« Are Labor Markets Monopsonies? | Main | Un-Crazy »
July 25, 2007
Health Care At The Debate
Given how often we talk health care on this site, it's worth putting up the segment of this week's Democratic debate that focused on health care. Three quick comments:
First, Obama is simply not being truthful when he says his plan "covers everybody." It doesn't. It makes it easier for everybody to get coverage, but it simply does not cover every American. Every time he says otherwise, he's misleading the voters.
Second, Hillary mentions the scars -- and lessons -- from her last crack at health reform. If these debates were worth anything, the moderator would ask her what those lessons are.
Third, Edwards' answer is very poignant and affecting, but it doesn't necessarily do anything to separate him and his plan out from the other candidates. His answer supports the generic progressive position on this issue, rather than specifically favoring the John Edwards approach. If he's going to separate from the pack atop this issue, he's going to need to throw some elbows. Hillary has failed once and now publicly praises the wisdom of incrementalism. Obama doesn't have a universal plan. There are differences here, but Edwards isn't drilling them in.
July 25, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
If you can tell me in these soundbite debates how anyone has any time to do anything other soundbites, I would love to hear it. I agree with what you wrote, but I think that is as much a reflection of the structure than anything else. They are practically useless for understanding who the candidates are.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 8:13:04 AM
The Dem's need to get to grips with universal health-care and stop dancing around the issue. Its like they don't realise that introducing health-care of this sort would win them the votes of a generation. Not to mention actually *caring* for those who are sick.
Posted by: tde | Jul 25, 2007 9:41:27 AM
At this stage in the race, there is at least a strategic case to be made for Edwards focusing on raising his profile in the way that he did.
Importantly, its harder for Clinton to muddy the distinction on the "I'll actually fight for it" argument than on the policy itself ... and it is a two-for-one, because for both Clinton and Obama, the fighting Democrat theme clashes with some of their fundamental messaging.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Jul 25, 2007 9:54:41 AM
"First, Obama is simply not being truthful when he says his plan "covers everybody." It doesn't."
Here here. This more than anything pissed me off from Obama (and I'm a supporter). This is the kind of thing that's going to be an issue for him in the long run.
Posted by: Adam Conner | Jul 25, 2007 10:24:37 AM
"First, Obama is simply not being truthful when he says his plan "covers everybody." It doesn't."
Under this criteria, Edwards' plan doesn't cover everyone. either, it forces everyone to cover themselves.
Posted by: Dave White | Jul 25, 2007 10:45:55 AM
I don't understand why Obama gets called 'misleading' because you disagree with a policy detail about mandates. You define 'universal' as a mandate, Obama defines 'universal' as eligibility. That's a policy dispute but you come close to calling Obama dishonest because you have a different approach. You don't say Obama's plan won't work, you say he's being misleading. I think that's weak.
Do you consider Social Security benefits to be a universal retirement benefit for Americans? You have to work 40 quarters to qualify for SS retirement benefits. There is no mandate that you work 40 quarters but most people find that a meaningless difference - it's a low threshold to overcome and they still consider SS benefits to be universal, for everyone. If somebody called Social Security benefits a 'universal retirement benefit' I could technically call them 'misleading' but that would be splitting hairs, no?
The American Medical Student Association states "Universal health care refers to the idea that every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care." Access, not a mandate. That's just one view but they are not alone. You have a policy difference with Obama that you elevate to a question of his veracity. I don't think that is fair.
Posted by: joejoejoe | Jul 25, 2007 11:06:52 AM
why don't we try a definition by an organization that is not self serving in its definition. Here is what wiki says about it--
"Universal health care is a broad concept and has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for them all is that every resident of a geographic area — such as a country — is mandated to have health insurance. In market-based systems,as used in part by the USA, the mandate is coupled with a private insurance market. In government the mandate is coupled with a government agency that pays for a wide range of health benefits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Trying to spin this as mere policy difference rather than not using the commonly used definition, and, therefore convince one that he means one thing when in actuality he means the less used definition that you provide joe joe is considered misleading because Obama knows, especially as a lawyer, the value of how language works.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 11:48:51 AM
By the way- just to make it clear- most people will assume he means the commonly used definition not the one you managed to find by the AMA.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 11:50:05 AM
That AMSA definition looks like the way an interest group tries to badly redefine a term for their own benefit.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 25, 2007 11:53:18 AM
I think Edwards hit exaclty the right notes on healthcare for the forum he was is. Making the case that he is the most committed to health care and castigating the weasel words "affordable" and "access" to healthcare. After he's established his own connection to the issue he can take on his rivals' over the inadequasies of their more cautious policies.
Posted by: AJ | Jul 25, 2007 11:58:03 AM
And who exactly oversees Wikipedia's definitions?
Posted by: Dingo | Jul 25, 2007 12:03:37 PM
Dingo- that's not the only place that definition is found. Wiki's definition is the commonly understood definition of the term "universal healthcare." If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. Here is dictionary.com's definition:
Universal health care is a state in which all residents of a geographic or political entity pay for and have access to some type of health care by means of provision of health insurance or direct provision of health care
http://www.reference.com/search?q=universal%20healthcare
It can not be universal by definition if it's not manadated since the requirement is that ALL residents "pay for and have access to some type of healthcare." If you want to care to argue with logic, you should focus on the word "all."
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 12:13:16 PM
None of those definitions seem to be in line with the most "common" understanding of "Universal Health Care."
When discussing Universal Health Care with Joe Schmo on the street, I don't think "a system whereby the government mandates it citizens purchase private health insurance" would come up as an option. I think most people associate the idea of "Universal Health Care" with a single-payer, government run system, wherein you don't have to do anything to be covered, which neither candidate is proposing.
Posted by: Dave White | Jul 25, 2007 12:17:38 PM
akaison - I managed to find the AMSA definition because it's the one listed below Wikipedia on Google. I fully understand that it's only one viewpoint but you clearly took the third paragraph of the Wikipedia entry because it's more favorable to your argument so you can ease off the sanctimony. Here's the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry:
"Universal health care is a state in which all residents of a geographic or political entity have ACCESS to some type of health care by means of provision of health insurance or direct provision of health care."
Ezra's own Health of Nations series reports favorably on the German system that has an out for people earning over $40,000 per year. So that's not a full mandate. Pre-2000 France didn't cover everybody but I'd be willing to guess everyone on this thread would trade French health care circa 1999 for U.S. healthcare in 2007, mandates be damned. I agree that mandates have many benefits but escalating a point of policy disagreement with Obama into a question of honesty and forthrightness is overstating things in my view.
Posted by: joejoejoe | Jul 25, 2007 12:18:54 PM
It's obviously a matter of definition, so if Obama, who's in the minority, I think, in how he wants to use the term "universal coverage," will explain each time that he means universal access to coverage rather than a mandate that you be covered, that will be good enough for me. But it would be misleading to most people not to explain the qualification.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 25, 2007 12:20:30 PM
So by your definition we already have it. EMTALA ensures access to "some type of healthcare by direct provision" already. Not that its a good system ,but it meets your criteria and I don't believe that is what most are talking about when the mention universal healthcare.
Posted by: Dingo | Jul 25, 2007 12:20:34 PM
I think Dave makes an interesting point about whether any of these plans that require us to pay for coverage really cover people or force us to get coverage.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 25, 2007 12:22:20 PM
so if Obama, who's in the minority, I think, in how he wants to use the term "universal coverage," will explain each time that he means universal access to coverage rather than a mandate that you be covered, that will be good enough for me.
I wish he'd explain this to, because highlighting this difference actually makes his plan look a lot better than Edwards'. Mandates are a bad idea, and sound bad to the average voter (note that Edwards didn't really elaborate either), whereas the phrase "universal coverage" sounds good.
I think the lack of extended explanation of both plans is really due to the time constraints and sound-byte nature of the debate format; they're jumping all over each other to take ownership of the catch phrase "universal coverage" cause they don't have the time to extend their comments into a full-on argument for why their plans are the right way to go.
Posted by: Dave White | Jul 25, 2007 12:27:08 PM
Sanpete - Obama did explain why his plan doesn't include a mandate.
Obama added, "I think that the problem is not that people are trying to avoid getting health care coverage. It is folks ... who are desperately in desire of it, but they can't afford it."
You can disagree with that or think it's insufficient but he's not trying to paper over the differences with Edwards plan, Obama is upfront that he has different priorities in his approach.
Posted by: joejoejoe | Jul 25, 2007 12:29:41 PM
once again- this is a matter of commonly understood definition. unlike sanpete and others i will leave those of you who are trying to spin to your spinning rather than continue wasting my time with your parsing
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 12:52:15 PM
by the way- one other point- its understood by the public what these things mean. they have understood it for quite sometime - just because you don't get it, doesn't mean they don't.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 12:53:04 PM
once again- this is a matter of commonly understood definition. unlike sanpete and others i will leave those of you who are trying to spin to your spinning rather than continue wasting my time with your parsing
Well that was quick. Who let Bill O'Reilly in here?
Posted by: Dave White | Jul 25, 2007 12:56:24 PM
Sanpete - Obama did explain why his plan doesn't include a mandate.
I agree he addressed it, though I thought he could have been more clear.
once again- this is a matter of commonly understood definition
Which is exactly what my comment addressed, akaison.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 25, 2007 1:01:27 PM
sanpete- this wasn't directed toward you. it directed at those who keep trying to peddle less commonly undertood definitions. I would even agree with your point that if Obama said plainly that his plan isn't meant to require universal coverage, I could live with that.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 1:17:40 PM
for the record- my problem with obama's plan isn't even it's universality- it just seems to add a lot more bureacracy if i am understanding it.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 1:18:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
