posted on December 5, 2007 08:30:42 AM new
With the exception of Kucinich's health care plan, Democratic candidates have plans in which the insurance industry will continue to reap profits leaving Americans without affordable health care.
All claim to achieve cost savings through expanded use of information technology, an emphasis on prevention, and better chronic care management.
What is missing from these plans?
Since multiple payers would remain (even if one of them might be a public payer), few of the savings and simplifications that are possible with a singe payer can be achieved.
Consumers must purchase insurance, but no limits are proposed on what insurers can charge them.
No regulations are proposed that would assure the adequacy of benefits or that would affect either the restrictions that insurers now impose on the choice of doctor and hospital or the way they handle, and deny, claims.
There is no simplification of the complex and wasteful private insurance system with its copays, deductibles, exclusions, and claim denials.
There is no assurance of a "level playing field" between the public insurance plan and the private ones. Insurance company advertising and targeted marketing will still be used to promote private plans over public and to avoid the poor and the sick. At the same time, the private insurers will surely insist on the additional subsidies they already enjoy in the Medicare Advantage program.
Nothing is proposed that would control the rising cost of health care. (The measures they suggest to achieve savings may well increase costs rather than reduce them. In any case, the possibility for savings is speculative at this point.)
Are these plans politically "realistic"?
The insurance companies will resist guaranteed issue and community rating, as well as other requirements in some of the plans (e.g., Edwards would require that they spend at least 85 percent of their revenue on medical care).
Business will resist a mandate that they purchase insurance. (In Massachusetts, they were unwilling to pay more than $295 per employee, and even objected to that small fee.)
None of these plans improves the situation of those who currently have insurance. Thus they are unlikely to generate strong popular support.
The proposed subsidies -- amounting to about $2,400 per uninsured individual -- are about half the cost of purchasing group insurance today. Millions will continue to find insurance unaffordable. (The attempt to impose an individual mandate in Massachusetts is already showing that, as long as the program continues to rely on private insurers, very large subsidies will be needed if coverage is to be both affordable and comprehensive; without such subsidies, either coverage will be limited, or it will be unaffordable.)
Millions of Americans who are currently underinsured, and threatened with bankruptcy in the event of serious illness, will continue to be underinsured and insecure.
These plans would add significantly to our overall spending on health care, already the highest in the world, with much of the additional spending going to insurance company administrative costs and profits.
Conclusion: These Plans Will Not Work! None of these plans will truly provide universal access to care. They do not overcome the very significant deficiencies of private insurance. None assures the American people of comprehensive coverage, none offers a realistic way of containing the rising cost of health care, and all would add additional funds to an already too-costly system.
They are at best a diversion from the direction we should be going, toward the creation of a single national, publicly-funded insurance pool that can provide comprehensive, continuous, cost-effective coverage along with the budgetary tools needed to begin containing costs.
posted on December 5, 2007 09:59:54 AM new
Thanks for the link, Helen. That's why every time I study the candidates I keep finding Kucinich is my favorite.
The media keeps telling us Clinton is the front runner and I haven't been comfortable with that. She has had contributions from drug and insurance companies....
It's a shame in America that someone as intelligent, honest, and logical as Kucinich just can't get elected.
I'll vote for the Democrat no matter who it is because ANYTHING is better than the Fascist administration we have now....but will a Democrat really be able to help us out of this bog?
Even if Kucinich became president how many years would it take to clean up this mess???
It's too bad that Kucinich lacks the physical attributes that appeal to the average American voter. The poor fellow only has a brain. If he only had charisma, a deep well modulated voice and a taller more attractive physique he would without a doubt be our next President!
And with some experience as an actor on a TV program such as Law and Order he could even attract Republican support. Then those Republicans could teach him how to lie and dupe the morons who voted for him so that he could demolish the Middle East while pretending to save America!
posted on December 5, 2007 05:18:14 PM new
So WTF are we supposed to do? My main concern at this point is NOT to allow ANY Republican candidate a chance to win, not individual issues. Kucinich is too far left for me, although I agree with him on some issues. The problem is, the man doesn't stand a chance IMO of beating ANY of the republican candidates, let alone his own Dem opposition...hell I figure Fred Thompson could whip him without waking up.......the classic horns of a dilemma..... Looks to me like the Rep's are the most afraid of Hillary, so she's probably the best bet. I don't much like her, but I'll vote for her in a heartbeat over any of the Republicans.
posted on December 5, 2007 08:27:54 PM new
Ditto all of the above. Corporate America, as the insurance companies biggest market, should give their hefty support to medical coverage reform. We are all getting fleeced, including the doctors. The medications they want to prescribe are compromised by insurance lists of what meds are covered and the ones that are not. Their fees are bargained down to rock bottom for insured patients. Sole practitioners are rare entities, it takes a large doctor-mill to survive in the current insurance-controlled environment. Maybe this generation of democrats aren't up to reform. I hope the next generation is.
[ edited by pixiamom on Dec 5, 2007 08:31 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2007 08:44:51 AM new
On Kucinich:
What if all the people like me, Helen, and profe and all the other people I have talked to who like Kucinich but don't think he has a chance to win started showing how we feel?
I suspect that we're not alone. What if there's more people, many more people who feel that way?????
How do we "break" the system and elect someone we WANT?
Or even draw enough attention to him to get the other candidates to notice that we don't think they're perfect and prefer K's health plan and other ideas.
Why is the media electing Clinton?
Mingo, When I said that I'll be voting for Clinton I meant that I will be voting for her in the November presidential election Like you, I'll vote for Kucinich in the primary.
You asked, "Why is the media electing Clinton?"
It's well recognized that none of the Republican candidates have a snowballs chance in hell to win. So the media backs the Democratic candidate who may be less threatening to their corrupt, greedy, war mongering agenda.... Hillary Clinton.
posted on December 6, 2007 10:27:51 AM new
"""So the media backs the Democratic candidate who may be less threatening to their corrupt, greedy, war mongering agenda.... Hillary Clinton.""
That's a thought.
Strong threats like Paul Wellstone...uh...don't make it.
Maybe that's why she makes me nervous.
Is she playing the middle to get more repugs on her side?
Will that turn off Democratic voters?
Will she "go left" in office?
posted on December 6, 2007 12:03:00 PM newI don't know...but it is frustrating to have the "liberal" media shoving Clinton in our faces like we've already decided.....I haven't.
In my opinion the entire presidential election process is a joke and needs to be changed.
First off why the heck does the presidential election process need to last approx 18 months. I am so sick off the candidates already and we have 11 months to go.
Second, the presidential primaries should all be held on the same day in every single state. We choose the winner like this so why not choose the primary winners in the same manner. Why should Iowa and NH get to choose who is running for president from both parties (Ok this might not be exact, but history has shown who ever wins these states is the front runner and goes to get the party's nomination for President).
Lastly, the electoral college should be abolished.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on December 6, 2007 05:24:55 PM new
I too like Kucinich and know he doesn't stand a chance. Oh for the good old days (1800s) when the photographs were all people had, and many rather homely presidents were elected (like Lincoln, who was not just homely but had a rather unpleasant speaking voice). Too much emphasis on looks, I say, but I don't think there's anything that can be done about that.
_____________________
