Obama's incomplete health plan

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==May 30, 2007

THE CONSENSUS among Democratic candidates for president is that every American ought to be covered by health insurance. Senator Barack Obama came out yesterday with his plan, which comes close but doesn't cover everyone, though he implies it does. As the new Democratic celebrity, Obama faces pressure to supplement his flashy aura with substantial policy ideas. At this point, though, other candidates have more realistic health proposals.

Former senator John Edwards, for instance, would require that everyone obtain health insurance, a national version of the individual mandate that takes effect in Massachusetts July 1. Businesses would have to offer insurance or make contributions (amount not specified) so workers could get it on their own. The government would contribute tax credits. Edwards estimates his plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion.

Obama's plan includes employer contributions ( unspecified, as with Edwards), cost-saving initiatives, and a requirement that all children be insured. Yet without a broader mandate, he can't be sure adults will buy insurance. The Obama campaign figures the plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion.==

==Of the other candidates, Senator Christopher Dodd and Governor Bill Richardson favor variations on Edwards's mandate. Former senator Mike Gravel would provide healthcare vouchers to every American. Senator Joseph Biden, who doesn't come out for universal coverage, would make sure all children are insured. Senator Hillary Clinton, unveiling her plan in stages, has chosen the easy targets first: pledging to reduce the power of insurance companies and to computerize medical records.==

Read the rest of the Boston Globe piece at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/30/obamas_incomplete_health_plan/

[Egnever]

1. Edwards wants to force me to have health care?

I am all for making Health care universal. The Idea of requiring me to have it by law stinks to high heaven.Talk about standing up for the insurance companies.

[Erika]

4. Uh, if it's "universal*"

Doesn't that mean all should pay something?

[Egnever]

5. Sure

I am fine with helping pay for universal health care. I am not however fine with being forced to buy into a health plan I may neither need nor want theres a difference.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. So who would pick up the tab for your health care if you got seriously sick?

We the people. The only way to truly cut costs adequately and have the most efficient health care system is universal health care, in my opinion. Not having universal health care preserves the problem of the lowest quality of care available given at the highest price (at the taxpayer's expense) to those who are uninsured but suddenly get seriously sick.

[Egnever]

9. Perhaps you aren't paying attention

There is a huge difference between universal health care and requiring me to buy into a health care plan with some government subsidy.

Huge difference.

Universal health care implies that everyone is covered. Edwards plan seems to be force everyone to get coverage. Apparently some find the difference difficult to grasp.

As far as who pays when I get seriously sick... The same people that do now were I to get seriously sick. We already have universal health care to an extent in the fact that you can not be refused care based on your ability to pay in a serious illness. Its just implemented piss poorly.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Thanks for the condescension...

May I please tender a reply to your higheness, egnever?

==Universal health care implies that everyone is covered. Edwards plan seems to be force everyone to get coverage.==

So if everyone is required to get health insurance, like in Massachusetts, isn't everyone covered? That is universal health care according to what you said.

==As far as who pays when I get seriously sick... The same people that do now were I to get seriously sick. We already have universal health care to an extent in the fact that you can not be refused care based on your ability to pay in a serious illness. Its just implemented piss poorly.==

Under the current system the taxpayers would pick up the tab. Under Edwards' plan, because you would have health insurance under a universal health care plan, your insurer would pay, right, egnever? Or am I not grasping this correctly? Please let me know.

About 18,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance. Shouldn't that be prevented through universal coverage?

[Egnever]

12. Your welcome!

What Edwards is proposing is not universal health care coverage. He is proposing Mandating Health care coverage.

from your post

"Former senator John Edwards, for instance, would require that everyone obtain health insurance"

Not interested nope no thanks. I want universal health care I want to pay a little more in taxes into a single payer system or something similar that covers everyone. I have no desire whatsoever to pad private insurance companies pockets under the threat of jail or whatever punishment he would impose should I refuse.

And if 18,000 people a year is all that die I would say thats a pretty small issue. Freedom is dangerous I'll take my chances and keep my freedom thanks.

Just another reason I hope Edwards drops out of this race.

[Lasher]

18. I've seen this version of universal healthcare labeled as 'individual mandate'

Individual mandate sucks. What we need is single payer universal healthcare. Kucinich is the only candidate who supports single payer. From the article linked in the OP:

Representative Dennis Kucinich supports a single-payer system, to be financed by increases in the income and payroll taxes, and a tax on stock and bond transactions. This plan, which would supplant private insurance, would certainly provide universal coverage. But it would have to get past furious opposition from the insurance industry and any other group that benefits from the current system. Kucinich's is a grand vision. But if the goal is universal coverage during the term of the next president, Edwards has offered the most comprehensive, politically realistic proposal.

I do not agree with the author's apparent view that single payer universal healthcare is an unrealistic objective.

[Solon]

19. The thing that annoys me the most is the fact that Single Payer is a PROVEN...

system for funding health care publicly. Damned near EVERY nation in Europe uses it in one form or another, Canada, etc. Yet can the U.S. ever adopt systems that work in other nations? No of course not, we have to be "different", and, as has been proven, EVERY fucking time we decide to go rogue on shit like this, we fuck it up.

[Lasher]

20. I'll give that rant a 9.5

And I second the sentiment exactly as you have described it. Why is it that we could find only one Democrat (Kucinich) to run for president? What happened to the Democratic party that stood for the common man and woman against corporations? John L. Lewis would be spinning in his grave if he could see this lilly livered bunch, scared to death at the notion that they might annoy the insurance companies.

I just now decided, I'm voting for Kucinnich in the primary. I'm choking on his position on illegal immigration but at least he's a Democrat.

[Solon]

21. You know what, the big 3 politicians are close, but close only counts in horseshoes and...

hand grenades. Kucinich, I feel, is the people's candidate, beyond just being Democratic.

[Lasher]

24. Amen Solon, that's the spirit!

I am highly skeptical of all the individual mandate UHC plans. While some good could come of them, they could be used to make things worse. Like ending all employer-provided healthcare and leaving nothing in its place but the privelege, nay the responsibility, to buy whatever bare bones catastrophic-only policy that the insurance companies decide to shove up our (ahem, young folks visit here) noses. And if you think that can't happen, go back to square one and ask yourself again why only Kucinich has the guts to endorse single payer.

[Solon]

27. Did you see my thread from yesterday?

Its here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3288834

[Lasher]

32. Yes I did. Good thread there.

I usually take notice when I see you've posted something about social programs.

Although I normally weigh in on the subject of universal healthcare I just lurked on that one. I'll have to go back and read the comments that were posted after I first tuned in.

I was watching a discussion today on TV about these Democratic healthcare plans. The theory set forth was that they had to take the form of individual mandate because that's the only way there would be any hope of getting anything going during the next president's time in office. Republican support, needed to get through the Senate without a filibuster-proof Democratic majority, would not otherwise be forthcoming.

Well that's the corporate news media for ya, deciding Democrats should quit before we start. But if our Congressional representatives and candidates would only learn to start acting like Democrats again, we would get that filibuster majority. It is quite possible in either 2008 or 2010.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/60.html

But we're not going to get there if the first thing on our minds is making sure we don't offend anyone by being Democrats. The time is perfect for a Democratic presidential candidate who can inspire us. I was hoping that person would be Obama but right now I'm disappointed in him and the other two top contenders.

[Solon]

13. There is a difference between Romney care and Universal coverage...

First things first, at least they talked about eliminating pre-existing conditions, it would do me absolutely no good to get health insurance for the primary problem I have right now if the insurance company won't pay for it. However, at the same time, if I have a minimum wage job, there is no way in hell I can afford private insurance that actually would help me, co-pays and deducts would be prohibitively expensive, and so would the premiums. Getting an end of the year tax deduction does no good either if I can't afford to pay for the insurance/treatment at the moment i need it.

So there will have to be a public plan, taxpayer supported, to cover the majority of low income families. That's just a fact.

[Solon]

8. Its one thing to have people be automatically covered, and have to pay taxes to pay for it...

somewhere around 3% increase or so, its quite another to force people to buy private policies with crappy things like 4 figure deducts and co-pays in the hundreds of dollars. Not to mention the premiums themselves will be a hundred bucks or more a month.

[Egnever]

10. Thanks

Apparently I was not stating that clearly. You seem to have done a fine job of it though :)

[WCGreen]

14. Mandatory Auto Insurance has been able to keep the price of

insurance down....

Why wouldn't health insurance....

[Egnever]

15. Apparently you haven't seen my insurance bill

Its the 4th highest bill I have behind a roof over my head,food on my table and wait for it.....

Health care.

And thats at the mandated minimum coverage. God forbid I had to pay for comprehensive it would eclipse my rent.

[Egnever]

16. I am not so sure

The first site i found when looking into this says

The average liability insurance premium for the non-mandatory states is 26 percent less than the nationwide average. Meanwhile, policyholders in states requiring the purchase of insurance pay above-average premiums. Moreover, from 1992 to 1996, the average liability premium in mandatory states rose $46, while rising only $37 in non-mandatory states.

Perhaps you can show me something different?

[Solon]

17. First off its not a valid comparison...

Auto Insurance is only required if you own and/or drive a vehicle on public roads. Health insurance would be a requirement for as long as you can draw breath.

Second off, requiring health insurance doesn't lead, automatically, to lower costs, the reason is because health insurance is constantly needed, because people require constant medical care, even if healthy, from checkups and shots to dental cleanings and eye examinations. Your auto insurance will not pay for the same for your car, if it had to, then your rates would go through the roof.

In addition to this, health insurance has restrictions, for example, I require surgery to fix a pinched nerve, health insurance will NEVER cover it, because its a pre-existing condition. Its at least 30 grand to fix it, I can't afford it, hell, I can be out for days at a time because of simply pain if I use it just a little too much, I'd be lucky to even keep a job, much less insurance. Health insurance also has co-pays, deducts, etc. that are prohibitively expensive for too many people, and, unlike auto insurance, you still have to pay even if the care you require isn't your fault.

[WCGreen]

22. If everyone is in the system, there, theoretically speaking, are no

pre-existing conditions...

That is the theory behind universal coverage...

The state would pick up the cost of those who have Pre-existing conditions...

BTW, anecdotally speaking, my insurance has gone down since Ohio became a mandatory insurance...

[Solon]

23. Give me the details of the Ohio plan...

Does it forbid insurance companies from having "selective" coverage? Does it prevent extremely high co-pays and deductibles? How are the unemployed covered?

[WCGreen]

25. I was referring to the Auto insurance plan....

There is no health insurance plan here in Ohio...

From what I understand in Mass, the first state to adopt the mandatory insurance policy, there is such a provision...

It's my understanding that this was the way they sold the package to liberal lawmakers...

I haven't done any investigation per se, but it is that provision, universal coverage, from what I have gleemed from reading about such plans over the past few months that has certainly piqued my interest...

I could be wrong, but I can't see democrats going along with pre-exisiting conditions to preclude coverage under mandatory insurance plans...

[Solon]

26. The biggest problem is cost...

about 70 cents or less out of every dollar paid in premiums actually goes to medical care in the private system. In the public system, Medicare, its 97 cents out of every dollar. This overhead cost, in the private system, is felt by the customers.

In addition to this, insurance companies generally cannot negotiate prices with health care providers, the Government, on the other hand, has that power. Because of this, and regulation power, the government could, in a single-payer system, negotiate prices to help control costs.

[WCGreen]

28. I'm not in favor of this proposal....

I just feel it may be the best we can hope for with a good chunk of the country wanting no part of national health care...

Trust me, I know about the health care system...

I have been in and out of the hospital and am on disability and rely on Oxygen to survive...

[Solon]

29. A majority do want a National Health Care plan...

I think the last poll showed somewhere around 3/4s of Democrats and Independents want some type of UHC. Its our job, as advocates of Single Payer to sell it to those not yet convinced. The fact they think the Government should step in at all is a huge first step.

Its like my idea, which is basically to remove the restrictions on requirements in Medicare, which is actually pretty mild, could work politically, if its marketed properly. Note, I'm using Medicare as an example, because the system is already in place and "ready", so to speak. Additional reforms to Medicare itself would happen, either gradually or immediately, consolidate it with Medicaid and NCHIP, and take over their functions, to save money and reduce redundancy. In addition, reform Medicare itself with negotiation power for drugs and treatments, etc.

My basic argument is that we don't need to touch, legally, the insurance companies, in order to get them out of the health insurance industry, what can happen instead is competition. Lets see them try to compete against a cheaper, non-profit, public, health insurance system.

[WCGreen]

30. Medicaid is far more efficient than any of the Health Insurance

companies I have ever dealt with...

They are sonstantly miss billing and late billing...

I am an accountant and it just bothers the hell out of me that these people who work for the insurance copanies haven't a clue...

I have spent hours trying to clear up their messes for them...

I haven't had one problem with Medicare, they are my secondary provider...

[yellowbelle]

34. the bill

the legislation that forbid negotiating:
In 2003 that both houses of Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 into law. The bill significantly changed the Medicare system by introducing a voluntary entitlement program for prescription drugs

[yellowbelle]

33. reason tatters

the gov't COULD negotiate -- unless some wacky Republicans pass legislation forbidding price negotiation.. in this instance below, it was done in reference to negotiating drug prices. They had designated specific drugs, by name, that were to be covered - those the deciders specified in advance, with a little help from their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. how fine does that work. one point about the insurance that you 'may never need.' on this one point, the trouble is, by the time you know, boom, you are a pre-exising po' sucker.


Among its many provisions, the bill forbid
the federal government from negotiating
with manufacturers over drug prices for
those enrolled. Arguing that allowing the government to negotiate would lower drug prices, Democratic leaders in Congress promised to change this aspect of the law if voted into the majority in the 110th Congress.

In January 2007, after indeed winning a majority, the Democratic-led House passed legislation requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.]

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. I haven't been this made...

since FDR forced me to have a chicken in my pot.

[Erika]

2. You state "the new Democrat Celebrity"

Why do you wish this flashiness?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. That is what the article says not me. I prefer substance over style

;)

[elocs]

3. At least you are up-front in showing that you support Edwards. n/t