[lbo-talk] Universal health insurance in Minnesota?

[/ dave /]

[I'm trying to figure out what the catch is, because the bill has 
"bipartisan support", notwithstanding the potential for tax increases, 
and - shudder - "universal coverage", which as we all know smacks of 
socialism. But by any other name... who knows. The cigarette thing is 
probably already a lock, for the most part, as major metro areas like 
Minneapolis have already passed bans to varying degrees that go into 
effect this week...]

Bill mandates universal health insurance for Minnesotans

Patricia Lopez,  Star Tribune
March 30, 2005

Every Minnesotan would be required to have at least minimal health 
insurance and every insurer would have to offer such a plan under a 
far-ranging health care overhaul bill offered by the Minnesota Medical 
Association on Tuesday.

The bill, which is being introduced with bipartisan support in the House 
and Senate today, would also ban smoking in the workplace -- including 
restaurants and bars -- and would increase the cigarette tax by $1 a pack.

Sen. Sheila Kiscaden, I-Rochester, the bill's Senate sponsor, called the 
proposal "a major health care reform effort" that ultimately could 
result in lower cost and more effective health care that tilts the 
system toward illness prevention.

The bill's supporters acknowledge that chances for passage this year are 
slim. The session is half over and the major elements of the bill are 
controversial, with its universal coverage requirements and tax increase.

"This is a late launch," Kiscaden said, noting that several elements, 
such as the cigarette tax and smoking ban, exist in separate legislation 
and might pass on their own.

Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, the bill's House sponsor, said that even if it 
does not pass this year, the proposal "puts a whole lot of ideas on the 
table for us to look at."

Dr. Michael Gonzalez-Campoy, president of the Minnesota Medical 
Association, said the plan was the result of "months of work," and that 
health providers briefed on it had been enthusiastic.

At its core, the plan would set out an as-yet-undefined set of 
"essential benefits" that would provide minimal coverage with an 
emphasis on prevention. Kiscaden said that Minnesotans might be required 
to offer proof of coverage when they filed their income taxes or applied 
for a driver's license. By the same token, insurers would have to offer 
the essential benefits and could not reject anyone because of age, 
gender or health history. Pre-existing health conditions, a common 
reason for rejection for traditional policies, could not be taken into 
account.

Gonzalez-Campoy said that would bring another 374,000 uninsured 
Minnesotans into the system, resulting in earlier treatment, more 
prevention and more affordable care. Ultimately, he said, "health care 
costs will be lower."

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5318643.html

-- 

/  dave  /