John Edwards on Universal Health Care

[Czolgosz]

"We have to stop using words like 'access to health care' when we know with certainty those words mean something less than universal care. Who are you willing to leave behind without the care he needs? Which family? Which child? We need a truly universal solution, and we need it now.

The time has come for a universal health care reform that covers everyone, cuts costs, and provides better care. The number of uninsured Americans has risen to 47 million. Families with insurance face rapidly rising premiums and risk losing coverage when they need it most. Individuals and small businesses often face much higher premiums and sometimes cannot get coverage at any price. Our health care system is the most expensive in the world, yet the results are often disappointing."

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

"COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa -- Democratic presidential candidate and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards told some Council Bluffs seniors on Friday that he is working to get them universal health care. "We have a dysfunctional health-care system," Edwards said during a campaign stop at the Council Bluffs Senior Center.

Health care is central to Edwards' campaign, and he told the assembled group that 42 million Americans have no health care coverage. He said premiums have risen 90 percent over the past six years and that the government has an obligation to make sure everyone has affordable health care. "It's based on the concept of all of us taking some responsibility so that we can make universal health care available," Edwards said.

Edwards' plan includes:

* Businesses would be required to cover their employees.
* Businesses that don't would have to pay into a fund.
* Health-care markets would allow people choose either public or private insurance.
* Chronic and long-term care would be covered 100 percent.
* Preventative care would be covered.
* Premiums would be subsidized.

"We're going to bring down the cost of health care in America dramatically," Edwards said. Edwards said his plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion a year. He said he would be willing to raise taxes to pay for it but thinks much of the money can come from somewhere else first."

http://www.kcci.com/news/11215577/detail.html

"One of the reasons that I want to be president of the United States is to make sure that every woman and every person in America gets the same things that we have," Edwards said referring to the announcement last week that his wife Elizabeth will be in cancer treatment the rest of her life.

Edwards was also the only candidate who said that, without doubt, taxes would have to be raised to be pay for the $90-120 billion price tag on his plan for universal coverage. Anybody saying otherwise, he said, is likely trying to sell the voters the "Brooklyn Bridge." Senator Barack Obama didn't rule out raising taxes, saying he would do "whatever it takes" to get universal coverage by the end of his first term but wasn't specific.

Edwards' plan, first unveiled earlier this year, calls for an expansion of both public and private health plans, forces employers to either provide health care or pay into a fund that does, mandates individuals to buy insurance and offers government subsidies for families with incomes of up to $80k who can't afford it....

Another high-ranking West Coast SEIU official, speaking to me off the record, said: "If the election were held today, we'd be supporting Edwards. When he comes into town he asks what he can do for us. Hillary asks us what we can do for her." In 2004, the SEIU was an early endorser of Howard Dean and by the end of the general campaign had put $65 million into pro-Democratic campaigns. "This time around I can tell you it's not going to be less than $65 million," Burger told me, referring to the '08 campaign. SEIU will not, however, endorse a Democratic candidate until this coming September.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=179039

See Edwards talk about universal health care here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs_GJrovHSs,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X-npqCSIwc&mode=related&search=,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrczxwOyUM0&mode=related&search=

[depakid]

1. In other words -this is a hodgepodge and a boondoggle

that ignores the basic problem and will do NOTHING to contain double digit price increases and adverse selection among private insurance companies.

Unless and until insurers are cut completely out of the basic benefits package- all we're going to see are worse problems down the line.

[Czolgosz]

3. In other words - the most substantive plan of any candidate, and a plan that could actually get

implemented.

You show that you haven't read the plan when you say the plan "ignores the basic problem and will do NOTHING to contain double digit price increases and adverse selection among private insurance companies."

Health care costs will be cut by creating a government run insurance program based on a Medicare model which will compete in a nonprofit purchasing pool with private insurers who will be forbidden from people with chronic health problems. Employers' administrative burden of dealing with employee insurance will be assumed by the government. If private insurers cannot compete with the government plan, which they won't be able to under their current model, the market place will winnow them out without threatening anyone's "choice" of health care.

[depakid]

4. A "substanitve" plan that will not solve the problem

It's basically Jacob Hacker's "plan" (hence the "detail").

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180.html

And it's going to set up a situation ripe for adverse selection which will doom the government sponsored plan. It's a farce, and most people in public health know that....

The honest solution involves a single payer system- one like Australian -maybe one step further- Canadian Medicare.

That cuts down on administrative waste (excessive advertising and administrative costs- like efforts to deny claims) that DO NOT "produce" health care- but make LOTS of executives and stockholder (i.e. parasites on the system) rich.

[Czolgosz]

5. Do you walk across the room in one step? Single payer is the goal. The Edwards plan says as much.

Do you have access to a single payer plan that would immediately wipe out the entire private insurance industry with the stroke of a pen and which would also stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing?

I'm all for single payer universal health care. No doubt that's the goal. The question is how do you get from here to there.

Edwards has the only plan I have seen which (1) has the ultimate goal of single payer universal health care and (2) has a plan to get there which actually stands a chance of adoption.

I'm all for Edwards, Kucinich, Gore (if he runs), Obama, Clark (if he runs) - whoever can advance the ball on universal health care and reducing poverty and protecting the middle class. Show me a more feasible plan than Edwards which get us from where we are now to where we want to be on these issues, and I'm on board.

[depakid]

6. Physicians for a National Health Care Program

http://www.pnhp.org/

Last poll that I saw showed 69% in favor of Universal Health Care- even if it might raises taxes.

Someone with courage enough to stand up to the PARASITES

See today's NY TIMES:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/business/26care.html?pagewanted=1&hp

and show people how this would save everyone money and provide us with better health outcomes could get this passed.

[Czolgosz]

7. You show me a candidate who can get elected and get it passed in one single piece of legislation and

you have my vote. We are wholly in agreement about this. I have often posted the following poll data here at DU:

"Solid majorities of every group, with the sole exception of Enterprisers, favor a government guarantee of health insurance for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes. Across the electorate, support for guaranteed health insurance ranges from 55% among Upbeats and 59% among Social Conservatives to 90% among Liberals. By contrast, Enterprisers strongly oppose guaranteed health insurance for all, if it means higher taxes (76% oppose, 23% favor)."

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948

No question that we want universal health care. That's not in dispute. The trick is implementing it. My two favorite candidates are Kucinich and Edwards precisely because they have addressed this issue. I love Kucinich's straight forward approach - if I thought that he could win and could pass his universal Medicare bill, I'd be 100% in favor of that approach. Because I am skeptical that we can accomplish that, I see Edwards phased market-based transition from universal health care to single payer universal health care as the best and most achievable alternative. If you have a viable alternative, I'm all ears.

P.S. - When you say "Last poll that I saw showed 69% in favor of Universal Health Care- even if it might raises taxes," you are describing the Edwards plan. The Edwards plan provides universal health care immediately, as the poll data shows the public wants. I understood your initial objection to the Edwards plan was the fact that it transitions to single payer instead of jumping immediately to single payer. I have see no polling data that indicates the public would reject universal health care if it is not a single payer system, as you seem inclined to.

[retread]

2. How disappointing. I expected better from Edwards. I guess I let his rhetoric

blind me.

[Czolgosz]

8. Here is how the Edwards plan is radically different from, and much better than, Arnold's plan which

uses some of the same terminology but has none of the key provisions which will lead from the Edwards plan to single payer universal health care.

For those who don't have insurance through employment, Edwards offers a "Health Market" which would allow individuals without the bargaining power of an employer as big as Wal-Mart to buy insurance on their own get the same low rates as people with employer-sponsored insurance get. To be eligible to sell in this "Health Market" private insurers would have to offer the same benefits as the local private insurance plan, and they couldn't discriminate based upon preexisting medical condition. If private insurers didn't want to compete on these terms, a government run insurer based on a Medicare model would insure these people.

Edwards would expand eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program so people too poor to benefit from tax credits could get insurance.

The Edwards plan for a Health Market has a Medicare buy-in provision so when people buy insurance through the Health Markets, they'll have the option to subscribe to government run insurance program modeled on Medicare. This but-in sets private insurers into competition with the Medicaid model. If the government run single payer system works as we advocates of the program expect, then the private insurers will not be able to compete with the government run Medicare-modeled insurance, and we'll have a single payer system. This is an intentional feature of Edwards plan: "Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

Moreover, under the Edwards plan, the Health Markets would regulate the actions of private insurers and would negotiate and collect premiums and take on other administrative functions like billing and claims processing. In this sense, some of the saving promised by a single payer system would be realized in the Edwards plan.

Arnold's plan, and Romney's, has none of these key features.

[Colobo]

9. What about unemployed people?

[Czolgosz]

10. Unemployed people would get insurance under the Edwards plan via an expanded eligibility for

Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Under the Edwards plan, everyone is insured.