A single-payer plan for Minnesota As a nurse I am concerned about the Nov. 23 editorial, "A welcome strategy for health care fixes," because this strategy would lead us in the wrong direction. The National Priorities Partnership supports the current health care model that is not working for us. A look at its website reveals that it is a group of health insurers and others invested in the status quo.
Minnesota is in need of health care reform that will work and care for us all. The reason our current model does not work is the administrative inefficiency of our health insurance industry. This inefficiency is about 30 percent of our health care costs and is represented by special interests: marketing, lobbying, profit, salaries and perks, billing practices, pharmaceutical costs, telling doctors how to practice medicine, underwriting which is designed to keep the sick out of the system, as well as the administrative cost to collect money from the health insurance companies. No wonder Americans are sicker, dying sooner and paying twice as much as other developed countries!
One model of health care that would transform our health care system is the Minnesota Health Plan. Do not confuse the MHP with other plans. MHP is a single-payer model that would ensure that all Minnesotans receive high quality, patient-focused health care (medical, mental, dental, prescriptions) regardless of their income.
MHP would be affordable, efficient and simple. There are already several reasons that the health care community would like this because studies show that 64 percent of doctors would prefer such a system. With MHP you choose your doctor. What makes MHP more cost effective is that is would make sure that health care dollars would be spent on health care and not to "the middleman." So beware the special interests creating barriers to MHP. Educate yourselves and then contact your politicians that you want a change.
ELLEN HOLMES LAFANS, EAGAN
Little respect for the work of election judges I have been an election judge for the past eight years. While there is some hourly pay for the service, I consider the primary reason for performing these duties to be a volunteer for the benefit of the community. We are adequately trained and administer the election laws as they currently exist on the state statutes.
The entire voting system is built entirely on the word "trust." There is no requirement that new registrants provide proof that they are a U.S. citizen. There is no requirement that voters prove who they are at the time that they vote. The system is built on the premise that all people are honest and the election judge must trust that whatever is said to them to be the truth. This is a system which would never be allowed to exist in private business; but, nevertheless, it is the system which our legislators have deemed to be appropriate for electing our leaders.
This concept of "trust," however, does not appear to exist for evaluating the performance of the election judges. Absentee ballots are determined by at least two election judges of different parties to be accepted or rejected based upon the state statutes. These decisions and are made before the contents of the ballot are known and are not taken lightly. One candidate in the current senatorial recount does not trust the decisions made by the election judges and would like to put each rejected absentee ballot under a microscope for further evaluation. This is an absolute insult to all election judges. It essentially says, "You low-level grunts do not have the ability or integrity to make these weighty decisions and only our high-priced lawyers are able to make the final determination." Those accept/reject decisions were previously made and should be considered to be final.
