![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
windelinaAnyone who has listened to Gov. Tim Pawlenty discuss state finances lately has probably heard him use a peculiar new phrase, "welfare health care." It's no mystery why the governor wants to attach such a stigmatizing word to Minnesota's health insurance programs -- he wants them to furnish something like $450 million in savings over the next two years, by far the biggest piece of his budget-balancing plan.
But that doesn't mean Minnesotans should accept the governor's new formulation. It's a misleading way to describe who actually benefits from state health care, and it's an insult to thousands of working Minnesotans.
A quick look at the numbers shows how misleading the governor's phrase really is. Last year Minnesota's general fund spent some $2.9 billion on health care programs, a genuinely staggering sum. But 60 percent of that money went to elderly and disabled patients living in nursing homes or other long-term care settings. Moreover, these patients represent the fastest-growing piece of the health care budget. Does the governor really consider them "welfare" recipients?
Another 25 percent of state health care outlays went for indigent adults and children -- either families on cash welfare or childless adults who don't qualify for cash aid. They're welfare recipients by almost any definition. But they are also the cheapest patients in the system because mostly they receive low-cost preventive care, not costly institutional care.
Another 10 percent of health care spending went to MinnesotaCare, the subsidized health insurance plan which is the biggest target in Pawlenty's budget. Adults without children would lose eligibility entirely; adults with children would face much tighter eligibility standards.
But MinnesotaCare doesn't cover the welfare poor. It was created, by definition, to cover working people who can pay premiums. To be sure, their premiums are subsidized by state revenues. Some voters will consider that public assistance. But the whole point of MinnesotaCare was to help families move from welfare to work and for low-income workers to survive in the low-wage job market. And it worked: A 1996 study by the Department of Human Services found that MinnesotaCare kept more than 4,000 families off cash assistance because they could afford to stay in jobs with low wages and no fringe benefits. Shaving down MinnesotaCare is likely to increase the number of Minnesotans who really do qualify for welfare.
Pawlenty's proposal for MinnesotaCare also breaks faith with the state's doctors, dentists and insurance plans, who agreed in 1992 to start paying a small tax to fund the program, with the understanding that more of their patients would then have coverage to pay their bills. This worked too: Charity care at Minnesota hospitals is just one-third of the national average, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. Now the governor is reneging on that deal, using the provider tax to cover a different state program while stripping thousands of adults of MinnesotaCare coverage.
Supporters of the governor's plan insist that Minnesota can't afford to cover anyone but the most vulnerable. It's true that Minnesota has been innovative and generous. But that doesn't mean that a large number of Minnesotans actually use the programs: State and federal statistics show that the share of Minnesotans on public coverage for low-income people, 10.2 percent, is actually below the national average.
In short, Minnesota over the last 15 years designed programs to promote low-cost preventive care, reduce high-cost emergency care and reduce the charity care that doctors and hospitals have to charge off to other customers. Unraveling that system will only weaken Minnesota, and using disparaging language to do it only makes the changes more demeaning to a proud state. This week the Legislature began hearings on Pawlenty's health-insurance proposals. Lawmakers surely can find a better way to balance the budget.
*****
I think we all know how much I despise Pawlenty and his cheap tricks to "balance" the budget by making the middle incomes pay up through increased property taxes and higher government fees.
So, here we have a program that has WORKED (much like Social Security), so of course he wants to get rid of it.
America, the land of opportunity - if you can afford it.
But that doesn't mean Minnesotans should accept the governor's new formulation. It's a misleading way to describe who actually benefits from state health care, and it's an insult to thousands of working Minnesotans.
A quick look at the numbers shows how misleading the governor's phrase really is. Last year Minnesota's general fund spent some $2.9 billion on health care programs, a genuinely staggering sum. But 60 percent of that money went to elderly and disabled patients living in nursing homes or other long-term care settings. Moreover, these patients represent the fastest-growing piece of the health care budget. Does the governor really consider them "welfare" recipients?
Another 25 percent of state health care outlays went for indigent adults and children -- either families on cash welfare or childless adults who don't qualify for cash aid. They're welfare recipients by almost any definition. But they are also the cheapest patients in the system because mostly they receive low-cost preventive care, not costly institutional care.
Another 10 percent of health care spending went to MinnesotaCare, the subsidized health insurance plan which is the biggest target in Pawlenty's budget. Adults without children would lose eligibility entirely; adults with children would face much tighter eligibility standards.
But MinnesotaCare doesn't cover the welfare poor. It was created, by definition, to cover working people who can pay premiums. To be sure, their premiums are subsidized by state revenues. Some voters will consider that public assistance. But the whole point of MinnesotaCare was to help families move from welfare to work and for low-income workers to survive in the low-wage job market. And it worked: A 1996 study by the Department of Human Services found that MinnesotaCare kept more than 4,000 families off cash assistance because they could afford to stay in jobs with low wages and no fringe benefits. Shaving down MinnesotaCare is likely to increase the number of Minnesotans who really do qualify for welfare.
Pawlenty's proposal for MinnesotaCare also breaks faith with the state's doctors, dentists and insurance plans, who agreed in 1992 to start paying a small tax to fund the program, with the understanding that more of their patients would then have coverage to pay their bills. This worked too: Charity care at Minnesota hospitals is just one-third of the national average, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. Now the governor is reneging on that deal, using the provider tax to cover a different state program while stripping thousands of adults of MinnesotaCare coverage.
Supporters of the governor's plan insist that Minnesota can't afford to cover anyone but the most vulnerable. It's true that Minnesota has been innovative and generous. But that doesn't mean that a large number of Minnesotans actually use the programs: State and federal statistics show that the share of Minnesotans on public coverage for low-income people, 10.2 percent, is actually below the national average.
In short, Minnesota over the last 15 years designed programs to promote low-cost preventive care, reduce high-cost emergency care and reduce the charity care that doctors and hospitals have to charge off to other customers. Unraveling that system will only weaken Minnesota, and using disparaging language to do it only makes the changes more demeaning to a proud state. This week the Legislature began hearings on Pawlenty's health-insurance proposals. Lawmakers surely can find a better way to balance the budget.
*****
I think we all know how much I despise Pawlenty and his cheap tricks to "balance" the budget by making the middle incomes pay up through increased property taxes and higher government fees.
So, here we have a program that has WORKED (much like Social Security), so of course he wants to get rid of it.
America, the land of opportunity - if you can afford it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Middle Income pays for everything.
Date: 2005-02-02 04:58 pm (UTC)But of course your biased and believe that some how Democrats would not raise your taxes for social programs that gleefully waste money without an audit.
By the time you reach retirement age, you will not be able to retire on the few dollars Social Security will give you. Social Security is the biggest pyramid scam ever because we are living so long nowdays.
Re: Middle Income pays for everything.
Date: 2005-02-02 05:23 pm (UTC)You'll also note she is talking about Pawlenty who has proclaimed that he won't raise taxes. Rather he'll make someone else do that for him(localities), cut decent programs, and oh yeah lets build us a casino.
Re: Middle Income pays for everything.
Date: 2005-02-02 06:14 pm (UTC)Or a sports stadium!
Re: Middle Income pays for everything.
Date: 2005-02-02 06:57 pm (UTC)