The ‘gap’ in Republicans’ healthcare plans

Rudy Giuliani was treated for prostate cancer. John McCain has been treated for melanoma, the most serious type of skin malignancy. Fred Thompson was diagnosed with lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system.

And as the LA Times’ Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar explained in a good piece today, all three could be denied healthcare insurance under their own healthcare plans.

All three have offered proposals with the stated aim of helping the 47 million people in the U.S. who have no health insurance, including those with preexisting medical conditions. But under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors such as themselves could not be sure of getting coverage — especially if they were not already covered by a government or job-related plan and had to seek insurance as individuals.

“Unless it’s in a state that has very strong consumer protections, they would likely be denied coverage,” said economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, who has reviewed the candidates’ proposals. “People with preexisting conditions would not be able to get coverage or would not be able to afford it.”

It offers a helpful contrast between the downsides of the two parties’ approaches to healthcare. The problem with the Dems’ plans is that they’re expensive. The problem with the Republicans’ policies is that sick people of modest means can’t get health insurance.

The Republican presidential hopefuls seem to realize that their plans leave millions of vulnerable Americans behind, but also realize that the alternative is government regulation — specifically, telling insurers that they can’t exclude people with pre-existing conditions, and can’t price these people out of coverage. Given a choice between a large gap of uninsured and government-imposed safeguards for Americans, the GOP candidates prefer the prior.

That means the self-employed and others seeking individual coverage would be subject to a marketplace in which insurers generally pick the healthiest applicants and turn the rest away. Cancer survivors — even if they have been free of disease for several years — are routinely denied health insurance when they try to purchase it as individuals.

Even if coverage is offered, it often comes with restrictions or high premiums that many find unaffordable.

I’d just add that Rudy Giuliani, who seems to emphasize his positions on healthcare more than his GOP rivals, is uniquely punitive towards Americans with no insurance.

If you’re in the top tax bracket, you could deduct 35 cents of every health care dollar you spend. If you don’t earn enough to owe income taxes, or if you have a pre-existing condition and can’t afford coverage, a tax deduction would probably be worthless. Giuliani’s tax deduction remedy would therefore do virtually nothing to cover the uninsured.

Now, many Republicans who feel obliged to have some kind of health care “plan” endorse the health care tax deduction. Most just don’t care very much about the uninsured. Giuliani, by contrast, is not indifferent to the plight of the uninsured. He actually seems to revel in it: “I don’t like mandating health care. I don’t like it because it erodes what makes health care work in this country–the free market, the profit motive. A mandate takes choice away from people. We’ve got to let people make choices. We’ve got to let them take the risk–do they want to be covered? Do they want health insurance? Because, ultimately, if they don’t, well, then, they may not be taken care of.”

Where does this bizarrely punitive view of the health care system come from? It apparently arises from Giuliani’s experience with welfare reform, which he constantly likens to health care. “You don’t start off by promising you’re going to insure everybody,” he warned earlier this year. “It’s the same mistake the Democrats made with welfare.” So providing health coverage to the uninsured will make them irresponsible.

Of course, this analysis is insane, unless you think most of the uninsured lack coverage because they’d rather splurge at Best Buy than spend money on health insurance. Alas, this appears to be exactly what Giuliani believes. “[The uninsured] may be buying a television … they may be buying a cell phone,” he said at [a recent] debate.

Giuliani also thinks that insulating people from the costs of sickness or injury will make them more likely to get sick or injured. “There is no incentive to wellness,” he complains. Perhaps you thought wellness was an incentive in and of itself. Obviously, you lack Giuliani’s grasp of free-market homilies. As Giuliani understands, when you don’t pay the cost of a good, you have every incentive to consume more of it. That’s why those of us with insurance are always borrowing handkerchiefs from people with communicable diseases or juggling steak knives barefoot.

Lucky for Giuliani, as mayor, he received government-financed, taxpayer-subsidized treatment for his cancer. He seems surprisingly anxious to deny others the same opportunity.

Economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, who has reviewed the candidates’ proposals, said:

“Unless it’s in a state that has very strong consumer protections, they would likely be denied coverage. People with preexisting conditions would not be able to get coverage or would not be able to afford it.”

CB wrote: “It offers a helpful contrast between the downsides of the two parties’ approaches to healthcare.”

Too true.

Giuliani also thinks that insulating people from the costs of sickness or injury will make them more likely to get sick or injured. “There is no incentive to wellness,” he complains. Perhaps you thought wellness was an incentive in and of itself. Obviously, you lack Giuliani’s grasp of free-market homilies.

Yeah, I’ve noticed kids of rich parents are always diving headlong through windows and such, because they have absolutely no reason not to want to get hurt, because they know it’s not going to cost them anything. It’s a travesty. Now, if people really felt it in the wallet when they got sick or injured, then we’d really have a productive America. And don’t tell me about all these losers who apply for bankruptcy. Those slackers can always go to a soup kitchen.

  • Giuliani has had government-sponsored health insurance for most of his adult life because of all the government jobs he’s had. What has been his “incentive to wellness?”

    These Republicans who worship the graven image of the Free Market make me sick. And I have a strong incentive to wellness.

  • Given a choice between a large gap of uninsured and government-imposed safeguards for Americans, the GOP candidates prefer the prior.

    No, at this point it’s: Given the choice between relying on campaign contributions from individuals and contributions from the members of AHIP, the GOP candidates prefer the latter.

    It took me a while to figure it out but 75% of what the GOP candidates say isn’t directed at voters, it’s directed at industries. They’re just smart enough not to stand up there and say “Hey big corporations, send me a check so I can get that pesky government off your back and allow you to better hose the little guy!” Instead they deliver their message via addresses to potiential suckers voters. That’s one reason they sound so unhinged.

    “I don’t like mandating health care. I don’t like it because it erodes what makes health care work in this country–the free market, the profit motive. A mandate takes choice away from people. We’ve got to let people make choices. We’ve got to let them take the risk–do they want to be covered? Do they want health insurance? Because, ultimately, if they don’t, well, then, they may not be taken care of.”

    This is an ideology only an insurance company could love. How could this appeal to the increasing number of voters who aren’t insured or have ever had to wrangle with their insurance company to get a bill paid? And guess what? Even as I write this, doctors are clamoring for the government (in the form of Congress) to step in and raise the base payment for Medicare services, in part because private insurance companies use those rates to set their rates. So much for government interference being bad for “health care work.”

    You could also ask if this means Rud!E is against state licensing boards and other government regulation of health care providers, but it would be a waste of time. He’s not talking to people, he’s talking to corporations.

    And of course, he’s also just batshit insane.

  • These candidates and holders of public office can say whatever they think we want to hear, but they really have no idea. Bush says he doesn’t want government-run health care, yet his health care is paid for by the government. What I wish for any of these folks is to live as a “normal” person for while and get a clue.

    Meanwhile, have you all seen this?
    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_WH_Press_Sec._Bush_Rove_1120.html
    Scottie admits he lied as WH Press Sec’y. What a shock. Not.

  • Rude-y needs an ‘incentive to wellness’?

    Yipe…

    My incentive to wellness is that wellness makes getting up and doing my day easier, more fun, less painful and less expensive. Isn’t that enough for Rude-y? There’s nothing about insurance or health care that makes me WANT to get sick or hurt.

    I also don’t require much incentive NOT to have another bout with Cancer.

    Schmuck.

  • These guys have no goals for society. They simply accept whatever results from pure, unregulated free market economics as the best of all possible worlds. Doesn’t matter how cruel or unfair the outcome to the people. Of course, underlying that philosophy is the belief that they are at the top because they are better than everyone else, that luck and circumstances and nepotism and inherited wealth have nothing to do with their success. The more power and money you have, the more convinced of your superiority you become. Even though money and power beget more money and power by sheer inertia.

    At the other end of the political spectrum, liberals/progressives desire a society that maximizes the common good, which of course includes individual rights and freedoms as one component. We’re not averse to rational capitalism.

    Completely different, but not opposites, from which you can meet at a figurative 50 yard line and come to an acceptable compromise.

    They just care about the method – social/economic Darwinism. We care about the results.

    I don’t see how you can reconcile the two.

  • This actually shows more than just a difference in health plans—it shows a difference in world views.

    For us on the left, government should have a primary role in protecting and taking care of those who need help.

    For the right, it’s everyone for themselves with the “free market” acting as some great equalizer (i.e. rags-to-riches scenarios).

    It’s why the “compassionate conservative” line never held any real weight for those paying attentionIt’s why I’m ECSTATIC that health care is becoming such a primary issue — it will expose the right for the greed-is-our-true-platform group that it is.

    Of course, as someone with a truckload of medical issues and who, quite frankly, should probably write a book (pr at least a blog) about how to deal with the current system, there are some personal reasons as well.

    It’s also nice for the media to finally dig into some policy issues. Doubt it will last, but I think most of us will take what we can get.

  • I think those who mentioned that The Rude One is really speaking in code for the health insurance industry are spot on.

    A couple of other things:

    Having health insurance doesn’t mean you have to use it; in fact, I’m sure the companies – especially the HMO’s – are happy to take your money and not have to pay out for anything. The mandate, if any, would not be for heath care, but for health insurance – how can such a concept escape The Rude One’s™ understanding and if it hasn’t escaped his understanding, why is he conflating the issue? Or should I ask, why is he conflating yet another issue?

    On the other hand, how many people would get an annual physical if the cost were included in their plan? How many more would get mammograms and colonoscopies and prostate exams and diabetes screenings? Does The Rude One™ have no concept of how much of a drain sick people are to the economy? Untreated diabetes alone is a black hole of chronic and expensive health problems that cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars. Treating an advanced cancer is not cheap.

    What I would like to see is some kind of study that shows the benefits to the economy of a healthier populace. If the health of poor kids were better managed, would they learn better? If they learned better, would they do better in school, go on to higher education and have more opportunity for a better life?

    I’m not saying that life in America would be utopia – there would still be problems that even better health care could fix – but it would have to be so much better for so many.

    It’s good to know, though, where The Rude One™ comes down on the issue; save the insurance company – the lives lost weren’t saving anyway.

  • Obviously, because Thompson, McCain and Gulliani had government provided health insurance, they had no incentive not to get their cancers. Fu**ers.

    I said last week that the only reason Il Duce, Rudi improved insurance for kids in NYC after his bout with prostate cancer was Catholic guilt. I still wasn’t wrong.

  • They Said It: Thompson Social Security Plan Applauded as ‘Courageous,’ ‘Honest,’ and ‘Substantive’

    Courage & Honesty

    Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson’s plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from standard election year pablum on the subject in one key way: He’s actually treating voters like adults. (ABC, 11/9)

    Thompson…is seeking to show he is willing to take on tough issues if elected in November 2008, telling a news conference in Washington he was the only candidate to offer an extensive Social Security plan. (Reuters, 11/10)

    “You certainly have to admire his courage for putting this out,” said Alan Viard with the American Enterprise Institute. (Tennessean, 11/10)

    Supporters contend that Thompson’s willingness to take on the so-called third rail of politics will impress voters. (Bloomberg, 11/10)

    Conservative economic experts applauded Thompson for offering specifics on an issue considered to be politically dangerous. (Tennessean, 11/10)

    “He’s not afraid to be brutally honest with the American people about the challenges that lie ahead,” said Representative Zach Wamp, a Tennessee Republican who is working to recruit supporters for Thompson. “People can tell the difference between a strong leader telling the truth and a weak leader talking politics.” (Bloomberg, 11/10)

    Substance

    [Thompson is] the first candidate of either party to offer a detailed proposal to fix the nation’s retirement system. (WP, 11/10)

    The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal (WSJ, 11/10)

    Mr. Thompson’s plan…was more specific than what the Bush White House put on the table when it sought to overhaul the system. It also varied substantially from the traditional conservative approach of focusing primarily on personal investment accounts. (NYT, 11/10)

    Economist Jason Furman said Thompson deserves credit for offering a detailed plan to address the projected Social Security shortfall…(Bloomberg, 11/10)

    In discussing policy, Thompson was in his element. (Politico, 11/9)

    He’d prefer to talk about substance. (Politico, 11/9)

    Thompson’s plan draws on ideas favored by conservatives: a reduction in benefits, rather than an increase in payroll taxes; and a shift toward private accounts, rather than government-provided payments. (WP, 11/10)

    Rivals

    [Thompson] ventured Friday into an area few rivals have tread: advocacy of a fundamental overhaul of Social Security. (WSJ, 11/10)

    Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue. (WSJ, 11/10)

    Among Republicans, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have talked in general terms … but none has offered a specific plan. (WP, 11/10)

    Mr. Thompson is the only one of the Republicans running for the White House who has made Social Security a central theme of his campaign. (NYT, 11/10)

    He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. (WSJ, 11/10)

    But with less than two months before the 2008 voting begins, candidates have generally been reluctant to confront the Social Security issue. (WP, 11/10)

    ——————————————————————————–

    Saving and Protecting Social Security
    A Plan to Ensure Retirement Security for All Americans
    http://www.fred08.com/virtual/socialsecurity.aspx

  • Wow … campaign spam. And from a candidate who has the mental acuity of a cocker spaniel.

    Memo to Fred Thompson and even Barack Obama: Your plans to “fix” social security should be one page and contain the following:

    There is no actual Social Security “crisis.” To ensure proper funding, however, we will now apply the Social Security tax all income above $90,000 a year. That will easily fix any issues.

    Thank you.

    But that’s okay … keep flogging an issue most people don’t see as a problem (mainly because it’s not) and watch as your candidate continues to make a fool of himself.

  • Let’s understanding what US peoples really need.The leading causes of death are usually listed as heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc. However, the leading “actual” causes of death in the United States are risk factors that can be modified.Communities, schools, worksites, medical centers and government need to work together to establish environments and create policies that eliminate the barriers to, and increase the opportunities for, people to live healthy.

  • Comments are closed.