RWP Universal Menu Block

News, sports, politics, blogs and forums Eden Prairie, Minnesota • (952) 942-7885

Eden Prairie Resident's GuideLocal Worship DirectoryEden Prairie Foreclosure Data

Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Keep up with the News! Sign up for email newsletters and RSS feeds.
Forecast
Click to Login
No account? Sign up!

Advertising

Advertising

Boisterous health care debate at Paulsen town hall meeting


» Read similar stories filed under:

The rules were set: “If you need to yell, yell at me,” cautioned Third District Republican Congressman Erik Paulsen during his town hall meeting, held at Maple Grove High School Friday evening. Though outbursts and harsh attacks have gone hand-in-hand with other Congressional town hall meetings centering on health care reform, the tone at Friday’s event remained at a raucous yet containable level.

There was some amount of booing, a large amount of applause and mostly a back-and-forth amid supporters of health care reform and those opposed to changes proposed in Congress.

Paulsen, a former state legislator from Eden Prairie in his first term in Congress, emphasized certain guarantees he would need to see before he would support any legislation:
First and foremost, the doctor-patient relationship would need to be maintained. He doesn’t want a system where any agency interferes with that.

Secondly, Paulsen said he wanted to make sure there is no delayed or denied care in a reformed health care system.
Thirdly: “We can’t break the bank.”

There are bipartisan reforms that should pass, noted Paulsen. One such example he cited would include ensuring those with pre-existing conditions are covered by insurance companies.
“I think government should be a regulator not a competitor,” noted Paulsen.

One of the many question marks in the health care legislation is the fate of a public option. Proposed reforms from H.R. 3200 (the house version of the bill) would set up an insurance exchange where people could pick their own plan – the idea being that a government-run public plan could be included as an option. In his speech to Congress last week, President Obama affirmed support for a public option, but also implied that they should be flexible in how such an option could go into effect – whether it’s administered by the government or a nonprofit entity.

One audience member from St. Louis Park noted that Minnesota has one of the lowest percentages of uninsured people in this country – “something to be proud of.” One of the ways that level was reached was through tens of thousands of people who have Minnesota Care, which covers those in the state who do not have insurance through an employer, do not have the means to buy insurance, yet do not have income low enough to be eligible for Medicaid, he added.
“That is a public option,” he said. “We have a public option here in Minnesota and it works really well and … it’s a decent model to explore for something that can work in other places.”

Another resident was more skeptical of the idea of an insurance exchange that would eventually dictate standards for the policies offered through private insurance companies: “From where I sit, there isn’t very much difference from being told that I either have to go on the government funded plan or that my private plan has to be changed so it’s just like the government funded plan.”
A Minnetonka man said the question is whether this public option is financially sustainable.

“What would happen if such a public option were adopted and in the first month, it went the way of Cash for Clunkers?”

Advertisement. Article continues below.

Two others had concerns with Canada’s single-payer system. An audience member originally from Canada described it as a country “where thousands of patient procedures have been canceled this year because of cost containment.”

In response, Paulsen noted that it’s one of his concerns that the United States could have delayed care which could result in denied care. “We don’t want to go into that direction,” he said.

Citing Paulsen’s concern about interference between doctor-patient relationships, one resident brought a letter from his health insurance company denying the prescription of a particular medication dosage and saying that a different dosage should be prescribed.

“What are the insurance companies doing exactly to deserve the amounts of profits they’re making?” the man asked.

Throughout the evening, comments were broken up by applause and in some cases boos as residents from the Third District chimed in. Paulsen has had tele-town hall meetings and forums with various constituent groups, but this was his first town hall meeting in the district.

It’s a passionate issue, noted Paulsen, but “the debate’s not going to finish up in a week,” he said, adding, “As it shouldn’t.”




On a related issue: The...

Back to page top

On a related issue: The Senate version of health-care reform includes a tax that would affect the medical device industry. Paulsen and his colleagues in the Minnesota congressional delegation of voiced their opposition to such a tax.

The following letter was sent to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and signed by Reps. Paulsen, McCollum and Bachmann.

"Dear Chairman Baucus:

We write to express our concern regarding the tax on medical device manufacturers included in the Senate Finance Committee health care reform proposal and the effect that a new tax could have on consumer prices, job creation and small businesses.

The medical technology industry continues to provide the essential tools of modern medicine and develops breakthrough treatments that save money and improve the quality of care for patients. In the health care debate, medical technology should be viewed as a cost savings and an industry where growth should be incentivized, not taxed.

Medical technology employs hundreds of thousands of workers across the country, providing quality, high-paying jobs with payrolls well above state averages. Moreover, it is a vital export industry with tens of billions of dollars in international sales. In Minnesota, we have a burgeoning medical technology industry that includes both large manufacturers like St. Jude Medical and Boston Scientific, as well as hundreds of small manufacturers.

Much of this proposed tax would fall on small medical technology companies who face steep start-up costs at the beginning stages of development. Adding another expense to smaller companies would be a disincentive for them to bring new products to market.

We agree that health care reform is needed and must be paid for, but this proposed tax would slow medical innovation, increase costs for consumers, and harm job growth. It could also jeopardize the competitiveness of the American medical technology industry in the global marketplace. On behalf of our many constituents who work in the medical technology industry and benefit from these devices, we urge you to reconsider this proposed tax."


Submitted by Leah Shaffer on September 17, 2009 - 2:56pm.

The Baucus proposal isn't...

Back to page top

The Baucus proposal isn't winning any popularity contests either in Congress. The NYtimes gives a summary of what's in and what's out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/health/policy/17health.html

Also, the link below connects you to all 220 pages of the proposal. Go to page 218 to read about the fee on the medical device manufacturers.

http://documents.nytimes.com/baucus-proposal-to-overhaul-health-care#p=1


Submitted by Leah Shaffer on September 17, 2009 - 3:07pm.

Advertising

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Advertising

Who's new

  • coconut1456
  • iridemn
  • aaliyah
  • anuj
  • Tyler.Erlandson

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 220 guests online.

Advertising