SAVING MINNESOTACARE
by James Park
draft as of 4-18-2003
One unintended consequence of the new assets test
for MinnesotaCare
is that some individuals who have total assets
in excess of half a million dollars
will be able to get subsidized health insurance through MinnesotaCare
whereas other individuals with as little as $20,000 to their names
will be left out in the cold:
They will be excluded from affordable health care
because they own the 'wrong' kind of assets.
This unintended disparity between the richest person
who qualifies
and the poorest person who is excluded can be corrected
(without changing the taxes that support MinnesotaCare)
by increasing the premiums paid by all clients of MinnesotaCare
and excluding Minnesotans who have total assets in excess of $100,000
($200,000 for a couple or family).
Outline for this article:
WHY DO WE FACE THESE ALTERNATIVES?
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
1. A HIGH SCHOOL GIRL WHOSE PARENTS LEFT HER $100,000
2. A WOMAN WHO OWNS A STORE-FRONT DAY-CARE CENTER
3. A RETIRED FARMER WHO RENTS OUT HIS REMAINING 80 ACRES
4. AN OLDER WOMAN WHO RENTS OUT HER BEAUTY SHOP
5. A FATHER & SON PARTNERSHIP THAT REHABILITATES HOUSES
6. A DIVORCED WOMAN WHO OWNS A DUPLEX
7. MA AND PA WHO SOLD THEIR FARM AND BOUGHT TREASURY BONDS
8. A GRANDFATHER WHO RETIRED EARLY
TO HELP RAISE HIS GRANDCHILDREN
FEDERAL PROGRAMS ARE MORE REASONABLE
SAVING MINNESOTA CARE
PROPOSED SLIDING SCALE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL ON MINNESOTA CARE
AVOID ASSET CLASS DISCRIMINATION
SEVERAL MEANS OF MAKING A LIVING
THAT EXCLUDE ONE FROM MINNESOTACARE
WORST CASE SCENARIO
EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ARE TREATED BETTER
A MUCH HIGHER ASSET LIMIT NEEDED
SUMMARY:
A HIGHER SLIDING-SCALE FOR PREMIUMS
AND MORE EQUITABLE ASSET LIMITS
WOULD SAVE MINNESOTACARE FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT.
WHY DO WE FACE THESE ALTERNATIVES?
MinnesotaCare (which provides affordable health
insurance
for Minnesotans who cannot get other health insurance)
has imposed new asset limits,
which have the effect of excluding hundreds of Minnesotans
who used to be eligible for health care through this program.
Why did this happening?
And especially when MinnesotaCare is trying to expand its coverage
to several uncovered populations in the state?
The new asset test has the unintended consequence
of excluding hundreds of near-poor Minnesotans
who used to be eligible for MinnesotaCare
while it continues to cover Minnesotans
who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
MinnesotaCare pays for the health care
of thousands of Minnesotans
who have low income but middle-class assets.
It is funded basically by a 1.5 % provider tax
on all health care services in the state.
Some other state tax revenues are involved.
And the Federal government also provides
some money for parents and children.
Because this is a limited amount of revenue,
the program had to find ways to cut expenses,
which was most easily done by
cutting some people out of the program.
When we Minnesotans turn 65 years of age,
all of us become eligible for Medicare,
which is a federal program funded by the Medicare tax
on all wage-earners in the United States.
Because it has such a broad base of revenue,
Medicare has neither an income test nor an assets test.
No matter how much or how little our income
---whether we are millionaires or homeless persons---
at age 65 we will all be eligible for Medicare.
MinnesotaCare cannot be that generous,
but it can go part way toward providing health care
for every Minnesotan whose income is too low
to afford private health insurance.
If and when something like Medicare
becomes available to everyone in the United States,
MinnesotaCare can be eliminated entirely.
In the meantime, why not move in the direction
of making MinnesotaCare as liberal and comprehensive
as the next federal health care program is likely to be?
Right now this cannot be done
because of limited funds for health care in Minnesota.
So we must decide how to allocate the limited dollars.
The income test:
First, the only Minnesotans who get MinnesotaCare
are those individuals with an income below $15,000 per year
or couples with income below $20,300.
(There are even higher income limits for families with children.)
MinnesotaCare clients pay a small premium
on a sliding scale from 1.5% of their income to 8.8%.
There used to be no asset limit for MinnesotaCare.
But beginning July 1, 2002, there is now
an asset test as well as the income test.
Individuals with more than $15,000
in assets
and households of two or more with total assets of more than $30,000
are being removed from the rolls of MinnesotaCare
when their annual reviews come around.
Certain kinds of assets are not counted:
a house one owns and lives in,
a car for each person employed or looking for work,
burial and retirement accounts,
and assets used in a trade or business
up to a value of $250,000.
(If you do not have health care at present
and if you might qualify for MinnesotaCare,
I highly recommend this and other Minnesota health-care programs.
You can get more information at the following URL:
Establishing the new asset test
for persons who used to be eligible MinnesotaCare
is now having some unintended consequences.
Sometimes even very poor people
(as defined by incomes of less than $15,000 per year for an individual)
have assets beyond $15,000
that are not in the classes of assets ignored by MinnesotaCare.
Sometimes these assets are their main means of supporting themselves.
Eight examples follow:
1. A HIGH SCHOOL GIRL WHOSE PARENTS LEFT HER $100,000
Miss Orphan lost her parents while she was still
in high school.
She could not afford to maintain the family home or car,
so she sold everything her parents left to her,
which means she has $100,000 in liquid assets.
Because she is still a full-time high school student,
she has no other source of income
besides the interest she earns from her investments.
But this is enough to pay rent and buy food.
However, her interest income is not enough to pay
for health insurance.
She has been receiving MinnesotaCare,
which pays for her medical care for ongoing health problems.
Her parents wanted her to use her inheritance to go to college.
But now that she is going to lose her MinnesotaCare,
she may have to spend a large part of her inheritance
to buy her own private health insurance,
which will deplete her inheritance every year.
She has decided to take her chances without health
coverage
rather than spend most of her income for health insurance.
This may prove to be a foolish choice,
if her health problems become worse and she must be hospitalized.
But she feels that her future depends on getting a college education.
A wiser and more compassionate plan for MinnesotaCare
would allow her to pay a reasonable percentage of her income
and to keep all of her inheritance for college.
2. A WOMAN WHO OWNS A STORE-FRONT DAY-CARE CENTER
Mrs. Mothering is now 60 years of age and in poor
health.
Her day-care center is run by her son and his wife.
After paying expenses for staff, supplies, utilities, taxes, etc.,
the operating profit is split three ways.
This means that she has a small income,
low enough to qualify for MinnesotaCare.
The building and business are worth less than $250,000,
but because she is no longer actively involved in running the day-care
center,
MinnesotaCare classifies this as a passive investment,
which excludes her from MinnesotaCare.
If her share of the profits amounts to less than
$15,000 per year,
how can she afford health insurance?
Should she be forced to sell the day-care center and spend the proceeds
in order to continue receiving MinnesotaCare?
3. A RETIRED FARMER WHO RENTS OUT HIS REMAINING 80 ACRES
Mr. Barnes is no longer able to do the physical work
of farming,
but he has kept at least some of his former farm,
as a way of having a small income.
His farm land is rich, perhaps worth $1,000 per acre.
This means that his small field of 80 acres is worth $80,000.
(80 acres is 1/8 of a square mile.)
But the rental income is not enough
for him to be able to afford his own health insurance.
If he gets $100 an acre in rental, that is just $8,000 per year,
but since he owns his own house in town, it is enough to live on.
But obviously, he could not also afford to pay for health insurance.
Because he no longer physically lives on the farm
land,
his last field is counted as a passive investment.
And so he has more than $15,000 in assets.
Should he be forced to sell his field
and then spend the proceeds
until he gets down to the $15,000 asset limit?
Such a requirement would mean that he also loses his income
from renting out his last piece of farm land.
How will he be able to live after his last field is gone?
Does it make any sense to force him onto welfare
so that he can continue to have food and health care?
4. AN OLDER WOMAN WHO RENTS OUT HER BEAUTY SHOP
After many years of running her beauty shop,
Mrs. Cosmos is now a widow and is semi-retired,
renting out the right to use her beauty shop to other operators.
This brings in enough money to live on,
but not enough for her to purchase health insurance for herself.
She has been depending on MinnesotaCare to provide that.
But the new asset test threatens to take away
her health insurance.
She owns the beauty shop without a mortgage,
which means that she has more than $15,000 in assets.
And since she is no longer involved in the day-to-day operation,
she is no longer making her living as a cosmetologist.
She is merely the owner,
collecting rental fees from the new beauticians who do all the work.
If she sells her beauty shop,
that would terminate the small, regular income she now receives.
The proceeds from the sale of the beauty shop
would enable her to purchase private health insurance for a few years,
perhaps until she reaches 65, when she will begin to receive Medicare.
Should she be forced to sell her beauty shop
in order to continue receiving MinnesotaCare?
5. A FATHER & SON PARTNERSHIP THAT REHABILITATES HOUSES
Each summer this partnership, Mr. Carpenter and Son,
buys a run-down house,
fixes it up, and sells it in the fall.
The father provides the capital to buy the house.
The son does all the work.
And they split the profit, from the increased value of the house
after it has been rehabilitated.
The son is a teacher. His employment
provides him with adequate health care.
But the father has no other income besides
his share of the profits generated by buying, fixing, and selling houses.
His share of the profits is less than $15,000 per
year,
which means that he qualifies for MinnesotaCare by income.
But as soon as they sell the house,
he has too much in liquid assests to qualify for MinnesotaCare.
Should the father be forced to spend down all
his assets
until he has only $15,000 left
in order to continue receiving affordable health care?
6. A DIVORCED WOMAN WHO OWNS A DUPLEX
Mrs. Solo is now 61 years old and in poor health.
She has little prospect of joining the job market.
As her part of the divorce settlement,
she received the small house where she lives
and a duplex in the same town,
which she rents to two families.
This rental income is her only income.
But it provides enough money to pay
taxes, utilities, and food for herself, etc.
But this modest rental income
would never be enough to pay the $500 a month
it would normally cost for her health insurance.
Her very low income has enabled her to qualify for MinnesotaCare.
However, the new asset rules mean that
she will either have to go without health insurance
or sell her duplex and spend down her assets until she has only $15,000
left.
After she impoverishes herself, she will qualify for MinnesotaCare
once again.
Is this the kind of policy we want for Minnesota?
Should we force people to sell their income-producing assets
(in this case this woman's only source of income)
and impoverish themselves in order to remain eligible for medical
insurance?
A much wiser policy would encourage her to keep her
duplex
and continue to pay her own living expenses from the rental income.
MinnesotaCare should continue to provide her health insurance,
requiring her to pay a portion of that expense
on a sliding scale based on her income.
Wouldn't that be better than requiring her
to divest herself of her income-producing property
in order to continue receiving MinnesotaCare?
7. MA AND PA WHO SOLD THEIR FARM AND BOUGHT TREASURY BONDS
When farming became too difficult for Mr. & Mrs.
Farmer,
they sold out everything related to the farm
and bought a house in town.
From the proceeds of the sale, they bought US treasury
bonds,
which provide a steady, secure income
within the income limits for MinnesotaCare
---$20,300 per year for a couple.
They were both enrolled in MinnesotaCare
before they retired,
because they also had only a modest income from farming.
But now they have become ineligible for MinnesotaCare
because their assets are more than $30,000.
If they sell their government bonds and spend the
proceeds,
what will they live on?
Should a program intended to help people
force them to divest themselves of their income-producing assets
so they can obtain affordable health insurance?
8. A GRANDFATHER WHO RETIRED EARLY
TO HELP RAISE HIS GRANDCHILDREN
Mr. Bond retired early and moved in with his divorced daughter
to help her raise her two pre-school children.
Because he is below retirement age,
he does not receive social security or any other retirement benefit.
He supports himself by investing his life-savings---about $90,000.
Even tho he spends all day with his grandchildren,
he is able to manage his portfolio of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds
during the hours when they are asleep.
His income as an investor is well within
the income limits for MinnesotaCare,
but because he supports himself using liquid assets
rather than some other sort of business,
he is excluded from MinnesotaCare.
Mr. Bond's portfolio yields between $5,000 and $10,000 per year.
This is enough to pay all his living expenses,
since his housing is provided free-of-charge by his daughter
because he spends all day taking care of his grandchildren.
But this modest income is not large enough to buy health insurance.
MinnesotaCare should allow him to keep his means of earning a living
and provide health care for Mr. Bond,
charging him a reasonable percentage of his income
as his premium for MinnesotaCare.
(A suggested sliding-scale for premiums appears below.)
SAVING MINNESOTA CARE
Instead of excluding people because of the kind of assests they
own,
we should allow them to pay MinnesotaCare premiums based only on their income.
Below I propose such a sliding scale for an individual
client of MinnesotaCare.
Similar charts could easily be created for couples and other family
groups.
This proposed sliding scale is much more steep
than the present sliding scale, which only goes up to 8.8%.
These much higher premiums will keep MinnesotaCare solvent
without excluding people like the 8 individuals and couples described above.
And these proposed new premiums are still affordable by all such people.
Before reading the ever-increasing health insurance
premiums below,
we should remind ourselves that many clients of MinnesotaCare
do have assest,
which could be sold or mortgaged to pay health
insurance premiums.
PROPOSED SLIDING SCALE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL ON MINNESOTA CARE
0000-0999 income
pay 0% or $000 per year.
1000-1999 income
pay 1% or $10+ per year.
2000-2999 income
pay 2% or $40+ per year.
3000-3999 income
pay 3% or $90+ per year.
4000-4999 income
pay 4% or $160+ per year.
5000-5999 income
pay 5% or $250+ per year.
6000-6999 income
pay 6% or $360+ per year.
7000-7999 income
pay 7% or $490+ per year.
8000-8999 income
pay 8% or $640+ per year.
9000-9999 income
pay 9% or $810+ per year.
10,000-10,999 income pay
10% or $1000+ per year.
11,000-11,999 income pay
11% or $1210+ per year.
12,000-12,999 income pay
12% or $1440+ per year.
13,000-13,999 income pay
13% or $1690+ per year.
14,000-14,999 income pay
14% or $1960+ per year.
15,000-15,999 income pay
15% or $2250+ per year.
16,000-16,999 income pay
16% or $2560+ per year.
17,000-17,999 income pay
17% or $2890+ per year.
18,000-18,999 income pay
18% or $3240+ per year.
19,000-19,999 income pay
19% or $3610+ per year.
20,000-20,999 income pay
20% or $4000+ per year.
21,000-21,999 income pay
21% or $4410+ per year.
22,000-22,999 income pay
22% or $4840+ per year.
23,000-23,999 income pay
23% or $5290+ per year.
24,000-24,999 income pay
24% or $5760+ per year.
25,000-25,999 income pay
25% or $6250+ per year.
26,000-26,999 income pay
26% or $6760+ per year.
27,000-27,999 income pay
27% or $7290+ per year.
28,000-28,999 income pay
28% or $7840+ per year.
29,000-29,999 income pay
29% or $8410+ per year.
30,000-31,999 income pay
30% or $9000+ per year.
and so forth if needed.
As can be seen from this chart,
at about $25,000 income,
most people would choose private health insurance,
because it would be cheaper than $6200.
In effect, this sliding scale would eliminate the upper income limit.
But the safety net would be there
in case private health insurance is not possible.
(And these increased premiums would allow MinnesotaCare
to continue to cover everyone in need without any additional taxes.)
Self-employed persons and others
whose employment does not include health insurance
would benefit from such a sliding scale
even when it requires them to pay 25% of their income or more
because this will still be less than buying their own private health
insurance.
Getting coverage through MinnesotaCare is cheaper
because MinnesotaCare can buy health care at group rates,
which is not possible for individuals.
George Halvorson, recently-retired CEO of Health
Partners,
and now the CEO of Kyser Permanente in California,
has warned that increases in health care costs
will eventually mean that persons working at minimum wage
will be paying 100% of their take-home pay for health insurance.
(This is obviously impossible.
If health insurance took all their income,
they would have no homes and no food.
They would be dead---therefore not requiring any health care.)
If MinnesotaCare institutes something like the sliding
scale above,
people with low incomes who also have some assets
(that they could sell or mortgage to raise cash)
would be able to afford health insurance.
For example, someone working at the minimum wage,
who had some liquid assets to put into health insurance,
would be required to pay 15-20% of their incomes
for their health insurance premiums.
See chart above.
This may seem like a lot to pay for health coverage,
but it is considerably less than 100% of their income.
If MinnesotaCare adopts some such sliding scale,
no one would ever be required to pay 100% of their income
for health insurance.
The 8 hypothetical individuals and couples
described above
now face impossible increases in health insurance premiums.
All of us would probably be willing and able to pay
the percentages indicated in the chart above for our health care insurance
---even if this might require us to spend some of our assets each year
or to mortgage such assets as a house.
AVOID ASSET CLASS DISCRIMINATION
Under the new asset test for MinnesotaCare,
houses and cars are not counted as assets.
Also, up to $250,000 in trade or business assets
are not counted.
Because there is no upper limit on the value of a homestead,
someone would live in a million-dollar mansion
and still receive Minnesota Care.
Could a client of Minnesota care own a luxury car? Yes.
Here again, there is literally
no limit on the value of the excluded vehicle.
A client could own an Italian sports car worth $85,000!
If you think that is absurd, consider this:
A private airplane is also considered a vehicle.
Subsidized health care for someone who owns a plane?
What were they thinking?
There is probably only one airplane-owner on MinnesotaCare.
For which person was this loophole created?
And who created this special-privilege loophole?
Most MinnesotaCare clients are not nearly that rich,
but they can still own excluded SUVs,
an elaborate van, or a boat if it is called a vehicle.
(And any vehicle owned by a business is excluded
by another huge loophole allowing a client to own a business
with a
net value of a quarter million dollars!)
A more likely example would be someone
who owns a car worth $10,000
and owns $90,000 equity in a home he or she lives in.
Such a person could still have an income
low enough to qualify for MinnesotaCare.
In other words, some people are caught in the middle.:
Not poor enough to qualify for MinnesotaCare
(because of the new asset test)
but not rich enough to be able to own a house and car.
It could be argued that someone who has
thousands of dollars of equity in a house
should be required to get a home-equity loan to pay for health insurance
until the value of that equity declines to $15,000.
But no one is proposing that.
The people who make the rules
could not picture themselves spending-down their home equity
in order to buy health insurance.
Therefore they have exempted that class of assets.
But the assets of the 8 individuals and couples
mentioned above are not much different.
In fact, it could be argued that these are even better forms of assets,
because---in contrast to a house or a car---
they are producing regular income for their owners.
The bottom line:
I suggest that the asset test be canceled.
Let income be the only test.
Let those who have middle-class assets
and who want MinnesotaCare
pay the premiums on a sliding scale like the one proposed above.
If and when their incomes rise,
they will automatically phase themselves out of MinnesotaCare,
because it will eventually be cheaper for them
to buy their own private health insurance
(or they might then have health insurance through their employment).
Counting some assets but not others
introduces serious injustices into the system.
People with the 'wrong' kinds of assets are being excluded from MinnesotaCare.
However, people who have much higher net worth
---in the approved kinds of assets---
are eligible even tho others
who are much poorer by every definition
are excluded.
Is this justice?
SEVERAL MEANS OF MAKING A LIVING
THAT EXCLUDE ONE FROM MINNESOTA CARE
MinnesotaCare does NOT exclude people
who own businesses or who conduct a trade
with assets up to a quarter of a million dollars ($250,000).
However, if someone's way of making a living
involves liquid assets such as stocks, bonds, or cash in excess of $15,000,
then that occupation excludes that person from MinnesotaCare.
These excluded occupations include:
investors, commodities traders, self-employed builders,
free-lance writers, rental-property owners, farm-land owners,
buyers-and-sellers of antiques and collectables, jewelry dealers, etc.
Instead of endorsing some means of making a living but not others,
the asset test for MinnesotaCare
should be changed to a simple net worth test:
Any individual who has a net worth of more than $100,000
and any couple or family that owns more than $200,000
would not receive subsidized health care from the state.
WORST CASE SCENARIO
Minnesota legislators and administrators
should think of the worst-case disparities
when they exclude some forms of assets.
Under the new asset rules,
here is the worst-case injustice that I can imagine:
Assume both of the following individuals qualify
by income
---less than $15,000 per year.
Mr. Assets Rich has the following assets:
A home worth $200,000.
A farm or business worth $200,000.
Retirement and burial funds worth $100,000.
His net worth is half a million dollars: $500,000.
Mrs. Assets Poor has only the following:
No home.
No business or farm assets.
No retirement fund.
Investments in mutual funds worth $20,000.
Mr. Assets Rich qualifies
for affordable health insurance thru MinnesotaCare.
Mrs. Assets Poor does not qualify
for affordable health insurance thru MinnesotaCare.
But Mr. Assets Rich is worth 25 times as much (!)
as Mrs. Assets Poor.
This is an unintended consequence of the new rules.
Such injustice can be corrected by calculating MinnesotaCare
eligibility and premiums based on income
and excluding individuals with a net worth of $100,000 or more
and couples and families with more than $200,000 in total assets.
EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ARE TREATED BETTER
The staff members of MinnesotaCare itself
are not expected to pay for their own health insurance
if they have assets above a certain level.
Some state employees could afford to buy their own
health insurance
if they would sell some of their possessions
(for example, a recreational vehicle, mutual funds, a summer cabin).
But no such employees are expected to liquidate their assets
in order to pay for their own health insurance.
So why should anyone expect the clients of MinnesotaCare
(who are all usually poorer than the staff members)
to sell everything except a house, a car, and a business
in order to continue receiving health insurance through MinnesotaCare?
Employees of the state of Minnesota
(or any company in Minnesota)
are not asked to list and certify their assets.
And they are not denied health insurance
if they have boats or cabins they could sell
to pay their own health insurance.
A MUCH HIGHER ASSET LIMIT NEEDED
Besides the sliding-scale premiums based on income,
there should be some kind of asset test,
so that people who have lots of assets but low income
would not depend on the state to pay their health insurance.
The asset limit should be much higher than
$15,000 for an individual and $30,000 for a couple.
I suggest that Minnesotans should be able
to receive health insurance through MinnesotaCare
unless they have a net worth of more than $100,000.
For a couple or family, this limit would be $200,000.
If we conclude that some people must be removed from MinnesotaCare,
let it be people who have abundant middle-class assets,
like Mr. Assets Rich above,
not the near-poor as described in this article.
Individuals who have a net worth of more than $100,000
or a couple or family with more than $200,000,
would be able to sell or mortgage some of their assets
to pay for health insurance.
Net worth should include all assets:
cars, boats, homes, businesses, stocks, bonds, savings, etc.
Persons whose net worth is slightly above these limits
would be able to spend or give away their excess assets
in order to quality for MinnesotaCare
---until they turn 65, when Medicare takes over their health care costs.
SUMMARY:
A HIGHER SLIDING-SCALE FOR PREMIUMS
AND MORE EQUITABLE ASSET LIMITS
WOULD SAVE MINNESOTACARE FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT.
We can save MinnesotaCare for the poor and near-poor
by requiring all who receive this benefit to pay
a higher percentage of their income
as their premium for health insurance.
This would generate millions of dollars for MinnesotaCare.
And the people described above would not be left out in the cold.
They would all pay more than they now pay.
And some people would drop out of the program voluntarily
because the premiums charged by MinnesotaCare are just too high.
But most who are now being excluded from MinnesotaCare
because of the new asset test
would be happy to pay the proposed percentage of their incomes
to continue receiving MinnesotaCare.
Including all assets (not just liquid assets)
will also cause a few more people to drop out of the program.
These are the people who have lots of middle-class assets
(net worth of $100,000 for an individual or $200,000 for a couple or
family)
even if they have a low income
(below $15,000 per year for an individual
or $20,300 for couples and families).
The State of Minnesota will be able to expand MinnesotaCare
by requiring all who benefit from the program
to pay a higher percentage of their incomes
and by eliminating those who have abundant middle-class assests
even though they might still have low-to-moderate incomes.
Eventually a uniform health care program
will emerge for the whole United States.
In the meantime, MinnesotaCare can establish standards and criteria
that will be easy to shift into the uniform federal program for health
care.
Should affordable health care be a basic right for everyone?
YES.
Another way to avoid the unintended consequences
of the new assets test described above
would be to restore the provider tax that supports MinnesotaCare
to its original 2% (up from the present 1.5%).
This tax is paid by all health-care providers,
which means that it is ultimately paid by the health-care consumers.
Wouldn't we all be willing to pay this small additional amount
in order to avoid the disastrous consequences
of the new asset rules detailed in this article?
If they are excluded from MinnesotaCare by the new
assets test,
some Minnesotans will decide to go without health care.
What will the consequences be?