more of la politique
Jan. 22nd, 2004 08:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labrujahMy friend David Levy has done some good research in response to a discussion we've been having. One friend of ours is a big Kucinich fan, and I weighed in saying that since none of the Democratic candidates have stood out yet, I'll be happy to get behind whoever is necessary to get Bush out. I think now more than ever, the left has to pull together -- Green party, everyone with a special big issue (gay rights, the environment, health care)-- and to realize that unless we start looking at the larger picture, the insidious forces which are wreaking all the shit we're in the middle of now, and will undoutedbly be paying for for a long, long time.
So here's a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic candidates' positions on healthcare, by David Levy.
The two most important issues for Iowa Democrats were health care and jobs. After that came national security and the Iraq war. Education and the environment are up there somehwere, too. Gay rights, the USA PATRIOT Act, Israel-Palestine, and trade give us ten good issues that cover lots of social, economic, and foreign territory.
1) Health care: So, are there any noticeable differences between the candidates when it comes to health care? I read through all the plans to find out. What comes next is my analysis, which is exceedingly boring. If you don't have the time or the inclination to look at a bunch of semi-coherent proposals, skip to the end of the really boring part for a summary.
BEGINNING OF REALLY BORING PART:
Alright, everybody knows that single-payer, universal health care is the way to go. Equipment and administrative costs would go down accross the board, and everybody would be covered. By emphasizing preventive medicine, a national health care system would decrease treatment costs over the long run, and emergency rooms would no longer be jammed with uninsured patients with no other place to go.
That being said, I have big problems with the only universal health care proposal on the table - Dennis Kucinich's. David Funderburk, maybe you can answer the questions I've got about his plan. First, his plan would eliminate the present for-profit insurance industry. He has said that the men and women who currently work for the private insurance industry could find work in the new government health care bureaucracy. But in Los Angeles, for example, there are thousands of insurance companies competing for business. If those private companies were replaced by one massive, state-run health care provider, there would be thousands of redundant positions. That includes *all* of the salespeople - when everyone's got the same insurance, no one needs to sell it anymore. So although some former employees of the private health care industry will find work with the government, many more will be unemployed. At least they'll have health care.
The other problems is that CEOs of and shareholders in private insurance companies will lose their future wealth. I know, I know: boo-hoo. But doesn't it seem shitty to just take over someone's business without compensating them? Just a little? If it happened to a small business owner (and there are quite a few smaller insurance providers), we would be outraged. There is precedent for this. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Western European nations were rapidly nationalizing essential industries like energy, transportation, and health care. The owners of these businesses were richly compensated for selling their business to the government. It doesn't look like Kucinich has any plans along these lines, and I think that's sort of unfair.
Second, nearly half of the cost of Kucinich's plan comes out of a gradually phased-in 7.7% tax on employers. Currently, employers who insure their workers pay about 8.5% of their revenues on health care, so about half of the companies who currently provide health insurance for their workers will actually be paying less. But about half of them will be paying more, and all of those companies who currently do not insure their workers will see an enormous tax increase. Now, I don't consider myself a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems unfair to place half the burden of the system on employers just for being...employers. The fact that these individuals own businesses - large or small - does not, I think, mean that they should be held responsible for insuring the entire nation, including the elderly, children, and the unemployed. Anyway, a tax on employers will get passed on to the working man in the form of higher prices for goods and services and/or lower wages. A progressive tax on individual wealth will avoid that risk. We should have universal health care, but the responsibility should fall on each according to her ability to pay.
Third, there are some logistical problems with the plan. It would phase in the new tax on employers and phase out tax breaks for those who insured their employees under the old system, but it would not cover individuals of working age (18-55) until the last few years of the program. So there are some years in between when employers will be stuck with higher taxes and fewer breaks, while the new plan does not even insure their workers yet. And nearly half of the money for Kucinich's plan comes from existing government spending on Medicare and the state Children's Health Insurance Plans (CHIPs). How will the funding that just barely covers some of America's most needy right now cover half the cost of insuring the whole nation?
As much sense as universal health care makes to me, many aspects of the Kucinich plan do not make sense. If someone can show how his plan won't leave thousands of people without jobs, lower wages, increase prices, or cripple businesses large and small, I'll reconsider.
The other candidates have health care plans that are all very similar:
Clark would extend CHIPs, Medicaid, employer-based coverage, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP, the insurance plan currently given to federal senators and representatives) to cover children ages 0-22. Families of four with incomes up to 150% of the poverty level ($27,000/year) would pay no premium; families with higher incomes would pay sliding-scale premiums offset by tax credits up to 500% of poverty ($90,000/year). Adults with incomes under 150% of poverty ($27,000/year) would be covered for free under medicare. Adults with incomes up to 275% of poverty ($50,000/year) would receive tax breaks to help them afford FEHBP or employer-based insurance. His plan would cost $87 billion/year and would insure 32 million additional Americans by 2013. I can't figure out how he wants to pay for it.
Dean would extend CHIPs to cover ages 0-25 for families with incomes under 300% of poverty ($54,000/year) and adults 25-64 with incomes under 185% of poverty ($33,000). He would expand the FEHBP to everyone not covered by the expanded CHIPs, Medicare, or Medicaid. His plan would cost $88 billion/year and would insure 31 million additional Americans by 2008. It would be paid for by reversing all the Bush tax cuts.
Edwards would help poor families buy coverage for their children (0-25) by giving tax credits to families with incomes under $75,000/year and some large families with incomes up to $100,000/year. A family with an income at 200% of poverty ($36,000/year) would pay about $100 per year to insure their children after these tax credits, while a family with an income at 330% of poverty ($60,000/year) would pay about $350 per year. Adults could buy into the CHIPs or Medicaid for free with incomes up to 100% of poverty ($18,000/year) and subsidized with incomes up to 250% of poverty ($45,000/year). His plan would cost $53 billion/year and would insure an additional 21 million Americans. It would be paid for by reversing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by eliminating "government subsidies to banks, life-insurers, and multi-millionaires," and by cutting the non-defense related federal workforse by 10%. That's a lot of unemployed federal workers.
Kerry's plan would place the entire burden of Medicare on the federal government and turn the cost of running the CHIPs over to the states. States would be required to fully cover children in families with incomes under 330% of poverty ($60,000/year). He would extend the FEHBP to everyone, fully covering the elderly and unemployed. He would make this coverage affordable to individuals and companies through unspecified tax credits. His web site does nto estimate cost or suggest how many additional Americans would be insured. Nor does it offer a source of funding.
All of the candidates have proposals to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health care through electronic record-keeping. They all want to extend coverage for workers between jobs. They all want to allow drug reimportation from Canada and they want to close loopholes that give pharmaceutical companies unfair monopolies. Dean and Edwards both want to prohibit misleading drug advertisements. Dean and Edwards both have plans to address the nursing shortage. Clark and Edwards would let small businesses pool their resources to buy insurance more effectively for their employers. Clark, Dean, and Kerry all have plans to address the HIV/AIDS crisis. Dean and Kerry have good policies on mental health.
END OF REALLY BORING PART.
...and then I said, "Moniker? I hardly knew 'er!" Oh, hey. Here's what I found out about health care: universal health care is the way to go, but the only plan that is truly universal (Kucinich's) is totally messed up because it puts an unfair burden on employers, among other things. The other plans all try to expand public and private health care to kids and poor people through government subsidies of one kind or another. Dean's plan is probably the best one: it's really comprehensive and it's funded by reversing the Bush tax cuts. Clark's plan is also very comprehensive, but we have no idea how he would pay for it. And it would take five years longer than Dean's plan to kick in. Edwards' plan would cover fewer people at a cheaper cost, but he would pay for it by firing almost a million government employees. And Kerry's plan would hardly change a thing.
The verdict: unless someone can explain the problems I perceive in Kucinich's proposal, I like Dean's plan the best. If Clark would just tell us how he intends to pay for the thing, his would be fine, too.
So here's a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic candidates' positions on healthcare, by David Levy.
The two most important issues for Iowa Democrats were health care and jobs. After that came national security and the Iraq war. Education and the environment are up there somehwere, too. Gay rights, the USA PATRIOT Act, Israel-Palestine, and trade give us ten good issues that cover lots of social, economic, and foreign territory.
1) Health care: So, are there any noticeable differences between the candidates when it comes to health care? I read through all the plans to find out. What comes next is my analysis, which is exceedingly boring. If you don't have the time or the inclination to look at a bunch of semi-coherent proposals, skip to the end of the really boring part for a summary.
BEGINNING OF REALLY BORING PART:
Alright, everybody knows that single-payer, universal health care is the way to go. Equipment and administrative costs would go down accross the board, and everybody would be covered. By emphasizing preventive medicine, a national health care system would decrease treatment costs over the long run, and emergency rooms would no longer be jammed with uninsured patients with no other place to go.
That being said, I have big problems with the only universal health care proposal on the table - Dennis Kucinich's. David Funderburk, maybe you can answer the questions I've got about his plan. First, his plan would eliminate the present for-profit insurance industry. He has said that the men and women who currently work for the private insurance industry could find work in the new government health care bureaucracy. But in Los Angeles, for example, there are thousands of insurance companies competing for business. If those private companies were replaced by one massive, state-run health care provider, there would be thousands of redundant positions. That includes *all* of the salespeople - when everyone's got the same insurance, no one needs to sell it anymore. So although some former employees of the private health care industry will find work with the government, many more will be unemployed. At least they'll have health care.
The other problems is that CEOs of and shareholders in private insurance companies will lose their future wealth. I know, I know: boo-hoo. But doesn't it seem shitty to just take over someone's business without compensating them? Just a little? If it happened to a small business owner (and there are quite a few smaller insurance providers), we would be outraged. There is precedent for this. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Western European nations were rapidly nationalizing essential industries like energy, transportation, and health care. The owners of these businesses were richly compensated for selling their business to the government. It doesn't look like Kucinich has any plans along these lines, and I think that's sort of unfair.
Second, nearly half of the cost of Kucinich's plan comes out of a gradually phased-in 7.7% tax on employers. Currently, employers who insure their workers pay about 8.5% of their revenues on health care, so about half of the companies who currently provide health insurance for their workers will actually be paying less. But about half of them will be paying more, and all of those companies who currently do not insure their workers will see an enormous tax increase. Now, I don't consider myself a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems unfair to place half the burden of the system on employers just for being...employers. The fact that these individuals own businesses - large or small - does not, I think, mean that they should be held responsible for insuring the entire nation, including the elderly, children, and the unemployed. Anyway, a tax on employers will get passed on to the working man in the form of higher prices for goods and services and/or lower wages. A progressive tax on individual wealth will avoid that risk. We should have universal health care, but the responsibility should fall on each according to her ability to pay.
Third, there are some logistical problems with the plan. It would phase in the new tax on employers and phase out tax breaks for those who insured their employees under the old system, but it would not cover individuals of working age (18-55) until the last few years of the program. So there are some years in between when employers will be stuck with higher taxes and fewer breaks, while the new plan does not even insure their workers yet. And nearly half of the money for Kucinich's plan comes from existing government spending on Medicare and the state Children's Health Insurance Plans (CHIPs). How will the funding that just barely covers some of America's most needy right now cover half the cost of insuring the whole nation?
As much sense as universal health care makes to me, many aspects of the Kucinich plan do not make sense. If someone can show how his plan won't leave thousands of people without jobs, lower wages, increase prices, or cripple businesses large and small, I'll reconsider.
The other candidates have health care plans that are all very similar:
Clark would extend CHIPs, Medicaid, employer-based coverage, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP, the insurance plan currently given to federal senators and representatives) to cover children ages 0-22. Families of four with incomes up to 150% of the poverty level ($27,000/year) would pay no premium; families with higher incomes would pay sliding-scale premiums offset by tax credits up to 500% of poverty ($90,000/year). Adults with incomes under 150% of poverty ($27,000/year) would be covered for free under medicare. Adults with incomes up to 275% of poverty ($50,000/year) would receive tax breaks to help them afford FEHBP or employer-based insurance. His plan would cost $87 billion/year and would insure 32 million additional Americans by 2013. I can't figure out how he wants to pay for it.
Dean would extend CHIPs to cover ages 0-25 for families with incomes under 300% of poverty ($54,000/year) and adults 25-64 with incomes under 185% of poverty ($33,000). He would expand the FEHBP to everyone not covered by the expanded CHIPs, Medicare, or Medicaid. His plan would cost $88 billion/year and would insure 31 million additional Americans by 2008. It would be paid for by reversing all the Bush tax cuts.
Edwards would help poor families buy coverage for their children (0-25) by giving tax credits to families with incomes under $75,000/year and some large families with incomes up to $100,000/year. A family with an income at 200% of poverty ($36,000/year) would pay about $100 per year to insure their children after these tax credits, while a family with an income at 330% of poverty ($60,000/year) would pay about $350 per year. Adults could buy into the CHIPs or Medicaid for free with incomes up to 100% of poverty ($18,000/year) and subsidized with incomes up to 250% of poverty ($45,000/year). His plan would cost $53 billion/year and would insure an additional 21 million Americans. It would be paid for by reversing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by eliminating "government subsidies to banks, life-insurers, and multi-millionaires," and by cutting the non-defense related federal workforse by 10%. That's a lot of unemployed federal workers.
Kerry's plan would place the entire burden of Medicare on the federal government and turn the cost of running the CHIPs over to the states. States would be required to fully cover children in families with incomes under 330% of poverty ($60,000/year). He would extend the FEHBP to everyone, fully covering the elderly and unemployed. He would make this coverage affordable to individuals and companies through unspecified tax credits. His web site does nto estimate cost or suggest how many additional Americans would be insured. Nor does it offer a source of funding.
All of the candidates have proposals to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health care through electronic record-keeping. They all want to extend coverage for workers between jobs. They all want to allow drug reimportation from Canada and they want to close loopholes that give pharmaceutical companies unfair monopolies. Dean and Edwards both want to prohibit misleading drug advertisements. Dean and Edwards both have plans to address the nursing shortage. Clark and Edwards would let small businesses pool their resources to buy insurance more effectively for their employers. Clark, Dean, and Kerry all have plans to address the HIV/AIDS crisis. Dean and Kerry have good policies on mental health.
END OF REALLY BORING PART.
...and then I said, "Moniker? I hardly knew 'er!" Oh, hey. Here's what I found out about health care: universal health care is the way to go, but the only plan that is truly universal (Kucinich's) is totally messed up because it puts an unfair burden on employers, among other things. The other plans all try to expand public and private health care to kids and poor people through government subsidies of one kind or another. Dean's plan is probably the best one: it's really comprehensive and it's funded by reversing the Bush tax cuts. Clark's plan is also very comprehensive, but we have no idea how he would pay for it. And it would take five years longer than Dean's plan to kick in. Edwards' plan would cover fewer people at a cheaper cost, but he would pay for it by firing almost a million government employees. And Kerry's plan would hardly change a thing.
The verdict: unless someone can explain the problems I perceive in Kucinich's proposal, I like Dean's plan the best. If Clark would just tell us how he intends to pay for the thing, his would be fine, too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
wha? who? huh? ha? what!?
Date: 2004-01-22 06:38 pm (UTC)Re: wha? who? huh? ha? what!?
Date: 2004-01-23 10:53 am (UTC)And I keep this 90% friends-only because of creeps out there.