Edwards Aide Clarifies Health Care Stance

[Omaha Steve]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/edwards-aide-clarifies-health-care-stance/#more-4008

January 26, 2008, 11:29 am
Edwards Aide Clarifies Health Care Stance

By Kevin Sack

In an interview with The Times about health policy on Wednesday, former Senator John Edwards said that his proposal to require all legal United States residents to have health insurance did not include a hardship exemption. Such an exemption, which exists in Massachusetts, the only state to mandate insurance coverage so far, would allow the granting of waivers to those who cannot afford premiums, even after they are heavily subsidized by the government.



“I have not proposed a hardship exemption,” Mr. Edwards said. “Realistically, we know as we put this plan into place, as we start implementation, there may be some tinkering that needs to be done to it. Maybe in some cases the subsidy needs to be raised. Maybe we need to make certain that it covers a certain small group of people that aren’t getting what they need. There are a variety of things that we may need to tinker with on the edges to make sure it works the way it needs to work. But the fundamentals won’t change and the plan is to cover everybody.”

The only problem is that Mr. Edwards’ own Web site says that his plan does include such an exemption, to wit: “Special exemptions will be available in cases of extreme financial hardship or religious beliefs.”

So which is it? The Edwards campaign had some difficulty with the question on Friday, the day the interview with Mr. Edwards was published.

“Yes,” said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz by email, “there is an exemption but we never expect to use it because we spend more than Clinton and Obama on subsidizing premiums. But you are right - the wording online is unclear and we will update it.”

FULL story at link.

[eleny]

1. This is an important distinction

One thing I'm not clear about is something Thom Hartmann said about Edwards' plan. He said that Edwards would allow for anyone to opt into Medicare. And in offering this, it would probably mean the end of the private insurance companies in several years since people would flock to that option.

[bobbolink]

3. Bingo! That's the brilliant part. ^_^ Edwards says he's using the "front door" for single

payer.

He's going about single payer a different route... making the greedy corprats compete with a government program. :)

HR676, which I fully supported before, takes TEN YEARS to implement.. and that's IF the battle is won against the Goliaths.

Also, there are many people who are against single payer, because they are happy with the coverage they have. Doing battle with them right from the start will also cause problems.

This way, those things gradually ease themselves and single payer becomes the norm.

[eleny]

6. Now that Kucinich has dropped out...

I've got to decide who to cast a vote for at the caucus. I thought for sure I could go with Obama. But this Edwards medical plan is huge. Even if Obama gets the nomination, Edwards can do some bargaining at a brokered convention. This is a very interesting and exciting year.

[bobbolink]

7. There's a world of difference between Obama and Edwards.

And the gap in between is filled with corporate $$$.

Coming from Kucinich, I would think the choice would be obvious.

:)

[Yael]

4. I have very good coverage through work and I would flock to that option

in a heartbeat.

[eleny]

5. We have good coverage in retirement

We're not old enough for Medicare at this point but I'm ready for the coverage and price of the supplemental. That would lower our monthly medical costs considerably. We are so ready.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. K&R!