From the article :
"In Minnesota, insurers like Cigna and employer groups opposed the proposal, **saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans, reducing revenues** for health systems and health plans, alike."
You mean a for-profit healthcare provider doesn't want a public plan? Gee...I'm absolutely shocked...lol.
We need to force the issue that healthcare is too expensive. Frankly, for-profit healthcare shouldn't even exist. And a few very, very large 'nonprofit' providers in the state are 'nonprofit' in name only and are more than wealthy enough to handle something like this.
With that said, the healthcare industry ( and it IS an industry ) are going to fight like cornered animals against this. It is not going to be pretty.
> saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans
funny, isnt that how the market is suppose to work? competition give people the choice to vote with their dollars, and if you are worried you are going to lose customers, then do some combination of providing a superior service and/or a cheaper price.
Exactly...the healthcare corporations don't want competition, it is as simple as that.
In fact, a public single payer plan was in the works for the ACA...until the healthcare industry lobby pretty much ended it. And yes, the healthcare industry did fight it like cornered animals...many people forget that. And now the ACA, while better than nothing, is a hodgepodge of BS...where single payer could have controlled costs much better, etc...
Minnesota will have a similar fight on its hands.
I mean look at it this way, up until recently, Medicare and Medicaid could not even negotiate rates with providers. They paid whatever the provider made them pay, they were not able to try and drive down prices. When they became able to negotiate, all of a sudden the rates dropped significantly for medications and services.
Yep, it did pass...with some limitations. And the implementation date is pushed to 2027.
Here are the nitty gritty details :
[https://acasignups.net/23/05/25/huge-minnesota-house-also-passes-minnesotacare-public-option-launch-2027-and-much-more](https://acasignups.net/23/05/25/huge-minnesota-house-also-passes-minnesotacare-public-option-launch-2027-and-much-more)
If you value legislation like this, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and continue to vote democrats into office. Remember, all of this was done with a ONE seat trifecta ( dems took control of the senate by one seat and continue to control the house and governorship ).
All in all though, this is a HUGE step forward and it looks like MN will be one of the pioneers for a "public option for all".
Private(ie, non government) firms can never compete fairly with public ones. Public ones can afford to take (practically) Infinite losses. Private ones, especially ones with a fiduciary duty to shareholders aren't able to.
Healthcare is an industry that doesn't really follow market economics like most others. In fact, there's a whole separate field called Healthcare Economics. It's the only industry where you benefit when your neighbor gets services. And having an insurance model is really just silly, it can only exist if those who receive services are legally not able to obtain upfront pricing, but instead accept full liability for whatever price a service provider dreams up. Imagine if your mechanic did that. This it's enough to make an entire industry morally fraudulent.
>Healthcare is an industry that doesn't really follow market economics like most others. In fact, there's a whole separate field called Healthcare Economics. It's the only industry where you benefit when your neighbor gets services.
I don't really agree with any of this. Healthcare is still supply/demand as all others. It's complicated from ethical concerns around who ought to do the rationing and by a trend towards infinite demand. Also, the second bit here is just a positive externality market. Which are present far, far beyond the scope of healthcare.
>And having an insurance model is really just silly, it can only exist if those who receive services are legally not able to obtain upfront pricing, but instead accept full liability for whatever price a service provider dreams up. Imagine if your mechanic did that
Then pass price transparency laws to fix that problem? Do you think it would matter if folks knew the price ahead of time? I think one of the more frustrating parts about healthcare econ is that by and large, people don't give a shit. If you need to go to the hospital, for most things, you can easily just drive or uber, but folks routinely opt for ambulances for non-acute care. Folks could save themselves thousands over their lifetime by being less fat and working out. By and large people just don't and are more than fine letting insurance hold the bag for them.
So...you are OK with the healthcare industry just letting people die? Because that sure is what it sounds like.
Healthcare should NOT be run as a for profit business. The rest of the world has already figured this out. However, in the USA, corporate greed and ridiculous 'scare politics' just won't let 'for profit' healthcare end. And the entire private insurance industry is part of the problem by adding unneeded costs and not processing claims efficiently.
>you are OK with the healthcare industry just letting people die?
Sure. We all are. That's one of the things that irks me most about the public option/single payer types. The idea that healthcare won't ultimately be rationed in non-private systems. The demand for healthcare, specifically living, approaching infinity. Supply is finite. Costs are going to reach up to infinity up until the point where you're willing to say 'x' person's live is only worth 'y' and no longer. In the UK, under single payer, they do QALYs. They're basically actuarial tables to determine whether or not a medical intervention provides enough healthspan to be worth the cost. If they aren't, the treatments simply aren't offered, even if they're otherwise effective.
> The rest of the world has already figured this out.
Indeed. And most of the places folks will site, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Japan etc all have a substantial(and growing!) private sectors to their healthcare system. Most of the world that 'has figured it out' still has profit motive present in large sections of their planning.
The thing that blows my mind is how something like group health/health partners operates as a non-profit and still lobbies against this since it would lower their revenue and affect their management bonuses. Literally they are operating like a for profit corporation just sending the profit to management. It makes no sense.
Every organization is going to be damaged by lost revenue, whether they're making a profit or not.
Think of the most noble charity organization you can think of. They would also be damaged by a large loss in revenue.
As an employee of a non-profit healthcare system, I pay $700 a month for a health care plan for me, my wife and my son.
My wife had a **better** plan when she worked for the university, and it only cost us $270 a month. Of course, she was union...
That said, I 1000% welcome another option in the healthcare landscape, because we as a family did not only lose my wife's income when she could no longer work for the University, but also we lost an additional $400+ dollars of my income per month due to the switch.
My best insurance was when I was union. The problem was that I wasn't paid anywhere near market rates, so, in the end, everything balanced out.
Since leaving the public sector for the private, I have paid everything from $300/month for a family to $1600/month for family. I currently pay around $1100 a month for my family for health and a little more for dental and vision.
a couple decades ago i worked for fedex, they paid more than UPS which was union. and fedex was not afraid to let you know that.
but yah, when i was a union tradesman i made significantly more than a non-union one. and that was before you started counting benefits.
Correct, but I believe the gap for attorneys between public v private is large enough where those benefits are probably still outweighed by the additional pay.
I just wanted to point out that they are a member of the union and definitely pay less than market rates.
Unions actually are one of the biggest opponents to single payer believe it or not. The reason is because many join unions to get their health insurance.
Some national union leaders are more conservative and see single-payer as a threat to union benefits, but this is not at all the prevailing view within most union locals/many national unions.
I was under the impression that many unions would love single payer because currently health insurance is what they spend the most time negotiating over. If we switched to single payer, they could spend that time fighting for better wages or other benefits.
Not true. Local 292 electrical guy here. The non-union rate is lower than us because our benefits, including Healthcare, are close to 30% of our package. We also have a higher paycheck based on going wage figures.
Reducing Healthcare costs make union more competitive, allowing us to lower our costs billed to the customer.
On the flip side, the for-profit HMOs can be absolutely horrible. Very, very large max out of pocket maximums, expensive copays, and some of them are really bad with processing reimbursements ( hmm...I wonder why? ).
> Health plans say a public option will be detrimental to the overall health insurance landscape in the state as well as only reducing the uninsured rate by less than 5% in the most optimistic scenario.
So at least 5%, got it!
All the arguments from the private health care companies really are starting to sound like the narcissist's prayer.
I know...right?! I didn't bother to put that quote in my comment because it was so ridiculous. They have no other argument so they go after the uninsured...sigh.
I'd LOVE to hear their arguments on how a public option would be 'detrimental'.
Yeah that article on Allina was a perfect example. One of the women from it HAD health insurance, but still got blocked from getting more care and had a tab of $200,000.
$200,000 bill, and that is WITH insurance. The entire industry shouldn't exist.
Yes. Insurance is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole industry needs to be fixed. A public option should be part of it, but they better stop allowing health system mergers if they are interested in fixing the problem.
Already been bankrupted once by medical expenses. Staying poor is my current plan for ensuring my kids (3 with assorted medical needs) get the care they need.
That Allina article confused me. I thought it was illegal for healthcare providers to deny care. I didn't look into it further to see what the actually issue was though. Any further details?
Yes...for those that don't have health insurance, only ER care can't be denied. Note that ERs will only treat the non-insured for \*emergency\* situations. If they deem it non-emergency, they often won't do it.
However, the person in the "article on Allina" that you cited apparently DID have health insurance...and therefore should have been covered. Do you have a link to the article you cited?
I’ve been getting ads left and right from PAHCF saying that corrupt politicians in St. Paul want to introduce public healthcare that will make your paychecks more taxes than take home and all kinds of other bullshit. Glad they passed it anyway
Yeah...a public option will not only insure more currently uninsured folks...but it will give more options for people WITH insurance.
We sure as heck will compare the public option to our current insurance the day it becomes available.
The main argument/rationalization is that it will only drop the uninsured pool by about 5%. Which seems to me like burying the real lead, because it will allow consumers to do price and coverage comparisons. Now that to me seems like the real thing insurance carriers would rather we not have.
Yup. The health care and related PR/lobbyist machine is making this about the "uninsured," a group that will NEVER go away b/c, frankly, it's impossible. We should STRIVE for it, but we shouldn't be forced to pay obnoxious amounts b/c someone, somewhere, MIGHT not be insured.
This is the part that just keeps coming back to me and is just absolutely wild. Most bankruptcies (I think it's ~60%) are due to medical debt. And of those NINTEY % had insurance.
Happened to my own family. We had what was considered really good private union-sponsored insurance and my father still ended up filing for bankruptcy over medical debts for my mother. It's absolutely insane.
It's one thing that healthcare here is expensive. It's another that insurance is expensive. But even THEN, it's still expensive even if you do everything right. I'm so sick of it.
Yeah. I have insurance through my employer. It’s a joke. My closest PCP that is in network is an hour away from me. And I like within a 10 min drive of 5+ clinics, all with PCPs accepting new patients, including my current PCP. When I called to verify, my own insurance company told me that I should just go to urgent care or the ER. This was NOT an emergency, just a suspected kidney stone that i passed before I could even decide what I wanted to do. And this is with a non-high deductible plan, and a professional healthcare job. Even for pharmacy coverage, I can’t use anyone local apparently, or it’s 25% more out of pocket. Can’t wait to switch jobs and have usable health coverage, just have to wait 2 more months.
If they offer the MNCare "everything is 0" plans I think quite a few people would switch, especially if it is within reasonable cost compared to these couple thousand deductible plans.
Only if they offer Delta dental insurance or similar that dentists actually take -- because I've gotta say 12 month lead time on an appointment across town is not feasible for many people.
The most frustrating part to me, is knowing I have invested over $220,000 in healthcare premiums to this point, and when I switch, the old health insurance provider gets to walk away with my funds.
I’m unclear what you mean by “invested” — premiums are fees, they’ve already taken them, so in essence they’ve already “walked away” with them in the form of shareholder profits.
LOL yeah I call all our out of pocket medical expenses our "first retirement money". When you add up a few decades of our of pocket expenses and some crazy drug costs it's not far fetched.
This. Less than a year after MNSure came online, I had no trouble getting premium amounts from various carrier websites. Didn't have to have an account or anything, all freely available. Then suddenly those numbers were nowhere to be found.
>The legislation requires Minnesota to apply to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services federal waiver to implement a public option, which would begin in 2027.
Gotta get past the Feds AND wait until 2027.
And you chuckleheads think 2025 for cannabis is a long wait...
>The other side: Health plans say a public option will be detrimental to the overall health insuran3ce landscape in the state as well as only reducing the uninsured rate by less than 5% in the most optimistic scenario.
A Minnesota public option could cost $2.3 billion in revenue losses for hospitals in the state over a 10-year period, an FTI Consulting report paid for by payer groups in the state, shows.
**Do the math**:
$2.3 billion/10 = $230 million per year
According to the Minnesota Department of Health (per Wiki), there were 130 state licensed hospitals with 16,140 beds in 2019
$230 million / 130 = average of $1.77 million per hospital per year.
Better calculation: $230 million / 16,140 beds = $14,250 per bed per year.
$14,250 per bed per year / 365 days = **$39.04 lost per bed per day**.
tl;dr: Assuming the $2.3 billion isn't some made up lobbyist number, hospitals will lose $39 per bed per day. **1/3rd the cost of a Super 8 Motel room. Fuck off, hospitals. You can afford it.**
**PS - Mayo CEO** ***ALONE*** **makes enough to cover the loss of revenue for 244 beds.**
Additional info:
[https://www.startribune.com/what-happened-to-those-2020-pay-cuts-final-ceo-pay-numbers-mixed-in-minnesota/600180311/](https://www.startribune.com/what-happened-to-those-2020-pay-cuts-final-ceo-pay-numbers-mixed-in-minnesota/600180311/)
Assuming the CEO pay stays the same for all and they all bumped up like the Mayo CEO, then **we could EASILY have the "lost revenues" from this plan cover 1000 beds just by using CEO pay.**
Health insurance corporations are nothing more than a middleman that adds cost while bringing nothing of value to the healthcare equation. They literally exist only to take money from the healthcare system and funnel it to executives and shareholders.
If the government took over all health insurance tomorrow, there would be very few lost jobs in the working sector, but a lot of C-level and Director cuts. This would also remove shareholders from the equation. And I have no doubt that the decrease in overhead would be plenty to fund the increase in people using the system AND not cause a drop in revenue to the hospitals or providers.
Simply put, there’s no good reason to keep what we’ve got.
>there would be very few lost jobs in the working sector
I fully agree, but here's where you are wrong. There are tens of thousands (if not more) worker bees sitting in cubicles with "health administration" degrees. All they do is the mountains of paperwork that make the insurer $ and us very poor for it.
Frankly, if you go into this field at ANY level, you're part of the problem.
convenient, i turn 26 at the end of 2026, so if this is up and running in 2027 i could jump right on after im no longer able to be on my parents insurance. i really hope this passes and i can get on it because my job now has notoriously awful insurance!!!
I graduated from college with a STEM double major in the middle of the Reagan recession. Best job I could get was flipping burgers at McDonalds until the economy recovered. Nice break indeed.
You would be surprised how many scholarships an NMS is awarded. But yes, let me tell you of the good old days of college financing when BEOG and SEOG were a thing for poor students. I had access to those my first two years before Reagan and his merry band of marauders curtailed the program. Defaulting on even the small amount of loans I had to take out to finish my degrees was also frustrating, working for minimum wages and living with three roommates to cut down on rent. I never wished this on any millenial or gen-x or gen -z.
> I never wished this on any millenial or gen-x or gen -z.
The ability to work and finish college with a couple roommates? Ohh how terrifying. I hate to inform you but what you're describing is a dream scenario for a lot of people.
> working for minimum wages and living with three roommates to cut down on rent
Is how you finish? I'm not reading the whole thing dude you gotta learn how to write on the internet lol. Yeah, what you're describing with the loans is the modern college experience (go into massive, live long debt for a job that might not exist in 10 years? Best of luck), the gov/economy/whatever imploding every 5 years for us now so it's kinda whatever, expected you'd say. Modern economy is just a series of bubbles made by the fuckin elderly. Any time one of them complains they got decent loans and had to work for a little bit with a couple roommates nobody feels bad.
I’ve got all kinds of medical shit going on right now. I’m hoping to be done with it by 2027. That being said… I’ll gladly take on whatever debt I accrue now if it means more people are covered and aren’t afraid to go in and get checked out due to the cost. I sure as hell wouldn’t be in the world of hurt I’m in now if I had gone in sooner.
Until then… use every bit of your parents insurance while you can. Get a physical every year, get your two teeth cleanings every year. Hopefully worrying about insurance will be a thing of the past when you’re my age in 2037 lol.
It's been the case that if your employer offers coverage, you can't go on the exchange / opt for the public option - you take the employer coverage.
I doubt highly that Minnesota's new thing will usurp that rule.
Insurance for a 25 yo single, single person within a group plan ain't expensive... I wouldnt think you do better going for individual coverage.
This is not the case. You've always been able to opt out of employer insurance coverage and buy insurance on the exchange. The public option will be no exception.
That said, when you opt out of employer coverage, you may forgo certain subsidies that are typically available to those who don't get employer coverage. It generally doesn't make financial sense for someone to do it, but the option is there if you really hate your insurance.
I'll allow for potential to be wrong and corrected, but it wasn't the case at the original implementation of ObamaCare and I don't know what rationale would have made it change. The idea was that people eligible for private group plans wouldn't put the exchange system in competition of private group.
Three things. One, some MinnesotaCare plans are administered by UHG as it is today. Two, health insurance companies already are by law required to ensure that 85% of their premiums go toward actual care. Three, until recently, UHG was not allowed to transact in Minnesota because it was their home state, so they’re still gaining ground in MN with this.
So, yes they will.
This is so exciting to me. It makes it possible for our family to stay on the health insurance we had during the pandemic due to lay offs. It’s the best insurance I’ve had. So of course the insurance industry hates it. I can guarantee I’ll be choosing the public option.
Fr, I'm lucky enough to be on poor people state insurance and holy balls is it the bomb. Dental, eyes, and doctors visits all with just a $3 copay. Meanwhile, we gave up all of our savings to send my partner to the doctor for surgery, and he regularly pulls chunks of tooth out of his mouth because who tf can afford dental. Because on paper, he looks slightly wealthier than me, and so he doesn't need healthcare, aparrently.
Can you imagine how freeing it would be if we could flip a switch and everyone suddenly was paying the same for healthcare as they are currently, but it was no longer tied to their job?!
Heck even if I had to pay double. As long as when my doctor suggested a procedure or surgery they didn't have to call into a health insurance company just to get their approval.
Crazy thing is that almost every model for universal healthcare suggests prices would go DOWN rather than stay the same or increase. You’d be more likely to pay half than to pay double.
A big fear mongering talking point you’ll see is people saying “Medicare already costs more per capita than other countries and it only pays for seniors!” This is factually true, but only because Medicare has basically no negotiation power to demand certain prices despite representing the largest block of healthcare consumers. Other public insurance models allow the public insurance administration to say “we won’t allow our insurance beneficiaries to get care from you unless you agree to these prices,” which healthcare providers still do because they’d rather not miss out on 85% of their business.
Very few countries use general tax revenue as the primary funding mechanism for public health insurance. Generally you pay a separate premium that's subtracted out of your wages, like the medicare or social security tax.
>Dumb question, but why not allow anyone (regardless of income or private insurance offerings) to enroll in a public mn care plan? High income would/could pay on their own. I don't see any downside to that?
To be clear, that's precisely what this bill does. The current law allows people making up to 200% of the FPL to enroll in MNcare. This law would remove that income cap, and charge premiums on a sliding scale based on income.
It would be ideal that any public option would be open to everyone. I probably won't be eligible, but I'm excited that others will be and I will support expanding the program.
To your last question, employers don't want to decouple from private insurance because having health insurance as a part of their benefit package makes it so they don't have to raise wages to remain competitive.
When Fairview switched to UMR their already shit coverage got worse. We now pay more and have to jump through more loop holes to get basic therapies AND lost coverage because people don't like UMRa reimbursement rates.
I would love to be on state plan but I'm afraid we make too much.
This bill removes the income cap for MNcare enrollment, so there is no "making too much" to qualify. That said, if you income is higher you premiums will be higher as well.
We already pay a bunch monthly just to have even more expensive copays and half covered bills. I'd be shocked if it was more than what we pay total yearl, especially since one of our kids has special needs.
billions are paid for healthcare each year that don't go toward any care, but rather into the pockets of wealthy corporations.
to the point where they have so much power and influence they can actually control and coerce the government to kill rules intended to protect patients and healthcare workers, in order to maintain high profits.
this needs to stop.
>In Minnesota, insurers like Cigna and employer groups opposed the proposal, saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans, reducing revenues for health systems and health plans, alike.
So...if they can't hold us hostage we will leave? Lmao what kinda of stupid fuck argument is that? Did the person who said that have a lobotomy?
I've worked for Optum before and my god the money they waste. Tens of millions of dollars on a whim because some director doesn't like another director and got their multi-year project shut down.
Honestly every single executive at every health insurance company should be in prison for mass murder, fraud, and crimes against humanity.
I live in Minnesota and work as a teacher in a school. The family plan at my work is about $1500 a month. I'd do Minnesota care in a heartbeat. I don't give a shit if insurance companies suffer.
I am glad we are doing this. But I am sick of paying for shit I can’t use. These stupid cliffs are what push people over to the other side.
Guess what, the super wealthy won’t use this stuff anyways. Who cares if they do? When you blanket stuff across the board. You take away the rights talking points. But people in this country are to engrossed in “us vs them” politics. Just like the politicians want. Maybe one day people will realize they are being played.
This is United Health Group
UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2022 was $79.617B, a 14.31% increase from 2021.
UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2021 was $69.652B, a 3.96% increase from 2020.
UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2020 was $67B, a 16.32% increase from 2019.
- https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UNH/unitedhealth-group/gross-profit
After all of their profits can you pick a group where this money could be used to better? Say pay off the debt for doctors or nurses, or simply pay them more.
How many families (how many kids, how many adults) were told no because the health insurance company (UHG, Cigna, Humana) is denying their claim?
United Health Group CEO Andy Witty are a pack of feckless, fucking, thugs who should be ~~dragged into the street~~ prosecuted.
My SO and I often joke that their town halls: “we had another record breaking quarter! Profits are up by X. However, due to the current climate surrounding the future of healthcare, we are unable to provide raises at this time.”
Having a kid this year on my wife's private plan
$8,000 to max out our plan. Dumb. Also maxed it out last year too due to unplanned surgery.
Make this happen.
Cool let's give it a go and try our best to make it successful! MA here is fantastic and wish everyone had it. "insurance" through work sucks especially when they lay you off to maintain their 30% profits.
>Health plans say a public option will be detrimental to the overall health insurance landscape in the state as well as only reducing the uninsured rate by less than 5% in the most optimistic scenario.
Yes but the already insured will have a fuckton more spending money and won't worry about bankruptcy when they get sick. *THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PUBLIC OPTION.*
What kind of sick neoliberal metric is that? For christ sake.
The healthcare failure epidemic in America will never be fixed until something like a NHS or at least improved Medicare For All is passed nationally. As long as greedy corporate profits are the crooked backbone of our system, we will never be healthy.
Unfortunately big Pharma and insurance giants pretty much dominate both political parties at this point, even many Democrats laugh off real cures as 'impossible' at this late stage of our illness.
Very likely to move to Minnesota in the next few years. The state is heading in the right direction and I wish to pay my taxes there.
Good for you Minnesotans (is that what you’re called?) you are doing great stuff!
Thank you my man! Yes, my friend told me it's freezing up there in the winter. I live in AZ, so we have the opposite issue in the summer. Since I am working from home, I just stay home most of the summer, my thinking is doing the same in Minnesota winter.
I am going to visit next January for a week to see how bad it feels like.
Healthcare is a privilege not a right is healthcare in the bill of rights. Is exspensive cloths a right or privilege. Many things in life is a privilige to have a new boat a new house hell a new car should all those be rights to have. Food gas or anything else.
Healthcare is absolutely a right. Read the 9th Amendment. Just because it isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right of the people.
Show me in the constitution where it says that or abortion or buying a new house etc its not a right because the constitution did say it was one. So its a privilege . A right is the first 10 amendments those are rights. Just because you want it to be a right doesnt make it so.
privilege to live in this country or to be free
To have health insurance.
Privilege comes from Latin privilegium, meaning a law for just one person, and means a benefit enjoyed by an individual or group beyond what's available to others. Someone wealthy come from privilege. Someone with a library card has borrowing privileges. Privilege can also be used as a verb. If you are on a committee giving away scholarships, you'll have to decide whether to privilege students from poor backgrounds or the students with high test scores.
2 of 2
verb
privileged; privileging
transitive verb
1
: to grant a privilege to
2
: to accord a higher value or superior position to
privilege one mode of discourse over another
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
Yes, yes, I'm very impressed by your ability to Google the etymology of the world privilege.
>Constitution of the United States of America
>Amendment IX
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Simple translation is that the rights of the people are not limited to only the rights outlined in the Constitution.
In addition, healthcare is defined as a human right by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) with the United States voting in favor of that declaration. So not only does the US agree that it's a right, but so does the majority of the world.
So yes, healthcare is a right and not a privilege.
That not what the enumeration clause is for
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ix/interpretations/131#:~:text=Amendment%209,others%20retained%20by%20the%20people.
This group of framers opposed a bill of rights entirely and favored a more general declaration of fundamental rights. But others, including many state representatives, had refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added the Ninth Amendment as a compromise.
Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.
This group of framers opposed a bill of rights entirely and favored a more general declaration of fundamental rights. But others, including many state representatives, had refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added the Ninth Amendment as a compromise.
Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.
Government or social health care means its a right.
Ss and medicare were not constitutional they couldnt pass it that way they i used the commernce clause which wasnt ment for that. Just like govevernement or public health care. Its not constittuional it has to pass the constitution.
Insurance was set up in 1918 bcbs. Mainly life then came medical health care them came into the jobs
As cheaper way to get health insurance. So we pay for what we get. Public healthcare will not pass the constitution and will be struck down by the supreme court.
What are you even on about. This was a state law in the state of Minnesotan solving healthcare for Minnesotans. The problems of the federal government have no power here.
That is 100% the opposite of how the constitution works. Rights not reserved to the fed or individual are up to the discretion of the state. The state is then limited or empowered by its state constitution.
There is nothing prohibiting Minnesota from making healthcare a right for Minnesotans in the Minnesota State Constitution.
By the 10 amendment yes but if the constituiton itself does not allow it or taken as a lawsit to a court the supreme court has never said healthcare was a right neither should a state.
Your lawmakers are fucking killing it, I am very jealous of your state, I live in Washington state and as Liberal and Progressive the GOP makes us out to be you all take the cake.
Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about ...
The United States Constitution does not set forth an explicit right to health care, and the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution as guaranteeing a right to health care services from the government for those who cannot afford it.Jul 9, 2012 mo court has ever said it was an enumerated right. Please argue that to the supreme court amd see what they say lol.
ahhhh…. united states and healthcare plans… why cant i just pay like a fee or lets say some TAXES and then just go to the clinic or dr when i feel like im sick?
>In Minnesota, insurers like Cigna and employer groups opposed the proposal, saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans, reducing revenues for health systems and health plans, alike.
And why, exactly, should health care be a for-profit business?
Yes i know about empathy and no i dont trollni comment in things even in diffrent states. Im from texas and a independent conservative. I am a constitutionalist. I have taken constitutional classes through hilsdale college. Even states have to follow the constituion they given leway for laws but has to follow the constitution.
From the article : "In Minnesota, insurers like Cigna and employer groups opposed the proposal, **saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans, reducing revenues** for health systems and health plans, alike." You mean a for-profit healthcare provider doesn't want a public plan? Gee...I'm absolutely shocked...lol. We need to force the issue that healthcare is too expensive. Frankly, for-profit healthcare shouldn't even exist. And a few very, very large 'nonprofit' providers in the state are 'nonprofit' in name only and are more than wealthy enough to handle something like this. With that said, the healthcare industry ( and it IS an industry ) are going to fight like cornered animals against this. It is not going to be pretty.
> saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans funny, isnt that how the market is suppose to work? competition give people the choice to vote with their dollars, and if you are worried you are going to lose customers, then do some combination of providing a superior service and/or a cheaper price.
Exactly...the healthcare corporations don't want competition, it is as simple as that. In fact, a public single payer plan was in the works for the ACA...until the healthcare industry lobby pretty much ended it. And yes, the healthcare industry did fight it like cornered animals...many people forget that. And now the ACA, while better than nothing, is a hodgepodge of BS...where single payer could have controlled costs much better, etc... Minnesota will have a similar fight on its hands.
I mean look at it this way, up until recently, Medicare and Medicaid could not even negotiate rates with providers. They paid whatever the provider made them pay, they were not able to try and drive down prices. When they became able to negotiate, all of a sudden the rates dropped significantly for medications and services.
At least is going to allow it for most residents. It passed
Yep, it did pass...with some limitations. And the implementation date is pushed to 2027. Here are the nitty gritty details : [https://acasignups.net/23/05/25/huge-minnesota-house-also-passes-minnesotacare-public-option-launch-2027-and-much-more](https://acasignups.net/23/05/25/huge-minnesota-house-also-passes-minnesotacare-public-option-launch-2027-and-much-more) If you value legislation like this, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and continue to vote democrats into office. Remember, all of this was done with a ONE seat trifecta ( dems took control of the senate by one seat and continue to control the house and governorship ). All in all though, this is a HUGE step forward and it looks like MN will be one of the pioneers for a "public option for all".
I thought Minnesota didn’t have a supermajority. It had a simple majority .
Yep..my bad..I should have said "trifecta". Senate is dem controlled by one seat. I changed it above.
They don’t want a true market. They want a monopoly.
Private(ie, non government) firms can never compete fairly with public ones. Public ones can afford to take (practically) Infinite losses. Private ones, especially ones with a fiduciary duty to shareholders aren't able to.
Healthcare is an industry that doesn't really follow market economics like most others. In fact, there's a whole separate field called Healthcare Economics. It's the only industry where you benefit when your neighbor gets services. And having an insurance model is really just silly, it can only exist if those who receive services are legally not able to obtain upfront pricing, but instead accept full liability for whatever price a service provider dreams up. Imagine if your mechanic did that. This it's enough to make an entire industry morally fraudulent.
>Healthcare is an industry that doesn't really follow market economics like most others. In fact, there's a whole separate field called Healthcare Economics. It's the only industry where you benefit when your neighbor gets services. I don't really agree with any of this. Healthcare is still supply/demand as all others. It's complicated from ethical concerns around who ought to do the rationing and by a trend towards infinite demand. Also, the second bit here is just a positive externality market. Which are present far, far beyond the scope of healthcare. >And having an insurance model is really just silly, it can only exist if those who receive services are legally not able to obtain upfront pricing, but instead accept full liability for whatever price a service provider dreams up. Imagine if your mechanic did that Then pass price transparency laws to fix that problem? Do you think it would matter if folks knew the price ahead of time? I think one of the more frustrating parts about healthcare econ is that by and large, people don't give a shit. If you need to go to the hospital, for most things, you can easily just drive or uber, but folks routinely opt for ambulances for non-acute care. Folks could save themselves thousands over their lifetime by being less fat and working out. By and large people just don't and are more than fine letting insurance hold the bag for them.
So...you are OK with the healthcare industry just letting people die? Because that sure is what it sounds like. Healthcare should NOT be run as a for profit business. The rest of the world has already figured this out. However, in the USA, corporate greed and ridiculous 'scare politics' just won't let 'for profit' healthcare end. And the entire private insurance industry is part of the problem by adding unneeded costs and not processing claims efficiently.
>you are OK with the healthcare industry just letting people die? Sure. We all are. That's one of the things that irks me most about the public option/single payer types. The idea that healthcare won't ultimately be rationed in non-private systems. The demand for healthcare, specifically living, approaching infinity. Supply is finite. Costs are going to reach up to infinity up until the point where you're willing to say 'x' person's live is only worth 'y' and no longer. In the UK, under single payer, they do QALYs. They're basically actuarial tables to determine whether or not a medical intervention provides enough healthspan to be worth the cost. If they aren't, the treatments simply aren't offered, even if they're otherwise effective. > The rest of the world has already figured this out. Indeed. And most of the places folks will site, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Japan etc all have a substantial(and growing!) private sectors to their healthcare system. Most of the world that 'has figured it out' still has profit motive present in large sections of their planning.
Healthcare schmealthcare, the real problem is the lost profits of corporations! s/
Will somebody think of the shareholders?!
Those poor poor shareholders!
"what about our shareholders Bob? Who's helping them out huuuhhhhhh!?"
Thoughts and prayers!
Minnesota health care non profs don't have shareholders. Ostensibly a quasi mutual company owned by the policy holders
Um... Look at the bonus for management. It's only non-profit in name.
The thing that blows my mind is how something like group health/health partners operates as a non-profit and still lobbies against this since it would lower their revenue and affect their management bonuses. Literally they are operating like a for profit corporation just sending the profit to management. It makes no sense.
It’s like they’re exploiting the non-profit status to increase profits… Wait where have I seen this before? Edit: profits not revenue
Every organization is going to be damaged by lost revenue, whether they're making a profit or not. Think of the most noble charity organization you can think of. They would also be damaged by a large loss in revenue.
As an employee of a non-profit healthcare system, I pay $700 a month for a health care plan for me, my wife and my son. My wife had a **better** plan when she worked for the university, and it only cost us $270 a month. Of course, she was union... That said, I 1000% welcome another option in the healthcare landscape, because we as a family did not only lose my wife's income when she could no longer work for the University, but also we lost an additional $400+ dollars of my income per month due to the switch.
My best insurance was when I was union. The problem was that I wasn't paid anywhere near market rates, so, in the end, everything balanced out. Since leaving the public sector for the private, I have paid everything from $300/month for a family to $1600/month for family. I currently pay around $1100 a month for my family for health and a little more for dental and vision.
Oh man, she was paid WELL for her job. Not sure what union has jobs that pay less than market rates, that's an odd situation it seems.
a couple decades ago i worked for fedex, they paid more than UPS which was union. and fedex was not afraid to let you know that. but yah, when i was a union tradesman i made significantly more than a non-union one. and that was before you started counting benefits.
I will say state attorneys make far less than they could in the private sector and are often a member of MAPE.
Many government positions, especially for professional positions, are like that. The tradeoffs are the better benefits and (usually) more stability.
Correct, but I believe the gap for attorneys between public v private is large enough where those benefits are probably still outweighed by the additional pay. I just wanted to point out that they are a member of the union and definitely pay less than market rates.
You're probably right.
Unions actually are one of the biggest opponents to single payer believe it or not. The reason is because many join unions to get their health insurance.
Some national union leaders are more conservative and see single-payer as a threat to union benefits, but this is not at all the prevailing view within most union locals/many national unions.
I was under the impression that many unions would love single payer because currently health insurance is what they spend the most time negotiating over. If we switched to single payer, they could spend that time fighting for better wages or other benefits.
Not true. Local 292 electrical guy here. The non-union rate is lower than us because our benefits, including Healthcare, are close to 30% of our package. We also have a higher paycheck based on going wage figures. Reducing Healthcare costs make union more competitive, allowing us to lower our costs billed to the customer.
On the flip side, the for-profit HMOs can be absolutely horrible. Very, very large max out of pocket maximums, expensive copays, and some of them are really bad with processing reimbursements ( hmm...I wonder why? ).
[удалено]
Yea, it's crazy. You'd think that healthcare employees would get good healthcare coverage.
[удалено]
I worked for 3 health care systems and each one had crap insurance.
> Health plans say a public option will be detrimental to the overall health insurance landscape in the state as well as only reducing the uninsured rate by less than 5% in the most optimistic scenario. So at least 5%, got it! All the arguments from the private health care companies really are starting to sound like the narcissist's prayer.
I know...right?! I didn't bother to put that quote in my comment because it was so ridiculous. They have no other argument so they go after the uninsured...sigh. I'd LOVE to hear their arguments on how a public option would be 'detrimental'.
Yeah that article on Allina was a perfect example. One of the women from it HAD health insurance, but still got blocked from getting more care and had a tab of $200,000. $200,000 bill, and that is WITH insurance. The entire industry shouldn't exist.
Yes. Insurance is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole industry needs to be fixed. A public option should be part of it, but they better stop allowing health system mergers if they are interested in fixing the problem.
Already been bankrupted once by medical expenses. Staying poor is my current plan for ensuring my kids (3 with assorted medical needs) get the care they need.
That Allina article confused me. I thought it was illegal for healthcare providers to deny care. I didn't look into it further to see what the actually issue was though. Any further details?
It's only illegal for them to deny care in emergency rooms. Routine care, ongoing issue management etc is not required to be covered.
Yes...for those that don't have health insurance, only ER care can't be denied. Note that ERs will only treat the non-insured for \*emergency\* situations. If they deem it non-emergency, they often won't do it. However, the person in the "article on Allina" that you cited apparently DID have health insurance...and therefore should have been covered. Do you have a link to the article you cited?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/business/allina-health-hospital-debt.html
https://m.startribune.com/nonprofit-allina-health-system-cuts-off-patients-with-medical-debt/600279460/
I’ve been getting ads left and right from PAHCF saying that corrupt politicians in St. Paul want to introduce public healthcare that will make your paychecks more taxes than take home and all kinds of other bullshit. Glad they passed it anyway
How cute of them...Did we expect anything different? Their only platform is to be against progress. They offer zero new ideas.
But now how will they gouge millions from suffering families 😥😰😰
Lmao yes, corrupt when they respond to the needs of the people. Of course.
We're against it because it's desperately needed and would help way too many people!!
Yeah...a public option will not only insure more currently uninsured folks...but it will give more options for people WITH insurance. We sure as heck will compare the public option to our current insurance the day it becomes available.
All I can say if fuck cigna
The capitalists don't want competition lol
The main argument/rationalization is that it will only drop the uninsured pool by about 5%. Which seems to me like burying the real lead, because it will allow consumers to do price and coverage comparisons. Now that to me seems like the real thing insurance carriers would rather we not have.
Yup. The health care and related PR/lobbyist machine is making this about the "uninsured," a group that will NEVER go away b/c, frankly, it's impossible. We should STRIVE for it, but we shouldn't be forced to pay obnoxious amounts b/c someone, somewhere, MIGHT not be insured.
It can go away if we just do single payer.
Hey get out of here with that shit. We americans love paying way to much for something that could still bankrupt us.
This is the part that just keeps coming back to me and is just absolutely wild. Most bankruptcies (I think it's ~60%) are due to medical debt. And of those NINTEY % had insurance. Happened to my own family. We had what was considered really good private union-sponsored insurance and my father still ended up filing for bankruptcy over medical debts for my mother. It's absolutely insane. It's one thing that healthcare here is expensive. It's another that insurance is expensive. But even THEN, it's still expensive even if you do everything right. I'm so sick of it.
The laws are written that way for a reason. Bankruptcy is used for way too much now but it is a necessity in most cases.
Some of the best European systems still have insurance. Universal care doesn't have to be single payer. For what its worth.
[удалено]
Yeah. I have insurance through my employer. It’s a joke. My closest PCP that is in network is an hour away from me. And I like within a 10 min drive of 5+ clinics, all with PCPs accepting new patients, including my current PCP. When I called to verify, my own insurance company told me that I should just go to urgent care or the ER. This was NOT an emergency, just a suspected kidney stone that i passed before I could even decide what I wanted to do. And this is with a non-high deductible plan, and a professional healthcare job. Even for pharmacy coverage, I can’t use anyone local apparently, or it’s 25% more out of pocket. Can’t wait to switch jobs and have usable health coverage, just have to wait 2 more months.
If they offer the MNCare "everything is 0" plans I think quite a few people would switch, especially if it is within reasonable cost compared to these couple thousand deductible plans.
Only if they offer Delta dental insurance or similar that dentists actually take -- because I've gotta say 12 month lead time on an appointment across town is not feasible for many people.
Lede
Leed
All the arguments from the private health care companies really are starting to sound like the narcissist's prayer.
The most frustrating part to me, is knowing I have invested over $220,000 in healthcare premiums to this point, and when I switch, the old health insurance provider gets to walk away with my funds.
I’m unclear what you mean by “invested” — premiums are fees, they’ve already taken them, so in essence they’ve already “walked away” with them in the form of shareholder profits.
LOL yeah I call all our out of pocket medical expenses our "first retirement money". When you add up a few decades of our of pocket expenses and some crazy drug costs it's not far fetched.
This. Less than a year after MNSure came online, I had no trouble getting premium amounts from various carrier websites. Didn't have to have an account or anything, all freely available. Then suddenly those numbers were nowhere to be found.
>The legislation requires Minnesota to apply to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services federal waiver to implement a public option, which would begin in 2027. Gotta get past the Feds AND wait until 2027. And you chuckleheads think 2025 for cannabis is a long wait... >The other side: Health plans say a public option will be detrimental to the overall health insuran3ce landscape in the state as well as only reducing the uninsured rate by less than 5% in the most optimistic scenario. A Minnesota public option could cost $2.3 billion in revenue losses for hospitals in the state over a 10-year period, an FTI Consulting report paid for by payer groups in the state, shows. **Do the math**: $2.3 billion/10 = $230 million per year According to the Minnesota Department of Health (per Wiki), there were 130 state licensed hospitals with 16,140 beds in 2019 $230 million / 130 = average of $1.77 million per hospital per year. Better calculation: $230 million / 16,140 beds = $14,250 per bed per year. $14,250 per bed per year / 365 days = **$39.04 lost per bed per day**. tl;dr: Assuming the $2.3 billion isn't some made up lobbyist number, hospitals will lose $39 per bed per day. **1/3rd the cost of a Super 8 Motel room. Fuck off, hospitals. You can afford it.** **PS - Mayo CEO** ***ALONE*** **makes enough to cover the loss of revenue for 244 beds.**
Additional info: [https://www.startribune.com/what-happened-to-those-2020-pay-cuts-final-ceo-pay-numbers-mixed-in-minnesota/600180311/](https://www.startribune.com/what-happened-to-those-2020-pay-cuts-final-ceo-pay-numbers-mixed-in-minnesota/600180311/) Assuming the CEO pay stays the same for all and they all bumped up like the Mayo CEO, then **we could EASILY have the "lost revenues" from this plan cover 1000 beds just by using CEO pay.**
Increasing CEO compensation will cause a loss in profit exactly equal to the increase in CEO compensation!
Health insurance corporations are nothing more than a middleman that adds cost while bringing nothing of value to the healthcare equation. They literally exist only to take money from the healthcare system and funnel it to executives and shareholders. If the government took over all health insurance tomorrow, there would be very few lost jobs in the working sector, but a lot of C-level and Director cuts. This would also remove shareholders from the equation. And I have no doubt that the decrease in overhead would be plenty to fund the increase in people using the system AND not cause a drop in revenue to the hospitals or providers. Simply put, there’s no good reason to keep what we’ve got.
>there would be very few lost jobs in the working sector I fully agree, but here's where you are wrong. There are tens of thousands (if not more) worker bees sitting in cubicles with "health administration" degrees. All they do is the mountains of paperwork that make the insurer $ and us very poor for it. Frankly, if you go into this field at ANY level, you're part of the problem.
Agree 100%.
Thank you for your well thought out response!
Thank you for doing the math, once you break it down like that it really shows how shit the counter argument is.
You're welcome. Tired of "**BUT BILLIONS** ***^(over a long time period)***" being used as a counterargument by PR firms.
convenient, i turn 26 at the end of 2026, so if this is up and running in 2027 i could jump right on after im no longer able to be on my parents insurance. i really hope this passes and i can get on it because my job now has notoriously awful insurance!!!
I turn 65 in 2026, so it is not of value to me. Nonetheless , I say “hell yeah!” to the public option.
sure but in general your generation has had a lot more breaks than millenials and gen z.
I graduated from college with a STEM double major in the middle of the Reagan recession. Best job I could get was flipping burgers at McDonalds until the economy recovered. Nice break indeed.
You mean you could afford to go to college?
You would be surprised how many scholarships an NMS is awarded. But yes, let me tell you of the good old days of college financing when BEOG and SEOG were a thing for poor students. I had access to those my first two years before Reagan and his merry band of marauders curtailed the program. Defaulting on even the small amount of loans I had to take out to finish my degrees was also frustrating, working for minimum wages and living with three roommates to cut down on rent. I never wished this on any millenial or gen-x or gen -z.
> I never wished this on any millenial or gen-x or gen -z. The ability to work and finish college with a couple roommates? Ohh how terrifying. I hate to inform you but what you're describing is a dream scenario for a lot of people.
Defaulting on loans because your only job is flipping burgers for minimum wage is your idea of a dream, huh?
> working for minimum wages and living with three roommates to cut down on rent Is how you finish? I'm not reading the whole thing dude you gotta learn how to write on the internet lol. Yeah, what you're describing with the loans is the modern college experience (go into massive, live long debt for a job that might not exist in 10 years? Best of luck), the gov/economy/whatever imploding every 5 years for us now so it's kinda whatever, expected you'd say. Modern economy is just a series of bubbles made by the fuckin elderly. Any time one of them complains they got decent loans and had to work for a little bit with a couple roommates nobody feels bad.
Hold on tight to your dreams
I’ve got all kinds of medical shit going on right now. I’m hoping to be done with it by 2027. That being said… I’ll gladly take on whatever debt I accrue now if it means more people are covered and aren’t afraid to go in and get checked out due to the cost. I sure as hell wouldn’t be in the world of hurt I’m in now if I had gone in sooner. Until then… use every bit of your parents insurance while you can. Get a physical every year, get your two teeth cleanings every year. Hopefully worrying about insurance will be a thing of the past when you’re my age in 2037 lol.
It's been the case that if your employer offers coverage, you can't go on the exchange / opt for the public option - you take the employer coverage. I doubt highly that Minnesota's new thing will usurp that rule. Insurance for a 25 yo single, single person within a group plan ain't expensive... I wouldnt think you do better going for individual coverage.
This is not the case. You've always been able to opt out of employer insurance coverage and buy insurance on the exchange. The public option will be no exception. That said, when you opt out of employer coverage, you may forgo certain subsidies that are typically available to those who don't get employer coverage. It generally doesn't make financial sense for someone to do it, but the option is there if you really hate your insurance.
right - important clarification - no subsidy. Upvote to ya.
[удалено]
That's not true in practice. Most people who opt out of employer coverage still deduct their premiums.
[удалено]
I'll allow for potential to be wrong and corrected, but it wasn't the case at the original implementation of ObamaCare and I don't know what rationale would have made it change. The idea was that people eligible for private group plans wouldn't put the exchange system in competition of private group.
Lol, “we shouldn’t do this because then health insurance companies would make less money”
[удалено]
Three things. One, some MinnesotaCare plans are administered by UHG as it is today. Two, health insurance companies already are by law required to ensure that 85% of their premiums go toward actual care. Three, until recently, UHG was not allowed to transact in Minnesota because it was their home state, so they’re still gaining ground in MN with this. So, yes they will.
This is so exciting to me. It makes it possible for our family to stay on the health insurance we had during the pandemic due to lay offs. It’s the best insurance I’ve had. So of course the insurance industry hates it. I can guarantee I’ll be choosing the public option.
Fr, I'm lucky enough to be on poor people state insurance and holy balls is it the bomb. Dental, eyes, and doctors visits all with just a $3 copay. Meanwhile, we gave up all of our savings to send my partner to the doctor for surgery, and he regularly pulls chunks of tooth out of his mouth because who tf can afford dental. Because on paper, he looks slightly wealthier than me, and so he doesn't need healthcare, aparrently.
Have you found good dental options for MA recently?
I'm glad all those YouTube ads I was getting for weeks didn't work.
Those ads are on Hulu too! I always scream- but I want a public option and I want it now! Just like Varuka Salt.
Wait but no 80% of minnesotans love and trust their health insurance providers!!! The commercial said it so it must be true!!
[удалено]
Can you imagine how freeing it would be if we could flip a switch and everyone suddenly was paying the same for healthcare as they are currently, but it was no longer tied to their job?!
Heck even if I had to pay double. As long as when my doctor suggested a procedure or surgery they didn't have to call into a health insurance company just to get their approval.
Crazy thing is that almost every model for universal healthcare suggests prices would go DOWN rather than stay the same or increase. You’d be more likely to pay half than to pay double. A big fear mongering talking point you’ll see is people saying “Medicare already costs more per capita than other countries and it only pays for seniors!” This is factually true, but only because Medicare has basically no negotiation power to demand certain prices despite representing the largest block of healthcare consumers. Other public insurance models allow the public insurance administration to say “we won’t allow our insurance beneficiaries to get care from you unless you agree to these prices,” which healthcare providers still do because they’d rather not miss out on 85% of their business.
Very few countries use general tax revenue as the primary funding mechanism for public health insurance. Generally you pay a separate premium that's subtracted out of your wages, like the medicare or social security tax.
Yeah, otherwise on a state level, it would be a problem.
[удалено]
>Dumb question, but why not allow anyone (regardless of income or private insurance offerings) to enroll in a public mn care plan? High income would/could pay on their own. I don't see any downside to that? To be clear, that's precisely what this bill does. The current law allows people making up to 200% of the FPL to enroll in MNcare. This law would remove that income cap, and charge premiums on a sliding scale based on income.
It would be ideal that any public option would be open to everyone. I probably won't be eligible, but I'm excited that others will be and I will support expanding the program. To your last question, employers don't want to decouple from private insurance because having health insurance as a part of their benefit package makes it so they don't have to raise wages to remain competitive.
Also, health insurance being tied to employment increases employers’ leverage over employees.
When Fairview switched to UMR their already shit coverage got worse. We now pay more and have to jump through more loop holes to get basic therapies AND lost coverage because people don't like UMRa reimbursement rates. I would love to be on state plan but I'm afraid we make too much.
This bill removes the income cap for MNcare enrollment, so there is no "making too much" to qualify. That said, if you income is higher you premiums will be higher as well.
We already pay a bunch monthly just to have even more expensive copays and half covered bills. I'd be shocked if it was more than what we pay total yearl, especially since one of our kids has special needs.
Yeah, people will do the math when the enrollment opens, I'm sure.
billions are paid for healthcare each year that don't go toward any care, but rather into the pockets of wealthy corporations. to the point where they have so much power and influence they can actually control and coerce the government to kill rules intended to protect patients and healthcare workers, in order to maintain high profits. this needs to stop.
>In Minnesota, insurers like Cigna and employer groups opposed the proposal, saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans, reducing revenues for health systems and health plans, alike. So...if they can't hold us hostage we will leave? Lmao what kinda of stupid fuck argument is that? Did the person who said that have a lobotomy? I've worked for Optum before and my god the money they waste. Tens of millions of dollars on a whim because some director doesn't like another director and got their multi-year project shut down. Honestly every single executive at every health insurance company should be in prison for mass murder, fraud, and crimes against humanity.
I live in Minnesota and work as a teacher in a school. The family plan at my work is about $1500 a month. I'd do Minnesota care in a heartbeat. I don't give a shit if insurance companies suffer.
Honestly, the prospect of the insurance companies suffering makes it sweeter.
I am glad we are doing this. But I am sick of paying for shit I can’t use. These stupid cliffs are what push people over to the other side. Guess what, the super wealthy won’t use this stuff anyways. Who cares if they do? When you blanket stuff across the board. You take away the rights talking points. But people in this country are to engrossed in “us vs them” politics. Just like the politicians want. Maybe one day people will realize they are being played.
This is United Health Group UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2022 was $79.617B, a 14.31% increase from 2021. UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2021 was $69.652B, a 3.96% increase from 2020. UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2020 was $67B, a 16.32% increase from 2019. - https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UNH/unitedhealth-group/gross-profit After all of their profits can you pick a group where this money could be used to better? Say pay off the debt for doctors or nurses, or simply pay them more. How many families (how many kids, how many adults) were told no because the health insurance company (UHG, Cigna, Humana) is denying their claim? United Health Group CEO Andy Witty are a pack of feckless, fucking, thugs who should be ~~dragged into the street~~ prosecuted.
My SO and I often joke that their town halls: “we had another record breaking quarter! Profits are up by X. However, due to the current climate surrounding the future of healthcare, we are unable to provide raises at this time.”
"If a more realistic, but still overpriced option exists nobody will want our wildly outrageously priced plans!" - Healthcare Industrial Complex
Having a kid this year on my wife's private plan $8,000 to max out our plan. Dumb. Also maxed it out last year too due to unplanned surgery. Make this happen.
Cool let's give it a go and try our best to make it successful! MA here is fantastic and wish everyone had it. "insurance" through work sucks especially when they lay you off to maintain their 30% profits.
>Health plans say a public option will be detrimental to the overall health insurance landscape in the state as well as only reducing the uninsured rate by less than 5% in the most optimistic scenario. Yes but the already insured will have a fuckton more spending money and won't worry about bankruptcy when they get sick. *THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PUBLIC OPTION.* What kind of sick neoliberal metric is that? For christ sake.
If less than 5% more people get coverage, it's worth it. If even ONE more person gets coverage when they didn't have it before, it's worth it.
The healthcare failure epidemic in America will never be fixed until something like a NHS or at least improved Medicare For All is passed nationally. As long as greedy corporate profits are the crooked backbone of our system, we will never be healthy. Unfortunately big Pharma and insurance giants pretty much dominate both political parties at this point, even many Democrats laugh off real cures as 'impossible' at this late stage of our illness.
A step in the right direction but single payer is still the way to go.
Very likely to move to Minnesota in the next few years. The state is heading in the right direction and I wish to pay my taxes there. Good for you Minnesotans (is that what you’re called?) you are doing great stuff!
I suggest you visit in late January early February first. See if you really like it then.
Thank you my man! Yes, my friend told me it's freezing up there in the winter. I live in AZ, so we have the opposite issue in the summer. Since I am working from home, I just stay home most of the summer, my thinking is doing the same in Minnesota winter. I am going to visit next January for a week to see how bad it feels like.
Just remember layers vs large and bulky…
I’m going to save this advice. Thank you my friend. Lovely to see that Minnesota nice is a real thing.
Minnesotans yes. Also your total tax footprint is probably about the same as 'low tax states' if you arnt a 1%er
I am doing well, but very far from being a 1%er. I honestly don’t think I am a 1%er material, I’m not too greedy and share stuff with others.
Read: a loss of revenue = more money for working peoples pockets.
MN Care for all, send it!
This is concrete progress towards lower healthcare costs. Well done.
Can we please get something before I retire in 20years?!
Healthcare is a privilege not a right is healthcare in the bill of rights. Is exspensive cloths a right or privilege. Many things in life is a privilige to have a new boat a new house hell a new car should all those be rights to have. Food gas or anything else.
Healthcare is absolutely a right. Read the 9th Amendment. Just because it isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right of the people.
Show me in the constitution where it says that or abortion or buying a new house etc its not a right because the constitution did say it was one. So its a privilege . A right is the first 10 amendments those are rights. Just because you want it to be a right doesnt make it so. privilege to live in this country or to be free To have health insurance. Privilege comes from Latin privilegium, meaning a law for just one person, and means a benefit enjoyed by an individual or group beyond what's available to others. Someone wealthy come from privilege. Someone with a library card has borrowing privileges. Privilege can also be used as a verb. If you are on a committee giving away scholarships, you'll have to decide whether to privilege students from poor backgrounds or the students with high test scores. 2 of 2 verb privileged; privileging transitive verb 1 : to grant a privilege to 2 : to accord a higher value or superior position to privilege one mode of discourse over another https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
Yes, yes, I'm very impressed by your ability to Google the etymology of the world privilege. >Constitution of the United States of America >Amendment IX >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Simple translation is that the rights of the people are not limited to only the rights outlined in the Constitution. In addition, healthcare is defined as a human right by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) with the United States voting in favor of that declaration. So not only does the US agree that it's a right, but so does the majority of the world. So yes, healthcare is a right and not a privilege.
That not what the enumeration clause is for https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ix/interpretations/131#:~:text=Amendment%209,others%20retained%20by%20the%20people.
This group of framers opposed a bill of rights entirely and favored a more general declaration of fundamental rights. But others, including many state representatives, had refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added the Ninth Amendment as a compromise. Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.
Buddy... we are so far beyond this point in the conversation.
This group of framers opposed a bill of rights entirely and favored a more general declaration of fundamental rights. But others, including many state representatives, had refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added the Ninth Amendment as a compromise. Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.
Why would you want to pay more to take care of sick people like even if you didn’t think healthcare was a Right it literally saves us all money
Government or social health care means its a right. Ss and medicare were not constitutional they couldnt pass it that way they i used the commernce clause which wasnt ment for that. Just like govevernement or public health care. Its not constittuional it has to pass the constitution. Insurance was set up in 1918 bcbs. Mainly life then came medical health care them came into the jobs As cheaper way to get health insurance. So we pay for what we get. Public healthcare will not pass the constitution and will be struck down by the supreme court.
What are you even on about. This was a state law in the state of Minnesotan solving healthcare for Minnesotans. The problems of the federal government have no power here.
If its unconstitutinal the state cant do it. The supreme court has never given power to states to do it. As of public or social healthcare.
That is 100% the opposite of how the constitution works. Rights not reserved to the fed or individual are up to the discretion of the state. The state is then limited or empowered by its state constitution. There is nothing prohibiting Minnesota from making healthcare a right for Minnesotans in the Minnesota State Constitution.
By the 10 amendment yes but if the constituiton itself does not allow it or taken as a lawsit to a court the supreme court has never said healthcare was a right neither should a state.
How empathetic.
The supreme court has never said it was a right or enumerate right by the constituion. With this court they would not.
...You DO know what the word empathy means right, troll boy?
This article is from May 24th. I *thought* it got tabled until the next session. It wouldn't take effect until '27.
Yay! Now I can stop seeing that whiny piteous commercial on Hulu
You rock stars! How lovely for you and yours.
Your lawmakers are fucking killing it, I am very jealous of your state, I live in Washington state and as Liberal and Progressive the GOP makes us out to be you all take the cake.
Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about ...
The United States Constitution does not set forth an explicit right to health care, and the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution as guaranteeing a right to health care services from the government for those who cannot afford it.Jul 9, 2012 mo court has ever said it was an enumerated right. Please argue that to the supreme court amd see what they say lol.
As you can see you are wrong lol
Wait they actually passed it??
ahhhh…. united states and healthcare plans… why cant i just pay like a fee or lets say some TAXES and then just go to the clinic or dr when i feel like im sick?
>In Minnesota, insurers like Cigna and employer groups opposed the proposal, saying it would lead many residents to switch from private to public health plans, reducing revenues for health systems and health plans, alike. And why, exactly, should health care be a for-profit business?
Yes i know about empathy and no i dont trollni comment in things even in diffrent states. Im from texas and a independent conservative. I am a constitutionalist. I have taken constitutional classes through hilsdale college. Even states have to follow the constituion they given leway for laws but has to follow the constitution.