I dunno, Kevin. Bush campaigned on lies (vast majority of tax cuts go to the bottom, will regulate CO2, adults back in charge, etc), and that got him elected.

Better elected than detailed and defeated.

That fear is not totally without basis. The average American would probably like a guaranteed health benefit, but then they look at the politicians and say, "do I really want these idiots in control of my medical care?"

On the other hand, setting up a competition between the government and the private alternatives would answer that question pretty finally, wouldn't it?

Competition? With one side tax-subsidized, and the other forced by law to take on all customers regardless of medical condition?

I'm taking bets on the outcome right here...

Sounds like a winning strategy:
Health Care -- tough to fix, so do nothing.
Global Warming -- tough to fix, so do nothing.
Iraq -- tough to fix, so stay the course.
Budget deficits -- tough to fix, so cut taxes.

Last time I checked, Frequency, all of the countries with universal healthcare also have rich people.

OK, what the hell does this plan mean in practice?

I have an "individual mandate" to get health insurance? What does that mean? What penalties will be imposed if I don't? How do I afford to do so in all relevant circumstances -- e.g., doing temp work, or just having lost my job? Currently, if I lose my job, I have to pay an arm and leg for COBRA continuation -- does the government say I STILL have to pay for this, even though I just lost my job, because my income when I had a job was high?

I repeat: What the hell does any of this mean?

If, in contrast, we had "Medicare for All", I'd expect that a certain amount of my income would be taken out when I had a job, presumably roughly equivalent to what's taken out for private insurance currently, and nothing when I didn't have a job. No matter what, I'd have access to health care under all circumstances.

How does Edwards' plan create a like security in access to health care, without demanding money when I don't actually have a source of income?

Most people dislike the health care system and are dissatisfied. People want something new.

John Edwards' new healthcare proposal is, basically, an individual mandate (everyone is required to get health insurance coverage somehow) combined with community rating (private insurers have to take all comers, regardless of medical condition) and government subsidies (the feds will pay for insurance if you're too poor to afford it).

I think you left out the employer mandate, since as well as mandating that all individuals get insurance (with a few exceptions), it also requires all business to provide insurance to all employees.

Upside: Edwards' plan has the potential to evolve into a rational single-payer model in the future. Downside: It might not, and in the meantime it combines the additional cost of universal coverage without the offsetting benefits of the administrative savings from a single-payer system.

While I don't particularly like the plan, it certainly doesn't have the additional cost of "universal coverage" without the benefit, since it only has costs for those who opt to buy in into the public program.

With one side tax-subsidized, and the other forced by law to take on all customers regardless of medical condition?

Both sides face the second requirement, and where is it written that the publicly-operated program would be subsidized?

I have an "individual mandate" to get health insurance? What does that mean? What penalties will be imposed if I don't?

You lose your personal exemption on income taxes.

John Edwards' new house is the biggest house in the county where he lives. It's 28,000 square feet and sits on 100 acres. One of the rooms in the house is called "John's Lounge."

Is he really the guy to lead the Dems' class warfare charge??

I'd say he's perfectly situated to know how good the rich have it and how fair it is for society to demand them to contribute more than it currently requires, from your description.

Since that's the closest thing there is a Democratic "class warfare charge", I'd say he is perfectly qualified to lead it.

Isn't this what Massachusetts was proposing? ..did it pass?

It sounds like a good idea, but why not let the states try various options first, and then the feds pick & choose from the best. Or, can this issue not wait another 20 years..

The bill destroys freedom. I choose to go without heath insurance, because I’m very healthy. I don’t need bureaucrats in Washington DC forcing a product I don’t want and don’t need on me. What’s more, it’s wrong to force insurance companies to accept unhealthy people at too low of a price: They’ll go bankrupt! The current underwriter system, and works well. Government subsidies are also ridiculous in this instance, but not nearly as bad as the other two provisions. It leads to yet more nanny-ism, however. “Of course we can ban trans fat! We’re paying for healthcare, after all, so the government has an interest…�

The free market works. Let’s try it, instead of having millions of little Eichmans managing our healthcare.

Both sides face the second requirement, and where is it written that the publicly-operated program would be subsidized?

I'm sorry, are we talking about the same definitions of "public program" here? The ones exclusively supported by taxes? Government programs can dump money down ratholes for decades without fear of the program being shut down. Or even getting smaller. Try that if you're running an insurance company.

Okay American Hawk, when you get hit crossing the street by an uninsured motorist who keeps on driving, be sure to let the EMS team know that it's okay to leave you in the street until your family can arrange a hearse. You're only healthy . . . until you're not. If we could just all figure out when that happens we sure could save a lot of money on insurance.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the same definitions of "public program" here?

Clearly not.

The ones exclusively supported by taxes?

Um, no, unless one adopts a circular definition of "taxes" as "any revenue stream that supports a government-operated program". Here, the public program would be one that the individual participant would be required to "buy in" to. While it could conceivably be supported by taxes other than the partipant premiums described, nothing in the description here or that you have provided indicates that it would.

Without that, your criticisms appear misplaced.

Okay American Hawk, when you get hit crossing the street by an uninsured motorist who keeps on driving, be sure to let the EMS team know that it's okay to leave you in the street until your family can arrange a hearse. You're only healthy . . . until you're not. If we could just all figure out when that happens we sure could save a lot of money on insurance.

I have an HSA, and would pay any bills out of that. HSA's are a fantastic invention. I haven't been to a doctor in five or so years, and I've probably saved upwards of $10,000 on health insurance premiums. A good cup of tea can be very healing.

Since this is health care we are talking about, somewhere, somehow, someone's coverage will be subsidized -- and Edwards' plan, I thought, did discuss raising some taxes to cover its costs, so I am pretty sure a subsidy is there, somewhere. But the point is, health care is already heavily subsidized, both directly via direct expenditures for care and indirectly via various tax exemptions. But with all these subsidies and the infusion of a lot of private resources, we are failing to provide meaningful access to a substantial percentage of people. When you tell me how to make the current highly inegalitarian system work without government subsidies, I'll entertain arguments that some future system is objectionable because it requires government subsidies.

Actually American Hawk is insured. I believe they use the term "self-insured" to describe someone who hasn't passed the risk onto some other entity.

Until someone comes out with a plan that takes on the insurance industry (and frankly blows it up) you're not going to solve the problem of higher costs, incredibly inefficiency, and less people covered. I'd like to see one Democratic politician nut up on this.

The free market works.

When allocating scarce private goods; not so well when allocating scarce public goods.

A good cup of tea can be very healing.

What have we here, a new-age wingnut?

DoubleB-- I don't really like the term. By that logic, there's no such thing as an uninsured American. It also obscures the issue that, for the system to work, health insurance has to be a losing bet for most people. A lot of people who piss away money on excessive health plans would be much better off with HSAs or even a regular savings account.

Disputo-- I enjoy a good cup of earl grey. How the heck is that new age?

And what makes health care a 'public' good? The transaction is completely provide, between patient and doctor. I'd prefer to keep it that way, instead of having buerecrats in Washington decide who gets healthcare.

A lot of people who piss away money on excessive health plans would be much better off with HSAs or even a regular savings account.

The whole point of buying insurance is to trade increased expected cost to manage the uncertainty of cost. Certainly, lots of people who do a bit better in any given year not buying insurance; and lots (though fewer!) of those without insurance would do better in net financial terms in any given year with insurance. The reason the larger former group, by the vast majority, prefers to have insurance if anyone will allow them to purchase it is because one can never predict which group one will be in reliably in advance, and to be in the latter group involves much greater loss, financially, and perhaps even denial of important services for absence of present ability to pay compared to the relatively controlled disadvantage of being in the former group.

american dove how old are you 12? you have a HSA and have managed to save $10000.Wow!! Fucking brilliant!! Whens the last time you checked on the cost of a nights stay in the hospital? Its nice that your healthy now but guess what,over the course of a lifetime you are likely to not be healthy at one time or another. My guess is that if something like that happens to you you'll be sceaming like a little girl for the government to bail you out somehow.{No disrespect meant to little girls by comparing them to american birdbrain

Edwards plan is stupid. It is a Rube Goldburg type plan that won't work but looks important.

A smart plan is medicare for everyone. Medicare is popular and everyone already knows how it works.

Edwards plan is stupid. Medicare for everyone is smart.

Gandalf-- You accuse me of being 12, then demonstrate that you can't capitalize, spell, or think clearly. Then, you name yourself after a character from children's books. Are you a parody troll?

In any case, I have more than enough saved. As I get older, I might get catastrophic insurance (everything over $100,000 is covered). For now, though, it would be a stupid thing to do

And what makes health care a 'public' good?

A good econ 101 course would do you a world of good.

Disputo-- You have no idea what you're talking about.

I enjoy a good cup of earl grey. How the heck is that new age?

Don't be an idiot. It is your claim that it can heal you that is new-age fairy tale fantasy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're probably correct. You're probably too stupid to comprehend even the low level info provided in an econ 101 course.

AHawk,

The whole premise of insurance is to spread the risk. Most people who buy insurance lose money in the deal, but protect themselves against a very high loss. Anybody out there feel they've made money on their auto insurance since they started driving?

The HSA/savings account is a great when you need to see the doctor for the flu or other minor ailment. It's completely useless if you get cancer and want treatment.

Someone brought up the free market. It isn't a free market if I HAVE to buy it. I don't have the buy the soda I'm drinking or the computer at which I'm typing. But if I need kidney dialysis or chemotherapy or any other treatment in order to live beyond the next few months, I HAVE to make the purchase. That isn't a "free" market. It's closer to extortion.

Lots of people run off to the doctor and get antibiotics every time they have a flu. I see it all the time. A couple of hours extra rest and a good cup of tea works just as well, and is almost costless. Try it. I haven't seen a doctor or anybody else in a health-related field in five years, and I'm very healthy. Obviously, doctors are usually necessary for, say, cancer.

Btw, AH, your claim that it would be stupid for you to now have catastrophic insurance indicates how much you really need a good intro course in econ -- you obviously have no clue what the concept "expected utility" means.

DoubleB-- You don't have to make that purchase. Humanity survived for thousands of years without dialysis or chemotherapy. Now that it exists, it's a necessity? That doesn't even make sense. Your motivation to buy may be very high, but it's not required.

Disputo-- Healthcare is in no sense a public good. It's very clear you never took anything *beyond* Econ 101.

Ken,

That should be the tagline. "Medicare for everyone." You want to sell it, that's a pretty good way to do it.

Lots of people run off to the doctor and get antibiotics every time they have a flu.

The people who do that probably have some kind of health condition which makes that appropriate, since generally doctors won't, as I understand it, give antibiotics for the flu (a viral condition that antibiotics don't combat) except as a prophylactic where someone is particularly at risk of dangerous secondary infections.

Humanity survived for thousands of years without dialysis or chemotherapy.

Yeah, but what you're missing, dumbass, is that many humans did not. The purpose of insurance isn't to insure the continuance of the species -- it is to insure the continuance of the individual for a normal, healthy life-span.

Want this problem solved.Remone healthcare from For Profit To Non Profit.Simple! Then American Hawks 10,000 dollar HSA will go further that one appendectime.

AMERICAN HAWK: Humanity survived for thousands of years without dialysis or chemotherapy. Now that it exists, it's a necessity? That doesn't even make sense.

Lots of people run off to the doctor and get antibiotics every time they have a flu. I see it all the time. A couple of hours extra rest and a good cup of tea works just as well, and is almost costless.

Geezus Kriest. Now you need a good Bio 101 course to explain to you the diff between viruses and bacteria. Or are you admitting that drinking tea has zero effect on the flu just like taking antibiotics?

DoubleB-- You don't have to make that purchase. Humanity survived for thousands of years without dialysis or chemotherapy. Now that it exists, it's a necessity?

I can make a pretty long list of things "humanity" survived without, like clean water, sanitation, electricity, and many others. I wouldn't want to live back then, and I doubt you would either.

I don't think you have an argument from that direction, even assuming you aren't a liberal trying to pretend he knows what a conservative thinks like (very likely).

Now, if you want to wonder if a nationalized health care system would continue to invest in and develop new advances in medical care in the same way that a profit-motivated system does, you might have a point.

AH did I hit a nerve.You really discuss these issues like you are 12. And if you consider The Lord of the Rings books childrens books then you clearly show your ignorance of literature to be almost as great as your ignorance of the issues that are discussed here. The original post was about a possible solution to a problem that even the most conservative politician sees as an issue that needs to be addressed. Your attempt to muddy the waters with your juvenile observations based on your personal experience alone doesn't bring anything to the table but a sound and a fury signifying nothing.Oh by the way sorry for the capitalization errors but I thought I'd write at a level you could understand.

It's Medicare-For-All.

If you're against it, you're against Medicare, and you have to explain to your granny why you don't think she deserves to see her doctor when she's sick.

American Hawk,

Humanity survived for thousands of years without dialysis or chemotherapy. Now that it exists, it's a necessity? That doesn't even make sense.

What, if anything, in your estimation is a necessity?

Here's an article about Ted Kennedy's proposal to offer Medicare for All.

I know that Mark Schmitt and other sage, seasoned advisors start running around in circles screaming for shelter whenever they think about some politician offering actual concrete proposals on the health care crisis.

But could someone explain to me in words I can understand why it would be so goddamn fucking hard for one of our so-called Democratic so-called Presidential so-called Candidates to get behind this proposal??

Oh, by the way, if any Republican politician says that Medicare for All is too expensive, ask him how much he was thinking of cost when he chose to support a war that is now costing us in excess of 1 trillion dollars.

If you spend $1Trillion+ so that we can be royally fucked, maybe financial advice isn't your strong suit, you know?

The only thing that's perfect is nothing.

American Hawk,Humanity survived for thousands of years without dialysis or chemotherapy. Now that it exists, it's a necessity? That doesn't even make sense.

And you can prove that easily enough by giving up your car, your insurance, and swearing off electricity and indoor plumbing.

frankly0,

Amen. I'm really tired of milquetoast Democratic candidates. People are dying for some real leadership. Nut the fuck up.

Its good politics on Edwards part. The right wingers insist that private insurance is more cost-effective than a public program, which is true only in the same way private schools are more cost-effective than public schools-- they can cherry pick who they accept.

Edwards is putting them to the test, on an equal playing field (insurance companies would have to offer community rated premiums to all comers), if private insurance works better than Medicare then the glorious, infallible free market will make the private insurers big winners. If Medicare is a better plan, than private insurance will die on the vine like a Japanese naval base leapfrogged by Nimitz.

Making private providers compete against government agencies is good politics and good economics. For example, we're going to have to build many, many nuclear power plants in the years to come. Make private utilities compete against the TVA (which has already built and run nuclear reactors for years) for the license to build it. If the TVA can come in at a lower price, let Uncle Sam build it. If the private utilities truly are more efficient, then the free market will reward them.

I think it is also fair to say that trying to set up a system in which a government plan "competes" with private plans to win customers is a very dicey proposition.

First, the insurers have vast amounts of wealth they can throw into any long-term battle.

They'll find a zillion different ways to tilt the playing field to their advantage and you can bet your boots they will be looking for ideological allies in Congress to help carry their water for them in spreading stories that the government plan doesn't work, is inefficient, limits choice, etc....all while they work behnd the scenes to sell that idea to the public in every other way possible.

And we're right back where we are now.

We need a plan which is single player, backed by the law and operated. Otherwise, we all lose.

Give Edwards credit. At least he has moved to ball down the court.

American Hawk: "The free market works. Let's try it, instead of having millions of little Eichmans managing our healthcare."

Is American Hawk really Ward Churchill?

…Is he really the guy to lead the Dems' class warfare charge Frequency Kenneth at 1:40

…The free market works…. Anti-American bawk at 1:57 PM

Lots of people run off to the doctor and get antibiotics every time they have a flu…anti-American fawk at 2:37 PM

Now that it exists, it's a necessity?...American Hawk at 2:38 PM

Give Edwards credit. At least he has moved to ball down the court.

Sorry, that's just doesn't cut it for me.

Look, the Democrats in 2008 will likely have the greatest opportunity in our lifetimes to introduce a MAJOR Change of Subject, and turn the American people's attention from guns to butter.

People are sick of hearing about catastrophic attempts to solve the problems of foreigners thousands of miles away. Nothing would galvanize their interest better than a bold new domestic program that would solve major headaches in their everyday life.

Why our idiot Democratic Presidential candidates can't seem to grasp the historic significance of this moment I just don't get.

Edwards' plan can be good only if the plans of every other Democratic candidate is worse or non-existent.

If Hillary could pull her head out of her polls, maybe she could get it. If Obama could stop strutting around being Wonderful and Correct, and start thinking about what counts to ordinary people, maybe he could get it.

But I'm not seeing much sign here.

"John Edwards' new house is the biggest house in the county where he lives."

At least Edwards earned his wealth and didn't inherit it or get it as a gift from his Dad's friends like the Little Idiot (TM) in the White House.

"I don’t need bureaucrats in Washington DC forcing a product I don’t want and don’t need on me."

Like the War in Iraq? How lame (and ols) is this "I don't want it so the government shouldn't tax me for it" argument?

"Humanity survived for thousands of years without dialysis or chemotherapy." YOU are not humanity. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it in the single sense of you. You, as an individual, could not survive kidney failure without dialysis. Yes, you could choose to die rather than undergo dialysis, but if you wanted to live, your dialysis (and related medications) would cost you more than $10,000 per month without insurance. So let's see, you could afford about one month of dialysis before you ran through your HSA. Then, I guess, you'd be happy to die, knowing your decision not to buy insurance was made with full knowledge of the consequences. Or you could, of course, start liquidating your assets to pay for continued dialysis.

As to Edwards proposal, I like the idea of letting Medicare compete with private insurers. Having just switched to Medicare, it compares favorably to the last plan I had except for the egregious donut hole in prescription coverage.

However, losing your personal exemption for failure to buy insurance does not sound like much of an disincentive. Seems to me a better way to go would be to enroll everyone in Medicare off the bat and require people to prove private insurance in order to disenroll.

frankly0

I don't think we can count on either Hillary or Obama to do anything serious about any issue of importance to average Americans. Profiles in courage are rare among modern American politicians.

Edward's plan, flawed as it is, is a major advance over the Republican plans proposed in either California or Massachusetts.

I happen to like the Kennedy plan, but the Edwards plan makes room for private insurance companies to have a shot at continued existence. That will mean we won't have to kill an entire industry and, endure all the social disruption that would entail, to bring affordable health care to the millions who are uninsured.

Look, the Democrats in 2008 will likely have the greatest opportunity in our lifetimes to introduce a MAJOR Change of Subject, and turn the American people's attention from guns to butter.

I don't know why people think that partisan politicians (who already have a couple strikes against them as partisan politicians) somehow are the only people with this opportunity, or even have it at all: how often have Presidential candidates really done that? Sometimes, they've been able to change our policy and national dialogue, though usually in response to something that the public already considered a massive problem, and selling a direct response to it.

The leaders that drive the big changes of what we think the problems are, and how we are inclined to address them, it seems to me, are more often non-politicians or ex-politicians, rather than present campaigners.

I don't think we can count on either Hillary or Obama to do anything serious about any issue of importance to average Americans.

Yeah, neither do I. Then again, they've got some time to change my mind, and they aren't the entirety of the rest of the Democratic field.

Sure, Edwards plan is better than a swift kick in the groin, and if no one comes up with anything better, it'll be a stroke in his favor when the time comes to cast my primary ballot (by which time, of course, the nomination may well be decided.)

OTOH, if he (or any other candidate) wants my money and my vocal advocacy behind his (or their) primary campaign, they'll have to do more.

Ron Byers: I don't think we can count on either Hillary or Obama to do anything serious about any issue of importance to average Americans.

Which explains why they're considered the most likely candidates.

Coming up with "a plan" before you have co-sponsors to put a bill in the hopper is a recipe for disaster.

I don't know if "nibbled to death by ducks" is an expression local to the Pacific NW, but that is what will now happen to Edwards and his "plan". Everybody will come up with different figures to criticize it and if Edwards starts explaining why their figures are wrong, our eyes will glaze over. If he doesn't change the plan he's "inflexible" and if he does he's "flip-flopping".

What needs to be done is to emphasize the big picture- the 5% of our GDP we would save if we insured everybody by making Medicare universal. A presidential candidate particularly should steer clear of specifics and just emphasize the minimum they'll expect out of any plan the Congress comes up with.

Set the rules of the debate and don't let anybody forget what those rules are. People in Europe have universal coverage, and we're spending 5% more of our GDP than they are, so we don't need to be exactly as good as they are at making it work.

KISS.

Amen, Kevin. About time a leading Democratic contender (bless you forever, Dennis Kucinich, for trying to keep them honest) started saying what people really want to hear.

Notice that the Democrats who won Republican seats in 2006 were the ones who straight out called bullshit on the repugs. The Democrats who mumbled and hesitated and me-tooed the repugs lost.

The fact is that the two government-run single-payer systems we currently have - Medicare and VA - are hugely successful, dirt cheap and enormously popular.

If private health insurance (including employer-provided) ever had to compete, they'd lose in a tsunami of people rushing to enroll in those horrible government programs.

Sounds to me like Edwards is trying to get Medicare for all by proving it can win a fair fight.

Well done.

Yellow Dog: the Democrats who won Republican seats in 2006 were the ones who straight out called bullshit on the repugs. The Democrats who mumbled and hesitated and me-tooed the repugs lost.

Yup, as you mentioned the other day, Harry Truman said it best:

Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.

I'm less concerned about what happens to people who earn 12k a year (at least with respect to health care - one way or another this kind of universal health care scheme will end up subsidizing them) but people who earn 19k or 25k or even 40 or 50k if they have kids. There will be a lot of people who earn too much to qualify for government subsidies but not enough to afford the kind of comprehensive coverage they currently have from their employer (who will no more provide them with health insurance than they provide them with car insurance). Per always, the working class loses.

"...People are sick of hearing about catastrophic attempts to solve the problems of foreigners thousands of miles away. Nothing would galvanize their interest better than a bold new domestic program that would solve major headaches in their everyday life..."
Posted by: frankly0 on February 6, 2007 at 5:59 PM

AMEN BROTHER!!

Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com