"Universal" Healthcare & the Dem. candidates

[diamondsoul]

Warning, this may turn into flame-bait.

I want to talk about this persistant reference to all the Dem. candidates healthcare plans as "Universal Healthcare". It just is a flasehood and it is, frankly, pissing me off to see people misled this way.

Factually speaking there are only 3 Democratic candidates supporting truly UNIVERSAL healthcare, Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, and Sharpton. The rest are half-measures or compromises. Not a problem, honestly if they really don't think single-payer will pass just say so, and tell the people what your alternative plan is, but dammit don't tell people you'll implement "Universal" healthcare when you know full well your plan will leave 10-11 million people still without coverage!

Moving on, of the three truly Universal Healthcare plans being proposed, I'm most familiar with Kucinich's. Now I listened to Mosely-Braun's plan last night three times over, and I honestly see people still falling through the cracks with it. That's nothing against her, but the plan is just a tad too complex to work for all, imo. I need to read up on Sharpton's plan before I can compare it reasonably, so I'll let that go.

My point? Of all the candidates claiming to want "Universal Healthcare" only ONE has taken steps to try to get it passed, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich. Furthermore, from all I've read, and after going over the financial aspects, Kucinich's plan is simple, straightforward, clearly defined and provided for, and really will be UNIVERSAL for every citizen of the United States without exception. Kucinich's plan is today waiting it's turn to be reviewed for passage, can any of the others make these same claims? Are they really fighting to represent our needs and interests? How hard?

My question to everyone is this, do we really want TRULY UNIVERSAL healthcare? If so then why won't EVERYONE stand up in support of the one man fighting to get it passed, right now, today? He isn't waiting to do battle for our needs until he gets elected President, he's doing it NOW. He isn't just telling us what he'll do IF we elect him, he's doing as much of it as he has the power to do TODAY. He doesn't skip out on his reponsibility in the House to try to convince people he means what he says, he's THERE, doing his job, and doing everything he promises to do, the core of it all being fighting to get the people of this country's needs met. He doesn't miss a vote, even if he can't commit to a position for some reason, he still goes to work and says, "Ok, I'm here, but on this measure, I'm undecided.".

My friends, no matter how much we try to excuse it, Dick Gephart, Joe Lieberman and even Howard Dean have neglected their duties to the people in their bids for the White House. Now if that's acceptable conduct in an elected official to you, I must wonder why you're all so angry with George Bush. Bush conducted himself better as a Governor than he has as a pResident, yet you're willing to vote for people who have acted the same way he has in lesser elected offices? Kind of strange if you ask me.

As horrible as it sounds to say this, I have to wonder if the citizens in this country really won't look around and do the right thing until we're at total rock-bottom again. I want to stop the fre-fall we're in, don't you? I honestly do not see another candidate who is prepared to fight to that end outside Dennis J. Kucinich.

True Universal Healthcare, planned out and sitting in Congress waiting to be voted on, folks. Come on, now, can you LEAD any better than that?

[loyalsister]

1. H.R.676

Does the fact that it has been siting there since Feb. without a hearing say anything about it's chances of passage?

[LWolf]

6. I'm thinking that it's chances of passing will

rise when President Kucinich takes office.

That's the point here. Should Dennis be elected, many of the issues he has campaigned on will already be on the table.

[diamondsoul]

7. No, it really doesn't.

Consider the issues that have been foremost in the US since February. They weren't the interests of the American people, at any point. Congress only has so many hours with which to hear, negotiate and vote on legislation. As it stands, I've sat here in my comfy living room and watched Kucinich go to House chambers by 9-9:30 am, after already having been working for several hours, and remain there until 3-5am the following day.

That's just common sense. Thousands of bill waiting to be negotiated, ongoing war, budget deficits soaring steadily, now we have added to it problems with our energy delivery systems, all these things get bumped to the priority list, meanwhile the basic needs of the people are neglected. It has nothing to do with whether Kucinich's healthcare bill is reasonable or sensible enough to pass, it has to do with the pResident and Congressional leaders priority lists. We aren't on it, my friend, and we should be, don't you think?

I'm curious, though about something- If it should pass through Congress, will that have any affect on your assessment of Kucinich as Presidential material?

[loyalsister]

18. Only if

Republicans actually SAY DK convinced them.

[diamondsoul]

22. ???

I'm not sure what that will prove to you, to be honest. Given the behavior and apparent mentality of the Republicans on the Hill, I'm reasonably sure they won't admit to that even if it IS true. They're scared spitless of Kucinich, and that's a fact. They know if he gets any sort of leverage they're all just about washed up, or at least their lovely little profits are.

[loyalsister]

29. It would prove that he can get things done

He won't accomplish anything if he can't convince the party in charge of the legislative branch that what he wants to do is a good idea.
I don't know why anyone would be scared of him. His appeal is not broad.
Funny thing here. I voted Green for the first time in 2002 because the Green candidate in my congressional district was the pro-choice candidate in the race. The Democrat was anti-choice pro-gun. His main issue was NAFTA. Guess what? He's a DK man. His former campaign manager is working for DK's campaign. The Green candidate is supporting Dean.

[diamondsoul]

33. Oh but they ARE sacred of him.

Plenty of people are scared of him. And I keep saying if Kucinich is nominated the Repubs will lose Congress. I would stake a month's pay on that, because I've seen people, ordinary poor, hurting people say "I'll vote in a heartbeat for every Dem on the ticket if Kucinich is nominated!", and these are people who haven't voted in 8 or more years.

[Doomsayer13]

2. Single payer will never pass at the moment

change is gradual. Either we have a liberal landslide like we did in 1964 (which passed Civil Rights, Medicare, and the war on poverty) or we're going to have to deal with the fact that the Republicans have a majority in both houses, not counting the numerous conservative Dems who won't vote for healthcare. I'd rather have Howard Dean's plan, which in itself has little chance of passage but at least has a chance than Dennis Kucinich's plan which stands about a .01% chance of passing in Congress.

[diamondsoul]

8. "change is gradual"

Is it? Funny because I've seen some complete about-faces on US policy since Bush was placed in the Oval Office. There was nothing gradual about any of it. There can't be anything "gradual" about undoing those changes either, at least not if we want to salvage what's left of this country.

Liberal Landslide- the only way that will happen is for all those people who say Kucinich stands for what we want rise up and declare our allegiance to his bid. It IS possible to make that happen, but only if American citizens stand together and do it.

Howard Dean's plan, by his own admission leaves 10-11 million people without healthcare coverage. Not good enough. Those 10-11 million continue to add to the rising cost of healthcare, and the cycle is still not stopped.

[Doomsayer13]

17. Liberal landslide

A Liberal landslide would require a broad coalition of moderates and liberals to vote for the Democratic nominee, and I think we need to face the fact that Kucinich cannot succeed in rallying more than the left end of the spectrum. In this primary itself, Kucinich has not succeeded in breaking away from his small band of populist supporters, which shows me that he has limited appeal as a national candidate. And the way our country demographics are looking now, we need a major upheaval to change the attitudes of a majority of America in order for there to even be a chance of a populist wave, and simply vowing allegiance to Dennis Kucinich isn't going to accomplish that.

Even FDR and Lyndon Johnson didn't campaign on landscape changing ideas. Both took leftward turns when they got into office, and I think that the candidate with the best chance to destroy Bush and make a left afterwards is Howard Dean. I like Kucinich though, and I hope that he will continue to lead the fight in the house.

[diamondsoul]

21. Ok, I see what you're saying.

However, I still think you're way off-base about Kucinich's support. It's all good, I just don't agree on that point based on what I've seen happening around me and hearing from other Kucinich supporters.

"Even FDR and Lyndon Johnson didn't campaign on landscape changing ideas. Both took leftward turns when they got into office, and I think that the candidate with the best chance to destroy Bush and make a left afterwards is Howard Dean."

I have to say, while I understand your point here, I don't see Howard Dean making any left-turns after he's elected. That's one of the things that makes me uncomfortable with him. I honestly don't believe he's as liberal or progressive minded as the press has portrayed him.

[Desertrose]

26. I agree too about DK's support...more than you think

I really feel there is a lot of support for Dennis that is not on the hightech radar...grassroots one on one with people not hooked up to the internet...how do you register them?? But they are there and growing daily.....

Thanks for this thread Diamondsoul...it bugs me too that DK has been saying things- working on things getting them out there and people act like it can't happen...well, it can and will!

Peace
DR

[rusk2003]

25. We do not need universial what we need

is to make sure the working class people have the money to have health insurance give them free health insurance I don't think the Rich and Upper Middle Class should be on the same system as the Working Class.

[diamondsoul]

34. No, we need universal.

We need universal single-payer that Kucinich has laid out because it's the cheapest and most efficient plan to date. Why put the wealthy on it? Because it's across the board, and with Kucinich's plans, the wealthy will be paying their fair share of taxes. Because of that they are rightfully entitled to some across the board social benefit. The point is not to penalize the wealthy, the point is to make it so that every American citizen can be healthy and meet their obligations and responsibilities. To level the playing field.

[bread_and_roses]

36. Gradual change is a recipe for failure....

...I am part of an organization that has worked on expanding health care coverage for ten years (and on blocking attempts to gut Medicaid, Medicare). After ten years of hard work, more children are eligible for coverage, and more parents of children who fall into the working poor category. Nonetheless, the # of uninsured in NYS is the same as it was 10 years ago, between demeaning and confusing eligibility requirements and the people who fall between the cracks. (And as a side benefit to the reactionaries, the energies and time of many progressives are constantly used up on this issue.) Any plan that is not universal will be so complicated that it will be fodder for fear mongering attacks, making everyone afraid that they will be the ones left out. Americans need to ask why every other industrial country has better health care provision for its' citizens, and the richest nation in the world doesn't? We can afford it; it only requires the political will and freedom from the stranglehold influence of the industry $ in campaign financing.

[JeniB]

3. Gephardt's plan covers all who want insurance.

The only people not covered (hence the 97%) are those who just don't want health insurance. I guess they could be people rich enough to be able to afford to just pay their doctor bills out of pocket.
On top of that, he has a plan he knows he can get passed which is much better than a plan that sounds great but will never pass. You see the idea is to have a plan that actually gets insurance to the people.

[diamondsoul]

9. You're mistaken about Gep's plan.

That's not to say it isn't comparatively a good plan, because God knows it's better than we've got now.

Unfortunately Gep's plan only covers WORKING poor. People who aren't working get no healthcare coverage.

[JeniB]

20. Not true!

I'll have to go back and look up the particulars and of course post a link, but I asked him about that and he explained how everyone who wants to be insured will get it. I asked about several different circumstances. When I walked away I was convinced the statement was true. Don't go ballistic on me until I can get back with the link.

[diamondsoul]

23. No ballistic behavior here. :)

If you've got something to show me I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to take a look. I have nothing against Gep in general, and let's face it, the man has done a lot of good things in public office. I'm less than thrilled with his performance in Congress this past year or so, but that's a personal problem I have with more than just Gep.

*note, I do not hold the Head Start vote against him by itself, because I know the assertions about Republicans calling one of theirs to switch sides is most likely accurate. I simply do not approve of not being where you're elected to be in order to ask people to vote for you for a higher office. That is personally offensive to me. I'm pretty demanding of my elected officials, just ask Julia Carson. *LOL*

It pretty well seems my differences with other supporters are mostly about political philosophy. The people who make me want to go ballistic are those that keep telling me "Kucinich fits my views best but I'm voting for someone else because he doesn't stand a chance." THAT makes me nutty. Unless someone comes out and says that, though, I presume they chose their candidate because they believe that one is the best one for the job ahead.

[JeniB]

27. OK, I didn't get a link.

I'll continue to look for the WHOLE plan. Unfortunately, the website doesn't give the WHOLE thing. I e-mailed the top people in the campaign here in NH and the answer I got was "it covers EVERYONE". I'm sorry I know that's not enough, but I also know it's true. The problem is that we have 9 candidates and it's hard to keep up on all of them. Of the 9 I only have asked the extensive questions of Gep. and Dean. Gephardt is always very generous with his time in answering them. He did tell me that everyone who wants insurance will have it. If not through work then through a COBRA which will be subsidized starting at 65% for those whose income can support that and on up to 100% for anyone at 200% of poverty level and below.
I don't like that he has had to miss so much time in Congress either. Because Dean has unlimited time to spend on campaigning, not being out there would hurt Gep. apparently more than missing the votes will. Kucinich is making most of the votes, but he's lost tremendous campaign time and for that he's not up in the top level of contenders. Good or bad, I understand the choice that has to be made and I'll go along with Gep. on his decision. Maybe he felt that was what hurt him last time.

[diamondsoul]

28. I know how it is trying to find things.

I also understand sometimes it's difficult for the Candidates to be as clear as they intend to be on some issues, with so much they have to do in a day's time.

I noted tonight on the debate he said the same thing, healthcare for EVERYONE, so maybe it's just one of those positions he needs to expand on. I've suggested the same thing to the Kucinich campaign on some issues.

Dean has had unlimited time to campaign, and look at what ground he's gained in all that time. In my humble opinion it isn't much. Not to insult Dr. Dean, I just don't understand how he's been at it as long as he has and only just recently took the lead.

Also, I just think that making the Congressional votes costing a candidate support is incredibly ridiculous. Cripes, isn't that what we sent them there to do?!

[JeniB]

31. That's because you watch out for those things.

The mainstream American votes and when the candidates come around they look at them and listen to them, but don't follow up. It's incredibly ridiculous, but sitting in the house will not garner as many votes as being out their with the people. It's one of those absurd things about the general population. Personally, I think you should have to pass a test to vote!

[diamondsoul]

32. Mainstream maybe so,

But we're not after the mainstream anymore, at least not to the exclusion of all others. I figure we've got people covering the mainstream voters for the most part. That's who EVERYONE tries to sway. It's not been enough for Dems to win, and there's a reason for that.

I do have to say though, most people are happily shocked when I tell them Dennis has not missed a single vote to campaign. It tells them what it should when someone points it out. I think most people just don't think about it unless you tell them.

[no name no slogan]

12. That's outrageous

The only people not covered (hence the 97%) are those who just don't want health insurance

That quote reminds me of something Reagan said about the homeless in the '80s: "Many of them don't want homes, they like being homeless."

If they're anything like the uninsured folk I know, they probably have a pre-existing condition that prevents them from getting affordable coverage.

The costs of catastrophic medical insurance coverage (i.e., coverage for major medical problems or accidents) are completely beyond the means of almost all Americans, with the exceptions of those who can pay a six- or seven- figure medical bill out-of-pocket.

I'm sorry, but your quote does not ring true to me. :)

[Mairead]

16. " I guess they could be people rich enough to be able to just pay"

Trust me, they aren't that 3%. In general, the wealthy are the ones who take all the advantage they can get. It's the poor who 'don't want charity'.

[sandnsea]

4. Kerry's - Affordable & Accessible

Specifically says 'Near' Universal Coverage. Edwards is simply called a Health Care Plan and covers all children and some others. Howard Dean is the only one who has used the words Universal Health Benefits, when it really isn't that at all. Just to be clear.

[diamondsoul]

10. Thanks, sandnsea.

Maybe it's the press screwing it up on their own, then. I've seen tons of headlines about Democratic candidates push Universal Healthcare plans, and things to that affect. It's really infuriating me to see people misinformed, no matter who is responsible, know what I mean?

[indigo32]

19. Agreed

I think the press, and more specifically the pundits are using it as some sort of boogyman

[diamondsoul]

24. I think you've got something there.

The phrase itself seems to scare the bujeezus out of people who don't understand the concept. They automatically associate it with higher taxes.

Unfortunately, I honestly wonder about an ulterior motive as well. I've noticed a persistant trend to ignore it whenever Kucinich makes a statement that sets him apart from the Democratic pack. It's either ignored or intentionally edited to make him appear less than intelligent with the statement. Just an observation I've made, and it does happen to Dean quite a bit, too.(just not as noticable for me because mention of Dean seems more frequent than mention of Kucinich)

[w4rma]

5. Dean's health care plan *is* universal but not single-payer

…
For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline. Many have questioned the political wisdom of challenging the president on politically popular tax cuts.

I believe, however, that given a choice between having health insurance or keeping all of the Bush's tax cuts in place, most Americans will choose health insurance. My plan will cost $88.3 billion -- less than half of the president's tax cut -- with money left over to pay down the deficits run up by this administration.

My plan consists of four major components.

First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.

Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.

Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.

To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.

Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.

Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

The plan will cost an estimated, "$88.3 billion". This is paid for from some of the money saved by repealing Bush's tax cuts.

The Dean proposal expands Medicaid and CHIP to ages 25 and under. CHIP is expanded to adults earning up to "185% of the poverty level" (currently, $16,613).

For the "capitalist" half of the Dean plan: Folks with high health premium costs recived "a significant tax credit" to cushion the costs. The current "employer-based system" in use now will be modernized by upgrading it to the same healthcare coverage that "federal workers and members of Congress" have available to them.

Small buisnesses of less than 50 workers get lower rates than their larger competitors. Employers pick up the tab for 2 months in between jobs, but the costs of the COBRA premiums for those 2 months are subsidized, at 70%, by the federal government for employers. Corporations will receive "business tax deductions" as an incentive for supplying health care to their employees.

[no name no slogan]

11. Dean's Plan == Clinton's failed plan

Dean's plan is remarkably similar to the failed Clinton plan. All it does is add more people (and $$$) to the policy lists of the four biggest insurance companies in the country, while still leaving 10-11 million people uninsured. This still leaves us with a for-profit health care system that's more concerned with making money for insurance company shareholders than with the good health of their insureds.

Clinton also thought his plan would be more "acceptable" to the public and small businesses; we all know how that turned out. The big insurance companies (like Aetna) LOVED his plan-- it meant more $$ to them-- while the smaller insurers HATED it, and were able to use their lobbying clout to have it defeated.

Single-payor is proven to be less complicated, more efficient, and more cost-effective than some mish-mash of private/public coverage as advocated by Mssrs. Dean et. al. Do you really want to keep our current system of a dozen bloated bureaucratic insurance companies vs. just one (possibly) bloated bureaucracy? :)

A majority of the American people WANT a single-payor system. Polls have consistently shown that single-payor coverage is popular with well over 1/2 the population.

What we DON'T need is further half-arsed measures that take care of part of the problem. The American people don't want this, either. So why do the Democrats want to go for the mediocre solution? Hell, even NIXON advocated for a single-payor plan! Are the Democrats so timid that they're afraid to even MENTION it?

If that's the case, we're in a sadder state than a thought we were.

It's really quite simple: REMOVE THE PROFIT MOTIVE FROM HEALTH CARE. You would fix 99% of our current problems.

[Mairead]

13. When I look at Dean's exposition, it's *not* universal.

I see not quite 30M of the 40M uninsured accounted for. Does he account for them somewhere else? I've never read about it, if so.

I also note that he says his plan will cost $88G -- but that is $88G in addition to the $1.2T-$1.5T we're paying today.

I note too that, while he talks about a 2-month bridge for those 'between jobs', he doesn't seem to talk about the people who are out of work for more than 2 months. There are DUers who've been shelved for over 2 years. What about them?

[Mairead]

14. .

(somehow I duped my post)

[Mairead]

15. I'd like to point out that all candidates (including Kucinich)

focus on covering kids. That's quite inexpensive, because kids are the healthiest age group by far. When a kid gets sick enough to need medical attention, quite often the problem is untreatable.

Of course, there are kids who aren't healthy because they live in poverty, but medical care can at best offer only symptomatic relief for that problem.

I think the best way to evaluate the different plans is to see how they compare when the sick person is one on whom family wellbeing depends.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Thanks for posting this. I know all of us who support DK are

weary of how the media ignore him *and* credit others with his ideas. They have an agenda to promote, rather than factually reporting on all the candidate's views. It wasn't always this way.

[genius]

35. Good post

We need Dennis's plan.