Healthcare coverage and the presidential campaigns

We already know that when it comes to healthcare, the Republican presidential candidates aren’t exactly on firm footing. In the cases of McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani, for example, each of whom have been treated for different kinds of cancer, they would likely be denied healthcare insurance under their own healthcare plans. Better yet, the GOP hopefuls believe they should get taxpayer financed care, but everyone else shouldn’t.

But NPR took this question to the next step: what do the presidential candidates do for their own healthcare insurance, and what (if anything) do they offer their staffers? (via TP)

It turns out that this year, many of the Republicans and Democrats running for president are sitting members of the U.S. House or Senate — and are thus eligible for taxpayer-subsidized coverage through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.

But not all of the candidates depend on that coverage exclusively. Like many Americans over age 65, Republican Sen. John McCain (AZ) has a variety of health plans available to him.

“I’m eligible for veterans’ care, because of having served in the military, and I’m most proud of that,” McCain said in an interview. “I have the Senate health-insurance program, and I’m also part of my wife’s supplementary insurance that she has.”

McCain is lucky to have so many insurance options, since he’s a cancer survivor — he had surgery for melanoma eight years ago.

Of course, under McCain’s approach to healthcare policy, that kind of pre-existing condition would make it difficult to get private insurance, to which the senator responds, “Oh well.”

But it’s the campaigns’ approach to staffers that’s the most interesting.

[W]hat about candidates who don’t have access to employer-provided coverage? Particularly those with pre-existing conditions of their own, or in their immediate families, such as the recurrence of breast cancer for which Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Sen. John Edwards (NC), is being treated?

Actually, it turns out that Edwards does get his coverage — and coverage for his wife — at work.

“Our family gets our health insurance through the campaign,” he said. “And it’s Blue Cross.”

Indeed, almost all the Democratic candidates offer health insurance to their campaign workers.

The exception, oddly enough, is Dennis Kucinich, who advocates the most generous tax-funded health plan of any candidate. (Kucinich said in October that healthcare coverage for campaign aides was something his team was “looking into,” but as of now, staffers still aren’t covered.)

As for Republicans, McCain and Giuliani, to their credit, offer insurance to their aides. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter do not. And best of all, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney refuse to say either way.

It’s a shame those candidates won’t talk about their own coverage, says health policy analyst Marilyn Moon. Because knowing what kind of coverage they have would help illustrate how the health-reform plans they’re proposing for everyone else — plans that rely more on having individuals buy their own insurance — might or might not work.

“One of the difficulties in terms of assessing these health-care plans is actually illustrated by the situations of some of these candidates. Not all of them might qualify for good coverage under the plans that they have offered,” Moon says.

That’s because Giuliani and Thompson are, like McCain, cancer survivors. And in the individual health-insurance market, says Moon, at least under current rules, people who have had cancer or another serious disease often can’t buy health insurance at any price.

“Having the money to pay for a plan is not enough. You also have to be able to get a plan if you have a history of health problems,” she says.

Of course, as far as Rudy Giuliani is concerned, “[M]ore Democrats are concerned about their health care than Republicans.” For his party’s sake, he better be right.

Oh, Edwards just knocked up a notch in my list.

Okay, Obama and Clinton are doing the same thing…

… with $100,000,000 campaigns.

Betcha Romney is footing the bill.

  • Of course, under McCain’s approach to healthcare policy, that kind of pre-existing condition would make it difficult to get private insurance, to which the senator responds, “Oh well.”

    I reallly hate that man.

  • I admit to being rather torn on the issue of health care. In a perfect world, everyone who gets sick can go see a doctor, get treatment, or necessary surgery, and not have to lose their home to pay for it.

    On the other hand, if they can’t pay for it, why is it ok to take someone else’s money, just because they have more?

    Which is the greater crime? Taxing someone who did nothing wrong, or being someone who was negligent in taking care of their own health earlier in life, and now expects someone else to pay for it?

    How do we find a solution both sides can agree on?

  • Jason,

    What do you think we should do? Let them die? Children born into families without insurance? Tough luck.

    Just as we share in the costs of roads, national defense, and other roles our government handles, we should also share in the cost of health for all Americans.

    It is the best interest of ALL of us.

  • why is it ok to take someone else’s money, just because they have more?

    Because our government was founded on the idea of providing for the common defense and the general welfare. Because our country was founded on the idea that everyone – even the poorest among us – have a right to life and, if the pursuit of happiness means anything, a minimal quality of life. Because our elected representatives, over a long period of time, have in their wisdom determined that the union is well served by looking our for one another, for all of the citizens they represent, and for building a sense of community, not random individuals sharing a land mass.

    Acheiving these legitimate goals of the founders and their successors costs money. Taxes are not only how governments fund their legitimate goals, they are investments individuals make in stability, community, and the ensure protection should they one day be among the less fortunate. This ensuring that everyone has some minimal level of protection is the barest minimum contribution to equality — some will still have “more,” but there is a floor beneath everyone.

    This is a pretty simple, basic social compact. This country was not about, nor would it have been successful had it been about, “me me me, mine mine mine.” The idea that “greed is good” comes from a fictional character. And the policies of Dr. Paul. It is not the basis for a cooperative, functioning, lasting society.

  • Jason, If you took the private healthcare companies, whose mandate is to make money for shareholders, out of the mix, you would have your answer. When screwing every person over to make a profit happens, something affordable to all is not possible. Profit should not be mixed in with healthcare. They are diametrical opposites and cannot coexist together. It’s beyond on oxymoron, it’s an impossibility.

  • Let me just add, to jharp’s post at #4, that this interest goes far beyond merely making sure we can all get regular check-ups. Public health include things like disease control, cleanliness, and many other related issues. If people aren’t able to take care of their health, then this leads to things like rampant disease outbreaks and such. These are the kinds of problems that don’t care how much money you earn or whether or not you’re covered by health insurance.

    Health care issues have massive social consequences and we need to address them. They can’t be addressed so long as we consider good health to be a commodity instead of a basic right.

  • Jason has a terrific point. He couldn’t be more correct. In fact, why should there be public education? Sure, in a perfect world, everyone would be able to get a quality education, but on the other hand, if they can’t pay for it, why is it ok to take someone else’s money, just because they have more? Why should there be public fire departments? Sure in a perfect world, everyone would be able to get fire protection, but on the other hand, if they can’t pay for it, why is it ok to take someone else’s money, just because they have more?

  • It’s better if we don’t have universal care….socialist systems of healthcare decrease quality, as the motivation is gone to encourage new technologies and increased productivity(doctors that want to do a good job)
    I mean is it fair , to just kill doctors salaries, steal rightfully earned money from other citizens and decrease the quality of our health care system?

    As a sort of example: It’s like forced voluneteerism. People volunteer because they want to, when you force them to do it, you lost the whole volunteer aspect that made it great.

    Socializing healtcare, destroys whats so great about our free market system. Sure, not everyone gets equal treatment, but most people getting good treatment is far better than everyone getting medicore treatment.

    IMHO, best way about, is for the government to encourage charity hospitals, that work for a cause…the sort of volunteer motivation.

  • Jason said:
    I admit to being rather torn on the issue of health care. In a perfect world, everyone who gets sick can go see a doctor, get treatment, or necessary surgery, and not have to lose their home to pay for it.

    On the other hand, if they can’t pay for it, why is it ok to take someone else’s money, just because they have more?

    Which is the greater crime? Taxing someone who did nothing wrong, or being someone who was negligent in taking care of their own health earlier in life, and now expects someone else to pay for it?

    I envy you, Jason. Obviously you have never had a loved one struck down in their prime by cancer, never known someone who had a blood vessel burst with no warning, or never felt helpless because someone you care about had necessary treatment denied by the health insurance company they paid premiums to for years.

    Bad things happen to good people for no reason. Health insurance is supposed to make that managable for people by spreading the risk over a large group of people. National health insurance would spread the risk over a huge group of people, lowering the cost for everyone. The alternative is what we have now — people choosing between paying a third of their income for health coverage for their family, or going without health insurance and making the local emergency room their primary care provider (paid for by the rest of us).

    But NPR took this question to the next step: what do the presidential candidates do for their own healthcare insurance….

    I’ve been waiting for someone to ask the Republicans, “Since you are so vehemently opposed to ‘socialized medicine’, when are you going to drop your government run health coverage and buy health insurance from the private sector?”

    Why am I not surprised that no one in the corporate-controlled media has gone there?

  • z @ 9 said:

    Socializing healtcare, destroys whats so great about our free market system.

    I see this sort of stuff a lot, and it makes me sad for the state of economics education. people have bought into a politicized myth of what the “free market system” is, without having any idea of what that term really means. it is a term of art, and only in Grover Norquist’s mind does it mean wholly unfettered capitalism.

    Free market capitalism is a theoretical construct, an “ideal form” (in the Platonic sense) of a type of economic system. Socialism is another such “ideal form.” These ideal forms never exist in pure form in practice because they inherently are based on simplifying assumptions.

    Had z taken even a basic econ course or two, he would know that the assumptions that make a market a “free” market include — and this list is not exhaustive — (a) perfect and freely flowing information; (b) frictionless transactions; (c) an absence of any barriers to entry and exit; (d) a significant number of buyers and sellers in the market with relatively equal power. Not one of these requirements exists in the real world.

    Moreover, even Adam Smith and other free market theory pioneers recognized that there would be “market failures” — even in the hypothetical perfect market. Problems like “free riding” on common goods, problems of market clearing prices not accounting for positive and negative externalities, etc.

    For every market failure, even the honest, apolitical free market theorists recognized government would have to play a role. Additionally, every deviation from the basic assumptions may create its own market failure which requires a government role.

    Health care suffers from nearly every imaginable market failure and failure of necessary free market assumptions. There are massive differentials in knowledge between doctor and patient, and certainly no free flow of information where insurance companies are involved. There is inelasticity of demand – you will pay almost anything to have your life saved. There is a limited number of suppliers – most cities have only a handful of hospitals at most. There are positive externalities to a healthy population that are not factored in the cost, demand or supply such that we “buy” less preventative health care than would be ideal.

    Adam Smith would roll in his grave at how politicians, and libertarians in particular, have bastardized his theories. Health care never has been, never will be, and should not be a pure free market. To suggest otherwise is astoundingly naive.

  • [QUOTE]
    I see this sort of stuff a lot, and it makes me sad for the state of economics education. people have bought into a politicized myth of what the “free market system” is, without having any idea of what that term really means. it is a term of art, and only in Grover Norquist’s mind does it mean wholly unfettered capitalism. [/QUOTE]
    Obviously, we are free market with a lot of socialit tendencies, I dont doubt that, I just think that that increased govenrment control in the sector is bd.

    [QUOTE]
    Free market capitalism is a theoretical construct, an “ideal form” (in the Platonic sense) of a type of economic system. Socialism is another such “ideal form.” These ideal forms never exist in pure form in practice because they inherently are based on simplifying assumptions. [/QUOTE]
    Of course, though…they can be done in their pure forms, it just isn’t practical.

    [QUOTE]
    Had z taken even a basic econ course or two, he would know that the assumptions that make a market a “free” market include — and this list is not exhaustive — (a) perfect and freely flowing information; (b) frictionless transactions; (c) an absence of any barriers to entry and exit; (d) a significant number of buyers and sellers in the market with relatively equal power. Not one of these requirements exists in the real world.
    Moreover, even Adam Smith and other free market theory pioneers recognized that there would be “market failures” — even in the hypothetical perfect market. Problems like “free riding” on common goods, problems of market clearing prices not accounting for positive and negative externalities, etc. [/QUOTE]
    OF course, but the failures are going to outweigh the consequences of the socialized system.

    [QUOTE]
    For every market failure, even the honest, apolitical free market theorists recognized government would have to play a role. Additionally, every deviation from the basic assumptions may create its own market failure which requires a government role. [/QUOTE]
    There can be some government role, but it is at its best minimalized. I believe in government involvement in roads and infastructure, but socializing our system has too many consquences.It will kill the salaries of the doctors, hurting our economy, our government is bankrupt, and therefore, we are once again going to shoot ourselves in the foot there. The fact of the matter is, our system has adjusted to costly healthcare, you can’t just expect for it to immediately adjust to free care, hence my proposal for promoting chairty care.

    [QUOTE]
    Health care suffers from nearly every imaginable market failure and failure of necessary free market assumptions. There are massive differentials in knowledge between doctor and patient, and certainly no free flow of information where insurance companies are involved. There is inelasticity of demand – you will pay almost anything to have your life saved. There is a limited number of suppliers – most cities have only a handful of hospitals at most. There are positive externalities to a healthy population that are not factored in the cost, demand or supply such that we “buy” less preventative health care than would be ideal. [/QUOTE]
    Why is the differintial between doctor aned patient bad? The insurance companies are screwed up, but they aren’t terrible either. Thats why we need fix our economy, not spend more money that we don’t have. If the economy is healthy, and the cost of college is brought down, then we will have more doctors and more hospital owners increasing compettiton. On the last point, if I understand your point correctly, people are not getting the best quality care ….but that will be hurt under the socialized system. Once the motiavation is gone to help people, (money + charity), its going to be more like our situattion with the public defenders.

    Lastly, lets not prtend we can put the health care syttem in a vacuum and assume that we can finance it without other consequences, we must prioritize what we do…which we unfortunately don’t.

    [QUOTE]
    Adam Smith would roll in his grave at how politicians, and libertarians in particular, have bastardized his theories. Health care never has been, never will be, and should not be a pure free market. To suggest otherwise is astoundingly naive.[/QUOTE]
    I don’t want complete free market, though I dowant less goernment involvement. On the other hand, socialized healthcare is the complete oposite of free market healthcare.

  • Couple of points, Z. Take England for example. Yes, doctors are paid lower salaries. But they don’t have the medical education costs hanging over their heads (free education) and they don’t have the exhorbitant malpractice insurance premiums. That evens things out a bit, dontcha think?Doctors there do have incentives. They get bonuses based on increasing the health of their patient base – i.e. they get paid extra when their patients’ cholesteral levels are reduced, quit smoking, etc. Quite a contrast to the medical insurance community here, where insurance company employees receive bonuses and promotions based on how much they save in $$ by denying claims, meaning denying treatment. Doctors here earn no incentives for healthy patients; they can’t even control the treatment they recommend. And the pure financial incentive for most doctors is disintegrating as their own costs for premiums, staff (each dr needs at least 1-2 staff just to process claims), etc. goes up. I personally know a few excellent doctors who, although they earned excellent $$ (one as head of pediatrics at a major hospital), just stopped practicing because they really tired of the constant battle with the insurance companies.

  • Zeitgeist, your comment @#5 was truly a thing of beauty.

    And Z. No one is calling for socialized healthcare, That would be if the government owned all the hospitals and Drs etc. Government paying for the care is not socialized. You can still choose your own Drs. You and your doctor would still choose the healthcare that was right for you. etc.

  • Thanks for the replies. SteveT at #10 is somewhat correct. I’ve never had any family members suddenly die of terminal illness or such emergencies. I consider myself blessed to have not gone through this. I can tell you this much: I certainly don’t use $800 worth of government services a month, and that’s how much of my paycheck is being taken right now. That income tax doesn’t pay for things like firefighters, police, schools, or city services. It never has. I wouldn’t mind spending about 50-75% less on ‘defense’ spending, either.

    I guess when I see how ‘national healthcare’ works in other countries, I am rather afraid. I’m not saying that things aren’t broken like they are now; but surely no one would suggest we have truly free-market healthcare even now, and no one suggests that a free market is perfect, or free of ‘friction’. Currently there are so many regulations for health care providers and insurance companies, it is no wonder why prices are sky-high. Some doctors are also having to pay malpractice insurance approaching $200,000 dollars a year.

    Healthcare is indeed a crisis, but we must make sure we do not make the problem worse. Politicians with no medical training and background, and without a learned, educated grasp of economics, hardly strike me as the perfect candidate to come up with a solution to such a complicated problem.

    While you may not like Paul’s view on free market economics, at least he has been in the trenches and walked the walk. If someone couldn’t pay, he would just lower his rate or treat them for free. He often talks about his work at a Catholic emergency room, where he worked as a surgeon for three dollars an hour. Even if they couldn’t pay, they never turned anyone away. There was no law requiring it to happen, just people who would donate freely to such an amazing cause.

    SteveT also said, “National health insurance would spread the risk over a huge group of people, lowering the cost for everyone.” That’s not quite true, SteveT. It may lower the cost of people who are currently using such services, but it wouldn’t lower any costs for me. I’ve never had any health issues and never used a hospital in my life. Such a plan would raise costs for those who do not use services.

    Taxation for medical care is certainly of a higher moral caliber than say, taxation for world domination, as we seem to have occuring for the past seven years. Ron Paul has said he would like to take the money being used for our foreign policy now, and apply that to social services to prevent a health care crisis – certainly a better plan than any of the other Republicans.

    MsJ, you said, “Jason, If you took the private healthcare companies, whose mandate is to make money for shareholders, out of the mix, you would have your answer. When screwing every person over to make a profit happens, something affordable to all is not possible. Profit should not be mixed in with healthcare. They are diametrical opposites and cannot coexist together. It’s beyond on oxymoron, it’s an impossibility.”

    Why is making a profit considered screwing someone over? How many doctors are we going to entice to join the profession, when their wages are capped by government? “Gee, I’d like to help people, but I can make four times as much being a CEO instead of a Doctor.” That’s what it is, you know, price fixing, wage fixing. Telling people the can only make so much money. Where does it stop? How far will you go in telling people how much money they’re allowed to earn?

    Yes, everyone needs healthcare. Its important. But is it a -right-? Rights are derived from our Creator. They are individual in nature, as groups are not born, only individuals. Philosophically speaking, the right to healthcare seems about as ‘natural’ as the British people’s ‘right to two weeks vacation’. You’re not born with the world owing you vacation time. I don’t mean to make light of this important issue. For the sake of argument, I’ll even grant that healthcare for all would be a good system. To be instituted on a National level, you have to see if such a proposition passes muster with the Constitution. It clearly does not. One could argue for a Constitutional Amendment, though.

    Obviously a lot of Americans would like a ‘nationwide’ health care plan. What prevents the say, 150 million people in this country who would look positively toward such a change, to come together and form a large, private, non-profit healthcare initiative, all on their own? Why can’t that happen?

    Let’s assume that out of 300 million people, half want socialized medicine, and half don’t. What gives 150 million people the right to force the other 150 million people to their bidding on this issue?

    Regardless of how ‘for the children’ it is, is it worth it to make half the nation kowtow? Democrats have taken up the mantle of civil liberties for quite some time now; what happened to the liberty to be free of being told what to do by a huge, monolithic organization armed with guns, determined to make sure you ‘do the right thing (that ‘right thing’ being the thing voted on by people paid off by lobbyists).

    You are right about one thing though; when people hold power over other people, you will always find evil people abusing this power. Just to me, the biggest abuses come from someone saying, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

  • Jason, it’s quite apparent by your posts (and your admission) that you have never had health issues and have never had to deal with insurance companies. Shame that. Not that you have good health, but that you don’t know the hell it can be for those who have.

    Why is making a profit considered screwing someone over? How many doctors are we going to entice to join the profession, when their wages are capped by government? “Gee, I’d like to help people, but I can make four times as much being a CEO instead of a Doctor.” That’s what it is, you know, price fixing, wage fixing. Telling people the can only make so much money. Where does it stop? How far will you go in telling people how much money they’re allowed to earn?

    Let’s look at this. Why is making a profit considered screwing someone over? Because for healthcare for profit, you have two options: Screw the shareholders or screw the patient. There is no middle ground.

    For those who prefer the possible BILLIONS of a CEO to heathcare, let them become CEOs. Good for them.

    You’re not capping what someone can make. Doctors in Canada and England make a good living (by far better than I do and I do damned well for myself. Doctors in those countries still make two or three times what I do which is hardly chump change. Doctors do not make the lion share of healthcare costs – insurance companies do. And the insurance companies goal is PROFIT. Again, that profit is at the cost of the patient.

    If the government would bring drugs down to a managable level (while still allowing enormous profits and the ability to do R&D – which most companies do not do any longer, they have other companies do it, then buy the company or patent, called, I believe inlicensing or some such) again, everyone wins.

    I think you’re looking at this in a couple of wrong ways. One is that you haven’t dealt with it, and the other is that you consider government healthcare something it is not which is ownership of doctors, hospitals, etc.

    Look at Medicare. Medicare MANAGES the costs. It doesn’t regulate which doctors a patient sees (the doctor opts to be in medicare or not), it doesn’t regulate care, it doesn’t have a say in whether a certain treatment is valid or not. It administrates it, much like large companies use administrators to regulate their in-house insurance (or used to). Insurance companies, whose sole purpose is to make money for the shareholders manages what doctors can and cannot do.

    IMHO, you don’t know enough about so many things to base your opinions. Your opinions are based upon what you have heard about. And I think many of your assumptions are faulty.

  • There is nothing great about our free market system because there is no such thing as a free market system.

    I have been hearing the same bullshit me me me meme from a never ending stream of braindead amerikans for more than half a century. From what I have read, this same greedrot has been spilling from their ancestors lips since the founding. Surely this must prove that evolution is a hoax.

  • Jason #3 – seems like you skipped your kindergarten class on what insurance is. Let’s just suppose that everyone can afford, and desires health insurance. Just accept that for the moment. In our system, they still can’t buy it, often at any price, because somewhere along the way, their health deteriorates, their employer doesn’t provide health insurance, or they’re unemployed, or whatever. Now you want to shut them out. Not because they’re trying to steal your money, (they’ve got the money), or they haven’t been responsible (they have, paying for health insurance until they got unlucky), but because either you can’t understand this simple example, or because you are too meanspirited to give a rat’s ass, because your health hasn’t gone bad, or because your employer is paying for it, so you’re one of the lucky ones.

    What the hell is the matter with you people who think like this? What the hell do you think health insurance is for? Nobody’s asking for a handout – you can take the lock off your wallet. They’re asking for the right to purchase health insurance with their money, not yours.

  • Many of the Ron Paul staff I’ve met are young and healthy. I asked them about this before, and several of them said that if they get sick they’ll pay their doctor what it costs. Some of them have outside insurance providers.

    I think it’s an interesting approach to only pay for the insurance that you need.

  • Yes, everyone needs healthcare. Its important. But is it a -right-? Rights are derived from our Creator. They are individual in nature, as groups are not born, only individuals.

    Huh?!? You’re mixing issues and talking points in a manner that makes it clear that you don’t know too much about what you’re talking about.

    Universal health care in a society as wealthy as ours should be a right. Does that mean socialized medicene is necessary? No, the government doesn’t need to own or run hospitals. But universal coverage and access to basic care benefits us all. You’ll learn that lesson pretty quickly if you ever find yourself in an emergency room with an urgent condiditon. Your mind might also change if you ever stop getting insurance through your job and have to pay for it on your own.

    As for your quoting Ron Paul, one of the fundamental problems with libertarianism is that as a system it is not at all concerned with the common good, it really only cares about the rights of individuals. As a belief system it is generally supported by white, affluent people who don’t worry about paying bills, about health care, and feel that they have no need for a social safety net. Although frankly Ron Paul isn’t a true libertarian in the first place– his views on abortion and same-sex marriage undermine much of his supposed libertarian views on personal liberty, freedom and privacy.

    If you want to live in a society that is educated and healthy then there is a cost that goes along with that– it’s the cost of living here.

  • Gee, I’d like to help people, but I can make four times as much being a CEO instead of a Doctor.

    1) Thats a moral choice that says a lot about them.

    2) We also have a serious CEO pay problem in this country. CEO pay has nothing to do with merit – CEOs of failing companies are still making millions (and even bonuses!) CEO pay as a multiple of the lowest paid worker in the company, or even the average pay of workers in the company, has been rising exponentially since the 1970s with no apparent reason. The most likely culprit is that CEOs sit on each other’s board and compensation committees, and they all have a vested interest in pushing the bar ever higher – line workers be damned.

    The problem with our nearly unfettered version of corporate capitalism is that the only duty of management is to capital – the owners – with no duty to the employees, pensioners, or the general public. Every entity that exists through the blessing and fiat of the government of the people, and thrives on the protection of the government of the people, and is paid for its goods and services by the people should have, by law, its first obligation to the people generally and to shareholders second, and should have to consider the impact on workers and pensioners. Shareholders should not be the only ones that count, as is the case under current US securities laws.

  • As for the tread topic, I really hope this line of questioning gets raised at the next debate. I think the GOP is painfully out of touch when it comes to talking about health care, they really don’t seem to have the first clue. Not only is it beyond their personal experiences, it also means that they don’t listen to people or understand just how big this issue is to the majority of people.

    One of the biggest problems with our FOR-PROFIT health care system is that insurance companies have the right to deny coverage whenever they feel like it, they can drop people because their problems have become too costly, and because of the (insane) rules governing “pre-exisiting conditions” people don’t really have other options.

  • Hey idiots, even your own party knows the overwelming majority of the country wants health care. No one thinks the R’s really care about it, but they know they don’t stand a chance w/o it.

    The merits of universal health care are last years conversation, sorry you missed it. This year we talk about what plans works and what plans don’t.

    So can we get back to the topic at hand.

    “And best of all, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney refuse to say either way.” – CB

    Wow. Are these guys for real ?? They want to be President and they are even smart enough to know that someone is going to see what kind of health care they offer their own staff when it’s been a major campaign issue. It’s not even their fucken money.

    Oh, and Jason, when Bush sends me my $20k he put into a war I don’t support, we can talk. Otherwise, please STFU.

  • In reading the comments above, it’s clear that conservative framing of health care issues has been wildly successful. And most successful of all was attaching the hot-button label of “socialized” to an any alternative that would actually provide better care for less cost. Don’t believe it? Use the Google and see how the US stacks up against the other industrialized nations who all have nationalized care. Don’t believe we ration health care already? Try to get insurance with a preexisting condition. Try to get a procedure done without pre-approval of your insurance company or HMO. Don’t believe we limit choice? Try going outside of your HMO or “preferred” provider list.

    The reason health care is an issue is that the patchwork of services we charitably (and disingenuously) call a system has major, structural flaws that are only getting worse. Buying in to conservative framing of the issue will only ensure that it stays that way. I’d direct those who think otherwise to some recent research that proves single-payer is the only real solution, but thanks to our King George and his “views,” much of that data has been censored.

  • Well a couple of people above have terrific points but they certainly don’t go to the logical conclusion.

    Why should the Fire Department show up to put out your house if you cannot pay?
    Why should the local Police serve and protect you if you are not on their coverage plan?
    Why should you have a court appointed lawyer? Why should you be allowed in a court at all?
    Why should you be afforded any of the rights of a citizen of our country if you have never served our country?
    Why do you even deserve to park you lazy a$$ in our country AT ALL unless you immediately pay for all of the services that you will require from the moment you enter or the day of your birth? (oh, and that includes all the freeloading companies that get by never paying their fair share!)

    But me, I’m just interested in making sure America stays a LEADER in the dog eat dog competition we face every day from fierce international competitors:

    Why is America paying four times per capita what the next nation is paying and getting worst health care for the richest compared to POOR people in England?
    Why are good jobs and good companies setting up factories in Canada? (rather then paying outrageous health care costs in the US?)
    Why are American companies going down the tubes trying to maintain health care when the competition doesn’t?
    Why has every other industrialized nation figured out how to do this and we cannot?
    Why does over 30% of the money we spend on health care not go to health care?

    Me, I’m just a cheap bastard, and I’m tired of getting ripped off for shitty health care. Why aren’t we getting our freaking national act together with a health care plan for the whole country? We needed one more than a while ago. And for all those two faced politicians that tell me “socialized” medicine is evil, well, they better get their f&*king fat a$$ out of the “socialized” medicine plan my tax dollars are paying for them!

  • Jason, thanks for starting a good debate. You’re one of the brighter and more lucid Paulites around here.

    You ask why the 150 million people don’t get together and make a huge pool for health insurance. FYI, we are. That’s what the government is: a whole bunch of people setting up systems to better society. Sure, we do it through representatives, but in the end it is about the People, as it were, deciding what to do with their funds/taxes.

    And it’s about time.

  • As an aside, I’m hardly a Republican in the modern sense of the word, and watching Fox News makes me want to vomit. I consider myself more libertarian, even though I know you guys think its a dirty word ’round here. On the same note, so does CNN. I get my news from the Internet and when I see something I don’t understand, I go read some essays or buy books on the subject and take a look at the underlying philosophy of the matter.

    I like Keith Olbermann but Daily Kos is a bit too vitriolic for my tastes. So much so, that I had to revise my original thinking that neo-con warhawks were the last word in self-righteousness.

    Contrary to the opinions expressed here, libertarians do not see themselves in a bubble, and we do not believe in an ‘every man for himself’ Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome, Road Warrior scenario. And while I happen to be a white male, I couldn’t, in the most liberal sense of the word, be considered affluent. Heck, I’m not even broke. I’m worse than broke. And I bet that describes a lot of us.

    As far as those posters who are concerned that I am naive, I assure you, my knowledge is not perfect. That is why I come here, to debate and discourse and learn. I am also sure your knowledge is not perfect, either. As far as the medical field goes, I worked for 1-800 Medicare for about a year. I spoke to thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, working with them to help them get low-cost medications and prescriptions and giving them information about what is covered, what is not covered, how to file claims, etc.

    I dealt with people every day who were crying on the phone because they had to make a choice between paying for medications and eating or paying the rent. So please don’t tell me that I don’t know what insurance is, or I have no experience in government healthcare. I know that millions depend on Social Security and Medicare. Ron Paul has specifically made it part of his platform to NOT disenfranchise those who need these government services. You can thank your own Bill Clinton for robbing the Social Security fund of its money, along with the Bush Administration. Currently, SS has what, 2 trillion in assets? Guess again. Its got almost nothing, because its all been borrowed and replaced with a big, fat, I.O.U.

    Think Clinton balanced the budget? Think again. He got it to within 200 billion, and then borrowed 200 billion from SS to cover it. Paul has introduced legislation specifically to prohibit Congress from spending money from the Social Security fund, and wants to save hundreds of billions a year on our foreign policy and overseas wars, and put that money -directly- into programs like Social Security and Medicare, to save that system so that people can come up with a better one without there being a crisis at hand.

    No one wants to see anyone out on the street, we just have different ideas on how to cover the most amount of people with the best service.

  • Eadie, you said

    You ask why the 150 million people don’t get together and make a huge pool for health insurance. FYI, we are. That’s what the government is: a whole bunch of people setting up systems to better society. Sure, we do it through representatives, but in the end it is about the People, as it were, deciding what to do with their funds/taxes.

    There’s a difference though, Eadie. If the government is doing it, its not voluntary. Why can’t 150 million people who are all willing participants set up a particular system, and anyone who doesn’t want to participate, can opt-out? If such a program were voluntary, I would almost certainly wish to join. I just heartily disagree with being -forced- to do something, because when the State tells you to do something and you refuse, they’ll show up on your doorstep with guns and a SWAT team.

  • Comments are closed.