« Who Benefits From Post-Election Coverage? | Main | How Much Money Does Hillary Take? »
September 20, 2007
Differences
I don't quite agree with the DLC's contention that the three Democrats' healthcare plans "closely track the architecture for universal health coverage long advocated by the Progressive Policy Institute and the DLC," (every plan has a public option: Where was yours, DLC?), but whatever. It's certainly true that:
these differences [between Democratic plans] pale in comparison to the vast gulf that seems to be opening up in the two parties' approach to health care. President Bush continues to advocate an erosion of existing public programs on budgetary grounds, while offering nothing positive other than a variety of shopworn conservative policy gimmicks that really add up to an attack on collective purchasing of health insurance and even on the basic idea of spreading health care risks through insurance. With one exception, the Republican presidential candidate field echoes the atavistic Bush vision of a health care system in which individuals are left on their own to buy medical services in expensive and unregulated markets, with or without access to insurance. And the one exception, Mitt Romney, appears to be trying to distance himself from his own state of Massachusetts' universal health care initiative, which resembles the Clinton, Edwards, and Obama plans much more than those of any Republican.
And we should be clear about what this means: The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don't have -- and can't get -- on their taxes. The Democratic vision is for every American to have health insurance. We clear?
September 20, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
And we should be clear about what this means: The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don't have -- and can't get -- on their taxes. The Democratic vision is for every American to have health insurance. We clear?
This is Thursday, right?- think you can get that out on Hardball before Matthews interrupts?
Posted by: latts | Sep 20, 2007 4:06:35 PM
Yes, it is clear. This is what we come for, folks.
Posted by: SDM | Sep 20, 2007 5:51:59 PM
The Republican vision is that government shouldn't do anything about universal health insurance, because that might interfere with insurance industry profits.
The Democratic vision (at least as expressed by the leading candidates) is to use universal health care as a method to subsidize the insurance industry with money that is entrusted to the government to pay for care.
We clear?
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Sep 20, 2007 6:31:43 PM
Better marketing: We give you healthcare; they give you a tax break -- you decide!
Posted by: leo | Sep 20, 2007 9:34:30 PM
I don't know Leo, they loves them the tax breaks...
Posted by: nick | Sep 20, 2007 10:51:32 PM
I suspect that if a Dem plan passes it will put health histories in a massive government database and require something similar to a national ID. In other words, it will have enormous privacy implications. And, it will include foreign citizens who are here illegally, increasing the incentive for crooked foreign governments to send us their unwanted people and increasing the money they earn off them.
We aren't clear, since the Dems won't discuss that side of their "plan". And, if someone won't discuss the downsides of something but only highlights the benefits, what do we call them?
Posted by: TLB | Sep 20, 2007 11:12:13 PM
TLB worries about national IDs and apparently doesn't go for an annual checkup. For at least 15 years, hospitals and medical practices have required patients' social security numbers for their case files. Too many instances of TLB on Main Street's records getting mixed up with TLB on Market Street I guess.
Posted by: Joyful Alternative | Sep 20, 2007 11:24:40 PM
>The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don't have -- and can't get -- on their taxes. The Democratic vision is for every American to have health insurance.
As someone who's completely uninsurable outside of a group policy (and who would be retired, but can't be until I'm eligible for Medicare), I see that difference with painful clarity. The challenge for the Democratic candidates is to make everyone see that, and why it's important.
Posted by: jaye | Sep 20, 2007 11:39:50 PM
It would be great to see the leading candidates come together on issues like this where they essentially agree, and drive home that point: that whichever one of them wins, this is something they're all going to fight for, and whichever GOP candidate wins, he's gonna be totally against it.
It would cut through the media bullshit that avoids the huge policy chasm between the parties, and it would do wonders for the Democratic brand.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Sep 21, 2007 6:10:00 AM
The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don't have -- and can't get -- on their taxes.
The Repulican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don't have -- and can't get -- on their taxes, which they don't pay. We clear?
Posted by: mark | Sep 21, 2007 8:53:59 AM
It is about time that we view national health as national a concern as national defense. The health of all residents is as important to the Nation as is national defense, perhaps even more so because an optimal national defense cannot be achieved unless it can draw from a pool of healthy participants. A Nation that is hobbled by a segment of its population that is sick and has no means of being cared for is a Nation that cannot reach its potential in terms of growth and overall wellbeing. It does not matter whether the sick are "deserving" or "undeserving". By remaining sick, they call upon the Nation's reserves which would be put to better use otherwise. On a par with education and defense, national health should, as it already is in other advanced democracies, be accepted as a necessary ingredient for national security. The lack of it defines our national identity as that of an improvident people. more concerned with the instant gratification of tax cuts than in the long term future of the Nation. That Republicans, by and large, oppose it, should come as no surprise since they represent the interests of the conservatives whose main motivation is to conserve for themselves.
Posted by: Yvon O. Heckscher | Sep 21, 2007 1:01:18 PM
Yvon: YES! And so well said.
The fact that no politician, Demopublican or Republicrat, has said that, leads to my point which is that the Democrats' vision is NOT really for every American to have health insurance. There is a simple system which would result in true universal health insurance, and at least 60% of American's favor it, so if the Dems really had wanted to make it happen they would have done so by now. Being slightly less in-the-pockets of the health insurance industry giants does not make the Dems any less culpable, in my view, for the failure of our healthcare financing system.
And by complicating, obfuscating, and then backing out on health care reform, the past Democratic party efforts have only turned American citizens off to the whole notion of any reform, thereby making the status quo harder to change.
Posted by: countrydoc | Sep 21, 2007 9:52:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
