ed0515a08

On the homepage

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving: More Americans to hit road

Out There

Vikings

Favre's stats put him in MVP picture

Pardon Board

Not all forgiven

Home | Opinion Exchange | Editorials

Continued: Editorial: Veto shouldn't be last word on health care

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

TIED TO BUDGET DEAL

"The state cannot afford to further expand subsidized health programs without certainty of reform that will control costs and without an overall budget agreement that deals adequately with our current and future budget deficit."

Gov. Tim Pawlenty's May 13 letter vetoing H.F. 3391, the health care reform bill

More from Editorials

Sixteen years ago, Minnesota legislators and a visionary Republican governor overcame partisan mistrust and policy complexity to put this state among the nation's leaders in the effort to secure good, affordable health care for its citizens.

That standing has slipped over the years. This was to be the year in which Minnesota's health care edge was regained. We think it still can and should be -- despite Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of the Legislature's health care reform bill late Tuesday. Time remains for one more try at putting health care reform on this year's list of accomplishments.

The bill that Pawlenty vetoed doesn't offer as much positive change as its designers, the members of a Pawlenty-appointed task force, sought earlier this year. They've scaled back its ambitions, in large measure in response to Republican critics and in hope of securing Pawlenty's support.

Nevertheless, the bill still takes a number of worthwhile steps in the direction of improved quality at lower cost. The governor's veto message acknowledged the bill's virtues: "improved transparency of price and quality, advancement of e-prescribing and electronic health records, development of medical homes, care coordination of chronic disease, and the beginning of payment reform to pay doctors for evidence-based, high-quality health care."

But Pawlenty said he could not accept the bill because it extends MinnesotaCare eligibility to an estimated 40,000 more people, at a cost he pegged at $141 million per year by 2011.

Many experts say that insuring all Minnesotans eventually would bring about a total cost savings, not an increase, and also would improve the health of people who are uninsured or underinsured today.

But strip the MinnesotaCare expansion from the bill, and it would still be legislation worth enacting. It wouldn't be the landmark achievement of 1992, when MinnesotaCare was created and universal coverage seemed in sight. But it would make a difference for the better.

Pawlenty's veto missive ends with an expression of desire to "move forward on these areas of common agreement." Capitol cynics scoffed yesterday, claiming that the real Republican game is to stop any bill that would give the DFL a bragging point in the fall campaign. DFLers should give Pawlenty a chance to prove the cynics wrong.

Recent Editorials stories

Editorial: This Bud Light's not for U - May 14, 2008

Editorial: This Bud Light's not for U - Anheuser-Busch's ill-advised 'Fan Cans'' promotion. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS