Edwards: Garnish Wages If Needed to Cover All

[slipslidingaway]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-garnish.html

"But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there," he continued. "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."

...Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.

If someone did not submit proof of coverage, the Internal Revenue Service would notify a newly established regional or state-based health-care agency (which Edwards has dubbed a Health Care Market).

...If the individual was not eligible for either of those existing public programs, the regional-health care agency would enroll the individual into the lowest cost health-care plan available in that area. The lowest-cost option could be a new Medicare-like public option or a private insurance plan.

...If a person did not meet his or her monthly financial obligation for a set period of time (perhaps a year, perhaps longer) the Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual's wages for purposes of collecting "back premiums with interest and collection costs..."


Democratic Presidential Candidate Edwards Might Garnish Wages, Withhold Tax Refunds To Enforce Health Insurance Mandate

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/health2008dr.cfm?DR_ID=49139

"Presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) on Thursday in an interview said that, under his health care plan, U.S. residents who can afford to pay for health insurance could have their wages garnished or tax refunds withheld in the event that they do not obtain coverage, the Des Moines Register reports. The proposal would require all residents to obtain health insurance, with federal subsidies available to lower-income residents.

Edwards also said that the proposal would enroll uninsured residents in health plans when they use the health care system or public services. He said, "So if you don't have health coverage, and you go to the emergency room, you get enrolled. If you are a five- or six-year-old and you go to kindergarten or sign up for school, you get enrolled, if you're not on a health care plan. If you go to the library, you get picked up."

He added, "When somebody chooses not to be in our health care system, then what they're choosing is that the rest of America is going to pay for their health care" (Leys, Des Moines Register, 11/30).

In related news, the Register on Friday examined how voters "must decide ... if there are two John Edwardses" because, during his 2004 presidential campaign, he advocated a "gradual approach to health reform" but today he "embraces universal health care." According to the Register, his current health care proposal is "choreographed to endear him with his party's left in 2008."


Edwards Statement On Health Care Mandate

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

"...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."


This might be an interesting link???

"Reliable and timely business intelligence on M&A and finance in health care and seniors housing"
http://www.levinassociates.com/

[ecstatic]

1. He lost me there... If someone makes the financial choice

to avoid healthcare temporarily in order to pay other expenses, that person should have that right. The person may not even be sick. Does the IRS even garnish wages? geez

[1corona4u]

2. This, is the biggest issue I have with him.

Not acceptable.

[MNDemNY]

4. We need a single pyer system..

and yes, the IRS does garnish wages.

[cuke]

8. What about people who make the financial choice to not pay SS taxes?

Should they have that right? If not, how is it any difference from being forced to pay for SS? Or Medicare?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

13. they garnish and can obviously withhold refunds - nt

[slipslidingaway]

18. Yes and also the idea of withholding insurance from legislators

unless they pass HIS health care plan, regardless of whether or not it could be done.

[Occam Bandage]

22. I disagree. People without healthcare raise everyone else's costs.

A large part of the reason your insurance is so high is that hospitals need to account for the hundreds of thousands of patients they'll never see payment for.

Auto insurance is mandatory, and should be. Health insurance is that same in my eyes.

[FormerDittoHead]

31. You don't understand! People without insurance will be kicked out onto the street!

:sarcasm:

You got it, the OP didn't. If the OP can show me how to "opt out" of getting cancer, please share it with us.

ps: it would seem the Edwards plan would be tied to how much a person could AFFORD to pay, rather than the current "flat" system where millionaires pay the same as the working class...

[Occam Bandage]

46. Absolutely. Until you can opt out of cancer, you can't opt out of the risk pool.

Refusing to pay for health insurance is bad for you, because it means you won't be getting the regular care that will increase your chances of survival (and decrease medical costs long-term; it's a lot cheaper to biopsy and treat a tiny neoplasm than it is to treat stage-III breast cancer.)

Refusing to pay for health insurance is, more importantly, bad for everyone else. You may have opted out of paying for the risk pool when you were healthy, but insured or not, nobody opts out of medical treatment. You will go to the hospital when you are sick, they will treat you at enormous cost, and everyone responsible enough to hold insurance will be stuck with the bill.

I think the absolute best solution is to maintain private healthcare providers, add universal, mandatory government-backed "insurance" paid for with taxes, government negotiation on medicines, an education campaign targeted at both doctors and consumers as regards generics, and the opportunity to purchase private health plans remaining unmolested. Barring that, we could at least start with mandating universal coverage.

[dsc]

81. Does the IRS even garnish wages? You are kidding, right?

We are talking about the IRS here.

[elehhhhna]

3. That's Universal mandatory INSURANCE, which ain't HEALTHCARE.

Sorry John, no go. Too much middle man money sloshing around.

[cuke]

10. Sorry, but even Kucinich's plan is a universal mandatory insurance plan

Medicare doesn't provide health care. It provides payment for medical services, just like insurance. You pay a Medicare premium, just like insurance. Medicare will only pay if the service is covered, just like insurance

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. Big difference is it is NON Profit

and that, to me, makes all the difference in the world. Ask any doc who has been told by insurance companies that they must treat a patient using the cheapest protocol, even if it won't be effective. They'll tell you that insurance companies must not be allowed to dictate treatment based on their bottom line rather than healing a patient.

[cuke]

30. So what?

Posters are saying the DK's plan is the only universal HEALTH plan. That's not true, and you should not be trying to distract from that untruth by changing the subject.

If you are only willing to support a non-profit plan, then by all means, say so. However, people shouldn't make false claims about how Medicare provides health care.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. I was talking about for profit insurance companies

and why they are bad. That was my focus in the post. It's the focus of this post. The problem with for-profit insurance is that cost is a driving factor. And insurance companies do tell doctors what they can and cannot do and get paid for it. So a patient who wants to use a protocol that the insurance companies won't pay for winds up either forgoing it or paying for it out of their own pocket.

That is my subject, and I'm not "changing it".

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Kucinich's plan is not medicare.

It is a single payer plan, supported by taxes, which would cover all medically necessary services. By being single-payer, the cost of all the redundant systems is eliminated lowering the overall cost even more than medicare does. Even now, medicare must base its costs on what is generated by the 'free market', with all the inflationary influences of the private insurance companies. By relegating private insurance to supplemental and luxury policies, that inflationary pressure is eliminated.

[slipslidingaway]

19. "Too much middle man money sloshing around." Exactly!!!

And mandatory health insurance, not health care.

Also not sure how access to various doctor's will play out in this new plan? Will the best doctors opt out of the public plans and be available only to those with private insurance? Will there be a longer wait time for those with public plans vs. private plans?

[cuke]

32. No candidate is offering universal health CARE

Medicare is an insurance program. It does not provide any health care

[slipslidingaway]

47. You're playing with words, not a game I care to play. What a

single-payer system will do is use the profits now going to private insurance companies to pay for health care...that's the bottom line.

[Adelante]

5. N/G

They should get behind Dennis's plan and stop fucking around with this.

[slipslidingaway]

24. Agree, we have a decade or so before this becomes a critical

expense with all the new retirees. Dennis has said that he sees a single-payer system taking approximately three years to implement.

[Mountainman]

6. I don't understand this thinking. If people can't afford insurance what good is forcing them into

debt for it?

I tell you this, there is something to not like about every one of the candidates.

[cuke]

11. The insurance will be affordable

If it's not, you will recieve free insurance from Medicare

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. But the government decides what "affordable" means

If they say if you make X number of dollars you can afford to buy insurance, they don't take into account factors like debts you owe that you must pay back, looking after family members who may be incapacitated, etc.

[cuke]

36. No, politics will decide

And so far, all programs with financial criteria take the size of a household and medical expenses into account when determining affordability and/or need.

I really doubt that democrats are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with a plan that is a burden on families. This is their best chance for winning public approval, and they're not going to blow it with unreasonable burdens on working families.

[1corona4u]

15. See, what people are not seeing here is...

IF you have to pay your insurance WITH your taxes, who the hell has $3-$4-$5-$6 thousand extra dollars at tax time? I know I don't. There doesn't seem to be a "payment plan" mentioned either.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Forcing them into debt means profits for some companies :(

"I tell you this, there is something to not like about every one of the candidates."

Agree, I'm just going with the candidate who has voted and spoken out the most for people.

:shrug:

[K Gardner]

7. That link at the end of your post made me ill... as an RN who sees people

in my ER on a daily basis who are dying for lack of timely access to healthcare, it is beyond disgusting that BILLIONS are being made on the backs of dying people. Hillary's plan is no better than Edward's - the only difference is that she hasn't specified how to enforce her "mandated insurance". Kucinich is the only one proposing true universal healthcare. My own nursing union, the NNOC/CNA, has not endorsed a candidate - but I believe they are running ads in Iowa today about true Universal Health Care and encouraging ALL candidates to get on board with it.

[cuke]

12. DK's plan is a universal MANDATED INSURANCE plan

Medicare does not provide health care. It provides payment for covered services, just like insurance. You pay a premium, just like insurance

That's because that's what Medicare is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. So wrong, so long. nt

[slipslidingaway]

35. Sorry :( it is big business which is why the corporations do not

want a single-payer not for profit system. Maybe they'll back Dennis :) he has been fighting for this since, at least, 2000. We get what we vote for :shrug:


Kucinich on Health Care and Prescription drugs 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv8wkh4FMUo
3:39 minutes

[bunnies]

9. I give him credit for laying out how his plan would work though.

Its more than can be said for HRC.

[slipslidingaway]

49. True, but the idea of automatically enrolling people in a plan

if they go to the library and then possibly garnishing wages if the premiums are not paid does not sound like a plan I could support.

An "A" for stating the plan, a much lower grade for the actual plan.

[bunnies]

60. As someone currently without health insurance,

I agree with you completely. I dont need anyone jamming some crap insurance policy down my throat thanks very much. If I cant have single payer not-for-profit... then let me make my own damn decisions. :mad: These mandated plans of Edwards and Clinton are not going to give us UHC anyway.

[slipslidingaway]

65. And people do not need to avoid certain things for fear it could

trigger an automatic enrollment in some plan :(

[bunnies]

76. wow.

I hadnt even really thought about that. It that respect the plan is wayyy to George Orwell for my taste. In fact, thats enough to prevent him from getting my vote. Big Brother anyone? No thanks.

[slipslidingaway]

77. It was the last line in this quote that made me really take notice...

"So if you don't have health coverage, and you go to the emergency room, you get enrolled. If you are a five- or six-year-old and you go to kindergarten or sign up for school, you get enrolled, if you're not on a health care plan. If you go to the library, you get picked up."

Makes one wonder what other activities will trigger an automatic enrollment :(

Everyone should want to have health insurance coverage, but sometimes there might be other expenses and as the article below points out what you have this year can easily change.

I have not looked for a transcript or video from the Des Moines Register interview which would be nice to see/hear.

FWIW in a related article that I was going to post in a reply.


more at link
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/deann-mcewen-rn/2007/11/26/massachusetts-test-drives-lemon


"As a vehicle for health care reform, Mitt Romney's flawed Massachusetts' plan is breaking down after a year on the road. The plan fails to deliver the health care reform goods as promised. There ought to be a law against repackaging and reselling this lemon to the public.

It's been a year since Massachusetts required individuals to have health insurance. Sounds like a great idea if you're an insurance underwriter working for a company that sells insurance. With the notable exception of Dennis Kucinich, all the other leading candidates for president are kicking the tires and taking the Massachusetts lemon for a spin. They're dickering over the cosmetics and the deductibles as they cruise into the primaries riding a plan that belongs in a scrap heap surrounded by junkyard dogs.
...

Major problems with the plan are being reported by the New York Times. Now, whaddya say we have a look under the hood of this fast-track profit driven machine?
The first problem is the insurers' plan to raise the costs 10 to 12 percent next year! ("Twice this year's national average.") So, the plan fails to control costs. When we "let the market decide", it will always decide to maximize profit. Afterall, an insurance underwriters' job is to deny coverage to individuals with health care needs and protect insurers from the cost of having to care for them.

A closer inspection reveals another problem. The costs to the state to subsidize premiums for the poor will exceed its budget by nearly $150 million dollars! When you stop to consider that a third of that money will be wasted on administrative costs, advertising, and inflated insurance company executive compensation packages, (instead of providing care for the sick and injured), it takes your breath away like a high speed head on crash. This "lemon" is careening dangerously out of control.

Oh, and the penalty for failing to sign up for one of the mandated plans? Individuals forfeit their personal state income tax exemption..."

[K Gardner]

78. You beat me to it! I have that article and some others about the failures of

mandated plans I was going to post, LOL. I love www.guaranteedhealthcare.org. Its a treasure of information and links and stories. I don't know how anyone could actually spend any length of time on the subject, really studying, and not agree with single-payer. Anyway, good catch on the mandates!

[slipslidingaway]

80. Please post away, being an RN you are most likely :) better

informed on the issue. It's a big change, but after reading more on the subject I do not see another way and we are running out of time.

Since you posted on this thread I know you are aware of this fact, but maybe others could give it some further thought.

"...A single payer system maximizes the risk pool..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3817742#3817796

[GreenArrow]

14. Lets see...rent, food, or health care?

There's a simpler, more cost effective, less punitive approach that none of the candidates have the guts to touch: single payer.

This plan, and Hillary's are insulting.

[slipslidingaway]

37. So true! "...none of the candidates have the guts to touch..."

[Scriptor Ignotus]

16. this will be a hard sell

...If a person did not meet his or her monthly financial obligation for a set period of time (perhaps a year, perhaps longer) the Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual's wages for purposes of collecting "back premiums with interest and collection costs..."


depending on interest and collection costs you could really screw over some people (ie poor people) who get behind.

[1corona4u]

25. Exactly...

[Clark2008]

34. Don't worry. Edwards will "sincerely" apologize tomorrow

and flip his statements around as to feed the netroots their pablum (BTW, I was netroots. The cut-down is to Edwards, not activists).

[slipslidingaway]

40. Yes, it would be a hard sell, that is if anyone is paying attention or

if the media cover the fine print. Additional collection fees and interest could really hurt those who can least afford to be hurt.


Somewhat related topic on collection fees and rates FWIW.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071120_397008.htm

"...Until recently her mother, Carolyn, who waits tables at the same roadside diner, sent Hot Spring $100 a month under the nonprofit hospital's longstanding zero-interest payment plan. Dial says she couldn't make payments herself because she spends more than $150 a month for other treatment and insulin.

Sophisticated Help

In October she learned that Hot Spring had transferred her account to a company called CompleteCare, one of the many small firms fueling the little-known medical debt revolution. Enticed by the enormous potential market of uninsured and poorly insured patients, financial giants such as General Electric (GE), U.S. Bancorp (USB), Capital One (COF), and Citigroup (C) are rapidly expanding in the field or joining the fray for the first time. CompleteCare informed Dial that under the complicated terms of her newly financed debt, her minimum monthly payment had shot up more than fourfold, to $455. Dial says she doesn't have anywhere close to that amount left over after rent, food, and other doctor visits: "Every extra dime I have goes to paying medical bills..."

[Benhurst]

17. Single-payer universal health care NOW! Anything less is

smoke and mirrors with untold billions going to corrupt insurance companies.

[slipslidingaway]

41. Agree, smoke and mirrors with profits for insurance companies.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Get for profit insurance companies out ot health care

All this plan would do is force me to buy health insurance that I don't want. Sorry, but I'd rather spend my money on doctors that heal than drug and cut practitioners. Did you know that insurance companies can pick and choose which MDs they will pay? If your MD is doing cutting edge treatments, they are often not covered, even though JAMA articles point to research showing their effectiveness. As long as the insurance companies dictate how a doctor can treat their patients, we will have lousy health care in this country.

[slipslidingaway]

42. And I do not see how these half measure plans will change that....

"...Did you know that insurance companies can pick and choose which MDs they will pay? If your MD is doing cutting edge treatments, they are often not covered, even though JAMA articles point to research showing their effectiveness. As long as the insurance companies dictate how a doctor can treat their patients, we will have lousy health care in this country..."

This is a concern of mine, cutting edge technology and the best doctors will go to those who can afford the most expensive private plans :(

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. Oh, I agree

I just am pointing it out because a lot of folks only look at the health care crisis from the point of view of the patient. Many many doctors are frustrated with the insurance industry as well.

[slipslidingaway]

54. And thank you for that additional point, some doctors just want

to move past this insurance mess and provide care.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

59. Yes

My doc runs a non-profit and barely gets by, financially. It's because she wants to provide quality care, and will sometimes give away her services if she knows a person is broke but really needs help. We need more docs like her, I think.

[slipslidingaway]

64. We sure do! But with rising tuition costs for medical school

many new doctor's will need to earn money to pay back the debt they incurred.

[zalinda]

28. You guys seem to be freaking out over something that

would turn out to be no big deal. You are equating what you pay for health insurance now, with what you would be paying if everyone had health care.

Does anyone complain about the cost of car insurance? Well, they did at one time. Now you know that if you want to drive a car, you have to have insurance. Does anyone complain about SS payments, well that freaked out about that too, once upon a time when it was first implemented.

His plan is like SSI, everyone pays in, unless you have private health insurance. Let's say a private plan costs you $1000 a month, a public/government plan could cost you 1/10 that amount. And, if you are low income, it would be less. But, if you have people who say, I'm healthy and I don't want to pay, they will end up using the emergency room as their doctor of choice, and we will all then have to pick up the tab for this person. And, btw, this person could be making $100,000 a year, but has decided he'll never get sick or get into an accident.

I really don't see the problem with it. I'm sure that the public/government plan will be quite affordable, and would also bring down the premiums for medicare. The private insurance plans will dwindle down to almost nothing, except for luxury services, and the medical insurance would then truly be single payer. There has to be stepping stones for getting to where we need to go, to get everyone covered cheaply. This is the only plan so far that makes sense.

zalinda

[slipslidingaway]

43. There is no guarantee that the private plans will dwindle down to

almost nothing and these plans have so many moving parts, opportunities for corruption and profits for companies IMO.

[zalinda]

48. Okay, let's look at it this way.

You have the public/government plan and the private plan, both are available to the public or employer. The private plan costs $1000 a month and the public/government plan (let's go high) is $500 a month. How long do you think the private plan will last unless they start throwing in luxury services. Only those who think that the private plan has more prestige, will continue to pay more for the same service.

It will be mandated that pre-existing conditions be covered. It will be mandated that doctors have the last word in treatment. And it will be mandated that mental illness will be covered.

Private insurance will stay away from the above mandates, which will fall to the public/government plan. It is called starving the beast. When health insurance companies can no longer make huge profits, they will change to another business.

zalinda

[slipslidingaway]

50. Can you cite examples where this has worked before and how

long has it taken to 'starve the beast?'

[zalinda]

57. And how long would the insurance company

hang on if it doesn't make a profit. And how long would you pay more than double the premium for a policy that gave you the same results. And how long would companies pay a higher premium for their employees.
It's logical, why spend more for the same policy, just because it's private.

Get real, you don't like Edwards and your question is disingenuous at best.

zalinda

[slipslidingaway]

58. Because in some countries the treatment is different between

private and public plans and people who have the means will pay extra for the private care.

If the promise is that this system will eventually morph into a single-payer system then asking for examples where this idea has worked in the past is not disingenuous, to me the question just makes sense :shrug: This is a decision that will effect millions of people and our nation as a whole, I would hope the plan we vote for has been implemented successfully in some other country.

If there are none then why not say so instead of trying to dance around the issue with the comment "you don't like Edwards"

[zalinda]

70. There are no other countries who have handled

health care in the way that we have. The system in entrenched into our society. We are not puppy dogs like China. We don't have a caste system like India. We have a lot of people that we have to drag into a single payer system. The only way to do that is to have the government go into competition with the insurance companies.

And yes, there will be the Paris Hilton's who will opt for uber luxury medical care, they have that in countries in which they already provide health care, so it's not unusual. It will always be so. The uber rich can't be seen getting the same treatment as the common people.

And to be honest with you, I don't give a flying fuck if Paris Hilton gets a private room and I have to be cared for in a ward, as long as my illness is taken care of by competent medical personal. I mind, that right now, I can't go to the doctor's office, or afford my meds, but people will stomp their feet and say that if I can't have the Kucinich plan, every other plan is crap.

The Edwards plan is the only one that can get us to single payer health insurance within our lifetime. It's something that the dems can get through, and that moderate repubs can get on board with. The Kucinich plan is considered by many as socialized medicine, the same type of medicine that Russia practiced, and it wouldn't have a chance in the world to being passed.

zalinda

[slipslidingaway]

79. Maybe all the people of this nation should hear the plan, and not

from the corporate media, and then decide. Right now we have politicians running interference saying it can not be done unless we go with the mandated plan first. Most people do not even know what the plan involves, what it will cover, the costs, how it does/does not compare to other countries and the long term health care costs our nation faces in the not too distant future.

Get the information out, discuss it and then decide. We need to educate people and let them decide with their votes on the local representative level whether or not they are in favor of a single-payer system.

As an example of the mandated plan here is an article/post on the Massachusetts Plan.


more at link
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/deann-mcewen-rn/2007/11/26/massachusetts-test-drives-lemon

"As a vehicle for health care reform, Mitt Romney's flawed Massachusetts' plan is breaking down after a year on the road. The plan fails to deliver the health care reform goods as promised. There ought to be a law against repackaging and reselling this lemon to the public.

It's been a year since Massachusetts required individuals to have health insurance. Sounds like a great idea if you're an insurance underwriter working for a company that sells insurance. With the notable exception of Dennis Kucinich, all the other leading candidates for president are kicking the tires and taking the Massachusetts lemon for a spin. They're dickering over the cosmetics and the deductibles as they cruise into the primaries riding a plan that belongs in a scrap heap surrounded by junkyard dogs...

The first problem is the insurers' plan to raise the costs 10 to 12 percent next year!

...A closer inspection reveals another problem. The costs to the state to subsidize premiums for the poor will exceed its budget by nearly $150 million dollars!

...Oh, and the penalty for failing to sign up for one of the mandated plans? Individuals forfeit their personal state income tax exemption. According to the story in The N.Y. Times, the exemption is worth $219. Next year the penalty more than doubles! The cost of the cheapest high deductible, bare bones plan is at least $1000. Corporate welfare is alive and well in Massachusetts! Where's the public benefit?

We can't afford to give away public resources to private corporations for their exclusive benefit. Insurance company mandates are not about controlling costs; they're about controlling the insurance industry's ability to make a profit..."


And another article

BANKRUPTED BY HEALTH INSURANCE--AND MANDATES
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/shum-preston/2007/11/29/bankrupted-health-insurance-and-mandates

[asdjrocky]

29. Thanks so much-

For echoing RW talking points. This is ridicules, I have to spend a weeks pay to go to the dentist or the doctor, do you really think it's going to bother me to pay a little extra in taxes?

When people like you, write stuff like this, it shows the true Class Problem in America. Do you know that there's more than 40 million of us out here who have no insurance at all? Do you realize that for us, we don't even think about getting check ups? Or preventive care?

Other people have had their chance for years to do something about health care in this country, and they have done nothing, but make it even worse.

Understand this, there are people out here right now, who are sick, and are not getting care.

[slipslidingaway]

44. You're welcome and I'm happy to support the single-payer

system so everyone will have access to health care, I do not support tax credits that can be used to enhance a company's bottom line.

[proudmoddemo]

38. Yeah, there's a good idea--NOT!

Take money away from poor sick people so that they can't afford to purchase their prescription drugs with their co-pays, let along eat. So progressive from "the champion of the people."

Edwards should know better. I imagine he pays for his wife's insurance out of his pocket. He has deep ones, so he can afford the $2,500 a month premium she probably has to pay. Explain to me, Senator, how single mother making $25,000 a year at Wal-Mart is going to be able to afford that $25,000 annually for her premiums. Do you propose garnishing her entire wage?

The reality is that a mandate is a red herring, and really just a giant handout to the insurance industry. A mandate does nothing to address the rising cost of premiums. If you want to actually do something to improve health care, Senator, look for ways to reduce costs.

They are:

1. Remove catastrophic cases from the system, and have the government fully back care for cancer, Crohn's, HIV/AIDS, ALS, and other "catastrophic" illnesses.

2. Put a cap on malpractice judgments.

3. Cap insurance company profits at no more than 12%, and prohibit stock options to be used as compensation for executives.

That would actually address the problems of health care. A cap won't insure any more Americans. As long as health care premiums are not affordable to that single mother making $25,000 a year, then there will be uninsured people in America. Mandates are cop outs for politicians who are afraid of the big insurance companies.

[slipslidingaway]

45. Agree "...Mandates are cop outs for politicians who are afraid of

the big insurance companies." And health care will continue to be a big problem without some bold moves.

[zalinda]

52. The mother making $25,000 a year would

more than likely get free health insurance through the public/government plan. Edwards is trying to help people get OUT of poverty, not make them more poor.

His plan is simple. Either individuals or employers may buy health insurance. They have a choice of the health insurance being either private or through the public/government. The public/government plan would mandate coverage for mental health, pre-existing conditions and doctor dictated treatment. This plan would also be tied to your income level, so some people would not pay anything for their insurance plan, while others would pay a larger premium but would be quite a bit less than what a private insurance company would charge. The ultimate decision would be in the hands of the consumer.

The mandate of having everyone covered, whether public or private, is so that the cost base is broad enough so that the expense can be shared inexpensively.

zalinda

[proudmoddemo]

61. How Does Garnishing Wages Help

How does garnishing the wages of people that can't afford health insurance help people get out of poverty? Is the government plan going to be OK, or is it going to be Medicaid, where the schedules haven't risen in 20 years and doctors can't take on poor patients if they want their practices to remain solvent?

Garnishing wages is about the worst idea I've heard on health care this year. Yes, taking money away from people will somehow make them be able to afford health care and rise out of poverty. Please.

We still haven't heard from Hillary on how she would enforce her mandates? Would she send people to jail? That is the only thing stupider than garnishing people's wages in order to "grant" them access to health care--access they should already have. Mandates are a cop out. A better thing to do is to remove the catastrophic cases from the system, which would lower premiums, make health insurance more affordable to workers and businesses and then talk about mandates.

[zalinda]

67. And you tell me, who will pay for it?

[harmonicon]

53. blah blah blah blah blah

SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE if there's a single person who who thinks any of these BS "universal" insurance plans would be better, please explain why. Good lord, what is wrong with these people? "My plan to screw over poor citizens is better than your plan to screw the poor, blah blah blah".

[hayu_lol]

55. Just another reminder that Edwards made much of his money as a ...

consultant to a for-profit health care corporation--about half a million a year.

To garnish wages will leave the poor absolutely destitute. They cannot use the bankruptcy laws now(how did Edwards vote on that bill?)and to take away what small wages they have...not a viable idea.

Prince Edward has no problem with his health care. Many of the rest of us do.

Another snotty reminder that at least Hillary came up with a plan that was totally attacked by the right over 16 years ago. As nominee, she could easily adjust her thinking on this. She would certainly have our help would she not?

[proudmoddemo]

62. Would require 6,700 per person per year

If you divide the GDP for health care by 300 million, you get $6,700. You could eliminate all charges for health care and make everything free if the government paid $6,700 per person per year for health care. I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. I think our best hope is to get a federal high risk pool that removes the catastrophic cases from the system.

[slipslidingaway]

56. "...representing 124,000 physicians, endorsed a single-payer

health care system this week, acknowledging change is necessary to aid a failing health care system....


American College of Physicians Endorses Single-Payer Health-Care System

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=80210

Washington, Dec 7 - "The American College of Physicians, representing 124,000 physicians, endorsed a single-payer health care system this week, acknowledging change is necessary to aid a failing health care system.

ACP backed the approach to health care reform because access to health care has deteriorated the decreasing supply of primary-care physicians. Costs continue to rise unchecked, fueled in part by dramatic increases in administrative costs.

ACP is the largest general-interest doctor group to support a single-player plan.

“I welcome ACP’s emphatic endorsement of doctor and patient-run health care to the growing chorus of supporters. They include tens of thousands of nurses, former Surgeons General and former Editors of the New England Journal of Medicine,” Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said.

Kucinich coauthored HR 676, Medicare for All, with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI). The bill was introduced on January 24, 2007, and currently has 86 cosponsors.

“HR 676 is the only health care plan that addresses all three health care issues: quality, accessibility, and cost,” Kucinich said. “This plan would cost the same amount of money that is now spent on health care, but would insure every American and guarantee them the care their doctors prescribe.”

HR 676 would institute a single-payer health care system in the United States by expanding a Medicare system to all. It would cover all U.S. residents for all necessary medical care including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care, chiropractic and long term care. HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

HR 676 currently has the backing of 342 union organizations in 48 states including 93 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations and 28 state AFL-CIOs (KY, PA, CT, OH, DE, ND, WA, SC, WY, VT, FL, WI, WV, SD, NC, MO, MN, ME, AR, MD-DC, TX, IA, AZ, TN, OR, GA, OK and KS). Additionally, the Kansas and New Hampshire state legislatures have endorsed HR 676 as has the New Hampshire Democratic Party."

[Beaverhausen]

63. Using a link from one of the worst companies out there - Kaiser. Nice touch

makes the rest of your post not worth reading.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Is the information wrong or is it just easier to ignore the issue

because one of the three links is from Kaiser? Why not skip over that link and address the issue presented in the other links and the referenced article from the Des Moines Register, not to mention the John Edwards site?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007711300385

"...Edwards said uninsured people would be enrolled in insurance plans whenever they used the health-care system or government services.

"So if you don't have health-care coverage, and you go to the emergency room, you get enrolled. If you're a 5- or 6-year-old and you go to kindergarten or sign up for school, you get enrolled, if you're not on a health-care plan. If you go the library, you get picked up."

Edwards did not give specific monetary amounts for the penalties he would impose on people of means who failed to sign up for insurance..."

[K Gardner]

68. I'm no Kaiser fan, but they sponsor a website that will give you a side by side

comparison of candidates - factual - on their stance re: healthcare.

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside.cfm

[zalinda]

71. Thank you for the link, it was informative

I put the Edwards plan and the Kucinich plan side by side. Edwards plan would let low income people have no cost or low cost insurance. Kucinich would raise payroll taxes from 1.45 to 4.75 percent for both employee and employer.

Which one benefits the low income person?

zalinda

[K Gardner]

73. The one that cuts the Insurance Companies completely out of the picture. n/t

[zalinda]

74. The one who cuts the insurance companies

completely out of the picture will take up to 4.25 percent more out of a person's paycheck. That will include people who make minimum wage. While those people under Edwards will more than likely get FREE insurance from the government. So, those grossing $250 a week could get over $10 more taken out of their paychecks, with Kucinich, IF his plan would EVER get passed.

Let's see free health insurance against $40 a month taken out of your paycheck. Which would you choose?

zalinda

[loudsue]

69. Who in the hell does he think he is????? A fucking nazi???

THIS is the issue that makes me wonder where in the hell he's getting his advice.

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY fucking candidate that has any CLUE about how screwed up our system is.

[1corona4u]

72. Jeezzzzzzzz......chill out....

your post above sounds much like DK...which is why most people can't take him seriously....

[loudsue]

75. Oh, now THAT was rich.

Buzz off.