Search Results for ‘health care coverage’
Health care is shaping up to be the most important issue in the United States for the first time since the early 1990s in the coming election. It is an issue that all the Democratic candidates have been addressing here in Iowa and one that they will continue to address until the caucuses. A recent New York Times poll gives a lot of perspective about how the candidates are and should be addressing the issue. According to the poll, 90% of Americans think our health care system needs either fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt and a disproportionate percentage of Americans, 62%, trust Democrats to improve the health care system. One may think this is an easy chance for Democratic candidates to push a massive reform like a single payer health care system but popular opinion about health care reform is much more complex than it seems.
64% of Americans think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, which is an increase of 10% since 1996 and by a 2 to 1 margin, Americans think its worth paying higher taxes so everyone can have health insurance. When asked on the details of health care plans, Americans favor a single payer solution over the current model by a margin of 47 to 38 percent. However there is a big gap between how people percieve health care in general in the U.S. and their own individual health care coverage. While 57% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the state of health care in the United States, only 20% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with their own health care. This trend also holds with the cost of health care. A whopping 81% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. but only a bare majority, 53%, are dissatisified with the cost of their own health care.
Only one candidate has introduced a health care plan so far, John Edwards. His health care plan tries to balance the concerns expressed in the poll of universal coverage without affecting people who already have health insurance. Unfortunately, it comes across as a little complex as a result. The poll results belied this. People who expressed an opinion about it favored the plan by a margin of over 2 to 1. However, nearly half of all poll respondents were unsure, which is a sure sign that it confused a lot of people.
This deftly illustrates the problems that candidates face. When like John Edwards, or Bill Clinton in his first term, they fix our dysfunctional health care system while taking into account the relative satisfaction that individuals feel about their personal health care plans, the result is confusion. However, if you try to set up a single payer plan, it makes people afraid that they will lose their health care. The result gives a candidate two difficult choices between what type of health care plan to propose. John Edwards has already picked one option and it will be interesting to see what the other candidates do.
March 1st, 2007
In the midst of the stupidity over bloggers and the stupidity over his house, it’s worth noting that John Edwards presented a pretty significant and detailed heath care plan last week. The plan, which was analyzed in detail by Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic, provides universal health care but does so through the use of tax credits to create and fund entities for groups of peopuyle to purchase insurance called “health markets” as well as through an “individual mandate” which is a requirement that everyone b insured. It also allows Medicare to compete with private insurers to provide coverage to people through health markets. It is a complex plan that would be funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Although it has the advantage of “giving people who have insurance something they lack now–more security and more choice–without taking away their coverage,” the complexity this engenders makes it difficult to sell. As Cohn notes “grafting universal coverage onto an already complicated system inevitably means drawing up a complicated plan. That’s not particularly helpful in the current media environment.”
The alternative is a straightforward single payer system like that in a bill before Congress, HR 676, that was introduced by John Conyers (and co-sponsored by Dave Loebsack.) This is the system used in the rest of the western world, which leads to significantly lower health care costs than what we have. A single payer plan would be much more effective but is considered less politically feasible. As a result, it is doubtful that any other serious candidate will advocate for it (as opposed to hopeless publicity seekers). However, it is still possible. The national debate on health care is moving increasingly towards a single payer solution. Edwards, by introducing his plan, laid down his marker but, as the debate develops, other candidates who either seek to flank him on the left or merely keep up with the national debate may introduce single payer plans similar to HR 676. In meantime, we will just have to wait and see what their policy teams cook up.
Barack Obama pledged in his annoucement yesterday that “we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president’s first term.” However, he hasn’t unveiled his plan yet. In the meantime, John Edwards has been the first candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan. It may not be perfect but it is definitely worthy of respect.
February 11th, 2007
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
October 2nd, 2006
As yesterday’s deadline for seniors to enroll in Bush’s Medicare Plan D program approached, last week Democrats explained that the program is really just a huge give away to pharmaceutical and insurance companies. The costs of the plan have already doubled, and 74% of the 29 million people Bush is claiming to have helped already had prescription drug coverage via Medicaid, Medicare advantage plans, or an employer/union plan. According to USA Today, under the plan costs would increase for 19-23% of seniors.
Since the plan is confusing, probably not helpful, and a lot of people don’t even know about it, it makes sense that Democrats were calling for the May 15 deadline to be repealed.
And then someone answered their calls: Chuck Grassley.
Naturally he had less to say to the Des Moines Register about his reasoning for sponsoring a bill to remove deadline penalites:
Grassley said those who rushed to sign up before the deadline “could legitimately see this as unfair to them, because they signed up.” But, he said, “we are dealing with a whole brand new program” and it takes time to be accepted.
Democrats had pushed hard for the deadline to be extended and the penalty waived. Grassley said he did not propose the legislation so that Democrats would lose an election issue. “Good policy makes good politics and I think this is good policy,” he said.
At any rate, anyone who thinks repealing a $2 a month penalty is going to stop healthcare from being an election issue is clearly off their meds.
May 16th, 2006
I posted about this a few days ago: Nussle made the first TV buy of the 2006 gubernatorial election — and it only cost $500,000! The ad is now online, so watch it a few times (Quicktime, Windows Media). It’s short and incredibly empty of substance, but here’s what it claims (and why it’s flat-out wrong, line by line):
Nussle learned leadership “from the ground up.” That’s mostly just a stupid thing to say. I wonder whether they focus grouped to determine that the “from the ground up” leadership style was more appealing than other less creative, more conventional leadership styles. (The “don’t make a huge surplus into a huge deficit” style of leadership comes to mind as one potential alternative…)
Keep reading; the fun has just begun.
“In Congress, Jim is a leader in the fight to control spending and clean up the house ethics scandal.” I can’t believe he went there. My only guess why is that he knew the Democorats wouldn’t have the money to spend on response ads right now, so audiences wouldn’t hear about how he is as responsible as anyone in Washington for the devastating budget reversal that turned a $236 billion surplus into a $412 billion deficit.
And I’d like to see him try to prove the claim that he’s a leader in the fight to “clean up the house ethics scandal,” but I’m suspicious that the language here, too, is more “manipulative” than, say, “truthful.” The phrase “clean up the house ethics scandal” seems to achieve a number of marketing objectives: First, the language of “cleaning up a scandal” is a lot more favorable to Nussle than the language of “cleaning up a group of crooked politicians,” because Nussle is, on many accounts, a crooked politician. Second, calling it a “scandal” makes it sound like anyone who mentions it or tries to draw attention to it is just a gossip (a gossip who hates FREEDOM). And third, it makes Nussle’s position offensive rather than defensive. If his position were merely “I’m not scandalous,” it would be a weak, defensive position. “I fight scandal” is offense. And he has the money, so he can preempt us like that.
Nussle wants to “make Iowa’s schools the world’s best.” He should’ve thought about it before he co-sponsored the now-infamous No Child Left Behind Act, which attempted to force Iowa to model its education system after the bottom-of-the-barrel Texas system. You’d think that Nussle would at least realize that such a flawed un-funded mandate was a bad idea after the fact, but no, he still touts it on his generic, uninspired education flyer.
He also has his own plan, called “Empowering Parents With Choice in Education” (oh, so now he’s pro-choice). It is also just a tax credit, but it doubles as a creative backdoor into a school voucher program. Except, unlike the other places where school voucher programs have been proposed, this won’t be targeted towards the socioeconomically needy. He just wants to give away $1,500 in tax credits to anyone who wants to send a kid to private school. That’s per kid (maximum $6,000 for married couples or $3,000 for single filers). Iowa already ranks in the bottom half of the nation in per-pupil spending and is losing teachers to bordering states. Do we really need to make it worse? And is a tax credit alone really something Nussle has the right to call an education plan of any kind? I’m thinking not.
Nussle wants to make Iowa “the renewable energy capital of the world.” According to Nussle’s “Energy Project 20/20″, that mostly means tax breaks. Past that, his position is wishy-washy. He does borrow some pretty sweet corn photos from the Iowa Corn Promotion Board, though.
Nussle wants to promote “affordable health care.” He has no health care plan on his web site. He does have a PDF of his “record on health care”, though, and it ain’t pretty. The first vote listed is, well, see for yourself: “Nussle Fought for Iowa Hospitals to Ensure Fair Reimbursements, Extended Coverage and Greater Flexibility.” It made sure hospitals got more money, which Nussle thinks might have also meant employees got paid more. In particular, “providing higher payments for all physicians with a 5% bonus payment to physicians in rural areas.” Way to fight for the underdog.
The second “accomplishment” listed is merely that, as budget chairman, Nussle oversaw the passage of the 2006 budget, which, among about a bazillion other things, “resulted in continued funding for Medicare and Medicaid.”
The rest are generally pro-hospital and pro-doctor (including fighting against “frivolous law suits” and voting “to cut away needless paperwork”).
And finally, he claims that he’ll “energize Iowa’s future.” I don’t see that happening.
April 24th, 2006
Last Thursday , the Iowa House approved legislation aimed
to help small businesses in seeking insurance for their employees and cutting down on the large amounts of paperwork required.
While the step sounds sensible, the Iowa legislature should take on far bolder healthcare reform. Sure, the number of Iowans without health insurance is lower than the national average, but the number of uninsured has been increasing in recent years. And these official estimates may be far too low.
Given Massachusetts’ promising, innovative, bipartisan new program to approach universal coverage, surely Iowa’s legislature can do better than simplify paperwork. No Iowan should be without health insurance. And with the prospect of ballooning health costs in coming years, a similar program might even lower long-term state costs.
It’s time for the Iowa legislature to think big and end health inequality.
April 6th, 2006
Well, we didn’t announce this two weeks ago as perhaps we should’ve, but Grinnell has been on Spring Break since then, and it has meant that our coverage is a little less than usual. (And, when I say “usual,” I’m basing it on our one week of good coverage.)
Still, here are some stories we’ll be watching as more of us get back to campus in the next day or two:
Our coverage will get better again soon, we promise.
March 31st, 2006
