Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The "CEO candidates", Clinton, Edwards, Obama and their pro-corporate health care plans

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
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 12:23 PM
Original message
The "CEO candidates", Clinton, Edwards, Obama and their pro-corporate health care plans
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 12:24 PM by welshTerrier2
well worth reading the full article instead of just my excerpts.

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/27/2138/

As moderator of Thursday’s Democratic Presidential debate, here’s a follow-up question: Do you think your plan is better than Medicare-For-All, or do you fear being attacked as an extremist by Republicans, big insurance, and big pharma and so propose a less effective plan as more politically pragmatic?

The leading Democratic candidates–Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama– criticize America’s broken health care system and call for fundamental change with great rhetorical flair. But when it comes to proposing the most effective plan for change–Medicare-For All– they don’t show an audacity of hope. They show a paucity of courage. <skip>

Obama, Edwards and Clinton are great at denouncing the problem. But they are timid when suggesting the solution. <skip>

Hillary’s 1993 plan and Obama’s and Edward’s 2007 plans all try to build reform on top of the twin pillars of the current flawed American health care system–private insurance and employer-provided benefits–while attempting to fill in the cracks. The problem is that these twin pillars are rotting from their foundations and any reform built on them is likely to collapse.

The first pillar of the system–private insurance–is an inherently flawed means of providing health care. First, the incentive of a private insurance company is to find ways to deny needed care–the less care provided for the same premiums, the higher the profits and the bigger the salaries and bonuses of their top executives. So private health insurance companies pay huge staffs to review claims and deny coverage. Michael Moore’s “Sicko” shows horrifying examples of people who actually have health insurance coverage but suffer from lack of care because insurance companies wrongly denied their claim, and presents eloquent testimony from former insurance company employees about how they were promoted and award bonuses for finding ways to reject coverage.

Second, private health insurance involves a colossal waste of money. Nearly 1/3 of private health insurance premiums go to administrative costs of underwriting (i.e. turning down insurance applications from consumers who might actually need to use their insurance), claims processing (i.e. denying as many claims as possible), marketing and advertising, plus shareholder profits and multi-million dollar executive salaries and bonuses. By contrast, Medicare’s administrative run approximately 2-3% of costs. At the same time, to deal with numerous different insurance companies and their varying claims procedures, doctors and hospitals have to employ large staffs, not to provide care, but just to process insurance claims. Approximately 20% of doctor’s income goes to the overhead of processing insurance. It has been estimated that approximately $350 billion a year of health care dollars goes to administrative costs. Saving most of these costs alone could pay to insure the tens of millions of uninsured Americans in a Medicare–For-All system. <skip>

The type of hybrid private/public health care patchwork health reform proposed by Obama, Edwards, and Clinton is a vast, untried social experiment which has never been proven to work anywhere in the world. The type of health care program that works–a single payer government run service–has already proven itself in virtually every other capitalist democracy. The US spends twice as much per capita on health care as Britain, France or Canada, yet America ranks only 39th in the world in the health of our people. Life expectancy is shorter and infant mortality higher in the US than in most other wealthy countries. <skip>

Moreover, polls show that Americans are ready to accept single payer health insurance. A recent poll by the Pubic Policy Institute of California found that “by a two-to-one margin, most prefer ‘a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by the taxpayers’ nationally to ‘the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance’ The preference here is a descriptor of what is known as ’single payer.’”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. I know republicans ready for universal healthcare. It's way past time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Whatever heat
this puts on candidates sympathetic to the plan but afraid to fall on a donor sword or issue suicide watch, it still should be done. Then who is the candidate if elected or hopefully at the Convention, will move forward to single payer, if any? The same pressure should be applied to ALL the Congressional races for the people under the same money and media constraints who would be called upon not to balk at the bold president's change of heart.

When adding all the issues where the big guns aim short the actual majority of the voters may become fed up enough to recognize Kucinich exists as an option. They should also get up close and personal with their local Dems as well. Make no mistake, no matter which candidate you have faith in, continued pressure and support has to defeat and supplant corporate lobbyists once and for all before real progress is going to be made. By real progress I mean getting beyond saving countless lives and mitigating misery and theft to making this- maybe for the first time- a people's government based on real world real life issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. I really hope that somehow we can blast through the shitstorm of lies
and spin and obfuscation that the corporate minions will throw up.

Just look at the proposed plans put forth by the Big Three, nothing but corporate welfare for insurance companies that will, eventually, maybe, someday, cover many of those that don't currently enjoy the benefits of having their claims denied.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. wall street traitor's corporate health care plans are a part of the BIG problem.........
as long as the greed mongers are part of the equation, there can be NO reasonably priced quality health care for ALL. The wall street thieves are already taking 16% of the GDP for health care; want to give them an opportunity for 20-25% or MORE? Free Market health care has been a financial failure for those that can barely afford it and those that cannot afford it at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Are they that afraid of the insurance companies?
A majority already wants single payer universal healthcare, and more would buy in if the issued were fairly held up to more public scrutiny. Seems to me they could ride this to victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. they're afraid of losing corporate contributions
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 01:04 PM by welshTerrier2
Big Insurance, Big Pharma, even Big Health Care ... the money just keeps pouring in ... the big boys will pay whatever it costs to whomever it takes to ensure that sing;e payer does NOT get a real airing before the American people ...

the CEO candidates will go on and on and on and on and on about "universal health coverage" (some even say health care) ... but they will not bite the hands that feed them ... it's bribery plain and simple ... we scream bloody murder when we see the flow of corporate cash to republicans as well we should ... too many are far too silent when the Dems reach into those very same cookie jars ...

and so, we have the CEO candidates offering their own special versions of health INSURANCE programs that just will NOT fix the travesty we now have. they wouldn't dare do otherwise ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It occurs to me that you have a very good grasp on the situation
And I follow this very closely. Maybe we are so screwn that we need to take a step back and first get big corporate money out of politics. Just thinking out loud here. Well, not really out loud. Thinking out type?

For now I am supporting Kucinnich, mainly for this reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. check out this post ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. What about all the other big corporations that currently pay for private health care premiums?
For example, automakers shell out billions in health care costs.

Pretty much every non-health care based business benefits from single-payer. Given that the non-health care sector of the economy is much larger than the health care sector, it stands to reason that more corporate donations could be obtained by opposing the health care industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. Kucinich's health care plan is best, but Edwards's is considerably better than Obama's or Hillary's

Here is a really good discussion of why Edwards health care plan is the second best after Kucinich's:



In a crowded field, Edwards' health plan sets him apart by Rob Christensen



The Edwards plan would require every American to have health insurance by 2012 - the last year of Edwards’ first term if he were elected. The plan would first make health care available to everyone and then require people to carry health insurance, just as motorists must have liability insurance.

The plan is a mix of public and private strategies. Employers would be required to either provide insurance to their employees through a company policy, or to help fund coverage for their workers by contributing to regional nonprofit government entities that Edwards calls health markets.... The health markets would use the economy of scale to negotiate affordable policies through insurers. Uninsured individuals could obtain coverage through a health market. So could employers seeking to provide group policies for their employees.... 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.”

Although Haase thinks the Edwards plan does not go far enough, conservatives fear it would take the country too far toward government-run care. “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. The single-payer system, Tanner argued, sounds good. But it would not be popular with citizens because it would ration treatment for expensive and long illnesses, and would discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new drugs. “Single-payer systems are good if you are not sick,” Tanner said. “They provide routine care at low cost. But they don’t provide intensive, expensive medicine for people with serious illnesses.”...




Read the whole article: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/38815/in-a-crowded-field-edwards-health-plan-sets-him-apart/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. It's the "he's just as bad as us" defense, and it simply doesn't wash
This is what conservatives have used for years to justify voting for them: "See? Liberals have problems too, so you might as well vote for us".

Edwards has his eye on the prize, but he's aware of the incremental nature of change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaptBunnyPants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Exactly. Of all the candidates with even a remote chance of winning
Edwards plan brings us the closest to universal health care. It's what's driving the recent constant negative media blitz, and the biggest reason I support him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Thanks for posting that informative article!
Edited on Thu Jun-28-07 02:22 AM by draft_mario_cuomo
You are new (welcome to DU!) and often thank others for their posts. This is an occasion where you deserve the thanks. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. Single payer won't happen until we get money out of politics
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 11:00 PM by Hippo_Tron
In the meantime I accept the fact that our candidates are pushing for less than perfect plans. It's better to fight to expand coverage as much as we can for now, than to only settle for a plan that can't pass a bought and paid for congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. perhaps that's right
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 11:13 PM by welshTerrier2
i'm not willing to accept it however ... and one could certainly make a case that progressives won't "get money out of politics" by continuing to enable those funded to the greatest degree by that money ... i suppose that's a topic for another thread though ...

the article also made a point that the window of opportunity is NOW and that, whatever crap we get stuck with in the next year or two will likely be the model for the next thirty years. speculative? who can say. it seems like a reasonable possibility.

i hate to see the Democratic Party becoming such incrementalists and not pushing for real solutions. we might not win every battle but I hate that every Democrat is NOT fully engaged in at least trying. instead, most of the Party's candidates, rather than really leading and fighting for the changes we so desperately need, are playing it safe ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
15. Bill Richardson's Health Care Plan:
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 Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 09:01 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