Healthcare and general welfare
Feb 26, 2006 Health Care, News
We’ve been hearing a lot about health care lately, and with good reason. Just the other day, driving home from work I heard a disturbing story about a pharmaceutical company that has a drug that can cure several types of cancer. What does it cost, you might ask? The company argues it can charge what the market will bear, even though the drug was developed by research funded by taxpayer money. The market indicates $100,000 is not too much to pay.
And you may have heard about the Toyota plant that went to Canada because employee insurance costs in the U.S. were costs that were too much to bear….
Healthcare and health insurance costs us as a society in many ways. It cuts at the heart of what has been the critical debate shaping our democracy: Are we, as the Declaration of Independence says, created equal, with inalienable rights, or are we free individuals throwing off the tyranny of taxation?
Our nation was born in the lofty struggle for both equality and freedom. These are virtues that many have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect; yet they are also values that are not always in agreement. We cannot be totally free if we are bound to each other for the common good.
If we truly meant to charge government to do as our constitution says, “ to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity†— and if we truly believe in this, then it seems pretty clear how we ought to solve the problem.
The central purpose of healthcare insurance is to spread risk around so that no individual is left to suffer the full weight of the hardship of the cost of medical care. Ideally, the best insurance should be available to everyone. We are not all equal in our need, or in the outcomes of our circumstances, but we ought to be equal in protections. Universal coverage is the only way to accomplish this.
Recently I have been learning more about single-payer health insurance, which essentially is a Medicare-like program where everyone would be insured. Insurance that would be managed by the government, but hospitals and doctors could still be private entities. The reason this model being talked about, as a viable option is that it has great potential for reducing health care cost while it covers everyone.
So why is it so difficult to get this plan for all Americans? For years this issue has been controlled by rich special interests of insurance and drug companies that gain huge profits from being able to tell us what kind of health care program we ought to have. Perhaps the only way around this is to develop some state models that will show the Federal government how it can be done.
The Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition has a plan to make it possible in Minnesota. They support returning the administration of our state health programs (MA, GAMC and MN Care) to the state, eliminating the role of costly HMOs in the administration of these programs. To date, there is no evidence the state-mandated presence of HMOs in the state programs has reduced costs nor improved quality. The cost savings incurred from a return to DHS administration would reduce the need to cut benefits and/or people from the rolls of these programs. A Prescription Drug Purchasing Bill (SF 22/HF 839) which would require the formation of large drug purchasing pools to create leverage in negotiating prices with drug manufacturers, resulting in significant cost savings and a universal, single-payer health plan for the state of Minnesota (SF 414/HF 481).
There is also conversation among other groups to incrementally move us toward single payer health care by providing a single payer system for all children in the state of Minnesota.
Kip Sullivan of The Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition will be back in Northfield to talk about these ideas in early April watch for an announcement.
Partisan Ugly or Not?
Feb 19, 2006 News
In a discussion of Education funding on his blog, Rep. Cox finds Senator Mark Dayton’s factual remarks about under funding public schools ‘partisan’ and the remarks made by Commissioner Seagren to be ‘factual’ and not ‘partisan’. I found her remarks as quoted by Cox very misleading as they implied that funding allocated was more than adequate, when in fact she’s talking about funding that is not available to all districts.
Let’s consider these facts: the Northfield Public schools is organizing for $1,000,000 in cuts this coming year with hope they won’t have to cut that much. Last year they cut $3,000,000 from their budget. The district does not have a human resources position; that work-load was assumed by the Superintendent, and teachers are spread pretty thin.
Rep. Cox seems to suggest that that is all fine and good, and that the School District on whose board he used to serve must have been living beyond its means.
But is that the case? Was the district too generous and careless with its funds? Did it have aspirations beyond what the taxpayers could afford? Is his understanding of the figures a clear and accurate one? Does he demonstrate a clear understanding of why Northfield struggles for funding? Not that I can see.
He goes on to say that our schools will have to prove they can do a better job if they want more money. He says reform is needed, but what reforms? What evidence does he offer that the Northfield Schools are doing a poor job and aren’t worth the extra money it would take to save programs and bring down class size? None.
To avoid partisanship, we need to begin upfront with a clear, careful understanding of the figures, and not try to beat each other with data.
In order to make progress toward this goal, we need to be honest and accurate about the effects of inflation on state education spending. We need to recognize that apples-to-oranges comparisons don’t help when dealing with years before and after 2001 when education financing was shifted from local property taxes to the state budget. We need to account for the ways rising health care costs are taking larger chunks out of teacher’s actual take-home pay. And finally, we need to recognize that under-funded federal mandates and testing from programs like No Child Left Behind are giving the states less funding than the expenses they create, which makes for yet another drain, another giant sucking sound, further reducing what districts have to spend per pupil. If we account for such facts, we might come to very different conclusions from the same data.
This might help us at least begin to avoid some of the partisanship. If we don’t do this, it may continue to seem to Mr. Cox that everyone else is playing partisan politics except those in his own party who are using numbers the same way he is.
School Funding – It doesn’t grow on trees.
February 2nd I attended an excellent presentation by Mary Cecconi, Executive Director of Parents United for Public Schools called “School Funding 101: How Did We Get Here?” It offered an explanation of the current system for funding Minnesota schools and why it is failing us. This brings me back to the beginning of my previous blog and funding promises that aren’t kept.
Cecconi gave a brief history of education funding at state and federal levels for the past decade. She reminded the fifty-some attendees that education comprises 40% of Minnesota’s budget, and aside from the maintenance of some state roads, is the only constitutional mandate. Yet in a time when the average inflation cost is 3.1% over the last ten years, in the same time period education has received a 1.14% increase. The result is that schools are having to go to voters more often to ask for increased operating fund levies and forced to cut back on expenditures.
There are 843,000 students in Minnesota, 1,800 schools, and 53,000 teachers.
In “real” (inflation-adjusted) dollars, Minnesota’s General Education Aid per K-12 student for the 2005-2006 school year is 11% less than 15 years ago (1990-91).
In 2004, Minnesota’s per capita income ranked 9th highest among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Yet the state’s 2003-04 public school spending per pupil (K-12) ranked only 22nd highest.
Minnesota’s ratio of pupils per teacher (average class size) in 2003-04 ranked only 37th best (that’s 14th worst) among the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
On the Federal level, although congress promised to fund Special Education at a 40% rate, rarely does it spend more than 18%, and currently spends 14%. This year, the Federal Government is sending signals it will cut back on funds for Title Programs. What under-funding federal programs means for local districts is that, because these are mandated programs, they must be funded by the states. Covering them with General Fund resources means the money must be cut from somewhere else.
In 2001, property tax reform legislation caused the state to assume most of the costs of running the schools to reduce property taxes for home and business owners. A McKnight Foundation Report explains, “The state now pays about 86% of districts’ operating budgets, or $5.57 billion. That’s up from 72%, or $4.4 billion, before the reforms of 2001.”
“Though the state’s contribution to education increased, revenue for most schools did not. The source of funds changed—from property tax revenue to the state’s general fund—but the overall amount of funding remained virtually flat. (See “School Finance Made Simple” for an excellent description.) In essence, the new school funding system makes the schools more dependent than ever on the state and less on their local property tax. And while the amount of money coming from the state to the schools went up, the result for schools was basically a wash.”
Cecconi posed some important questions:
What education do we owe our children?
How should pay for educating our children?
What do we do about the changing demographics of our state?
Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Seagren has responded to concerns about funding by saying the following:
Even after adjusting for inflation, Minnesota’s support for public K-12 education increased nearly 27 percent between 1991 and 2007.
. . . In focusing only on the basic formula, the Senator left out funding for: special education, class size reduction, equity revenue, Q-comp, gifted and talented education, transition aid, integration aid, operating referendums, sparcity and capital revenues.
Presenting such an incomplete picture of our actual education funding system is an insult to taxpayers, who generously support public education in Minnesota.
. . . Governor Pawlenty and the Legislature boosted education funding by $800 million last year—bringing the total state investment to $12.6 billion for the two-year budget. We also enacted significant reform for teacher pay and training.
Her comments are terribly misleading, and most educators wonder why districts are struggling to make ends meet and are forced to return to voters for more money again and again. For one thing she ignores the huge shift that took place moving education from local to the State budget without finding a way to pay for it. Many of the things she sites as increases to education are not increases that all districts can access and represent underfunding from other budgets and reflect real increases in costs.
The truth may be as they say “in the pudding.” Perhaps a helpful question to answer would be to determine how much it costs to educate today’s students and further determine what is essential for students to learn. Then we will have a better idea of whether or not the money the commissioner feels is being invested is enough or is being invested properly. To quote the McKnight Foundation:
President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” law is now worrying districts. “The irritation of some education authorities has increased because at a time of imploding state budgets, they say, the law imposes costly mandates on states, including annual testing, stricter teacher certification and transportation for students who transfer,” the New York Times reports. The law calls for up to $18 billion to assist schools this year, but the president has budgeted only $12 billion. “The New Hampshire School Administrators Association estimates that while the law adds $77 per student in federal aid, it creates $575 per student in obligations,” according to the Times.
Many do not understand that testing costs money, and the teaching and preparation that goes with it costs money — all of which is money that does not go into the classroom.
Cecconi also mentioned a book Inequality Matters that talks about the problem of inequality across the country and why it is something we need to take seriously. In our state, we hear how important the achievement gap is, and seem to feel that it is only the schools that can do something about it. This of course ignores what has happened across the country to living wage jobs and what putting all our faith in the market place has done to our country and to our democracy.
Schools do have a role to play, but we must do more than just make hollow promises about hiring science and math teachers and raising standards and expectations. If we don’t do something about preparing all students for school, we will only exacerbate the problem and widen the gap even more. We also have to do something about creating an economy and a future that young people can see will have opportunities for them. Time and again, when I ask young people what they are planning to do after high school, they become despondent and seem filled with doubt that there will be something for them to do.
You can find out more about the problem of our growing inequality by visiting the Inequality website.
Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees
Feb 14, 2006 News
President Bush came to Minnesota earlier this month to promote one of his initiatives. The problem is that although they have catchy titles, they are often doomed from the start because of their myopic view of things in general.
Take for instance ‘No child left behind,’ or ‘Tax cuts’ (for the rich), or the new Medicare drug policy, or ‘Clear Skies,’ or the Iraq war for that matter. All are solutions based on two myths: Either the myth that bold action benefiting mostly the privileged at the top of the heap in society results in a benefit to all, or the myth that change happens through manipulation, with tough threats or tax incentives.
Tough talk is reserved for those the Bush administration disagrees with or finds disagreeable, and incentives for those they believe are motivated by greed. Both are based on a low opinion of the species unlike an appeal to our higher angelic natures. This is the lesson the market place teaches: Get people to do what you want by appealing to their baser emotions, like fear and greed. The reptile-like part of the brain that governs those urges and responses doesn’t question the need or the repercussions. It is much more challenging to appeal to reason because you have to convince others of your point of view.
A basic principle applied in the Republican garden is what’s good for the tree is good for the forest, which might not be so bad if the treatment were applied to all trees. The Bush administration tends to have its favorite trees. Oil companies, Haliburton, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, credit card companies and the wealthy in general. They are given great encouragement to increase their wealth, while protections and opportunities for everyone else are eroded or eliminated.
The President came to Minnesota to tell us that the problem with America’s competitiveness in the world economy is that we are not teaching enough math and science. He claims he’ll correct this by spending “$380 million to hire 70,000 more teachers,” as reported in the StarTribune, “to teach advanced math and science courses, and another 30,000 private industry professionals to help out in those classes.” It’s also claimed that this will be aimed at poor students and calls “for improving math instruction at the elementary and middle school levels and raising student achievement in those subjects through testing.”
Yet why does the President assume that the money spent on testing – instead of on direct instruction – is actually having a positive influence? From what I see, the proliferation of tests often weakens and limits teaching rather than enhancing it. Not that testing as a tool for informing instruction isn’t helpful, but the way it’s used can harm instruction by narrowing the focus and distracting the process.
We are now beginning to hear of plans to reform health care in a similar way by insisting on provider report cards, which have little hope of improving care – only distracting care givers from doing their job.
The problems in education and healthcare, and for that matter the economy as well, are not that we don’t try hard enough. It’s that too much money is spent in the wrong ways, instead of those ways where it could do the most good.
- We don’t give adequate money to schools, and then we spend lots of money to check up on our under-funded schools.
- Most of the increased costs in health care go to the administration of healthcare, not to the care itself.
- The problem in the economy is not that we don’t have enough engineers or mathematicians or scientists; it’s that we don’t have enough jobs for them because we outsource too many jobs, and then leave American companies chasing the lowest wage earner.
According to columnist Paul Craig Roberts, “Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record.” He goes on to say:
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities–primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
Republicans say, “trust the marketplace”; then they do what ever they can to give aid and comfort to the comfortable, and turn around and claim everyone else is too lazy, not working hard enough, not challenged enough, not tested enough to make it in the market place.
In Healthcare, the problem is making sure everyone is covered, not shifting the burden on to the employee. We need to seriously look at a universal single-payer system. Not socialized medicine where doctors and hospitals are state employed and owned, but a system where we are all covered by an efficient state-run system like Medicare.
Look at the difference in Agriculture, where all the incentives are given to the big producers, and little help is given to small farmers. Things will likely get worse, with ethanol initiatives most likely to go to big grain production and not small farm food production, which is where the real impact on rural economies is generated, because the small farmer buys locally.
This was one of the ideas I came away from the Monday night Northfield Arts Guild/League of Women Voters forum on “What is the Future for Family Farms?” organized by Stephanie Henrickson. The forum was part of the Farm Art show at the Guild that Stephanie also organized. Stephanie has been working tirelessly on family farm issues for decades, inspired by her love of the land and the family farm way of life.
Panel members were Dave and Flo Minar, Cedar Summit Farm of New Prague; Paul Liebenstein, Wolf Creek Dairy of rural Dundas; John Zimmerman, turkey grower in rural Northfield; Thom Petersen, Government Relations Director for Minnesota Farmers Union ; Susan Stokes, Executive Director of Farmers Legal Action Group; and Duane Alberts of Minnesota Farm Bureau Board of Directors.
Though the questions were set out ahead of time, some of the most important issues affecting family farms were NOT addressed, so here are some things to think about:
l) Unlike other livestock, dairy is still subject to a five-shareholder limit in the Corporate Farm Law. Should we keep it that way or open it up to unlimited shareholders?
2) Poultry was removed from the protections of the Minnesota Corporate Law in l978. They are now grown on contract, and how has this changed poultry farming?
3) Minnesota, unlike Iowa, allows local zoning in regard to farm operations, including feedlots. Which system do you prefer?
4) Some farmers are choosing to go organic in their crop or livestock operations. Proposed USDA Organic Standards have drawn much protest. Why?
5) Is there anything in law now to cap taxes on agricultural land that abuts urban areas or housing developments? If not, should there be?â€
Later in the month I also attended a great discussion hosted by the Land Stewardship Project Just Foods: Voices of Women in Agriculture. We watched a video about several women practicing sustainable agriculture. Two of the women live in our area and were at the presentation to answer questions about sustainable agriculture and opportunities for women in farming. It was inspiring to see these women dedicated to clean organic practices and connected to the local economy. Who knows maybe we witnessed the future of agriculture.
