 |
|
||
|
|
|
 With Big Ideas Like These…Posted on Sep 25, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—Now that the hubbub over Hillary Clinton’s health insurance plan has temporarily subsided, that silence you hear is the sound of Republican presidential candidates offering their own alternatives to finally cover all of the country’s 47 million uninsured men, women and children. What, you don’t hear them? The newfangled Republican idea about how to fix the broken health insurance system is as old as Hooverism. In fact, if you liked President Bush’s plan to change Social Security from a system of guaranteed benefits to an uncertain scheme in which individuals would fund their own retirement through private investment accounts, then you’ll love how proposed Republican tax cuts for health insurance would work. Basically, the emerging Republican idea about health insurance is the same as the party’s idea about everything else: Take any problem that is large and complex and solve it with a tax cut. In essence, the GOP would do away with the employer-based system of health insurance and put in its place a system of tax breaks for individuals who would then supposedly have enough money—not to mention negotiating skills—to buy their own coverage and get a better deal from the insurance industry. The leading Republican contender, Rudy Giuliani, has been the most vocal about this approach, but others embrace it as well. Eliminating employer-based insurance and bestowing upon individuals a tax cut with which they buy insurance is supposed to miraculously tip the healthcare balance in favor of consumers. The presumed increase in competition would theoretically lower prices. Advertisement The Employee Benefit Research Institute studied the approach and found there would be some gain in abandoning the employment-based system: Such a change would at least recognize the degree to which the workplace-based structure is crumbling and many workers whose employers currently offer only one plan would see greater choice. But the benefits group—which is funded largely by corporate sponsors, including big insurance companies—says that because of insurance industry consolidation, “increased choice may simply mean that individuals have more plans to choose from; competition among insurers may not increase.” That is, prices wouldn’t necessarily drop. And, of course, the benefit of having employers purchase insurance for groups of workers would be lost. Individuals would be thrown into what the research institute calls the “dysfunctional individual insurance market,” in which the industry seeks to avoid covering those most at risk of getting sick. The price discounts and coverage advantages of spreading the risk among all employees at a company would be lost. So would the leverage that employers have when they advocate for workers during disputes over claims. “Insurers are more likely to respond to an employer than to an individual because of the risk of losing a large group contract,’’ the researchers concluded. But what about reducing the number of uninsured? The tax changes promoted earlier this year by Bush—and mimicked by Giuliani—simply wouldn’t be great enough to offset the high cost of premiums. “Hence, it should come as no surprise that the number of uninsured would remain at or above 40 million,” says the EBRI. So here’s how this all would work: The risk and cost of insurance would be shifted to individuals, with little, if any, reduction in premiums and other healthcare costs. But there still would be little progress toward insuring the uninsured. Republicans offer this grand bargain while simultaneously hyperventilating over “Hillarycare” and “socialized” medicine and dark predictions that those nefarious European-inspired bureaucrats—mon Dieu, perhaps even the French!—will destroy that icon of American virtue, the insurance industry. The rhetoric is false. None of the leading Democratic presidential contenders proposes a federally run system—such as Medicare—to solve the coverage dilemma. If anything, most current Democratic plans are weaker than anything the party has offered since Harry Truman proposed national health insurance. But as usual, the Republican political noise serves a larger purpose. It distracts from the ugliness of GOP alternatives that fail to expand coverage and would probably make those who do have it worse off than they are now. CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Kucinich Predicts Health Care Will Pass by One Vote
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
We just got faster!
Our site is growing, and we’ve upgraded our servers to bring you a better, faster Truthdig experience.
We’re thrilled with our improvement — but it’s added a lot to our costs. Please help us to keep things snappy and make sure you have instant access to thousands of in-depth Truthdig articles, interviews, videos and cartoons.
Please chip in today with a gift to keep us moving forward. Then check out the site for yourself!
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Conservative Yankee, October 8, 2007 at 11:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There’s a huge problem with using the sports metaphor to politics approach.
Your team (The Democrats) vs My team (The Republicans)
This system leaves big holes in the agenda for “we the people”
Health Care There is only one health care plan out there which benefits the majority (thats the way this country is supposed to run right) assuming that “the majority” will die of old age, terminal illness, or catastrophic accident. Health care is where national attention SHOULD be focused, and instead we have been “diverted” to subjects far less important.
It is my unfortunate duty as a citizen to report the Dennis Kucinich health care plan is the only one even close to right. I’ll be registering as a Democrat, and voting for him in the primaries. Anyone who takes the trouble to read his plan will probably do the same…. too many US citizens no longer read.
The Iraq War:
We MUST stop dumping money in the middle east. Our future (should we have one) doesn’t include this part of the world. Politicians (like cats) hate change, it is dangerous, ‘cause it makes them think new thoughts, and say new things.
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Mike Blomberg seem to have the ability to see a future path. The remainder of the candidates are stuck in the Twentieth century, with that century’s dependence/capital/alliance mindset.
We need a way out… enter the first rule of holes.
So, don’t tell me for the sake of republicanism I must vote for a Giuliani and I won’t tell you that Hill-the-business-shill is your only chance.
We need to think bigger more positive thoughts.
Our current system makes teams. maybe we need to rethink this too. Is compromise possible?
Report thisBy ocjim, September 27, 2007 at 12:05 pm #
NewintheUS sought info on comparative healthcare costs:
National Coalition on Healthcare:
Report this# n 2005, the United States spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent in the next decade (2).
# Although nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens (4).
# Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (5).
By Douglas Chalmers, September 27, 2007 at 3:27 am #
No politician I know, especially the men, has ever fronted up for ‘work experience’ like this. Hillary even went home for dinner with the nurse she accompanied all day - Nurse for a Day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13i6N5ynGro
Report thisBy thomas billis, September 27, 2007 at 3:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Surprise surprise the Republicans are concocting to rob from the poor and give to the rich.It is called the Robin Hood in reverse syndrome.It is not their fault for the last 20 years this shit has worked so why give up on it.The blame falls on the voters.The Democratic plans most of them do the same thing in a more pernicious way they say they are helping the rest of us obtain health care but they are keeping the HMOs at the table.Now you tell me if they donate money to democrats in the millions and the rest of us can only donate in the thousands who do you think will make out when the final deal is cut.Dennis Kuccinich has it right and he has been marginalized.But even if single payer is not right the only way I will know if I got a fair deal is if the HMOs are not asked but told what the plan is.I guess I am the only one who remembers that Pharmaceutical lobbyists bragged about having written the new drug laws.If you allow the HMOs to sit at the table they will also write the law.Ms Cocco is being far too generous to the Democratic plans and I guarantee that if any of the Democrat plans are enacted except for Kuccinich the only real winners will be the HMOs.
Report thisBy NewInTheUS, September 26, 2007 at 9:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I lived all my adult life in Canada; I have a very good professional job in the US but what has surprised me the most after my uprooting is the meek acceptance of a broken and corrupt medical system. I have been arguing so much with my medical insurance company that I finally realized that their main purpose it to wear you down to avoid paying the claims.
Report thisThe Canadian medical system is far from perfect but, having had a wife who died of cancer and a son who had serious medical problems, I will say that nothing would have scared me more than they had had these problems in the US.
I would really like somebody to do a serious study comparing the cost of a government administered universal medical system with that of the present one with the present incomplete coverage. I would take bets that the inefficiency of a government universal system is amply compensated by the enormous administrative cost and profits of the medical insurance companies.
By craig90077, September 26, 2007 at 7:29 pm #
Ask a Veteran who has to rely on the VA about the quality of Health Care in the USA. Let’s not forget about some retirees who put in 20-40 years with one big company and are finding their benefits eliminated or watered down as companies shift their “legacy costs” to the private sector which in many cases are run by very unsavory business characters. Finally be sure to ask the guy or gal who was laid off and their continuation of benefits runs out and they have to go in the private sector to buy insurance starting at an average of $600+ per month for Individual coverage or a STAGGERING average of $1900+ per month for family coverage. Face it folks. Health Care Insurance in the USA is completely broken and out of order. The way it is now, you’re far better off if you’re an illegal who just crossed the border from Mexico and not even a citizen as then you can get near-free health care on the FED’s and State’s dole. It totally SUCKS ASS.
Report thisBy VillageElder, September 25, 2007 at 4:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
None of the repugs “big ideas” are new. Tax relief for medical insurance already exists. Medical Savings accounts already exist. MSA’s couple with high deductible health insurance featuring low premiums. The insurer makes no payments until the insured has spent thousands. Small businesses already have the ability to band together to purchase health insurance.
We must have single payer not for profit health care.
Report thisBy mary, September 25, 2007 at 4:48 pm #
I really don’t see much improvement with any of the proposals. We need Universal Medicare. Since it’s our tax dollars paying for it, I don’t want to hear anymore about the Gov having to pick up the tab, it’s our money! Healthcare is how I want my money used…..
Report thisBy ocjim, September 25, 2007 at 2:23 pm #
The publicans who collect taxes from the poor and give them to the rich in the form of deregulation, corporate welfare, and a license to pollute our environment, would be embarrassed to propose such a ridiculous health care non-plan if they hadn’t had such a run fleecing the rest of us. Even Hillary’s plan does not recognize the utter larceny of the current HMO system. A one-payer (government) system with real oversight (not the current Republicans who want to trash government) with unviversal coverage is the only thing we should talk about.
Report thisBy David, September 25, 2007 at 2:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The article was great except for one thing. No mention of H.R.676. The Kucinich bill which removes insurance companies from the sphere of health care influence and expands medicare to include everyone. This plan has been on file with congress for over a year now, and to be quite frank, I’m sick and tired of media sources that are supposedly honest with us excluding this information from its reporting.
Truthdig? Not this time folks
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, September 25, 2007 at 11:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
And now from BIG PHARMA, the BIGGER DR. DUMB-DOWN:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/09/what_the_hell_kind_of_suicide.html#more
Report thishttp://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/09/how_doctors_dont_think.html
By GW=MCHammered, September 25, 2007 at 11:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Physicians for a National Health Program
Report thishttp://www.pnhp.org/
By Marshall K, September 25, 2007 at 10:43 am #
None of the major candidates’ proposals address the question: How do we best provide healthcare for everyone? It’s more like: What can I propose that won’t piss the insurance industry off too much?
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
Report thisSee? It’s an easy slogan that even the thickest voter(and politician) can get.
By KISS, September 25, 2007 at 8:24 am #
“the Republican political noise serves a larger purpose” Yes it does, to make the coffers of Insurance Co.‘s richer.
Report thisBut on the other side of the fence Hilary’s plan is the same. These repugs and Bush dogs can’t fathom the ” Single Payer” philosophy of honest health insurance. Both parties are beholding to the graft of insurance monopolies.
They should be forced to sit through Michael Moore’s ” Sicko” till they get it.
Anyway you look at the next president, we humans lose.