Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

I wanted the Edward's supporters to please explain his healthcare plan to me:

From the Washington Post:

During the interview, Edwards also gave new details of his plan for universal health care, which he said would require new taxes.

He said he would propose spending $90 billion to $120 billion a year to expand Medicaid, provide subsidies for people who lack coverage, ask employers to take on additional coverage needs and create what he called "health markets" around the country to create some efficiencies.

"Yes, we will have to raise taxes," he said. That would start, he added, by repealing the tax cuts introduced by Bush during his first term.

Now all I have heard Edward's supporters on here say is how he is supporting a single payer Universal Healthcare System.  Yet, this sure doesn't sound like one to me... Am I misunderstanding something here?  It sounds like he wants to increase medicaid/medicare funding, help those who can't afford it pay for it, and have employers take on additional coverage... which I am thinking is similiar to  the MASS. plan.  I guess this is a start, but it doesn't sound all that great to me at this point, and frankly businesses are going to balk if forced to pay more (being a business owner, the costs of Healthcare are freakin ridiculous... most people don't understand JUST how much of the healthcare costs their employer is picking up.)

So I am asking the Edward's supporters... Please convince me why this is a good plan... DOn't compare it to others... no, HRC or OBAMA or CLARK haven't shown us anything posts... just rate the merits of the plan and tell those of us who aren't supporting Edwards but are open minded, why this is a good plan.

Tags: clinton, Healthcare, insurance, John Edwards, obama (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

I think the ideal program would have been for Medicare to be expanded to all Americans, but I like the idea of a hybrid system as well.

I like that the Edwards plan would require all Americans to have health insurance, like car insurance.  I like the idea of health markets.  I do wish the burden on business was less, but only with the gurantee they pay more or hire more people.

I don't know about Edwards supporters saying his plan would definitely be single-payer, but that he was considering a single-payer system.  I think this is a pragmatic plan.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-05 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

There are parts of the plan I do like... The requirement for all Americans to have insurance is important because in theory it would reduce healthcare costs... our costs are much higher than other first world countries because American's wait too long to go to the doctor, thus making treatment more expensive due to advancement of conditions that oculd have been cheaper if caught earlier.  So that is a good thing.  

The health markets are a good idea, I am just not sure the Insurance companies will go for them... Unless there is a guarenteed level of pay.  They are a notoriously shortsighted money grubbing spawn of Satan industry.

Business Burden has to be less.  As a business owner, I offer insurance, which is almost unheard of in my industry in my area.  I even went out and found plans for the part timers, although I do not contribute currently to those.  But when I was an employee, I never realized JUST how expensive Group insurance is... unless you want shitty coverage (and since I have it too, I want good coverage) the costs are way high.  It cuts off my bottom line, but I offer it because of my moral beliefs.  Still, a system where I paid a lot less would be very welcome as it would allow me to pay workers more.

I could be wrong about Edward's supporters... I am sure a few of them were, but maybe I confusing the number of times I encountered the few with actual unique supporters making the statement.  

I would agree it is pragmatic, but I am not sold, not until I see the other plans from the Big 3 and the "little" two of Clark and Richardson.  My biggest issue besides employer costs is this seems WAY complex and we all know how well the government handles complexity... even when Dems are running the show... and god help us if a republican took control before the system was ingrained.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

"I like that the Edwards plan would require all Americans to have health insurance, like car insurance."

Or they don't get to live if they can't afford it?

All the candidates are doing the same dance Edwards is, not wanting to come out for the only real solution, the single payer option.

We probably need someone who can lead the American people to that conclusion and make them think it was their idea.

Obama's Illinois universal health care plan had that element in it saying all options were on the table including a full bore European system and that we would decide based upon the facts of what will work.

The facts are pretty clear that only single payer is going to solve the US problems of higher costs, fewer covered and poorer health care outcomes.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-05 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

Well until BHE releases his health care plan you can continue remembering the Obama bill that went nowhere in the Illinois legislature.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-05 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

BHO.  Not BHE.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-05 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

Can you just say Obama?  Adding the Hussein borders very much on Wingnut tactics and WHILE I KNOW you aren't a wingnut, I hate to see the tactic of referring to his middle name like that being used by a good democrat.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-05 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

It's fairly common to shorten the names by using their initials.  HRC, JRE, BHO... etc.

But if you prefer I use Obama as opposed to BHO then I will.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-05 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

"Well until BHE releases his health care plan..."

He did already, the Illinois plan is it.  In fact, Obama is the only one who actually introduced legislation for universal health care up to and including fully nationalized health care plan similar to Europe.

That's why I think Obama's plan is probably the one that will work politically.  He notes that in order to provide universal health care, cut costs and increase effectiveness, US must adopt a "Canandian style plan". But many American are not there yet so Obama's plan with the above goals as the guide will inevitably lead to a single payer system.

Obama is the person who can then sell the "only solution" to the US public.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-05 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

I agree, Brion, and I think Obama would be wise to pace himself on this, as it is a bit of a stretch for the public and corporate America.  

Frankly, at this point, we have had such a poor track record on health-care that I'm guessing most people doubt that a universal single-payer system is achievable.  Or affordable.

If you read Obama's little press release on the subject recently it seems to hint at a thorough overhaul while duly acknowledging all the other current proposals.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-06 03:55PM | 0 recs
check out Ezra Klein

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/p ost_2685.html

Where the Edwards' plan takes a big step forward is in mandating, along with the private options, that HMs offer "at least one plan [that] would be a public program based upon Medicare." And the intent is explicit: "Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

In other words, the public sector will finally be allowed to compete with the private sector, and consumers will be able to decide which style they prefer. For Democrats, this is a significant step forward. From there, the plan offers the usual mix of sliding subsidies to ensure affordability, individual mandate to universalize coverage, pay-for-performance promises, and public health fixes. You've heard those bits before. What's new, and what's important, are the community rated health markets that include public insurance. Indeed, the plan satisfied every plank of my progressive health reform test from last week.

by TarHeel 2007-02-05 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: check out Ezra Klein

Still the burden put on business seems to be more than it is now.  I don't have a numbers breakdown, but that does hurt big time.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-05 11:34AM | 0 recs
don't forget some burden is shared

people at the top will have to pay higher taxes,

insurance companies will miss out on some of the market and profits.

employers will have to make sure they pay for insurance for employees.

a shared "burden"  I guess

by TarHeel 2007-02-05 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: don't forget some burden is shared

As an owner, I don't MIND paying for insurance for my employees.  I just want to be able to pay less as the amount insurance eats into my margins is a lot... I try to offer the best I can afford to offer, but I want to see them have better care... I just can't afford it.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-05 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: check out Ezra Klein

And it looks like Ezra isn't crazy about putting the onus on employers either.  SO Ezra likes it, but it isn't perfect.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-05 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

When did people get the idea that single payer meant business get off the hook for having to pay ANYTHING?

Remember Medicare payroll taxes are collected from both individuals AND businesses. This is the same deal. It's an added payroll tax if you choose to not provide health care. End of story. Do people really believe we could have had Medicare for all without doubling or tripling the payroll tax (which means doubling or tripling the tax that businesses pay)?

I find the critique of the business portion of the plan quite perplexing.

by adamterando 2007-02-05 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

It isn't that Businesses don't pay, they aren't shouldering the burden they currently are.  That is the key.  Paying medicare taxes is fine as it is in direct relation to the payroll which in theory would be in direct relation of profit.  THe current system doesn't work that way, and I am not convinced Edwards will relieve that Burden.  If the health centers would indeed lower costs compared to the current system, or if the taxes are based off of payroll or profit, then that system benefits businesses a lot more without screwing employees... IMHO, a payroll tax split equally on ones entire Salary (not like the BS SS cap) would be a fair solution, as long as the costs were cheaper than the current system.  Again though I could be reading Edward's system wrong here and he may be proposing that.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-05 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

The fact that he compared his plan for businesses to  them paying payroll taxes for medicare or SS should show that the taxes will be directly tied to payroll.

by adamterando 2007-02-05 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

Its been a few years since my college econmics courses, but it is common knowledge in the field that the majority of payroll taxes are paid by employee, whether through their direct portion or through lower wages and salary to account for the employer portion.  Tying health insurance to payroll affects workers more than employers.  The income tax is a better way to procure the funds, IMHO.

by areucrazy 2007-02-05 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

"Do people really believe we could have had Medicare for all without doubling or tripling the payroll tax (which means doubling or tripling the tax that businesses pay)?"

Which is a huge reduction in health care costs for business and individuals.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance - so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees..

by BrionLutz 2007-02-05 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Confused about Edward's Healthcare Plan

Draft Al Gore people creates thousands of  illegal fake signatures using 75 people , who stole money from Katrina Victims.

In order to Fool John Edwards supporters, Hillary's supporters and Obama supporters unemployed Draft Gore Con Artists create fake signatures to fool the Americans. These people don't have any moral values or ethics, basically Draft gore is supported by few unemployed desperate old Ladies who are looking for attention.

Edwards supporters , Hillary's supporters Obama supporters never trust the con Artists Draft Al Gore people. These Con Artist are deceiving and lying

Edwards supporters , Hillary's supporters Obama supporters never trust the con Artists Draft Al Gore people. These Con Artist are deceiving and lying to the Democrats and the Americans with their Fake signatures which they got from few members just Like the way they stole Money from Katrina Victims. Since I am a software developer for the last 13 years I know how they are manipulating and cheating the people by messing around with the software (Elementary Level tricks) . Draft Al gore Idiots think everyone is fools and Idiots like them. These people are Criminals . They want to fool the you Edward's supporters and Hillary's supporters and other democratic presidential candidates. These people are worthless Con Artists , Liars and Crooks in the entire Universe. Evil doers, Draft Al gore People are embarrassment for the rest of the Democrats and other Gore supporters. They have may be only 50 to 70 members who support their Criminal Activity. Their behavior is disgrace full for the rest of the democrats and for the Other Americans. All they do is Lie, Cheat , con the Poor Vulnerable Democrats and the Americans.
These people would do anything to con the Americans.

Exposing the Crimes of Draft Al Gore con Artist Monica Friedlander , Susan Madrak, Neo Libman - NeuvoLiberal, MB Williams are thieves and con artists Jan Moore Stole money from the Katrina Victims.

Crimes of Draft Al Gore con Artists stole money

Draft Al Gore Tennessee woman Monica Friedlander steals Money from America By Using Al Gore ' s NameMonica Friedlander , Susan Madrak, Neo Libman - NeuvoLiberal, MB Williams are thieves .
Draft Al Gore stole Money from innocent Katrina Victims Jan Moore Evil witch Stole Money from Katrina VictimsCon Artists and Racist Susan Madrak, Monica Friedlander, Con Artists and  Neo Libman ( his Id at DailyKos : NeuvoLiberal ), MB Williams Steal money from American People By lying and conning people that they are Drafting Al Gore. These people are Unemployed worthless liars and crooks who are ripping off the American people .

They would do anything to steal money from the people.They don't have any communication or connection with AL Gore. Al Gore doesn't even know that they exist.These people don't have any Moral Values or Ethics. They will do anything to con the poor vulnerable innocent American People. The same Monica Friedlander encouraged Jan Moore to steal money from the Katrina Victims in 2005. Monica Friedlander taught that Evil vampire Jan Moore how to stole money from the people when she had draftgore.com in 2002 when she was a member of that con operation in 2002. Con Man

However These evil doers are collecting money from the Innocent, vulnerable, democrats and from the Gore supporters by cheating , lying and conning American people. Then there are few X Dean supporters and few other liberal groups like http://drinkingliberally.org/ working for these evil Doers to execute their Evil activities.

Basically they are trying to become famous and popular with your money by deceiving you America. Therefore never trust these con Artist (so called Draft Gore 2008 people) who are trying to steal your money and trying to get credit for what they are not responsible for by deceiving you America and establish fame and popularity for them selves by cheating, lying and deceiving the vulnerable Democrats and other Americans.

Neither does Al Gore has any communication with these criminals nor does he ever recognize them or support them.

by dandoty 2007-02-07 03:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------