[lbo-talk] Universal health insurance in Minnesota?

/ dave / arouet at winternet.com
Tue Mar 29 11:53:59 PST 2005


[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 /



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list