About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
billmon
Bob Geiger
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Blue Hampshire Policy Straw Poll: Health Care

by: Mike Caulfield

Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 18:52:26 PM EDT


OK, so things are spiraling a little out of control on the answers -- but it's partially my fault. People wanted two paragraphs and I said OK -- people wanted to play with the format and I said not-so-ok but I'd put it up.

So don't be too hard on the candidates this time. It's my fault for the rules being fuzzy -- no candidate wants to be the one that gets one paragraph if the other are going to take two. However, next week the topic will be Military Spending and the following rules will be strictly enforced:

1) 200 words or less

2) Starts with either the phrase "I am the only candidate who" or "Unlike Candidates X, Y, and Z, I" (must be at least three candidates you differ from).

3) Must contain a policy point in the first sentence.

This will level the playing field. For this week though, know that the fault lies with me for not providing enough guidance.

So without further ado, in the order they were recieved -- the question was "What is different about your health care policy?"

From the Edwards campaign:

I am the only candidate to propose a specific plan that guarantees true universal health care and also gives Americans the option of a public plan. Every last man, woman and child in this country will be covered.  We have to stop using words like "access to health care" when we know with certainty those words mean something less than universal care. Who are you willing to leave behind without the care they need? We need a truly universal solution, and we need it now.

Under my plan, businesses will either cover their employees or help pay their premiums.  The government will make insurance affordable through new tax credits and by leading the way toward more cost-effective care.  New "Health Care Markets" will give families and businesses purchasing power and a choice of quality plans.  Finally, once these steps have been taken, all American residents will be required to take responsibility and get insurance.  Individuals in Health Care Markets will have a choice of insurance plans including a public plan.  That choice will force private insurers to operate in a more competitive market, holding down costs and improving care, and may evolve toward a single payer approach.

From the Obama campaign:

I am the only candidate who will sign legislation by the end of my first term that will cover every American and cut the cost of every family's premiums by up to $2,500 -- the biggest cost-savings that any presidential candidate has proposed. The reason 45 million Americans don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it; it's because they can't afford it.  So if we want to cover every American, we have to cut costs for every family -- like Rebecca's family in Concord. When I am president, everyone will be able to buy into a new health insurance plan that's similar to the one Congressmen enjoy. If you cannot afford it, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. If you have children, they will be covered.  If you change jobs, your insurance will go with you. If you need to see a doctor, you will not have to wait in long lines for one.  If you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans that have similar benefits and standards for quality and efficiency. But if we really want universal health care in this country, it's not enough just to put a Democrat in the White House, we need to turn the page on yesterday?s failed health care debates. We need a President who can bring together business, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution. That's what I did as a State Senator when we covered 150,000 more people, and cracked down on health providers who gouged the uninsured. And that's what I'll do as President. It's time we led the world -- not lagged behind it -- in the quality of care we have in America.  (Note:  One paragraph can't capture all the details, but you can read the full plan and offer your comments either via this Blue Hampshire diary or at our health care blog.)

From the Dodd campaign:

I am the only candidate that has over 20 years of experience getting things done. We have known what the problems and solutions are for years. What's been missing is leadership that can bring people together to get things done. For example, when I first introduced the Family Medical Leave Act, people thought it would never get done, but I helped bring labor and business, Democrats and Republicans together. Today, 50 million Americans and their families have benefited from FMLA. It is now time to bring people together on health care and turn Democratic principles into American policy.

My healthcare plan will provide universal health coverage through universal responsibility. My plan creates a health insurance marketplace based on, and parallel to, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHB) so that every American has access to the same health insurance as their Congressperson. Every employer and individual will be given the chance to go to the marketplace to purchase high quality health care or if they wish, keep their existing insurance. Individuals and businesses will contribute based on their ability to pay. Solving the health care crisis also requires us to ensure that every American has access to the services and providers that they need. We need to place greater emphasis on prevention so we can treat illnesses like asthma and diabetes before they require a trip to the emergency room and we must invest in technology and data collection for better care and better efficiencies. Savings in better care and better efficiencies will finance new coverage and drive down premiums. Over time, universal coverage will pay off in terms of improved health, new models of better care, more affordable care, and higher productivity. But if we are going to turn these ideas into reality, we are going to have to have leadership with the experience to get things done."

From the Gravel campaign:

I am the only candidate that has proposed a single-payer Health Care Voucher plan. The vouchers would be issued by the government, and would allow patients a choice of health care plans. The cost to individuals would be minimal. This would get insurance out of the hands of employers while still allowing people multiple options. If the insurance and pharmaceutical industry does not shape up after the vouchers are implemented, we will look at producing a competing government plan, but that's phase two. We'll get people insured first.

The details of the plan may change, since if I am elected President, I will lead the effort to use the National Initiative to pass this, and the American people will have the final say. By using the National Initiative we can make sure the special interests and health care lobbyists don't write this law.

From the Kucinich campaign:

I am the only candidate to recognize the single payer not-for-profit comprehensive solution to the problem of providing access to health care is a solution that includes everyone and excludes no one. It is time we all recognize that every civilized country today has found a solution that we must adapt to this country. American businesses can no longer be competitive shouldering the entire cost of health care. Health care is something all Americans must have - it is crucial to the security of our nation. I will establish the streamlined National Health Insurance Plan, as outlined in HR 676, which would be publicly financed health care, privately delivered, and will put patients and doctors back in control of the system. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans; encourage prevention; and include prescription drugs, dental care, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and alternative and complementary medicine. 

I'm proud to say I'm the leader among all the candidates when it comes to recognizing a solution but I am last when it comes to taking campaign contributions from those invested in the current for-profit health care system; that's because I won't accept them.

From the Clinton campaign:

Hillary Clinton is committed to providing quality, affordable health insurance to every single American.  She has offered three principles that will guide her work:  access, quality, and cost. She has already laid out a seven point plan to cut costs by focusing on prevention, modernizing our medical records, controlling the cost of chronic diseases, and more.  She laid out her cost plan first because we will only be able to achieve universal health care if we get these costs under control. She has spent a long time on this problem, and Senator Clinton knows from her previous healthcare battles that we have to build consensus to get universal coverage - no one person is going to get it done by him or herself.  This is not just a question of ideas; it's a question of political will.  With that in mind, she is going to reach out, talk to the American people, and work with Congress to get the job done. 

From the Biden campaign:

I am the only candidate who knows first-hand what it is like to survive a life-threatening emergency surgery.  When I suffered an aneurysm in 1988, I was lucky to have health insurance.  I knew that if I didn't survive, my family wouldn't be saddled with crushing debt.  I knew that I could access good health care, afford the surgery I needed, and get the care I required to recover.  Millions of Americans don't have that assurance.  No one in this country should be denied access to health care.  That's why, as president, I would make achieving universal health care a top priority.  W e have to begin by covering every uninsured child, providing access to quality, affordable healthcare for all adults and assisting families and employers who suffer from the burden of catastrophic cases. We must also modernize and simplify healthcare in the United States by using electronic records and providing doctors, nurses and pharmacists with vital patient information in real time and creating a standard claim form. This will reduce administrative costs and help prevent costly medical errors. Prevention is as important as the access to care itself, which is why I have worked so hard to increase funding for cancer research and early detection.  We must develop standards and best practices for management of chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension to help people living with those conditions stay healthy. We can afford a national health care plan if we leave Iraq responsibly and end the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest one percent.

From the Richardson campaign:

I am the only candidate who believes that all stakeholders - government, individuals and business - must share the goal and the sacrifice of providing universal health care coverage for all Americans.  My plan builds upon proven, existing systems and creates no new bureaucracies.  It also provides more choices for American families.  If you like your current health care plan, you can keep that coverage.  Individuals, families and small businesses can choose to purchase the same coverage that members of Congress enjoy.  Americans 55 to 64 may keep their current coverage or purchase early coverage through Medicare.  Young adults up to age 25 will be allowed to keep their family coverage regardless of student status.  And to help make coverage more affordable, my plan also provides a sliding-scale tax credit for individuals and families who need help paying coverage.  All Americans will be required to obtain health care coverage once these reforms are in place, and employers will be required to do their fair share to contribute to a healthy and covered work force.  The principal of shared sacrifice, of sharing the burden of making sure that every American has health insurance, is what sets my health care policy apart from the other candidates.

Poll underneath -- click "Discuss"...

Mike Caulfield :: Blue Hampshire Policy Straw Poll: Health Care
So I know the poll is bullcrap, but we do it.

Remember -- topic for next week -- Military Spending.

Now discuss this weeks below...

Poll
Which statements were most compelling?
Biden
Kucinich
Clinton
Dodd
Gravel
Richardson
Edwards
Obama

Results

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
again... (4.00 / 1)
maybe I'm too MUCH of a rule follower in my own life, but I am again bugged by those that don't follow your simple rules.  "I am the only candidate who..."  How hard is that sentence to complete? 

Thanks for putting them in the order of response.  I like that, too. 

Nice work,

Paula
Dover NH

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!



I don't know... (0.00 / 0)
She gets points for brevity, and for participating in the actual straw poll this time (instead of trying to make her own stage).

Her response still tastes like a twinkie to me, though.


[ Parent ]
Ha Ha Twinkie (0.00 / 0)
They look so good, they taste OK and they are so bad for you.  Although they won't admit it they are not even really food. I see the analogy.

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

[ Parent ]
again... (0.00 / 0)
maybe I'm too MUCH of a rule follower in my own life, but I am again bugged by those that don't follow your simple rules.  "I am the only candidate who..."  How hard is that sentence to complete? 

Thanks for putting them in the order of response.  I like that, too. 

Nice work,

Paula
Dover NH

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!



Breaking the rules in a debate can be okay, (0.00 / 0)
but you need to have a really good reason to do it.

Where do we go from here?


[ Parent ]
Honesty (4.00 / 1)
I give the Clinton answer points for honesty by not saying "I am the only candidate" - if the candidate does not write the response, should the response say, "I am"?  I am sure that some candidates wrote their own responses, but wouldn't it surprise you if they all did? 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 


[ Parent ]
I like the responses (0.00 / 0)
  • All the candidates sent in responses, which is pretty remarkable
  • None of the answers was unreasonably long
  • Hot links in the Obama response! Clever.
  • I suppose Biden, Clinton, and Dodd didn't quite follow the guidelines as you have tightened them for next week, but I have no problem with that. As a voter, unique experience -- either in legislating or in having profoundly personal experience with health care -- may well be more important than a unique policy proposal. And if the response  'cheats' a bit too much, the readership will see that.
  • I'm a little disappointed that the Clinton campaign didn't start with the obvious: "I am the only candidate who has been down this road before -- trying to build a consensus for a new national health care system, and learning what the greatest barriers have been." There could be a compelling message there. The statement gets to that point; it would have been both more responsive and stronger if it had used the standard template to tell the story.
  • It's kind of funny that, a few months ago, you suggested that Obama might be smart to just say "Edwards has the right idea on health care: that's what I would do as President too," and now you're adopting a format to preclude that. (Although maybe "I am the only candidate who is free of 'Not Invented Here' egotism and will use great ideas from my competitors" might work.)


Touche (0.00 / 0)
I think you're exactly right -- I am the only candidate besides Edwards to endorse the edwards plan would be a rocking answer IMHO. With a paragraph that says we need to stop needlessly proliderating plans...



[ Parent ]
Lots of 'Obama Love' in the poll. (0.00 / 0)
Anyone care to explain their fuzzy feelings towards his health care policy?

kind of like a (4.00 / 1)
Ouija board, you project on it, and it takes you where you want to go...

Next time, there may be no next time.

[ Parent ]
His opening statement also seems wrong (0.00 / 0)
though to be fair most of the "I am the only candidate" statements don't seem that accurate.

[ Parent ]
Obama is simply lying about his plan (0.00 / 0)
by claiming it's universal.

The best studies out there--by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies--and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic--and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.

http://www.tnr.com/d...

How long will the press let him get away with this?


[ Parent ]
"Lying" seems strong (0.00 / 0)
That article is subscription only; can you provide more context?


[ Parent ]
I don't use the word lightly (0.00 / 0)
In his more candid moments, Obama has admitted his plan would leave people uninsured. Look, this is a settled question among health care policy experts: you need a mandate to get universal coverage. Obama chose not to go with one. His is a legitimate position; mandates raise logistical, economic, and arguably even ethical issues. In 2000, Gore argued against Bradley's proposed mandate from the left.

Obama should stand by his position and explain why he thinks a mandate is a bad idea. What he can't do is claim that he can get universal coverage without one. As for context, all I can do is give more of the article:

[T]here are some differences between what Obama and Edwards have proposed. And by far the biggest, most important one is the fact that Edwards has a "mandate" in his plan: He would require every single American to get insurance. That means his plan is truly "universal." Obama says he, too, is committed to covering everybody by 2012. And he has a mandate that all children get insurance. But there is no similar mandate on adults. There is, in other words, no requirement that every adult American have health insurance. And that means his plan is not universal--at least not in the same sense that Edwards and his advisers mean it.

Why does this matter? Obama's advisers, for what it's worth, think it doesn't. Not much, anyway. They believe that their initiative will help cover most Americans within two or three years. After that, they say, they can come back to the problem and, following through on Obama's promise, cover that relatively small portion of the population that still doesn't have coverage. If that requires passing some sort of mandate then, so be it. They're prepared to do so.

I think they mean it. But can they do it? The best studies out there--by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies--and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic--and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.



[ Parent ]
Thanks for the additional detail (0.00 / 0)
I'm not wild about his plan, but an optional opt-out seems reasonable to me.

[ Parent ]
That is -- (0.00 / 0)
An opt-out for individuals, not corporations or insurers.

[ Parent ]
"Universal" (0.00 / 0)
and "coverage" are both slippery terms. There is no lie in Obama's statement.

The following are clearly understood statements:

"I'm covered by a plan at work, but I haven't enrolled because my wife's plan is better."

"Medicare Part D is universally available to seniors, but some choose not to participate."

If Obama said, "Under my plan every American will be enrolled in a health insurance program," that would be a lie.

But he didn't say that.


[ Parent ]
Kucinich (4.00 / 1)
gets points for talking about, what I think, is the best answer to the problem.  I 100% believe in a single payer / not for profit health care system.

However.

The fact that ONLY Kucinich thinks this is the solution concerns me.  Why is good policy for the rest of the industrialized world considered a 'loony left' position here?

I'm not convinced of Kucinich's leadership ability.  He's not terribly charismatic... he obviously hasn't done a good job of persuading members of his own party that his policy ideas are worth supporting, how can he convince the whole red white and blue America?

(Sorry, Susan)


Heh. We are thinking alike. (0.00 / 0)
See my comment below :)

[ Parent ]
Edwards' (4.00 / 1)
plan, through the use of health care markets INCLUDING a government plan opens the way towards starting to move towards single payer.

Disclaimer - Don't know if I technically still need one since no longer work in NH, but am paid staffer at AFL-CIO :)

[ Parent ]
What I like about Edwards' approach (4.00 / 3)
isn't really captured in this survey. It's mostly two things:

  1. Edwards has acknowledged from the start that his plan will cost billions per year. Most campaigns are trying to gloss over that. Only a candidate who says that up front gets a strong  mandate to proceed if elected.
  2. The proposal to trade some sort of financial "prize" to pharmaceutical companies in exchange for cutting patent monopolies way back on drugs for particular diseases and conditions. I haven't followed the details, but the basic concept seems like the sort of outside the box thinking we'll need.


[ Parent ]
ref. (0.00 / 0)
http://www.johnedwar...
28 pages worth wading through.

Next time, there may be no next time.

[ Parent ]
thanks (0.00 / 0)
for doing my job for me!

Disclaimer - Don't know if I technically still need one since no longer work in NH, but am paid staffer at AFL-CIO :)

[ Parent ]
No problem Eddie (0.00 / 0)
I've been supporting him longer...you'll catch on...

Next time, there may be no next time.

[ Parent ]
well Nick (0.00 / 0)
Kucinich is the only one that isn't taking money from insurance and Big Pharma - which may be the reason he's the only candidate supporting a single payer plan. Those millions of dollars contributed to Clinton/Obama/Edwards do come with strings attached.

Let's face it, none of the front runners have any BOLD plans, and none of them take any BOLD stands. Everyone else is proposing a variation of the private insurance/employer based system that we already have - the system that is ALREADY not working. A more important question to ask is - WHY IS THAT? Instead of focusing on what you see as Kucinich's "lack of charisma" why not ask why the other cnadidates want to perpetuate a broken system? 

DK isn't the only one who supports the single payer system, however. Go out and talk to doctors, nurses, and health care professionals - and just average folks.

NH Kucinich Campaign


[ Parent ]
All the plans are bold (0.00 / 0)
Resistance to change in the healthcare system is monumental. It's not just institutional resistance either, there's a fair amount of plain inertia.


[ Parent ]
Senator Edwards (4.00 / 1)
takes NO money from these corporate PAC's.  He also has not done so in his Senate race.

Disclaimer - Don't know if I technically still need one since no longer work in NH, but am paid staffer at AFL-CIO :)

[ Parent ]
Additionally, (0.00 / 0)
as an attorney he represented clients fighting AGAINST these interests.

Disclaimer - Don't know if I technically still need one since no longer work in NH, but am paid staffer at AFL-CIO :)

[ Parent ]
that's true (0.00 / 0)
But he does take a lot of money from the securities and investment sector. A sector that would be loathe to see those multi-million Health Insurance CEO bonuses go down the tubes.

http://www.opensecre...

NH Kucinich Campaign


[ Parent ]
he has (0.00 / 0)
taken donations but it hasn't affected his choices as you saw last week when he was the first candidate to come out in favor of closing the tax loopholes on hedge funds and private investment funds.

Disclaimer - Don't know if I technically still need one since no longer work in NH, but am paid staffer at AFL-CIO :)

[ Parent ]
Maybe Charisma is the wrong word... (0.00 / 0)
If I'm focusing on the straw poll... Kucinich has the boldest plan.

And I know why many of the others are hesitant to make bold plans, and some would rather we keep the system we now have with only minor changes.

But the presidency is not about plans and programs.  The executive branch has no legislative powers, a president won't get ANY plans passed unless they can lead the congress into passing the legislation to do it.  I need a candidate who can prove to me they can get things done... they can lead... and people will follow them.

Of course, I'm having difficulty seeing bold plans AND charisma... maybe thats why I'm still undecided?


[ Parent ]
charisma (0.00 / 0)
I dunno, Nick - should we discuss the charisma of Richard Nixon???

I was an advocate for single payer health care long before I ever met Dennis Kucinich. My own experiences with our health care system in recent years only serve to emphasize the need.

My husband has multiple myeloma - bone marrow cancer. He just recieved a letter from his insurance company informing him that they won't be paying for any more bone marrow tests. As you can surmise, the testing is the method his oncologist uses to determine whether or not the cancer is advancing. These tests are crucial, obviously, and not frivolously done. They are in fact, of critical importance to his treatment.

This is what is wrong with the insurance based system. They make money by denying people care. Now, it's true that my husband isn't going to be a moneymaker for them - his health problems are too severe - but to deny him the tests that will determine his treatment is to pass a premature death sentence upon him.

At least 47 million Americans have no insurance, and another 50 million are underinsured. We cannot pretend that this is acceptable. We cannot boast of being the "greatest country in the world" when we're willing to passively allow people in our country to die because they don't get routine preventative care.

NH Kucinich Campaign


[ Parent ]
I'm more than fair... (4.00 / 1)
I don't like Richard Nixon much either.

/snark

We'll just have to continue this discussion over that dinner we've been planning...


[ Parent ]
BTW (0.00 / 0)
I didn't see your column in the paper today.  Do you write one every Friday?

[ Parent ]
no (4.00 / 1)
it's every other week.

I'll wear my "Nixon Now More Than Ever" button to dinner.

*snicker*

NH Kucinich Campaign


[ Parent ]
I agree! (4.00 / 3)
This is now the 2nd straw poll that I voted for Kucinich because I thought his answer gave the best plan for fixing the system and it was the most concise, direct and honest.

I?m really a fan of these straw polls as they do help to separate the candidates. I've realized how I fall most in line with Kucinich's views more than any other candidate... And I wouldn't ever consider voting for him? is that bad?

Just goes to show that people pick candidates based on MUCH more than how the candidates line up on the issues.


[ Parent ]
Agreed and agreed. (0.00 / 0)
This exercise is extremely valuable.

But a candidate could win my vote on each of these and not in the voting booth -- and not just because of any "electability" or "have a beer with" calculations.

We watch how candidates deal with people, who they choose to trust, what tradeoffs they make.

Worth more thought, but I'm off on vacation.


[ Parent ]
Why is good policy for the rest of the industrialized world considered a 'loony left' position here? (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps because America has always has a large component of middle-men in its enterprise.  Indeed, representative democracy is a system that's mediated by middlemen.
Of course, a federal single-payer health care program would also have middlemen; just not so many layers as we have now with insurers and HMOs.  The real question is why we should trust self-appointed corporate middlemen more than public officials whose duties we can specify and regulate?  That there hasn't been much of that lately doesn't mean that it's not the ideal. 
Perhaps as the Congress gains more credibility as a representative body people will be more willing to trust these important matters to it.

[ Parent ]
Some thoughts: (4.00 / 4)
I am a bit of a purist on this one, because I feel strongly that our current health care system in this country is crippling our once great trademark American ingenuity.

How many Next Big Ideas are killed by tying health insurance to employment?  How many paradigm-busting inventions never get touched in the garage because mom is so terrified of losing health insurance for her kids that she stays stuck and exhausted at a job she has no passion for?

I know we can't fix the crisis overnight, but I'd rather hear a candidate shoot for the moon on this one, and then tell me how we will incrementally get there.

If we can have Medicare, then certainly we can have a non-profit health insurance system that is portable and not tied to employment.

And under no circumstances should any American citizen under the age of eighteen not have insurance based on the circumstances of the parents.  That is a national disgrace.

But here I go again, "complaining about health care." Won't someone tell me to "stop"?

I voted for Kucinich, not because I think it's realistic for 2008, but because I didn't hear that ultimate goal expressed in any of the others very explicitly, and I think we shouldn't be afraid of it.  I don't think Hillary's 1990's health care plan failure happened because we weren't ready for it.  I think it failed because to the public at large it felt as if it came out of the blue, and - and this is not a swipe, just my recollection from the time - from someone who was neither elected president or appointed by the administration.

I want to give a special thanks to Chris Dodd, whose FMLA had a direct and positive impact in my life, one that, if left to the Republicans, never would have happened.

And a couple of stylistic notes.  This from Obama struck me as aimed directly at Clinton:

But if we really want universal health care in this country, it's not enough just to put a Democrat in the White House, we need to turn the page on yesterday's failed health care debates. We need a President who can bring together business, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution.

Interesting that others picked up on Biden's clever use of links, though he chose not to do it this time.

I know Mike has asked our indulgence on the format, but based on this and last week's answers, I can only conclude that she has chosen not to follow the "I am the only candidate who..." which is a shame because it deadens the rhetorical effect and makes it harder to compare.  Or is that the point?


same comment (4.00 / 1)
as above, Edwards' plan INCLUDES a public option for everyone.

Disclaimer - Don't know if I technically still need one since no longer work in NH, but am paid staffer at AFL-CIO :)

[ Parent ]
Thanks for pointing that out. n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
but Edwards plan (0.00 / 0)
still tied health care to employment, for the most part.

I understand we may need to incrementally get there, and that the Edwards plan is DEFINITELY several steps in the right direction.

However.

We need to be 100% clear that health care should not be tied to employment as a 'benefit'.


[ Parent ]
It isn't tied to employment (0.00 / 0)
though if you are employed employers will be asked to pay for some of it and the plan is portable. But if you aren't, in between jobs, whatever, you still get covered.

Unfortunately the statement submitted really can't cover all the details of his health plan.


[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 1)
The submitted statements can't but the idea is precisely to get the discussion down here going -- where people get the answers they need.



[ Parent ]
It isn't tied to employment (0.00 / 0)
though if you are employed employers will be asked to pay for some of it and the plan is portable. But if you aren't, in between jobs, whatever, you still get covered.

Unfortunately the statement submitted really can't cover all the details of his health plan.


[ Parent ]
100% with you (4.00 / 2)
on the insurance should not be tied to employment. As I have said here before and on dkos when I bothered to post there, the only explanation I can see for corporations not fighting tooth and nail to not have to pay for Health Insurance is they know they would have recruiting and retention issues without it.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.


[ Parent ]
I never thought of it that way, (4.00 / 1)
but yes, it would start making the vast majority of unattractive jobs appear more unattractive.

Who hasn't seen a part-time job opening that seemed perfect for them but not considered it because it's a non-starter without benefits?

I think if we had a system not tied to employment, you'd start to see a lot more creativity in job choice.  Multiple part time jobs, or seasonal work, e.g.


[ Parent ]
Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
we are in agreement.

[ Parent ]
Staggering Insight (4.00 / 1)
The nail on the head:

How many paradigm-busting inventions never get touched in the garage because mom is so terrified of losing health insurance for her kids that she stays stuck and exhausted at a job she has no passion for?

Not to get to dramatic, but the phrase "corporate fuedalism" comes to mind. You know the "16 tons" bit. Except the "company store" is the lending and insurance industries.

To release small business from the burden of "fringe" benefits will spur the American economy. I think it will sting at first and the nay sayers will beat this drum as loud as it will play, but ultimately America is better off.

Don't know much about vouchers, but I like how Gravel addresses the phased approach. Some common sense, in a "hi fallutin'" issue.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


[ Parent ]
I like the Gravel approach too (0.00 / 0)
It seems humane, and it bypasses a lot of the republican "choice" rhetoric, while still leaving the door open for a gov plan.

On the whole, I like th Gravel and Kucinich plans because both realize you have to break the tie of employment to this, which is the most important thing.



[ Parent ]
I like the Gravel approach too (0.00 / 0)
It seems humane, and it bypasses a lot of the republican "choice" rhetoric, while still leaving the door open for a gov plan.

On the whole, I like th Gravel and Kucinich plans because both realize you have to break the tie of employment to this, which is the most important thing.



[ Parent ]
comments (0.00 / 0)
very little commentary about preventive care;

not clear - especially about Obama's- how people who are self insured are affected.  My family pays $1,000 a month with not insignificant deductibles- so to me $2,500 a year sounds low.

And mainly, the issue to me is how will this get done given the tons of money funding so many who are against any reform-

and regarding Dodd, I remember a few months ago when I asked him about this very question, and he said that universal health coverage was very unlikely to happen-


Here goes (4.00 / 3)
In order to do this fairly, in my own mind, I set up a pseudo-scientific method. I rated each response on five criteria, five points each: Ambition, Feasibility, Passability (sorry not to have a better word), Gut (the Chertoffian measure), and Concreteness. A perfect score is 25.

In order:

Edwards: 16. I like the markets idea and wish the campaign said more about it here. Esssentially, he proposes to create regional markets that would buy drugs in bulk, like Canada does (one factor in its cheaper drugs).

Obama: 14. Low on passability and concreteness.

Dodd: 15. Top score for ambition, middle ground on the others, low on passability.

Gravel: 16. High ambition, but he fell down on feasibility and passability.

Kucinich: 17. Again high on ambition, low on passability.

Clinton: 15. The most consistent across the board; low score was concreteness.

Biden: 19. Five for concreteness, high scores on ambition and gut. This is what 20 years in the Senate gets you, a firm grasp on what you have to do to advance legislation. Plus the opening sentence is a grabber.

Richardson: 21. He topped out on ambition and feasibility. But last night, I voted for Biden's, and I'm sticking to that. I told you this wasn't entirely scientific.

General note on decoupling insurance from employment: Great goal. Might be impossible, but let's not assume that and try to get there.


Ask and ye shall receive.... (4.00 / 1)
New Health Markets The U.S. government will help states and groups of states create regional Health Markets, non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance plans.  At least one plan would be a public program based upon Medicare.  All plans will include comprehensive benefits, including full mental health benefits.  Families and businesses could choose to supplement their coverage with additional benefits.  The markets will be available to everyone who does not get comparable insurance from their jobs or a public program and to employers that choose to join rather than offer their own insurance plans.  The benefits of Health Markets include:

? Freedom and Security: Health Markets will give participants a choice among affordable, quality plans. Americans can keep Health Market plans when they change or lose their jobs, start new businesses, or take time off for care giving.

? Choice between Public and Private Insurers:  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.

? Promoting Affordable Care: Health Markets will negotiate low premiums through their economies of scale so they can get a better deal than individuals and many businesses can get on their own.  Health Markets will also hold down administrative costs by reducing the need for underwriting and marketing activities (two-thirds of private insurers? overhead), centrally collecting premiums, and exercising leadership to reduce costs on billing practices, claims processing, and electronic medical records.  Finally, they will be able to work with insurers to adopt cost-effective approaches to health care like preventive care and to collect the data necessary to drive quality improvement.  [Woolhandler et al, 2003]

? Reducing Burdens for Businesses: By assuming the administrative role of negotiating benefit plans with insurers and collecting premiums, Health Markets will minimize administrative burdens for participating businesses and other employers.  Businesses that opt into the markets will only have to make financial contributions to the cost of covering their employees through markets, similar to their role in Social Security and Medicare.

Disclaimer - Don't know if I technically still need one since no longer work in NH, but am paid staffer at AFL-CIO :)


[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 1)
I'm sure followup would be welcome from the other campaigns as well.

[ Parent ]
Impressive (0.00 / 0)
It is impressive that all the Demcoratic candidates are committed to taking positive steps on health care. This is a basic moral issue (and I try not to put moral values on political positions, but the idea that health care availability is limited by wealth is repugnant).  It is also an economic issue; the amount of money that is syphoned off to pay for health insurance is huge.  Not only does it divert employee and employer money from more productive uses, it also increases the costs of American products and services, so our economy takes a double whack. 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 


Poll (0.00 / 0)
1) Not one vote for Richardson? Shows dissatisfaction with the current system, I think, since he wants to work within it.

2) Mike -- why more votes than voters?


I don't like Richardson's statement (0.00 / 0)
because he's, again, using defensive language.  He's framing the issue in a way that is destructive to the progressive brand...

His second sentence implies that true universal coverage would create nothing but a huge sprawling mass of government bureaucracy... appealing to the right wing faux ideal of small government.  This reinforces the idea the universal health care is bad because its a big government philosophy.

Also, he again talks about tax cuts as a solution.  He seems to think they are the solution to everything... and its pissing me off.  Again, its a right wing idea that cutting taxes is the solution to everything.

Besides.  If you're poor, you should be paying relatively few taxes... so a tax cut isn't going to be giving you nearly enough income to pay for health care.


[ Parent ]
Hmmmmnn (4.00 / 1)
There is an awful lot I like about Richardson-the whole international negotiating thing-

BUT and a BIG BUT

I seem to hear and read repeatedly the fear of big govt, old school tax and spend crazy liberals...

Enough!

I want to end the fear invoking big govt, old money tax everyone but the corporate class crazy "conservatives".

Knock it off Bill!


[ Parent ]
I see your point (0.00 / 0)
But I'm still not sold on this "progressive" label. I'm a liberal.

I actually found a YouTube clip with Claude Bessy backing me up ("There is no such thing as 'New Wave'"), but I'm not even linking to it because of a certain word that he uses.



[ Parent ]
I use both... (0.00 / 0)
Liberal and Progressive...  but you get my point.

[ Parent ]
That's from Decline and Fall of Western Civ. Right? (0.00 / 0)
Great analogy. Really good in fact.

You could link, rather than embed...



[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
And thank you.

Given the colorful language, I decided to not even link.


[ Parent ]
Tort Reform? Anyone? (0.00 / 0)
I distinctly recall Tort Reform being part of the 2004 discourse.

Is it a non-issue in 2008?

Anyone?

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


I recall tort reform being a GOP mantra (0.00 / 0)
We would call it "protecting doctors and insurance companies." For some reason, the GOP believes in the free market at all costs, except when the cost is rising malpractice insurance or large insurance settlements. Tort reform means limiting the amount you can sue for if something horrible happens to you or your family. In short, like elimination of the estate tax (the so-called "death tax"), it benefits few and hurts many.

[ Parent ]
The baby with the bath water? (0.00 / 0)
Yep! It was the GOP. Hmmm. Let's ignore it then.

So, we don't have ambulance chasers and false claims, because the capitalists are big bullies?

Remember, I used the phrase "corporate fuedalism" earlier. I do not eat at Chez Whitey's and have no love for the Military/Industrial/Media Complex.

However, the US is guilty of being quick to litigate and I am not sure how Malpractice issues will be addressed in our future state.

Any Canadians handy?

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


[ Parent ]
I didn't say to ignore them (0.00 / 0)
But I don't want to carry their water either. We have a system that is designed to curb the abuses of ambulance chasers, excessive litigation, and unfair penalties. It's called our judicial system, and it's far from perfect, but fundamentally, it works.


[ Parent ]
Tort reform or tort refrain? Either way, this cost most diminish! (0.00 / 0)
Pardon my presumption. I get defensive a times. As part of the radical middle, I get worked up when I perceive one side disregarding a solid point of the other.

With regards to malpractice cases, it would seem that many cases are settled before judgement. Thus, lawyers get paid by dragging out the legal process until settlement. The insurance companies transfer the cost of this to you and me.

Now comes the conspiracy theory! Who makes the laws? Who lobbies the legislators? Who operates in the quagmire of malpractice?

Back to the proverbial baby. How do we ensure that practitioners of medicine are kept accountable for malpractice, while minimizing the cesspool of litigation for the sake of sustaining a niche economy? How do we do that when government enters the equation as a large factor?

We talk in broad strokes about "market based" vs. "socialization". As health care shifts over the next decade, there will be a few macro and many micro adjustments that will create the final equilibrium. It all gets paid for, wether by premiums or taxation.

Who will pay? The political discussion is designed to shift the mindset of the American public. Who will pay?
The poor? The wealthy? The middle class? It is clear that the middle class is breaking under the burden they are currently under. If we weren't, then health care would not be an issue! Who will pay?

Since we ALL will pay, some more than others; the cost will have to be reduced. The micro-economy of the legal community will have to subsidize health care by giving up false to shaky malpractice cases. Tort reform or tort refrain? Either way, this cost most diminish!

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


[ Parent ]
I certainly agree that no cost can be overlooked (0.00 / 0)
... but I think there are bad doctors, so the problem of malpractice won't go away, and I'm leery of legislation to protect them.

To your main point, yep, everybody pays, one way or the other. This is a massive problem and fixing it will take a massive effort.


[ Parent ]
I certainly agree that no cost can be overlooked (0.00 / 0)
... but I think there are bad doctors, so the problem of malpractice won't go away, and I'm leery of legislation to protect them.

To your main point, yep, everybody pays, one way or the other. This is a massive problem and fixing it will take a massive effort.


[ Parent ]
Sorry for the double post (0.00 / 0)
Not sure what happened there.

[ Parent ]
removing the profit motive (4.00 / 1)
will improve the quality of care, thereby lessening the liklihood of lawsuits.

One reason mistakes are made is that patients are run through doctors offices on a conveyor belt, one every 12 minutes. It's not enough time to say hello - much less find out what's really wrong with someone. Hospitals are understaffed - so the quality of care and cleanliness are often slipshod - and infections are on the rise. One of my friends recently got a burrowing parasitical infection during a routine hernia operation. He has no skin from his navel to his thighs - and he no longer has his testicles. My daughter lost her left eye as the result of an indifferent doctor on an understaffed day at the emergency room. 

My daughter chose not to sue. She could (and SHOULD) have. I don't know what my friend who is missing his testes will choose to do. Both were preventable. 

NH Kucinich Campaign


Truth in expectation (0.00 / 0)
Health care, like war, has casulaties. As I proceed, please understand that my sympathy to those real-life people is fully extended. My next next offering should not be construed as diminishing their suffering in any way, shape or form.

Could it be, that we have been "sold" a false product? As you pointed out, since profit is currently part of the equation; could we have an unrealistic expectaion of the quality of care that we can receive? Seriously, has the "commercial" put before us, the consumer, been exaggerated or hyped?

I am sure that, in America, we can provide the best care available, period. It makes perfect sense that the President of the United States of America will be afforded the BEST. How many American's could realistically be afforded comparable care? Yet, as a democratic society, we expect comparable care. Should we?

The lobbyists say YES! And so do the Lawyers.

As the debate rages on, let's consider that our expectations of quality may be inflated by the promotion put forth by the profiteers.



SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


[ Parent ]
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox