Readers Write (Nov. 25): Minnesota's quality of life and economy, Affordable Care Act, immigration, parenting

In the last week, we've heard some outstanding news about how Minnesota's economy and quality of life measure up against the rest of the country. Our unemployment rate, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, is the fifth-lowest in the country at 3.9 percent; Interest.com ranked the Twin Cities as the most affordable place to own a home when prices were measured against median income in major metropolitan areas; our state revenue collections came in at $75 million more than projected for the month of October alone, and now we find that the Pew Charitable Trust has ranked our revenue growth during and after the beginning of the Great Recession as the third best in the nation.

Things seem to be working here. They are working in the same way that led Time magazine to recognize Minnesota's political and policy successes and to highlight "The Good Life in Minnesota" with the famous cover of Gov. Wendell Anderson holding a northern pike in 1973.

Where are the banner headlines about Minnesota's success in 2014? Five years after the bottom of the Great Recession, our state's low unemployment rate didn't even earn a front-page story in this paper the day after it was announced.

If states are indeed laboratories for how we govern, Minnesota can offer a plethora of empirical data showing the real impact of policy and politics on the economy. When will the rest of the country take notice?

That talk-radio guy once again has an opportunity to show how little he knows and surprisingly is given the space in this paper to do so ("Health care cost hikes were inevitable," by Jason Lewis, Nov. 24). He says that there is no free lunch. Whoever made the argument that there was? Minnesotans are "reeling?" He must be referring to fishing, because thousands of Minnesotans have coverage due to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that they otherwise couldn't have gotten or couldn't have afforded.

The talk-radio guy also criticizes coverage of pre-existing conditions. Without the ACA, how else would these people get coverage? It sounds like, in the talk-radio world, if you've gotten sick, too bad, no health insurance for you.

It may be best for the talk-radio guy to heed his own advice and try Minnesota Nice.

Anyone with a little knowledge of how insurance or any product is priced should not have been surprised by PreferredOne's rate increase. As with anything else, if you want to sell a lot of a product, cut the price below any competition and folks will come running. This is common in all lines of insurance. Preferred's actuaries must have been out to lunch when the sales staff sent the initial rates out. The solution to this problem would be to require any health insurer that wants to be part of a "captive audience," as we all are, to stay in the game for the long run, not just one year.

The writer is a retired insurance underwriter.

• • •

State Sen. David Hann ("Gruber's gaffes show why MNsure was sure to fail," Nov. 20) wants to "adopt free-market solutions that benefit all Minnesotans." What about Minnesotans like me who have pre-existing conditions? When I ask this of MNsure-bashing acquaintances, I often get a response like this: "Well, I wouldn't want to cause a problem for people with pre-existing conditions, but …"

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 50 million to 129 million (19 percent to 50 percent of) nonelderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health condition (aspe.hhs.gov). With no pun intended, that's an awfully large "but."

As we focus on these (hopefully) soon-to-be Americans, we should also reflect on how this country came to have the problem that more people want to become Americans than who can. It is because, contrary to what some may tell you, the United States offers a better chance for a healthy, peaceful and prosperous life than most other places on Earth. . If we were better at promoting all that's good here in less-fortunate countries, it would help make them more livable and desirable, too. This could help relieve our immigration pressures and perhaps should be a bigger part our long-term strategy.

• • •

As long as there is extensive poverty and conflict, there will be an overwhelming demand to escape to countries with greater security and better economies. The United States and Europe cannot absorb the large numbers who want to settle here without degrading our own natural-resource base and quality of life. Water, air quality, green space and agricultural land are already being stretched to the limit in the southwestern, southeastern and northeastern U.S. by a national population that has tripled in less than a human lifetime.

Clearly, our meager and sporadic attention to development of good governance, education and economic growth in poorer regions of the world has been inadequate for the scale of the problem. Our foreign policy and investments have been driven more by short-term economic interests and security concerns than long-term development of countries that now provide most of the migrants.

If we want to reduce the pressure for migration, we will have to focus on progress in source countries with the same intensity now reserved for our national security. It will take a sustained and coordinated effort from high- and middle-income countries through investments combined with incentives and sanctions to make progress on good governance, education and economic development in poorer countries. The alternative is an endless political battle over securing borders, periodic amnesties and population pressures at home.

Blame the parents; the parents are not to blame ("Report faults family of Newtown shooter," Nov. 22). Why is it always either/or? It is not all about us; it just isn't not at all about us.