Jay Stewart ([info]bbwoof) wrote,
@ 2007-12-27 16:21:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: anxious
Entry tags:politics

PSA: The Edwards Plan
I make no secret of the fact that I support Barrack Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination, and thereafter, for the Presidency.

I just read one of Obama's mass emailings, again asking me to donate money to the campaign, because John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have "outside groups" spending millions in their support. Obama, of course, claims to want to do away with this kind of "politics as usual" -- a goal of which I generally approve.

But something about the way this appeal was phrased made me a little ... suspicious ... as to what the truth of the matter might be. So, I went looking for facts.

What I discovered -- completely unrelated to the original goal of my search -- made me not suspicious, but ALARMED. Look at this excerpt from John Edwards' official campaign website about his universal healthcare plan:

* Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.

If you aren't scared, read it again. No, I'll wait for you.

Edwards' plan makes the same mistake that the Clinton Plan did in 1994: It puts the cart WAY before the horse. It mandates universal healthcare insurance, but ignores the even more basic universal needs of food, clothing and shelter.

The Clinton Plan was all set to force hospitals to become homeless shelters. The Edwards Plan will require every resident of America to pay for health insurance, even if she cannot afford to feed her children. How will Edwards enforce this requirement? Will he open the War on the Uninsured? Will this universal healthcare eventually be provided by prison infirmaries?

I won't argue that the American healthcare system needs serious financial overhaul. (I have no such qualms about the provider side of the system -- our medical facilities and technology are more than up for the job.) On the other hand, reality demands that we recognize that "universal healthcare" is impossible until after we've solved the problems of "universal subsistence".

Any politician who is intelligent enough to be a legislator or an executive knows that universal healthcare is a chimera. Therefore, I will automatically distrust any politician who espouses it -- that person is a liar who is trying to distract my attention away from actual, achievable goals.

Caucuses and primary elections are coming up, beginning in just one week. I urge all of you to LEARN all you can about the goals of the various candidates, to THINK about what they say and do, and then to VOTE as your conciences dictate.

Our children may one day have cause to thank you.




(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]wapsi
2007-12-28 01:26 am UTC (link)
Edwards has said recently that he is not wedded to the insurance mandates, and may come up with another way to get people the care they need. I think he's probably the farthest left of the frontrunners, and would espouse a more socialist-style plan if it wouldn't be political suicide. I also think he's the most aware of and committed to broaching the needs of the poor.

As for the "how" of insurance mandates, everybody's looking at the Massachusetts model. I wish they'd look a bit farther, like to The Netherlands or Germany where insurance mandates have been around a bit longer. I agree, it would be a disaster to try require people who already can't afford health care to start spending on it.

(Reply to this)


[info]radarrider
2007-12-28 01:37 am UTC (link)
Indeed, Edwards' plan is scary.

Obama's while somewhat less totally statist, still has these provisions:

-Obama will create a new national health plan to allow individuals without access to affordable insurance coverage to buy coverage similar to that available to members of Congress.

-Mandatory Coverage of Children. Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

Regarding the first, does this mean that the Federal Government will administer the plan? Do we really want FedGov in charge of something like this? Do we want it making the decisions on whether or not to provide a particular treatment or procedure?

Regarding the second, I can think of reasons why a child would not be covered, such as if the parents have sufficient money to pay for medical expenses themselves. In the long run, insurance is always a losing proposition. Most people will pay more for insurance (either directly or as the result of reduced wages as their employers pay premiums) than they would if they paid their health care costs out of pocket. What insurance does is spread the cost more evenly and mitigate the risk of catastrophic medical problems.

My opinion is that it would be better to reduce government's involvement in health care and insurance and enable the private sector better to meet the needs. Perhaps a safety net type program for those facing particular hardship though it would be best if it were at the state level rather than federal.

On the other hand, reality demands that we recognize that "universal healthcare" is impossible until after we've solved the problems of "universal subsistence".

I'd never considered it in just those terms before. Definitely something to think about.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]beckyzoole
2007-12-28 02:52 am UTC (link)
Do we really want FedGov in charge of something like this? Do we want it making the decisions on whether or not to provide a particular treatment or procedure?

It already is in charge of making decisions on healthcare for federal employees, members of the military, medicare recipients, etc. I'm sure federal healthcare isn't as good as the best of private healthcare, but then again, it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bbwoof
2007-12-28 06:21 am UTC (link)
I'm a loss prevention specialist for a hospital. I have seen some of the effects of homelessness firsthand: people who live under a bridge get sick from exposure and malnutrition. They end up in the local Emergency Room, where they are admitted for a number of days necessary for IV sugar, fluids and antibiotics to bring them back to passable health, and then they are released back to their home under the bridge. All of this is paid for (not!) by Medicaid -- generally, the hospital has to write off this expense as "community service".

All I am saying is that healthcare should start BEFORE one becomes ill from malnutrition. No one is addressing that problem.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ithildae
2007-12-28 07:36 am UTC (link)
The federal government already dictates health care through the Medicare UCR system. It drives any hope of efficiency, or marginal profitability out of the health care system. We already have a socialist system of health care, universal coverage is just the final nail that will drive the entire system into bankruptcy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]josiosings
2007-12-28 01:42 am UTC (link)
It certainly is interesting language... It kind of sounds like "those silly poor people just don't know whats best for them - If we require them to get insured, then they wont have a choice."

(Reply to this)


[info]cuglas
2007-12-28 03:02 pm UTC (link)
I HATE this plan. Clinton is proposing that if you don't have insurance, you won't be able to get a job. That's a nightmare for low income workers whose employers don't provide insurance.

I don't think it will force employers to offer low income workers insurance. I think it will create a whole world of low-cost pay-by-the month insurance agencies where people will buy a month's worth of insurance so that they can show proof of insurance and get hired and then cancel the insurance after they're hired because they can't afford it. The only people who profit from this are the insurance companies who get a month of premium with little risk. A month's worth of premium won't cover any preexisting persistent health problems, so the benefits of it to the consumer is nil.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]beckyzoole
2007-12-28 04:03 pm UTC (link)
Yep, that's exactly what will happen.

The Clinton and Edwards plans both continue to link healthcare with employment. I'd rather see basic healthcare provided on a community level, much as education is. If you don't like the public clinic you could still get private insurance or pay for your own private care.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…