Elizabeth Edwards Responds: Why Are People Like Me Left Out Of Your Health Care Proposal, Sen. McCain?
Elizabeth Edwards Responds: Why Are People Like Me Left Out Of Your Health Care Proposal, Sen. McCain?
Our guest blogger is Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Presidential candidate John Edwards.
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.
Senator McCain likes to start speeches with a litany of questions that, presumedly, less plain-spoken politicians would refuse to answer. Well, here are some questions he does not ask but, as that plain-spoken politician, he might want to answer:
1. 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?
2. You say your plan is going to increase competition to the point that it actually lowers costs. Isn’t there competition today among insurance companies? Haven’t costs continued to go up despite that competition?
3. You say that under your plan everyone is going to pay less for health insurance. Nice words, I admit, but they are words we have heard before. You must know when American families calculate the actual cost of health care, they have to include those deductibles and co-pays and not just the cost of the insurance. Are you talking about cheaper overall or just a cheap policy that doesn’t kick in until after thousands of dollars of deductibles have been paid?
4. Isn’t the type of competition you are talking about really a rush to the bottom? As long as you allow insurers to underwrite and deny access, you encourage insurers to offer plans that may be cheap, but that get that way by avoiding people with cancer or other high-cost diseases or by limiting benefits and treatments, particularly if the treatment is expensive or might be needed for a long time. We all live in the real world; those of us lucky enough to have health insurance have seen how insurers cut coverage and up co-pays or deny particular treatments. The insurance company makes money when it doesn’t have to pay for our health care. (I suspect that if they could, they would write obstetrical-only policies for nuns.) Doesn’t your plan really encourage insurers plans to compete to avoid people with cancer or other high-cost diseases? Don’t you think that the kind of competition that starts with a decent level of required coverage, that doesn’t exclude the care we actually need, would be better?
I am not confused about your reputation: you are the straight-talker, you like to say. This is about health care, Senator McCain. Doesn’t the American voter deserve some straight answers to these questions? As one of those with a pre-existing condition, I sure would like some straight talk.
– Elizabeth Edwards
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
28 Responses to “Elizabeth Edwards Responds: Why Are People Like Me Left Out Of Your Health Care Proposal, Sen. McCain?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
As much as I hate to say this, we have no choice except to acknowledge the fact that there will not be any heath care reform. If there were, the insurance companies and it’s stock holders would loose out on to much money. And they will.not.have.any.of.that.
Bunch of crooks.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:02 pmMrs. Edwards, your responce to the McCain Health Care plan will put the truth or lies out into the public realm for the American people to see. This is a National disgrace. There is a bill call HR676 waiting to be introduced to congress. Where is the promotion of this Bill? Where are the people pushing this bill?. Why is the Media not publicizing this bill? What is this Bill? It’s the only single payer health care reform in the United States. Now that you know what this bill is, will you call your representatives and demand they support this bill.
I am Canadian. I have American cusins from Ohio to California to New York. It saddens me to see how human beings are denied medical help when in need, especially from the richest nation on earth. Do not believe the lies said about a single payer system. Don’t believe the lies about long lines. Don’t believe the lies about waiting lists. You are treated in accordance to how sick you are. Therefore money doesn’t push you to the front of the line. Unfortunately there are some who think thats the way it should be. However, one day they will fall ill, and if illment is serious, you will enventulally go broke. Just ask Robin Williams who paid for Chris Reeves medical care. Yes our Superman died a pennyless. If there is one thing in life that people should demand, it is to die with dignity. I guess only rich Americans are allowed to die with dignity.
In the end, is it really worth it? You can’t take the money with you. HR 676 , CALL AND DEMAND THE BILL BE INTRODUCED INTO THE HOUSE!!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:25 pmHi Elizabeth :)
Good questions for Senator McCain, I for one will be looking forward to his responses to them. I know when we have a Democratic President we will be able to answer those in a way that would be pleasing to us. Never give up Elizabeth, together, we shall overcome and we WILL have true UHC! Warm regards to you and John!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pmSorry for sloppy grammer. In a hurry at work.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:29 pmThis is such an important issue. I hope Elizabeth Edward’s questions will help focus attention on this issue. As usual, Mrs. Edwards is absolutely right!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pmMrs .Edwards, excellent questions to the senator.Congressman John Conyers from Michigan where I live has come up with an excellent bill concerning health care for those who cannot afford it.All americans need your help in getting congress to get this bill going,HR 676 needs our attention.
Sincerist Regards
April 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pmCNN Money - Fortune, Shawn Tully, editor-at-large,
thinks McCain has the better plan:
The article is entitled: Why McCain has the best health-care plan: http://money.cnn.com/ 2008/ 03/ 10/ news/ economy/ tully_healthcare.fortune/ index.htm
In case you didn’t see this article.
Ms. Edwards: I admire and respect you very much, and appreciate how much you and your husband understand what everyday Americans need, and you’re willing to fight it us. Thank you.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pmHealth insurance, like all insurance, works by spreading out risk over a large population. The private, for profit, health insurance companies would like to cherry pick a low risk population. Excluding existing conditions is one of the most common methods of reducing risk.
By excluding the high risk population from health insurance they are forced to secure health care without insurance at emergency rooms. Taxpayers and hospital charities end up paying for the health care of the high risk population. The difficulty of securing health care means that they will defer routine care often driving up costs even more.
This is a classic situation where a progressive solution can result in lower overall costs than the ad hoc, private insurance regime we have now. A progressive solution helps ensure that every citizen is part of the same risk pool. The costs of health insurance is spread across the entire population. For profit corporations are not allowed to cherry pick only low risk people in order to maximize profits.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pmThank you for speaking out, Elizabeth. According to economist Paul Krugman, America in 2005 spent 16% of its GDP on medical care, yet did not cover all its citizens. Most other First World countries spend a much smaller percentage yet cover ALL their citizens. In 2005, the U.S. (life expectancy 77.5 years) spent $6,102 per person, while Canada (life expectancy 80.2) spent $3,165 per person.
Why are we spending so much but getting so little? Consider the fact that Medicare spends only about 2% of its funds on administration; whereas, private U.S. health insurers spend about 15% on administration.
The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. as 37th in the world in medical care. This is a disgrace.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pmAlso, I’d just like to add that I go “crazy” every time I hear politicians (mostly republicans but many times democrats, too) refer to plans that give us “choices,” like that’s a good thing.
You mentioned the nuns, but you’re not off the mark there. When politicians refer to “choices,” they should make clear what they mean is how much it’s going to cost the consumer… not like you’re buying a TV and you can buy a large one or a small one. Other than women being able to have babies, we all have the same body makeup: Eyes, ears, appendages, organs, etcetera, and need attention to what we all have.
So “choice” doesn’t mean the type of healthcare; it means what it will cost you in the end.
It’s also a gamble on your health: When you “choose” a plan for the next year, you can pay high deductibles, which will be cheaper, but one would choose that only if they had a crystal ball. No one knows what the next year will bring. So that is a fake choice.
Also, if one has a chance to contribute to an FSA, again you need to consult a crystal ball to know how much money to contribute that won’t be taxed. I know… because two years in a row, I picked one figure, yet I’ve exceeded that figure again in the second year, and it’s only April.
I was hoping John Edwards would suggest using the 140 billion dollar tax stimulus package as seed money to start the Healthcare Fund. I wrote a diary about it on the blog. I thought it was a great idea. Oh, well.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pmThank you, Elizabeth Edwards! It’s about time someone pinned McCain down on this. What good is a health care policy if it excludes sick people??
I will be anxiously waiting for McCain’s response!
April 1st, 2008 at 7:10 pmWell, Elizabeth, let’s put it this way. Your family is worth $29.5 Million. I think you’re already covered. With this much money you STILL want the government, i.e.: me, to pay? This country has allowed you to build this incredible fortune, yet you are still at the trough trying to suck up tax dollars to fund your care. I’ll tell you what. When your poor enough to be on Medicaid, we’ll pay, just like we do now. Until then, try some personal responsibility on for size.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pmmschuyler, you win! you’re the biggest idiot on this comments page so far!
if you think this is about what Ms. Edwards and her family have to pay for health care, you’ve simply missed the point. perhaps more importantly, you don’t know how to engage in debate.
here, i’ll help you out: i don’t have $29M in the bank, and i also don’t have health care. if i were diagnosed with a serious illness, i would have no way to get the care i need, and no insurer would cover me. does it make sense now that you’re hearing it from someone who actually would benefit from a single-payor system?
secondly, it’s true that taxpayers foot the bill for a lot of the emergency care for uninsureds. but if they could be insured, it would be their insurer who would pay. moreover, many times the “emergency care” acts as a surrogate for preventive care because people can’t afford to go to the doctor when they first get sick. instead, they hope to get better, and when it finally dawns on them that they’re not getting better (remember, they’re not doctors), the care they *do* get is far more expensive, and is not going to be paid by an insurer whose business it is to take these risks.
one final comment: that picture of Ms. Edwards is stunning. not sure why.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:08 pmre mschuyler
Apparently you don’t understand that Elizabeth Edwards says she’s capable of paying for her family, as is McCain. It’s most of America who is struggling with it. I don’t blame you for not understanding because it does get convoluted with republican plans of “tax cuts,” as that means nothing to many American families since they don’t have the money to pay for premiums to begin with, but I’m glad I could set you straight.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pmre mschuyler
You comment of “try personal responsibility on for size,” applies to you to understand an issue or other people’s comments before you, yourself, comment on a topic.
I’m looking forward to hearing a valid argument from you based on true facts and reasonable opinions.
Better luck next time to you understanding an issue.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pmThank you, Elizabeth.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:21 pmIf some free-market genius came by and offered affordable health care that would cover what was wrong with you with no pre-existing conditions, would not deny payment after the fact on procedures, and would guarantee not to throw you off the rolls for actually using the policy, they would become the biggest health insurance company in short order. And it would calm most of the clamor for national health care.
Somebody ought to set something like that up, don’t you think?
I’m in the situation you mention as a hypothetical. Diagnosed diabetic 2 years ago my insurer offered me capped health for a mere 3500. a month Since that would be most of my income, I am not insured. It is criminal that we have the welfare of our citizenry at the mercy of for profit companies.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:15 pmFor all you out there who feel healthy, remember you are a small lump or discoloration away from economic disaster.
As to your post, don’t waste much time waiting for answers. There are none with his program.
I am also one who is without health insurance. If I could afford the $960 per month insurance for me and my wife, I would still have to pay for thousands of dollars of copays, deductibles, co-deductibles, etc. I didn’t have to deal with actual “pre-existing conditions” because I had been insured. The HMO, though, required us to prove they were pre-existing even though the previous insurer had allowed that coverage. Suddenly you’re trying to find the doctor who first diagnosed the problem back in 1972 and who is now dead.
HMOs of course have no soul. Worse still their CEOs are close relatives of the devil.
HR 676 is the answer for most people. The rich can still pay more (perhaps) and get different care. Fortunately, though, they will have to wait in line with the poor for their procedure that may not be mandatory.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pmJust a guess, but I’m fairly certain Mrs. Edwards can afford her own health care. So, she looks rather foolish applying this to herself. She can pay as she goes a thousand times over. Of all people, given her husband’s background, her writing this type of editorial is rather ironic.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 amThe only fool here, davem, is you. To quote the article you supposedly just read:
Since in this country money equals access, thank God Ms. Edwards uses her access to argue for something which benefits any but the top 3% in this country. As far as I’m concerned, your attempt to deflect from the truth of her editorial puts you squarely on the side of the health insurance oligarchy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 amThank you so much for writing this. I actually had just seen your remarks from over the weekend to health journalists and was so happy to see someone raising these issues and making them clear and understandable for the voters.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 amI live in Iowa so I have seen Elizabeth and John at perhaps 25 events. Each time they work through a crowd there are people who tell them of breast cancer and many have no insurance. The number of times a woman has collapsed into tears while talking with especially Elizabeth is too many for me. Certainly some were talking about foreclosure problems or other concerns but I am sure many were speaking to her about breast cancer.
It’s the mark of a great leader to speak out for others even though secure themselves. Elizabeth Edwards is one of the great women of our time and I cherish the days I have spent with her as some of the true highlights of my life.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 amMrs. Edwards,
While you wait for Senator McCain’s response you would care to take a High School math class and spend a bit of time studying our system so you don’t make such foolish post? You clearly demonstrated you understand either McCain’s proposal, our present system nor common sense. Our system has fallen to it’s present level of unaccaptance mainly from the actions of politicians and individuals such as your self that have no idea what you are talking about. Next time you see Ted Kennedy ask him, for all of us, if he still believes we should all be covered by HMOs like he did when he supported the HMO Act of 1973, classic example of government ineptitude.
Allow me to specifically address the fallacies in your thinking;
“Isn’t there competition today among insurance companies?”
No there is not, most markets only have 3-5 carriers to choose from. This is something you politicians can’t seem to grasp, a handful of companies in a market is not competition. Before politicians allowed the creation of a couple National Mega carriers there where dozens of carriers to choose from. Any insurance broker would tell you there is a shortage of competitive carriers. 10 years ago majority of employees with insurance had it through self funded plans. There was incredible competition in this market as it was regulated nationally and at any time you had 20-50 carriers to choose from. State and Federal governments have enacted laws to curtail self-funded and the market is now half what it use to be. I could write a book about the lack of competition and how we got there but your question is 100% wrong and we’ll leave it there for now.
“You must know when American families calculate the actual cost of health care, they have to include those deductibles and co-pays and not just the cost of the insurance. Are you talking about cheaper overall or just a cheap policy that doesn’t kick in until after thousands of dollars of deductibles have been paid?”
Mrs. Edwards you must know it cost a lot to process an insurance claim. The doctor needs to file a claim, the carrier needs to receive and process it, State Premium tax needs paid, postage and paper, it all adds up to 15-20% of the premium required to pay the claim. This is where high school math and logic come in. If you need $100 of medical services why would you choose to pay $125 in insurance premium or taxes to receive it? There is no free ride, over the course of years premium must equal or exceed claims. If you know your going to have $1000 in claims then you must expect to pay the premium to cover those claims. Why would American’s want to pay $1250 to run it through someone else when they could pay the doctor $1000 and be done? I do this every day for a living so I know what I am talking about. By purchasing a high deductible you can save 20-50% in premium. 90% of the time I sell these plans the premium savings is more then enough to cover the additional liability. If American’s would all buy high deductible plans, like we had 1960-1980s, early 90s they could save 15-20% of their out of pocket cost. If we eliminated the inefficient plan designs brought to us by HMOs, thank you again congress, out total cost has decreased without any rationing of care or change in service. Why do you have a problem with this? Are you that concerned about the tax revenue or postage lost that you would mislead average Americans into thinking there is something wrong with those plans?
“We all live in the real world; those of us lucky enough to have health insurance have seen how insurers cut coverage and up co-pays or deny particular treatments.”
HMO’s behave in the manner you describe, Self Funded employer plans had much higher satisfaction and not nearly the rationing you complain about. With this fact in mind why has Congress and states diminished self-funded while pressing HMOs? HMOs did exactly what Congress created them to do. In order to control cost you must ration care, Congress didn’t want to be blamed for rationing care so they created HMOs and forced them on us. Now you complain because you got what you asked for? How many American’s know that Congress gave HMOs the money to start up in the 1970’s so there would be more of them and they could compete better with existing plans? How many of your sheep know that until the late 80s early 90s it was a Federal Law that employers over 25 lives offer an HMO? We know what government reform like yours looks like and we rejected it when we rebelled against HMOs.
“(I suspect that if they could, they would write obstetrical-only policies for nuns.)”
Bravo, great sound bite for the media to pick up. To those that know insurance it makes you look like a fool. How many nuns are there in America Mrs. Edwards? That doesn’t sound like much potential revenue for such a small group of people. This is where an economics class or a decent college education would really come in handy. Carriers make a small percent profit on revenue, around 6%. The more revenue the have the more profit they make. Contrary to your sound bite carriers want to write as much business as possible as long as they are allowed to charge a rate to cover the risk. This is where adverse selection and other problems come into play. In fact carriers love people with a health condition, they require more premium to cover their cost. This is why they also love foolish people that pay them $60 to cover a $48 routine exam. Millions of people are covered with cancer and millions change coverage every year. Where politicians and people such as your self like to run away with sob stories is the steps carriers are required to take to protect themselves from people gaming the system. With COBRA and HIPAA it’s near impossible to get sick, lose your coverage, and not be able to replace it. Where most sob stories come from our people that didn’t pay premium when they where healthy, got sick, and now want someone to pay the bill for them. Not quit as moving when your honest is it?
“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?:”
I haven’t read McCain’s plan but I also haven’t heard any talk of repealing COBRA, HIPAA, Women’s Health, or HMO licensing, all of which make it possible for the sickest person in the world to purchase coverage. I would dare to say 100s of carriers would offer you coverage and depending on what you claimed as your residence you would have a choice of 2-3.
About those strait answers Mrs. Edwards, isn’t it about time you offered some?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pmAll you folks who are disgusted with the current so called “system” please go to my web site for a “politically incorrect” dissertation with comparison $$$$ with a system that works. If you like it - pass it on.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pmhttp://www.universalhealthcareinfousa.com
The one question that must be asked in the presidential debate is: Mr. McCain, would you mandate insurance companies to accept people with pre exsisting conditions? If the answer is no then follow up question; How do you propose to provide health care to people who have been turned down by the insurance companies? ANSEWER THAT DUMB ASS
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 pmVery, very well put. Please keep blogging and speaking out!
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:11 pmThe article by CNN makes a huge leap in corporate faith to rank McCains health plan over others. Somehow or another the CNN author believes that the $9,000 corporations currently pay to employees for health care benefits will be passed to the employee as salary. From the article:
“Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.)”
What? This assumption is ridiculous! Take three hypothetical companies..CNN, MSNBC and FOX (please). If each is paying their high priced roving reporters $100,000, and providing identical health care benefits there is little monetary or health benefit incentive to change firms. Now under McCains plan the health care benefit is picked up by the government (saving the company $9,000) and the salary for the roving reporters remain the same. So whats the monetary incentive for an employee to leave any of the firms? So why would companies feel the meed to increase salaries by $9,000?
The McCain plan simply puts $9,000 bucks into the pockets of employeers while at the same time removing any risks associated increasing health care costs…big business should love it!
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pmI have read through all of the comments on this page to see if certain issues were addressed pertaining to what I feel are very big issues in healthcare reform. Bottom line is corporations should not be allowed to profit from people’s illnesses or misfortunes.. especially those corporations involved with healthcare.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pmElizabeth, as nogden3924 states, I am sure you probably could get health insurance.. with riders that exclude any treatments associated with any pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies can then associate other conditions that arise to your pre-existing condition and refuse to pay, leaving you with both higher premiums and the hospital bill.
Then, there is the matter of hospitals. Do you realize that if a person does not have insurance, the hospitals charge significantly more for treatments? Do you realize that the staff in the hospitals have access to whether or not you have insurance and know the insurance companies name? It’s usually found on the face page of the chart. Do you think it affects the quality of care a person receives from health care professionals and support staff? I can tell you that with some of them, it does.
As stated earlier, many people without insurance use the Emergency Room as their primary care physician when they get sick. The emergency room gets backed up with these people. Usually, there is a long wait to get into a room, and another wait before the patient can be seen by the doctor.I can think of a few cases that I am aware of where it has delayed diagnosis and treatment, and the patient has died while waiting.
I have also seen many elderly patients that had to make choices between having a roof over their head, food for their bellies, or life sustaining medications. They end up in the hospital frequently, costing medicare and taxpayers substantially more than if we would cover the cost of these medications in the first place. The pharmaceutical companies advertise that they will help with medications if someone cannot afford them, but many are excluded by unrealistically low living expense guidelines.
There is also the issue of the nursing shortage. Corporate hospital administration’s job is to realize a profit for the share-holders, which many times conflicts with the care of the patients. To realize a profit, administration will place unrealist expectations on the nurses, while the nurse is doing their best to expediate care on a priotiy basis, addressing patients and their families concerns, following the plan of care, expediate physicians orders, keeping costs down, and work hard to create the best outcome for the patient. Meanwhile, administration wants to realize a bigger profit, so they cut support staff, and increase the nurse/patient ratio.. never taking patient accuity into account. The burn-out rate in this profession is what feeds the never-ending shortage. Many nurses want to unionize, fearing for the patient’s safety because government officials either lack control of this situation, or like the rest of America, does not care unless it directly affects them. Corporate administration looks at numbers and profit, as is expected of them, while nurses care about the best possible outcome for their patients, as is also expected of them. They are not seeking the same goal.. so who pays the consequences? The patient.
What goal would I like America to strive for? I would like to see national healthcare become a reality, for a start. I would much rather see the monies paid for insurance now go to equalize healthcare for all, and the profits used to pay off the national debt. America’s taxpayers already pick up much of the expense of what the insurance companies refuse to pay, and in case people have not noticed, America is in trouble now because we have debts to repay. As long as we owe other countries, in reality, we cannot say America is the land of the free.