Which candidate comes closest to TRUE universal health care?

I want details--of course the candidates' sites paint all in glowing colors, but I need the real skinny, like who helps people with chronic medical problems the most? I want to know what's in it for ME!

So far, it looks to me like my guys are Kucinich and Edwards on this issue. I was leaning to Kerry up until now, but I won't qualify under his plan. If I lose medical insurance, I'm pretty much a goner.

Facts, not name-calling please!

universal health care, but I don't think he has a chance of being nominated. Please don't forget that congress will have great input on any new health care issues, so it is very important to get the demos back in charge for whomever is going to be the demo winner in 2004.

We tend to concentrate on the Presidential contest here but what really drives legislation is the majority in both houses of congress. Here in Virginia, the Democratic party didn't even run someone against John Warner for the Senate seat. But we have a Democratic governor, Mark Warner (no relation) - so we know that Virginia will vote for a Democrat if offered a good choice.

Why didn't Virginia run a candidate for the Senate? Because the one candidate they had decided not to run and the state party decided to save the money rather than run an unknown who would surely lose to long-time Senator Warner.

If the parties on the state level are so starved for money that they don't even run candidates in conservative Southern states, how can we expect to win back the House and Senate?

n/t

according to the national journal study that Kerry is always talking about, it looks like Kuncinch and then Gephardt have outlined plans the most closest to being trully universal. Here are some excerpts:

National Journal's judges -- regardless of their ideology and their views on Bush's approach -- consistently concluded that the president's proposal would do little to reduce the ranks of the uninsured. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best mark, Bush received an average score of 1.8 for reducing the number of uninsured.

Scale 1-5: Covering the Uninsured
Dennis: 4.6
Dick 4.5
Dean 3.8
Kerry 3.5
Edwards 2* (before he released his kids plan)


Dean plan would cover 31 million of the 41 people who are now uninsured.

Kerry plan would cover 27 million of the 41 million people who are now uninsured.

Gephardt plan would cover 97 percent of Americans or 37 million people who are now uninsured.

The judges also rated Kucinich high for seeking to cover so many Americans. Their proposals would "de-link" employers from health care insurance, and instead cover all Americans under Medicare or Medicaid. Note the word *all*

Do you have a link? I'd like to see more.

That's what I got from his first town hall meeting in NH, anyway.

I can't really answer the question since the only analysis I've seen has been from the candidates own websites.

There is a great Washington Post editorial saying Edwards plan is the way to go.

.

Maybe our party should have a bash the cripples, and shit on the uninsured week.

:thumbsdown:

...and not listen to the nay-sayers. There are a lot of people at DU whom Dennis makes nervous because of his quiet, unassuming pro-working-people policies.

Their plans don't depend on employment and they call for the goverment to put enough money into health care to pay for quality health care, not pseudo health care. In Vermont, the doctors won't treat the patients because the payments are too low. Because of Dean's priorities, the money went elsewhere.

who favors the Canadian style system. I sympathize but in this day and age and with an evenly divided congress we just aren't going to get National Health Insurance. Even Ted Kennedy seems to understand this now. Dean's plan isn't perfect but it goes a long way.

In theory the answer is Kucinich or Sharpton but in practice neither plan will pass. Barring some cataclismic event Republicans will have at least the House in 2005. That makes any plan that eliminates private insurance (like Kucinich's does) and impossibility. It also makes Sharpton's Constitutional amendment impossible.

Gephardt's plan is doable. By using tax credits to pay for it he would buy support from the mandated businesses. His plan should be able to pass in anything other than a totally partisan House. Thus I give the edge to Gephardt given that he does insure more people than either Dean or Kerry and also could pass his plan.

Well, then by all means we must work for a cataclismic event. Electing Dennis Kucinich president would be such an event. Although it does require some creativity to imagine, it certainly could happen. Think outside the box! The revolution will not be televised.
(Or put on the cover of mainstream national "news" magazines.)

30 seats in the entire country which could flip our way in the House. We would need at least 15 to have any kind of decent majority and more like 20 to 25. It is possible but so unlikely as to may as well be impossible.

The best thing about Geps plan is that it's doable. Some of the others are good plans, but a good plan that can't pass doesn't matter. To elaborate on dsc's statement, Gep's plan is done through work. You will be covered even if you leave your job. Also if you are not employed, the gov will pay 60% of your Cobra. The only people who won't be covered are those who really don't want to be for some reason.
Kerry's plan sounds good because of getting the same health care as Congress, but really, what Repub in Congress is going to vote for that. They don't want us having what they have.
The single payer's won't pass, at least not yet.

"In the Bush economy, Americans are losing their jobs left and right. And workers that are laid off usually lose their health care with their job. Without a paycheck, they can't afford the cost of coverage.

"We need to make sure that those who are suddenly without work do not go without health care. My plan offers them a 75 percent tax credit to help them either to buy into the Congressional Health Plan or to pay for the coverage they already have."

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2003_0516

Has contingencies for those out of work, and those who cannot afford the copayments.

Kucinichs's plan, single payer is the best idea, but has little chance of getting though congress, Kerry' plan covers everyone, through a single fund, which is as near as you can get to single payer without actually being single payer. Instead of having a payroll deduction, partially payed by employee, and employer (single payter works exactly like Social Security and Medicare you have several other sources of money for the funding. There is one flaw to single payer. Single payer creates SINGLE RECIPIENT. The presented lans create a problem with a worker with family members. Unless you are working, you are not elegible, Then you have the situation of "HOW MANY QUARTERS" you must work before you are eligible to collect if you lose your job, if you become disabled, and so on. Whle the theory is good, the published plans are vague in dealing with anything by the person paying, receiving the benefit. The 7.5 percent from the boss and 7.5 from the employer plus a 2 percent income tax,creates a "WHAT ABOUT MY WIFE WHO IS NOT WORKING" Scenario.

This creates a situation where you are adding another LARGE deduction from a workers paycheck, on top of Social Security, and Medicare payments. It would really require a much larger payroll deduction than the 7.5 percent in order to provide the benefit.

many, like me, don't make enough to get the credit. I would top out at around $400 which is maybe 2 months of coverage.

NOT to attack Kucinich, but a single-payer plan will have a very difficult time making it through Congress. Dean will expand Medicaid (an existing federal program) and Federal Employees' Health Benefit Program (another existing federal program) to cover all Americans. Once the currently uninsured are covered, he will look at other possibilities.

The upside of this plan? More people get covered immediately. The fight for a single-payer plan waits 'till this happens.

The downside? Ummm....I can't think of one. If we insist on taking a "single-payer plan or nothing" attitude, we'll get nothing. This way, we'll get coverage for all with the ability to work for a better system.

Idealism is great. We should never stop trying for perfection. People are dying for lack of decent medical care in the meanwhile, though. Shouldn't we get them covered first?

Single payer or nothing attiude, I got to agree. Something is better than nothing, then if the people like this that is if Dean is president, maybe we can try single payer. I tell you I think they all got good ideas, I am partial to Kucinich's idea naturally but any plan would be good, except for Shrub's plan.

I think it's important to get people insured, however we do it.

Its been a plan of the party for a while, although I disagree with Dean on some things I will grant him this, I gotta admit I like single payer and Kucinich's idea the best though but this has been a democratic dream for a while.

I think Kucinich is the best candidate for Universial Health Care by a long shot. Then comes Sharpton, then Clark. But Kucinich and Sharpton can't win, so I am going for Clark.


J4Clark

Dennis is concerned with quality health care, not just health care, for everyone. He plans to make it a priority and properly fund it. The world community thinks our approach to health care is selfish and cruel. Kucinich's plan is the one that will improve our image.

Health care is a human right.