Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda
As I’ve noted before, there are clear differences between the GOP and Democratic Presidential candidates on health care.
And it looks like the Dems’ approach is a heckuva lot closer to what regular voters want than that espoused by the Republican candidates.
Continue reading Win the nomination, lose the election – the GOP on health care
The ‘Economist‘ (an intelligently conservative publication) finds fault with Pres. Bush for his stubborn refusal to expand S-CHIP, you know W’s losing it.
Here’s a quote from their piece (sub req)
An aversion to government-run health-care programmes and new taxes–a tobacco-tax increase would fund the SCHIP expansion–may also be driving Mr Bush’s opposition. Or he may simply be trying to re-establish his credentials as a fiscal conservative.
Whatever the truth, the White House has made an inauspicious start of its fight with Congress over federal spending.
Pres. Bush’s condemnation of the proposed revamping of S-CHIP is, in various places, flat-out wrong, misleading, irresponsible, and blatant fear-mongering.
What is even more disappointing is his attack on legislation that has broad bipartisan support.
Sigh.
There’s a lot of misinformation about how Sen. Clinton is rolling in cash from big pharma, HMOs, and the insurance industry.
Not true.
Fact is, she’s not even on the list of the top 25 recipients of industry PAC money in 2006.
Notably, that list includes 17 Republicans, 7 Democrats, and Lieberman.
Tops? Ex-CT Rep Nancy Johnson (R), one of the prime movers of the Part D program with $790k. And now in retirement.
Yet more evidence health care reform is going to happen – the wolf is lying down with the lamb.
By the time a patient gets an MRI to diagnose cancer in Canada, they’re dead. Canadians have to wait forever to get to see a specialist. And elective surgery? Better get your grandkids’ on the list now for knee replacements…
That’s a common view of the health care system up north.
And it is dead wrong.
Sen. Clinton’s health care proposal is generally consistent with her fellow Democratic presidential candidates – universal coverage, an end to medical underwriting, most coverage delivered by private insurers.
Giuliani’s proposal is also not much different from other Republicans’. Expanded HSA accounts, big tax breaks to encourage individuals to buy plans, and emphasis on individual rather than employment-based coverage.
There are big differences between the plans, and huge implications for voters.
Bob Laszewski at Health Policy and Markets makes an intriguing case that the current UAW battle w auto manufacturers over health benefits is directly related to California’s efforts to resolve who should pay for health care reform.
Well worth the read.
Health care leads the list of domestic issues for voters, with 27% citing HC as their top issue, and 42% listing it as one of their top two (no prizes for guessing that Iraq is the leading topic).
Health care is top of mind for both Dems and GOP respondents, although more Democrats want their candidates to talk health care (42%) than Republicans (21%).
Yet according to the KFF report, “nearly six in 10 people don’t know or can’t name a candidate who best represents their own views on health.”
I’m guessing that’s due to ignorance. There are sharp differences between the parties in their positions on health care, with Republican candidates favoring the use of tax policy and ‘free markets’ to deliver reform, while Democrats lean more towards universal coverage using private insurers.
And no, despite the rhetoric from Republican candidates, rare is the Democrat who is calling for single-payer or government-run health care.
CMS will no longer pay for medical treatment(reg req) for injuries or illnesses resulting from hospitalization. Expect private insurers to follow suit.
Its about time.