Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Elizabeth Edwards: only Clinton's health care plan is universal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:39 PM
Original message
Elizabeth Edwards: only Clinton's health care plan is universal
-snip-

Elizabeth Edwards continued her passionate advocacy of universal health care on today's morning shows, appearing on both The Today Show and Morning Joe. Edwards noted her preference for the health care plan devised by Hillary Clinton, stating that it's mandated coverage made it the only truly "universal" health plan between Clinton and Barack Obama: "It means every American has to be covered. Senator Obama means every child has to be covered. I think we need to go the full nine yards." Edwards also continued to criticize the health care plan put forth by John McCain, saying, "He's the beneficiary of some great government programs. But in terms of private insurance, he would not be guaranteed coverage under his own plan. Neither would I or anybody with a pre-existing condition."

-snip-

EDWARDS: Senator McCain has a health care policy that frankly does not guarantee him or me or a lot of Americans, certainly the people I'm going to go see this morning to get my treatment next to this morning, those people are not guaranteed treatment, not guaranteed insurance coverage.


BRZEZINSKI: So you're saying that McCain wouldn't get coverage under his own plan?

EDWARDS: He's the beneficiary of some great government programs. But in terms of private insurance, he would not be guaranteed coverage under his own plan. Neither would I or anybody with a pre-existing condition. Imagine how many families that involves across this country.
...

SCARBOROUGH: Which plan is better? Which plan covers more Americans? The Clinton plan or the Obama plan?

EDWARDS: In my view, the Clinton plan provides, because it provides a mandate. It means every American has to be covered. Senator Obama means every child has to be covered. I think we need to go the full nine yards
and make certain we have -- I'm not very good at cliches, is that the cliche. It ought to be ten yards, wouldn't it?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, not if it's fourth and nine.

EDWARDS: In any event, we want to make certain that every American is covered. In fact, this is also -- Senator McCain does not cover every American. The way that you really keep down the costs of health insurance is that you have universality. You're still going to have everybody cost shifting, trying to cover the cost of the uninsured or cover the cost of people who have an exclusion that doesn't cover this particular condition. You're always going to have this cost-shifting, and that keeps costs up -- to keep costs down, you really need everybody covered.

Over/under on how many posts before Obamanation drives the bus over another former progressive hero?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks Eliz--many of us have been saying this months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
46. And many of you have been wrong for months.
Universal Health Insurance is not the same as universal health care.

Hillary's mandate is on the wrong people; it should be on the insurance comapanies.

What good is health insurance if they can refuse treatment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. REC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. That bus already left the station. I was relentlessly reminded by Obama supporters that Edwards was
Edited on Wed Apr-02-08 08:48 PM by onehandle
...a "fake". They attacked him Way more than Hillary before Edwards dropped out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yup and it is surprising how many Edwardians have forgotten that
Obama also attacked Edwards much more than Clinton did--and Obama's negative hit piece mailer, as well as other attacks, leading up to Iowa possibly caused Edwards' late surge in Iowa to end. Had Edwards won Iowa he could have been on his way to the White House right now... Yet Edwardians, especially the ones here love Obama now. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy823 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I am a former Edwards supporter
Edited on Wed Apr-02-08 09:33 PM by Andy823
I don't "love" Obama, but between the two choices we now have I will take him over Hillary! I find Hillary to be a dishonest person, to say the least. She has danced around the issues from day one, and I remember that Edwards labeled her as the "corporate" candidate, and he was right. He also sided with Obama more than he did with Hillary, so don't forget that point.

Hillary has taken this race to the levels that Bush did with McCain back in 2000. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. We could be talking about the issues, but Hillary has managed to keep the "issues" on the back burner. If Edwards were in the race, I would be behind him 100%, but since he is not, I
had to take a hard and serious look at the two that were left. Obama came out on top!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. He also pointed out Obama's corporate connections
The only reason he went after Clinton more was because Clinton was the front-runner during Edwards' run. If Obama were leading he would have went after him the most. It is natural in politics to go after the front-runner. Look at how the rethug target shifted from McCain to Giuliani to Romney and then back to McCain again. It wasn't by chance but rather simple politics.

He didn't side with Obama on the issues. On the big issue of health care he came down on Clinton's side, since she has basically the same plan he had. The only issue where he sided with Obama was lobbyists, and that is a minor issue relative to health care and Edwards know Obama still got a lot of corporate support notwithstanding the minor lobbyist distinction.

Neither Obama or Clinton ran a campaign about issues but Clinton has probably been significantly more substantive than Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I guess Hillary has no corporate connections? What bullshit. Please stop
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. What part of "also" do you not understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I recal the terrible attacks on him. I was
originally an Edwards supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. oh, and Edwards called out Hillary for her negaitve campaigning
and her pathetic attacks back in Oct/Nov -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hUW27EJFL4

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Yeah--and he did the same with Obama
Edited on Wed Apr-02-08 09:44 PM by jackson_dem
What is your point?

Who attacked Edwards more? Clinton or Obama? Answer the following and you will know who it was: which candidate had more to lose from a strong Edwards? First place Clinton who was 20 points up on Obama and 35-40 points ahead of Edwards at her peak or Obama, who was always 10-15 points ahead of third place Edwards and trying to run as a "I am not a Clinton" candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Clinton
And he said she voted with neo-cons

Her plans is like his plan, of course Elizabeth is going to say her plan is better.

I don't like her plan because of the garnishments, folks who can't afford health insurance shouldn't face having their wages withheld.

And really, can she talk about mandatory health insurance when she hasn't paid for the insurance for the folks working for her? Seriously, is there some type of disconnect here - practice what you preach, pay the piper and all that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Clinton? Since when do first place candidates fear third place?
Especially when there is a 30-40 point gap between the two. Clinton had nothing to fear from Edwards outside of Iowa. Obama needed to keep Edwards down because his entire campaign is based on being the one "I am not a Clinton" candidate. Edwards would have screwed that up if he caught Obama. If Clinton won Iowa it would have been a very uphill climb for Obama. Edwards was a big obstacle for him in Iowa, chiefly because they both tapped the anti-Clinton vote. Even elsewhere Obama was usually about 10-15 points ahead of Edwards. A small swing of 5-8 points would put Edwards at parity with him and he was aware of the object in his mirror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. You haven't been keeping up, have you?
Go listen to the youtube I gave you. And how can you forget this comment?

"'...well, now the fun part starts,' Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word 'fun.'" Senator Clinton, telling reporters in Cedar Rapids about her plans to attack Democrats from now until the Iowa caucuses.

And has she paid the health insurance yet for her workers? I mean, come on, her plan makes it mandatory and folks could have their wages garnished, guess the insurance companies should garnish her campaign funds until they get paid, whatchathink? Fair is fair, put your money where you mouth is and all of that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. How about the Youtube from the SC debate where he criticizes Obama's attacks on him?
Or his campaign's responses to Obama's attacks? Or Edwards attacking Obama for being a hypocrite and doing what he assailed Edwards for three weeks earlier? And so on.

You don't seem to understand politics. Obama had far more to gain from a weak Edwards than Clinton. There was even speculation, with some justification, that a strong Edwards was good for Clinton in Iowa because a third for Obama in Iowa would have been great for Clinton. The Youtube you posted is something Obamites often point to, as if it happened in a vacuum. Edwards' strategy after Iowa was to claim part of Obama's win for himself by saying it was a win for "change" and to hope Clinton could be pushed into irrelevance by being deemed "status quo." Winning Iowa was crucial for him but after he lost, in part due to Obama's negative attacks and distorting mailer, his second place finish gave him a plan B of trying to ride "change" to make it Edwards vs. Obama. Clinton winning New Hampshire ended that and Edwards' chances, which were slim after Iowa, were extinguished then. Notice that after that window closed he attacked Obama as much, even more than he attacked Clinton. In the South Carolina debate he went after Obama more than Clinton. He wasn't making the "we are both change, she isn't" argument out of love for Obama but political necessity--just as Obama makes the BS argument that Clinton is not "change we can believe in" due to political necessity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. But see, I"m not running around the forum making a big deal
over what isn't that significant. You are.

Elizabeth came out to trash McCain, when asked about Obama's she didn't like Obama's because it didn't cover everyone. Big deal.

The important thing about her taking a stand was it was a stand against McCain, you bunch of silly folks keep twisting it from that.

And you continue to dodge the direct questions - how can Hillary support mandatory health care that includes regulations which will provide for the garnishment of the wages of the workers when she herself hasn't paid the health insurance for her workers, don't you think that is rather erm, power judgment, ermm, hypocritical, ermm, stupid?

I don't think folks should face garnishment because they can't afford the mandatory health insurance that Hill's plan proposes. They can't afford the health insurance because they are trying to live and feed their families, so let's take that money they need and give it to the insurance companies. Seems pretty bullshit to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. rec. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. and Clintons is better than McCains!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tennessee Gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. I love Elizabeth Edwards.
Good post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. Nice to hear from Elizabeth, and get some discussion
going again about this important issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
44. Agreed
...need health to be a big domestic priority.
And Obama's plan is weak to start with and he doesn't have the fight in him to make much progress. (Genuine fear)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. Didn't everyone know this already?
The problem is that Clinton would never be able to get this past congress. EVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. That is why
Hillary Clinton will be better in the senate, where the healthcare plan is really hashed and hammered out. Everyone knows the original plans stated, will not be the same one passed through congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
19. Ah.... pass out the daisies! It "provides a mandate"!
The main reason that any mandated healthcare program will NEVER get passed... it FORCES a mandate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. So you are saying Obama's plan will not get passed?
Obama I won't pass then there would be no "hope" for Obama II, which "may" include mandates for adults.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIdaho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
20. NONE of these plans are worth a shit
Why? Take a look at how other civilized nations care for the health of their citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
38. Yeah, with bean counters deciding who gets treatment
We can do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Private insurance companies deny treatment now
The bean counters get promotions and raises based on how much treatment they deny. Sometimes the patient dies, but that's not as important as United Healthcare's profit margins.

We certainly can do better than the Clinton and Obama plans, which are nothing more than carbon copies of Nixon's 1971 corporate welfare plan:

"In 1971, President Nixon sought to forestall single-payer national health insurance by proposing an alternative. He wanted to combine a mandate, which would require that employers cover their workers, with a Medicaid-like program for poor families, which all Americans would be able to join by paying sliding-scale premiums based on their income.
Nixon’s plan, though never passed, refuses to stay dead. Now Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all propose Nixon-like reforms. Their plans resemble measures that were passed and then failed in several states over the past two decades."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15woolhandler.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
22. so the reason there is no universal health care
is because of lazy freeloaders???

well I guess EE never said she was an expert on health insurance...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. that actually is a large part of the problem
the rufusal of so many in this country to pay for common goods is a huge reason we don't have universal health care, or day care, or any of the host of other things civilized countries have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I'm not talking about unwillingness to pay for gov't social services
I'm talking about mere unwillingness, despite having the means, to buy personal health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. and there are many who do refuse to buy
and it is part of the very same ethos. I have mine so fuck you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. well they WOULDN'T have theirs
that's the point...

:shrugs:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
28. jump back
watch out for that bus, Elizzy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
futureliveshere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
30. Clintons health care plan actually favors only the insurance companies
since everyone HAS to buy insurance whether they can afford it or not. If MA is any indication there will be enough people paying 'fines' or just being allowed to drop out of the fabled "Universal Health Care" system of the Clintons to make this a lame and short-sighted policy. IMO the focus has to be on lowering costs w/o passing a universal mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Both plans favor the insurance companies
Both plans are better than nothing, but what we have to hope is that we elect a Democratic President and a liberal Congress that will improve on either Clinton's or Obama's plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. ^^^^BINGO!! ding ding ding ding^^^^^
Exactly! Our system will not be fixed until insurance companies are out of the picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
futureliveshere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. Ok, Clintons plans favor the insurance companies more than Barack's does.
Howz that?? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. People who can't afford it won't pay -- just like now
Except, the coverage would be better than now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
35. MANDATED coverage is EXACTLY why she can't win in the general
most americans don't like it when the government FORCES them to do something- and the repugs will beat that drum to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. "HILLARY WILL GARNISH YOUR WAGES!" She handed it to them
Unelectable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
37. She's wrong.
None of the plans are universal.

They all suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
39. Elizabeth is a lovely person but mandates don't work for me because...
..because one ay Repubs will return to office only to withdraw the subsidies Democrats introduce and then you are stuck with an expensive policy. Barack will reduce costs as he did when back in Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emillereid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
41. Sorry Elizabeth - as much as I love you - I think the mandate is a problem. Personally I think the
only solution that provides real universal health care is a single payer system modeled on Canada's. I've lived in Canada and still have many friends there - and it is fabulous. Not without its own problems but better by far than anything private insurance can do for most of us.

We have a PPO and I can't tell you how many times I've had to fight them to pay what they're obliged to pay and how long I've had to wait for them to OK routine tests - right now I've been waiting for several weeks for an endoscopy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. Health care and single payer systems
The founder of the forum I co-administer is a med professor/MD. And we have a both Canadian and Brit members. Since I have health problems which are excluded from my individual high deductibe no-frill, nearly no coverage PPO policy, I follow this issue a lot.

The USA needs health care reforms. But from what I've learned, single payer systems are in BIG TROUBLE in Canada and the UK. Haven't you read of the dire hospital cleanliness issues in the UK? Have you read or heard from British or Canadian friends about the long waits for minor procedures? In fact many heart surgery patients in canada have been sent to the US. Have you read of the with-holding of costly prescription drug treatment for cancers in the UK?

Here's a link to many of the healthcare related topics on my home forum. In some of the topics such as the NHS topic and Hillary's health care plan topic there are links to a whole lot of solid information. Please come visit and look around.

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/search/text/forum/64?q=health+care&submit=Search+Forum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emillereid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. I ask my friends and family about this all the time -- and so far, they aren't having
Edited on Thu Apr-03-08 11:10 PM by Emillereid
any real problems. I mean I've been waiting weeks for my PPO to approve a simple endoscopy here. I don't know anything about the UK. I do think in BC they have found it more cost efficient to piggy-back on some Seattle hospitals for very expensive machinery - found it cheaper to send folks down, put them up and pay than to buy the stuff outright.

The treatment my mother-in-law had recently was mind-boggling -- she even was sent help twice a week to support her independence. At the end of her life she was in hospital for 4 months - and the bill -- a big fat zero.

Here's an informative article:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19299.htm
10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

By Sara Robinson

06/02/08 "TomPaine" -- -- 2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.
I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.

To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.

One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

5. You don't get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. The cons love to scare the kids with stories about the government picking your doctor for you, and you don't get a choice. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do. And not only that: since it all pays the same, poor Canadians have exactly the same access to the country's top specialists that rich ones do.

6. Canada's care plan only covers the basics. You're still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
True -- but not as big an issue as you might think. The province does charge a small monthly premium (ours is $108/month for a family of four) for the basic coverage. However, most people never even have to write that check: almost all employers pick up the tab for their employees' premiums as part of the standard benefits package; and the province covers it for people on public assistance or disability.

"The basics" covered by this plan include 100% of all doctor's fees, ambulance fares, tests, and everything that happens in a hospital -- in other words, the really big-ticket items that routinely drive American families into bankruptcy. In BC, it doesn't include "extras" like medical equipment, prescriptions, physical therapy or chiropractic care, dental, vision, and so on; and if you want a private or semi-private room with TV and phone, that costs extra (about what you'd pay for a room in a middling hotel). That other stuff does add up; but it's far easier to afford if you're not having to cover the big expenses, too. Furthermore: you can deduct any out-of-pocket health expenses you do have to pay off your income taxes. And, as every American knows by now, drugs aren't nearly as expensive here, either.

Filling the gap between the basics and the extras is the job of the country's remaining private health insurers. Since they're off the hook for the ruinously expensive big-ticket items that can put their own profits at risk, the insurance companies make a tidy business out of offering inexpensive policies that cover all those smaller, more predictable expenses. Top-quality add-on policies typically run in the ballpark of $75 per person in a family per month -- about $300 for a family of four -- if you're stuck buying an individual plan. Group plans are cheap enough that even small employers can afford to offer them as a routine benefit. An average working Canadian with employer-paid basic care and supplemental insurance gets free coverage equal to the best policies now only offered at a few of America's largest corporations. And that employer is probably only paying a couple hundred dollars a month to provide that benefit.

7. Canadian drugs are not the same.
More preposterious bogosity. They are exactly the same drugs, made by the same pharmaceutical companies, often in the same factories. The Canadian drug distribution system, however, has much tighter oversight; and pharmacies and pharmacists are more closely regulated. If there is a difference in Canadian drugs at all, they're actually likely to be safer.

Also: pharmacists here dispense what the doctors tell them to dispense, the first time, without moralizing. I know. It's amazing.

8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true.

One of the things that constantly amazes me here is how well-cared-for the elderly and disabled you see on the streets here are. No, these people are not being thrown out on the curb. In fact, they live longer, healthier, and more productive lives because they're getting a constant level of care that ensures small things get treated before they become big problems.

The health care system also makes it easier on their caregiving adult children, who have more time to look in on Mom and take her on outings because they aren't working 60-hour weeks trying to hold onto a job that gives them insurance.

9. People won't be responsible for their own health if they're not being forced to pay for the consequences.
False. The philosophical basis of America's privatized health care system might best be characterized as medical Calvinism. It's fascinating to watch well-educated secularists who recoil at the Protestant obsession with personal virtue, prosperity as a cardinal sign of election by God, and total responsibility for one's own salvation turn into fire-eyed, moralizing True Believers when it comes to the subject of Taking Responsibility For One's Own Health.

They'll insist that health, like salvation, is entirely in our own hands. If you just have the character and self-discipline to stick to an abstemious regime of careful diet, clean living, and frequent sweat offerings to the Great Treadmill God, you'll never get sick. (Like all good theologies, there's even an unspoken promise of immortality: f you do it really really right, they imply, you might even live forever.) The virtuous Elect can be discerned by their svelte figures and low cholesterol numbers. From here, it's a short leap to the conviction that those who suffer from chronic conditions are victims of their own weaknesses, and simply getting what they deserve. Part of their punishment is being forced to pay for the expensive, heavily marketed pharmaceuticals needed to alleviate these avoidable illnesses. They can't complain. It was their own damned fault; and it's not our responsibility to pay for their sins. In fact, it's recently been suggested that they be shunned, lest they lead the virtuous into sin.

Of course, this is bad theology whether you're applying it to the state of one's soul or one's arteries. The fact is that bad genes, bad luck, and the ravages of age eventually take their toll on all of us -- even the most careful of us. The economics of the Canadian system reflect this very different philosophy: it's built on the belief that maintaining health is not an individual responsibility, but a collective one. Since none of us controls fate, the least we can do is be there for each other as our numbers come up.

This difference is expressed in a few different ways. First: Canadians tend to think of tending to one's health as one of your duties as a citizen. You do what's right because you don't want to take up space in the system, or put that burden on your fellow taxpayers. Second, "taking care of yourself" has a slightly expanded definition here, which includes a greater emphasis on public health. Canadians are serious about not coming to work if you're contagious, and seeing a doctor ASAP if you need to. Staying healthy includes not only diet and exercise; but also taking care to keep your germs to yourself, avoiding stress, and getting things treated while they're still small and cheap to fix.

Third, there's a somewhat larger awareness that stress leads to big-ticket illnesses -- and a somewhat lower cultural tolerance for employers who put people in high-stress situations. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for their greed. And finally, there's a generally greater acceptance on the part of both the elderly and their families that end-of-life heroics may be drawing resources away from people who might put them to better use. You can have them if you want them; but reasonable and compassionate people should be able to take the larger view.

The bottom line: When it comes to getting people to make healthy choices, appealing to their sense of the common good seems to work at least as well as Calvinist moralizing.

10. This all sounds great -- but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn't the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we're not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we're actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody's getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.

And True -- but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, including the VA and Medicare. There's always tension between what the users of the system want, and what the taxpayers are willing to pay. The balance of power ebbs and flows between them; but no matter where it lies at any given moment, at least one of the pair is always going to be at least somewhat unhappy.

But, as many of us know all too well, there's also constant tension between what patients want and what private insurers are willing to pay. At least when it's in government hands, we can demand some accountability. And my experience in Canada has convinced me that this accountability is what makes all the difference between the two systems.

It is true that Canada's system is not the same as the U.S. system. It's designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It'll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC