Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Five Health Care Questions for the Democratic Candidates

By Roger Hickey, TomPaine.com. Posted March 23, 2007.


Here are five questions the Democratic presidential candidates at Saturday's health care debate must answer.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The presidential candidates are feeling the pressure from voters to tackle the escalating health care crisis with bold and comprehensive solutions. So when the Center for American Progress and the Service Employees International Union invited all the candidates to Las Vegas this Saturday morning to debate health care, nearly all the Democratic candidates agreed to participate. (Alas, all the Republican candidates will be taking a pass.) 

You can view the debate and join a live blog and discussion.

At the onset of the debate, former Senator John Edwards is likely to be the center of attention, and not only because of the wrenching news of his wife’s recurrent cancer. Edwards has been driving the health care debate with a  very detailed plan to assure health coverage for everyone in America. Now the other candidates are determined to match him, though most have yet to offer specifics at this early stage of the race.

Of the other leading candidates, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has rejected “tinkering and half-way measures.” He declared in January that he plans “in the next few months” to lay out a health care plan that will cover everyone “by the end of the next president’s term”—meaning his first term.  And Senator Hillary Clinton, who as head of Bill Clinton’s health care task force, tried and failed to move an ambitious health care program, is somewhat more cautious, saying she won't lay out a plan until she “listens to what the people want.” As reported by Bloomberg News, on January 28, she said, “This time, we're going to build a consensus first.'' 

Congressman Dennis Kucinich doesn’t have the poll numbers to be treated as a leading candidate, but he will come with a clear and detailed plan for health care for all. He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 676, a “single-payer” plan covering all Americans in a public system. Kucinich can be expected to be a provocative challenger to the other candidates– especially those who feel the need to subsidize, and try to regulate, the private health insurance companies to get them to go beyond “cherry picking” —insuring only healthier Americans who bring in more profit—with more subsidies to private insurance companies.


[We at Campaign for America’s Future are promoting an important new “benchmark” health care plan written by Yale professor Jacob Hacker. The Health Care for America plan would start with choice—allowing individuals and companies to continue with their current health care arrangements if they are happy with them. All employers would be required to provide their workers private insurance of good quality, or pay five percent of payroll to have their employees covered through a Medicare-style public plan. Hacker sees this approach as essential to providing guaranteed coverage while controlling costs in the entire health care system.]

As we watch the debate on Saturday, how will we tell if the other candidates are as committed as Edwards and Kucinich to fundamentally solving the health care crisis? And how will we tell if Edwards or Kucinich has the plan and presentation that can get the job done?

What follows are some questions for every candidate, to help judge whether each is really serious about health care for all:

1. Will the candidate’s plan really cover everyone —with a decent guaranteed level of coverage—at an affordable cost? Calling a plan “universal” is not enough. Massachusetts’ new ”universal” plan requires everyone to purchase health insurance, but the legislature has still not shown that it will devote the resources necessary (or exert the regulatory control over private insurance companies) to assure that everyone has a good health plans at an affordable premium.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health care, election08, presidential candidates

Roger Hickey is the co-chair of Campaign for America’s Future.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ALL candidates should answer these questions. Plus a few more:
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 23, 2007 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) are you for limiting tort liability for hospitals and doctors so that frivously lawsuits and excessive awards don't scare doctors away from providing certain services or locating in certain areas?
2) will the universal system pay competitive, real-world pricing for services rendered by hospitals and doctors? Will it cover the costs of providing the care and the profit necessary for the maintenance of hospitals and doctors?
3) will the system have some form of oversight on hospitals and doctors? Will doctors and healthcare providers be punished for bad service, malpractice, and other crimes? If so, how? Criminal or civil?
4) will the system pay for medications? If so how and at what price? Will there be oversight of BigPharma? Will prices be monitored? If they lie or commit crimes in 'testing' drugs will they be held liable? Criminal or Civil? If the drugs damage people how are they punished?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medi-care is a dieing animal
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 23, 2007 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and the Conservative Movement killed it. Hey, as Christians they can't let the poor have free doctors. Jesus fucking Christ! North America will have the same level of medical care as Mexico. It's what Free Trade is all about. Don't worry, we've taken care of those commie loving Canadians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Expect Legalization of Polygamous Same-Sex Marriages....
Posted by: CatDad on Mar 23, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...before you see universal, single payer health care in the wealthiest nation the world has ever known. Since when has efficacy been the sole criteria of any policy in our corporate-controlled government??? I'm telling you folks...single payer/universal coverage is simply something we aren't going to see for decades. If ANY universal coverage comes....the model will be based on the Medicare drug benefit plan...that is, maintaining the existing system of private and government reimbursement and building the system on top of that....a convoluted, inefficient mess...BUT, one which keeps the corporate insurance/medical system intact....Expect health costs, as a percentage of GDP, to explode even further as result.

In the interim: Any "debate" in the mainstream media will focus on the handful of people in Canada who died while on waiting lists for operations. This is how the "debate" will be framed. Members of our nation’s ruling elite simply will not tolerate being told to wait a few days to see their doctor because some lower-class plebe smashed his finger in the door. The Right Wing/Conservative movement will not tolerate, under any circumstances, another successful, government run program like Social Security or Medicare which contradicts their free-market ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health care reform = Campaign finance reform.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 23, 2007 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my opinion health care reform is similar to campaign finance reform in two ways. One - Unless corporations are totally kept out of it, it will fail. Two - Neither major party will back a candidate who will buck the corporate establishment.

I believe that the only practicable way for our citizens to control the government is to take control of both parties.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Healthcare??! What about gay crossdressing minority med school applicants???
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Mar 23, 2007 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stick with the IMPORTANT stuff! Who cares whether healthcare is a massive extortion on all working class america that is killing thousands of us every year?

What is important is how gay crossdressing minority applicants are disadvantaged when they apply to medical school.

Get yer priorities in order!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At the world level, private health insurance cannot compete with public health care.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 23, 2007 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I expect employers to band together to eliminate health care benefits for employees before they support a single payer system. I must admit that even having leading national candidates talking about it is new and different. It is so much easier to deny, deny, deny that there is a problem.

The sick minimum wage folks have either gone without medical care or they have been dumped on the local tax payers. I expect to hear the national Chamber of Commerce continue to support that neglect. With a bit of luck, the local CofC's will fight back, but I won't hold my breath.

The medical establishment is right up there with real estate, insurance, and banks in contributions to the GOP. They do not want changes made. It will be like pulling teeth (?) or brain surgery (?) to get a change. Admitting that we have a problem is the first step, and the hardest, because we all know once that is out in the open, we can really see how bad it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PREVENTION IS OUR ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 24, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good questions Roger Hickey! No country on the planet has figured health care out?

But even Dr. Elias Zerhouni, head of the prestigious U.S NIH, said last summer that a treatment oriented health care system is not economicallysustainable. He is correct.

Below is my #8 point plan I published in 1995 ( slightly revised after Katrina) I am for both individual and institutional prevention. So I am not for victim blaming but nor am I for victimhood.

GROW UP AMERICA-A HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS- proposed by Richard. A Lippin MD*

-Stop prolonging death. It’s both expensive and dehumanizing at best, greedy and cruel at worst.

-Empower US citizens to assume increased individual responsibility for health and convince medical consumers that it is in their best interests not to assume the role of helpless, dependent victims/patients.

-Yet also recognize that we have medicalized America’s social problems. So we must provide healthy and safe jobs for all able citizens thereby reducing poverty and all its subsequent health impacts (possibly 1/3rd of health care costs)

-Provide healthy environments including healthy air, water, soil and food.

-Rebuild America’s public health infrastructure to ensure we provide appropriate macro and individual interventions to especially low income citizens such as childhood and adult immunizations and response to man-made and natural catastrophes.

-Face the reality that a very large percentage of illnesses, injuries and hospitalizations are entirely preventable. Subsequently, the elimination of tobacco, alcohol, drug, medication and dietary abuse alone could immediately reduce medical costs by a factor of at least fifty percent.

-Incent and train physicians to maintain the health of patients and populations. Radical changes in provider re-imbursement and medical education strategies are necessary

-Recognize that early childhood preventive medical education can profoundly affect lifelong health behaviors.

*proposed in June of 1995
Revised January 2006/2007

Thanks for your consideration of my plan

Be Well,

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alohamoana
Posted by: alohamarilyn on Mar 24, 2007 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By eliminating insurance companies and just the paper work involved, we would have the funds to pay for doctors, clinics and hospitals. Are we willing to get rid of the insurance companies? I am in favor of doing so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do not socialise healthcare!
Posted by: Cerberus on Mar 25, 2007 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do not make the mistake that Sweden did, socialising healthcare. Sweden’s healthcare is under severe strain, it can no longer be supported by tax revenue. In Sweden public healthcare is only funded trough tax. In the US it is 30 % by tax dollar. However the US spends more per capita on its public heaths system than does Sweden.

The US needs to have a compulsory system and Sweden need a combination of Public and private financing of its system.

The problem with the US system is that is demand driven and the problem with the Swedish system is that is only supply driven. The US system is not able to cope with healthcare for all and the Swedish system is no fast becoming unable to supply comprehensive healthcare for all because it will not allow additional funding coming from private insurance.

Do not use progressive taxation for paying for the system; instead it should be that way that everybody that is employed must have a health insurance paid for by the employer. Medicare should be expanded to cover those that cannot be insured.

However do not set up a system with a huge governmental monolith health insurance program, it becomes grossly inefficient and wastes tax dollars. Sweden’s healthcare system waste most tax dollar of any system within the OECD, 40 % of every tax dollar is unaccounted for. Swedish doctors and nurses see half as many patients as comparable countries. Not surprising the public sector is most efficient in the US, Japan, Luxemburg, Australia, and Switzerland. Why is that? The reason is simple, these countries has restricted the tax financed public sector.

See study;

Public sector efficiency: an international comparison (Working Paper No. 242), by António Afonso, Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi, 402 kb, en
Published in: Public Choice (2005), 123: 321-347.

http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp242.pdf

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Do not socialise healthcare! Posted by: Lincoln fan