Minnesota Health Plan advances in Senate, opponents grilled

[...] post by Google Inc. and software by Elliott Back Послать ссылку на этот обзор [...]

It is disappointing that the vote was straight party line. This is a decidedly non-partisan issue. As the economy worsens, and it will, unemployed citizens who have lost their healthcare insurance and perhaps there homes, are likely to feel differently than Mr. Burris about this issue.

On the brighter side, you may lose your house, your health insurance, your job and your personal possesions but you won’t lose your right to vote. The small government, low taxes, free market party line polititians who got us into this situation should keep that in mind.

The ‘free-market’ system does not work. For one, if you have a pre-existing condition or any sort of ding on your medical file, the health insurance company will take a pass. Their main interest is the bottom line, NOT the health or care of their customers.

There is also an issue with those who are under-insured. I once worked for a contract company that only offered a mini-med. The maximum benefit each year is approximately $8000. It help to pay for approximately six months of prescriptions for me and two check ups per year. I’ve postponed cancer screening tests due to the cost. Heaven forbid that anything major would happen. Now that I’m unemployed, I’m faced with making a decision on whether to pay for a plan that only offers a minimal benefit or take my chances and hope that I find a new job soon that offers a medical plan.

Good Point Ron, this should be a non-partisan issue. It’s about common sense, and standing up for the common person. We are one very few advanced countries that don’t have universal health care. We all know what it’s really about-MONEY. Just look at one of the first lines in the article-”One insurance industry representative even suggested that those with the most money should have the best access to health care.” That pretty much sums up the opposition to this bill.

But, in fairness, it’s not just Republicans who fail to get it. A number of Democrats fail to display the courage and leadership that Senator Marty always demonstrates. We need to elect that man Governor next year. If people really look at the issues, and see what that man has consistently stood for-he will win. That’s my kind of Democrat! We just have to get out of this defeatist attitude that we can’t beat the money, WE CAN. We are the majority; it’s time to stand up to this corruption. It’s time to stand up to weak politicians, and it’s time to support strong ones like Senator Marty!

I too am proud of Senator Marty and I believe he would bring a high level of integrity to the office Statehouse. It would be a refreshing change to have a governor without hidden agendas that openly and honestly advocates for what he believes to be right, not just what he believes to be politically expedient.

As Senator Marty ponders both his Gubernatorial aspirations and his plans to promote universal healthcare I hope that he keeps in mind that while there is an enormous upside to universal healthcare, there are equally enormous downsides if it is not done properly. That is why some very good people, democrats and republicans alike, are wary of it.

I would humbly suggest that he consider what I believe are the two greatest sources of concern that are present in most such plans.

Concern #1. Doctors and hospitals are commonly considered to be part of the problem. Any healthcare reimbursement reform that is punitive to doctors and hospitals will fail. It is our healthcare payment system, not our healthcare delivery system that is broken. Doctors must not become employees of the government, and hospitals that are currently in private hands should stay there. Once there is transparency in the system, competition between private medical care providers based on quality and efficiency rather than grovelling to the insurance companies for whatever scraps they are thrown, will improve the delivery side.

Concern #2. If politicians are allowed to raid the universal health care fund in the same way that they have raided the Social Security Trust Fund, the system will fail. This is perhaps the most pervasive, and justified, fear regarding a universal single payor system. This is an area where the interests of most of us converge. I don’t know the answer to addressing this thorny issue, but it strikes me that private management with strong public regulation and oversight might be the most cost effective and sustainable way to protect this fund. Another approach to mitigating this risk would be to have 50 smaller state regulated funds instead of 1 massive federal fund so that state to state comparisons of models would foster innovation in structuring the management of these funds while federal guidelines would assure standardization where it is necessary to would achieve efficiency.

I wish Senator Marty success in his efforts.

I think one of the testifiers really helped the debate over the Minnesota Health Plan. Mike Burris of Advisornet (an insurance brokerage) told the committee that those who are wealthy enough to be able to afford it should get better health care. At last, a conservative spokesman came right out and said it! We owe him our thanks for finally setting the argument in honest, forthright terms. Now let’s proceed with it: do you deserve health care because you are a member of the human community or because you have money?

Please, the health care system we have today is not a “free-market” system by any stretch of the imagination. We have a managed care system in which non-profit health plans regulated by government pay for medical services received by other people and delivered by other people. Proposed single-payer plans would simply remove the non-profits from the equation. We would still have prepaid managed health care in which a third party inserts itself between patient and physician and makes personal medical decisions for patients.

In a free market system, the patient controls health care dollars. They can be his dollars, dollars from an insurance company or dollars received through a government program (with no strings attached). The key is the patient chooses his doctor and decides on treatment based on what he is willing to pay out of the pool of health care dollars he has.

In a free market system, doctors determine what services they will offer to whom and at what price. They compete for individual patients. (In today’s system, doctors compete for insurance dollars and patient pools). Patients, not government, decides if doctors are providing value and quality care based on the patients’ needs.

In a free market system, insurance companies offer a variety of policies that cover a range of risks at a range of prices. Consumers purchase insurance policies to preserve their assets in the event of an unpredictable unaffordable medical event, not to gain access to the health care system. First dollar care is paid for by the patient. Patients base their decisions on their tolerance for risk versus the cost of a policy versus the probability of a catastrophic event. There are no government coverage mandates.

In a free market system, the role of government is to protect patients from physician negligence and to ensure that contracts between insurance companies and consumers are honored. Government can legitimately require insurance companies to follow very detailed disclosure requirements to ensure consumers know exactly what their policies do and do not cover. Government may not mandate what policies must cover or what they must cost or whom they must cover.

You can blast the current system, but it is just plain inaccurate to call the present system a free market health care system.

Mike Buress’ contact info is publically available on the Minnesota Association of Health Underwriters web site:

http://www.emahu.org/legislativecommittee.cfm

Please keep messages involving pitchforks, tar and feathers, and logs as a method of conveyance out of town, courteous and to the point.

Lisa Sherman’s story illustrates the need to fix the way the health care system works, but in absolutely no way whatsoever does it justify putting any portion of the system in the hands of the government.

As for the discussion about “the ‘car-buying’ model of health care”: When Sen. Mary Olson says, “When I talk to people on the ground and patients… The idea that they are going to go and cost shop for a doctor is so out of touch with how we actually access health care, especially in rural communities where we are lucky if we can even get in to see a doctor,” she’s right. But is that because of some deficiency that would be solved by further government intervention in our health care system? I don’t believe so.

Above, in the comments, Ron Thiessen writes, “It is disappointing that the vote was straight party line. This is a decidedly non-partisan issue.” No, sir, it’s most definitely not. Sure, maybe “making our health care system work better” is a matter people of all political stripes can support, but that’s not what is at issue here. They’re discussing how to do that, and that’s a matter over which there is clearly a wealth of disagreement. Because government intervention in anything, particularly health care, is in no way a non-partisan issue.

And in closing: Yeah, what Westover said.

Mike,
A large portion of the healthcare reimbursement system and some elements of the delivery system are already in the hands of the government and, except for the fact that they are chronically underfunded, it has been my experience that they work quite well. My 92 year old nearly blind mother with a colostomy still lives at home following her cancer surgery 10 years ago that was paid for by Medicare. She has a daily visit from a health aid supplied by the county and that keeps her from needing to be in a nursing home.
The government is, in fact the largest insurer of healthcare in the United State and its role continues to grow rapidly as more people lose their homes and their jobs in this severe economic downturn. Compounding the problem is that 49 million Americans are uninsured but not without healthcare. They show up in our emergency rooms and their care is unreimbursed. That is why your aspirin tablet in the hospital costs 50 bucks. The money has to come from somewhere. In the hospital, that somewhere is called cost shifting.
I say that this is a non-partisan issue because I am not looking for a fight, but rather for a solution. We remain polarized over this issue at our peril. The government’s involvement in healthcare is a given. Market forces definitley have a role to play as well in improving quality and access and reducing cost. I approach this discussion as a human being, a nurse of 35 years and a helthcare clinic administrator with a responsibility to my employees, my providers and my patients. I have no political axe to grind.
It is clear to me that we spend too much on healthcare and get too little. That trajectory has remained steady for many years. It is not sustainable in my opinion. I believe Senator Marty’s plan has merit and is worth discussing and refining. If there are other proposals out there that have detailed plans that achieve univeral coverage and provide cost effetive healthcare that is high quality and affordable, I would love to hear them.

Government is not the entity which I want controlling my health care decisions.

Government is the entity which forbids the use of unapproved treatments. Government does not allow the use of experimental treatments even when a patient’s doctor might otherwise recommend it. In the land of the free, our government forbids medicines and treatments which are readily available in other parts of the world. And our government, the government of a free people, threatens those people with imprisonment if they attempt to lessen their suffering and improve their quality of life.

A case in point is the medical use of marijuana. Government forbids its use despite the fact that many suffering people claim to experience a better quality of life. People are suffering and, even though many are facing terminal illness, government is protecting those people from the harm that improves their quality of life.

Furthermore, take a look at the red tape and roadblocks that government puts in the way of advancements in health care. It takes years or even decades for drugs to be approved for use. This is expensive and the end product ends up being expensive or not even profitable enough to put through all of the testing and finally bring to market.

In addition to red tape in the drug industry we have government, through zoning and other regulation, controlling which services can be offered at which locations. A case in point is the bill, currently making its way through the state legislature, which extends the moratorium on construction of new radiation facilities. Why do we restrict the availability of services while, at the same time, claiming that there is inadequate availability of services? I would guess that it is to protect the profits of the existing facilities.

If you take a closer look, government is no better than an insurance company. In many ways government is part of the problem and your health care will not be perfectly perfect whether you, an insurance company, or the government pays your medical bills. The cost/benefit decision still has to be made.

The real difference is that this plan forces some, against their will, to participate. That is wrong.

I realize that any rant is pointless unless I offer what I believe to be a workable alternative, so I instead suggest a non-governmental voluntary association. Perhaps a health care cooperative or a fraternal organization. Something that can better tailor itself to the needs of its members. This leaves you with a choice and does not put you at the mercy of the politicians. If you look around you will already see such organizations. I’ve seen some advertising themselves as Christians helping Christians and other such slogans. Perhaps, if you’re so inclined, you can even find a group of Atheists helping Atheists.

It is really a matter of looking for people with common interests and objectives, not common geography. They’ll agree with you much more often. We need to stop looking to government for a solution and, once again, start looking to ourselves.

Jason,

I work in the healthcare field. I am not aware of any insurance plan that allows any treatment without question simply because a physician orders it. Medicine is a science and physicians hold themselves to certain standards of practice. Treatments must demonstrate an accepted risk/benefit ratio to be recommended. All plans, private and public, have an appeals process to determine if a particular treatment may have merit and also to make sure that patients are not being harmed by expirimental or not yet proven treatments.

Regarding medical marijuana, are there private plans that allow this where the government doesn’t? I personally feel that in the case of marijuana, there is probably sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is effective in some cases and that it poses no more risks, medical or societal, than many of the other medicines we use. I would be surprised if Christians helping Christians paid for it though, but what the heck!
When you talk about radiation facilities I assume that you mean radiation that is used for cancer treatment and not radiology centers. There is a desire on the part of some physicians to strip away some of the more profitable services that are offered in the hospital setting and establish free standing services so that they can bill both a facility fee and technical fee. This is more profitable for the physician but can, in some instances, denie the hospital profits that help to support the services that are necessary but not profitable. Inpatient treatment of complex illnesses and traumatic injuries will always be necessary. The moratorium you are discussing may be intended to protect this public resource.
I am not sure where the idea comes from that the government has more red tape or is more abusive or intrusive than private plans. My bookkeeper tells me that of all the plans she works with, Medicaid is the most prompt, efficient and user friendly. It doesn’t pay as well because the government programs are underfunded, but it works more smoothly according to her.
You are suggesting that it is important to look at all the workable alternatives and I agree that is the key. We already provide healthcare to all citizens but some must be bankrupted to get it. Our system is costly and inneficient and yields poorer outcomes than many others. Reform of some sort will be necessary.

[...] http://minnesotaindependent.com/26244/minnesota-health-plan-advances-in-senate-opponents-grilled [...]

My ancestors (grandparents’) parents had a decision to make: Come to America or go to Siberia. Those who stayed seldom lived long enough to make the trip to Siberia. I now tell my children that with this new administration they are inheriting a system for their children from which my grandparents escaped. Sixty years ago my mother and others like her had babies in their homes. Healthcare wasn’t a right. It still isn’t and never should be. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights. Someone wrote that everyone in this country has health care. That is right after you turn 65 BUT there are significant limits in your coverage, just as there will be with universal health care coverage — a right? Show me one person who gets turned away from any emergency room or clinic because they can’t pay — every one of them gets health care. Universal health care? Please! Then the drug I take which costs more than $3300.00 per month will likely not exist or it will be taken from me because someone decides that to be so. AARP reported that the Humana Part D copay for this drug is $800.00 per month, going up in 2009 to $1200.00 per month–universal health coverage if over 65 already exists! Get over it. Health care is not a right. I have to make decisions about working or not at age 62 — with a diagnosis of leukemia I will continue to work so I can get the drug at a copay of $100.00 per month. Choices, not rights. Those in rural areas choose to live there — it is not their right to also have exemplary health care even with universal health care coverage.

an intelligent, humane society is the direction all communities should be moving toward. we see what happens in a totally capitalist society. people loose their jobs and loose their medical insurance all in the name of the capitalist cycle. totally unfeeling bottom line thinking that doesn’t seriously reflect on the pain of the real people involved in that cycle.

[...] MnIndy: “Minnesota Health Plan advances in Senate, opponents grilled” – Great comments. [...]

The Son Of Heaven…

…a good post over at . . ….