Dick Howe points us to this Lowell Sun article on the recent discussion of health care in the MA-05 race. It’s a very well-researched article: Chockful of relevant and telling quotes from the various candidates; some brief but useful background on the issue; and background on the various proposals in the public sphere at large. A job well done by reporter Matt Murphy — I’m looking forward to reading more from him.
- Jamie Eldridge is shown to have the most ambitious proposal for health care: Single-payer. The government becomes the insurer of everyone. No more health insurers skimming off the top. (This works very nicely in a number of countries.) Eldridge makes a moral and economic case for single-payer:
“The market works great when you’re selling TVs,” he added. “But the reason the market is such a poor design is because HMOs look at a family, where maybe the mother has cancer, and uses that as a reason to deny coverage because they won’t make money off that family. I compare health care to public education.”
- Niki Tsongas has “softened her position considerably”, says the Sun. In her own words:
“I think, fundamentally, we need universal health care in this country,” Tsongas told The Sun. “It’s clear there is a growing crisis in health care, and after many years of discussion, it’s time to do something. I think my comments have been misunderstood. The market does play somewhat of a role providing competition, but in and of itself, government has a major role to play.”
I look forward to Tsongas further clarifying her position: What exactly should be the role of government?
The other candidates also basically support the Massachusetts model, with varying degrees of qualification.
- Finegold:
“I want to make sure people are not denied care because of their economic means,” Finegold said. “I’m open to a single-payer system, but I want to give Massachusetts’ plan a chance. I don’t think market forces are the way to go. They basically hurt people and cause HMOs to deny coverage.”
- Donoghue doesn’t trust government-run health care:
… She said government health-care programs are too overrun by bureaucracy and poor management to expect a smooth expansion to universal health coverage.
Note to Donoghue: That’s not the case. The Veteran’s Administration now has some of the best, most cost-effective care in the country. (NB: Walter Reed is not a VA hospital.) Furthermore, we spend much, much more in America for our health care (16% of GDP) than any other country, and our quality is “really, really mediocre, across the board”.
- Lastly, Jim Miceli is on the Massachusetts bandwagon, “with a little fine-tuning.”
There you have it. And I’ll repeat our standing invitation to all of the candidates to post their views on health care (or any other issue), in full, on this site, and to post clarifications or revisions as necessary.
Despite some assertions to the contrary, Jamie Eldridge’s position on health care is pretty clear, as illustrated by this article. I think the article demonstrates (and as Dick Howe points out), that health care is beginning to take central stage as the key issue in this race. That’s fine with me, because I think it offers a fantastic opportunity for Jamie to stand out above the rest of the candidates and show that he is clearly the best candidate to represent the district.
<
p>
In terms of Niki’s “position”, the Sun makes sure to perhaps protect one of its favorite daughters and offer that she has “softened her position.” How so? That is not clear based on her quote. In my view, I think she is going to try her best to run as fast as possible away from her already-stated views. Personally, I’d have a lot more respect for her campaign if Niki stuck to her guns, but I don’t see it. Nevertheless, how big a role should the private sector play in dictating health care changes, Niki? Further, does your membership on the board of an HMO color your views at all? What about your campaign chair’s work on behalf of the hospitals?
<
p>
Also, just for review, here is Niki’s view in her own words:
<
p>
“We need to bring in the public sector, private sector and see what happens with the Massachusetts system.”
<
p>
Incidentally, here is what George W. Bush has said on the health care issue:
<
p>
“We believe the private sector is the best delivery of health care.”
To those like Tsongas and Donoghue who are saying single-payer is “unrealistic,” I say now is not the time for timidity.
<
p>
The GOP is in freefall and many fewer people are buying its rhetoric. Elections are bearing this out. Now is the time to shift the frame, not to sit in the middle. You might not get single-payer but you’ll have more influence than those who begin to compromise before they even figure out what they believe. You can’t run on what you think 50% of the other legislators are likely to do, especially when the political ground is shifting as you speak.
The “softened” position on health care is marginally better than what she offered before, but it’s not exactly what I meant when I said she should act quickly.
Indeed, it is time to do something. And Charley, you’re exactly right. We need to ask Ms. Tsongas exactly what we should do and what she’ll do.
Great summary. Looks like this is an issue where Tsongas is being defined, like it or not.
from the Lowell Sun for doing such a fine job. I’m just digesting from his article, which was a breeze to read.
There sure is a lot of certainty in these quarters about the purity and idealism of the right position in healthcare. For such a complex issue, to have made up your mind now seems a little presumptive.
<
p>
Interestingly, there have been two major developments you may want to keep in mind when people talk single payer and multi payer health care systems. So before you condemn or make up your mind, note this:
<
p>
*Yesterday, Senator Kennedy, a champion of health care announced his plan which includes both government and private market options.
<
p>
*Today, Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (there’s strange bedfellows) announced their bill to support individual state initiatives as a laboratory for coming up with the best national coverage plan. This sure sounds like they want to use Massachusetts type plans as a model. As we know, Massachusetts is a multi-payer system. While it may not be perfect, but if you’re sick and you never had coverage before, it’s a pretty good achievement. Anyway, here’s Russ Feingold’s press release. Pretty interesting idea and consensus.
<
p>
http://feingold.sena…
<
p>
Why would Feingold and Graham combine to sponsor a bill like this? Because they think it can pass. Did you know the first health care bill to put the government in charge of care was introduced decades ago? There is something to be said for having a plan in place.
<
p>
So before we knock the practicality of Niki’s suggestions (maybe she has a better understanding of the shifting debate and opportunities for success in DC) or criticize Eileen for doing some rhetorical exploring of her own, I think its only fair to look more closely at Jamie’s explanation for supporting two different positions – the Massachusetts bill then and the single payer bill now.
<
p>
How much does Jamie really understand about how to be effective in Washington? And how much of this has to do with tugging at the coattails of his better known progressive competition? I’m still waiting for an explanation that makes sense.
<
p>
Will W
<
p>
…at this rate, you’ll have zero credibility in no time, Will. At any rate, what “progressive competition” is Jamie struggling to emulate? Are you referring to Niki “I’m on the board of a massive HMO” Tsongas? Those sound like progressive bona fides to me! Your attacks on Jamie continue to be baseless and laughable.
<
p>
In terms of achieving what is possible in Congress, how many times has Ted Kennedy pursued initiatives that have had little support? Hmm, let’s see….at least 10,000 times…
<
p>
This isn’t to say single-payer is impossible, but even if it will be hard doesn’t mean it should not be pursued. Jamie is willing to be in for the long fight, and not just support the politically expedient solution. Part of the problem in Congress is they repeatedly take the easy way out instead of confronting the tough issues. Jamie will be someone in Congress who pushes these issues to the front and insists on debate.
<
p>
Conversely, we continue to wonder how much Niki’s views are colored by her membership on the board of Fallon Communuty Health Plan. For you to argue that Niki possesses sterling leadership on this issue is a joke. The bobbing and weaving in her BMG posts would make Oscar De La Hoya jealous. Oh wait: does she immediately qualify as brilliant in the ways of Washington because she watched Paul? Of course, that must make her a natural Washington leader! How silly for me to forget.
<
p>
Incidentally, while I like Russ Feingold, I’m not sure you should be making a case for something using Lindsay Graham legislation as a model. Lindsay Graham: House Manager that led the impeachment of Bill Clinton, one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate. If Niki aspires to support Lindsay Graham legislation, she should probably run in the GOP primary.
<
p>
As a practicing nurse and nursing faculty I helped launch the MA Healthcare Constitutional Amendment 4 years ago with a group of other citizen activists. I gave much of my life over the past 4 years, alongside many other volunteers, to passage of the amendment so it could be used as a reform tool and as a set of legally binding standards to guide ongoing health system reform.
<
p>
This healthcare amendment tool is hoped to be used to fundamentally improve our healthcare system. The needed improvements require putting people before profit motives and putting common sense in healthcare spending before HMO and Insurance Co. interests.
<
p>
I also advocated and lobbied for pieces of the new MA health reform law as well as vocally criticizing certain parts of it, as I still do. The law has helped many people but it has not addressed the underlying causes of our crisis in HC access, cost and poor quality. But the law was a train barreling down the track, fueled by the real risk of MA losing $378Mil in Federal Medicaid dollars and fueled by the political power of MA Blue Cross Blue Shield and Partners HC hospital chain.
<
p>
The MA HC law and did not and does not in any specific way obstruct passage of the HC Amendment. That’s likely why Jamie voted for the law and also consistently voted for passage of the HC Amendment.
<
p>
The group I run, the Alliance to Defend Health Care, was founded 10 years ago by health care professionals who take our professional and moral obligation to advocate for our patients and our communities quite seriously. Bernard Lown, MD, is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who is our Chair Emeritus. The Alliance supported passage of certain reform elements that exist in the new MA HC reform law, as well as being the original community organization to endorse the HC Amendment. The new law and the Amendment are not mutually exclusive.
<
p>
I hope this info is useful.