In our second installment of 'An Issue Analysis' of the three main contenders for the DFL nomination to take on Norm Coleman we examine the issue of health care. Health insurance costs have continued to rise at an alarming rate and while it is clear that Republicans such as Norm Coleman have a 'stay the course' mentality, the Democrats in the race to defeat him offer varying degrees of universal care and coverage. In the interest of fairness, we will switch the order of the candidates.

Mike Ciresi on Health Care:
Ciresi comes from a unique position that neither of the other candidates can claim. He, as a business owner, has experienced first hand paying for the health insurance of employees.

As your U.S. Senator I will work to create a system that’s goals are to:


  • Provide universal coverage
  • Keep people healthy through preventative health care and early detection and cure of diseases – before they become chronic problems
  • Keep people affordably insured for their lifetime – from job to job, and through retirement, and forever eliminate the term “pre-existing condition”
  • Reduce error and waste by making a single, electronic record of a patient’s history accessible to those who need it, when they need it, but with the highest level of security to protect our privacy
  • Provide everyone with cost-effective medical, prescription and mental health insurance coverage at an affordable price, and which allows people to choose their provider and purchase more options

We will make this cost-effective because we will:


  • Use the collective buying power of all Americans and their
    employers to provide quality insurance at an affordable price.
  • Strengthen existing programs such as Medicare which covers seniors, SCHIP which covers children, and the VA that covers veterans.
  • Require drug companies to negotiate with Medicare.
Ciresi doesn't go so far as to advocate for a single payer system but does want to make it so that everyone has some sort of coverage. Once again, the only problem I see here is an unwillingness to explain just how such a system will be financed. While some of this may have been explained in other speeches to the public, the casual observer to his site will find him without recommendations on how to finance such a system. The positive in this plan appears to be the improved record keeping system touted by Ciresi to cut down on error and waste.

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer on Health Care:
Health care reform depends on a willingness to confront the powerful health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I support a national single payer health care system that will:
  • Provide universal coverage;

  • Control costs and end the for-profit health care system;

  • Focus on prevention;

  • Offer parity for physical and mental health needs;

  • Anticipate chronic health care needs;

  • Respond effectively to public health emergencies; and,

  • Be funded through progressive taxation.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer one ups both Ciresi and Franken by essentially labeling their methods of universal coverage without deeper reform only half measures. Nelson-Pallmeyer, through fundamentally changing the way we deliver health care, wants to institute single payer universal health coverage. Also, he is brave enough to come out and say that he believes it should be paid through progressive taxation. A recent poll indicates that while Americans are essentially split over single payer healthcare, a significant percentage of people aren't even sure what that would entail. If Nelson-Pallmeyer could take his message to the United States Senate, perhaps he could begin the process of informing those Americans of the benefits of single payer.

Al Franken on Health Care:
We need to go to universal health care.

A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system. But I believe that today’s political environment requires a creative and flexible approach to covering every American. Here’s mine:

  • I would require every state to cover every one of its citizens, and the federal government to provide funding to fulfill that requirement. Each individual state would be free to offer a variety of options, as long as they add up to universal coverage, giving us 51 laboratories (if you count DC) to figure out which system works best.
  • I would add one constraint: each state must cover every child 18 and under with a single-payer system similar to Medicare.
  • And speaking of Medicare, I would fight to make Medicare a true single-payer system. Right now, we overpay insurance companies, who then turn around and cherry-pick only the healthiest seniors to cover. That’s not fair and we should change it.

But universal coverage isn’t enough. We must also address the quality and cost of care. I think we should start with the following measures:

  • Medicare should be allowed to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on prescription drugs.
  • Simple, secure, electronic medical records would cut down on errors and streamline care.
  • We should establish safe staffing levels for nurses – when the people on the front lines of health care tell us that they need reinforcements to maintain their high standards of care, we should listen.
  • We should pass Paul Wellstone’s bill ensuring full mental health parity.

The essential message out of Franken appears to be that while single payer would be desirable, he is not willing to stake his political career on advocating such a program. It does not speak very highly of Franken to recognize the advantage of single payer but advocate for something that is only a patch to the current system. Additionally, Franken stops short of giving details on how he would pay for such a system.

When it comes to health care, the advantage clearly goes to Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for his ability to recognize and truly advocate the advantages of a single payer health system. While all three of these candidates offer significantly better options than the 'stay the course' options of the Republican Party, Nelson-Pallmeyer offers a road to real change in how we take care of Americans across the country. To top it off, he is brave enough to say that such a system can and should be paid for with taxes that force those that have the ability to pay to pay their fair share.

I encourage anyone who supports one of these three candidates to comment about the positive aspects of their candidates health care positions. Perhaps I missed some policy statements or other evidence highlighting what your candidate will do in terms of reforming health care.

Stay Tuned, in the next episode we will examine these three candidates on Iraq.