Question about the Dem Candidates and health insurance

[Mind_your_head]

What are the Dem Candidate's positions/views on health insurance?

My understanding is that:

- Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who is for a single-payer system (like Medicare) for the entire country.

- Hillary Clinton supports the idea of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance through insurance companies (similar to how automobile owners must purchase automobile insurance)....although how some people will manage to financially "pull that off" remains a mystery or what would happen if someone doesn't/can't purchase the mandated insurance.

- Barack Obama ???

- John Edwards ???

-------

Any help in clearly understanding the candidate's positions on this issue would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
MYH

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Kicking because I want to know, too

And would add--what are the other's positions on alternative medicine-ie chiropractic, acupuncture, etc?

[Selatius]

2. Hillary Clinton's plan is pretty much John Edwards' plan. The only difference is...

that John Edwards was far more eager to tackle the issue than Hillary, which is why she was the last one, after both Obama and Edwards, to offer a health care plan.

Economist Paul Krugman on this issue:

...

John Edwards broke the issue of health care reform open in February, when he proposed a smart and serious plan for universal health insurance — and bravely announced his willingness to pay for the plan by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire. Suddenly, universal health care went from being a distant progressive dream to something you could actually envision happening in the next administration.

Senator Clinton delayed a long time before coming out with her own plan — a delay that created a lot of anxiety among health care reformers, and may, as I’ll explain in a minute, be a bad omen for the future. Still, this week she did deliver a plan, and it’s as strong as the Edwards plan — because unless you get deep into the fine print, the Clinton plan basically is the Edwards plan.

That’s not a criticism; it’s much more important that a politician get health care right than that he or she score points for originality. Senator Clinton may be politically cautious, but she does understand health care economics and she knows a good thing when she sees it.

The Edwards and Clinton plans as well as the slightly weaker but similar Obama plan achieve universal-or-near-universal coverage through a well-thought-out combination of insurance regulation, subsidies and public-private competition. These plans may disappoint advocates of a cleaner, simpler single-payer system. But it’s hard to see how Medicare for all could get through Congress any time in the near future, whereas Edwards-type plans offer a reasonable second best that you can actually envision being enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president just two years from now.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html

You really should read the entire article, rather than this snippet. They don't allow posting of entire articles here unlike some other boards I posted on.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Thanks

But just from the snippets you posted, I have to wonder--how eager will the next President be to present these plans and get Congress working on them? Clinton, especially, would be wary, after the fiasco of the early 90s.

What good is a plan if it is never presented to Congress to create the legislation?

[Selatius]

4. That's the problem Krugman himself couldn't answer. He was nervous because...

she seemed so uneager to offer a plan, which as he notes makes health care reformers nervous. If she only offered a health care plan because Edwards was flanking her on the left, it kind of makes you wonder if she would've offered any plan at all if neither Obama or Edwards didn't.

[Mind_your_head]

5. Good article - thanks

(once I got through to bugmenot.com and got signed in @ NYTimes to read the whole article ;-) )

more snippets from that article dated Sept. 21, 2007:

"The Edwards and Clinton plans as well as the slightly weaker but similar Obama plan achieve universal-or-near-universal coverage through a well-thought-out combination of insurance regulation, subsidies and public-private competition. These plans may disappoint advocates of a cleaner, simpler single-payer system. But it’s hard to see how Medicare for all could get through Congress any time in the near future, whereas Edwards-type plans offer a reasonable second best that you can actually envision being enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president just two years from now.

<snip>

The Democratic plans all bear a strong resemblance to the health care plan that Mitt Romney signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, differing mainly in offering Americans additional choices."

<end snip>

---------------

Okay, a couple of things:

1) In the first paragraph of Krugman's that I cite above, Krugman says, "a well-thought-out combination of insurance regulation, subsidies and public-private competition." Is there anywhere where *I* as a citizen voting for these candidates can view this 'well-thought out' combo of regulation, subsidies, and competition? If it's so well-thought out it must be written down somewhere so that we can review it and see if we agree it's well-thought out? Or do we citizens and voters have to take Krugman (and others) at their word that the plans are "good"?

2) If Clinton, Obama, and Edwards plans are all similar to Romney's Massachusetts plan which was signed into law, I thought I read that that wasn't working out so well in Massachusetts? If that's so, why would it work to expand a plan that isn't working well in one 'trial' state to all 50 states?

on edit to add referenced link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3139012

---------------

BTW, the above questions aren't necessarily directed to you, Selatius, to answer. I'm just asking in general for further discussion. Thanks again for pointing to Krugman's article :-).

[Selatius]

7. I think with Romney's plan, there is no choice to purchase public insurance vs. private insurance.

Public insurance, not having a fiduciary responsibility to generate profits for shareholders, should ultimately beat for-profit private health insurance in the end. This is why they say that Edwards' plan is a gateway plan towards possible transition to a much cleaner single-payer system like what France has.

[havocmom]

8. Thanks for that post and link

most helpful!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mind_your_head]

12. I agree about cutting out the totally UNNECESSARY middle-man....

Insurance corporations......who are FOR PROFIT ONLY!

Profit isn't bad in itself, but if it doesn't provide any useful service to people/society at large other than to provide profit for its shareholders, than it's a leech, a blood-sucker, a blot on society.

[Blue Congress]

9. collection agencies and wage garnishment

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://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/20071128-health-care-mandate

[Hidden Stillness]

10. Edwards and Clinton Exactly the Same--Corporate Control

Edwards's health care plan is exactly the same as Hillary Clinton's from everything I have heard (including a very informative town hall meeting a while ago on C-SPAN, from New Hampshire, before any of the caucus/primary votes): it is this strange "plan" where you are forced by threat of penalty to purchase commercial insurance at unregulated prices and with no guarantees of regulated coverage. It is similar to the auto insurance monopoly now, or the "Medicare" Part D scam, where people are paying for shifting coverage plans, failure to cover, etc., unregulated. It is not a plan for you, it is a plan for the lobbyists. Both Edwards and Clinton supported the credit card industry's Bankruptcy Bill (as a current thread on DU notes), another commercial stranglehold. There is no difference on their voting records, yet Johnny Hedge-Fund is eternally pretended to be the wealthy "populist," no matter what the evidence.

Paul Krugman, a huge "free" trade/NAFTA booster and propagandist until very recently (another one of these "SORRY! I was so wrong, and it'll never happen again" situations), when the country started collapsing completely, is never a reliable source to me. Kucinich is the only one who has faced this situation, proposed to get the profit out of the system entirely, and run it as a public service and Government program, "Medicare For All," they have been calling it.

[Mind_your_head]

11. That's what I was afraid of.....

The three Dems in the media-selected "top tier" (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) all basically have the same 'plan'. We citizens/voters will be forced by threat of penalty to purchase commercial insurance at unregulated prices and with no guarantees of regulated coverage.

With the state of the current US economy, widespread loss of jobs, and the lack of any new job creation, it seems like these "plans" would just really push a LOT of people over the edge.

D*mn now I don't have ANYONE that I want to vote for (except Dennis Kucinich) of the Dem nominees.

---------------

As I was looking for information, I stumbled upon this old thread that didn't get enough recs to go to the greatest page. I found it very informative. Lots and LOTS of good facts, links, info, sources:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=358&topic_id=4713

<snip>
Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
<snip>

[OzarkDem]

14. Not true re Edwards plan

Edwards plan creates regional health care markets that include both public (govt. funded) programs and private health insurance. It allows people to choose between public and private insurance, forcing private insurance to compete w/ lower cost public plans (modeled after Medicare). Regional health care markets will be allowed to negotiate volume discounts on health insurance plans further lowering the cost. All insurance plans are required to be comprehensive.

Existing government funded programs like Medicaid and SCHIP will be expanded to cover more low income families up to 250% of the federal poverty level.

Employers will be required to provide coverage for employees or contribute to paying the cost. Individuals, if not covered by employers or not eligible for Medicaid, Medicare or SCHIP will be required to purchase public or private health insurance through the Markets and will receive tax credits to help purchase it if needed.

Enrollment is required in order to make coverage universal and to keep costs down for all.

Making private insurance companies compete with government funded plans (like Medicare) will drive down costs and could eventually lead to single payer health care.

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

Its better than Clinton's plan because it forces competition between public and private insurance.
Its better than Obama's for the same reason, in addition to being sustainable in the long term. Not requiring people to buy health insurance means people won't pay into the system until they are sick or injured - which drives up the cost like today's system.

[leftofthedial]

13. obama is vague, but appears to also require mandatory insurance

edwards' plan is the one hillary stole for her plan