Gov. Pawlenty offered a budget proposal yesterday to the legislature in an effort to toss a rope over the chasm between what he wants and what DFLers want.
He offered to cut the amount used from the Health Care Access Fund from $250 million to $125 million. However, he would require the legislature to make $125 million in other, unspecified cuts. He would also use some of the state's general fund budget reserves, instead of the DFL-proposed use of the state's $350 million cash flow account.
I don't know if the DFLers will bite on this one. I'm betting not.
If you recall, the Health Care Access Fund is supposed to fund health care (hence its name). The Democrats don't want any of this money being used for something for which it wasn't alloted.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Children as a commodity
Apparently, surrogate mothering has raised some questions.
Like questioning who the child's real parents are — the egg and sperm donors, or the woman who carried the child in her womb for 9 months. Like who has custody of the child at birth. Like who can even be a surrogate mother.
No one seems to be asking why this is legal in the first place.
The Senate approved a bill yesterday that establishes a legal framework for "gestational carriers," or women who have an embryo implanted within them and carry the pregnancy to term with the agreement that the child will be given to the biological parents — presumably the sperm and egg donors — upon birth.
The bill requires that surrogate mothers be at least 21 years old and pass medical and mental health tests. It also gives the biological parents immediate legal custody at birth, and mandates that the surrogate cannot "genetically contribute" to the embryo (meaning, it can't be one of the parents).
The Associated Press quoted Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, saying that the bill would treat "children are products and mothers are paid incubators."
She's on to something. This is a buying and selling of one's body and of one's offspring that violates the church's teaching on the dignity of human life. First of all, the child's conception takes place in a laboratory, and not in an act of intercourse. (Check out the March 25 blog post on invitro fertilization for more on this.) Second, the child is not carried by its biological mother, leading to the question of what motherhood really is: a biological participation, or a self-giving action of a woman to a child? What happens when you remove one from the other? Third, the surrogate mother is paid, presumably, making her body something that can be bought for a price.
The House hasn't voted on this yet, but we'll see how it fares there.
Like questioning who the child's real parents are — the egg and sperm donors, or the woman who carried the child in her womb for 9 months. Like who has custody of the child at birth. Like who can even be a surrogate mother.
No one seems to be asking why this is legal in the first place.
The Senate approved a bill yesterday that establishes a legal framework for "gestational carriers," or women who have an embryo implanted within them and carry the pregnancy to term with the agreement that the child will be given to the biological parents — presumably the sperm and egg donors — upon birth.
The bill requires that surrogate mothers be at least 21 years old and pass medical and mental health tests. It also gives the biological parents immediate legal custody at birth, and mandates that the surrogate cannot "genetically contribute" to the embryo (meaning, it can't be one of the parents).
The Associated Press quoted Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, saying that the bill would treat "children are products and mothers are paid incubators."
She's on to something. This is a buying and selling of one's body and of one's offspring that violates the church's teaching on the dignity of human life. First of all, the child's conception takes place in a laboratory, and not in an act of intercourse. (Check out the March 25 blog post on invitro fertilization for more on this.) Second, the child is not carried by its biological mother, leading to the question of what motherhood really is: a biological participation, or a self-giving action of a woman to a child? What happens when you remove one from the other? Third, the surrogate mother is paid, presumably, making her body something that can be bought for a price.
The House hasn't voted on this yet, but we'll see how it fares there.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Government subsidized heath care (and waffles)
Later hours for bars is back on the legislative table. Toby Pearson of the Catholic Health Association of Minnesota reminded me that nothing is dead until the legislature adjourns sine die — the end of a legislative biennium "without day."
St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman wants his city council members to make a push for it at the legislature. We'll see what happens.
I wanted to use some snarky segway about how drinking until 4 a.m. can lead to the main topic at hand — the need for health care and other related topics — but I couldn't settle on just one.
However, if the bars are going to be open that late in St. Paul during the convention, it's hard to resist that kind of novelty. I might consider it a duty to Catholic Spirit readers that I'm at the Liffey until closing time getting an inside scoop on the convention. And if the legislation doesn't pass, the 24-hour dive diner Mickey's on West Seventh better be setting up street-side as all the Republicans rush for waffles.
There's legislation for health care reform in the House. It's pretty much agreed that there's need of health care reform and that insurance is too high, but then what is the "right price" for health insurance?
This bill thinks it has the answer: If you pay more than $3,800 per year but make less than $64,000, you're paying too much, the bill says. It's pushing for state-subsidized health care, and it plans to use the surplus in the Health Care Access Fund, which also supports programs like Minnesota Care. (This is also the fund Gov. Pawlenty wanted to use to help balance the budget.)
Some Republicans oppose the bill because it's getting too close for comfort to government-provided care and away from market-based insurance.
So, what do you think? What role, if any, should the government play in affordable health care? Check out this week's Catholic Spirit for a letter from Jeff Maciej, a masters in social work student at the The College of St. Catherine/University of St. Thomas who argues that we need universal health care.
St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman wants his city council members to make a push for it at the legislature. We'll see what happens.
I wanted to use some snarky segway about how drinking until 4 a.m. can lead to the main topic at hand — the need for health care and other related topics — but I couldn't settle on just one.
However, if the bars are going to be open that late in St. Paul during the convention, it's hard to resist that kind of novelty. I might consider it a duty to Catholic Spirit readers that I'm at the Liffey until closing time getting an inside scoop on the convention. And if the legislation doesn't pass, the 24-hour dive diner Mickey's on West Seventh better be setting up street-side as all the Republicans rush for waffles.
There's legislation for health care reform in the House. It's pretty much agreed that there's need of health care reform and that insurance is too high, but then what is the "right price" for health insurance?
This bill thinks it has the answer: If you pay more than $3,800 per year but make less than $64,000, you're paying too much, the bill says. It's pushing for state-subsidized health care, and it plans to use the surplus in the Health Care Access Fund, which also supports programs like Minnesota Care. (This is also the fund Gov. Pawlenty wanted to use to help balance the budget.)
Some Republicans oppose the bill because it's getting too close for comfort to government-provided care and away from market-based insurance.
So, what do you think? What role, if any, should the government play in affordable health care? Check out this week's Catholic Spirit for a letter from Jeff Maciej, a masters in social work student at the The College of St. Catherine/University of St. Thomas who argues that we need universal health care.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
A lot’s happened since my last post — namely, the passing of a bonding bill in both the House and the Senate — a bill Governor Pawlenty said is too big. Then, yesterday, the governor line-item vetoed more than $200 million worth of projects before signing the bill. This is a slight mish-mash of the past week in bonding land.
The Star Tribune has a thorough story. Something I found particularly interesting:
According to the Pioneer Press, St. Paul took 60 percent of the cuts, including $127 million for a Central Corridor light-rail line, a new Bell Museum of Natural History at the U of M's St. Paul campus and a gorilla exhibit at the Como Zoo.
He also cut $2 million from the Union Depot transit hub, which is a historic St. Paul building I am personally in love with, and $4 million for a St. Paul-to-Chicago high-speed rail (which is something that utilized the said Depot back in the day).
"Reducing the bill to this level reflects my commitment to fiscal discipline and an attempt to prioritize important state projects," Gov. Pawlenty wrote in a press release.
The Legislature could override any of the vetoes.
Before the vetoes, Governor Pawlenty and DFL legislative leaders had a few words for one another:
According to the Star Tribune:
However, yesterday DFL Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller said this on Minnesota Public Radio's "Midday":
(I would call the relationship between the DFL legislators and Gov. Pawlenty less-than-amiable right now.)
And to update an earlier post, a bill for later bar hours during the Republican National Conference was dropped, so that’s a no-go.
The Star Tribune has a thorough story. Something I found particularly interesting:
Pawlenty's $717 million total was smaller than what had been anticipated resulting from a line-item veto. In a generally accepted formula, state guidelines recommend that borrowing be limited to 3 percent of projected general fund revenue, a limit that makes the debt more acceptable to bonding houses. That figure was $825 million. Pawlenty said he cut additional projects anticipating a continuing downturn in the economy.
According to the Pioneer Press, St. Paul took 60 percent of the cuts, including $127 million for a Central Corridor light-rail line, a new Bell Museum of Natural History at the U of M's St. Paul campus and a gorilla exhibit at the Como Zoo.
He also cut $2 million from the Union Depot transit hub, which is a historic St. Paul building I am personally in love with, and $4 million for a St. Paul-to-Chicago high-speed rail (which is something that utilized the said Depot back in the day).
"Reducing the bill to this level reflects my commitment to fiscal discipline and an attempt to prioritize important state projects," Gov. Pawlenty wrote in a press release.
The Legislature could override any of the vetoes.
Before the vetoes, Governor Pawlenty and DFL legislative leaders had a few words for one another:
According to the Star Tribune:
Pawlenty said DFLers were "falling right into the stereotype" of raising taxes and out-of-control spending.
"It's not appropriate, it's not responsible and I'm not going to stand for it," Pawlenty said.
However, yesterday DFL Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller said this on Minnesota Public Radio's "Midday":
"He's upset because some of his pet projects, his pet spending, is being cut. In terms of revenue, other than closing corporate loopholes, no one is talking about significant tax increases here. He has to get off the campaign trail and come back and govern the state of Minnesota."
(I would call the relationship between the DFL legislators and Gov. Pawlenty less-than-amiable right now.)
And to update an earlier post, a bill for later bar hours during the Republican National Conference was dropped, so that’s a no-go.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Taking health for granted
This morning I did something I haven't done for a couple years — I went to the doctor for a check-up.
As far as they can tell, I'm healthy as a horse. (Which makes me wonder which horse I'm being compared to.)
Insurance covered the whole thing. If they would have found something wrong with me, they would have been able to begin treating it now, rather than waiting until it got really bad and I end up in the hospital.
The whole thing — including a tetanus shot which is killing my left shoulder right now — took 30 minutes. I was on my to work by 9:15, glad to check it off my list of "things I need to do."
The thing is, it really wasn't that big of a deal to me. It's just something that you're supposed to do once a year. But for a lot of Minnesotans, health care is a really big deal, because they need it, and they can't afford it.
Toby Pearson addressed this issue in this week's Catholic Spirit. He's the executive director of the Catholic Health Association of Minnesota. In his letter to the editor, he presented six core values that should set the statewide health care debate:
1. The health and well-being of each person is intertwined with the health and well-being of the broader community. Access to healthcare is an essential element contributing to the common good, alongside others such as education, employment and a safe environment.
2. The measure of our society is how we treat the poor and vulnerable, who are particularly marginalized by a lack of access to health care.
3. Our societal resources are finite, and we must make wise choices for how they are allocated. Health care resources should focus on the well-being of the community and be structured to deliver the care that is most medically beneficial and promotes public health.
4. Health care is a basic human right alongside food and shelter, all of which are necessary for individuals to participate fully in society.
5. The health care system should allow and encourage involvement of the public and private sectors including voluntary, religious and not-for-profit organizations, and it should respect the religious and ethical values of patients and health care providers alike.
6. Health care is essential to promoting and protecting the inherent dignity of every individual from conception to natural death.
"If we take these core values under consideration during our debate on health care, we will have a better product at the end of the day," he wrote.
What do you think? Leave a comment and start the conversation.
As far as they can tell, I'm healthy as a horse. (Which makes me wonder which horse I'm being compared to.)
Insurance covered the whole thing. If they would have found something wrong with me, they would have been able to begin treating it now, rather than waiting until it got really bad and I end up in the hospital.
The whole thing — including a tetanus shot which is killing my left shoulder right now — took 30 minutes. I was on my to work by 9:15, glad to check it off my list of "things I need to do."
The thing is, it really wasn't that big of a deal to me. It's just something that you're supposed to do once a year. But for a lot of Minnesotans, health care is a really big deal, because they need it, and they can't afford it.
Toby Pearson addressed this issue in this week's Catholic Spirit. He's the executive director of the Catholic Health Association of Minnesota. In his letter to the editor, he presented six core values that should set the statewide health care debate:
1. The health and well-being of each person is intertwined with the health and well-being of the broader community. Access to healthcare is an essential element contributing to the common good, alongside others such as education, employment and a safe environment.
2. The measure of our society is how we treat the poor and vulnerable, who are particularly marginalized by a lack of access to health care.
3. Our societal resources are finite, and we must make wise choices for how they are allocated. Health care resources should focus on the well-being of the community and be structured to deliver the care that is most medically beneficial and promotes public health.
4. Health care is a basic human right alongside food and shelter, all of which are necessary for individuals to participate fully in society.
5. The health care system should allow and encourage involvement of the public and private sectors including voluntary, religious and not-for-profit organizations, and it should respect the religious and ethical values of patients and health care providers alike.
6. Health care is essential to promoting and protecting the inherent dignity of every individual from conception to natural death.
"If we take these core values under consideration during our debate on health care, we will have a better product at the end of the day," he wrote.
What do you think? Leave a comment and start the conversation.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
A case against the 4 a.m. (public) Scotch
In his Catholic Spirit column this week, Archbishop John Nienstedt questions a bill to open downtown St. Paul bars until 4 a.m. during the Republican National Convention, September 1-4. The legislation also pushes for liquor stores to be open the Sunday of the convention.
The archbishop is against both changes.
He writes that Minnesota shouldn't have to change who she is (or her policies) just for some guests. He also argues that Sunday is a day dedicated to the Lord and should be set apart, even if its something as simple as closed liquor stores.
If someone can drink until 4 a.m., why not leave the bars open until 6 a.m. to accommodate the late-shifters? Why do it just during the convention? Why close them at all? And why would we open the liquor stores for the out-of-towners, but leave them closed the other Sundays?
The archbishop's not saying that drinking on Sunday is wrong. He's saying that by retaining these limits on alcohol purchase, Minnesota helps its citizens practice moderation in some way.
My friends and I cap every weekend with a big Sunday night meal, and I admit, I've been known to go into a 6 p.m. Sunday rant about Minnesota liquor laws when I've been cooking pasta and suddenly realize I'm out of wine to serve with it.
But it's also a reminder that Sunday is a special day set apart, and that's why we're sharing that meal in the first place.
And, if you're curious about what MN's laws currently are and how they came to be, City Pages has a (somewhat irreverent) FAQ for MN liquor laws.
The archbishop is against both changes.
He writes that Minnesota shouldn't have to change who she is (or her policies) just for some guests. He also argues that Sunday is a day dedicated to the Lord and should be set apart, even if its something as simple as closed liquor stores.
"Please don't get me wrong," he wrote. "I like to have a cocktail before dinner and a glass of wine while dining with friends. But somehow I see the camel's nose coming under the tent."
If someone can drink until 4 a.m., why not leave the bars open until 6 a.m. to accommodate the late-shifters? Why do it just during the convention? Why close them at all? And why would we open the liquor stores for the out-of-towners, but leave them closed the other Sundays?
"[Limiting public consumption of alcohol and closing liquor stores on Sundays are] part of the cultural heritage we wish to maintain in this state of Minnesota," he wrote. "We are pleased to have our visitors with us, and we do want them to know they are welcome. But we also want them to believe that, when they go home, they have met a people who embody in their culture a respect for values that transcend themselves."
The archbishop's not saying that drinking on Sunday is wrong. He's saying that by retaining these limits on alcohol purchase, Minnesota helps its citizens practice moderation in some way.
My friends and I cap every weekend with a big Sunday night meal, and I admit, I've been known to go into a 6 p.m. Sunday rant about Minnesota liquor laws when I've been cooking pasta and suddenly realize I'm out of wine to serve with it.
But it's also a reminder that Sunday is a special day set apart, and that's why we're sharing that meal in the first place.
And, if you're curious about what MN's laws currently are and how they came to be, City Pages has a (somewhat irreverent) FAQ for MN liquor laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)