Comments on: Edwards on Health Care http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:09:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: The Mahablog » Bought and Sold http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-275929 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:52:59 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-275929 [...] Jackson’s column focuses on Dennis Kucinich, who is the only candidate advocating a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system. And, of course, Kucinich will not be the nominee. John Edwards, who has a shot at the ticket and who has proposed a healthcare plan I don’t like, at least doesn’t seem to be in the health insurance industry’s pocket. [...] […] Jackson’s column focuses on Dennis Kucinich, who is the only candidate advocating a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system. And, of course, Kucinich will not be the nominee. John Edwards, who has a shot at the ticket and who has proposed a healthcare plan I don’t like, at least doesn’t seem to be in the health insurance industry’s pocket. […]

]]> by: Swami http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84409 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:35:29 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84409 Bonnie... I don't think less of Edwards, I always knew he had gobs of money, but a 21,000 square foot house seems a little excessive. I checked on the Square footage of the Biltmore estate and it came in at 175,000 sq ft., so by that standard, Edward's house is a little bit more than a hogan. It's all relative. If the intention of the writer of that article was to separate Edwards from the common man they had some degree of success in causing me to pause and reflect upon our commonality of concern. I'll get over it though..It's just not easy when such an economic disparity is in place..makes you wonder if they can even begin to understand the burden that the financially challenged endure or whether their motivation to act for the less fortunate is sincere. Bonnie… I don’t think less of Edwards, I always knew he had gobs of money, but a 21,000 square foot house seems a little excessive. I checked on the Square footage of the Biltmore estate and it came in at 175,000 sq ft., so by that standard, Edward’s house is a little bit more than a hogan. It’s all relative.
If the intention of the writer of that article was to separate Edwards from the common man they had some degree of success in causing me to pause and reflect upon our commonality of concern. I’ll get over it though..It’s just not easy when such an economic disparity is in place..makes you wonder if they can even begin to understand the burden that the financially challenged endure or whether their motivation to act for the less fortunate is sincere.

]]> by: Jonathan Versen http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84398 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:02:24 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84398 Edwards undoubtedly means well, but it occurs to me that you're correct in feeling leery about this plan, Maha. Any plan that requires the private sector to keep insuring employees while the public sector steps in and takes up the slack is an invitation to tighten the financial noose around the privately insured. Push the less profitable and more risky persons into the public sector pool through various sleights of hand-- making employees "independent contractors", increasing deductibles to absurd numbers(I've seen individual policies with 7,500 and even 10,000/yr deductibles here in Texas, with 2 or even just1 paid doctor visit per annum, and even then they'll only pay the first 45 or 50 bucks the doc charges, and the nice lady at the front desk wont let you see the doctor without agreeing to pay what the insurance company won't, and similarly stingy stipulations on ER visits, etc. You want everybody to have access to insurance for a hundred bucks a month or less? Easy, sign right here.., and by allowing the private insurers to cull the herd of the poor, the elderly and the sick, such tactics will inevitably make the cost of the public sector insured higher, reduce the capacity of the public sector to realize efficiencies by having a normal risk pool, and reduce political support for federal health care from the healthier and wealthier voters. Or, how about we nationalize the major for-profit health companies like Choicepoint and HCA; allow investors to convert their equity stakes to less-lucrative but more-tax-favored federal healthcare bonds. The government could give the markets 12-18 months to make the conversion, then the gov't would buy up holdouts for 1-2 cents on the dollar, based on a predetermined baseline price. One of the problems that dems have traditionally had in selling single-payer healthcare has been their seeming indifference to the concerns of individual investors. Edwards undoubtedly means well, but it occurs to me that you’re correct in feeling leery about this plan, Maha.

Any plan that requires the private sector to keep insuring employees while the public sector steps in and takes up the slack is an invitation to tighten the financial noose around the privately insured. Push the less profitable and more risky persons into the public sector pool through various sleights of hand– making employees “independent contractors”, increasing deductibles to absurd numbers(I’ve seen individual policies with 7,500 and even 10,000/yr deductibles here in Texas, with 2 or even just1 paid doctor visit per annum, and even then they’ll only pay the first 45 or 50 bucks the doc charges, and the nice lady at the front desk wont let you see the doctor without agreeing to pay what the insurance company won’t, and similarly stingy stipulations on ER visits, etc.

You want everybody to have access to insurance for a hundred bucks a month or less? Easy, sign right here.., and by allowing the private insurers to cull the herd of the poor, the elderly and the sick, such tactics will inevitably make the cost of the public sector insured higher, reduce the capacity of the public sector to realize efficiencies by having a normal risk pool, and reduce political support for federal health care from the healthier and wealthier voters.

Or, how about we nationalize the major for-profit health companies like Choicepoint and HCA; allow investors to convert their equity stakes to less-lucrative but more-tax-favored federal healthcare bonds. The government could give the markets 12-18 months to make the conversion, then the gov’t would buy up holdouts for 1-2 cents on the dollar, based on a predetermined baseline price.

One of the problems that dems have traditionally had in selling single-payer healthcare has been their seeming indifference to the concerns of individual investors.

]]> by: Bonnie http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84367 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:52:23 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84367 Swami, That article was intended to make Edwards look elite; but, he did work hard for the money that bought that house. I don't begrudge him getting his or his wife's dream home after working long years to get it. Unlike Bush who has done nothing for every thing he has. I guess we can say that that article did its job if someone as discerning as you think less of Edwards now. It was like the hatchet job the right wing noise machine has been doing to Pelosi and her transportation. Swami,
That article was intended to make Edwards look elite; but, he did work hard for the money that bought that house. I don’t begrudge him getting his or his wife’s dream home after working long years to get it. Unlike Bush who has done nothing for every thing he has. I guess we can say that that article did its job if someone as discerning as you think less of Edwards now. It was like the hatchet job the right wing noise machine has been doing to Pelosi and her transportation.

]]> by: Doug Hughes http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84366 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:39:14 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84366 Last year my wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She will survive because we have good health care, and because it was discovered early. Let me bore you with details that are important; she had some mild pain and her cycle was irregular/stopped. Because we have insurance, she went to her OB; becusase we have insurance tests were run; there was a mass; becuse we have insurance she went to a cancer hospital in Tampa for the surgery. They determined it was malignant while she was on the table and removed, well, a lot of female plumbing. Tests on the tissue showed the cancer had NOT spread to the lymph system or to other organs. If we did not have insurance, she.we might have delayed. Or waited on geting tests. We could not have afforded surgery; insurance I purchased AFTER diagnosis would NOT have covered a pre-exixting condition. Bottom line - she would have died and our 3 YO daughter would be without a mother. I agree with 'Canadian' that we Americans have our heads up our rectum(s) on the subject of health care. This is a problem that has been addressed and SOLVED by a lot of countries we consider inferior. The most impartial barometer of health care I've found is the infant mortality rate by country. We are so far down that list it's obscene. When someone proclaims we have the best medical system in the world, ask him why we are 42nd in infant mortality? My point, and I apologize for taking the long way around, a universal health care system (not nescessarily insurance-based) needs to be studied. We have a damn good idea who's doing a better job than the US and that's where we need to go for ideas. Last year my wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She will survive because we have good health care, and because it was discovered early. Let me bore you with details that are important; she had some mild pain and her cycle was irregular/stopped. Because we have insurance, she went to her OB; becusase we have insurance tests were run; there was a mass; becuse we have insurance she went to a cancer hospital in Tampa for the surgery. They determined it was malignant while she was on the table and removed, well, a lot of female plumbing. Tests on the tissue showed the cancer had NOT spread to the lymph system or to other organs.

If we did not have insurance, she.we might have delayed. Or waited on geting tests. We could not have afforded surgery; insurance I purchased AFTER diagnosis would NOT have covered a pre-exixting condition. Bottom line - she would have died and our 3 YO daughter would be without a mother.

I agree with ‘Canadian’ that we Americans have our heads up our rectum(s) on the subject of health care. This is a problem that has been addressed and SOLVED by a lot of countries we consider inferior. The most impartial barometer of health care I’ve found is the infant mortality rate by country. We are so far down that list it’s obscene. When someone proclaims we have the best medical system in the world, ask him why we are 42nd in infant mortality?

My point, and I apologize for taking the long way around, a universal health care system (not nescessarily insurance-based) needs to be studied. We have a damn good idea who’s doing a better job than the US and that’s where we need to go for ideas.

]]> by: grannyeagle http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84354 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:55:15 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84354 marijam--If an employer wants to offer health care benefits, that's fine with me. However, when they do this, they decrease the amount they pay the employee. I personally have had health benefits with an employer simply because it was there and affordable. However, I hardly ever took advantage of it because I enjoy excellent health. Yes, now I am retired as a RN and do have Medicare, part A. That is the hospital part. I have never used it. I did not choose part B because that is doctor's visits and outpatient stuff. I choose to take responsibility for my health and if I need to go see a doctor, I will pay out of my pocket. I am not rich. I realize everyone's experience is different but I am not so pessimistic that I think everyone will die if the government stays out of the health care business. I would be for some kind of extension of the Medicare plan for all people not just the elderly but only on a volunteer basis. Lord knows we are wasting enough money in Iraq to pay for something like that. I would rather see my taxes go for something that is more beneficial than a war. As I said, working within the system, I saw the abuses from all sides, doctors, patients and the insurance companies. It's not a system I care for. As for insurance companies making decisions, it's not just the HMOs. It's Medicare and the big companies too. As a matter of fact, the insurance companies patterned their policies after Medicare. The insurance companies have it all planned out and they're very smart. They have all kinds of tricks to deny benefits and I have seen doctors choose a diagnosis on the basis of what the insurance will cover. Another player is the drug companies. They tell us drugs are expensive because of all the money they have to spend on research. However, a lot of research is done at universities which are subsidized by the government. Also, more money is spent on perks (lunches, dinners, vacations, pens, notepads & numerous other small items) than on research. I have a drawerful of pens that have drug names on them. Don't take my word for it, check it out. If you go to a doctor, just about all they have to offer you is drugs. There are at least 100,000 deaths/yr. from properly prescribed drugs. I have seen older people taking as many as 20 different kinds. That is not quality of life in my opinion. As for the government requiring people to have health insurance, I think that puts an unfair burden on people who are self-employed or do not get insurance through their employer. I agree with you that good health care should not depend on how much money one has and I do know we can't go back to the old system. The bottom line is health care is in a crisis. It has become a business and the patient suffers because of that. I do not have hopes that the government will be able to fix it. marijam–If an employer wants to offer health care benefits, that’s fine with me. However, when they do this, they decrease the amount they pay the employee. I personally have had health benefits with an employer simply because it was there and affordable. However, I hardly ever took advantage of it because I enjoy excellent health. Yes, now I am retired as a RN and do have Medicare, part A. That is the hospital part. I have never used it. I did not choose part B because that is doctor’s visits and outpatient stuff. I choose to take responsibility for my health and if I need to go see a doctor, I will pay out of my pocket. I am not rich. I realize everyone’s experience is different but I am not so pessimistic that I think everyone will die if the government stays out of the health care business. I would be for some kind of extension of the Medicare plan for all people not just the elderly but only on a volunteer basis. Lord knows we are wasting enough money in Iraq to pay for something like that. I would rather see my taxes go for something that is more beneficial than a war. As I said, working within the system, I saw the abuses from all sides, doctors, patients and the insurance companies. It’s not a system I care for. As for insurance companies making decisions, it’s not just the HMOs. It’s Medicare and the big companies too. As a matter of fact, the insurance companies patterned their policies after Medicare. The insurance companies have it all planned out and they’re very smart. They have all kinds of tricks to deny benefits and I have seen doctors choose a diagnosis on the basis of what the insurance will cover. Another player is the drug companies. They tell us drugs are expensive because of all the money they have to spend on research. However, a lot of research is done at universities which are subsidized by the government. Also, more money is spent on perks (lunches, dinners, vacations, pens, notepads & numerous other small items) than on research. I have a drawerful of pens that have drug names on them. Don’t take my word for it, check it out. If you go to a doctor, just about all they have to offer you is drugs. There are at least 100,000 deaths/yr. from properly prescribed drugs. I have seen older people taking as many as 20 different kinds. That is not quality of life in my opinion. As for the government requiring people to have health insurance, I think that puts an unfair burden on people who are self-employed or do not get insurance through their employer. I agree with you that good health care should not depend on how much money one has and I do know we can’t go back to the old system.

The bottom line is health care is in a crisis. It has become a business and the patient suffers because of that. I do not have hopes that the government will be able to fix it.

]]> by: Swami http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84345 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:13:55 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84345 Bush has proposed a 700 billion dollar defense budget for 2007. I suspect that a measly 300 billion could be trimmed out of all that excess spent on weapons systems that are going nowhere, and be applied to making health care a bit more affordable for all Americans. After all, it's our money and it goes back into the economy..it's a matter of allocation for a greater benefit for all. I like Edwards.. he seems like a decent guy, but I recently read an article about his impressive digs.. He's got a 21,000 square foot crib sitting on 82 acres of prime land.. It kinda left me feeling a bit alienated, wondering if we could relate when it comes to understanding the burdens of the common man. I guess it's just my own inadequacies coming up to buffet me. Bush has proposed a 700 billion dollar defense budget for 2007. I suspect that a measly 300 billion could be trimmed out of all that excess spent on weapons systems that are going nowhere, and be applied to making health care a bit more affordable for all Americans. After all, it’s our money and it goes back into the economy..it’s a matter of allocation for a greater benefit for all.

I like Edwards.. he seems like a decent guy, but I recently read an article about his impressive digs.. He’s got a 21,000 square foot crib sitting on 82 acres of prime land.. It kinda left me feeling a bit alienated, wondering if we could relate when it comes to understanding the burdens of the common man. I guess it’s just my own inadequacies coming up to buffet me.

]]> by: A Canadian Reader http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84301 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:22:28 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84301 Listening to Americans discussing health care is like listening to Martians speaking English. I understand the words but the concepts seem to come from another planet. I am stunned that any wealthy, first-world country is unable to accept and implement the concept of basic, universal health care. Listening to Americans discussing health care is like listening to Martians speaking English. I understand the words but the concepts seem to come from another planet. I am stunned that any wealthy, first-world country is unable to accept and implement the concept of basic, universal health care.

]]> by: marijam http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84299 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:07:30 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84299 grannyeagle, one other thing. I think you are referring to HMOs when you say that you don't want insurance companies making decisions doctors should be making. I certainly agree with you there. What I would like to see is Congress re-regulate the entire insurance industry which is totally out of control. It's criminal what is happening to homeowners in Hurricane Katrina ravaged areas and it's criminal to deny someone health benefits they've paid the monthly payments on for decades. grannyeagle, one other thing. I think you are referring to HMOs when you say that you don’t want insurance companies making decisions doctors should be making. I certainly agree with you there. What I would like to see is Congress re-regulate the entire insurance industry which is totally out of control. It’s criminal what is happening to homeowners in Hurricane Katrina ravaged areas and it’s criminal to deny someone health benefits they’ve paid the monthly payments on for decades.

]]> by: marijam http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84297 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:02:52 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/09/edwards-on-health-care/#comment-84297 granny eagle, why do you say "I do not like the government making employers provide health insurance for their employees." ? What is your take on an alternative? Do you want us all to just give up and die? I agree in that I don't want to provide such a give-away to the insurance industry by the taxpayers. However, what will happen to us if the government doesn't offer health insurance or make employers offer health insurance and employers drop insuring everybody? Besides, did the government ever make employers offer health insurance? Wasn't it a win-win thing before globalization and greed took over? I agree with you if you are looking at this from the point of view of say, giving over social security retirement taxes to Wall Street. Since you call yourself "grannyeagle", are you on medicaid or medicare? Will you ever be? Health care shouldn't be dependent upon how much money you have or don't have. granny eagle, why do you say “I do not like the government making employers provide health insurance for their employees.” ? What is your take on an alternative? Do you want us all to just give up and die? I agree in that I don’t want to provide such a give-away to the insurance industry by the taxpayers. However, what will happen to us if the government doesn’t offer health insurance or make employers offer health insurance and employers drop insuring everybody? Besides, did the government ever make employers offer health insurance? Wasn’t it a win-win thing before globalization and greed took over? I agree with you if you are looking at this from the point of view of say, giving over social security retirement taxes to Wall Street. Since you call yourself “grannyeagle”, are you on medicaid or medicare? Will you ever be? Health care shouldn’t be dependent upon how much money you have or don’t have.

]]>