Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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

How the Democratic Frontrunners Compare on Health Care

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, TheNation.com. Posted December 3, 2007.


Can Clinton, Edwards or Obama actually fix our health care system?
Advertisement

With Iowa one month away, the almost obsessive horserace coverage is in full swing and, as it has for much of campaign, it shortchanges the substance of the serious and urgent issues in dispute.

Take the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over whose healthcare plan would cover more people or cost less. The substance of that battle received about two sentences in today's Washington Post front page story out of Iowa. But here's the real problem (because we all know horserace coverage is what we're going to get at this stage in this endless campaign)....Even if the Post or the Times devoted a full story analyzing the leading candidates' healthcare proposals, how much attention would the two papers give to alternatives offered by someone like Congressman Dennis Kucinich--the only candidate supporting a truly universal, Medicare for all, healthcare plan that, according to recent polls, has majority support? I suspect very little. In our downsized politics of excluded alternatives, media polices the parameters of what's considered "realistic" when it comes to many choices, including healthcare reform.

That's why a recent analysis of the mainstream candidates' healthcare proposals is so valuable. Released by Healthcare-NOW, an organization committed to universal single payer reform, it's a useful guide for voters who want to understand the full range of choices they should be seeking in this campaign. It's not that all of the leading candidates' proposals aren't advances over what we have now, but as voters and citizens we could demand more. And it will require an independent progressive movement to push truly universal healthcare reform onto the next president's agenda.

Check out the analysis below, prepared by Len Rodberg, Research Director, New York Metro Chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program, September 25, 2007. Presented to the New York Chapter of Healthcare-NOW on November 6, 2007.

***

The Mainstream Democratic Candidate' Proposals for Universal Healthcare

The mainstream Democratic candidates for President -- John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- have each put forward their proposals for "affordable quality health coverage for all." The three Democrats' proposals, while purporting to provide "universal health care", will not actually achieve this goal:

None of these plans offers a realistic way of containing the rising cost of health care. All will add additional funds to an already too-costly system. None will truly provide universal access to care.

Only a single payer national health insurance program can actually achieve affordable, workable universal access to health care.

The three proposals share a set of common elements:

The private insurance system would remain in place, with no fundamental change in the way it operates. Those who currently have insurance would not experience any change in how they are insured or the coverage they have.

Large employers would be required to provide insurance for their employees or (in the case of Edwards and Obama) pay into a fund to subsidize insurance for their employees.

Everyone (for Edwards and Clinton) or children (for Obama) would be required to have insurance, either through their employer or purchased on their own (an "individual mandate"). Income-related subsidies would be provided through the tax system.

Insurers would be required to offer coverage to everyone ("guaranteed issue") without limits on pre-existing conditions, and without "large premium differences based on age, gender, or occupation" (from Clinton's plan).

All would make available a "choice" of private insurance plans, as well as a public insurance option modeled on Medicare. (They use the language of the insurance industry -- and Hillary Clinton uses it in the name of her plan itself, the "American Health Choices Plan" -- suggesting that what consumers want is a choice of plan.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, health care, edwards, iowa, election 08

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
Cheat, lie and steal......
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 4, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
describes our national health care system -


One of the most important issues facing this country today is the disaster we call our health care system.

As a small business owner, the cost of healthcare is a sore point. For an HMO plan, that no doctor seems to want to take any more, Aetna wanted to charge me $1,800 per month last year for 3 people!!

I went to a even worse plan and saved $1,000 per month - that of course no one wants to accept either - and now the premium has been raised to over $1,000 per month - over 20% in one year!

These kind of numbers are out of touch especially for something no one will accept.. - and the doc's dont accept it because - Aetna REFUSES to pay realistic fees in a realistic timeframe!

Isn't this the equivalent to fraud! - but then that is how the insurance companies make money..

Excellent article - The top three DEMONcrats are just spewing words regarding this issue - and the repugs can't even address it intelligently, and the fear is that one of them will be elected and nothing will be corrected!

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

bitterale
Posted by: Will Fields on Dec 4, 2007 1:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish you would put quotation marks around "front runners" to designate them as the main stream media's darlings.

They are certainly not front runners in the eyes of the progressive community and they do not even speak for the rest of the electorate but speak instead for the special intersts who have funneled millions of dollars into their campaigns.

It can no longer be concealed that the candidates who represent We the People have been disappeared by the main stream media. Why? Becasue they threaten the corporate mililtary complex that they abhor and that president Eisenhauer warned us about.

It is as if we have learned nothing in the last 50 years.

Despite their rhetoric, the "front runners" are for the endless war economy that define their benefactors.

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

George Wallace and todays "leading candidates"
Posted by: frank69 on Dec 4, 2007 3:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking back to 1968, I agreed with George Wallace on only one thing he ever said: "Put the Democratic and Republican candidates in a bag, shake it up, and you'll pull out either Tweeledum, or Tweedledee!"

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

Edwards health plan least worst of the three
Posted by: B. Spoon on Dec 4, 2007 3:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary's has a loophole deep enough for profit-driven health insurers to bury and hide more dead Americans. Barak's is a gift to the health insurance industry too, but his loopholes are even better hidden than Hillary's, therefore more devious. At least Edwards SAYS he will have REAL community rating and REAL guaranteed issue, supposedly meaning profit-driven insurers would have to compete on a level field. Improved Medicare for All would still be the best solution by far, putting ALL Americans into one Single Pool of comprehensive coverage, with free choice of providers that would remain independent and non-profit. Providers would be better off because we would be cutting out a middleman diverting $600 billion dollars every year that could be used to pay well to provide care. If the top three candidates would quit admiring the emperor's robes, perhaps Americans could have some health care justice for a change. Barak and Hillary condone legal discriminating against our sick. Shame on them.

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

» "least worst"? Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: "least worst"? Posted by: B. Spoon
Voucher and shared savings
Posted by: mll on Dec 6, 2007 1:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Provide "universal basic" health care by effectively replacing the Tax credits, Government programs, etc. as appropriate by a $3,000 voucher for everyone to apply to any suitable health care insurance private or Medicare plus, where the private plan must accept all and cover at least the basic preventative care and catastrophic treatment.

2) Allow any patient to be treated for covered illnesses and if they choose to be treated at a cost lower than the median cost in their area, either by finding a less expensive doctor in the area, in some other part of the US, or abroad, then the savings will be split between the patient and the insurance co. That way the patient and insurance company will both apply pressure to reduce the charges for medical care.

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

National Health Care A Good Idea That Will Never Happen
Posted by: marrieah on Dec 9, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because of the way this country is set up. We are one country, but this country is made up of 50 sub countries each with their own laws and constitutions. Some of these states are considered rich and some basement poor.

What insurance company, which are in the business of making money, going to provide, say a family of five husband, wife and three kids a policy with complete coverage for under $250.00 a month. With food, housing, and gas cost on the rise, where are the monies susposed to come from. Employers are already trying to find ways to stop paying for employees medical insurance as I type using obesity and smoking as a criteria for not paying as much as they have contributed in the past. And its gaining steam.

And Hillary and other say that people will be able to join a health plan even with preexisting health issues. Really?

And what if this health plan has something going on that some states find incompatable with their states philosophies even if it is a benefit to their general public as a whole.

Another big thing is this war in Iraq has taken a big bite out of our treasury. So how are we supposed to carry the the many people who won't be able to sign up and pay a monthly premiun as mandated.

Nope...it ain't gonna happen. Wish it would, but it anin't gonna happen.

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