I got a call yesterday from a woman on MinnesotaCare. She and her husband own a coffee shop in Minneapolis. She says they work seven days a week, take care of their kids without daycare, and are greatly offended by Gov. Tim Pawlenty's characterization of Minnesota's subsidized health care programs as "welfare health care." She was reacting to a story by MPR's Tom Scheck. If you didn't hear it the other day you can find it here. Here's part of the story:

"It is not fair to the rest of the obligations and responsibilities we have to stand by and say, 'It's OK to grow welfare health care at 27 percent, when we're also trying to fund K-12 education and transportation, and so many other priorities that I know Minnesotans want funded as well," Pawlenty said.

But the governor's characterization of MinnesotaCare as a welfare program is a bit misleading. The Minnesota Department of Human Services says less than 1 percent of the 90,000 adults on MinnesotaCare actually receive cash assistance from the state's welfare program. Another 3.5 percent receive food stamps.

In fact, supporters of the program say MinnesotaCare was created specifically with workers in mind -- to assure that those with low incomes had access to health care. Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, helped create MinnesotaCare in 1992.

"It certainly would help if we could stop having rhetoric about welfare health care costs. People who receive MinnesotaCare are working people. To characterize them as being on welfare is very misleading to the public, and very disparaging of hardworking Minnesotans," says Berglin. "These people are working and paying taxes. We'd like to keep them self-sufficient by making sure they have the low-cost health care they need, so they can continue to be working and to be paying taxes."

Berglin says everyone on the program pays premiums and co-pays, so they're contributing somewhat to their insurance costs.

The woman who called me said if Pawlenty thinks she's on welfare he should come and try to do her work for a week to see what "welfare" is like. On the subject of MinnesotaCare I also got an e-mail from Sheila Hart of Hibbing. She is on MinnesotaCare, has cancer, and has threatened to die on the steps of the Capitol when she runs up against the $5,000 cap on benefits. Here's part of what she wrote:

Do you know that Minnesota has a law giving its citizens the right to hunt?

Maybe we need a law that gives us the right to live. Maybe we need a law that
would preserve the Health Care Access Fund to be used only for its original use:
to pay for medical treatment. Not state health care administrative costs. Not
for the governor's budget balancing act. What does the public think? This
almost two billion dollars collected by special tax since 1993 has seen less
than 50 percent go to health care - more to general fund and other needs.

Everytime anyone pays a doctor bill, buys prescription drugs, or pays for
any kind of health care, a percentage is charged for the 1 percent or 2 percent special appropriation tax that goes to the health care access fund to be used to pay for MinnesotaCare health plans. Enough has been collected through the years, and according to the Citizens Council on Health Care, look it up at
www.cchconline.org, it collects 148 percent of what it actually needs to pay for all
the medical bills. So why does the governor say it's costing the state money?
Because he's been diverting the funds since 2003!

I'd like to hear more of what you think about the health care issue. Click on the send a question link to tell me what you think. Actually I prefer comments to questions. Let's get a debate going.

The smoking ban is moving at the Capitol, although the first committe that heard it diluted it quite a bit. Here's Mark Brunswick's lead from the Star Tribune:

A bill that would impose a virtually complete ban on indoor public smoking in Minnesota was significantly scaled back Thursday when a House committee voted to prohibit smoking in restaurants but amended the proposal to exempt other businesses such as bars and the lobbies of hotels.

The bill, considered to be one of the most controversial of this legislative session, is expected to face scrutiny -- and maybe more amendments -- as it makes its way through the lawmaking process. While Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said he would sign a bill banning smoking, and the proposal has bipartisan support, diverse groups from bar owners to doctors are weighing in. A Senate version has yet to be heard in committee.

And finally, the 2005 Legislature has accomplished something. Gov. Pawlenty signed the first bill of the legislative session Thursday-- a measure that allows people who make tsunami relief donations before the end of this month to deduct them on their 2004 tax returns.