Elizabeth Edwards backs Clinton on Health Care

Martina Stewart, an Associate Producer at CNN, reports that Elizabeth Edwards has now publicly endorsed the health plan of presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton. Details appear in Stewart's article on CNN's Political Ticker:

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, is picking sides in the Democratic nomination race – at least with respect to health care. In an interview that aired Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” she threw her support behind Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan.

“In order to ensure that we have universal coverage, we need to say everybody has to join,” Edwards told ABC’s Robin Roberts. “So, for that reason, the mandates that Sen. Clinton is talking about, I think are going to be more successful in achieving the goal,” she added.

Both health care plans have the same goals, said Edwards, but “I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton’s policies than Sen. Obama’s on this particular issue.”

This is not the first time that Edwards, a cancer survivor, has had good things to say about Clinton's approach to health care. Last September she even noted its similarities to the one her husband, John Edwards, espoused during his bid for the Democratic nomination. As noted on this blog, she has also been quite critical of Sen. John McCain's plan, stating that is gives too much leeway for insurance providers to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

This public statement is one that will certainly have an impact on the battle between Clinton and Obama for the Democratic nomination. Even though neither John nor Elizabeth Edwards have made a formal endorsement of either candidate, endorsing Clinton's health care plan carries a lot of weight due to the high profile of the issue in the current race for the Oval Office.

SOURCE: "Elizabeth Edwards backs Clinton's health care plan over Obama's" 04/09/08
photo courtesy of John Edwards 2008, used according to its Creative Commons license

Hard Questions for John McCain from Elizabeth Edwards

Being on opposite sides of the political divide, it is not surprising that presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain and the wife of former hopeful John Edwards disagree on a number of issues.

This has now been thrown into sharp relief by a recent guest posting by Elizabeth Edwards on the ThinkProgress website:

I freely admit that I am confused about the role of overnight funding in repurchase markets in the collapse of Bear Stearns. What I am not confused about is John McCain’s health care proposal. Apparently Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy advisor to McCain, thinks I do “not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator’s proposal.” The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator’s proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are left outside the clinic doors.

She then proceeds to ask a series of very pointed questions about the McCain plan from the perspective of a person with an existing condition. Emphasizing his reputation for being a "straight talker," she calls on him to provide straight to in response to her questions.

It is a sobering post. Especially when her lead in question is:

Under your plan, Senator McCain, would any health insurer be required to sell you or me (or those like us with pre-existing conditions) a health insurance policy?

She goes on to ask incisive questions about the market driven approach, pointing out that cheap insurance is often made available through efforts on the insurer's part to avoid treatment of high cost or chronic diseases such as her own cancer.

We will see what, if any, response is to be had from the McCain camp as time goes by.

SOURCE: "sponds: Why Are People Like Me Left Out Of Your Health Care Proposal, Sen. McCain?" 04/01/08
photo courtesy of Library of Congress via pingnews, used under this 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

Market Reform Key to Health Care Reform?

In today's Boston Herald, Dr. Lawrence A. Hunter, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation, critiques health care reform plans that involve market reform.

Hunter criticizes "market-based health plans," such as those proposed by 2008 Presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Sen. Barack Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards.

In both parties, politicians have proposed to "curb," "harness" or "reform" the market to "fix" America’s health care system. However, lawmakers continue to ignore the underlying problem with today’s health care system. Because of government intervention in the marketplace, there’s a vast gap between the demand for health care and its supply.

Hunter discusses troubles he believes are already apparent in Massachusetts' state-based health care reform and compares these to potential reform on the national level. He also goes on to point out specific problems he sees with the candidates' plans.

John Edwards' plan hides this tax hike by forcing businesses to "either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance," and Obama has promised to "require employers to make a meaningful contribution to the health coverage of their employees." Romney’s plan assessed new taxes on those who chose not to buy health insurance and small business owners who wouldn’t play along - proving there is no such thing as voluntary socialism, even when designed by a so-called conservative.

SOURCE: "Market Reform Most Unhealthy: Gov’t Meddling Sickens System" 07/30/07