What's so great about Edwards health care plan?

[Herman Munster]

It sounds pretty much just like Arnold's in California.

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

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.

[Inspired]

1. What's not so great about it?

I'm just thrilled someone came out with a plan. If it isn't perfect...well good luck finding the one that will be.

[ray of light]

2. Kucinich sponsored Conyer's single payer plan and single payer is

better than most.

[Herman Munster]

4. it will end up being a MASSIVE

subsidy for the inefficient insurance companies. And subsidizing the insurance of every family that makes $80,000 a year will just bankrupt this country. We can't afford the current entitlements we have and we will be adding more? Sure raising taxes is fine but wait till the insurance companies raise their rates 10% each year and every year we have another tax increase or reduced subsidites.

[gatorboy]

3. Ugh That sounds horrible!

I keed!


What would you suggest?

[Solon]

5. Read this...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.676:

[Cleita]

6. Or Massachussett's plan. All are a rehash of Hillary's plan.

Oh Canada, we need your system here, simple but effective.

[Czolgosz]

7. The Edwards health care plan is NOTHING like Arnold's in California (or Mitt's in Massachusetts)

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.