Skip to Content

State Sen. John Marty takes his health plan on the road

State Sen. John Marty is traveling around the state telling people about his proposed Minnesota Health Plan, a statewide single-payer that would cover all residents.

Under the plan, all licensed health care providers would be in one network that also included chiropractic, mental health and dental services. No one would be rejected for pre-existing conditions and there'd be no deductibles or co-pays.

Marty was in Owatonna this week to talk with farmers and small-business owners — who often struggle with health care costs.

He used his oft-repeated argument that health care should be like local police and fire protection, available to all and paid for by taxes and grants.

Among those at the meeting, said the Owatonna People's Press, were Michael and Julie Mussman, who own an Owatonna dairy farm but need a job off the farm to get health care benefits for the family.

“I work off the farm just for benefits,” Julie Mussman told the paper. “I could lose the income, but I couldn’t lose the benefits. It’s become a major issue. It’s painful for me to talk to my fellow dairy farmers — they’re struggling to find that coverage that’s affordable.”

Also attending were Trevor and Vicki Jensen — owners of a Farmers Union Insurance company — who said many farm family members work off the farm just to get health benefits.

Brad Meier, president and CEO of the Owatonna Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourism, told the paper that residents may be leery of a legislative proposed system.

“Businesses get concerned because when government works to make something better, sometimes it gets worse,” Meier said. “I think that’s the fear.”

Republican State Sen. Mike Parry, showed up, too, and told the paper:

“Everybody knows that we have to do something. It is an interesting plan, as I sat there and digested what he was putting forth, my biggest question and my biggest thought at this point in time is how do we fund a program like that. The key issue will be the cost and how we would actually pay for it.”

Others, too, worry about the cost of Marty's far-reaching plan, he told MinnPost last year that it would cost less than we're now paying:

"We estimate the cost will be 20 percent cheaper than what we're spending now in terms of total health-care dollars spent in Minnesota. That's extremely expensive; about the only thing that is more expensive is what we're doing now. Unlike the proposals in Congress, which are looking for a trillion dollars or more over the next decade, we want to do more than they do: cover everyone and all medical needs and do it at less cost. That's the good news."

Comments (6)

It's really peculiar to hear suspicion about a way of delivering health care that has been proven to work better around the world. It's what we are doing now, including the federal legislation, that is the outlier.

France Fights Universal Care's High Cost
-co-pays
-service cuts
-closures
The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. This year the annual shortfall is expected to reach €9.4 billion ($13.5 billion), and €15 billion in 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html.
===============

Reality check: Canada's government health care system
- Months long waits
- prioritize patients (Death panels?)
- Sea of red ink
- Increasing privatization
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system
==========================

Life expectancy gap 'is widening'

The gap between average life expectancy and that of the poorest in England is widening despite efforts to close it, a National Audit Office report says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/10475835.stm

Socialist medical care. Working better around the world.

Right.

Low life expectancy is cheaper, Thomas. Doesn't that fall in line with good business practices? Smoking cessation? Too expensive in the long run.

It's interesting that Japan's health care costs (charted in the WSJ) are so much lower than everyone. Granted, this is because the government fixes costs, but it doesn't seem to hurt, since they have one of the highest life expectancies around the world. Seems like their version of universal health care works.

By the way, I think that it's interesting that you chose to cite the BBC news service, a government-funded (socialist?) news organization.

My opinion, we should try this and if the costs are less we stick with it, if not we go back to making insurance company executives millionaires.

We might even get federal money if we say we are the pilot program for real healthcare reform.

As long as it costs less than the current coverage Minnesotans have, how to pay for this new health care system is the easiest question to answer.

Thomas:

A couple of years ago, Canadians voted the founder of single-payer health care in their country the Greatest Canadian who ever lived. They may occasionally have to wait for elective procedures, but never for care that is needed at once. John Marty's plan could allow Minnesota to be America's Saskatchewan, the first province to enact it back in the late 1940s.

France's benefit set is perhaps too generous. England's is definitely not, but that country has been underfunding it in recent decades and will do even more of that under its new conservative leader "Margaret Thatcher" Cameron.

U.S. polls show that over 60% of Americans would prefer single payer (see www.pnhp.org) and a 2007 poll of Minnesota doctors showed that roughly 65% of them would prefer it.