Edwards Healthcare plan uses the marketplace to destroy insurance companies

He will be offering a Govt Medicare-modeled program to everyone. People would be free to choose this program or private insurance.

The key thing is that Medicare will always be cheaper and offer better coverage as it is a not for profit system.

Edwards is using the marketplace to destroy the current system by offering this Medicare like alternative.



Edwards plan has been praised by Paul Krugman and Thom Hartmann.

This would, indeed, cause people to choose the single payer plan over private plans.

if he's threatening the more insurance-exec-friendly candidates when the primaries roll around down here, I might be throwing my vote his way.

We'll see how the polling goes...

That is what I do

:D

I hope regardless of what happens to John (and I hope nothing but good), that this proposal still moves forward.

is reduced to selling .50 cent/day supplemental insurance, and luxury policies.

Worried about loss of income while you are hospitalized? For $15 a month, we will guarantee up to $250/week which you can spend any way you need to, (up to 5 week maximum, some restrictions apply).

and

There's no need to accept the same service from NationalCare as everyone else! For a mere $15000 a month our policy will guarantee care by our skilled staff - every one a former Playboy Playmate or Chippendale Dancer! You will enjoy a private suite at the facility of your choice, and any needed tests will be conducted by our private lab, so No Waiting! After care facilities are guaranteed at Aspen, San Moritz, or Fabulous Buenos Aires!

The crisis created by insurance companies is pretty easy to summarize.

They inserted themselves between patients and their healthcare providers, denying care and raising premiums in a 'price fixing' mode. They negotiated hard and scrimped in paying doctors and healthcare providers.

They became the parasite that feeds on healthcare dollars, which has ultimately resulted in over 40 million uninsured in this country.

THe Edwards plan would require them to compete with a 'not for profit' government run system. If they have to compete in a competitive environment, they are going to have to cut those profit margins and everyone will benefit --regardless of which people choose.

I disagree with you of course. It appears to me that that is PRECISELY the concept behind Edwards plan. Since you offered no argument why you disagree however I'm afraid the discussion is doomed to be a short one.

"it's socialism" crowd right up.

I thought Id scoured over everyones healthcare plans... but I didnt notice this... and healthcare was my biggest reservation re: Edwards. I love it.

Private insurers would undercut it by offering lower rates for healthier people, and then refusing claims as often as possible the way they do now.

Edwards does not seem to get that insurance is about spreading risk, and that the very reason for profit insurance exists at all is to undermine that purpose. Businesses and healthy people will continue to favor fucking over sick people, just as they do now.

That is the key! And you can bet repubs will be all over cutting funding to "prove" that "government doesn't work." They tried it in Britain some time back with Thatcherites but the Brits caught on and that was stopped by the Laborites. Eternal vigilence!

Do you believe that you could rely on a future Republican controlled Congress to fully fund a program like Medicare?

We must have a veto proof majority in the House and Senate in case another REpub president sneaks into office. Ideally, we'd have a Dem controlled House, Senate and White HOuse. We'd need to get the ball rolling and get voters happy with the results.

Medicare and Social Security are popular plans with everyone but the neocons, which is why they haven't dismantled them (altho they keep trying). We must defeat them everywhere so that the Republican Party, in a shambles, has to relent and get other, more moderate voices in their party. Until that happens, we've got to keep vigilant. No sitting back and relaxing after we win in 2008!

Edwards is proposing that government subsidize private insurance, and if you do that there is automatically less for the public system.

they "vote with their feet." As their numbers dwindle, private insurers will see less and less profit in this line of business and move on to something else that is more profitable. Of course, instant Medicare for all is preferable. I have great insurance but I would gladly trade it for UHC and SP and pay for it through my taxes (which I do now for my Medicare; it makes no sense at all for me to also have to pay for a supplemental plan). But I can see screams of "socialized medicine" now. Many presidents from Truman on down have favored what Kucinich is promoting, but they simply didn't have the public will behind them and the health care industry just grew and grew in power and influence. Tactically, we may have to win this war by an incremental approach .... not what I would prefer, but perhaps our only option since we as a country have let this thing go on and on and we're stuck.

Leading with a wussy compromise is like advertising your used car for $3000 when you would like $5000 for it. You might not get the higher amount, but it's seriously stupid not to ask for it to start out with. Even if you'll accept a kitten, keep on asking for a pony, sez I.

:kick:

Any insurance plan (including single-payer) depends on spreading the costs among a large random sample. Healthy people need to pay for the sick people. Wealthy people need to pay for the poor people. Edwards' plan is an honorable goal, but it will work too well. Sick and poor people will go to his plan. Uninsured and people with expensive conditions that private insurers won't cover will join his plan because they have nowhere else to go and he mandates it. People who are happy with their insurance will keep what they have.

So I predict Edwards' program will go bankrupt rather quickly from paying for all of this and his cost estimates are much lower than realistic (because of course he wants support for it). That doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It needs work to ensure there is enough funding.


Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happens to people who defy the mandate and don't get insurance? My girlfriend doesn't want insurance. She does Asian medicine and acupuncture so she would just treat herself. If I marry her, I would put her on my insurance but she won't do it on her own. And does anyone know how the mandate plans deal with illegal immigrants?

Who enjoys fighting claim adjusters, checking of doctors and specialists are in their programs, constantly rising rates, getting denied coverage.

See Sicko.

As far as going bankrupt, if we properly fund it, it will not go bankrupt. The administration costs of the current medicare system is around 3% versus private insurance which is much more than that.

As far as your girlfriend not wanting insurance, well thats just foolish. Stuff happens. She could be in an accident tomorrow. A week in a hospital can run over $100,000. Why gamble like that?

Yeah, that's a big if. I hope we manage to fund it. Some employer plans do give excellent benefits. I know people who have blue cross blue shield and don't have co-pays and their premiums and deductibles are quite low. I have Cigna and it sucks. Money goes out of my paycheck but they don't pay for anything...bastards. They just do discounts.

As for insurance for my girlfriend...well duh! You try telling that to a stubborn independent woman! She's willing to take the risk because she doesn't trust insurance companies and thinks that hospitals are price gouging. I wish someone would investigate why health care costs so much in this country (at the provider level, not insurance) Other countries' hospitals and doctors don't bill as much as we do.

It's like paying taxes. Nobody gets to choose which taxes they want to pay, or choose to not pay taxes period. Well, you can, if you're wealthy, but I'm talking in general. If you don't do it and you get caught, you're either in prison or paying a nice fee.

Either everybody pays into the same program, or we have what we currently have.

There can be no choice. Choice is not part of the future. If you give people actual choices, then there can be no growth. People are too diverse. You have to force everybody into the same box, or else too many boxes start showing up, and then nothing is fair, and everyone starts fighting over the smallest things, and nothing gets done.

If we want a universal, one-size-fits-all world, there just can't be choice. Whether you want a choice on a certain topic or not, it doesn't matter. For things to work as efficiently as possible, you can't really allow people to make their own mind up. Look around some. Everyone doing this and that, here and there. Look at the energy we waste. That can't be the future. End of story.

:kick:

You know Big Insurance will sharpen their knives even further to destroy him.

...is "how much will this Medicare-like plan cost?"

If the cost is to be as little per-person as Medicare, it will be a very popular program, but will cost the government at least as much (because of no cost controls) as a single-payer system. And that means a sizable tax increase of some form (whether it be simply rolling back the Bush tax cuts on upper-income people, or something different).

If it is funded "frugally" by the government, it's going to cost the average American a lot. Maybe not as much as the $1,200-$1,500/month currently being charged families under non-employer insurance policies, but not a whole lot less, either. And, if having such a policy is mandatory, that's going to amount to one f*** of a de facto "tax increase" on those whose employers don't provide health care -- i.e. primarily those in lower-paying jobs or unemployed, who already have the least to spend on now-mandatory health insurance. Imagine that you're a Wal*Mart "greeter" and your spouse makes a living cleaning houses or asking "do you want fries with that?" Maybe one or both of you works a second job nights and weekends. You are just eking out enough to survive, keep your heads above water, and put food on the family table. Suddenly, you get told that you are now required, by law, to have insurance -- and the choices are between private "family" policies of $1,200/month and a government Medicare-like plan costing $500/month. (And here I'm being quite optimistic in assuming that the government plan would cost the consumer less than half of private premiums.) What difference is it going to make if you only have a hundred or so left each month after rent, food, gas, and utilities? You're still going to be in a hole too deep to climb out...and one that will be mandated by law.

The problem with both the Edwards and Clinton plans is that, to be fair for those most vulnerable, you need to make available a plan that costs only a tiny amount in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. And, by "tiny," I mean less than $100/month for a family...maybe substantially less. That's going to require the sort of government expenditures that will probably work out to more than funding a single-payer system (because, as I mentioned before, you won't have the leverage that can impose viable cost controls). So, if it's going to cost both the consumer and government more than single-payer would, and (at best) cover as thoroughly as single-payer would, why not just go with single-payer?