Elizabeth Edwards Smacks McCain Down On Healthcare Reform

by Todd Beeton, Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EDT

To his credit, John McCain actually has a page of his website devoted to healthcare reform, a feat indeed for a Republican running for president. Predictably, though, the header of his bullet point healthcare reform page reads:

Straight Talk on Health System Reform

...yet it is full of vague prescriptions that range from the obvious:

Bringing costs under control is the only way to stop the erosion of affordable health insurance

...to the well-meaning:

Dedicate federal research on the basis of sound science resulting in greater focus on care and cure of chronic disease

...to the predictable way in which he frames his talking points in so-called conservative terms:

Promote competition throughout the health care system [...]
Pass tort reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and excessive damage awards [...]
John McCain Believes in Personal Responsibility

What it is very short on, however, are specifics and anything resembling "straight talk" on one of the most pressing issues of the day. And on one of the most egregious flaws in the private insurance industry, their ability to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, McCain is absolutely silent. So, Elizabeth Edwards called him out over the weekend at the annual meeting of the Assn. of Health Care Journalists.

Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, said she and John McCain have one thing in common: "Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy." [...]
Under McCain's plan, insurance companies "wouldn't have to cover preexisting conditions like melanoma and breast cancer," she said.

The response from the McCain campaign was typically condescending and full of more vague bromides:

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior policy advisor to McCain, said Saturday that Edwards' comments were disappointing and that they revealed she did not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator's proposal.
Holtz-Eakin said McCain's policy would harness "the power of competition to produce greater coverage for Americans." Because McCain's plan would lower the cost of healthcare through competition, Holtz-Eakin said, it would reduce costs for consumers with or without preexisting conditions.

I'm glad to see Elizabeth Edwards hit back today as a guest blogger over at Think Progress (h/t Tracy Joan in Breaking Blue):

I freely admit that I am confused about the role of overnight funding in repurchase markets in the collapse of Bear Stearns. What I am not confused about is John McCain's health care proposal. Apparently Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy advisor to McCain, thinks I do "not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator's proposal." The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator's proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are left outside the clinic doors.

She goes on to demand some real straight talk from Senator McCain:

1. Under your plan, Senator McCain, would any health insurer be required to sell you or me (or those like us with pre-existing conditions) a health insurance policy?
2. You say your plan is going to increase competition to the point that it actually lowers costs. Isn't there competition today among insurance companies? Haven't costs continued to go up despite that competition?
3. You say that under your plan everyone is going to pay less for health insurance...Are you talking about cheaper overall or just a cheap policy that doesn't kick in until after thousands of dollars of deductibles have been paid?
4. Isn't the type of competition you are talking about really a rush to the bottom? As long as you allow insurers to underwrite and deny access, you encourage insurers to offer plans that may be cheap, but that get that way by avoiding people with cancer or other high-cost diseases or by limiting benefits and treatments, particularly if the treatment is expensive or might be needed for a long time...Don't you think that the kind of competition that starts with a decent level of required coverage, that doesn't exclude the care we actually need, would be better?

While I don't expect answers to Edwards's questions any time soon from team McCain, I love that she's inserting herself into this debate and that she's making it personal for both her and him, which I think is the way we win on the healthcare issue. Also, I'm just really glad to see that Elizabeth Edwards has no intention of disappearing from the presidential playing field just because her husband is no longer in the race.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Elizabeth Edwards, healthcare reform, John McCain (all tags)

Comments

58 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Great post, Todd.

Thank you.

Elizabeth knows what matters.

I did a diary on this at Dkos and docudharma. I was going to cross post here, but you've got it well covered. Thanks.

http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do;j sessionid=4F79AEB0D20E345ECD04AB1CC39F69 C0?diaryId=5688

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/1 7351/63563/711/488468)

Elizabeth Edwards Takes on McCain Again (+)
by: TomP
Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 16:34:55 PDT
[edit diary]

Elizabeth Edwards knows who the real enemy is and what is at stake in this election. While there are differences betweeen Obama's and Clinton's health care plan, both are far, far better than what John McCain has in store for us.

Last weekend, Elizabeth Edwards took on McCain:

snip

Whatever criticisms one has about one plan or the other, it is clear that both Clinton's and Obama's plans are much, much better than what McCain has in store for us.

Go see Elizabeth's questions to McCain. Think he can answer them?

by TomP 2008-04-01 03:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Great post, Todd.

here's some more.. This is from CNN:

He said the McCain proposal, which relies on market competition to lower costs, was the most effective way to ensure all Americans could afford health insurance.

On Tuesday, Edwards fired back in a blog post on a Web site run by the Center for American Progress. "The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator's proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted..."

McCain has been successfully treated for melanoma, and Edwards for breast cancer.

Edwards has also criticized Barack Obama's health care plan. She has praised Hillary Clinton's proposal, saying that it resembles her husband's universal health care plan.

The McCain campaign has not yet responded to Edwards' latest comments.

by architek 2008-04-01 06:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Smacks McCain Down On Health

Yeah!

Bloody him, Elizabeth!

by freedom78 2008-04-01 03:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

If Obama was asked the same questions, the answers

would also be surprisingly distressing for Ms. Edwards and us.

Obama claims that nobody would be turned away, but he neglects to explain that people who were not part of a group plan would have to pay obscene amounts of money to be covered. It may be feasible for Ms. Edwards to pay, say $3000 a month or more for basic health coverage, after all, she and her husband are well to do, and she is not in the situation of many people with cancer, who lose their jobs because "they missed too many days of work" and then find themselves UNINSURABLE.. Under Obama-care-lite, those people would still be in a untenable situation, because they would have to spend every penny they had, for health insurance.

IF THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT MONEY, THEY WOULD LOSE COVERAGE.

Hillary's plan has a sliding scale, and she has committed that NOBODY would need to spend more than 5-10% of their income, total. In many cases it would be covered by an employer, but if it wasn't, it would not cost anywhere near what Obama-care-lite would cost.

She pays for this by spreading the risk around the same way most other developed nations do.

by architek 2008-04-01 04:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Inaccurate

Obama's plan has a graduated pay scale, too.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-01 05:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Thats NOT true..

it isn't..

by architek 2008-04-01 07:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Thats NOT true..

Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.

Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.

Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Suggesting that something will be "affordable" to the majority of the 47 million Americans who don't currently have insurance because it's too expensive sure sounds like a graduated scale to me.

Here's another take:

There are core concepts that are consistent across all the Democratic candidates - availability of universal coverage with no exclusions, better health IT infrastructure, mandated coverage of preventive care, better reporting of outcome and quality data, elimination of waste, and income-graduated financial assistance.

http://www.joepaduda.com/archives/000921 .html

Seems to imply that, even if the costs weren't graduated, you could get help paying based on your income.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-01 08:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Thats NOT true..

What does Obama consider affordable, considering his income, and why should people be forced to get financial 'assistance' rather than a fair cost based on ones income. 'financial assistance' is like applying for welfare... Nobody wants a welfare tiered system.
He might tweak with the wording a bit in this paragraph:

"Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan".

This is not Univeral coverage.

by Justwords 2008-04-02 02:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Thats NOT true..

Quite frankly, I don't expect this plan to be the one that makes it to his desk, like I've said. Clinton's fingerprints are going to be all over that legislation.

While I think it could work, and work well, it's also terribly savvy to have his plan in a year where we're expecting a lot of Republican crossover. Forcing conservatives to pay for stuff they don't want is not a popular position, and it takes away an attack point for the general.

In a way, this is the best of both worlds for us as a party. We can get a Democrat in the White House that won't have to fight too much on the Health Care front, and we will probably end up with the health care plan of the runner-up Democrat, which many find to be a better plan.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If Obama was asked the same questions...

She may dislike some of Obama's plan, but not the things discussed in this article.

(1) No one turned away because of pre-existing conditions. That's Edwards's first point of contention with McCain, and Obama's plan takes it into account.

(2) Obama's plan also has a competition element. He wants to force private insurers to compete with the national insurance plan, to raise quality and lower costs. If anyone can buy the national insurance coverage, and it's better or cheaper or both, then it will force private insurance to make changes to compete.

(3) Obama's plan calls for reducing premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Not sure what else to say with regard to Mrs. Edwards's third point.

(4) By eliminating the denial of pre-existing conditions, this is already dealt with in Obama's plan.

Now, with regard to YOUR points:

Affordable premiums, co-pay, & deductibles, combined with subsidies for those who need them...what about that is unclear or implies $3,000/month?

Further, in the scenario you present, after that cancer patient loses his/her job, I understand that he/she doesn't lose coverage under Hillary's plan. But I see nothing to suggest that they won't have to continue paying for coverage. So, if they make $30,000, and the employer stops paying its percentage...well, hey!...that's $3,000!

Truth is, both plans are a good step in the right direction, and neither is perfect. Both are miles ahead of McCain's plan which is really a wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to address the problem by making it a better world for insurance companies.

by freedom78 2008-04-01 05:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Look, Obama's 'plan' is NOT WORKABLE.. it wont fly

She may dislike some of Obama's plan, but not the things discussed in this article.

(1) No one turned away because of pre-existing conditions. That's Edwards's first point of
contention with McCain, and Obama's plan takes it into account.

But Obama is not expecting the insurers to lose money. But they will if they charge sick people 'affordable' rates..
unless there is a mandate or a HEAVY government subsidy..

People who are employed and in a group
plan are basically where they are today, but people who are not in a group plan, or who get sick
and lose their jobs, are in a group of one. The cost to them could be ASTRONOMICAL..
But, they can not be turned away.. IF they cough up the money, which could be $2000, $3000, $4000 a month..
If they don't, they will be uninsured..

Also, insurers will still have an incentive to kick people off when they get sick.
For example, see this
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/l a-fi-healthinsure-sg,1,3627886.storygall ery

> (2) Obama's plan also has a competition element. He wants to force private insurers to
> compete with the national insurance plan, to raise quality and lower costs. If anyone can buy
> the national insurance coverage, and it's better or cheaper or both, then it will force
> private insurance to make changes to compete.

Look, I can see you don't understand what I am getting at. You just don't know what you are
talking about. This is hype. Its all been gone over again and again. There are very few things that
can be done to make it work.. You are not taking adverse selection into acccount, and that is the
killer..

Also the national insurance program is very expensive, and MANY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CAN'T AFFORD IT.

Many people don't realize how much their employers pay.. its often quite a bit..
But they are also in group plans.. where the risk is spread.. what if they are no longer in a group?

Also, tell me, how can it make a sick patient profitable for an insurance company? People like
Elizabeth Edwards are sick. They have doctor bills, pharmacy bills. If you average it over a year,
ITS A LOT OF MONEY.. the insurance companies DON'T WANT SICK PEOPLE. They lose money on sick people.
The only way to make it affordable for the sick people is to dilute the risk.. Thats what group plans do,
but when people get really sick, or have to care for a family member who is really sick,
they lose their jobs. Then they fall out of the group. Obama's plan does nothing to address that.
What about the self employed? Now they find it impossible to find affordable insurance. What does he do
for them? Nothing. Lots of swett talk but no substance. Don't take it from me, this is what Elizabeth Edwards
felt.

> (3) Obama's plan calls for reducing premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Not sure what else to
> say with regard to Mrs. Edwards's third point.

HOW WILL HE DO IT? You are living in a dream world. Not planet Earth.
Have you ever been sick, do you have any idea how much things cost?
>
> (4) By eliminating the denial of pre-existing conditions, this is already dealt with in
> Obama's plan.

What happens when you have spent every penny you have on the premiums?

> Now, with regard to YOUR points:
>
> Affordable premiums, co-pay, & deductibles, combined with subsidies for those who need
> them...what about that is unclear or implies $3,000/month?

Obama'smodel is the same model the state 'high risk pools' use... and thats what they cost.

> Further, in the scenario you present, after that cancer patient loses his/her job, I
> understand that he/she doesn't lose coverage under Hillary's plan. But I see nothing to
> suggest that they won't have to continue paying for coverage. So, if they make $30,000, and
> the employer stops paying its percentage...well, hey!...that's $3,000!

$3000 a YEAR? WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

> Truth is, both plans are a good step in the right direction, and neither is perfect. Both are
> miles ahead of McCain's plan which is really a wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to address
> the problem by making it a better world for insurance companies.

Obama's 'plan' is NOT a plan, its a cop-out, its a scam..

Its designed to fool people like you..

by architek 2008-04-01 08:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Look, Obama's 'plan' is NOT WORKABLE.. it wont

Obama's 'plan' is NOT a plan, its a cop-out, its a scam..

Its designed to fool people like you..

And here we were having such a nice discussion on policy.

What a shame that you couldn't avoid insulting someone like me.

by freedom78 2008-04-01 10:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Behavios like this is entirely uncalled for

You're spreading falsehoods and engaging in exactly the type of divisiveness that will hurt us all in November.

by noop 2008-04-01 06:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards

She also apparently didn't much like Obama's attitude towards health care either. From New York magazine:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid 45604

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out--tempus fugit!--and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate.

Ezra Klein, who seems to be generally pro-Obama, has this to say:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezrak lein_archive?month=03&year=2008& base_name=how_health_care_hurt_obama

It's depressing to hear that Obama, even in private, insists on clinging to the ridiculous lie that his health care plan is universal. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who's actually looked into it, and it sure as hell isn't going to fly with the John and Elizabeth Edwards. If Obama can't figure out how to better talk to folks who fear the gaps in his plan, he's not half the politician I thought he was. And it's an interesting sidenote to this election that Obama's weak health care plan may have imposed a substantial political cost, in that it cost him Edwards early, and potentially meaningful, endorsement.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-01 04:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yes.. that is really important..

This is not some little thing, its huge..

OBAMA IS LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...

by architek 2008-04-01 08:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yes.. that is really important..

Let me help rephrase just a tad in the interest of 'unity'...

This is not some little thing, it's huge..

Obama does not quite understand the significance of the limited timing and how important this issue is and should take a another look at his plan and perhaps tweak it a bit. (he has people- lol)

by Justwords 2008-04-02 02:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Smacks McCain Down

Elizabeth Edwards for VP!

by midvalley 2008-04-01 04:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

smaks his forehead

damn, I like that idea!

by zerosumgame 2008-04-01 04:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Smacks McCain Down

Me too.

Strong female to assuage Hillary voters.

Strong progressive (probably more progressive than John Edwards).

Southerner who could garner many votes others could not.

Mostly been vetted (along with John Edwards).

Relatively young -- could run for President in 1016 (if she doesn't die of cancer first).

by RandomNonviolence 2008-04-01 05:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Smacks McCain Down

Wow I just read this idea and thought about how awesome it would be... then I remembered her unfortunate condition... I fear I will always remember this thought as what could have been. But man would I love to see it happen!

by JDF 2008-04-01 06:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards

McCain is incredibly weak in so many areas. Democrats already enjoy a 20+ point advantage when it comes to who Americans trust on healthcare, with costs rising so dramatically in the past few years it's the perfect area to hit him on. That is, if his rabid support of the unpopular Iraq occupation doesn't do him in first.

by Skaje 2008-04-01 04:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards

I agree McCain is weak in healthcare but he can backfire it into the tax and spend democrat so the plan better be all sewn up in how to fund, or should I say how to transfer funds already being spent now into paying for the plan. I know this seems ridiculous from the 'borrow and spend and debt' party...but that old soundbite has worked for them for years.

by Justwords 2008-04-02 01:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great Plan

Elizabeth may be critical about McCain's plan, but she really likes Clinton's plan.

From the LA Times a couple of days ago(http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition /asection/la-na-health30mar30,1,6373408. story):

She [Elizabeth Edwards] declined Saturday to make an endorsement in the presidential race. But Edwards said she favored Hillary Rodham Clinton's healthcare plan over Barack Obama's.

"Sen. Clinton's plan is a great plan" that closely resembles John Edwards' proposal, she said. Clinton's plan mandates that every American be insured. Elizabeth Edwards said only universal healthcare would resolve one of the problems plaguing the healthcare system -- its soaring cost.

"Until we get rid of the need for hospitals and other providers to cover the costs of people who are not covered . . . the overall cost is not going to go down," she said. "The only real cost savings comes when you have universality."

I wish she would go ahead and endorse Clinton even if John isn't ready to endorse.

by LakersFan 2008-04-01 04:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great

It remains amazing to me that universal health care is hanging by a thread--in the freaking Democratic primary!

by OrangeFur 2008-04-01 04:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great

As far as I'm concerned, anything less than universal coverage is unacceptable.

by LakersFan 2008-04-01 04:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great

Sadly, it appears that many top Democrats don't share that opinion, though I do.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-01 04:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Those are the people who are DESTROYING US..

they should join the Republicans..

because that is a Republican position.. If they can't support it, WHAT DO THEY SUPPORT?

what is the issue that makes them think they are Democrats?

by architek 2008-04-01 08:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Progress is better than no progress

I want true universal health care, too, but one step at a time. The insurance companies and medical establishment are not going to let UHC come to pass without a fight. Best to get something for the interim while we maneuver for the knockout punch.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-01 04:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Non-Universal coverage = no progress

Clinton's plan is "one step at a time". That's why she's including private insurers so they won't stand in the way. The insurers will be more cooperative if we have mandated UHC because they know they will have many more guaranteed customers. We must have UHC to deal with the medical establishment, because they continually use the cost of the uninsured as their excuse for charging exhorbitant rates.

If everyone isn't covered, the plan isn't going to achieve the cost controls and guaranteed coverage that are essential for fixing our health care crisis.

by LakersFan 2008-04-01 05:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Non-Universal coverage = no progress

Quite honestly, if Obama is president, I expect that the health care plan that comes to his desk will end up looking more like Clinton's anyway; she's going to be the one in the Senate committees scribbling things in the margins.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-01 07:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

No it won't..

It will be eight years, minimum, before we get change..

The people will have spoken.. "they will have said they don't want it"

Obama is against it, they voted for him.. etc, etc..

by architek 2008-04-01 08:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

I have no idea what you just said.

Obama isn't against universal health care. Ted Kennedy probably wouldn't have endorsed him if he were.

I don't know where you get this stuff.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-01 08:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I have no idea what you just said.

But it's not a priority for him. It is for me, and it is for Clinton. For those of us who regularly have to deal with the nightmare of health care in this country, this is a very serious issue that affects our daily lives and determines who we vote for.

by LakersFan 2008-04-01 10:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I have no idea what you just said.

Agree- the candidates are not the same on the issues, better than the republicans, but they do have differences that are glaring for some but not for others.

by Justwords 2008-04-02 01:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: No it won't..

LOL- You do realize we have been fighting for universal coverage since the early 70's? Of course back then it was a communist plot, a socialized program linked to socialist communism and still is by many Republicans. We thought we had a chance to revive it when Hillary became first lady and worked hard to get something passed, but she was blocked. NOW...it not only affects the little guy- the high costs are affecting the corporations, government workers, state workers...so there is a bit more incentive than just caring about the 'little' people now. Still there is no guarantee we'll get it and it WILL take years, not months of hard work and set backs.

by Justwords 2008-04-02 01:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great

Agreed! Without the universal mandate and the spread of risk across the universal pool it wont lower costs and pre-ex will leave uninsured millions seeking emergency treatment for chronic illnesses. Kerry's universal health care is a 'non-starter- on the Senate comments this weekend seem to suggest the 'elites' have no intention of working for universal health care, and as I suspected may be backing Obama because his plan calls for implementation, by the END of his first term and they dont want a fight. Well too bad we elected you to fight for health care among other things do your jobs elites, govern for the people!!

by ginaswo 2008-04-01 04:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Big city teaching hospitals are CLOSING..

where will those people GO?

by architek 2008-04-01 08:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Universal <> Cost Savings

This is another economic/mathematical absurdity. There is no logical reason for the overall costs of healthcare to go down just because you have maybe 10-20% more usage of the healthcare system due to universal healthcare.

Mostly there is just cost shifting amongst the hidden and open parts of the system. One example is that charity cases reduce to 0 so providers reduce their subsidies by charging more for insured patients. To the previously insured patient it appears their charges go down, but then the previously uninsured patients costs go up. Since the insurer pays for both, there is no net difference. Since the universal healthcare is payed for by progressive taxation, a complex and indirect method, once again the clarity of whether prices change is obscured.

What is clear, is that once people with no insurance have insurance, they will use the system more. Generally that means an increase in overall healthcare costs. At some point it is possible that this use of the system could reduce costs if more people take this opportunity at greater insurance coverage, to improve their health. But generally people compensate for that, by taking even greater health risks (e.g. overeating).

The point of universal coverage is not about controlling costs. It is about the moral responsibilities of the community.

That's the straight talk you won't hear from ANY of the "respected" mainstream candidates.

If people would emphasize the morality of healthcare services, maybe they would finally lower healthcare costs. After all, there was a time when a doctor became a doctor only because they cared about helping people, and had no expectation of wealth. And the healthcare corporations... well morality is virtually prohibited by the nature of being a corporation.

So why don't we deal with the real problems instead of all these feel good shallow discussions about how many dollars universal healthcare coverage costs.

by TheWinch 2008-04-01 05:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Universal &lt;&gt; Cost Savings

You are completely wrong. Medical providers use the cost of covering the uninsured as their excuse for charging exhorbitant rates. We have to remove this excuse. Universal coverage is the only way to do this.

by LakersFan 2008-04-01 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Universal Cost Savings

LakersFan- I think we are in the same boat here and I would like to clear up some things for people who aren't and don't understand. I had health insurance only because it was a 'group' plan. I cannot get a private plan because they won't sell me insurance for any amount of money. The company my husband worked for renegotiated their health insurance coverage (even though they paid no portion of it) on average every 6 months and those older, sicker, or those with spouses who used the insurance found themselves jobless shortly after. So now I have no insurance.

Insurance companies and the insured don't subsidize me...I subsidize them. When I had insurance the doctor's charges were reduced in a contract with the insurance company and so a $100 visit I paid a $25 copay and the insurance paid them $20...for a total of $45. Without the insurance 'break' I pay $100 for the same visit the doctor gets paid $45 from the insured patient and the insurance company pockets the profits and the $45 for a brief office visit to a doctor is fair and profitable for the doctor. The uninsured just shift a higher profit to the doctor.

Doctors do NOT treat patients without insurance or payment up front so they are not losing out.

Emergency rooms at hospitals DO take people without insurance and don't get paid for some and do take losses that they make up for in higher charges to patients overall. Insurance companies don't figure in the profit or loss in that scenario.

I read every insurance plan coming down the pike with great scrutiny. My state was considering univeral coverage on the state level (still are), but there were 3 plans and in all three, it still left me uninsured. Obama's plan leaves me uninsured because there is a tiny bit of thinking that people who can really afford insurance just aren't buying it and that's true for some young healthy people but not that many. Hillary's plan insures me and I don't think leaves anyone out and she has set a cap of 10% of income which is very welcome. I'm just not sure of the total coverage- prescriptions etc. Plus I know that either plan is going to get watered down and it may end up excluding me again in the end.

I don't mind paying my fair share as long as my fair share is fair and represents a figure I can actually afford and still have a roof over my head and food on the table, which is not the position I am in now. So this is another nuts and bolts issue that I'd like to see both Clinton and Obama discuss in detail and ask each other questions- perhaps John Edwards or Elizabeth Edwards could make it a 3 way or 4 way debate and get a good plan before the general election. Affordable healthcare is on the minds of ALL democrats, Independents and Republicans who know in this economy they could lose theirs or are already having to pay the high cost of insurance plus deductables and copays that render the insurance useless because they can't afford to use it.

by Justwords 2008-04-02 01:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Universal Cost Savings

Sounds like we are in the same boat, although I still maintain my job and my family's health insurance through it, but I have to worry every day what might happen if the rug gets pulled out from under us. Regardless, I have way more medical billing paperwork than I can ever wade through, and lots and lots of copays and bills for things insurance won't cover that I cannot afford.

People just don't understand that a plan that claims to guarantee access to coverage isn't enough. If the cost of coverage isn't subsidized or capped at a percent of income, people like you and me will never be able to afford the premiums.

I disagree with you somewhat about how the uninsured affect medical bills. While most private doctors and medical facilities won't see patients without insurance, they still get stuck with bills fairly often. Sometimes insurance refuses to pay for treatments already rendered, or patients lose insurance while they're being treated. Some doctors "write-off" the copays for their patients who have insurance and can't to pay the balance. Those who don't intentionally write-off the copays often end up not collecting them anyway.

Hospitals also have to deal with the uninsured beyond the emergency room. If you come into an emergency room and you have to be admitted to the hospital, you get admitted regardless of insurance (although maybe not to the same hospital).

But the key point is: We have to take the excuse of covering the uninsured (and under-insured) away from the medical providers, especially hospitals. They are charging way too much for many, many services because they always have this excuse for why they need to overcharge everyone. And the insurance companies don't really mind paying those big bills as long as our premiums cover their costs and still provide them with fat profits.

Right now, the medical providers and insurers call all of the shots and we're stuck with whatever they give us (or not). We have to turn this whole system around and make it work for all of us, and we need to do it now.

by LakersFan 2008-04-02 11:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Universal &lt;&gt; Cost Savings

In addition, when uninsured people do eventually turn to the health care system, they are generally much sicker and require much higher cost treatments than people who are insured and have regular check-ups, preventative care and immunizations. Plus, it forces people to use emergency rooms as their primary care providers, which is the most expensive way possible to have a flu or strep throat diagnosed.

Trying to control health care costs without covering everyone is very short-sighted and doomed to failure. And it is totally immoral to leave millions of our fellow American without access to health care.

by LakersFan 2008-04-01 05:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Also, they lose their jobs..

If you don't have insurance, get really sick and have to go to an emergency room, it often takes a whole day to be seen, sometimes even more.. there is no way you can deal with that and keep a job ..

and the bill is huge... even if you can't pay it, it hangs over you.

by architek 2008-04-01 08:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great P

It amazes me that in a post about my favorite Democrat (Elizabeth Edwards) attacking John McCain we have to hear from people arguing about Hillary versus Obama. Can't we just leave it alone? Does it have to be the constant focal point? Can we talk about beating McCain regardless of who are nominee is a little bit at least??

You people are exhausting.

by JDF 2008-04-01 06:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

No, we CAN'T and WON'T leave it alone..

would you leave something really important to you alone?

Not if you wanted to maintain your self respect...

by architek 2008-04-01 08:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great P

The article I quoted from was titled "McCain's health plan fails her test". I think that's about as on-topic as possible.

It was Elizabeth Edwards who made the comparison between the plans. Sorry if it's too exhausting for you to hear the truth about our health care system from people (like Elizabeth and me) who actually deal with it on a regular basis.

by LakersFan 2008-04-01 11:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great P

What is exhausting to me is the people around here (I would love to call them something else but will try to restrain myself) who find more joy, or whatever it is they find in it, in attacking other Democrats than they do in attacking the actual opposition.

What is exhausting to me is the people around here, for whom there are plenty of less flattering names, who are more interested in burning down the party in favor of their chosen candidate than they are in building the party regardless of which one of these two it finally is.

by JDF 2008-04-02 09:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Thinks Clinton Has a Great P

Well then direct your comment to someone else because I don't do those any of those things. This diary was about an important issue that determines how I vote and I wrote completely on topic. The only criticism of Obama was from Elizabeth Edwards (your favorite Democrat), so maybe you need to take it up with her.

by LakersFan 2008-04-02 10:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hopefully more McCain stuff will get traction

I just posted one myself, though it's not as good as yours.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/1/18454 3/1882

by Dracomicron 2008-04-01 04:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

I Want Her Campaigning in the General

I don't care who gets the nomination, but especially if it's Obama. I hope he and Elizabeth can mend their fences. She has this talent for skewering McCain that Obama can't approach.

I mean, who here wouldn't love to see a McCain - Edwards (Elizabeth, that is) debate.

by Bob Miller 2008-04-01 04:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

McCain Economics=Ignorance about Insurance

McCain's Republican talking point (competition cures all ills) is just plain ignorant about the economics of insurance and he clearly doesn't understand how competition actually works.

There is only one reason insurance companies don't want to insure people with pre-existing conditions: because then the insurance company isn't betting it's profitability against a risk, they are betting their profitability against a near-certainty.

People with pre-existing conditions will virtually always buy insurance, while people without are less likely to buy insurance.

No insurance company wants to move from the status quo of pre-existing condition exclusions because they have to raise their rates, which makes them LESS-competitive.

The only way to change this situation is to change the status-quo: to force all insurers to accept any applicant. Then no insurer will have a COMPETITIVE advantage by cherry picking healthier customers.

Once pre-existing condition exclusions are disallowed, insurers will still have other ways to compete. But any actuary or any economist or any person with decent skills in math and common sense
can tell you that the pre-existing condition problem CAN NOT be solved by claims of somehow improving competition. 2+2<>5, no matter how many stupid Republicans claim otherwise.

by TheWinch 2008-04-01 04:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: McCain Economics=Ignorance about Insurance

> McCain's Republican talking point
> (competition cures all ills) is just
> plain ignorant about the economics of
> insurance and he clearly doesn't
> understand how competition actually
> works.
>

Yes, of course..

> There is only one reason insurance
> companies don't want to insure people
> with pre-existing conditions: because
> then the insurance company isn't betting
> it's profitability against a risk, they
> are betting their profitability against
> a near-certainty.
>
Yes, exactly. People like Elizabeth Edwards
have cancer. Her treatment probably costs
thousands of dollars a year. Some of the drugs
they use to treat cancer cost thousands of dollars
for a single dose, for example. An MRI can cost
$4000. A few days in the ICU can cost $50,000

> People with pre-existing conditions will
> virtually always buy insurance, while
> people without are less likely to buy
> insurance.
>

Thats NOT true, people with pre-existing conditions
cant get insurance. They can't afford it or
they are simply turned down. In states that don't allow cherry-picking, they charge so much more, few buy it, driving the price up still more..

Thats what we will get with Obama.

> No insurance company wants to move from
> the status quo of pre-existing condition
> exclusions because they have to raise
> their rates, which makes them
> LESS-competitive.
>
I reject that argument. The way we use groups
(like employees of a company) to price insurance is
fundamentally flawed..

> The only way to change this situation is
> to change the status-quo: to force all
> insurers to accept any applicant. Then
> no insurer will have a COMPETITIVE
> advantage by cherry picking healthier
> customers.
>

yes, that is what we should have done a long time ago.
That is what the Clintons tried to do in 1993

BUT THEY STOPPED IT. Obama's current healthcare guy, Jim Collins
basically was the person behind the universal
healthcare plan killer plan. And indeed, it has killed people,
even though it didn't pass.

> Once pre-existing condition exclusions
> are disallowed, insurers will still have
> other ways to compete. But any actuary
> or any economist or any person with
> decent skills in math and common sense
> can tell you that the pre-existing
> condition problem CAN NOT be solved by
> claims of somehow improving competition.
> 2+2<>5, no matter how many stupid
> Republicans claim otherwise.

YES, that is exactly the point I was trying to make..

Simply eliminating the pre-existing cndition clause
makes insurance more expensive across the board, because
so few people buy it.. Only sick people buy it, the rest take their chances
and often they lose the gamble.

Some states already do that, and the insurers get revenge by
charging a LOT for the plans they offer... which are better than
those in other states...

They don't have the recission problem, though..

see..

by architek 2008-04-01 08:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

John McCain believes in Personal

Responsibility? A sick person needs help - needs loving people around him - good doctors - good care - good institutions. What does that mean, Personal Responsibility? - this is a time in life when we need others. Or should we expect kits and a manual to perform surgery on ourselves? No one wants to be dependent - it just happens.

It's good to see Elizabeth on the job. I miss her.

by Xanthe 2008-04-01 05:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John McCain believes in Personal

It was an attack on addiction treatment AND any form of sex-ed other than abstinence. "Personal Responsability" is code for addicts belong in prison, not in rehab.

by JDF 2008-04-01 06:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: John McCain believes in Personal

I remember in GWB's last or second to last POTUS speech he talked about 'personal responsibility' in healthcare. He did the usual implications of those who blame the sick for their illnesses and said healthcare cost was high because of overuse and people should pay their fair share.

Fair share? At the time I'm paying close to $700 a month out of pocket for a 'group' plan for just 2 people that was an 80/20, high deductible, high copay and nearly going bankrupt in medical bills through no fault of my own. I'm being lectured by a man who gets 100% coverage, a VP who has a heart condition that affords us taxpayers to have an ambulance follow him around with medical staff everywhere he goes and he pays nothing for his coverage and I need to take 'personal responsibility'?

I was yelling and cursing through the TV screen that night.

Our healthcare costs are high because insurance companies make grossly high profit and the pharmaceuticals make grossly high profit and the medical professionals are charging obscene amounts.

I'd also like to compliment a democratic Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown. I watched him debate on the Senate floor trying to get the bipartisan bill passed on lowering prescription costs and allowing imports. (not that we don't import most of our drugs now- just the pharmaceuticals do it- and it's okay) But Senator after Senator got up and they were frustrated because the bill was being blocked. Sherrod Brown got up and finally spoke to those politions who 'were dependent on the pharma money' to please consider the people that suffer from the high cost. I have later researched and found that Sherrod Brown 2 terms in the house and now in the senate...has refused the Congressional insurance until all HIS people in Ohio have healthcare coverage. I'm sure he can afford private insurance, but he has taken a stand that I admire. I am not from Ohio.

by Justwords 2008-04-02 12:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Fair share?

The average prescription costs $0.11 cents to make, plus the cost of the bottle. Now, even generic drugs can cost $40-50. The same drugs cost pennies or are free as part of the cost of free healthcare in other developed nations.

I think some VERY rich people, no, 'vampires' is more appropriate - are lining their pockets at our expense until we say "NO" to their life blood addiction.

by architek 2008-04-02 03:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

$700 - Lordy, how do you manage.

thank you for the information about Sherrod Brown. I believe there are one or two more who have done the same in Congress. That is really an achilles heel and it amazes me people like McCain aren't embarrassed about the disparity in coverage between Congress and Main Street. Their cover is all Fed employees are covered - the irony - many of them are independently wealthy.

Here in Illinois - in Denny Hastert's District - we had a young man running for office, John Laesch, who actually took on Denny - got no help from either Democratic Senator - and made the same point about coverage. This election cycle we get did get a Democratic representative (good) but he had lots of money and help from the party. And even at that - John, who ran again this cycle - didn't do badly at all.

by Xanthe 2008-04-02 04:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Doctors Want National Health Care

PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PROGRAM -

Reflecting a shift in thinking over the past five years among U.S. physicians, a new study shows a solid majority of doctors - 59 percent - now supports national health insurance.

Such plans typically involve a single, federally administered social insurance fund that that guarantees health care coverage for everyone, much like Medicare currently does for seniors. The plans typically eliminate or substantially reduce the role of private insurance companies in the health care financing system, but still allow patients to go the doctors of their choice.

A study published Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal, reports that a survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States showed 59 percent of them "support government legislation to establish national health insurance," while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral.

The findings reflect a leap of 10 percentage points in physician support for national health insurance since 2002, when a similar survey was conducted. At that time, 49 percent of all physician respondents said they supported NHI and 40 percent opposed it.

Support among doctors for NHI has increased across almost all medical specialties, said Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann, associate director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University 's School of Medicine and co-author of the study. "Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," he said.

Support for NHI is particularly strong among psychiatrists (83 percent), pediatric sub-specialists (71 percent), emergency medicine physicians (69 percent), general pediatricians (65 percent), general internists (64 percent) and family physicians (60 percent). Fifty-five percent of general surgeons support NHI, roughly doubling their level of support since 2002.

Doctors have often expressed concern about lack of patient access to care due to rising costs and patients' insufficient levels of insurance. An estimated 47 million Americans currently lack health insurance coverage and another 50 million are believed to be underinsured. At the same time, health care costs in the United States are rising at the rate of about 7 percent a year, twice the rate of inflation.

Source: The Progressive Review, Editor Sam Smith

by Tennessean 2008-04-02 04:32AM | 0 recs