commentaries

The negotiating clout of a single buyer could save Minnesotans nearly $1 billion on prescription drugs and medical equipment - - - question: Knowing there is only ONE payer, why give a discount??? You're not going to change the total sales, that is driven by need.

Good points...all. Now find enough R' snd D's in St. Paul who can concede some key points..to reach a majority, and we're all in. If this is going to work in MN, you're either going to have to have a DFL Governor forcing some tough love on his party, or wait until we have a R Governor who's willing to force some tough love on his/her party. Either way, this is an issue that needs front and center leadership vs. leading from behind. I'm an R, but would respect what our state would reconcile with what's appropriate from MN. I am a R, and I would not respect anything of a similar flavor that would be cast down upon us from up high in D.C.

state provided healthcare options would be preferable to a national one

"state provided healthcare options would be preferable to a national one"...........There are states which cover next to nothing; the fact that MN has safety nets and everyone else if out of luck just strikes me as people thinking of only themselves. The only humane way to proceed is to create a system in which no one suffer or dies from. Face it- the cons are fully invested in one-way-only strategies. In the meanwhile, they're eating their own on a basis of daily.

Sounds like a plan. However, when I'm on vacation in Hernando Beach outside of Tampa, Florida and get sick will the plan pay for my medical costs at Tampa General? Probably not, and that's why we need a national plan so it covers us in Boise, Idaho; Trenton, New Jersey; and even Toronto, Canada. Yes, Canada, Spain, England, Germany and all the states in the United States. Only the federal government has the authority to enact international contracts of this type. This is why it is so important for the Supreme Court to approve the individual mandate. It may not be perfect but it will give us coverage and the time to improve upon the PPACA. It may take another 10 or 20 years but the United States will eventually have universal, single payer care. It is the only way to actually attack medical care costs. Once all insurance companies are eliminated and there's only one provider of medical care, the U.S. government, then and only then can prices be brought under control. Go ahead and scream socialism, but let's look at some of the socialistic organizations we have today. There's Hennepin County Hospital, the local municipal liquor store, municipal golf courses, municipal health clubs, county waste disposal sites and on and on. They all have competition in the private sector and even medical care will continue to have some type of private medicine.

Part of the problem is defining "health care". Right now, no one in Minnesota can be turned away if life-saving health care is needed. In effect it extends much further than life-saving care. Go to any Urgent Care or E.R. evenings and weekends and you will find that they are used pretty much as clinics by those who are uninsured. The problem comes in when someone wants to be "covered" for things like gender reassignment surgery, liposuction in non-lifethreatening cases, Viagra, etc. etc.--things which are elective and costly. Any "one payer" system means that there is no competition, hence any such system, over time, will become more and more expensive as these (sometimes ridiculous) electives are covered at what amounts to taxpayer expense.

Private health insurance companies are a $700 billion middle man. That's a lot of money at stake. They will not allow anything like this to happen.

It seems like the every state for themself plan gets messy real quick. If you live in MN and work in WI, is your WI employer required to pay for your MN mandated insurance? If you live in WI and work in MN, does that Wisconsinite get MN issued insurance? If we really want to get rid of waste, we'd get rid of the 50 different state regulations that insurance companies have to work around. It seems like states should be able to band together under a common policy framework, which is very different from the conservative plan of allowing people to buy insurance from another state (which basically creates a race to the bottom for the state that can offer the cheapest AKA least effective insurance).

My opinions are not meant to counter any of the valid points made above. However, concerning other states not accepting MN's universal coverage, I think what you'd find is many of the states with similar coverage setting up reciprocity agreements. Reciprocity could be established with other nations as well. I think the dominoes would fall quickly after that, and other states would soon institute universal care with reciprocity agreements. Regarding electives, the examples mentioned above are covered by some plans as additional benefits in order to make their plan more appealing than their competitors. As a state run plan with no need for competitive differentiators, electives like the ones mentioned would likely not be covered, unless a majority of the residents considered such a procedure to be a medical necessity. Regarding negotiating clout, you'll find that if it's a generic with alternatives, prices will drop quickly to reach very thin margins. If it's a patented drug, then MN insurance can decide not to cover it if the price is too high. Then, some people who would normally take the drug would skip it. I think you'll find that the drug companies would be willing to negotiate their price down in order to get an entire state to cover it. I think a national plan has some advantages, but it has disadvantages too. Plus, a state level plan has a much better chance of getting passes and would be more nimble if changes needed to be made.

"state provided healthcare options would be preferable to a national one" - No. What if you moved out of state by need? We need single payer.