I like John Edwards. He was my preferred candidate in 2004, though I never saw him as a vice-president. Perhaps he will be selected president next time, assuming that the Supreme Court keeps its hands off the selection process. It’s a long way to the 2008 elections, and I don’t intend to spend a lot of time on it for quite a while, but i thought it worthwhile to at least note that Edwards is on the right page.
Edwards Steps out Front on Health Care
By Dean Baker
Monday 12 February 2007
For the people who will vote in the Democratic primaries next year, the Iraq War will rightly be the central issue. On this topic, it is worth noting that we already have a president who can’t admit that he made a mistake. But, after Iraq, health care will almost certainly stand out as the most important issue.
John Edwards moved the health-care debate forward last week when he outlined a plan that could provide universal coverage at an affordable price. The key points are fairly straightforward. The plan would require that employers either directly provide insurance for their workers or pay a fee to help cover their insurance. The plan would also set up regional insurance markets that would be open to everyone not covered by an employer-based plan. These markets would include a government-run plan modeled on Medicare.
The first part, a requirement that employers either buy insurance for their workers or pay a fee, provides the financing for universal coverage. The money from the fees could be used to supplement Medicaid and the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in order to make insurance affordable for low- and moderate-income workers and their families.
The second part, the regional insurance pools, would be the key to controlling costs. These pools would offer insurance to all at a single price, not discriminating based on pre-existing health conditions. This means that everyone could be covered.
The regional insurance pools would also provide the uninsured and employers the option of buying into a government-run, Medicare-type plan. This is important. The current system of competing private insurers is incredibly inefficient. Insurers make money by trying to make sure that they do not cover people who will get sick. They also make money by trying to avoid paying claims. They also have large costs associated with sales and marketing, plus high salaries paid to top executives and dividends paid to shareholders. As a result, the administrative costs of private insurers are more than 16 percent of what they pay out in claims. By contrast, Medicare’s administrative costs are just two percent of what it pays out.
In addition to the savings from a more efficient system, Medicare is also far better able to control costs than private insurers. Because of its size, it can effectively dictate prices to providers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. (Almost all providers take it.) Cost control is absolutely essential. Current projections imply that average health-care costs for a family of four will exceed $50,000 a year (in 2007 dollars) in two decades. If health-care costs actually follow this projected path, there is no way that most families will be able to afford insurance, and there is no way that the government will be able to provide large enough subsidies to make up the gap. Basically, anyone who is not serious about controlling health-care costs is not serious about providing universal coverage. It’s that simple.
Finally, it is also important to note that the Edwards plan would be a great boon for small business. Currently, small businesses (most of whom provide insurance to their workers), must deal with a set of confusing rules on deductibles, co-pays, and caps to determine which policy is best for their workers. They also run the risk that their insurer can jack up their premiums by double-digit amounts, at any time. Under Edwards’s plan, small businesses could buy into the Medicare-type system and never worry again about any extraordinary price increases or radical changes in coverage. For small-business owners who would rather than spend their time running their business than dealing with the fine print of insurance policies, this would be a huge gift.
The Edwards plan should only be the beginning of the debate over health care in this election cycle. Other candidates will presumably put forward their own proposals. (Representative Dennis Kucinich has already endorsed a universal Medicare plan.)
While no one expects a finely detailed plan, it is reasonable to ask that the candidates produce some meat on this issue, rather than just a vague commitment to universal health-care coverage. The last time a Democratic president was elected based on such a vague commitment, he produced a hopelessly complex plan that proved to be such a political disaster that it knocked health-care reform off the agenda for a dozen years. We can’t afford to see a repeat of this disaster.
——————————————————————————–
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer (www.conservativenannystate.org). He also has a blog, “Beat the Press,” where he discusses the media’s coverage of economic issues. You can find it at the American Prospect’s web site.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I enjoy your posts. I admire your work. I applaud most of your comments and conclusions. But I do have a general question that was prompted by your specific comments complimenting Edwards on his healthcare ideas. I’m pretty much of a newbie on the whole subject of mysticism. I’m fascinated by the books by, for example, Monroe and Tolle and Bruce. I’m even doing daily energy work, so called. I have reason to believe I have made contact with dead relatives and friends. I’ve had many other minor mystical experiences and one major one. My whole life has changed because of my new interests, and I’m grossly understating. Does all this mean I now have to become a liberal Democrat and work toward goals such as the coercive implementation of socialized medicine? Maybe it does. I’ve changed a lot of my ideas. But it seems to me that a lack in the milieu of “new age” ideas and discussions is much room for people with a more naturally conservative political bent. To deal with my own such conservative tendencies, and to still my mind and let my timeless awareness shine through, I’ve taken steps such as listening to much less AM talk radio. Yet I see a lot of old-timers in this spirituality business who talk as if only an infant soul would think twice about voting for Edwards, Hillary or Al Gore. I swear off of Rush Limbaugh but then run into stuff like this. Makes things difficult. By the way, I’m not a straight conservative. If I had to describe myself politically, I’m more of a Ron Paul libertarian. I am not making any of this up.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
> I enjoy your posts. I admire your work. I applaud most of your comments and conclusions.
Thank you, and thanks for reading them.
> But I do have a general question that was prompted by your specific comments complimenting Edwards on his healthcare ideas.
Actually I was saying that I like Edwards, and encouraging people to look at him. I can see that it looked like an endorsement for his medical care ideas (sloppy writing on my part) but really it is an endorsement of the fact that he is a poor-boy-become-rich who seems to care about the poor in the way that Jack and Bobby Kennedy came to care about them. I may be wrong, of course, but he strikes me as sincere, if somewhat slick.
> I’m pretty much of a newbie on the whole subject of mysticism. I’m fascinated by the books by, for example, Monroe and Tolle and Bruce. I’m even doing daily energy work, so called. I have reason to believe I have made contact with dead relatives and friends. I’ve had many other minor mystical experiences and one major one. My whole life has changed because of my new interests, and I’m grossly understating.
I’d be interested if you want to talk more about it. I’ll PEM you and you can PEM me in turn if you choose to do so.
> Does all this mean I now have to become a liberal Democrat and work toward goals such as the coercive implementation of socialized medicine?
Hell no!
> Maybe it does. I’ve changed a lot of my ideas. But it seems to me that a lack in the milieu of “new age” ideas and discussions is much room for people with a more naturally conservative political bent.
I entirely agree.
> To deal with my own such conservative tendencies, and to still my mind and let my timeless awareness shine through, I’ve taken steps such as listening to much less AM talk radio.
Always a good idea! Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know them, and the fruit these non-stop talkers produce seems to me to consist mainly of (1) hatred of a whole list of “enemies” and (2) contempt for any point of view that doesn’t reflect their own “either/or” world, and, mainly, (3) fear — mostly fear of unacceptable changes that are probably the result of plots by people seeking to achieve cultural dominance.
> Yet I see a lot of old-timers in this spirituality business who talk as if only an infant soul would think twice about voting for Edwards, Hillary or Al Gore.
They may be old-timers, but if they think that spirituality splits along party lines, or ideological lines, they have a thing or two yet to learn.
> I swear off of Rush Limbaugh but then run into stuff like this. Makes things difficult. By the way, I’m not a straight conservative. If I had to describe myself politically, I’m more of a Ron Paul libertarian. I am not making any of this up.
I have huge respect for Paul, because he is (1) highly intelligent, well educated, independent, and (2) faithful to the constitution (how’d he get elected in Texas??) If I thought he had a chance to make a difference I’d vote for him myself. Since that’s not possible, I am reduced to either doing it anyway (hoping to swell his total enough to eventually encourage others), or vote for the lease worst option. Given the track record of the Republicans in Congress from January 1995 until January 2007, and in the White House since January 2001, there is no way I could ever vote for a Republican candidate who did not explicitly repudiate that record. How likely are we to see that??
Great comment, and one that really deserves a longer answer. Thanks.