For Red States, Opting Out is Not An Option
By Jon Perr Tuesday Oct 27, 2009 7:00am
While the Obama White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Congressional Democrats debate among themselves whether the so-called "opt out" public health insurance option endorsed by Reid will be included in reform legislation, Minnesota Governor and GOP presidential wannabee Tim Pawlenty has already weighed in. Asked if he would "lead a charge" in his state to opt out, Pawlenty replied, "I think so because I don't like government run health care."
That's easy for him to say. As it turns out, Minnesota is the exception that proves the rule of red state socialism. An increasingly blue state with the 4th best health care system in the nation, the Land of 10,000 Lakes sends far more tax dollars to Washington than it receives in federal spending in return. But for Pawlenty's fellow Republican refuseniks, leaders of red states offering dismal health care and a beneficiaries of a one-way transfer of taxpayer funds from DC, opting out may not be an option.
In recent weeks, Texas secessionists and Georgia legislators have echoed Pawlenty's confused reading of the Tenth Amendment by endorsing a state veto over federal health reform mandates. But just in time for the debate over the merits of a state-by-state "opt out" of a national public health insurance option, the Commonwealth Fund has released its 2009 state health care scorecard. As in 2007, the data reveals the critical condition of red state health care. All of which could present Republican governors and legislatures with a dilemma: Will they refuse to offer lower cost insurance coverage for their residents by rejecting a system funded in part by blue state taxpayers?
Given the contentious ongoing debate in the Senate, crystal ball-gazing for any public option, whether national, opt-in or opt-out is difficult. But the Commonwealth Fund's analysis of health care indicators shows the stakes for its red state opponents. While nine of the top 10 performing states voted for Barack Obama in 2008, four of the bottom five (including Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Louisiana) and 14 of the last 20 backed John McCain. (That at least is an improvement from the 2007 data, in which all 10 cellar dwellers had voted for George W. Bush three years earlier.)
(Here is the Commonwealth Fund's 2009 state-by-state health care scorecard. Here are links to the executive summary, the full report and PDF and Powerpoint chart packs.)
While New York Senator Chuck Schumer reported earlier this month that the "opt out" notion was gaining interest from conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Republicans were unmoved:
A spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggests to the Huffington Post that it's unlikely that any GOPers will come on board.
"While Republicans support health care reform, they don't support a new government plan," said Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesperson, when asked about the opt-out idea.
That opposition would present a double quandary for the Republican leadership in Congress and in the states. After all, their residents not only need health care reform most. As it turns out, the funding in part would come from blue state taxpayers.
As the Washington Post noted in May ("A Red State Booster Shot"):
Health-care reform may be overdue in a country with 45 million uninsured and soaring medical costs, but it will also represent a substantial wealth transfer from the North and the East to the South and the West. The Northeast and the Midwest have much higher rates of coverage than the rest of the country, led by Massachusetts, where all but 3 percent of residents are insured. The disproportionate share of uninsured is in the South and the West, the result of employment patterns, weak unions and stingy state governments. Texas leads the way, with a quarter of its population uninsured; it would be at the top even without its many illegal immigrants.
As it turns out, health care reform spending would be little different from the overall pattern of red state socialism. That is, red state residents disproportionately benefit from the steady one-way flow of tax dollars and earmarks spreading the wealth from Washington to their states.
As the 2007 analysis (above) of 2005 federal spending per tax dollar received by state shows, the reddest states generally reaped the most green. Eight of the top 10 beneficiaries of federal largesse voted for John McCain for President. Unsurprisingly, all 10 states at the bottom of the list - those whose outflow of tax revenue is funding programs elsewhere in the country - all voted for Barack Obama in 2008. And as the Wall Street Journal documented in March and again in July, Republican states are reaping outsized benefits from the $787 billion Obama stimulus package they so fiercely opposed.
While not ideal, Paul Krugman, Howard Dean and Nate Silver among others have argued that the opt-out public option approach has the merit of creating economic, political and behavior pressure on Tim Pawlenty's fellow Republican governors to offer their residents the same access to lower cost insurance as their neighbors in Democratic-controlled states. Should the opt out scenario come to pass, Republicans leaders will have to decide:
Will they put blue state money where their red state mouths are?
Any American who cares about the quality, accessibility and cost of health care for all Americans should hope the answer is yes.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
Login or Register to post comments.
The opt out option doesn't seem so bad to me. The way I see it, it would be a good first step and it would also be an incentive for the states that still are run by Republicans to vote them out.
I am more interested in getting a decent HCR bill passed, and see little eventual downside to the opt-out. As this post makes clear, it would be a bit suicidal for GOPers in red states to opt out, since they are sustained by federal dollars kindly donated by taxpayers in blue states. With various bits of talk of secession by red state politicians over the past year or so, it would be delicious to float the idea of the blue states seceding to be rid of the financial drain (and political tsuris im tuchos--you could look it up!) due to the red states. Hardly something to be desired, but kind of amusing to flip the rhetoric.
...if there is to be secession, the Red States take the initiative, and walk the walk if they're going to talk the talk.
That way the Blue States have taken the high road, and the Red States are the losers, in every way.
I wonder how long it would be before the New Confederacy of Red States applies for foreign aid from the now-geographically-separated Union of Blue States as a Third World Country?
... is that 90 to 95% of the remaining Red states are going to opt-in into this double super background secret Socialist government takeover of health care all on the liberal Blue states dole, and thus those few Red states that opt-out of the public option will have a huge crisis on their hands when those states unwittingly end up competing with one another over leading the nation in out-of-state U-Haul rentals. Such states will go bankrupt from a mass exodus of residents who have had enough of the ReThuglican/Blue Dog Conservative plantation life, packed up their sandbox, and moved, paying taxes in a state that had opted into the public option from the get-go.
so TPaw can bite me.
Keep in mind that what is in the best interests of their constituents means little compared to the potential political points they think they will score with their base.
Party before pretty much anything or anyone else.
Options are Nazi socialist turned facist Muslim!
(did I miss anything?)
"feminazi" for complete coverage.
The Cantservatards got a IDEOLOGY!
They'll fight to the last drop of our blood.
I'm pleased that the senate got here (a triggerless PO).
Access to the PO for all (Wyden) is the next big fight.
If we don't get a Wyden like PO access expansion, the Ds will get hammered in 2010.
It's a political brick wall:
Imagine that you're a person with crappy private insurance when you realize that you're trapped and have no option. The Ds will get killed, IMO.
It's funny when Pawlenty says he "likes" or "doesn't like" something - he tries to make it sound as if he has his own opinion. However, everyone in MN knows he's just a windsock - he takes on whatever opinion he thinks is most likely to advance he career. Usually it's that of the
TeabaggersTaxpayers League.Luckily for MN, Pawlenty has no ability to lead on any issue. He's never actually accomplished anything, all he's done is veto a few things.
And a few of us in other parts know this too!
*windsock* made me crack up!
lol
...specifically the part about "Budget", and it's obvious that he subscribed to the Ronald Reagan Philosophy on Budget Deficits.
As everyone knows, Reagan's prescription was to cut the budget deficit by cutting (vital) services while raising fees for them -- all the while not raising taxes, always a popular move with constituents until the perpetrator leaves office (which Pawlenty will do after next year). Pawlenty also raised state college tuition rates, another phenomenon that took hold in California during Reagan's governorship, and was echoed in many other states attempting to balance budgets.
So, then citizens are left with crumbling roads and bridges (a real disaster in a cold state like Minnesota), demented homeless due to cuts for state disability and mental health care, diminishing numbers of college graduates, and nothing left in the depleted budget to fix these problems.
In fact, Reagan cut taxes to the most revenue-producing segments of our society, both in California and as President: the very very rich, and corporations, and an initiative to cut property taxes went through in California during his reign. Schwarzenegger's California administration is suffering the long term effects of all that now, and we as a country are suffering the effects of the Reagan Philosophy as carried out by the Bushes.
Crap. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
should be out of office by the time anything is up for an opt-out - since he'll be bugging the rest of the nation with his crap from now until 2012, I'll have my Medicare Part E here in Minnesota while he's trying to convince you-all to vote for him. I'm so tired of his crap.
The opt out option is a horrible idea. I live in Texas and no way in hell would any Republican governor NOT opt out.
Single payer now.
Sure, those are exactly the type of people who might vote Democrat.
(Though the joke is on them since the Democrats are actually just another bunch Corporate lackeys)
The scientific term is political cleansing.
---
And yes, HR 676, single payer is the only way.
as boomers lurch toward the graveyard. Never let a good opportunity go to waste.
Isn't this ultimately what the whole Health Care charade is really about? Americas last remaining viable "industry".
Just keeping them alive in their feathered nests could create 200 Million jobs.
Insurance Agents, Doc's, nurses, bed pan cleaners, etc . . Plastic surgeons for the ladies.
I worked in a cosmetic surgery aftercare in B.H. and probably 30% of the facelift patients were men.
Lots of eye work on men.
I LMAO when I read that line about "boomers lurching toward the graveyard"...
If you haven't read his novels I'll bet you'd enjoy them.
I tried to read the Long Emergency but it turned into the Long Digression for me.
What did he say?
We already see people going to extreme lengths to get themselves some form of affordable health insurance. If red states opt out, and blue states stay in, might that not lead to an exodus of people from the red-states to the blue? And thus leave an ever more rabid and bonkers blue-hatin majority in the red-state?
Basically, I'm concerned that the presence of saner republicans and democrats, even in Red states, prevents the nutters from running the asylum. If the sane people leave, to get affordable health care elsewhere, then the nutters really will be in charge of those states.
And that would not be a good idea.
Why not?
The red state populations would decrease and after the following census, they'd get fewer electoral votes and have even less swing. Republicans would become even more regional and have less influence at the national level. I don't see a downside to that.
If you had say 6 states, where the VAST majority were these idiots running the show, I don't think they'd stop at merely talking about secession and what not.
At some point, it may force the red states to get their act together. As far as I understood, Canada followed a fairly smooth transition, where some provinces instituted single payer first. And their success forced the rest of the provinces to adopt the system.
I say let the blue states join the XXI century, and the red states can keep on re-enacting the 1800s.
Your last sentence just says it all. Loved it; thanks.
. wrong place. never mind
My state, Kentucky, is largely considered "RED" with a capital "R." Our two Senators and most of our congressional delegation are Rethugs. We have a history of voting Rethug in Presidential elections. However, right now, the Governor and the majority of the state House of Representatives are Dems.
On the other hand, Rethugs have a slim majority in the State Senate that they have used very effectively to block almost any progressive ideas. Further, a lot of the Dems are conservative "blue dogs."
Even is this situation, I cannot envision how there would enough momentum generated for an action to pass both houses (with veto-proof majorities) and be signed by the governor to opt-out of the national public option coverage. I would guess, even with a large push from lobbyists and donations from the Health Insurance Industry, that there is less than a 10% chance that Kentucky would opt-out and a 0% chance of that an opt-out would last very long.
as Minnesota shows - but TPaw's days are numbered and then I can actually get some health care.
Minnesota isn't "an increasingly blue state." Minnesota has been blue for decades. It's the one state that hasn't voted Republican in the presidential election since 1972. If you want to see how progressive Minnesota has been through the years, look up Floyd Olson. Minnesota gave the nation such stalwart liberals as Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone. If anything, Minnesota is an increasingly purple state. The Minnesota of the past would never have voted in a hack like Norm Coleman. Minnesota is a weird state. There is the Twin Cities (extremely liberal), the suburbs/exurbs (mostly conservative), the farm belt (crazy, think Michelle Bachman), and the north east Iron Range-Duluth area (still union country despite a horrible economy). We like our third parties here (Jesse Ventura), which has been to Pawlenty's benefit. He has managed to win two terms without winning a majority of the vote. I guarantee you the public option would pass on a referendum or on a vote in the state legislature. I'm curious to know what the opt out mechanism would be. Anyone have any idea?
the twin cities is very blue. it's a great place in my opinion. yup the secondary and tertiary suburbs are more red. the demographics are alittle different and they are getting pinched by taxation. minnesota also has a program called minnesota care at least they use to that provides medical care for the financially challenged. very blue but people are into personal responsibility but at the same time they respect/understand the importance of a collective community.
Look at this map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pr...
And don't forget Eugene McCarthy, Fritz, etc.
The wing nut media scam has taken it's toll up yonder tho
we are still Blue with a weird Redness (yes, Bachmann and some weird suburbs) in some places and on Summit Avenue. TPaw will be gone soon and there is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to DFL candidates for governor. Without a strong 3rd party candidate, I predict a strong victory for the DFL next year.
Funny, I thought they wanted to opt of the Union all together.
"All of which could present Republican governors and legislatures with a dilemma: Will they refuse to offer lower cost insurance coverage for their residents by rejecting a system funded in part by blue state taxpayers?"
Is you asking how dumb can we be? Enuff.
I wish the red states would just opt out of the Union.
let the red states suffer at the hands of their own "tough love"? Problem is, as always, the Blue States end up bailing out the red states anyway.
If the opt out is the only way to get ir done, than do it and we'll see if they take their own bait.
I just seems, as always, the poorest of the poor are the ones who will suffer.
Maybe we progressives can start refugee programs.
... but I'm just waiting for Reid's sudden but inevitable betrayal.
Living here in Texas I am inundated with craziness. At first I was of the opinion that Gov. Goodhair would be one of the first to opt out but now I am not so sure.
I have read that there are other Federal programs that are "opt out" i.e. Medicaid, Interstate Highway to name a couple and no one has ever opted out of these. Though that doesn't mean that we won't opt out of health care with the loons running the state today. One thing I don't understand is that as far as I can tell the HCR will not cost the States any $$ at all so why would they want to opt out?
Guess you have to go with Pawlenty and his "I don't like government run health care" mantra.
The data from the Commonwealth Fund report is interesting but it doesn't mean much to the wingnuts here in Texas. If you listen to them the reason for Texas having such deplorable numbers is caused by all of those pesky "illegal aliens". Read the comments in the Dallas Morning News on any health care column. You will see why this state is so solidly Red. Wingnut mantra is that those "Mexicans" are clogging up the Emergency Rooms and sucking up all of the health care so the good hard working white people are not able to be taken care of.
As mentioned above, I to beleive it would be a great idea to get those red state Repukes out of office for not providing low cost heathcare but the morans in those states are notorious for doing things against their own self-interest.
Some Godless Dems, mom and apple pie, AMERICA FIRST, commies etc quotes by the Puke leadership would be all that is necessary for the "stupid" to fall in line. So depressing.
Booga-booga! Marxism! Liberal Fascism! Evil minorities gonna take away your freedom, your guns, your jobs, put your kiddies in godless education camps, spy on you ...
*sigh*
You could tell people hear in Texas that the "blue states" would pay for their healthcare, and they'd STILL reject it, "denouncing" it as "SOCIALISM!"
The money has to come from somewhere, and since the government doesn't "generate" any income through sales or work, eventually, that means the taxpayer. That means everyone pays, so if the Red States want to opt out of something they're paying for and let the Blue States benefit, then more power to them!
Let the republicans opt out on the public option in Texas. It will be their last year in power. The sleeping Hispanic block would rise up and it would be all over. So go ahead, Republicans I triple dog dare you.
that makes that big old Hispanic want to just sleep its block off all the time.
Take notice that while everyone is bickering about what state is this at what state is that that the government is also adding in a clause in this bill that requires everyone in America to have health insurance. It will be required for all Americans to have some form of health care and those without will be fined thousands of dollars a year. Does this make sense to anyone? Please go and read the proposed bill and find out for yourselves. If this happens it takes away that which our founding fathers fought for in the first place.....Freedom Of Choice.... This is only the beginning. If they find that they can slip that by the American people, what other freedoms and liberties will they quietly take away before we stand up and stop this atrocity. America was not founded by sheep. We fought for our rights and now because we have put our faith in our elected officials and let them think for us, we stand to lose all that we been taught that is American. All this word play is a smoke screen, so that we don't see what all of the games that they play behind closed doors.
PAY ATTENTION.
as far as i know most of us are aware that there may be a "mandate" that requires people to have health care insurance. i'm not thrilled about that possibility but i do believe it may be the only way to get people covered. currently and if things don't change the uninsured and under insured that can't/won't pay their medical bills have that cost SHIFTED to the paying pool/TAX payers. as many of us know wages have been stagnant for some time and employers have gone to a part-time employee/no benefit employee pay strategy. consequently, the cost to insure is on the backs of TAX payers. Something has to give, as other needs/projects can't/won't be funded because of soaring health care insurance cost. the romance of "freedom of choice" has already been taken away from us by corporations. health care conditions and health care insurance is a collective model. everyone i speak with would like to have affordable health care insurance and are concerned about paying for the growing demographic that won't/can't afford health care insurance. health care insurance premiums will double in PRICE again in less than ten years. with corporate outsourcing/"free market" deregulation" the game has changed and our democracy has been weakened for/by corporations.
While I am sure we disagree on almost everything, I do think you have a solid point. Few non political junkies really understand that having healthcare insurance will not be an option, but an "or else" mandate with fines for noncompliance. When that reality hits home I expect some nasty political blowback for dems. That said, I think the only sensible option is single payer ala Canada. The only thing Canadians love more than complaining about their healthcare system, IS their healtcare system. For the most part they react with horror when they see how we provide healthcare for so many of our citizens.
an average family of four currently pays approximately $13,000.00 yr. to have health care insurance. in less than 10 yrs. that will double to about $25,000.00. it's not sustainable. the amount/% of that premium
is a SHIFTED cost from the growing uninsured/under insured demographic. hence, people are being forced to pay for uninsured/under insured by way of premium increase/taxation. i'm not sure that's exactly "freedom of choice" either.
...in your diatribe, oneinamillion.
If we lived in the "Freedom of Choice" society you're so hot to substitute for our current Social Democracy, that would mean there would be no social entity out there to bail you out if you refuse to get any vehicle or health insurance...your choice.
If you get in an accident, you might have to try to heal yourself with home care. If you're lucky, and have lots of patient relatives and volunteers in this "free choice" society of yours, you'll survive and continue to pay your mortgage by hobbling out to the side of the road to hold up a sign saying, "Help Me Pay For My House And A WheelChair".
"Our Founding Fathers" fought against the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament -- "virtual representation", where only British landed gentry had the right to vote.
I think you should re-think this "founding fathers fought for..." thing, it doesn't sound at all like it was "freedom of choice", rather a demand for EQUAL representation.
HA!, as Chris Matthews says on his "Hardball" program...
" '...they don't support a new government plan,' said Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesperson, when asked about the opt-out idea."
So, what the Republicans are really saying is, "we're willing to sacrifice the health and future of our states' constituents in order to fail President Obama's and the Democrats' attempt at health care reform by maintaining the high number of uninsured, sick and dying in our states."
Evidently proponents of the health care reform are hoping Republican leaders in the Red States are as hypocritical about taking Federal money (money from their Blue State counterparts, and ultimately, from us taxpayers) as they were about taking the Obama stimulus money.
I'm betting they are, too, after some final loud bleating...
Sure Republican Governors and state politicians will make alot of noise, complaining about "government run healthcare", but as with the stimulus funds, they will eventually accept it - telling their teabagging base that the public option is being paid for with "their" money anyway, so they might as well use it. Unencumbered by reality, the wingnuts can then go back to complaining that a system that many of them will choose to use is "nearly bankrupt" because of all the illegal aliens, welfare cheats, and lazy unemployed liberals that are draining it.
Within in a decade, Republicans will be campaigning on how they ae going to save the public option from big government interference.
The Opt-Out thing is a fine idea. The citizens of Texas and S. Carolina have my sympathy but, in fairness, they elect those jackasses. No reason we should all suffer.
There's a chance states won't op out -- Medicare has an opt-out provision but no state ever has -- but, if they do, we'll see in five years or so how much Aetna is charging for insurance in a state like Mississippi where they face no competition vs. states where they have to compete with a non-profit. I'm looking forward to it. This could actually help Democrats politically in red states for years to come.
"We want to shut down your factory over environmental concerns" was not always a very easy sell. "We want to force rich insurance companies to stop robbing you" might even be popular in Texas at some point. Just gotta get the damn thing passed now...
Pawlenty replied, "I think so because I don't like government run health care."
Golly Tim,that's swell and I guess you must be relieved knowing this
isn't what Democrats are pushing for huh?
Which reminds me:how do you feel about Public Health Insurance?
Hmmmm...isn't Pawlenty already covered under "government run health care"?
If red state legislators and governors behaved rationally, they wouldn't be republicans.
Gubernatorial candidates stick to scripts in final debate
McDonnell [said:] "I believe we've got the best doctors, the best hospitals, the best research and development for pharmaceuticals in all the world and the last thing we want to do is turn that over to the federal government."
this statement by McDonnell is much about nothing. the issue is health care insurance cost and access. this strategy by both candidates appears to be at attracting the independents.
Having the best doctors, hospitals, etc. in the world means nothing if you have over 46 million that don't have access to them when they're sick. Increase coverage how? McDonnell is giving pure empty rhetoric. If only Deeds wasn't running such a piss poor campaign, he could've pounced all over this. I blame Deeds for losing a state that was trending blue. I bet McAuliffe would've fought harder than this. The opt-out issue will be an excellent way for Democrats to distinguish themselves from repugs in the gubernatorial races in the near future. Let's see how many other repugs are going to honestly say they'd opt-out and deny their constituents access to affordable healthcare.
at this point i approve of the "opt out". if successful people will reconsider their romance for "free market"/"free choice". that was taken by corporations. again the libertarian types ask the corporations whose at fault and they point at government of course. how convienent. the business of recruiting/soliciting potential patients to go to mexico for health care is at an all time high. i said it before so i'm repeating myself because of frustration....the "free market" paying pool absorbs the SHIFTED cost of the uninsured/under insured. essentially a hidden TAX.
Health insurance entities, like any other insurance company, succeed in direct proportion to their risk exposure. It's quite similar to any businesses continued success, that they judge their capital risk exposure.
They all must judge how they're going to get income/credits and expenses/debits. The banks only have a dollar for every $9 or $10 they loan out. Just like many of us, many of these firms spend accidentally and inappropriately to acquire capitol, assets and standing.
The big banks sent out all their salesmen to push home loans, credit cards and the like, then bundled them up into grab bags and sold them to firms for a attractive price and some even bought insurance from AIG-(FP) in case the grab bags turned out to be worthless or a bad investment. Some got bailed out to stay afloat and then doubled dipped by collecting from their insurance policies with AIG, on the shoulders of we the people.
Well enough of all that bitchen. I'm not sure how this plan is going to work, but this is my understanding. We got 50 states participating in this public option plan... great! Spread the risk nation-wide...pun intended. :) Have all budget calculations been based on a 50 state exposure? Are the numbers the same if only based on 40 - 45 state participation/exposure? For example, if your paying $1,000 for auto insurance, home insurance or life insurance and you insurer goes from having lets say 100,000 participants to lets say 65,000 participants, do ya think your premium will stay $1,000?
This opt-out thing sounds good to me in general. If the the nation pays taxes to our government to manage/implement medicare, medicaid, SS and the like, will the opt-out states get a certain tax rebate or benefit if they don't want to promote the public option plan? Some thumper on cspan just said he'd like to opt-out of abortion and a few of the other thumper dislikes as well. As much as I'd like to let them wallow in ignorance, would this opt-out thing be setting a precedent for all of us to pick and choose what we want our tax contributions spent on? Well I don't want to pay for abstinence only education the thumpers seem to cherish, then I'd like to keep my tax money from being spent on...
Majority rules, I say phuck'em... that is the (complaining minority party). The Constitution says majority rules, if they don't like it they can lead or get out of the way. The tree of knowledge is growing and they can cut down as many trees and burn as many books as they're able to, but it's reached the point where rationality is overtaking theology. Some republican on cspan just claimed the opt-out state's tax contributions would be funding the implementation of the publican option, I'm not sure if that's true though?
...but to be fair, and accurate, if you look at the numbers available concerning the flow of federal dollars into/out of Red states, the majority of the difference can be accounted for by military/agricultural spending.
Of course, that shouldn't stop anyone from busting a wingnut's ba**s about it. :)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
When my husband was laid off and I got cancer we were quickly running out of COBRA. When I started looking for health care in the great state of MN I was told by my insurance co that I was a pre-existing and I couldn't get insurance. I said "What do I do?" The woman told me that MN provides.
There is a fund in MN that the insurance companies put money into. They are required because they won't let people like me (pre-existings) have insurance. It works. And Pawlenty, the God fearing man that he is, is trying is damndest to shut it down.
And by the way...in MN insurance co's can't make a profit.
The MN hospitals are non-profit too. And I guarantee, if Pawlenty runs for Pres. he will try to take credit for MN health care system, even though he would like to dismantle it.
The fact that our health system is non-profit seems to be the best kept secret in the country. When it is argued that foreigners come to the US for health care, you can be sure they are referring to, in large part, the Mayo clinic. That's where Reagan went. But don't let them fool you into thinking that the profit motive is the difference. It is a non-profit. And the county hospitals and the state hospitals (such as the U of M) are some of the best in the country, too.
I also guarantee, if Pawlenty somehow wins the Repub. nomination, he will not win MN. He hasn't yet.
" let's see how many other repugs are going to honestly say they'd opt-out and deny their constituents access to affordable health-care " It's a no brainer , there will be several of them ,they may not come out and say it now but if it's an option they will opt out guaranteed and meanwhile Jethro , Abner and Betty-lou , their rocket scientist constituents , will probably be cheering them on . Maybe it's the only way they can pass a bill with a public option included but the opt out provision stinks , it's win for the Repugs and the Insurance industry . For a public option to be strong , competitive and viable everyone needs to be included , no opt out provision . The fund in MN. does work well Jeanne , it's excellent , I was really surprised when I learned of it .
Login or Register to post comments.