MFU Member Calls for MinnesotaCare Public Option

ST. PAUL – Today, Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU) testified before the Minnesota House Commerce Committee in support of House File 96, Representative Jamie Long’s bill to expand MinnesotaCare with a public option.

“Unaffordable health insurance forces many family farmers to seek off-farm jobs in order to access affordable health insurance for their families,” said MFU President Gary Wertish. “Our members have consistently placed affordable health insur- ance and accessible health care atop their list of policy priorities. This is the year to make it happen.”

MinnesotaCare provides health insurance coverage to people who do not have access to affordable health insurance. Most members pay a monthly premium and the premium is based on the member’s income. The public option allows all Minnesotans to buy-in to this health insurance. Farmers’ incomes are typically variable, rising when product prices are high and falling when product prices fall. This means farmers may qualify in some years and not others.

Danny Lundell, who farms near Cannon Falls with his wife, Mary, said the rising cost of purchasing health insurance on their own forced them to seek other options.

“At one point, we had a $20,000 deductible and were allowed $100 to use for wellness visits,” Lundell said.

“That was a joke as it didn’t cover the doctor’s visit, let alone any lab fees.”

Now, Mary is employed off-the- farm to provide health insurance coverage for the couple.

“Everyone needs and deserves health care, and it needs to be accessible and affordable,” Lundell said. “A MinnesotaCare buy-in option would provide health care insurance that we and other farmers could actually afford to purchase and use while providing high-quality care. It would allow the next generation of family farmers the ability to live and work in rural communities. Let’s get this done.”

Focus on Ag Continued From Page 2 Police for Big Oil Continued From Page 4

2010, 2011 and 2012. The range has been from an increase in the harvest price of +$1.82 per bushel in 2012 to declines of ($1.26) and ($1.27) per bushel in 2013 and 2008. For soybeans, the harvest price has increased in seven years (2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2021) and decreased in eight years (2008, 2011, 2014-2019, and 2022), while staying the same in 2013. The range has been from an increase of +$2.84 per bushel in 2012 to a decline of ($3) per bushel in 2008. In 2022, the harvest price was $13.81 per bushel, which was a decrease of ($.52) per bushel from the spring price of $14.33 per bushel. SCO and ECO Insurance

Coverage

The SCO coverage is only available to producers that choose the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) farm program option for the 2023 crop year. The farm program and crop insurance enrollment deadlines are both March 15, 2023, which means that farm operators will need to consider both choices during the same time period. SCO allows producers to purchase additional county-level crop insurance coverage up to a maximum of 86% coverage. For example, a producer that purchases an 80% RP policy could purchase an additional 6% SCO coverage. The federal government subsidizes 65% of the premium for SCO coverage, so premiums are quite reasonable, making SCO a viable option for some producers. The ECO provides area-based insurance coverage from 86% up to 95% coverage, with producers having a choice between 90 or 95% ECO coverage. Unlike SCO coverage, the purchase of ECO coverage is available with selection of either the PLC or ARC-CO farm program choice for 2023. Producers can utilize both ECO and SCO together, in addi- tion to their underlying RP, RPE or YP insurance policy. SCO and ECO are county revenue-based insurance products that utilize the same crop insurance base prices and harvest prices as RP insurance policies; however, the biggest difference is that SCO and ECO utilize county level average yields, rather than the farm-level APH yields. As a result, the SCO and ECO insurance policies may achieve different results than the underlying RP policy. Interested producers should check with their crop insurance agent for details on SCO and ECO insurance coverage and premiums for 2023, as well as to compare SCO and ECO with other buy-up insurance products that utilize farm-level APH yields.

Enterprise Units and Optional Units

Enterprise units combine all acres of a crop in a given county into one crop insurance unit, while optional units allow producers to insure crops separately in each individual township section. Enterprise units usually have considerably lower premium costs (approx. $8-$12 per acre) compared to optional units, for comparable RP and RPE policies. Producers should be aware that enterprise units are based on larger coverage areas and do not necessarily cover losses from isolated storms or crop damage that affect individual farm units, such as damage from hail, wind or heavy rains. Many times, producers automatically opt for enterprise units every year, due to the lower premium cost per acre for similar coverage, and probably not totally understanding the differences in coverage between enterprise units and optional units. It is important to understand the difference in insurance coverage and to analyze the yield risk on each individual farm unit, when determining if paying the extra premium for insurance coverage with optional units makes sense.

Bottom-Line on Crop Insurance Decisions

Given the strong crop insurance spring base prices for both corn and soybeans, most producers should be able to provide a very desirable level of risk protection for corn and soybean production in 2023. At current spring price levels, many producers will be able to guarantee near $800 to over $1,000 per acre for corn, and near $550 to over $750 per acre for soybeans by utilizing 85% RP insurance coverage level in 2023. Producers can further enhance their revenue guarantees through buy-up crop insurance coverage that is offered by private insurance companies, as well as with wind and hail endorsements, or through the purchase of SCO or ECO insurance coverage. Crop insurance remains one of the best risk management tools that is available for farm operators to protect their annual investment in crop production.

A reputable crop insurance agent is the best source of information to find out more details about the various crop insurance products that are offered, to get premium quotes, and to help finalize 2023 crop insurance decisions.

To receive a free copy of an information sheet titled 2023 Crop Insurance Decisions, please forward an email to: kent.thiesse@ minnstarbank.com.

Following are some very good websites with crop insurance information:

• USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA): http://www.rma. usda.gov/

• University of Illinois FarmDoc: http://www.farmdoc. illinois.edu/cropins/index.asp

• Kansas State University Ag Manager: https://agmanager.info/ crop-insurance

• Iowa State University Ag Decision Maker: https://www. extension.iastate.edu/agdm/ drinks.The oil company bought bagels, Domino’s pizza, McNuggets, Subway sandwich platters, a Dairy Queen strawberry sundae, summer sausage, cheese curds, deep fried pickles, Fritos, Gatorade, and energy drinks, including one called Pipeline Punch.

From planning through construction, police and sheriff’s offices together received at least $5.8 million in Enbridge funds. For state agencies, the Enbridge funds represented a tiny proportion of massive budgets. However, for the Cass County Sheriff’s Office, the Enbridge money added up to the equivalent of more than 10 percent of the office’s 2021 budget. (The office did not respond to requests for comment.) Five other sheriff’s offices received reimbursements equivalent to over 5 percent of their annual budgets. The range of choices law enforcement agencies made regarding what to invoice makes clear the discretionary nature of the Line 3 response. Clearwater County is home to one of two places where Line 3 crosses the Mississippi River and the site of a number of protests. Although 20 other law enforcement agencies billed Enbridge for assisting the local sheriff, Clearwater County billed nothing to the pipeline company.

The invoices also offer insight into the way the influx of pipeline workers translated into incidents of human trafficking and assault. “Since the Line 3 Replacement project has come to our area, we have experienced an increase in calls and need for services,” reads a grant application from the nonprofit Violence Intervention Project, or VIP, based in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, a community through which the pipeline passes, just outside the Red Lake Reservation. “We have provided services to several victims that have been assaulted by employees working on the Enbridge line 3 project.”

Enbridge reimbursed the organization for two hotel rooms for assault survivors, since VIP’s shelter was full at the time. The company also paid $42,000 worth of hazard pay for shelter workers during the 2021 winter, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Enbridge’s biggest human trafficking grant recipient was Support Within Reach, a northern Minnesota organization that works with survivors of sexual violence, which used the money to pay for extra personnel costs during pipeline construction and to buy emergency cell phones for advocates.

Additional funds also went to public agencies: Enbridge reimbursed $43,551.96 to local law enforcement agencies working with the Minnesota Human Trafficking Investigative Task Force. The documents describe at least two multi-agency operations in Grand Rapids and Bemidji, and news reports from the time confirm that they led to the arrest of four Line 3 workers.

Kellner, the Enbridge spokesperson, said that any employee caught and arrested for human trafficking would be fired by the company. She added that the four workers who were arrested were subcontractors, not direct employees of the oil company, and were fired by the contractor Enbridge worked with.

The Link, a nonprofit based in North Minneapolis, received $36,870 from Enbridge and used it in part to assist the task force with sting operations and support survivors who were found. Beth Holger, the organization’s chief executive officer, said she did not feel conflicted about taking Enbridge’s money, because it was going to victims: “Yes we took money from a corporation that has caused harm, and we’re giving it to people to help with that harm.”

The Line 3 pipeline protests are about much more than climate change Alexandria Herr

The $8.6 million in expenses covered by Enbridge by no means accounts for the full public cost of responding to opposition to the Line 3 pipeline.

Several sheriffs’ offices anticipated thousands more Enbridge dollars than they received. The sheriffs’ offices in Cass, Beltrami, and Polk counties each attempted to expense around $25,000 of equipment that was ultimately denied reimbursement.

Hubbard County Sheriff Cory Aukes said that it was unfortunate that the Hubbard county attorney’s request for prosecutorial funds was denied by the account manager, as Aukes sees the influx of charges and protestors as an undue burden on the attorney’s office as well as the sheriff’s office. He said that his agency had plenty of other expenses that weren’t covered.

He added that he believes it would be fiscally irresponsible to decline Enbridge’s funds. “Shouldn’t they have to fund that? Shouldn’t they be responsible to reimburse these additional costs?” Aukes asked.

To water protectors, however, the greatest costs of the pipeline are its consequences for the climate, water, and the Canadian forest ecosystem decimated by tar sands oil production.

The nonprofit LaDuke co-founded, Honor the Earth, issued its own invoice to Enbridge before the creation of the escrow account, estimating that Line 3 would cost $266 billion annually in environmental losses and social damages.

So far, she hasn’t received a response. Jessie Blaeser contributed data reporting, visualization, and analysis to this story.

2023

PLAN HOLDERS LIST, ADDENDUMS AND BID TABULATION : The plan holders list, addendums and bid tabulations will be available for download on -line at www.questcdn.com or www.bolton -menk.com.

TO OBTAIN BID DOCUMENTS: Complete digital project bidding documents are available at www.questcdn.com or www.bolton-menk.com. You may view the digital plan documents for free by entering Quest project # 8368809 on the website’s Project Search page. Documents may be downloaded f or $50.00. Please contact QuestCDN.com at 952-233-1632 or info@questcdn.com for assistance in free membership registration, viewing, downloading, and working with this digital project information.

BID SUBMITTAL: A bid shall be submitted online no later than the date and time prescribed. For this project, the City will only be accepting online electronic bids through QuestCDN. To access the electronic bid form, download the proje ct document and click online bidding button at the top of the advertisement. Prospective bidders must be on the plan holders list through QuestCDN for bids to be accepted.

BID SECURITY: A Proposal Bond in the amount of not less than 5 percent of the total amount bid, drawn in favor of City of Nicollet shall accompany each bid.

OWNER'S RIGHTS RESERVED: The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any irregularities and informalities therein and to award the Contract to other than t he lowest bidder if, in their discretion, the interest of the Owner would be best served thereby.

DATED: January 16, 2023 /S/ Vanessa Drill City Clerk

Published:

QuestCDN: January 19, 2023