Only Edwards offers real health-care reform

[JohnLocke]

Only Edwards offers real health-care reform
Des Moines Register
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
----
Democratic candidates are proposing universal health care, but only one has truly developed a real plan to secure health care for all Americans: John Edwards.

His plan for universal health care has converted me from a Hillary Clinton supporter. He has real, innovative options and talks about actual plans to achieve his options. None of the other candidates is this specific or organized in approach.

Edwards' plan promotes affordable and accountable health care. He believes that business, government and individuals all share responsibility for health care; I share that belief.

Businesses will either cover their employees or help finance employee health insurance. Government will create new health-insurance tax credits, expand Medicaid, reform insurance laws and require fair terms for health insurance. Once the insurance is affordable, individuals will be expected to take responsibility for themselves and their families by obtaining health coverage.

I haven't heard any other candidate provide a specific plan for universal health care; only Edwards does. His vision, courage and readiness to take on the serious issues that face our nation have won my vote. --Robin A. Deason-Payne

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/OPINION04/705150384/-1/ENT05

[waiting for hope]

1. Edwards is the only one

really offering anything with comprehensive plans to back it up.

:kick: and :thumbsup: with a BIG :bounce:

[antigop]

5. Excuse me? Kucinich has co-sponsored an ACTUAL BILL -- HR 676

Medicare for All.

[bobbie]

31. Good reality check antigop

And Kucinich didn't vote to kill people in Iraq. Even better.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I don't see the Edwards plan as particularly workable.

Actually, I don't see anything but a single-payer plan as really workable, but I'm not sure single-payer is attainable, given the degree of entrenchment of the American health insurance system. When you're dealing with an arena in which 15% of GDP is at stake--and, in fact, committed to defending their immensely profitable but dysfunctional system, you're gonna have some trouble creating a rational alternative.

[Czolgosz]

4. The Edwards plan is phased in single-payer, and I don't see how else we get to single-payer without

a phase-in period.

A discussion of the Edwards plan from his website:

Health markets would offer traditional plans from private companies such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Aetna and Cigna, as well as a government-run plan similar to Medicare, the federal health-insurance program for the elderly. The public-sector plan would resemble Canada's single-payer system, in which insurance is publicly funded to control costs but doctors and hospitals remain private.

"The idea is to determine whether Americans actually want a private insurer or whether they would rather have a government-run ... single-payer plan," Edwards said. "We'll find out over time where people go."

The mix of market and government initiatives makes Edwards' plan much harder to attack than Clinton's early 1990s plan, said Leif Wellington Haase of the Century Foundation, a liberal-leaning think tank.... "In this plan, the changes happen much more gradually," Haase said. "Each element has a market element that deflects the attack. I think it's a very smart political document."... "It sets up a slippery slope to move toward a single-payer, government-run health care system," said Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. "He realizes that Americans are not going to take that in one bite."

Tanner contends that under Edwards' parallel system, private insurance would be unable to compete with a taxpayer-funded system....
Conspicuously missing from Edwards' plan are such Republican-backed ideas as individual Medical Savings Accounts or tort reform to reduce lawsuits against doctors.

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070509-health-plan/

Kucinich's plan is better -- there can be no doubt about that -- but if we can't pass the best possible plan we need to look for the best plan we can actually pass. I'm not seeing any plan which fits this role better than the Edwards plan.

[Kolesar]

7. That was insightful...eom

[JNelson6563]

16. Good post

And look ma! No mud slinging!

Julie

[iconocrastic]

33. The heading is misleading. It's not being paid for by Edwards ...

so he can't be "offering" it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Sorry, Edwards isn't the only one, and his plan is flawed by

leaving the private companies in the mix. They will screw the system to their advantage.

Kucinich is offering a true single-payer plan. Edwards' plan would do NOTHING for me, since I earn too much for Medicaid, have no children, and as a self-employed person, can already deduct the cost of my nearly useless health insurance plan from my income taxes.

I am completely unimpressed by anyone who relies on stale "free-market" and "tax incentive" approaches to health care.

[Czolgosz]

6. If we could eliminate the private health care insurance industry (which employs how many?) with a

single pen stroke and pass single-payer universal coverage, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. I don't think the votes are there for this plan, however, so we have to decide are we going to (1) continue to push a plan which doesn't have the support to pass, (2) just give up because if we can't get our way we ought to withdraw from the debate, or (3) seek the best plan which might actually pass.

I have decided to push the candidate who has the best plan (which is Dennis Kucinich, of course) but if he doesn't win, I'll support the candidate who has the best plan which we can actually pass (I'm waiting to see Obama's and I think Edwards's is a good plan to transition us in the right direction).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. But you don't START by asking for only what you think you can get

You propose what you really WANT. Then, if necessary, you negotiate back from there.

If the ideal is single payer, then ask for it. Only then should candidates trim back their plans to include the insurance companies if there is absolutely no other recourse after they've tried everything.

My brother, a doctor who hates insurance companies for the way they distort medical practice, recently talked to a doctor who practices in Sweden. According to him, over there, doctors are salaried by the government and therefore have no incentives to ask for unnecessary tests or rope patients into unnecessary surgery (a real problem in my brother's field of occupational medicine, where doctors will recommend surgery for patients whose chronic pain could be healed through a course of physical or massage therapy). Furthermore, they have no incentive to cram in as many patients as possible during the day, so the average appointment is 1/2 hour, not 15 minutes. To top it off, Sweden scores better than the U.S. in every measure of public health.

My brother says that the cost of dealing with insurance companies is 20% of his overhead.

The more I hear, the better single payer sounds.

[Czolgosz]

9. I agree. We have asked for single payer. We asked for it in HR 676. We don't have the votes (as much

as I wish we did). I give Dennis Kucinich great credit for tirelessly advocating on behalf of HR 676 and single-payer universal coverage.

I'm ready to start negotiating for real universal care with a model that will transition to single-payer over time NOW. We have an exploding percentage of Americans and American kids uncovered by health care NOW and I'm ready to negotiate for their coverage NOW.

Single payer is the best model. Until we can get elected representatives who will vote for it (and we're not even close), we need to get the best coverage we can get with the representatives we have now.

[rucky]

29. Thank You!

You have a good handle on this issue. Please post about it often.

[BootinUp]

26. I basically agree with you

however it is not clear yet to me that there is enough support for radical change. If there was then Kuch would be in the top 3. I love DK by the way.

[depakid]

10. Unfortunately, Edwards' plan is a sell out.

He refuses to do THE ONE THING necessary- which is to take insurers out of the basic benefits equation.

And the worst part of that is- as an attorney, he KNOWS better.

I see no courage at all in that- just another Southern politician talking out of both sides of his mouth- which is too bad, because in many other areas he has responsible ideas.

[Czolgosz]

11. What do we do when HR 676 doesn't pass in the House?

It's a great bill, but we can't even pass a friggin' minimum wage bill without watering it down or pass approval for allowing the purchase of affordable drugs from Canada. If we can't pass those easy and wildly popular bills, how are we going to pass this (great) bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00676:?

[depakid]

13. That's something that may change in 2009

Provided that the nominee articulates the facts and presents the analysis forcefully.

[Czolgosz]

15. I'm already a Kucinich supporter but we have to make plans for what happens when someone else gets

the nomination.

Neither Obama, Hillary, or Edwards are going to offer HR 676 as their health care plan, and that plan is dying in the House despite the fact that it's the best plan by far.

When you say we need a nominee who "articulates the facts and presents the analysis forcefully" - who are you talking about because only Kucinich fits the bill and I'll vote for him to show the Democratic Party that there is a vibrant constituency to the left of Hillary and Obama, and even to the left of Edwards, but Kucinich is not going to win our nomination. What do we do then? Put universal health care on the back burner until 2012? I'm not willing to do that.

[LWolf]

28. If you don't want Universal Health Care on the back burner,

then you ought to be working for HR 676 regardless of who gets the nomination.

The "plans" offered up by those assumed to be most "electable" may use the words "universal health care," but that's propaganda. The reality is that those plans don't do what their label suggests. Republicans aren't the only politicians to enjoy orwellian labels and spin to manipulate public support.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. not to be mean but, it is warmed over 70s policy and unweldy.

[Czolgosz]

14. I think that's factually incorrect, but - more importantly - it's besides to point. I'm eagerly

awaiting Obama's plan. Edwards's plan isn't as good as Kucinich's but it's a step in the right direction toward the same goal and it stands a better chance of passing.

I hope Obama's plan is equally detailed and better than Edwards's, but right now only Kucinich and Edwards have detailed plans and Kucinich's is D.O.A. in the House.

[eridani]

17. "Individuals taking responsibility for themselves" translates as

--the state will force you to buy insurance from the same assholes who refuse to pay claims right now, and tax you to subsidize them to boot.

[GreenArrow]

20. yep, it's a corporate turd

cloaked in pseudo-populist gilt.

[primative1]

21. Yep ...

Sounds like our new plan here in Mass.
Go broke buying it or pay huge fines.
Great plan.
The governement help part only comes into effect if you make less than 14000$ (family of 2).
At 14000$, I would rather hang myself than seek insurance.
And the employer contribution of a whopping 200$ a year ... imagine the tax increase thats coming ....
Thats the Mitt plan ... Edwards might shave the edges some .... but it's still realy no plan at all other than pass the buck and shield the employer.

[TeamJordan23]

18. Obama will be releasing his soon

Many many months before the vote. So relax.

[Vinca]

19. I don't understand why we can't switch to a Canada-style plan.

Why do we need to protect the interests of the insurance companies?? And that's what it is. The insurance companies are the reason we're in this mess. I've really had it with this country and health care. Now Lance Armstrong is out cheerleading for cancer research and I want to scream. There are tens of millions of us who will die if we get cancer because we don't have the sacred BC/BS card. Universal, single payer now. I supported Edwards until he came out with his health care plan.

[w4rma]

22. It looks like the Obama groupies are out on this thread.

Are Obama groupies biased against us Southerners? Apparently they don't even want to try to win Southern states.

This plan, by Edwards, is the best and quickest way to single payer. I'm sorry that the Obama groupies crap all over every Edwards thread.

[Clark2008]

23. I'm a Southerner and I KNOW Edwards won't fare well down here.

But, neither will Obama or HRC, so it doesn't really matter.

[w4rma]

27. Clark2008, we already know that you'll say *anything* negative about non-Obama candidates.

*Anything*.

Btw, I'm a southerner (too). I know Edwards will do very well in the South, especially against the northeastern Republican candidates.

[LWolf]

32. I'm not a fan of Obama, and I still call bullshit. n/t

[LWolf]

24. Unadulterated bullshit.

Edwards is not the first, not the only, and does not have the best plan on the table.

There is a candidate who has, and has had, a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health CARE plan on the table for several years now.

Long before Edwards.

Not a health insurance plan. A health CARE plan.

It's ok with me if you prefer a plan that keeps health care in the hands of insurance companies.

It's ok if you prefer Edwards over other candidates.

The "he is the ONLY" bullshit propaganda is not ok, and is not worthy of you.

[calteacherguy]

25. Only the Congress is capable of enacting health care reform, not the President.

Leadership skills and the ability to handle a crises are more important than detailed proposals when selecting a candidate. All our candidates would work for health care reform if elected, but let's make damn sure we elect a Democratic Congress in 08' too.

[LizW]

30. :kick: