. Your comments do nothing to advance this discussion.
Explain
Bernie said, “The last thing we need is another failed government program.”
I view this as a bash and defended it with just a few of our governments successes. Surely, anyone who enjoys the fruits of our government without acknowledging them is an ingrate. It is merely a descriptor.
Bernie,
I have you in a box, so you are slithering out of the conversation by dismissing me. we both know you are cornered and dodging the truth.
Chalk one up for the liberals. I win.
I find it amusing because a gentleman who doesn’t hover over his monitor awaiting your every keystroke just might have gone off to do some real work. You won nothing my friend, and I find your claim rather repugnant. *plonk*
The bell already rang and you lost. At no point would you answer my questions. By the way, I am a small business owner who has been fortunate enough to retire early and comfortably. God bless America. You are afraid of the truth and choose to ignore it. That is a recipe for perpetual ignorance.
Thank you Kim.
Rob, I will agree with you that there are some good and some bad programs. Let’s take them one at a time.
1) Schools – The federal government should stay out of it. They have been involved since the creation of the Department of Education. Since that time, I believe that our competitiveness in the global market has decreased. If this was handled at the State and local level then American’s could have more choice as to what kind of education they provided their children.
2) Police and Fire – Local issues and could be handled by the local governments to meet the needs of the community. The community can then decide how and how much they want to spend on those services.
3) Social Security – No, we are not collecting or counting on this. It will be bankrupt before I am able to collect from it. Do I care, at this point, no not really. I just wish the government would come clean and admit that it is insolvent.
4) Clean water and food – Honestly, I don’t think about it as we get our water from our well, I grow a garden and freeze and can. My meat(s) yes, I like that they are safe. But again tend to buy locally from farmers that I know.
5) Electric grid – Yes, I like that. That being said, I wish we would drill more, build some more clean burning coal power plants and look into adding more nuclear plants as well so that we could be energy independent.
6) Armed Forces – Absolutely. But I wish we would stop nation building and imposing our values on other countries. It is not our place. I would also like to see us out of the United Nations as I believe they are a complete waste of time and money.
7) As for Wall Street (and the banks) – we should have let them fail. Then we would not be having discussion on pay caps or additional regulations. People would understand that there are consequences for your actions.
9) Amtrak – The Federal Government has to subsidize Amtrak in order for them to stay in business. It is time to let the giant fail. They can no longer compete.
The smiley face was unintentional. It was supposed to be an 8.
Believe,
Although we could argue forever over the fine points, I am glad to see that we are generally in agreement about the value of government in our day-today lives. Again, my list is a very short sampling of government oversight. They truly affect every aspect of our lives. We should not take them for granted. Every product, job and relationship we have is made better by an invisible hand (Government). I do not want to be too sappy, but it is what it is.
If Medicare, Medicaid and Amtrak are in trouble it is because the Congress has UNDERFUNDED them for decades.
Every year, Medicare loses providers because payments to them are not high enough to cover their office expenses. This often leaves patients in rural areas as far as 50 miles from the nearest clinic. Medicaid takes on each year the additional folks who were thrown into poverty by George Bush’s tax policies (one million people per year) and, now, those who are losing their jobs, homes and insurance coverage because of unregulated risk-happy (with other peoples’ money) banks. A lot of these problem would go away if we taxed wealthy people at pre-Bush rates (his tax cuts accounted for half the annual budget deficit and his wars probably accounted for most of the rest). In Minnesota, the story is similar, with Pawlenty’s cuts losing us a billion dollars a year in revenue.
Your claim that private industry is always less expensive than government is untrue. Compare Medicare insurance rates to private insurance; compare delivery of a letter or package by the Postal Service to that of FedEx and UPS; compare private military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan with the cost of military service members — et cetera.
You mean the post off that is having to close 3000 locations because they can’t make money? They have a monopoly on the mail! At least with package delivery: the competitors do as good a job and provide you with tracking information.
Medicare and Medicaid may well be under funded, but instead of saying we need to tax more, how about we cut spending. Which programs would you “allow” to be cut.
The answer is not always to tax more, people run out of money. I have to live on a budget, one that seems to get smaller every year with every new tax. The government needs to learn to live on what it has. If they want to do something else, or more, they should decide what they want to cut.
If things were handled at a local level at least the community could decide what it wanted to spend money on. If people didn’t like the direction of that community they could go somewhere else. That could be said on a state level too. I simply believe that the federal government has too much control/ power.
By the way, I never said everything private does is cheaper. As I indicated to Rob, I do believe there is a place for the government. Just not as large as they seem to want it to be.
As for the military, as I mentioned in my original notes. I support the military, but NOT nation building and not the UN.
Asking the Postal Service or Amtrak to make a profit would be like asking the police and fire departments to show a profit or risk being privatized. They are aspects of the common good, financed by our taxes and fees (postage stamps, rail tickets) without which our country would soon be in a terrible mess. Amtrak is, in addition, a component of our defense against national disasters and military invasions. In spite of that, it receives very little from the government compared to the privatized airline industry.
“government never gets things done cheaper and better than the private sector, ever.”
Medicare’s administrative costs have been shown to be at 3%. Show me a private insurer that comes anywhere close to that.
Another excellent point which Bernie and his buddies will ignore. Imagine how much a college education would be if the government was not helping out. Republicans have taken advantage of the government programs as much as anybody, but have too much hubris to admit it.
Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare’s administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because it’s administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. Medicare’s administrative costs are $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfm
The Heritage Foundation? No credibility. Try again.
The Heritage Foundation is a neo-conservative propaganda arm of the GOP. They are not above cooking figures to further their narrow polital agenda.
Dan,
Bingo! Where is Bernie hiding?
Dan, from what resource did you gather your statistics on Medicare?
Bernie, be a stand-up guy.
Glad you are back, but please confess to receiving government aid. Which of the previously mentioned programs have you abused?
Bernie;
I believe it was from an article by Dennis Kucinich and referenced to a study in administrative costs done by the Congressional Budget Office during the Bush administration. Not sure how the figures you quoted were arrived at when you quoted Greg Mankiw from his blog, (you should really put other people’s words in quotes when using them). If you find out, I’d like to know… so would Paul Krugman.
I assumed that by referencing the article it was understood it was a quote. Next time, to be sure, I will add the quotes. Thanks for the refernce articles, I will give them a read. I am sure Mr. Krugman’s reporting is not biased in any way. What could be more objective than the New york Times.
Every large magazine, newspaper, TV network and radio conglomerate is owned by wealthy conservatives. They won’t allow their dcontributors to get too farr off the mark.
Although I do have to chuckle over MSNBC’s gaff in hiring Keith Olbermann to head up their news division. They thought they were hiring some uninformed sportscaster they could lead around by the nose. Oops.
Here’s a rebuttal to Mankiw’s article:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
I did find the move by MSNBC a little odd myself, thanks.
Bernie,
Glad you are back, but please confess to receiving government aid. Which of the previously mentioned programs have you abused?
From Wikipedia:
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Heritage Foundation was a key architect and advocate of the “Reagan Doctrine”, under which the United States government supported anti-Communist resistance movements in such places as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua during the Cold War. Heritage foreign policy analysts also provided policy guidance to these rebel forces and to dissidents in Eastern bloc nations and Soviet republics.
The foundation was instrumental in advancing President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the former Soviet Union was an “evil empire” and that its defeat, not its mere containment, was a realistic foreign policy objective. Heritage also played a key role in building support for Reagan’s plans to build an orbital ballistic missile shield, known as the “Strategic Defense Initiative”, or more popularly, “Star Wars.”
Yet another “fair and balanced” right-wing organization. Bernie, check with McDonalds to see if burgers and fries will lower cholesterol.
The Congress is not fully describing the several public options now under discussion, which leads me to think that they don’t want us to know that they are probably pretty useless, with provisions like limiting enrollment only to those who do not have insurance coverage now and forbidding people to drop employer-paid coverage when some of the people who need it the most are those with truly bad employer paid coverage (high premiums, low coverage).
The only truly good public option idea comes from Thom Hartmann (endorsed by Howard Dean) — let absolutely anyone under the age of 65 enroll in Medicare by paying its premiums. No restrictions, no denials.
Facts speak louder than fiction:
Compare southern states vs. northern states; choose any criterion you want:
education, healthcare, family income, unemployment, parks & recreation, teeth (I mean missing teeth-a good measure of poverty), infrastructure, environment, etc..
This isn’t about ideology; it’s about people’s lives.
Yes, we should be able to access the public option. We are between retirement and Medicare, and our rates are sky high. Also we winter in another part of the country. It would be nice to have a national type of insurance so that it would be accepted at both our homes. We currently spend over $22,000 on just insurance and deductible/copays, not including all the things that are not covered. A public option would save lots of our retirement savings.
I wonder if our esteemed Gov. Pawlenty would be willing to OPT-out of his taxpayer funded healthcare and buy private insurance?
The question gets repeated over and over again. How do people who cannot afford spiraling healthcare premiums get health insurance? The insurance companies have chosen to Opt-Out of providing lower cost health insurance. All that is left is a public option.
All over the world in most all countries, all citizens have health insurance coverage funded by taxes.
Why not us?
Bravo!
Hear-hear! We all know that the only real, viable solution to our healthcare crisis is to allow president Obama to sign H.R. 676 into law. That would provide for a Medicare style health plan to be available to every American man, woman and child; no exclusions. That’s the same plan that our elected representatives have right now. It could be completely funded by the savings we’d realize by eliminating the obscene profits currently enjoyed by the private insurers. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York has an amendment pending for H.R. 3200 which is the current, cobbled-up slop being offered to us by Congress. His amendment would strike the current text of H.R. 3200 and replace it with the text from H.R. 676. I hope you’ll write/call your representative and ask him/her to support Rep. Weiner’s amendment.
I do not want Tim Pawlenty telling Minnesotans what options they can and cannot have for health care. He only seems to care about his rich Republican cronies who can afford good health care or in his case, have it provided by the state of Minnesota. He is more concerned about profits for companies than the people who live in Minnesota who buy or need insurance.
There definitely should be a public option for those who need it. If people are satisfied with what they have, then stay with it. But there are a lot of people who need insurance who cannot afford private insurance or have been denied coverage. We need a public option also to provide some competition for the current providers to lower costs to consumers. Also, the way doctors, hospitals, and clinics are paid needs to change. They need to be paid for outcomes (quality of care), not number of tests done and medications prescribed (quantity of care). That really prevents the doctors from doing a good job.
Definitely yes. SInce this will be an optional program and states are not required to join. Actually the very best option would be universal coverage as in most European and Scandanavian countries. We are the only major industrialized nation that does not have this and it’s a crying shame. Baring this I feel each individual/family should be able to choose if they want this option rather than be denied by politicals who disagree with them.
Absolutely we should have access to a public option. Isn’t it flagrant government intervention to deny Minnesotans this access (per Pawlenty’s stated intention)? I hear pleas to “fix the system we have”, or cries of “Socialism!” or the ineptitude of government. But where are the real solutions? I’ll confess to being a big fan of socialized medicine. My experience in countries with such a system, and the lack of action to “fix what we have” have lead me to belief that we are not only under the thumb of the profit-makers, but the Red Scare still influences our country’s ideology. On the other hand, I’ll also confess to being tired of not being able to afford health insurance for my self-employed spouse.
I meant, “believe.” Urgh, sorry.
The only way to really control costs is with a single-payer system.
Much of the costs (some say as high as 30%) for health care providers is in dealing with the insurance companies which do everything they can to complicate the process. In the billing process, they change codes and requirements often, for the sole purpose of delaying claim payments which improves their margin. The providers and their patients are left with mountains of paperwork and administrative costs that just interferes with providing quality care.
With single-payer, that process can be streamlined & simplified saving us billions. Then you add other costs on top – insurers’ profits, executive pay, advertising, admin, etc – and you can see where it is the only solution. Then you can address other issues, such as tort reform & defensive medicine, service efficiencies, promoting healthy lifestyles, prevention, etc.
That is, anyway, if we are trying to achieve quality, affordable health-care for all Americans. But apparently we are not trying to do that.
Instead, we are preserving industry profits and idealogical positions at the expense of the working-class Americans…again.
This “opt-out” plan is, by design, doomed to fail. It is meant to prolong the ridiculous “discourse” that benefits both parties keeping the extremes of their bases “energized”. It has nothing to do with improving health care and everything to do with dollars in the pockets of the people who earned it the least.
So, in that sense, I agree with Pawlenty that it is a bad plan. But I feel that he is only fighting it to promote himself because it might help his presidential aspirations, not because he has a better idea to help Minnesotans get the health-care they need. If he does, where is it?
Good points. Another cost you forgot to mention was shareholder dividends.
It is a sad admission to say I am not supprised that the Govenor would like to see Mn without the public option. It’s typical of his “pass along” poitics and would help in his career goal of running for President. we need to see a ground swell of support for this part of the healthcare bill.
What we really need to see is a groundswell of support for Rep. Anthony Weiner’s amendment to H.R.3200. Read more about that here:
http://www.correntewire.com/hr_3200_vs_anthony_weiners_single_payer_amendment_hr676
Absolutely, Minneapolis should have the right to have the Health Care Insurance with the Public Option. It is every Americans right to have good Insurance. It is the only way to go.
Anyone against it is against America. A healthy America is a strong America!
A viable public option is necessary to force private insurers to compete for business. In today’s market, there is no incentive to really reduce costs beyond the industry’s need to increase profits.
That said, if Governor Pawlenty wishes to opt out, and can unilaterally do it, let him. This will help us to replace him with a more progressive governor who will fix the mistake.
Private insurers have quite an advantage in cost control today. The government currently insures the elderly, veterans, and the poor. Government also insures it’s own employees (Federal, State and City), and indirectly insures nearly all employees of government contractors, including the entire defense industry.
Who’s left? mostly middle and upper class working families under 65 years of age. A mandate to purchase insurance without a public option would also give private insurers access to post college single people, a very healthy group.
I think we need a nationally insured population (single payer) that is primarily administered by private companies. This market is well established. Most large insurers currently administer for Medicare and other government programs. They receive reasonable compensation for their work. In addition, if the government plan covers all basic requirements of the population, private insurers can continue to offer supplemental coverage (Cadillac care) to people or companies for a premium.
I believe we should have access to a public option. For a governor that wants to reduces costs and increase competition, he has not supported action that would do this. He has opposed allowing teachers to form a statewide pool of workers to bargain with insurance companies for more competitive rates. His actions seem to support insurance companies instead of consumers who have very little bargaining power the way it is.
Why should the govenor, elected by a minority of the voters, be allowed to prevent the majority of voters/citizens to become part of a national health care system which clearly would be a benefit to ALL Minnesotans and is needed to stabilize our economy with regard to HEALTH CARE COSTS? The govenor needs to resign, he no longer has any sort of credibility in the State of Minnesota. Further more he should give back his salary earned since June 30, 2009 as he has not be doing his job since then. He should also relinquish his retirement credit as an employee of the State of Minnesota.
I think the debate on Public option has not yet been thorough enough for me to have an opinion. Health care is a complex system. Poorly implemented a public option might not serve the US population well. I dont know yet. I do know that Gov. Pawlenty should stop talking and do a bit more listening before leading the charge to “stop” the public option in MN.
absolutely we should have public option! Every week I hear horror stories from friends and co-workers about the problems theyare having with health care today
We already have a public option. It is called the emergency room of the hospital. It is expensive, does not deliver the best care, has nothing to do with preventing health problems and is paid for through property owners taxes. People who believe that a public option will “cost too much” are not putting the cost of emergency room care on the other side of the scale. When this is added to the equation, a public option for health insurance begins to look cheap.
Yes – a public option for all. How I wish we could all have access to a splendid plan like veterans or medicare–gee government programs that save money and have great results for patients!
Minnesotans definitely deserve to have a chance to choose the public option. This is supposed to be a free market economy in a capitalist country. So how can we deny competitive choice which is the foundation for such a system? It makes no sense to me to deny one more possible way to buy insurance.
A public option should be just that — an option, for everybody to access or not as they choose! Why would Governor Pawlenty deny Minnesotans the choice? It makes no sense, unless he’s on the payroll of the for-profit insurance industry!
No we should not have a public option. We need the option to buy health insurance across state lines AND we need to reduce health care costs. The Bills in Congress do neither of these two things.
The public option is not a competive choice since government can just price the public option at a loss and make up the loss with increased taxes. This will simply drive private companies out of business.
The best solution would be universal healthcare such as is available in Switzerland, France, Scandinavian countries, etc. It is outrageous that in this country we have people who have lost everything because of high medical bills even though they had some form of insurance. As a society, we should be ashamed of ourselves!
However, if we can’t get universal coverage, then we definitely need to have a public option. I am self-employed and the only coverage I can afford is a policy with a very high deductible and even at that I am paying nearly $300 a month. I cannot imagine how Gov. Pawlenty can sleep at night knowing how many people have no affordable health insurance and would lose anything they have if they switch jobs or, worse yet, lose a job. We cannot allow MN to be an “opt-out” state!
Who are these people that want health care reform? Often times we have a hard time putting a face on these political topics that get tossed around like a food fight at an unmonitored high school cafeteria. I ask myself, Who profits from no competition in the health care arena?
As I scan the horizon of every major city in the United States… I ask myself…Who gets the privilege of building so many of these skyscrapers in America? Look about, many have the names of Insurance Companies. Who is able to reap the amount of profit that it requires to build such tributes to their companies? I recognize that on a local level my insurance agents are civic & community minded people that have my utmost respect. However, many of my well meaning friends feel intervention in the health care system will lead to some blurry degradation of coverage.
My friends that live in other countries are genuinely puzzled about the controversy regarding health care. They acknowledge a few minor limitations but are quite pleased with the health care they receive. They have a hard time believing that a country like the USA couldn’t find a way of doing the same…..and maybe find some ways to improve on other countries innovations in this field. Yet, we are besieged with the rantings and ravings of alarmists and talking heads preaching doom and destruction if we follow this path.
Alas, by no fault of our own my wife and I have found ourselves in the “high risk” category. We are a small business and manufacturer of “Made in America” products. It has taken all our wit and energy to pay the additional premiums and still… we feel fortunate to be able to cover these costs and need no sympathy.
We ardently support a new look at the health care system. We consider ourselves a part of the voters that turned out to create a landslide this past election… in hopes of prompting this very issue.
Do we need more skyscrapers? …………..or do we need to reconsider a more equitable health care policy?
Where else can we turn….than to our elected officials?
Sincerely,
bill keitel
Buffalo Billfold Company
Worthington MN.
ABSOPOSITILOUTLY!
Minnesotans should have the ability to choose a public health care option- and the governor should not keep Minnesotans from choosing that as an option!
Pawlenty cannot dictate to Minnesotans! We all should have the option to choose the Public Option and I hope it will be called Medicare Part E, as in Medicare for everyone! The private health care insurance industry SHOULD fail. It has been treating people unfairly and has cost us many billions. Medicare, medicaid, and the VA program have been working well! There is no reason not to have a Medicare Part E for everyone. It would provide badly needed insurance to those without any, to those who pay too much for what they get, to those who have been discriminated against through no fault of their own,and it would provide stability to the existing medicare system.
If ever there was proof that Pawlenty is running for a national seat, this is it. He wants and needs the insurance companies to put money into his election coffers and he isn’t about to do anything to upset them. The public option will force the insurance companies to offer insurance at a reasonable price because the public option will be a not-for-profit enterprise. Insurance companies hate this idea because they will have to lower their prices in order to compete. That means profits will go down and their great big fat wallets will begin to shrink. Pawlenty is no dope – he knows from whence his butter comes to put on his bread. Pawlenty is bad for Minnesota and will be even worse for the nation. Minnesota needs the public option to reduce insurance costs for everyone.
I think we should be able to have a public Hwalthcare plan like the veterans va plan. It works so much better than ahything else we ever have had and everyone could pay when they
get treatment. Rose Anderson
Minnesota’s non-profit requirements is one of the better aspects of the state’s requirements as is the parity requirement (that mental health services are comparable to other coverage in an insurance company’s offering). Companies that are part of an operation with offices in other states can provide coverage written in other states – some of which do no have that provision. Those policy premiums may be lower than what is available in MN. I have seen employees covered by such plans more frequently needing medical assistance because coverage was poor and/or with very low total $$ coverage.
I worked in a county that was part of a multi-county operation providing health care for persons receiving MN Medical Assistance and Medicare. This “business” was also able to better coordinate physical and mental health care with county provided services (such as chemical dependency).
I couldn’t find any reason why a public option can’t be as effective or efficient as private providers. The myriad plans (even Medicare Part D) are unnecessarily complex. Their varied authorization and appeal procedures, payment schedules and drug formularies
cause a lot of wasted medical provider time.
Current MN state administration has wasted a lot of valuable time during the past 6 years by not leading the way planning possible organizational options of state and local governmental agencies exploring consolidation and and other efficiencies that may be possible. Instead he has led the way shifting costs to local governments as well as reducing state aides to them. Nor has he done anything to reduce state mandates on local governments to help them develop alternative service delivery mechanisms. Instead he has told the public to hold local officials “feet to the fire” if they raised property taxes.
Thus, I cannot find any reason to think he has a credible basis for not allowing a public option which would be far better than opening up the market to any insurance provider anywhere in the country.
If the insurance companies are so sure THEY will be raisinig premiums, then we must have aPUBLIC OPTION to keep them competitive… it’s the American way… and if Congress isn’t willing to approve a PUBLIC OPTION, then Congress SHOULD LOSE THEIR PUBLIC OPTION, since it’s too expensive. Either we ALL get it, or NO ONE should have it!!!!!!!
I think Pawlenty should stay out of this. Otherwise, he is doing meddling in our affairs of which he is trying to dictate to us what is good and fair and we are a republic. I think he is out of line on this public option meddling.
Pawlenty is showing how much he truly DOES NOT care for the concerns of Minnesotans. There are thousands of people, employed and not employed, many of whom I know personally, who do not have any healthy care. Others have health care that only covers catastrophic events – that is no way to live. We all deserve to have health care. A Medicare for All option is the only real answer.
The appropriate role of government is in the realm of regulation. Regulation could lower costs by preventing or restricting unwarranted lawsuits against the medical profession and drug companies thus lowering their costs and lower the cost of medical services for all. I would like to take the insurance industry out of the picture altogether. Removing the costs added by the legal profession and the insurance industry would go a long way to reducing the cost of medical care for all of us.
Minnesotans should have access to a public option. We cannot leave this important issue to private insureres. Why would they do anything differently now, that they could have done to prevent us from being in this situation where many Americans are not insured, can’t get insurance, cant afford insurance.
This is a no-brainer. Of course Minnsesotians should have access to the public option.
I think it would be horrible for our governor to opt out of the public plan for our whole state. Wouldn’t that be acting like a dictator? Just because you offer it, that doesn’t say you have to take it. It’s just an option you have. It may lead to a reduction of cost to all people which would be a necessary thing.
Likely, conservative Dem. Senators & Lieberman will note vote for a public option. Even if they did, an option open only to the uninsured (about 10%) is not a PUBLIC option and not enough to decrease cost-except to increase the cost to gov’t of health care by dumping those with much need (pre-existing conditions, unemployed, sick) onto the public budget without balancing those with good health).
The House will also come out with a weak option, applying only to the uninsured. Progressive hope is lost; confidence in our government for meaningful reform is lost; I will give up caring one damn whit about politics, the 2-party system, and contributing any more time or money to the clown show called the U.S. government.
There are so many Public Options now (Medicare,Mediaid,MNcare,Schip)to name a few, why can’t the goverment make them work??? We need more, I think not!
I am apalled that Tim Pawlenty thinks he has the right to speak for Minnesotans regarding the public option. He hasn’t spoken for Minnesotans for a very long time. Having lived on numerous occasions in foreign countries with universal health care plans and seeing how they, for the most part, worked for the benefit of individual citizens (and even visiting foreign nationals!), I am always amazed that one of the most supposedly enterprising and creative countries in the world is so backward when it comes to accepting the notion of healthcare for all. We can fly to the moon and beyond but can’t (or won’t) deliver on a basic human right that most modern governments view as a responsibility to their populace. How is health care different from other services the government provides and we expect, such as fire, police, transportation, education, etc? Perhaps the day is not too far off where we’ll have to check our bank account before we call the police or the fire department, too. Can you imagine the insurance industry that would result from that situation?
During a pregnancy in Scotland, I received good quality local healthcare and was treated with care and respect, where, amazingly, my well-being and the well-being of my unborn child seemed to be the focus, not the fact that I didn’t have insurance or was a foreigner. In fact it was irrelevant. When I returned to the US for my daugther’s birth at 7 1/2 months, the first order of concern at my local health care clinic was the status of my insurance, not the status of my pregnancy. We seem to be hurtling ourselves down our potholed filled highways to the third world.
Perhaps Tim Pawlenty would like to seek employment within the insurance industry since he represents it so well. He certainly isn’t welcome in Minnesota anymore.
I am very pleased with the bill with strong public option just passed. We must have public option to keep insurance affordable. I would not accept the opt in ,or opt out version, because I think it is very dangerous. When you have a governor without a conscience like Tim Pawlenty it would be useless, no insurance for our state. I am a retired State Employee with no complaints about my insurance coverage, except it is just became unaffordable. I was paying 1/4 of my total income to them and it went up another $108 per year. Last year they added copays for everything, before my only copay was the emergency room ($30). That went up to $50 and every thing now is copay, even $10 for every visit to the doctor. So it would be much more if I need to use it. I would pay $10 for copay on 34 day RX but I find I can get the prescription for 90 days at Target for $5, but the government cant negoate prices in Medicare D??? Stupid!! I am 100% behind real HEALTH CARE REFORM! CMS
The people of Minnesota should get to choose whether or not to opt out, not the governor. This could best be accomplished through a referendum so each person’s voice can be heard. If some states stay in and others opt out, I would anticipate those folks unhappy with their own state’s choice moving to another state to get the coverage they need. Could result in large population shifts across the country.
MN. should absolutely have the public option, otherwise it will not lead to lower med. ins. costs for all, & it wouldn’t be fair to have some states have the public option & others not. Who decides whether MN. gets the P.O. or not? We must fight for every person to have access to affordable med. ins., & the only way to do this is with the public option!
I totally support a public option as I am aware that Medicare is one of the government’s most successful programs. Compare the 3-4% administrative costs and moderate CEO pay ($200,000.00 annually the last time I looked) with the 20-30% costs of private insurance and multimillion dollar salaries for their CEOs. And think what the $32 Million the private insurer’s have spent on advertising this year alone to scuttle any health care reform that doesn’t keep them in the driver’s seat –that would sure pay for a lot of care. We are the only developed country, despite being the wealthiest (so far), that does not provide at least basic health care for all its citizens. The reality is that it is going to cost a lot either way–if we continue with private insurers only and their dramatically rising premiums with higher and higher copays and deductibles or funding a public option. Health care is one of the most important issues of our day and I hope the vital if contentious dialogue continues until we hammer out an agreement that takes care of us all, especially our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
MN. should support the public option for healthcare reform. Without it, we continue to waste millions (billions?) of dollars with the inefficiencies of our current system, where people without health ins. use Er’s for their primary care provider. With the P>O> this would no longer be the case, & the money saved could cover a big part of the cost to provide everyone with healthcare ins. And healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privilege for only those who can aford it, just like education, roads, social security, etc. It is very important that MN. have the public option for healthcare reform. Thanks! Marjori Carlson, US House District #5, MN.
Everyone has made some valid points. However, none of you are asking the right questions. Has anyone even stopped to wonder why the administration is in such a hurry to pass healthcare reform? Or why the bill has almost 2000 pages that most of the Congressman/women have admitted they won’t have time to read? Or why a complete overhaul of our healthcare system MUST be made now? If they can really squeeze so much waste from Medicare, then why don’t they just do it? Does it really HAVE to be part of this huge bill? If they really want to protect us from being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, not being able to take our insurance with us when we change jobs, and not having to go broke because of ever increasing insurance premiums they would just do it!
None of these issues are being disputed by either side. In fact, both the Democrats and Republicans all seem to agree on most of the biggest issues in this debate. The biggest reason the healthcare debate is as heated and passionate as it is, is because at this moment in time the Democrats, led by President Obama are trying to take control of everything. The Republicans just want to fix what needs fixing. We DO NOT NEED a complete insurance overhaul we need some routine maintenance. It started with Cape & Trade, then the bailouts, salary capping of executives, controlling our insurance. That is only the beginning, and what has been reported on the news. While they’ve got you guys fighting about who should opt-in our opt-out, they are slowly trying to take over everything.
Ever noticed how anyone who speaks out against what’s going on (like the tea party movement or cable news) is quickly berated and labeled as insignificant or unimportant. Rather than allowing them to have their first amendment rights, anyone who doesn’t agree is called a “Nazi, anti-american, or “astroturf”. This is what our country was founded on, and they have been publicly denouncing it for months. All of you need to WAKE UP! By the way, Pelosi’s bill still includes the provision to appoint a nameless faceless panel of bureaucrats (“death panel”) that will be deciding how much medical care we will actually get. You’d better hope if you’re on Medicare you don’t get really sick. You may be their first victim.