Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Environment

Edwards Challenges Obama and Clinton, Richardson Surprises at Health Care Debate

AlterNet. Posted March 26, 2007.


The New Leadership On Health Care presidential forum put on display which of the candidates have the most serious plans -- Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel and Richardson -- and who isn't clear on their plans -- Obama and Clinton.
Advertisement

This article is a summary of the positions taken by the Democratic presidential candidates at the "New Leadership On Health Care" presidential forum hosted by The Center for American Progress and Service Employees International Union in Las Vegas on March 24 as recorded in the mainstream press and Campaign for America's Future blog. Special credit goes to Isaiah Poole and Bill Scher. Roger Hickey of CAF has written an overview of how the candidates performed overall.

John Edwards:

Former Senator John Edwards kicked off the presidential forum by laying out his previously announced plan. He stressed that his plan "covers all Americans" through "shared responsibilities." He noted that "employers are required to either cover their employees or to pay into a fund" that will provide coverage.

And regarding our government's role, John Edwards said:

"Government plays an important role, [setting] up health care markets all across America. And in each of those markets, if you’re the consumer, you can go in and choose what your health care plan will be. Some of the choices are private insurers. And then one choice is a government plan, basically a Medicare-plus plan. The idea is to determine whether Americans actually want a private insurer, or whether they’d rather have a government-run, Medicare-plus kind of single-payer plan. And we’ll find out over time which way people go."

He also emphasized cost containment. In response to a small businessman struggling with high costs, Edwards responded that through mandatory preventative care coverage, and competition between private insurers and government plans that have "extraordinarily low" administrative costs, those costs would "dramatically" drop.

But he did not flinch at addressing the "transitional" costs to a new system, saying it would cost $90 to $120 billion a year, which he would pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $200,000.

(by Bill Scher)

Also, according to CNN:

Edwards pressed to provide a detailed plan to cover the nation's uninsured -- estimated at about 47 million -- and describe how they will pay for it. His chief competitors, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, did not rule out the possibility that they would follow his lead with a plan requiring a tax increase, but they provided no specifics.

"I have not foreclosed the possibility that we might need additional revenue in order to achieve my goal, but we shouldn't underestimate the amount of money that can be saved in the existing system," Obama said when asked whether he would raise taxes to reach his goal of universal coverage by the end of his first term."I can tell you I will do whatever it takes," the Illinois senator added.

Clinton did not say whether or not she is considering a tax increase, but said she cannot see putting more money into what she described as the current broken system.

Kucinich: Health Care "A Human Right"

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich used the forum to continue his vigorous pitch for a single-payer health care system, arguing that the plans of the other major candidates were too dependent on insurance companies and others with a profit motive that was antithetical to the notion of universal, nondiscriminatory care.

To critics who raise the fear that a totally government-run system would end up rationing care to control costs, Kucinich said that insurance companies already ration care. He also scoffed at the argument that private-sector competition would reduce costs, saying that the opposite has been the case in health care.

The bottom line, Kucinich said during the close of his presentation, is that "health care is a right, not a privilege. It is a right. It is a human right."

(by Isaiah Poole)

Hillary Clinton: Battle-Scarred But In The Health-Care Fight

A passionate New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton recalled the "battle scars" from the days when she tried to launch a detailed health plan when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president, into what proved to be an unforgiving political environment. In her opening statement, unlike Edwards, she chose to stick to general principles rather than details, but in response to questions she said she would support a plan that would require employers who do not purchase private health insurance for their employees to pay into a pool for a Medicare-for-all-type plan.

She was particularly critical of insurance companies, promising to introduce a bill in this session of Congress that would eliminate barriers that prevent insured people from getting the care to which they are entitled. Recalling the story of a constituent whose insurance company refused to authorize coverage for an urgently needed medical procedure, Clinton said it shouldn’t take a call from a senator’s office to get an insurance company to provide the coverage patients pay for.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election 2008, health care, seiu

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


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:
Which one can do it?
Posted by: Urstrly on Mar 26, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like for these candidates to tell us how they're going to wrest the health care system away from the insurance companies. These companies have grown fat from rationing the benefits of insured Americans, and I can't imagine they're going to walk away without a huge fight.

Dodd is right that everyone should have the medical care that we afford Members of Congress and federal employees. Maybe if they were part of Social Security, they'd be more inclined to fix that too.

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

» And a Cadillac in every garage? Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: Which one can do it? Posted by: Lincoln fan
It's about re-allocation
Posted by: PJAW on Mar 26, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is already enough money pulsing through the system to pay providers to provide all the care that everyone in the US needs. What needs to be accomplished is a redirection of that money. Too much is being consumed by "administrative" costs, which among other things pays for the glass palaces along the interstate that are corporate headquarters and the massive, muli-million dollar copensation packages for high level executives. In the private sector (where most of us exist) these "administrative" costs are approximately 25%. In other words, they get the first 25 cents of every premium dollar you send in.

The federal government needs to assume control of this monster and we need to elect people who will see to it that it is properly managed.

Provider compensation needs to be scheduled in a rational manner to allow providers to exist comfortably (hey, they work hard and they do good things), and a methodology for redirecting current premium payments through a new financial center needs to be developed.

Existing insurance companies can be contracted on a regional basis, strictly for the purpose of processing claims.

Strict sanctions need to be established that will eject those who abuse "the system", be they providers who bill for services not provided or demonstrably unnecessary, or hypochondriacs who beleaguer them with non-existence complaints.

Current high level insurance executives must be banned from participating in any way in this new system's development and administration. As a group, they have shown themselves to be unworthy of trust.

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

Rationing
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Mar 26, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To critics who raise the fear that a totally government-run system would end up rationing care to control costs, Kucinich said that insurance companies already ration care.

I am so glad to hear a politician making that statement. That has been my feeling since 2001, when my father died, at the age of 47, of a blood clot. He had manifested clots on a previous occasion but the HMO doctors who treated him had not ordered blood tests for antithrombin deficiency, which can (and in this case did) result from a genetic disorder. Had they ordered that test, the results would have indicated a need for him to be on blood thinners: not ordering the test saved money for the company.

This act of rationing not only killed my father but placed the health of myself and my siblings at risk. The doctor who treated my father unsuccessfully in the emergency room told us that we all needed to get tested.

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

Health Care reform
Posted by: robchapman on Mar 26, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems unrealistic to believe that a system, such as ours, which is known to leave 47,000,000 million people without coverage can be fixed merely by reallocating resources.

In my opinion, it is equally unrealistic to think that the costs of health care for the next thirty years can go anywhere but up.

The aging of the population, the vast increases in chronic diseases caused by poor diet and sedentary life styles, the potential for a major outbreak of an infectious disease and the effects on health of our continued degradation of the environment are all factors that indicate health care costs will continue to rise in real terms.

Simply stated, our future population is likely to be sicker and to require more care.

The article did not describe any plans by any of the candidates to adress the health care implications of obesity, environmental degradation or the potential of an infectious disease outbreak.

These are all medical issues that could be approached through activist social policy.

Activist social policy aimed at reducing obesity, for instance, would require legislation to protect workers who try to take exercise breaks at work. Conceivably, such policy could also affect health education by stressing nutriotional instruction and giving citizens access exercise areas and time to exercise.

Infrastructure repair to assure access to pure water and a national committment to a safe vaccination program are steps adress the infectious disease problem.

It is also important for the government to strengthen the EPA and environmental protection as environmental factors are clearly contributing to chronic and acute outbreaks of diseases such as allergies and cancer.

It is important and laudatory for the candidates to set forth detailed, realistic and comprehensive health INSURANCE plans, but the public should insist on a national debate to improve overall health care policy, too.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

Health Care
Posted by: goldbeme on Mar 26, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am astounded at the cowardice of the candidates. We need to make private insurers, with their huge overheads and profits and rotten care, a thing of the past. We have to cut the tie between employment and health insurance, and instead have one single government-run payer for all health problems. Medicare, which is basically that, works.

I am a (very) part-time practicing physicians (85% of my time is teaching and research), and yet I spend a huge amount of time and money dealing with insurance companies for my 15%.

I would vote for anyone who merely said "Expand medicare to everyone." None of the candidates have said that, although Kucinich and Edwards came closest.

Amusingly, in 1952 when he was being confirmed as Secretary of Defense, Charles Wilson, then president of GM, said "What's good for GM is good for America." He was right- we should elimnate the cost of health care from industry, so we can compoete with VW and BMW and Toyota without having to carry health care costs they they don't.

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

The Money is There
Posted by: gbreez on Mar 26, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the money is there, or would be if all the paperwork, advertising, corporate perks and out-of-balance paychecks for CEO's were gone. And, all the money they spend working out how to avoid paying what they owe to us. Read or listen to Kucinich. He is the only who is willing to confront the insurance companies and to tell us the truth that it is the insurance companies that are the problem. A one-payer, one card, Medicare for all system would eliminate the huge amount of money spent by insurance companies that has nothing to do with health care. It is the only proposition, imho, that makes sense. They are the problem, get rid of them. A Pres with "no strings attached" could do this, especially working with this new Congress.

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

» Kucinich all the way!!! Posted by: alternetleslie
Another America is Possible
Posted by: peachmcd on Mar 26, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I would vote for anyone who merely said "Expand medicare to everyone."

Kucinich is the candidate you're/we're waiting for. When he says 'universal single-payer' what he's saying is exactly the expansion of a medicare-form system to all Americans. It will cost less per individual than the for-profit system we have now, and be administered by a non-profit govt bureau. Have FANNIE-MAE or SALLIE-MAE made us socialists? No. They've gotten Americans into homes and into colleges.

The insurance co.s have used scary tactics for the last umpteen years to forestall this conversation, but Kucinich slices and dices all their arguments because he knows what they're about. And he's the only candidate running who has already shown the integrity necessary to stand up to corporate power tactics even when they threaten his career/position

I do not trust any politician running for president to have that kind of integrity against the 'Health Care Industry' unless they have demonstrated it in the past. I see Hilary as beholden to many corporate sponsors, and Obama trying to hedge his bets. I have no historical or rational reason whatsoever to think that the candidate our Corporate Media annoint as 'electable' actually is. So, in the primaries, I will vote for the candidate who best represents my interests, policy positions, and patriotic aspirations EVEN IF THE MEDIA SAYS HE'S NOT ELECTABLE.

All they're really saying is 'he's not pretty' or 'he's not good for our bottom line'. Damn straight, Kucinich isn't pretty, and he's not good for any large corporation's bottom line. But he's GREAT for those who want every single American (whatever their race, gender, or social strata) to get a fair shake at work and in the courts, and he's GREAT for those who long for peace and constructive engagement in the world community to solve the pressing ecological/economic problems of our generation.

And I'm so glad he's running again, and actually in the debates. Listen to him and compare his positions with your dreams. Then vote your heart in the primaries, and ignore embedded pundits who have repeatedly failed progressive voters the way Kucinich ignored the editorials of advertiser-beholden newspapers.

Another America is Possible,
Peach McD in Durham NC

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

Look North
Posted by: tulugaq on Mar 26, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Canadian expat, I am consistently explaining the virtues of a government-funded, single-payer health care system. In 28 years in Canada, I never once had to worry about a doctor or hospital bill for anyone in my family. Restrictions (needing referrals for specialist care, etc.) were minor. Drugs, of course, cost much less.

Arguments that "Canadians are coming to the US by the hundreds for health care that is rationed at home" are specious. In Canada, elective services are first-come, first-served, which annoys the hell out of the wealthy, who expect to go to the front of the line. I don't know anyone who needed immediate care who didn't get it. By contrast, family members in Seattle went to Vancouver for lasik surgery, which is much cheaper there than in the US.

I know no Canadians who would trade their precious system for the sick one here. Yes, it needs more money -- but that is a mater of political will, as it is everywhere.

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

» RE: Look North Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Don't Stovepipe Health Care says Chris Dodd
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 26, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Don't Stovepipe the Health Care issue" was the most important statement made during the three hour forum in Las Vegas. It was made by Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Well paying, meaningfull, healthy and safe jobs for all able Americans would do more for the health of U.S citizens than anything the medical industry could possibly deliver.

I wrote on this forum and ranked all #7 candidates on my blog at Critical Condition Blog

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

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

H.R. 676
Posted by: gbreez on Mar 26, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forgot to include this link to the Conyers-Kucinich Health Care Bill, H.R.676, currently before Congress:

http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

This is the one.
It would, imho, change everything.

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

Organized Medicine and the Treatment Industry has Duped You!
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 26, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coming from a physician this is going to sound radical.

But paternalistic organized medicine linked to a treatment oriented disease care industry has duped us!

Only about 15% of human health outcomes relates to the medical care industry as it is currently constituted.

I urge you to read Nortin Hadler's book The Last Well Person".

It is the most important book on U.S. Medicine since Ivan Illich's landmark book Medical Nemesis written in 1976

Most importantly, don't get harmed by the U.S. medical care industry

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

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

Kiss Kucinich Goodbye
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 26, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless people who want single payer health insurance tell the officials of both parties that's what they want, the Democrats won't back any candidate who opposes the insurance companies. They can't afford to lose the insurance industry funding, especially if the Republicans can pick it up.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln initiative.

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

Hundreds of Billions for Iraq, but not for us?
Posted by: macktan on Mar 26, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand. Why do we have hundreds of billions of dollars available to fight an endless Iraq war, but not enough for a health care plan?

A universal health care plan should drive down the costs of health care. Why are prescription drugs so costly? A doctor's visit so costly that we can no longer pay for a trip to the emergency room unless we make enough money to pay for our own insurance policy?

Universal health care and for-profit medicine seem to be anti-thetical concepts, oil and water. Perhaps no one has details because no one has figured out how to do one without huge changes in the other?

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

It's easy!
Posted by: Landbaron on Mar 26, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just tax the ever-livin' shit out of unhealthy foods (tranfat) and risky hobbies and activities! All proceeds to National Healthcare!
Oh wait, keeping risky behavior affordable is more important than health care for all.

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

Racist white rednecks! Glass Ceilings for Female Yuppies! Rich Diversity of Immigrants!GAYS GAYS!!!
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Mar 26, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how can we talk about healthcare when we have female white collar yuppies earning only 96% of what males do?

And what about those evil white rednecks from Red States who don't like gays!?

And the poor immigrants! We need more of their rich diversity of culture here in America!!!

How can we talk about some mundane stuff like healthcare when there are SO MANY other choices?? It slices, it dices!

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

you're never satisfied are you whacko? Finally address healthcare
Posted by: yellow on Mar 26, 2007 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in a big way like your demand and you're back to race baiting, sexism, and gay bashing. Cryofan, Mike Hardesty, whoever you need to get lost.

A single payer system needs to be stressed for the effeciency it brings by eliminating redundant administration. Some experts have claimed that this alone could save nearly $400 billion, almost the cost of insuring the 47 million uninsured at the current per capita rate that is spent per capita of just under $7,000. If we add restored federal income taxes on the rich, a cut in the military budget and end to the Wars in the Middle East, and maybe even a small contribution to the federal government to be included in the current payroll tax or collected as a separate payroll tax there is no reason that we can't have a fully funded national health care plan and one of the finest in the world with NO rationing of care. All it takes if the political will.

Republican elites are probably afraid that if this works it will justify reversing their entire program of neo-liberal globalization, safety net shredding, union-busting, and tax cutting for the rich. They fear the rise of a new middle class with consign their shitty political party to utter irrelevance. As well it should!!

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

» RE: Unnecessary complication. Posted by: Lincoln fan
WHERE IS OBAMA?
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 27, 2007 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A big question is-

"WHERE IS REALLY OBAMA ON HEALTH CARE REFORM?"

I don't think Obama knows yet?

He is learning "on the job"- his soft underbelly on many issues?

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

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

Health Care Debate
Posted by: jalde on Mar 28, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who really cares? Politicians are going to be at this for a long time as usual and furthermore, why should health care be a priority? For whom? No one's that important.

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

A need to clarify on this health care debacle
Posted by: jalde on Mar 28, 2007 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My earlier comment sounded crass but I didn't mean it to come out that way, but there it stands. I was angry last night because, to me, a politician is a politician is a.....and I don't rightly care if it's Obama or Ted Kennedy or Trent Lott, or whomever. I have become more and more disgusted with politicians, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, I really don't care. We keep letting the same people into power and never learning from our mistakes which is why I made that earlier comment. I mean, you put them in there, so deal with it. I was raised a Democrat and for a long time, I truly believed that the Democrats could do no wrong, and well, I couldn't be more self-deceived. So nowadays, I will always vote for the unknown. I would never know whether I made a good choice or a bad one since these candidates don't ever stand a chance. That's because of stupidity on the part of the voting public. Like here in California with our current governor. Of course, he would get re-elected because of the stupidity of the California voters; those who are so impressed with his "star power". Oh well.

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