Elizabeth Edwards: McCain and I wouldn’t be covered under his health care plan.
By on Mar 31st, 2008 at 11:15 am
Elizabeth Edwards: McCain and I wouldn’t be covered under his health care plan.
Elizabeth Edwards said this weekend that she and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who have both been treated for cancer, have one thing in common: “Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy.” Under McCain’s plan, insurance companies “wouldn’t have to cover preexisting conditions like melanoma and breast cancer,” she said, since cancer survivors are routinely denied insurance when they try to purchase it as individuals. Read more about McCain’s health care plan at the Wonk Room.
UpdateElizabeth will be writing a post on ThinkProgress soon to further discuss her views on this issue.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
37 Responses to “Elizabeth Edwards: McCain and I wouldn’t be covered under his health care plan.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
McCain's plan offers to cover those who could afford to go w/o health insurance.
Uniquely American.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:18 ammcbush is perfect for america.... no sarcasm.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:21 amThis is because McCain isn't about providing any kind of protection for people who need it, it's about providing protection for health insurance vendors. And we all know what a costly drain sick people can be...
March 31st, 2008 at 11:24 amPlease, Elizabeth, do several tv interviews pointing this out about McBush- help our Dem candidate take down St. John from the mainstream media pedestal.
MSM is trying to elect McCain our next President & is creating a huge mountain for our candidate to climb...
March 31st, 2008 at 11:29 amAs someone who survived years of chemotherapy in my 30's -- because I have good health insurance -- I shudder to think how heartless conservatives are on this issue. The health care system is already regulated, and neither of the Democrats are talking about nationalizing health care, only changing the regulation to make it fair.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:33 am# progressinourminds Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 11:25 am
We need more bureaucracy in our health care system. Go Obama!! I want to pay more taxes and get free health care!
Go McCain!! I want to pay loads of money, more than I would ever pay in taxes, to recieve inferior health care! I want to deal with the bureaucracy of insurance companies! A basic human service should be for profit! Where, again, do I file for bankruptcy?
March 31st, 2008 at 11:34 amprogressinourminds Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 11:25 am
We need more bureaucracy in our health care system. Go Obama!! I want to pay more taxes and get free health care!
__________________________________________
It's doubtful that you would be paying more in taxes, or even if you did, the cost would be more than offset by your paying less for the health insurance premiums you're paying now. Of course, if you are still on your mom and dad's health plan, it's no wonder you have no grasp of the situation.
Geez Louise -- you wingnuts have such a knee-jerk reaction to taxes that to avoid paying them, you would gladly pay three times as much out of your own pocket to pay for a service that taxes could provide for you.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:34 am"You're on your own once you're out of the womb"
March 31st, 2008 at 11:37 am~RNC Motto
misshusseinmolly, you are hearted.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:37 amprogressinourminds Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 11:25 am
We need more bureaucracy in our health care system. Go Obama!! I want to pay more taxes and get free health care!
The additional money you pay in taxes would be MUCH less than what you pay in monthly medical deductions, you reich-wing twit. However, it is highly likely you do not even have health care benefits....since working pushing a shopping cart full of cans does not qualify as a job.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:38 amGood one, Matt. We thank Conservatives for their right-to-miserable-life movement.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:39 amAnd Yet says: MSM is trying to elect McCain our next President
----------------------------
You got that right. Chris Mathews was on the Today show this morning. He went on and on about how McCain is polling so well because he's running on an "anti-Bush" platform, or some crap like that.
I could have screamed! Sad part is that the average American hears things like this and believes it 100%.
My prediction is that the sheeple will follow the lead of the media and elect McCain. In a sad sense, the country gets what it deserves.
I just hope I land my job in Panama and can get the hell out! I don't think our system can be fixed without a serious uprising.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:41 amWow, do much research? Did you realize Medicare and Medicaid are less bloated than private insurance companies?
And when's the last time you looked at how much your employer is taking out of your pay for your health insurance? Wouldn't you rather have that money in your own pocket? Do you think your employer would rather not have to worry about the costs of administering a company health program?
Stop listening to the insurance company propaganda for a change!
March 31st, 2008 at 11:43 amThe number one cause of bankruptcy in this country: MEDICAL COSTS.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:44 amWe have. Have you? I mean really looked and not just skimmed the talking points from some insurance company astroturf website.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:45 amprogressinourminds Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am
You are crazy if you think socialized medicine will not increase your taxes. It will be so inefficient we will be going to Mexico to get nose drops. Just look at other countries with “free health care”.
Make a list of your concerns with a government-run system, or a government-run insurance system.
And we know that enacting either program would increase taxes.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:50 amThe increase in the cost of health care last year -- and you could call this a private sector tax -- was 16%. So we're already paying much higher taxes, just not to the Government.
Mexico has some very good health care available at very reasonable prices. My sister travels there for her dental and prescriptions. Only affordable option for some folks.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:55 amMcCain should disavow his federally financed socialistic health care that he gets for free.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:56 amIf this country elects McCain, Vet, then it deserves the lost standing in the world. I still hold out hope, however, in young voters, older progressives, and even conservatives who hold faith in Obama to flock to the polls. We're counting on all of you. And as a young voter, I will be at the polls voting for Obama, if not Clinton.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:57 amMcCain probably uses so much health care that 10 normal people would get by on what he wastes.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:58 amProgressinourminds...do you really think that no one here is aware that you are "Progressive Thinker" with a new moniker? We all know who you are, what your agenda is, and can identify you by your particular posting characteristics. You are that transparent. Please just create a new name that accurately describes you. It's time to come out of your closet and just be real.
New names for you: Paidtroll, newnamewheni'mouted, spewstereotypesofliberalideas, Regressive Loser, Cleverinmymind, Imsoobviousithurts
March 31st, 2008 at 11:58 amMcCain's Health Care "Plan" (and the fact that he wouldn't be covered by it technically) basically sums up a good portion of people who vote republican it seems: Working against your own self interest.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pmDidn't the problem w/ healthcare costs in this country begin when Reagan deregulated the medical industry back in the 80's and allowed hospitals and medical insurance companies to become for-profit entities?
Shi-ite, just going back to non-profit regs would cut costs. Has anyone looked at the kind of PROFITS ins companies have been reporting over the last 10 years? And that's profits AFTER their admin overhead is taken out of the pool of money.
No wonder aspirin and band-aids have gotten so expensive.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pmCorrection for #16 -- Health care costs were up 7.7% in 2007 -- twice the rate of inflation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/business/27insure.html?ex=1317009600&en=bb917e39efcf9a26&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
March 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pmSo? We would pay more in taxes but much, much less in monthly medical benefits. Are you that stupid or just pretending to be? Additionally, companies would not have to provide medical benefits to its employees, so American products would be cheaper because they would be saving billions/year. Again, are you that stupid, or just pretending to be?
March 31st, 2008 at 12:07 pmHer new moniker didn't last very long.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:09 pmliberal traitor March 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am
New names for you: Paidtroll, newnamewheni’mouted, spewstereotypesofliberalideas, Regressive Loser, Cleverinmymind, Imsoobviousithurts
And how about:
March 31st, 2008 at 12:10 pmRegressiveClown; LegendOnlyInMyMind, AhyukImAFoolinYa...
Worth mentioning, Dr. Matt, is that employers could add more jobs with the savings in employee medical costs, boosting our economy.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:11 pmExactly. The benefits of a nationalized health care system are tremendous.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:14 pmThere's no helping losers like noprogressever. They are conditioned to words like "taxes," "abortion," "feminist," etc., and stop thinking as soon as they hear them. They revert to the hysterical talking points -- even to their own detriment.
Just flag 'em.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:42 pmSimple math for healh care. Family of 4 cost of Hc per annum = $12,500 . Under a single payer rate same family of 4 cost of HC per annum = $1,600. Companies pay a portion and the individule pays based on his income. Therefore a person earning $50,000 per year will pay about $1600. If one isn't working, no pay!!! Children don't pay!!! no forms , I get to choose what doctor I want. I get to pick hospitals, unless of emergancy, closest available. How do I know this, I'm CANADIAN. Oh, there are no lines. You may have to wait to be treated ONLY BECAUSE SOMEONE MAYBE IN WORSE CONDITION THEN YOU. If for some reason, treatment cannot be provided within the time your doctor has requested, the government can and has payed for treatment of the patients outside the country. WOULD YOUR GOVERNMENT DO THAT ? I would rather be in line waiting to be served then not being able to get in line. THE RICH AND CORPERATIONS DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE BECAUSE THEN YOU WONT NEED THERE CRAPPY JOB TO GET HEALTH CARE. EMPLOYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PAY BETTER AND GIVE BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS TO COMPETE WTIH OTHER EMPLOYERS. Look at the differences with countries like France, England, Canada, Italy, Sweden, etc..... and you will see how they all have a higher standard of living. All becuase of socialized health care. Your goverment does not want you to know that. HR676 IS THE BILL IN CONGRESS FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE, CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL AND DEMAND HE/SHE SUPPORT HR676!!! Google for more info. ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF, FOR A BETTER LIFE.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:13 pmIf your worried about taxes going up, this is what goes up...cigerette taxes, alcohol taxes anything that is considered to be bad for health. Sin tax as we like to call it. IF you don't smoke, drink or eat crappy food, your taxes arn't going up like you think. And really do you think your taxes are going to be higher then your monthy payments the the insurance companies. Think about it folks.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pmThank you TP for getting rid of the odious troll progressinourminds. You are doing a much better job on your troll patrol these days. You could make it better, though, if you would ban them by their IP address. Actually, it would cut down on your work considerably too, because when you ban these trolls they run out, get another free e-mail address and are back within a half an hour.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pmMy sister lives in England. She pays roughly 40% of her salary in taxes. And she is perfectly happy and would not come back here to the US because of what she would lose. So, what does she get for her taxes:
1) Free medical care
2) Housing assistance if she were to become homeless
3) Assistance with purchasing food if she can't afford it.
4) Unemployment benefits until she found another job (not just for 6 months)
5) Assistance finding a job if she were to lose hers.
6) Retirement benefits
In other words, she will never have to worry about not having her basic needs met.
I would be happy to pay 40% of my salary into taxes if I got that kind of a return on my investment. Actually, if you include what I pay for my medical costs and into my retirement system, I am already paying 40% of my salary in taxes, fees and unreimbursed costs.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pmIn fairness, I don't think Clinton nor Obama can speak about single payer national health care at this point, for obvious political reasons.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pmIn fact, even the health plans they are advocating are only their own campaign's vision -- that doesn't mean either one would become law once either of them is elected. Who knows what the final plan will be -- although I am certain there will be a plan that will benefit all Americans.
The candidates have to start the dialogue, which starts the public debate, which spreads to the congress, and eventually becomes law.
If all insured Americans added up what they pay in premiums, deductibles an co-pays, it is much more than would be paid through a not-for-profit single payer universal health care plan.
Remember that Medicare operates at a 3% overhead and if you ask medicare recipients, they are generally satisfied.
Private pay insurance operates at a 15-20% overhead, and whether or not your treatment is covered is determined by actuaries and predominantly non-medical personnel whose job depends upon their making a profit for the company.
Truth be told Marie, your right. Ronald Regan didn't tell people when running for president that his main adgenda was to distroy unions. Do you think he would of been elected if that was his platform? Well we have the same sanario here. Do you really think a DEM will get elected if the true intentions were on the table. Single rate system is better, DEMS know it, the public knows it. Republicans don't want to wait behind anyone who doesn't have the power(money or political)to get treated. Thats the truth.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pmDear Elizabeth:
I am writing this as an emergency physician for three decades, and a volunteer contributor to national health IT and safety standards. In those roles, I have delivered free care to more than 30% of patients I have seen for all that time, and continue to devote my time and energy to helping those in need.
Your courage and your willingness to encounter these issues are remarkable, and your deserve to be applauded. I am hoping that the dialogue you engender will get attention.
There is a fundamental point I would like to make about healthcare and healthcare costs, and I will express my thoughts knowing they touch on issues that you are, and have been close to, and while they may seem to be personal, they are not meant to be so. Rather, your presence, and the circumstances of your presence gives the opportunity to point out two central issues we face in this regard.
These two are: 1) impact of the provider decision process on healthcare costs; and 2) the acceleration of available technologies for diagnosis and treatment.
First: impact of provider decision process on healthcare costs. All of us who are in the midst of it know. All of us. That we are forced to make decisions based not always on the most logical benefit to the patient, but on the basis of risk to externals (the institution, our families, etc). It is a conservative estimate that if that "hammer" hanging over the head of the decision process were removed from physicians, health care costs would dramatically be reduced, perhaps by about as much as 50%. This immediate savings could, in theory, be diverted to helping support those who could not otherwise afford care.
Not to demean the intent of anyone, in particular your husband and his history as a plantiff's attorney, but it is generally agreed that if the science available today were around in the 1980's many of the cases on which his legal record was based might have turned out differently. It is possible, therefore, that even you might have be in a different position today.
I honestly believe that Mr. Edwards had rather pure and honest intent to help. On the other hand, it would be a great value to see that the outcomes were ultimately in error, and shouldered by the back of healthcare costs. No civilized and ethical person would believe that the social system should not aide those upon whom an unwelcome event has been visited. However, it is time to see that the system currently adopted asks for this aide to be carried by those who are also delivering care. As such it is a mistake.
Think about it. You are asked to make a decision about someone..and yet you know that if the outcome is not optimal (which happens no matter what in a certain percentage of all human cases)...you will be subject to suit and personal danger. Immediately your approach will change...and clearly you would (and it happens x millions every day) cover yourself and your family in every way possible.
A subtle shift in the process by which the cost of helping "victims" of no-optimal outcomes is shifted away from physicians and into either pools, or funds, or other sources of support, would cut costs of health care immediately, and drastically. Peer review should be tightened to be sure that patients are protected from any physician who does not meet ethical or intellectual standards..but those (like me) who just do our best should be able to do so without the hammer overhead.......
Second: You yourself, I myself, my children, have been the beneficiaries of advancing technology in healthcare. There is a psychological disconnect however in the human psyche. Individuals do not have much of a problem shifting a portion of their income into a technologically advanced luxury car. But healthcare is a gamble (especially for the young)...many do not believe they will actually need it. Moreover, they do not like paying for what they don't believe (in the imagined invulnerability of youth)..they do not need.
Consequently, an open question remains: what constitutes basic healthcare (does it include angioplasty, or cardiac bypass?). And how do we, as a society, pay for the evident costs of these technologies, willingly, and either in anticipation or speculation regarding the likelihood of need. And I emphasize the words, willingly, anticipation, and speculation. All of which come into play. And none of which is as tangible as a luxury car. I have no answers; but I submit to you that this frames a key part of the question.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit commentary to your blog. With Appreciation.
Don Kamens
April 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm