Edwards Statement on Universal Health Care

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Statement on Health Care Mandate
John Edwards for President
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement today on the need for clear, direct answers on how we will reach universal health care:

"We need true universal health care reform that covers every single man, woman, and child in America. It is wrong to leave anyone without the care they need. A universal system will work better for all of us – delivering better care at lower cost.

"Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people. The truth is that some people will choose not to buy insurance even though it's affordable, knowing that the rest of us will pay for their emergency room visits.

"But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there. Hillary Clinton says her plan will cover everyone through a 'mandate' but does not provide even the most rudimentary idea much less a detailed plan of how this 'mandate' would work. To get fundamental change in our health care system, we need a fundamental change in our politics. That starts with being clear and direct about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it."

Edwards' truly universal health care plan will ensure that every American has health insurance. He will require proof of insurance when income taxes are paid and when health care is provided. Families without insurance will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or another targeted plan or be assigned a plan within new Health Care Markets.

Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment.

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071128-health-care-mandate/

[Clintonista2]

1. Edwards finally got something right. Obama's plan is crap. n/t.

[asdjrocky]

2. First & Best.

[MethuenProgressive]

31. "When Sen. Edwards ran in 2004, he wasn't for universal health care. I'm glad he is now."

"When Sen. Edwards ran in 2004, he wasn't for universal health care. I'm glad he is now." ~ HRC
Welcome to the cause, Johnny!

[Hieronymus]

56. Isn't it great that we can change our minds? Bill Clinton now says he

was always against invading Iraq, but no one I know remembers him saying that at the time.

[provis99]

3. what a horrible plan

the government's going to seize people's property if they don't want to buy shitty corporate health insurance? I hope this plan fails if Edwards wins. It would be far worse than the current situation, and sounds like Hillary's CorporateCare.

[cuke]

6. What a horrible distortion

People will be able to choose which plan they buy. You seem to think quality insurance is an impossible goal.

It's not

[eridani]

22. The only quality insurance is universal single payer insurance

People who think they have "quality" private health insurance are ususally people who have never actually been sick, so what they actually know about their insurance is zilch--just like they don't know anything about whether their local fire department is really any good.

[cuke]

32. You are babbling now

When my father had his MCAB and Colon Cancer surgery, he was thrilled that most of his bills were paid by his insurance policy. Most people use their insurance on a regular basis. The idea that you know better than they do is laughable

[Cameron27]

38. cuke,

has Clinton ever implied anything like this:

"For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment."

[eridani]

58. I said that most people don't get seriously sick

20% of the population of every age demographic accounts for 80% of the medical costs for that demographic. The purpose of private insurance is to take money from the relatively healthy 80% and prevent as much of it as possible from paying for the health care of the other 20%.

Your dad luckily did not fall into the 33% of people who had claims for serious illness denied. Most people do not use their insurance on a regular basis, and they know jackshit about what will happen in a real emergency. 50% of the population in any given year has NO health care expenses at all.

[depakid]

4. Edwards' (actually Jacob Hacker's) plan is just another scam

"Health markets" are doomed to fail, adverse selection being only one of many problems. Disappointing, to say the least.

[Armstead]

5. Sounds good -- Sucks in reality

There's only one way to have mandated health care that makes sense -- Single Payer Universal Coverage through a program such as expanded Medicare.

This nonsense about forcing people to buy insurance from other sources is just dumb.

Look, people who earn enough have to pay taxes already. Incorporate an additional tax onto that to provide publicly run health care. The tax increase would be progressive and tied into income, to ensure that it is not an onerous burden.

[dflprincess]

8. We wouldn't need an additional tax

if we'd stop throwing money away in Iraq.

I'm leaning towards Edwards, but I really expected better from him on this issue and it's this issue more than anything else that keeps me bouncing between him and Kucinich.

[Armstead]

9. Yes re-prioritizing is another way to do it

[GreenArrow]

14. Not just Iraq -- the defense budget in general.

The drug war's another utterly wasteful expense.

Edwards talks about taking "bold" steps and then offers crap like this which pretends to challenge the status quo while only disguising it.

[AllyCat]

16. me too dfl. I was leaning towards him too, but I expected better here

Penalizing people for not having insurance is not the way to go. For-profit healthcare will get us nowhere, but broker and sicker.

[JohnLocke]

28. See post #20.

[zalinda]

10. Edwards plan is a way to get to single payer

When you buy insurance, you will have a choice, you can buy through private insurance or government insurance, like medicare. In this way, you starve out the private insurance companies, or they step up their game. Most likely, they will admit defeat, because they will not be able to cherry pick their customers. With Edwards plan, all pre-existing conditions are covered, as well as mental health. Doctors will have the last say so on their patients treatment, insurance companies cannot deny a claim if the doctor says that this should be the treatment.

His plan is doable and causes the least amount of upheaval getting to single payer. Thom Hartman commented on this today.

zalinda

[dflprincess]

12. Very good points

and it makes me feel better about Edward's plan.

I usually listen to Hartman's program - this discussion must have been on while I was in a meeting this afternoon.

[cuke]

40. Clinton's plan has the same feature

both of their plans lead to single payer

[truedelphi]

17. This adds to my admiration for Edwards. n/t

[eridani]

23. No, the private companies will continue to compete by fucking people over

Of course there is no way for you to know whether you will get fucked over or not unless you actually get seriously sick. That won't happen to most people, so they will continue draining the pool of health care dollars into CEO salaries and such garbage.

[JohnLocke]

27. But they can't under the Edwards plan

In fact, Edwards specifically addresses executive pay:

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20071126-health-insurance-companies/

[eridani]

30. Does he address the question of why insurance should be for profit?

CEO, shareholder, no difference. I like the anti-cherry picking restrictions he's proposing, but it's just mindboggling that he thinks this makes his plan more saleable to the PTB. Insurance companies will oppose those rules every bit as much as they oppose single payer, so why not get hung for sheep instead of for lambs? Makes no sense to me.

[cuke]

41. Insurance has always been for profit, as is almost the entire health system

You've got nothing but slogans. Too bad you dont have concern for the millions of people who would be covered under Edwards or Clinton's plans. I bet you have insurance

[eridani]

59. Private insurance has always been fucking us over as well.

The reason it exists is to deny health care as often as possible. Why are you cheerleading this situation? And why do you assume that "coverage" by private insurance will actually get people real health care when they need it? Didn't you see SiCKO yet? The people in the movie all HAD insurance already. Of course, most people will never get seriously sick, so they will never know if they would have been fucked over or not.

(Nothing wrong with providers people who sell medical equipment and the like making profits.)

[Triana]

25. Thanks zalinda...

...that was my take on Edwards' plan. That it is a STEP in getting to single-payer and in starving out the greedy private insurance companies--that it is DOABLE most quickly and with the least amount of upheaveal. The insurance co's would be FORCED to compete for the first time ever with a gov't funded and provided program and with each other.

Most of them would fold or otherwise be defeated. And that is THE POINT we have to get to before we can have single-payer or universal - there is a process we have to go through to get to that and Edwards plan details that (or a) process.

[tom_paine]

36. Well said and true, realistically-speaking

I wish Edwards luck against the rest of the Democratic candidates and the MSM which has clearly targeted him for that peculiar combination of ignoring Edwards' message and Swiftboating him (Swifthaircutting him?)

The Bushies and their MSM toadies have done this because if HE becomes the Democratic Nominee, he has a chance to deliver us an unstealable victory.

I don't think the Bushies want that, at all. That's why they hope for Sen. Clinton, who could NEVER amass the kind of unstealable landslide victory we MUST have to squeak out a "close one" in the Official Certified BushFriends Vote Count.

K & R for John Edwards, as close a guy to FDR as we are likely to find these days among the declared candidates.

[mtnsnake]

7. I don't care who does it, but I just hope 1 of these candidates comes through w/thealthcare for all

once they're in office.

It's a terrible thing when someone can't go to the doctor to get something fixed because they can't afford it. There are very few things more heartbreaking.

[Fovea]

11. The insurance industry or working class Americans

Who deserves what?

Do Insurance agencies deserve mandated income from less well off Americans?

Or do less well off Americans deserve health care?

Our current system shows you can't have both.
This looks like privatized social security on steroids, and I do not support it.

[K Gardner]

13. You've got to be FREAKIN kidding me? He really said this??

"For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment."

I am shocked, and awed. And disappointed. And he thinks this is not "mandated".. how? This is a total nightmare. I'm going to have to go to bed on this one. My field of viable Dem candidates just got one shorter, I fear.

[GreenArrow]

15. Insultin' ain't it?

You gotta read the fine print with this asshole.

[AllyCat]

18. I kept waiting for the sarcasm smiley while I was reading this drivel

Wage garnishment? Isn't paying for this stuff when you can't buy food, clothing, and housing already wage garnishment? Good grief.

[K Gardner]

19. Maybe its one of those parody pieces ?

I'll wake up tomorrow and it will have been a bad dream. Like the Republican debate :nopity:

[zalinda]

20. It will be mandated just as FICA or SSI is mandated

You want single payer, this is the way to get it. What would happen if people, especially the 20 somethings decide not to "buy" into the insurance plan, because nothing bad ever happens to them. They get hurt or sick and they use the emergency room as their doctor's office. I'm sure that when SSI first appeared on pay checks people said WTF?

Now, you may not understand that you can "buy" into any plan you want, from private insurance or from the government, like Medicaid. Just think of it as car insurance for your body. And those that can't afford it, will get it free, from the government.

zalinda

[AllyCat]

37. Then why add the middleman of the insurance co??

Just make it a tax like FICA or SSI (as someone eagerly replied to my post above) and cut out the profiteering. Gets rid of the red tape of having to prove coverage to file taxes, get a job, or hell, probably even buy groceries. I mean, where would it stop?? Just make it single-payer, universal care and get the for-profit crap out of it.

I do not understand why we continue to coddle insurance companies. They are making a mint off everything else we insure. Healthcare shouldn't be one of them.

[cuke]

42. Because many people do not want govt insurance. Single payer is a mandate

that offers people NO CHOICE in insurer. They MUST pay for govt insurance, even if they don't want govt insurance

[sandnsea]

21. Until it's proven to be affordable

these kinds of draconian mandates will never pass. That's all there is to it. We will lose the Presidency over shit like this.

[denem]

24. Better garnish a few mansions as well

just so it looks chipper to low income earners who get axed.

[denem]

33. Apologies - I had a non snark comment which seems to have got lost.

However he pitches this, Edwards must avoid comparisons with the heavy handed tactics of the IRS. He should be firm that the "limited fee" (my words) is not a penalty or a fine. I think he should drop the rate of interest component (it's minuscule unless you are charging punitive interest rates). And add a safety net: A straightforward avenue of appeal in cases of hardship.

[asdjrocky]

26. I usually never do this here, so please forgive me.

CAN I PLEASE JUST GO TO THE FUCKING DOCTOR WITHOUT IT COSTING ME A WEEKS PAY!?!

Thanks John!

[David Zephyr]

29. Kick. Thank goodness someone is addressing the issues.

Hillary's plan is a copy of Edwards.

[denem]

34. I don't like the interest component David

It smacks of the IRS. Unless the rate is punitive, it would collect relatively little in any case.

[asdjrocky]

35. My take?

The people here who are dogging the plan have health insurance, I might be wrong, but I don't think so. The Clinton administration, with the help of the first lady, promised me a national health plan like 15 years ago, and so far I got nothing. They had a Dem President, a Dem House and a Dem Senate. What did the people get? A big fat gift for the insurance companies and big pharma.

I JUST WANT TO GO TO THE DOCTOR WITHOUT IT COSTING ME A WEEKS PAY!

I believe John Edwards is going to bat for us. Give it a chance people.


For everyones future, JRE 08.

[AllyCat]

39. You're right. I do have insurance.

Most of it is covered by my employer. However, I still shell out $200/month for my premiums for my family. Then, when I go to the doctor, there are all the fees that I have to pay and the items that are not covered. So far this year, I've dropped another $1000 on top of that. Now, I can have that money deducted from my checks (if I can accurately predict a year in advance what I will need to pay) that comes out tax free. Then I have to wait for the paper from the insurance company (EOB) and then months for the bills from the provider. I pay the provider, then get the money from my FSA. It takes me hours to do this every month because the billing is so screwed up.

Nothing really BAD has happened to anyone. This is just preventive care.

It's better than having no insurance, but it's a huge PITA and the red tape is ridiculous. I want someone to come in and just support and set up single-payer like the rest of the nation's of the free world and get rid of this stupid insurance crap. Why on earth should my employer have to subsidize my health care? I get it because I belong to a kick-a$$ union that bargains for this every couple of years at contract negotiations. So, yeah, then I pay the union dues too to help cover all that.

Why should anyone have to go through red tape to get health care? Why should ANYONE have NO health care?
So that's why I support a candidate who wants to get rid of these stupid insurance companies and get the same coverage for everyone.

No that's fair.

[cuke]

50. That sounds very selfish

It appears that your objection to the insurance industry remaining a part of the health care system is NOT based on any concern for the poor, but by your desire to acquire higher quality insurance without having to pay any more than you are already paying.

"Why should anyone have to go through red tape to get health care? Why should ANYONE have NO health care?"

Your 2nd sentence there is disingenous. You can't really care about the uninsured. If you did, you wouldn't object to a plan that provides health insurance for them.

[AllyCat]

60. Cuke, I don't know what your deal is, but you need to learn to read what is there

and not read your own feelings into other people's posts.

The insurance industry is scamming EVERYONE. I think I made that clear, but maybe not. It is unethical that anyone in this country does not have access to health care. Making sure they have access to insurance is not the same thing.

The plan does not "provide" insurance for them. It forces them to buy into a plan. That sucks. That does not help the poor at all and that is why I will fight for single-payer, universal care for everyone.

So go ahead and continue to support this "discount insurance for the poor" fiasco if you want.

We'll just have to disagree. I feel I could make the same accusations about your stand on this issue.

[cuke]

44. I have no insurance and I like Edwards plan

which is much like Hillary's, or vice versa if you're into chronology

And the reason why the Clinton health plan failed in 1993 was because Sen Byrd killed it by deciding that the plan could not be included in the budget. Because of that decision, the plan needed a filibuster proof 60 votes to pass, instead of just the 50 it would need to be a part of the budget

[Ignis]

57. That's an important piece of history that many forget.

(Not that I'm saying that Edwards' plan is a ripoff of Hillary's 1993 plan, nor that Hillary's new plan is a ripoff of Edwards' plan, nor ... well, you get the point.)

Even in 1993--and the national understanding of UHC has changed dramatically since those days--I feel we could have made Hillary's plan work if not for Byrd's parliamentary shenanigans. What a pity, eh?

How many millions or billions have taxpayers had to cover in emergency care for the uninsured since that time? How many lives have been lost due to lack of preventative care? I honestly hope these questions keep our Democratic leadership up at night.

[Spirit of 34]

43. Great, another mandate plan

Gotta love how the top three are all debating the same basic proposal-- put the onus on working people, not employers, retain a for-profit health insurance system and screw people even more by FORCING them to cough up cash to the private insurers, no matter how lousy the coverage, no matter how expensive.

These plans are an even bigger corporate giveaway than Medicare Part D. This alone is enough for me not to support any of the top-tier Dem candidates. This is absolutely shameful.

[cuke]

45. More distortions from someone who probably has insurance

The plans limit premiums and the many of the people who will be insured are people the insurers don't want to insure because they cost too much money to insure. And it doesn't FORCE anyone to buy private insurance. They both allow people to buy insuranance from the federal govt.

[Spirit of 34]

46. Indeed I have a good union insurance plan

I've also been without it at various times in my life, once when I was jumped by several thugs and got a $40k hospital bill.

But that's beside the point-- these Rube Goldberg devices for health care are a sop to the insurance industry, so they can keep stuffing their greedy little pockets with our hard-earned cash. Such a mixed system will not be viable in the long-run, not to mention a fragmented system of payment is horribly inefficient and drives up costs. There is only one real solution-- a single-payer system-- every other industrialized nation on the planet has been using this system for decades and, despite the insurance industry's propaganda to the contrary, polls indicate that the overwhelming majority of people covered by these systems prefer it to having a U.S.-style for-profit insurance system. If Clinton, Obama and Edwards weren't such cowardly slaves to corporate greed they would support the implementation of a long overdue single-payer insurance system in this country.

These plans being pushed by the top-tier candidates in both parties are born of cowardice and greed. They should be ashamed of themselves for proposing such crap.

[cuke]

47. Good riddance, Freeper

[K Gardner]

48. So, if someone doesn't agree with mandated insurance, they're a Freeper? Wow..

As an RN,and advocate for single payer, I find that highly offensive.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org

[cuke]

49. No, but if it gets tombstoned for being a Freeper

then it's OK to call it a Freeper

[K Gardner]

51. LOL..ooops, missed that, kinda new here.. sorry !! n/t

[cuke]

52. No prob

We all jump the gun sometimes

[GreenArrow]

55. word to the wise...

not only "freepers" get tombstoned.

[GreenArrow]

54. well, "it" got tombstoned

but that doesn't mean "it" was a freeper.

I think perhaps "it" sees things a little too clearly too fit in comfortably around here.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. THIS is why Edwards will not be President.

He pretends to discuss the issue while sidestepping it at the same time.

Claims he wants everyone to have health care, but only promises health insurance, which are two completely different things.

Bringing everyone into a broken system with a plan that only serves as a boost to insurance companies doesn't address the problem, but instead gives the appearance of a solution so the talk of the problem goes away, while it continues to fester.