Nurses, doctors, hospitals urge shift to medicaid

  • Article by: WARREN WOLFE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 11, 2010 - 10:49 AM

The revamped health care plan for the poor just isn't going to work, say nurses, doctors and hospitals.

  • 21
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
popeye4601May. 11, 10 5:27 AM

Just what I thought all the time, republicans are for the rich. The heck with the poor people. Pawlenty won`t raise the taxes for the rich so the poor suffer. This country is in trouble.

reasonable2May. 11, 10 7:56 AM

The best medical solution is also the best financial solution. Unfortunately, our governor now needs some way to save face. Since there is no clear way to change his mind and not look conservative enough, we need some bravery on the MN GOP side.

If the Governor can get his way, perhaps even shutting down the government, subsequent ugly headlines of needless deaths from neglect may make him wish he'd listened to the Docs and nurses.

TPAW might be able to run out the clock doing his "my way" - ignoring and belittling anything the Legislature passes. Minnesota loses if that happens. (and for what? TPAW is not the right "timber" anyway.)

notheocrat12May. 11, 10 9:44 AM

(from a "compassionate conservative") commentor: They had their shot, and blew it! The poor should rely solely on charity and alms for the poor. Why should I give them money? They arent producers. They re simply looting my hard earned money, spending it on healthcare. I ll even bet they use the HC $ to buy cellphones, drugs, and other items used by the poor. Im just glad I only look out for myself, because thats all that matter.s

reality123May. 11, 1010:42 AM

They are looking out for their themselves, not the poor. They want the path that provides the largest amount of money for them. So much for the hypocratic oath. I say we should socialize medicine to take the profit out of healthcare. Nobody would get rich, but the constant whining from the liberals would be muted.

PinnacleMay. 11, 1011:25 AM

Where's these people's accountability for themselves? Just because someone has "made it in life" doesn't mean they HAVE to help those that "haven't made it in life". Some by choice - some by bad situations.....where does it say in our constition that the richer people must take care of the poorer people?

torskeMay. 11, 1011:58 AM

"where does it say in our constition that the richer people must take care of the poorer people?" This part: "WE the people....." If you dislike how civilized society cares for those less unfortunate, maybe you should move to Borneo or somewhere where only "survival of the fittest" will apply.

gearrunrMay. 11, 1012:56 PM

I assume, then, that YOU currently give a significant amount of your income to the poor. You do so before you purchase non-necessary items in your life, pools, motorcycles, plasma tv's, smart phones, excessive toys for your children, etc... Because with the position you take, you would be riddled with guilt if you did not. Correct? I know I couldn't expect to speak for other peoples money unless I was willing to live without comforts, I'd feel weird.

gearrunrMay. 11, 1012:59 PM

gov: we need money
lib: take from the rich
gov: good idea
lib: about time
gov: by our algorithm you are rich
lib: oh I didn't mean me

gearrunrMay. 11, 10 1:02 PM

Where the nurses, doctors and hospital explained "why" the GAMC plan wouldn't cover? There was some literal acrobatics there that made it seem like they were jumping through hoops to reorganize in a way to provide the best care... But they never come out and say it's not enough money, do they?

neptune1May. 11, 10 1:08 PM

and I'd guess that the "promote the General Welfare" clause should be interpreted as allowing persons to remain on government assistant in perpetuity, right?


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters