Obama Supporters and Health Care Plans.

[mmonk]

Recently, Obama supporters have been hitting the boards with descriptions of Edwards and Clinton Health Care proposals as mandating our current system of health care thus feeding the health care insurers and forcing Americans to have to pay the average monthly costs of health insurance of $922 on a average family policy and $341 on an individual policy. I have been trying to counter some of this dishonesty by comparing arguments concerning mandated social security with mandated health care plans as fear politics given that many arguments against social security were similar in approach (but that argument was discounted or went over the heads of some). I would like to say that speaking as someone who has examined Edwards's plan (I haven't gone through Clinton's yet), I would like to say it is a dishonest description of Edwards's plan. Edwards's plan expands medicaid and SCHIP, so the argument of everyone is going to be forced to bear such costs as the $922 is blatantly dishonest. There is also a public plan (government plan similar to medicare) option to go against health insurers. I would like to challenge Obama supporters to produce text of different plans and compare plans head to head instead instead of just producing statements their candidate says for the purposes of argument. And yes, I think single payer is the best option for the US, so there's no need to post the pros of it as any type of argument against this post. I think side by side comparisons are the best approach to show the voters where health care is a big issue with them. No cheap rhetoric.

Hopefully, one day, we the people can force a health care plan on Congress, but until that time when politicians will listen to us as much as the 4 to every 1 member of congress health care lobbyists, lets look at the best we can get presently as a stepping stone.

[Crazy Dave]

1. Kucinich is the only candidate for "Single Payer" health care

Why else do you think the rest of the democratic candidates keep him out of their debates? Because he calls them out on their bullshit and chickenshit health care plans. Most of them only want health insurance to be mandatory like car insurance is and if you're high risk, then you'll pay higher premiums and higher deductibles.

Just what America needs in a recession right? :sarcasm:

[mmonk]

2. I think single payer is the best option for the US, so there's no need to post the pros of it as any

any type of argument against this post. That line is from my post.

[Crazy Dave]

4. Argument?

You ever hear of an opinion? If you didn't want any you should have stated so in your OP.

[mmonk]

5. My post was about dishonest characterizations of the Edwards plan.

Not about single payer vs. all other plans. I gave my opinion that I thought single payer is the way I think we should go. That was my opinion in black and white in the OP.

[Stop Cornyn]

20. How Edwards' plan leads to single-payer universal public health care:

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

The Edwards 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.

“Everyone in America will be required by law to be covered by this health-care plan,” Edwards said.

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.

Insurance companies would be required to sell coverage at a fair price regardless of a person’s medical history or pre-existing condition; what constitutes a fair price has yet to be determined. Insurers would also be required to offer mental health benefits.

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.

[patrice]

3. Thanks for this post mmonk. This is exactly what we need to do.

side by side, point by point comparisons.

I'm bookmarking this in hopes that you get some good responses.

I especially like your last sentence. We've got to see this as a process and start with the best, most progressive, first step possible in whom we elect in '08. That first step should be as close in its defining characteristics to the final goal as possible, i.e. it must take us toward Single Payer.

[mmonk]

6. Thanks.

Seems it's off to a slow start though.

[killbotfactory]

7. Edwards plan will change once it has to go through congress

That's the whole point. Every plan will change. Which is why I find this obsession with enforcing mandates, and criticizing Obama for not wanting them, now, at the beginning of the debate, to be quite stupid. We have no idea what regulations will get passed, or if they will even be effective. We can not hold out mandates like a carrot to the health insurance companies, they will make damn sure these reforms don't go through as they are proposed, but they will make damn sure we have the mandates that Edwards and Clinton are proposing. That WILL screw the working poor, and the idea that they are an essential part of any healthcare proposal is ridiculous.

[mmonk]

8. If they will change so therefore, there is no need to

mention any mandates, then why is what Obama says concerning this important? Edwards's system is based on many other things as a component in conjuction with everyone being covered.

[killbotfactory]

9. Because Obama is being attacked from the left for not requiring mandates

They are being promoted as the "only" way to cover everyone. It's nonsense. As it stands right now, and unless very comprehensive reforms are passed (which would make mandates redundant), mandates will only screw people over and lock them into a broken system. It is a very bad idea to have them on the table at this moment, and they are not that important. Nevermind that some people will ignore them anyway.

[mmonk]

10. How do you propose that bankruptcies induced

by costs and lack of insurance be reduced? Why is playing round with the current system whereby insurance companies are calling all the shots including what they refuse to do helpful? What do we do with current problems centering around the corporate world's refusal to be forced into doing anything concerning healthcare or any responsibility for our commonwealth? They don't even want to be regulated or pay taxes. Wouldn't it be better just to do nothing other than continue playing this game? Is that the Obama approach? Make your case all on realities then.

[killbotfactory]

11. Bankruptcies occur DESPITE insurance, not only due to a lack of them.

That is something the movie SiCKO is good at pointing out.

And why should I believe Edwards will help anyone when it comes to bankruptcy, when early in his Senate career he voted for bankruptcy "reform" bill that Clinton vetoed because it would be too hard on debtors? How is Edwards going to implement his reforms? By brow-beating companies who are above morality or leading a mass consumer uprising against these companies that will never happen, and only serve to align the media, republicans, and democrats who represent states with a large number of people in the health insurance industry, against him? Why should I trust that him, when up until 2006 his record was that of a strictly moderate democrat?

Obama's approach I think is best summed up by this comment:

This isn't simply theorizing. As a political on and around the Hill during the 80s and a Clinton Admin. appointee during the 90s, I've seen this at work to resolve some apparently gridlocked issues when it was done right, and in other cases where the stakeholders weren't given the pen (i.e., allowed to participate and contribute fully to the deal, and be bound be the negotiated result), get to a good answer but by an inadequate process that let those stakeholders walk away from the deal because they were never made responsible for it.

And that's the point that I think many folks -- especially those who've seen politics only as a one-sided, bad faith attack and destroy mission from the 1990s-2000s Republican Party -- don't yet see. Negotiations can't work where the convening party doesn't have the leverage to follow through unilaterally with at least some bad consequences for the bad faith participants who would want to blow them up, or for non-participants. But if you do have enough of that leverage to get everyone to the table, negotiations aren't a favor you do for the powerful, want-to-be-but-can't-get-away-with-being-seen-as-bad-faith interests you bring to the table. It's a favor you do for yourself, because it is the only way to get all interests to take public responsibility for the positions they put forward. It's the only way to get those interests, if you can strike a deal that all have to sign onto to get their pieces of it, to accept responsibility for ALL parts of that deal (not just take the parts that work for them and attack the rest). In other words, it's not enough to be able politically to get to the "right" answer, you have to get there in the right way to make that answer fully effective and durable.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary#comments

[mmonk]

14. They occur more often with the uninsured.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Bill Ricardson on Health Care:

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/healthcare
Governor Richardson's health care plan uses new ways to expand proven sources of affordable coverage to all Americans. It guarantees that all Americans will have choices of high quality, affordable care by giving every American the choice to keep their current coverage or obtain coverage through an existing, well-established program. My plan can be paid for without raising taxes. When some do not have access to affordable care, all Americans end up paying the price.

Covering Every American

Working families and small businesses will be able to purchase coverage through the same plan that members of Congress enjoy. Americans 55 and older will be able to purchase coverage through Medicare. Veterans will get access to the high-quality care they deserve, when they need it, without bureaucratic hassles.

Keeping costs under control for families and businesses

Everyone who needs coverage will get an advance refundable tax credit based on income. Like auto insurance, all Americans will have to have health coverage and employers will pay their fair share of employee health care costs.

Eliminating High Interest Rates for Medical Expenses

Richardson will clamp down on banks and credit card companies that charge outrageous interest rates for medical care debt. Lenders need to do their fair share.

Investing in Prevention and Healthy Lifestyles

Richardson will invest in prevention, streamline administration, and support healthier lifestyle choices. In New Mexico, he got junk food out of schools, increased physical education, doubled the number of school based health centers and enacted a statewide public smoking ban.

Providing a "Heroes Health Card" to all of our Veterans

The conditions at Walter Reed and so many VA facilities are a disgrace. Richardson's plan will give every veteran returning from active duty with a Heroes Health Card that provides them with a choice of physicians wherever they live. No one who has served in our military should have to drive 100 miles to the nearest VA facility just to get care.

Making Prescription Drugs Affordable

I have helped the people in my state get more affordable prescription drugs. Americans are tired of big pharmaceutical companies that rake in profits while they struggle to pay for basic, lifesaving medicines. The Federal government should negotiate prescription drug prices through Medicare.

Making Cancer a Thing of the Past.

We need a strong focus on prevention and screening -- every American who could benefit from proven screening should get it. I am a strong believer in investing in science and technology. I will substantially boost the NIH and NCI budgets. As Governor, I increased the cigarette tax that funds the University of New Mexico Cancer Center.

HIV/AIDS

In New Mexico I created the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act. My Vice President will serve as Chair of the HIV/AIDS Commission. That will help assure that this issue get the leadership and profile that it deserves. We've just got to do a better job on education and outreach.

Autism

First of all I am for strongly increased research on autism. The number of children in this country affected by autism is just staggering. <1 in every 150 children> Comprehensive and universal access to health care is part of the solution. I fought for increased funding in New Mexico for outreach, education, treatment and awareness. This is something that I have been talking about on the campaign trail everyday and it will be a priority in my administration.

[mmonk]

15. Thanks.

This is the kind of thing I want to see more of concerning getting the plans out there.

[eridani]

18. "Coverage", not CARE.

Fuck that. What happens when the people who are "covered" find that they can't get actual care?

Note that government employees are already pre-cherrypicked (employed people being in general healthier than average), so private insurers don't mind covering them. What will happen to their rates if they are required to insure actual sick people?

[MethuenProgressive]

21. Friday kick

:kick:

[Dems Will Win]

13. I started a thread on the mandates issue -- that's become the big difference between the campaigns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2532243

THis thread also has a link to a chart showing all 3 plans...

[mmonk]

16. Thanks.

Too bad we can't consolidate but you're on the right track for debate.

[eridani]

17. Social Security has low overhead because it is run by the government

The only analogous health care plan is single payer. Edwards and Clinton are proposing forced subsidies to PRIVATE insurance. Edwards in addition calls for no cherrypicking and regulation of claims rejection, which is nice. However, the insurance companies are not going to tolerate this. If you know you are going to have to fight them, why not be hung for a sheep instead of a lamb? Single payer now!

We are already paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it. Dennis Kucinich.

[Stop Cornyn]

19. Dean Baker (Center for Economic and Policy Research) on the competing health care policies:

All three contenders have proposed a national healthcare system that is a variant of the plan developed by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker. The basics of the plan are to require that all firms either insure their workers directly or pay a fee to the government. The government then uses this money to heavily subsidise insurance for low- and moderate-income families. It also establishes an expanded Medicare-type public plan that people will have the option to buy into. In addition, it reforms the private insurance market, most importantly by requiring that insurers not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.

Both Clinton and Edwards would impose a mandate that everyone buy into this system. Obama has claimed that he would not require a mandate. As a practical matter, the healthcare system that any of them are able to put in place will depend on the arms they twist and the pressure they can bring to bear against the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and other powerful actors who will be hurt by real reform.

Any serious plan will require a mandate - this directly follows from its requirement that insurers take all comers. Without a mandate, no one would buy insurance until they had serious bills. This would be like letting people buy car insurance after an accident, and then sending the company the bill. That doesn't work.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/71650/