Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care: ‘This Is Not A Cheap Shot; It Is Potentially Life And Death’
Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care: ‘This Is Not A Cheap Shot; It Is Potentially Life And Death’
Our guest blogger is Elizabeth Edwards, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and wife of former Presidential candidate John Edwards.
John McCain accused me of taking a “cheap shot” on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” yesterday for noting that people with preexisting conditions, such as he and I have, would not be able to get health care under his plan –- and that he perhaps was not as sensitive to this problem as he should be since he has been in government health care his whole life.
Sen. McCain noted that he was not receiving government health care for the six years he was in captivity. That is true. But it has nothing to do with my point — which is that the problem with Sen. McCain’s health care plan is not how it affects us –- but how it affects the tens of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who, unlike Sen. McCain and myself, do not have the resources to pay for quality health care.
That is not a cheap shot, it is a potentially life and death question for tens of million of Americans. And it is a question Sen. McCain must address.
McCain’s health care plan is centered around the idea that we’d be better off if more Americans bought health coverage on their own, rather than receiving it through a job or government program. But maybe since he has never purchased insurance in the individual market, he does not know the challenge it presents for Americans with preexisting conditions.
A recent study showed that nearly nine out of every ten people seeking individual coverage on the private insurance market never got it. Insurers will disqualify you for just taking certain medicines because of the possibility of future costs, including common drugs as Lipitor, Zocor, Nexium, and Advair. People who have had cancer are denied coverage and those who get cancer run the risk of simply being dropped by their insurer for any excuse that can be found. And insurers make it a practice to deny coverage to individuals in high risk occupations, such as firefighting, lumber work, telecom installation, and pretty much anything more risky than working in an office.
McCain opposes universal health care because he claims it represents a “big government takeover and mandates.” But yesterday, he said he would help cover people with preexisting conditions by creating a “special Medicaid trust fund.”
A “special Medicaid trust fund”? Talk about a big government takeover. Tens of millions of Americans have preexisting conditions. If he is going to expand Medicaid to cover Americans with preexisting conditions, he is talking about a massive, massive increase in the Medicaid program. He says he opposes more government involvement in health care, but his idea really would be government-run health care.
My questions is: why is he doing this? If he is so concerned about expanding government’s role in health care, why doesn’t he just tell the insurance industry that they have to cover people with preexisting conditions? Why is he more concerned about protecting the insurance industry –- an industry which, by the way, his corporate tax cut plan gives a $1.9 billion tax cut to –- than the tens of millions Americans with preexisting conditions?
McCain’s advisors still can’t say how this special Medicare trust fund will work. I gather we will find that out when Senator McCain gives a speech on health care later this month. Rest assured, I will be paying attention.
UPDATE: Watch the video here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
40 Responses to “Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care: ‘This Is Not A Cheap Shot; It Is Potentially Life And Death’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
You should really point out that, *once again*, McCain has attempted to use his military record to shut up his political opponents. A far cry from someone who claims to have never used his time in Vietnam for political gain…
April 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pmSurely, John McCain was covered by the same health care system which provides service to all United States officers in a time of war for the duration of and immediately following his confinement. He was denied access to that system due to his confinement.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pmSo Sen. McCain KNOWS how important it is to provide the proper healthcare to our military and veterans, so therefore why has he voted against benefits for the veterans and won’t support the new GI bill?
April 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pmJohn “W” McCain is playing by the Republican rules: when you don’t have a rebuttal on the issue, go personal and create smoke.
What he apparently wasn’t counting on is that you see through his smoke clearly and have the facts on your side. Go get ‘im, Elizabeth! Thank you.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pmIt is interesting to see that McCain uses his 5+ years in captivity as some kind of excuse or trump card designed to be a HOW DARE YOU comment about that or ask me about that … I am sure Barack will use it to his own advantage in the Presidential debates. The little fireplug can hold his breath & stomp his feet … the audience will wait for an answer …
THANK YOU ELIZABETH!!!!!
April 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pmThis is decidedly, life and death, as you say, Elizabeth, and that is why we need to call McCain on this, as you have done and as I know you will continue to do. And thank you for that. Unfortunately, and while as you have also pointed out, both Obama and Clinton are lightyears ahead of McCain as to healthcare, we do need to continue to pressure Obama as to his plan, which is inadequate. We need to continue to pressure him so as not to keep on criticizing Edwards´s plan = the plan Clinton adopted. I am so dismayed when I see Obama doing that!
April 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pmThank you, Elizabeth. I will rest more assuredly with you paying attention to this.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pmThey don’t really care about life and death. They care about the profits. If the insurance companies aren’t making profits, then the insurance companies aren’t contributing money to their campaigns. And who knows what else they are contributing to.
They only care about people when they are in the womb. Once their out, it’s YOYO.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pmIn the era of “gotcha” politics it doesn’t seem that McCain has the ability to transcend the petty political bickering and see the bigger picture. You are completely correct, this is not about McCain. This is about millions of his fellow Americans who every day have to face the choice between health care and food, health care and gas, health care and having a roof over their heads.
The fact that he can’t see that really does show a mentality that is completely out of touch with what all of us working people are going through.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:48 pmThank you, Elizabeth for you and your husband’s dedicated service to our Country.
It’s our pleasure here at TP to have you commenting.
I watched Senator McCain make that statement yesterday morning.
In my opinion, the only ‘cheap shot’ was his comments.
You are correct in stating that pre-existing conditions eliminate health coverage for many Americans under the current system. You are also correct in pointing out Mr. McCain’s 50+ years of government health care coverage, which would have been denied for most consumers at this point in time.
The problem, as you and your husband have pointed out, is 3rd party insurance brokers dictating services and costs. Insurance companies are trying hard to legislate risk out of their business. Ironically, risk is what insurance is about.
America has to remove insurers from dictating health coverage. The US Congress must eliminate pharmaceutical immunity from rate decreases.
I respect the Senator’s service to his Country…he should show some respect back to taxpayers who have paid his health coverage for over half a century.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pmJohn McCain uses his years in captivity to support his intimate knowledge of the issues of the health care crisis at the same time he accuses Mrs. Edwards of using cheap shots. The man obviously has no shame.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pmI’m one of those cancer survivors who can’t get coverage at any cost, but for the fact that I have a dead-end job that includes it. I’ll be 65 in two years and can’t afford to retire. Ever. And the irony is that I could triple my income if I freelanced. But I’m a slave to the only job I can get with health benefits included.
Bless you, Elizabeth. I very much wanted to see you as First Lady, and I salute you for the example you set for all of us, and for appealing to the best in us.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pmMrs. Edwards, keep speaking up.
I have a spouse and daughter who have survived breast cancer. My daughter is a practicing MD (pyschiatrist) who was devastated when she found out, but is now making the most of her life and career. My wife has taken up the banner and is speaking out about getting yourself checked. She works for a medical school and speaks out aobut early detection, which is a key to survival.
And I believe your making the most of you life also. Keeping moving forward with the straight talk, not the McCain political version.
We are one of the greatest nations on earth, except when it comes to taking care of its own citizens via healthcare. I saw an expose on PBS about healthcare. There are different versions in the various countries and they all seem to work for the good of the people. The minority businessmen, i. e., insurance and pharmaceutical are dictated as to what they can and can’t do. And they still thrive in those countries. Gee, ya think that could happen here.
But life in this country has to get worse, before the people/taxpayers/citizens of this country finally get aroused, dissatified and upset at the congressmen and demand change. But with the lobbyists feeding the palm of congress, it will take a few more years of disasters, and bankruptcies, etc before Congress will make the proper moves.
Of course the taxpayers could vote them out of office, but that won’t happen. We are our own worst enemy, because we keeping reelecting the same politicians. Until politicians are made aware that they may not have an elected office anymore, they will follow the money…i. e., lobbyists.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:36 pmThank you, Elizabeth, for bringing this important issue to light. I fall into the “deadly middle.” I have preexisting conditions which prevent me from changing health insurers because I cannot be insured if I change companies, and I have money, but not enough of it to ensure myself. What the heath insurance companies are doing is horrible, and they are taking HUGE profits when it comes to medications. I get a better deal using drugstore.com w/o my insurance in many cases than I do using my insurance. All of this needs to be brought to light. Thank you for your courage in tackling this important issue at this time in your life…
April 21st, 2008 at 7:35 pmSo far, McCain’s 26 years in the Senate have yet to yield a solution from him to the national healthcare crisis. And he’s calling out Elizabeth Edwards because he was denied healthcare by an enemy 35 years ago?
Utilizing similar logic, we shouldn’t bail out Bear Stearns and other poorly run financials till sometime after 2043. Or maybe not at all, if any financial company refused a loan to any American ever.
McCain’s embarking on a tour of the Americans he’s forgotten about throughout his Senate career. I hope they’ll know better than to impugn his imagined honor, or he just may try to get them fired from their jobs. Rage and delusion are his pre-existing conditions, and part of the reason why tens of millions are being denied coverage.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:56 pmElizabeth is right, there are many of us out here with preexisting conditions (i have cancer) and if I didn’t have Medicaid I would be sunk. I had to be disabled 2 years before I qualified for Medicare, I think they hope you croak first. JMO
April 21st, 2008 at 8:28 pmElizabeth, would you clarify the greater effectiveness of John’s health care plan than the Massachusetts one?
Also, a question keeps coming up about the hardship some people may experience with the mandates yet my knowledge of Senator Edwards is that he does everything he can to reduce and eliminate hardships for the poor and middle class.
Finally, what of the things that make the Edwards plan more effective than the Mass. plan and ease the hardship of the poor and middle class does Senator Clinton have in her plan?
April 21st, 2008 at 9:30 pmMrs. Edwards has lived an opulent life as the wife of a trial lawyer. She will use her cancer, just as Mr. McCain uses his time as a POW, to try to connect to the common person. Yet neither are common. Insurance would be cheaper if not for men like Mr. Edwards. Can she at least be honest about that?
April 21st, 2008 at 9:58 pmPart of the reason McCain sat in a North Vietnamese prison without good domestic health care for so long was because arrogant politicians who did not do their homework wanted to stay the course, or had egos too large to preside over a defeat. The ironic and absurd thing is, McCain is walking in Nixon’s arrogant moccasins now, and they fit perfectly.
In any case, McCain is not a friend of working people or veterans. He is the friend of bankers and medical insurance companies. His wife Cindy copies her “family recipes” off the Internet, or worse yet, maybe that actually was really a campaign PR person doing her bidding to find some recipes for her.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:02 pmGovernment agencies have quoted a figure of 20,000 Americans dying earlier deaths each year because they have no health care. Thank you for speaking out, Elizabeth, and bearing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. You are doing some heavy lifting on behalf of those who cannot afford health care plus those many uncounted who are denied their rightful claims of coverage.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:09 pmcrashtx1 — Wrong-O:
Insurance would be cheaper if the risk were spread among the entire population. If we didn’t have to pay for layers of bureaucracy whose prime function is to deny coverage. If we didn’t have companies treat injury and death and health problems such as cancer from toxic products as just a “cost of doing business.” If we didn’t have so many Wall Streeters dipping their beaks into the health care industry as little more than Tony Sopranos.
The perversion of health care is a national disgrace and I, like Elizabeth Edwards and so many whose families are touched by serious pre-existing conditions, will be watching all the candidates…and those who are elected. And demanding better.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pmWhen the insurance were de-mutualized (meaning that the insured no longer owned the company) several years ago, their primary concern became their shareholders and the bottom line. They are now completely about maximizing premiums and minimizing costs, by finding whatever loopholes they can to limit coverage to the insured. They can even dictate prescriptions to patients, whose cases they never see and cannot know.
Any national health care plan that doesn’t deal squarely with the power these companies have attained is doomed to failure. What these companies have been allowed to get away with is a crime.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:35 pmOh, almost forgot … thanks Mrs. Edwards.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:36 pmI like the “crashtx1 — Wrong-O”, shows that higher thought and education. I guess you have spent a lot of time in a government run medical facility to see how great the patients are treated? I think what everyone wants is all access to the best medical treatment without paying for it. Sorry, that won’t work. I’m all open to the discussion on what part of medicine will be rationed so that almost everyone else will have access. The doctors will not want to give up their big houses, the lawyers(Edward’s family) will not want to give up their big houses. Something will have to give.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:13 pmThe pie is getting smaller (less people covered and less coverage for those who do have it), get it? Physicians are the least of the problems, and lawyers? What do they have to do with medical coverage - pure right-wing hooey. The pie is getting smaller becuase insurance companies long ago decided that thickening already-rich shareholders’ pockets is much more important than the health of those they cover - or should cover, and its not even close. This has been enabled by a government that has de-regulated and sanctioned these companies to the point that they can raise premiums indiscriminately and dictate coverage, even treatment of patients they don’t even know.
Look, we’re living this stuff, so you can keep spouting that simplistic ideology but we’re not buying it anymore. Btw, physicians that I talk to are just about as fed up as we are at the hoops they must jump through to get insurance companies to cover their patients’ treatments. The rationing starts by putting risk, responsibility and accountability back in the health insurance business and going from there.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 amBut, surely, as only John McCain seems to realize, the important thing here is that ordinary people are provided with choice.
These crazy far-left smelly hippy big-government “healthcare” policies would deny hard-working ‘murrikans their God-given right to make a personal choice between buying food and paying for healthcare.
What are you? A bunch of communists or something?
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 amOn Sunday morning, McCain responded to the concept of universal healthcare with the mantra…”Big gov’t can’t provide good care…just look at Canada”.
As a Cdn with more than a passing interst in US politics, I have always found this a curious defense for leaving the health debate pretty much where it is mired today in the US. Because this one-liner is quite virtually never challenged by mainstream media, the deafening silence is quiet and implied agreement. The most common excuse for not pursuing this comment with “Explain what you mean by that…” is we are running out of time and I have to throw to a commercial.
Don’t misunderstand me, Canada’s system of healthcare is not without its faults and failings. Healthcare costs and access for all does not get any easier on this side of a border that separates us…what we do know in Canada is that people with pre-exisiting conditions and meagre coverage from “private” work plans are not marginalized and left to suffer and die untreated.
Societally we have concluded in Canada that access to care is one of those areas where gov’t not only can, but must play a role.
America is without a doubt one of mankind’s most successful and intriguing experiments…I refuse to believe that your country lacks the will and creativity to understand that the health of all citizens when attended to intelligently raises the general well-being of every single citizen, wealthy and poor alike.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:12 amWhat do lawyers have to do with healthcare? Wow, do you know any medical professionals? Malpractice insurance driven by lawsuits (Mr. Edwards) is a huge contributor to the cost of healthcare. If we do not want the medical profession driven by profit then it will have to be socialized, and that will mean massive changes and rationing(see Canada). I’m not saying that is wrong, but we just need to decide for sure that’s what we want. Will my doctor work as hard in a socialized medical setting if it means giving up his $700K house? Not sure; that’s the problem with socialism. We just need to realize that people like the Edwards (or Cheney’s or whatever right-wing name you want to throw in) are not going to lead us into this panacea because they are part of the problem.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 amMcFlipoflop is flopping again on this issue and this is what America will get if he wins, just more of the same in the health care industry. Re-pukes don`t like big gov`t because they have a buddy who can do the job, by running up cost at our exspense, skimming money off of the top for themselves and genrally raking in the cash while America suffers because we have a small re-puke gov`t, well I am for a big gov`t that will run medicare/medicaid at a three to five percent overhead, fix our countries infrastructure, put more port inspectors on duty, put our children`s public education back on top,take care of it`s War veterans the proper way, you name it a big Gov`t in my book works and the rest of this country knows it.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am#28 you are so way off base, Why do doctors have to give up their mansions? If they got into medicine for the $$$$ then they should leave the field and go into politics.Doctors with those kinds of houses are usually specialist who do make money most likely on elective type surgery such as cosmetic surgery(plastic surgeons) and so forth.Your average everyday doctor is in it to help people not make tons of money and live the High Life.All that is going to happen if socialized medicine takes off is the Gov`t will buy all the hopitals, equipment and so on , and the people that work at the hospitals will remain as will the doctors and everything will as it was before.Of course there will be some bumps but I am all for big Gov`t because the re-pukes and their small gov`t is as crooked and corrupt as any that has ever ran a country in history.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 amI guess I’m #28. Sorry, won’t work that way. My doctor is not a specialist. I know not all doctors are rich, but like most people they are trying to make as much money as they can too.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 amI too saw the PBS special on health care in various countries and noted that they all had mandated coverage for all, the only way serious savings can occur.
There are doctors’ groups who support universal health care. Rationing already occurs, obviously by denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
I am covered by my retirement system but cannot get long-term care insurance because I’ve to a serious of conditions that are not serious for me but for which I get medicated - blood pressure, acid reflux, cholesterol, depression, some bits for arthritis, restless legs….so anyway,this is only because these companies don’t want to take on any risk - long-term healthcare companies that want no risk????? That’s a contradiction in terms!
I know many people, some of them “professional class,” who have to endure jobs they hate just to keep health insurance. I know at least one person who was borne under by family health problems he could not cover because he couldn’t afford health insurance and had to declare bankruptcy. He himself is now very ill but has to work full-time to be covered. He really is disabled but in Ohio it is a two-year wait and I think he would have to not work the whole time, which he can’t afford to do.
It’s a truly brutal and inhumane system.
I agree with the Edwardses that Clinton’s plan is significantly better than Obama’s (as are most of her programs) and I hope and pray that hers are the programs we end up with, even if Obama is elected.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 amOK crashtx1, lets have a serious discussion.
You seem to be under the misconception (right-wing talking point) that litigation is a huge burden on our health care industry. The facts don’t agree with you, however, as litigation costs represent about 0.5% of heathcare costs in our country. MUCH more burdensom is the overhead costs, which are over 30%. This is compared with Medicare, which is about 2%. I won’t even get into the fact that malpractice is a real issue and juries issue verdicts because people actually had their lives destroyed many times by negligence or worse. I also won’t get into the overhead costs for the doctors themselves who have to typically hire a whole staff of people just to push papers for the insurance companies.
There is no argument to defend our current system. Even if you want to argue purely from an economic or efficiancy standpoint, it is a loser. We pay far more out the back end for the uninsured and for our gross lack of preventative care. We also end up paying more in terms of lost jobs and lost wages from companies moving to other countries to avoid healthcare costs, from lost work due to preventable medical problems, etc.
Finally, why would your doctor make less money because his payment check is coming from the gov’t verses coming from Cigna? I bet if you had a real conversation with him/her, you would find that he/she has a hard time getting paid for certain procedures from the private companies, and is have to pay out of pocket for all those support staff to deal with the companies.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 amI think crashtx1 is trying to discuss the topic with a civil tongue.
The biggest thing I have noticed about all of these blog entries is that everyone seems to expect a single solution. Health Care in this country is too complicated for a single solution.
What about a three for four tier system? The lowest tier being free for all and includes doctor appointments for “family doctor” sorts of ailments. The seccond tier costing a co-pay for a little more care like simple emergency room stuff. The third tier may be paid in cash or credit card or insurance programs, paid for by employers or through families purchasing their own private health insurance. The fourth tier may consist of “catastrophic health insurance.” Heart or lung transplants or devastating disease treatments. The fifth tier could be premier treatments like private rooms, etc.
In this way, all would be covered for some basic free care or cheap simple treatments. Private insurance companies would still be able to sell insurance to groups (companies) or individuals.
This does not answer all the health care questions, but it is a point of view that no one seems to be talking about.
Any feedback on this?
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 amA very important point about McCain’s government coverage is that he had the peace of mind throughout those years, even when he was in captivity, that his family was covered - McCain is another example, like bush: a combination of ignorant and stupid.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 amTo “crashtx1″: Health insurance would NOT be cheaper, “if not for men like Mr. Edwards”, as “jawill” has pointed out.
To”Steinmania”: I would beg to disagree that “crashtx1″ is “trying to discuss with a civil tongue”. Whatever, as to your points, no one is suggesting a “single solution”. While I appreciate your “tiered” solution, and DO think that GP´s should be responsible for primary care and referals to secondary care, I disagree with the idea that people should only have access to care that the GP´s can give and that the GP´s cannot refer to higher levels of care. Everyone should be insured access to higher levels of care as ordered via their GP or via specialists or emergency services. As a psychiatrist who practicises in Denmark, where we have such a system, that works just fine.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pmVery good point Peacock! I will research the Danish system to see more detail. My tier idea was not so much about the details of coverage as it was an attempt to get people talking about various levels of cost. I have read people talking about a “single payer” system as opposed to the incredibly complex mix of private insurance companies we have now. Just wanted to get people talking about streamlining the system, that all.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pmHave in the past read some of the statistics cited by jawill11. Therefore, I must agree with jawill11 and disagree with crashtx1 regarding the contribution of trial lawyers to medical costs. Indeed, crashtx1, like McCain, does NOT do his/her homework.
The United States spends almost twice as much on health care per person as Canada, France, and Germany, almost two and a half times as much as Britain–yet our live expectancy is two years below theirs…according to 2004 statistics.
Canadians do wait longer for hip replacements than Americans, but that’s because Medicare, which pays for most American hip replacments, is so efficient. In fact, Medicare spends 2% of its funds on administration, versus 15% spent on administration by U.S. private health insurers.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 amElizabeth:
Longtime fan and supporter of you and John. I hear you’re considering backing Hillary’s campaign. I would urge you to do so. You know that her domestic policies are much more progressive and inclusive, and less market-reliant, than the alternatives, and this is huge in a year that should be dominated by the economic downturn we’re facing.
Thanks for your refreshing verve and great opinions, keep them coming!
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 amSteinmania, point well taken then. Please do check out the Danish system. GP´s in the US have also decried the lack of emphasis upon the import of GP´s in the proposed health care policies and rightly so.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm