Democrats: Health Care For All!

This weekend, the Democrats managed to reach consensus on a platform that "commits the party to guaranteed health care for all." Sen. Obama still adheres to his standing position about not mandating coverage, but finding ways to make it more accessible.

While Sen. Obama still declines to adopt a mandate as part of his strategy, the fact that this plank in the platform has been finalized brings the Democratic Party's overall stance closer to the the approach favored by Sen. Clinton.

Now that the Dems have settled on their stance, I'm sure this will be heating up on the campaign trail. Sen. McCain will now have definite targets for debate, and with the recent scandal over John Edwards' affair keeping his wife Elizabeth out of the ring, the Republicans must be heaving a sigh of relief.

Advisers in both the Clinton and Obama camps seem happy, and activists within the party are mollified enough to have dropped their tougher stance demanding a single payer system.

SOURCE: "Democrats adopt goal of health care guarantee" 08/09/08
photo courtesy of Steve Rhodes, used under its Creative Commons license

Write a Prescription For A Platform

Once again we return to the political side of health care, a side that will be instrumental in shaping its future one way or the other. Right now there is news of interest from the Democratic Party. They have come together to hammer out the details of the official party platform on health care.

Mark Silva at The Chicago Tribune's political blog, The Swamp, brings us the current incarnation of the wording:

The committee charged with crafting a platform for the Democrats agreed today in Cleveland to call health care "a shared responsibility between employers, workers, insurers, providers and government. All Americans should have coverage they can afford."

He also details a low-key tug of war between Obama's people and the Clinton camp concerning the proposed wording, with the Clinton side pulling for stronger language supporting shared responsibility among other things.

The wording agreed upon today is merely a draft, pending approval Saturday when it is presented to the full platform committee in Pittsburgh, PA. The final proposal will be presented to the Democratic convention on August 25 in Denver, CO. I wonder how many permutations it will go through?

SOURCE: "Health care: Democrats start writing Rx: Fulfilling the promise of 'universal health care,' that's the question." 08/03/08
photo courtesy of macwagen, used under its Creative Commons license

On The Road With Robert Reich

Today our media offering is from The Wall Street Journal. This morning in their commentary section we find Robert B. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, sharing his views on "The Road to Universal Coverage."

He begins by noting that on the Democratic side of the current race for the White House all three major candidates (Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) have made health insurance issues a major part of their individual platforms. He also notes the despite overwhelming similarities in their plans they are focusing on the small differences in the battle for their party's nomination. "Mandates are a sideshow, and fighting over them risks turning away voters from the main event."

After a lucid and concise comparison of the plans presented by Democratic frontrunners, in which he demonstrates just how similar they are, he continues:

This fight is little more than a distraction, given that a mandate would matter only to a tiny portion of Americans. All major Democratic candidates and virtually all experts agree that the combination of purchasing pools, subsidies, easy enrollment and mandatory coverage of children will cover a large majority of those who currently lack insurance -- even without a mandate that adults purchase it. A big chunk of the remainder are undocumented immigrants, who aren't covered by any of the plans.

Should the remaining 3% of the population be required to purchase insurance, or lured into it by rate decreases and subsidies? Reich's position is that the answer depends on who you think comprises that 3%.

Comparing Senators Clinton and Obama he shows us the difference in views on this topic. Senator Clinton's position is that the 3% are youthful and in good health, which means they would lower the overall cost of health care as their payments subsidize others. Senator Obama's position is that many of them simply cannot afford coverage even with subsidized premiums. His belief is that they would either ignore the mandate or simply be unable to afford it. To Mr. Reich's credit his conclusion after comparing them is cautious and well reasoned. Like much of the current discussion on the topic it also casts an eye towards Massachusetts:

Who's correct? It's hard to know. So far, the Massachusetts experiment suggests Mr. Obama. Massachusetts is the only state to require that every resident purchase health insurance. The penalty for failing to do so could reach $4,000 next year, but the state has already exempted almost 20% of its current uninsured from the requirement. Massachusetts is concerned they can't afford a policy, even with subsidies similar to those in all the Democratic plans. So far, about 50% of Massachusetts's uninsured have complied with the mandate.

He closes with a call to action for Democrats, encouraging them to "stop leading with their chins," in counterproductive arguments over mandates and begin building momentum for large scale and desperately needed change. Change that they all already agree upon.

SOURCE: "The Road to Universal Coverage" 01/09/08
photo courtesy of Kevin Dooley, used under this Creative Commons license

Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama on Health Care

With less than a year to go before the United States decides who will be the country's new chief executive the debates are starting to get heated. Last night's debate among candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination was a perfect case in point. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton faced off against Senator Barack Obama. The subject of health care reform proved, to no one's surprise, to be the hot button issue.

Michael Cooper of the New York Times reports:

The crux of their dispute centers on their overall approaches to health care.

Mrs. Clinton's plan would require all Americans to get coverage and would provide subsidies to make it more affordable. Mr. Obama's plan would require only children to have coverage; his plan would require employers to provide coverage or contribute to a new public program that would make insurance more affordable to people not covered by their jobs or by the government.

“The only difference between Senator Clinton's health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated - forced - them to get health care,” Mr. Obama said. “That's not what I'm seeing around Nevada. What I see are people who would love to have health care. They desperately want it. But the problem is they can't afford it.”

Aswini Anburajan adds the following on MSNBC's First Read:

Obama has pledged, repeatedly, on the stump to pass universal healthcare by the end of his first term in office. He promises to do so through a mixture of bravado, “If Harry and Louise get up on TV, I'll dip into my campaign fund and run my own ads saying Harry and Louise are wrong;” and by running an open process in which every party will have a seat at the table.

The main quantitative difference between the three main Democratic front runners, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, is that only Senator Obama's plan does not mandate care (requiring coverage) for everyone. In the debate and on the stump he has questioned the ability of government to enforce such a mandate. Mr. Cooper's article quotes him as saying of Senator Clinton's approach, "She states that she wants to mandate health care coverage, but she's not garnishing people's wages to make sure that they have it.”

From here on out things should continue to heat up in the various debates. Check back with us often as we keep our fingers on the pulse of health care reform!


SOURCE: "It Was Clinton vs. Obama on Health Care" 11/16/07
SOURCE: "What's Obama's Health care Position?" 11/15/07
photo courtesy of swanksalot on Flickr, used under this Creative Commons license

Taking The Pulse: A Political Check Up

It has become an axiom that health care in the United States needs a drastic overhaul, hence this blog (among many others) and its companion, George C. Halvorson's book, Health Care Reform Now!. According to surveys, health care reform is one issue that unites the vast majority of Americans regardless of ideology. How to implement that needed reform remains a major point of contention .

As we end this week on the Health Care Reform Now! blog, it occurs to me that our readers might appreciate some resources for comparing the various politicians and Presidential candidates on the issue of our health care system.

First of all, the New York Times offers up their "Presidential Candidates on Health Care" page where all the candidates are presented with both their proposal to expand coverage and how they intend to pay for it. Very nicely laid out and accessible, the content here is presented in the candidate's own words with links back to the debates and news articles from which they were drawn.

Farhana Hossain, a New York Times blogger, sums up the page nicely in its introduction:

Presidential candidates in both parties are promising to overhaul the nation's health care system and cover more - if not all - of the nation's uninsured. In 2005, 44.8 million people - 15.3 percent of the population - were without health insurance, according to estimates released by the Census Bureau in March. The leading Democrats are competing among themselves over who has the better plan to control costs and approach universal coverage. The Republicans, for the most part, are promising to expand coverage without increasing the role of the federal government, and reduce cost through tax incentives. Most of the candidates have not presented a detailed outline of their health care plans, but here is what they have said so far.

Another useful page for comparing our leaders on the subject is located at On The Issues, a site that attempts to track "every political leader on every issue." Their Health Care page contains a wealth of information delivered in simple bullet pointed lists. What makes this a very different resource from the New York Times page is the fact that it does not solely focus on Presidential hopefuls, instead trying to track the position and records of everyone currently in office.

To give a brief example, let us look at a name that has been far from the spotlight recently, Newt Gingrich. Here is the text of his entry on the Health Care page:

Newt Gingrich on Health Care

Former Republican Representative (GA-6) and Speaker of the House

Click here for 6 full quotes by Newt Gingrich OR click here for Newt Gingrich on other issues.

• Medicare opt-in to private health savings accounts. (Dec 2006)


• Focus 21st Century Intelligent Health System on individuals. (Dec 2006)


• Market competition yields more health choice at lower prices. (Dec 2006)


• Save dollars and save lives--so transform urgently. (Sep 2003)


• Focus on prevention; would save $14B with diabetes. (Jul 1998)


• Ongoing battle against liberals nationalizing healthcare. (Jul 1998)

The modern voter has a plethora of new tools available with which to inform him/herself, aggregate information pages like these being a terrific example. With a subject as important as health care reform, having all the data can be crucial to making a correct decision.

SOURCE: "The Presidential Candidates on Health Care" ONGOING UPDATES
SOURCE: "Health Care" ONGOING UPDATES
photo courtesy of b-may on Flickr, used under its Creative Commons license

Politics Over Productivity

Children's health care is a subject we cannot get away from, especially recently. The SCHIP legislation and President Bush's veto are impossible to escape when one surveys the morning news. Vitriol pours from both sides of the issue as thick and bitter as service station coffee.

As one digs through the multitude of vituperative articles, blog posts, and paid propaganda, it becomes more and more apparent that most of the discussion is politics rather than objective analysis. The Democrats are now experiencing the backlash from their recent radio campaign. In that campaign, Graeme Frost, age 12, made a radio address asking President Bush to sign off on the SCHIP legislation on the grounds that he and his siblings would not have received hospital care after their auto accident without it.

From the Baltimore Sun

But while the Frosts were helping a bipartisan majority in Congress sell a plan to expand the program, they were not prepared for comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:

"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much there parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

The arguments continue, as chronicled in the Baltimore Sun, over the state of the Frost family's finances and their reliance on SCHIP. Rush Limbaugh discussed the family's assets and financial status on his show last Monday, while conservative blogger Michelle Malkin posted about visiting the family's business and driving by their home.

Quotes such as this one (again from Redstate) seem par for the course:

"Hang 'em. Publicly," the contributor wrote. "Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

You do not have to be an advocate of public hangings or destroying lives to make your point. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a fine example:

Are the Democrats grandstanding? Are they playing politics with a critical issue? Of course, they are. When don't politicians play politics? But at least they're blanketing the airwaves and blitzing the phone lines with an issue that matters — health care for children of working families.

It's a little vexing to listen to ultraconservative Republicans berate Democrats for trying to score political points. For the past several years, the GOP has made a fine art of scoring points over issues both petty and private: for example, the overblown travel office "scandal" during the Clinton years; for another, the intrusion into the difficult decisions faced by the family of Terri Schiavo. They've exploited flag-burning, same-sex marriage and religious faith, all to gain political advantage. It seems a bit churlish for them to complain when the tables are turned.

And so the debate rages on.

SOURCE: "Frost Family Draws Ire of Conservatives" 10/10/07
SOURCE: "Democrats Politicking for Good Reason: Peach Care" 10/10/07
photo courtesy of Graniers on Flickr, used under this Creative Commons license

Report Card on the Legislative Session

Even though a special session looms in California, the lack of progress on the health care issue has spawned criticism, anxiety and unease across the state.

Steven Harmon at the San Jose Mercury News examines the situation:

"They had the stars and the moon properly aligned, with the governor re-elected, and there were no election worries for the Legislature," said Tony Quinn, a GOP political analyst. "This was the year to do something. I expected to see more substantive stuff. But the governor didn't use the large mandate he got. It just petered out."

Left on the cutting room floor were hot-button issues such as health care reform, sentencing and parole reform, assisted suicide, water storage and redistricting reform.

[Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger has called lawmakers into special session in hopes of accomplishing what couldn't be done in the regular session: health care reform, and water storage and flood protection legislation.

But not everyone is optimistic, especially given the partisan divide that dominated a session that produced mostly tweaks to state laws, not memorable change.

A common thread in many articles is the idea that the seven-week long budget standoff was a primary factor in health care issues remaining unresolved.

Ted Lempert, former California State Assembly member and President of Children Now, comments in the Capitol Weekly:

California's recent budget battle did more than just heighten political friction. The two-month-long stalemate monopolized precious time needed to fix California's desperately broken health-care system, which leaves millions of Californians uninsured--including over 760,000 children. Uninsured children often miss the preventive care that decreases health-care costs borne by the public over time.

Now, with just a few weeks left on the legislative calendar, Democrats and Republicans alike have a responsibility to address their unfinished business--namely health-care reform. This is not a problem that can wait until the next legislative year. California, which always has prided itself on leading the nation in social and economic issues, today ranks 43rd among states in the percent of insured children. As families, businesses and the rest of the public are demanding immediate action, it is not hyperbole to say that health care reform is a life or death issue.

SOURCE: "Hopes for Major Achievement Dashed as California Legislature Wraps Up- 2007 Session in Review" 09/13/07
SOURCE: "Children's Health Care: Unfinished Business" 09/13/07
photo courtesy of A. Belani on Flickr remixed and used under this Creative Commons license

Votes and Vetos: AB8 Passes

All eyes in California are focused on Sacramento.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The state Legislature approved an overhaul of California's health care system Monday, but even before the votes were tallied Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to veto the bill and call lawmakers into a special session after the current session ends this week.

Schwarzenegger said he would reject AB8, by Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, because it puts too great a financial burden on employers and does not address the needs of 2.8 million of California's estimated 6.8 million uninsured residents.

Despite the vote's outcome, there is still a long road ahead for reformers. Schwarzenegger's veto will bring a return to the ongoing debate, while the special session will keep it in the public eye.

Jordan Rau at the Los Angeles Times speculates on the content of possible resolutions:

An agreement would be likely to include a requirement that employers provide health coverage for workers or pay a fee to the state, which would then arrange for insurance for those workers. That proposal forms the heart of the Democratic bill.

The deal probably would also incorporate a tax on hospitals that would help California capture an extra $2 billion in federal aid. The California Hospital Assn. endorsed such a tax last week after Schwarzenegger lobbied hospital executives.

SOURCE: "Health Care Bill Passes Legislature, But Governor Says He'll Veto It" 09/11/07
SOURCE: "Governor Plans Health Care Veto, Talks" 09/11/07
photo courtesy of Fronco Folini on Flickr remixed and used under this Creative Commons license

A Populist Prescription from Barack Obama

Health care is the subject on everybody's lips, especially those running for office. Members of both major political parties have laid out their platforms on this issue as they either campaign for office or prepare to do so, but there is dissent within each party as well. Barack Obama created quite a stir yesterday with his reaction to comments on Hillary Clinton's failed attempt at reform back in 1993. The Associated Press provides a relevant quote from his Sac City, Iowa, appearance:

"It was a closed process and not everybody understood what was taking place, so when the insurance companies and the drug companies started running those 'Harry and Louise' ads, nobody really knew what was what. That's why the American people have to be involved."

After Clinton's plan was proposed, special interest groups ran the commercials, featuring a fictional couple worrying about losing their ability to pick their own doctors and warning that the government would take control of the health care system. Support for the health care expansion evaporated and the effort was eventually dropped.

Obama said the lesson to be learned was to involve the American people in the effort. Without political support, no health care expansion can be approved, he said.

Obama then followed the announcement of his more populist approach with the statement that he would announce outlines of a health care reform package in his first 100 days as President. The details of this package would then be drafted by a bi-partisan commission. Alec McGillis at The Washington Post takes note of the tactical change this represents within the overall debate:

The remarks were a new twist on the health care debate that has played a dominant role so far in the Democratic race -- until now, most of the candidates have focused on the differences between their plans, not how they would go about actually getting reform enacted. The comments also represented a variation on a theme that Obama first introduced in an interview with The Washington Post last month -- that he would be in a better position to unite the country than would Clinton, given her polarizing reputation among many voters. And it is a rebuttal of sorts to the argument Clinton has been making on the trail in recent days -- that she, unlike Obama, has the experience to know how to work within the system to get things done. In Clinton's highest-profile bid for reform, Obama is reminding voters, the system won.

SOURCE: "Obama Vows Open Health Reform Process " 09/05/07
SOURCE: "Obama Draws Clinton Contrast" 09/05/07
photo courtesy of SEIU International on Flickr remixed and used under this Creative Commons license

Democratic Candidates on Health Care Reform

Yesterday, the Associated Content blog published a brief recap of the televised debate on health care reform this past Sunday. The eight Democratic candidates in the 2008 Presidential election all participated in the 85-minute long discussion, which aired on ABC.

The blogger, Rafael B., writes:

Is a Universal Health Care system in the horizon? Who knows but it seem[s] that the majority of the candidates are blaming private insurance companies, drug and pharmaceutical companies for the mess of the US health Care system. It seems that they may be inclined to adopt an alternative system for managing the health issued of millions of Americans.

Current polling indicates that, today, the No. 1 domestic issue for voters in the US is Health Care.

You can view the complete video online at C-SPAN and read the entire transcript on the ABC News website.

SOURCE: "Democratic Candidates Debate on Health Care:
What Do They Think?" 08/23/07
photo courtesy of Kristen Price

Labor Unions Get Behind Health Care Reform

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), which represents 10 million workers, sponsored a 90-minute forum yesterday at Chicago's Soldier Field for the 2008 Presidential candidates.

Only 7 out of 8 Democratic candidates participated in the AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum. "Labor leaders said the Republican presidential candidates were invited to take part in the Chicago debate, but none of them filled out a labor questionnaire sent them -- a precondition for participating in the debate" [The New York Times Caucus Blog]. Democratic candidate and former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska was also not invited to participate, as he too failed to submit the questionnaire.

The AFL-CIO blog summarizes the candidates' positions on health care reform issues:

Every Democratic candidate talks about expanding health care access—yet every one of these 10 Republicans is talking about reducing government’s role in providing coverage. As former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) debate about which of them can best move the country toward universal coverage, the Republican candidates spent nearly all of their time in this debate advocating a smaller federal role, leaving coverage to the market and to private insurers.

[The AFL-CIO] "said in 2006 that it knocked on 8.25 million doors for union candidates, made 30 million telephone calls, distributed 14 million fliers and sent out 20 million pieces of mail in its successful efforts to help Democrats take the House and Senate" [Chicago Tribune].

The AFL-CIO is jumping into the health care reform arena. Per an August 8, 2007, AFL-CIO Executive Council statement, published online by Political Affairs:

Working families are deeply concerned about their health care coverage, especially the health care costs that are major contributors to the eroding standard of living for middle-class Americans.

Labor Day 2008 will mark the beginning of a renewed effort by the AFL-CIO to win reform at the national level that protects existing hard-won union benefits and extends coverage to all Americans.

The goal of this effort will be to win universal, quality health care for all of America by making the 2008 elections a mandate on health care reform and electing a president and Congress pledged to that end.

The AFL-CIO website includes a page dedicated to health care issues and health care reform petitions

The AFL-CIO's executive council will meet today to decide whether or not to begin the labor federation's endorsement process immediately. Two-thirds of the AFL-CIO's 55 individual unions must agree on a candidate before an endorsement.

Other Sources: Baltimore Sun
photo courtesy of Guy-Claude Portmann