For next year’s budget, Johnson is proposing no increase in departmental spending. The 3 percent hike would partly cover the amount the county must absorb to treat the poor and uninsured at Hennepin County Medical Center, an expense that’s expected to rise due to Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto last spring of the state’s health care program for impoverished adults.
Most departments would see a dip in spending, Lawless said. The contingency budget, to cover unanticipated needs, would be smaller. And 160 positions would be eliminated, many through attrition, he said.
Despite cutting spending for other departments and reducing the rainy-day fund, a 3-percent hike will only partly cover the cost of running HCMC after Tim Pawlenty cut General Assistance Medical Care. The increase in taxes county residents will experience — as well as the cuts in services — will all go towards paying for health care. How much do we have to pay in taxes before we realize that it would be cheaper in the long run to provide health insurance for all, instead of paying for emergency care?
What are the chances that Tpaw will make a 10th amendment argument in court that MN can opt out of the federal requirement to provide emergency room medical care without regard to ability to pay?
Pretty much zero. A good primer is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29states.htm...
The short version: Mark A. Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest who has studied the constitutionality of mandates that people buy health insurance, said, “There is no way this challenge will succeed in court,” adding that the state measures seemed more “sort of an act of defiance, a form of civil disobedience if you will.”
So my choices are to pay more property taxes to pay for County employees' health care, or pay more income taxes to pay for everyone's health care.
Seems like a wash to me.
I think you are misreading this. It deals only with "to treat the poor and uninsured at Hennepin County Medical Center" and not County Employee healthcare. As much as the Republican governor wants the indigent sick and dying to stay out of the Emergency Rooms they still show up.
As long as the sick and dying are doing it in the areas that don't vote GOP, they don't call the governor's lie that nothing is wrong, and he doesn't care.
Not a wash at all, because the burden will be more evenly distributed. Remember, your property taxes pay the health care of county, city, and school district employees. Our district, for example, spends $100 million on benefits, most of which is health care. No more school referendums. In addition, that $100 million on covers the employee. Family coverage for a teacher is about $10,000 additional out of pocket. So, yeah, a slight income tax increase in exchange for 1/4 of your salary back.
If your work covers your family, they won't for too many years more. You will be in the same boat as us. Paying 1/4 of your salary so your kids can go where health partners tells you too, and pay $40 co-pays with only 80% coverage.
The taxes argument is not a wash. It has the economy of scale working on our side. Just look at France. $3400 of their taxes a year go to health care, where the Average American pays $8000. I will take a $3400 tax increase and a $8000 premium reduction any day.
Gaurantee that I'll pay another $3,400 in taxes in exchange for an $8,000 premium reduction, and I'll become the biggest advocate of Democratic health reform.
For some reason, something tells me nobody would be willing to promise me that. And when I raise the point in 5 years that my taxes have gone up but my premiums have not decrease, something tells me that nobody will give a damn.
"Not a wash at all, because the burden will be more evenly distributed"
Hmmm… .I disagree. When paid for by property taxes, HCMC is funded by 62% of the voting population in that jurisdiction. That is roughly the home ownership rate in the county.
When paid for by Obama's suggested tax plan, health reform would be funded on the backs of 1.5% of Americans.
62% vs. 1.5%.
And before you point out that I'm comparing 62% of a county with 1.5% of an entire nation, I would say it is perfectly reasonable for Hennepin County residents to pay for Hennepin County Medical Center and employees' benefits. Why should some guy up in Hallock, or some family in Michigan, or a retired couple in Queens be paying for HCMC?
DantheMan,
Is that a false choice?
Are you 100% certain that those will be the only choices available?
As someone in a higher tax bracket, yes. I am reasonably sure that one way or another, I'll be paying for HCMC to operate and county employees to get their healthcare.
You could move to Somalia, no taxes, no government employees, just right wing warlords
The choices ought not to be between paying over half of a dollar we make to our government, or living in anarchy.
Awesome. I'll stop paying for your corn subsidies as long as you want to stop paying for the cities sick people.
Deal. Corn subsidies are anti-free market and make no sense.
Please obliterate any future notion of Cash for Clunkers while you are at it.
Your anti-corn sentiment makes baby jesus cry. Why do you hate America?
What is your liberal point of posting this article. As a conservative, I see the rising benefits costs to county government employees as a UNION problem. County employee unions and other government employee unions have forced unworkable contracts into place. Who gets a pension anymore? - government workers in unions do. Who gets the best healthcare plans with the lowest out of pocket premiums? - government workers in unions do. Government with rising benefits costs have a problem because they cannot adjust these contracts.
I think we all agree healthcare costs need to be reigned in. The Dems approach of universal healthcare and mandated coverage will not do this.
Funny since this article isn’t about county employee benefits. You either have a reading comprehension problem or you are being deliberately obtuse. Seeing your history of repeating debunked talking points and outright dishonesty in your posts, I wonder which one it could be?
She can't help it. Being a creationist who thinks her god will fix global warming, logic and deductive reasoning are beyond her.
You are right, I didn't understand the posters interpretation of the article. After reading the Star Tribune article on this topic, I understand that it was about covering the uninsured at HCMC. Sorry for the knee jerk reaction.
During the greatest generation, a worker knew that if they devoted their life to a company, the company would take care of them. That was the social contract and it seemed just. Now, in the name of greater profits, you see workers as not deserving that. In our greatest generation, the boss was happy making 200 times the line worker. Now the boss needs to make 2000 times the line worker. Wealth has been redistributed from the middle class. Every nation has their uber rich and super powerful. America was not a great nation because of that, America was great because we had a stronger middle class than any other country. People like twice blessed think pensions are worker greed but billion dollar golden parachutes are reasonable. You exemplify the "me" generation of REaganites Twice blessed.
You also have no clue what you are talking about on health care. Ours is super expensive with restricted choices and high co-pays.
We are not competitive because our companies have to pay for health care.
Twice Blessed,
"The Dems approach of universal healthcare and mandated coverage will not do this. "
Judging from the track record of partisan Republican bloggers such as yourself, you have no credibility. The predictions of Republican bloggers has been wildly inaccurate for quite some time, on a broad range of issues.
I don't think you're convincing anyone, TwiceBlessed.
As a conservative, I see the rising benefits costs to county government employees as a UNION problem.
I'm sure you do.
And I'm sure you and DTM will have much to discuss, in your "retirement" years. Don't forget to bring the suntan lotion…..
In fact, I will have good retirement years. Why, because people in my generation know that social security will not be there when we retire (another government program gone broke). I also will not be getting any pensions. Therefore, I control my own destiny and save for my own retirement. It's about personal responsbility, not a cradle to grave government solution.
As a liberal, I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing. Did you, by any chance, go to private school?
I find it interesting that Pat Anderson is leveling charges against Marty Seifert insinuating that he somehow doesn't support the Republican platform. If you look at this article about her http://www.secretsofthecity.com/magazine/reportin... , it's pretty clear that Pat Anderson is the one with explaining to do.
-She supported pro-abortion, anti-free trader Ross Perot over the Republican nominee for President, George HW Bush in 1992. This is shocking to say the least and she freely admits throwing our Republican President under the bus for a 3rd party candidate!
-She strongly opposed drilling in ANWR! This is a very important issue for energy policy and in our platform! She said energy should "all be solar and wind." Here's a quote from the article: "But unlike other Republicans who furtively oppose drilling in ANWR, Awada is willing to take her opposition one step further. “If I was President Bush, the first thing I’d do is I’d announce that we would become self-sufficient on solar and wind.”
-In Eagan, she constantly fought for fancy palaces, like the new community center, that takes tons of tax money to subsidize it each year. In fact, she helped place the ballot question on for a very, very odd time of the year, avoiding higher turnout and rejection by the voters. Another quote from the article: Unlike her fellow Eaganite, Governor Tim Pawlenty, she refused to sign a “no tax” pledge during the 2002 campaign. “I’m very fiscally conservative, but there are certain things a community needs to do to create community. Especially in suburbia,” she says. When Awada was a suburban mayor, those things included controversial levies and bonding to acquire property for parks and to build recreational facilities. She often found herself at odds with Eagan’s anti-tax Republicans.
Read the article above and figure this out for yourself. Pat Anderson has no credibility questioning anyone's Republican credentials.
Two posts based on one blog? I'm impressed. The use of the term "fancy palaces" is especially interesting. Thank you for your special input.
I wouldn't guarantee we would see the efficiency and savings that France does, but I do believe in the economy of scale.The economy of scale does not make it a wash. At a minimum, I believe an average American's expenses would decrease. Taxes go a bit, premiums go down due to scale. We will save money, but even if we didn't it'd be worth it for the universality of it. But we would save money too.
DtM,
When I speak of economy of scale, I am speaking of costs and not revenues. You know the savings in outlay will be huge when averaged across an entire population instead of a few of the most sick.
As far as who pays. In the last 10 years, the top 1% of the population has enjoyed 66% of income growth, and the bottom 99% have split 33% of income growth. The ultra wealthy are about the only ones who benefit from our growth, s why shouldn't they help pay for it?
As an aside, how can conservatives possibly say that there is "wealth redistribution" to the poor? Over the last thirsty years the wealth gap has gotten bigger so now it matches pre-depression gaps. If anything, wealth has factually moved to the top 1%, not vice versa. The middle class has been more productive than ever, yet shared in less and less of GDP growth. If that is not redistribution of wealth I don't know what is!
Thanks for clarifying the economy of scale point. I get the desire to create a broader risk pool, and support it.
The role of taxes is to fund government, not be punitive to one group or another. Your statistics are interesting but taxing earnings away from people who some deem to have "too much" is terribly subjective and shouldn't be an objective of our government.
“For of those to whom much is given, much is required”
Bible (Luke 12:48)
As compared to your: "I got mine, Jack - sucks to be you."
I trust you'll enjoy your retirement next to The Lake Of Fire, DTM.
See above.
It's not half. Proven previously. Please learn math.
In case you forgot, Tommy, we already have a progressive income tax scale, and that isn't the part I'm complaining about.
I'm complaining about how steep some intend to make the curve, and the main reason I hear is to be punitive toward those rich guys.
What makes you think you know anything about my religion, unless you read my blog. And what does a belief in God have to do with this topic.
Um, I did read your blog, back when you linked to it from here (tip: if you put a link to your blog here, people might check it out. You got a problem with that?)
I got about halfway through your piece pooh-poohing global warming, and making the absurd claim that your god will snap his fingers and make it all better. That was more than enough for any rational person to endure.
Your embrace of this ridiculous idea calls into question your grasp of reality.
I'm glad you checked out my blog, conservativecravings.blogspot.com. However, your comment about me being a creationist still has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this post which is healthcare.
As I commented in another article response. Why can't people disagree without calling each other names or stereotyping them. Let's try and have a philosophical argument about our ideals. Because we disagree does not make one or the other insane. Use facts and try and persuade one another. Otherwise, libs posting on conservative sites and conservative posting on lib sites makes no sense.