Her suggestion: delay the imposition of the coverage mandate on small business, as the president already has done for larger corporations. "The mandate will not work for many small businesses in Kentucky," she said, "so I believe that a delay is the right course so that changes can be made."
She also blasted McConnell for wanting to abandon the law altogether, pointing out that the state's health ratings are among the worst in the nation, and that other provisions in the law will extend coverage to an estimated 600,000 more Kentuckians. "Unlike Sen. McConnell, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water," she said.
A: That’s correct. Part of the reason that you’re confused about the candidates’ differences is because the differences probably matter less than the commonalties. All of the major Democratic candidates are advocating some form of universal health care. The question is, how do we get there? My proposal says:
President Barack Obama said parents should get their kids vaccinated. "The science is pretty indisputable," Obama said. "We've looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not."
The White House has stopped short of saying that there should be a law requiring parents to get their children vaccinated. "The president believes it shouldn't require a law for people to exercise common sense and do the right thing," a White House press secretary said. "And again, this is the right thing for them to do both by their own children, but by also other children in the community. They have a responsibility to do this. "
A: I do favor universal health care, no matter who you are, rich or poor, black, brown, white, that has to be the fundamental point in my health-care plan. I believe th way you do it is by:
A: Yes, they do, absolutely. A universal plan that drives down costs, spreads out the risk, which is what I’m advocating, a plan that I think I can achieve within four years of my inauguration.
Q: And how would you pay for it?
A: Well, you pay for it by having everyone contribute based on their ability to pay. And that makes it totally universal. No exceptions. Everyone’s involved in this. I’d establish what I call a universal health mart, in a sense, where people could actually shop for the best plans that suit their needs. It’s done under the framework of the federal employees’ health-benefit plan. My plan is designed to do what you can actually get done here. It keeps plans or parts of things that work and gets rid of things that don’t. For instance, I’d ban any discrimination against pre-existing conditions here. It follows you, not your job, in a sense here.
A: Yes, we do, absolutely. About 75% of the Medicare dollars is caused by chronic illness. I’m looking at a possibility of also requiring at age 55, for instance, a physical exam 10 years before you’d qualify for Medicare so that we could make a determination as to whether or not things like smoking, diet, and so forth are going to contribute to the cost of that chronic illness and the Medicare dollar. Those things need to be done as well. And I’ve done this, by the way. You know, I wrote the Family Leave Act. It took me seven years to get it done. But I brought Republicans and Democrats together about many controversial issues associated with health care. So I think not only talking what you want to do but where you’ve been on these issues ought to be constructive to voters.
A: Well, prohibition may go a little bit further here, but certainly, to make it very costly for doing it and making people pay a price in a sense for that voluntary choice. Now, it’s hard to quit smoking, and anyone who’s ever smoked knows that. But here, doing everything we can to move people out. 3,000 children start every day smoking in this country. Despite all of our efforts with warnings labels and raising the cost of taxes on cigarettes, it’s still a major problem in the country and a major cause for a variety of illnesses that become chronic illnesses for people. Prohibition would probably go a bit further than I’d want it to, but I’d make it expensive to do it.
Rep. Jack Kingston drew criticism from conservatives after he said Republicans should improve, rather than repeal, the Affordable Care Act: "A lot of conservatives say, 'Nah, let's just step back and let this thing fall to pieces on its own.' But I don't think that's always the responsible thing to do," Kingston said. "I think we need to be looking for things that improve health care overall for all of us. And if there is something in ObamaCare, we need to know about it." Kingston later said his comments had been misinterpreted
A: Well, first of all, I’m for a national health-care plan. The whole debate about universal health care has been a fraud. All these other candidates are talking about keeping the for-profit insurance companies in charge of health care in America. That’s not what I’m talking about, because these private insurers make money NOT providing health care. And so, I’m saying no more role for them. Let the United States be like every other industrialized democracy in having a health-care plan, a national plan where we take care of our people. And we’re already paying for it. We spend $2.2 trillion on health spending, but $600 billion of it goes for the activities of the for-profit system each year. I’m talking about taking that money, putting it to care for people.
Q: And it would cost how much?
A: It would cost the same amount we’re spending now, except that all the money goes into the system.
A: Well, I've been at the gate and out of it for 14 years, and you know when we weren't successful with the overall reform, I moved ahead and was one of the people responsible for the children's health-insurance program and trying to make sure drugs were safe for kids, and dealing with aftereffects the Gulf War veterans suffered. So, I've stayed consistently focused on health care and am engaged right now in this battle with the president over his threatened veto of the children's health-insurance program. But I learned, among other things, that we've got to build a consensus. A plan is necessary but not sufficient. We've got to have a political consensus in order to withstand the enormous opposition from those interests that will have something to lose in a really reformed health-care system.
A: Well, I can't say how you prevent people who have legitimate businesses in America from participating in the political process. It's somewhat silly to suggest that talking to people is somehow out of bounds. My coverage plan dramatically reins in the influence of the insurance companies, because frankly I think that they have worked to the detriment of our economy & our healthcare system.
Q: Because of your long history, do you take contributions from insurance companies?
A: Well, I take from executives or people that work for them, just like I do from every part of the economy. What's important here is, can you put together a strong enough political coalition to withstand their understandable efforts? In American democracy, everybody gets to express an opinion, and some unfortunately have a disproportionate opinion, and that's why it takes a lot of strength & experience to stand up to them. And I think I have proven that.
Bush, who is the latest potential Republican presidential candidate to attack the president over Ebola, also said in a wide-ranging discussion at Vanderbilt University that he supports travel restrictions for people who have been to the most severely affected countries in Africa.
Bush said Obama should have been more "clear and concise" about his plans, and lent more credibility to health officials leading the response.
"It looked very incompetent to begin with, and that fueled fears that may not be justified," Bush said. "And now you have states that are legitimately acting on their concerns, creating a lot more confusion than is necessary."
Obama has tried to place his own imprint on the government's Ebola response, making sure photographers captured images of him meeting with the Ebola team and embracing Nina Pham, one of the Dallas nurses who recovered after contracting the disease. He also called US workers in West Africa.
Bush contrasted what he characterized as the president's indecisive approach on Ebola to his own actions as governor when anthrax was mailed to a supermarket tabloid in Florida after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. "We gave people a sense of calm, what the plan was," Bush said. "We talked in plainspoken English. We were totally engaged."
Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) both have been criticized for saying earlier in the week that parents should have some choice about whether to vaccinate their children.
In addition to the vaccination debate, Bush's speech also discussed conservative policies aimed at lifting up the middle class, immigration reform and President Barack Obama's foreign policy.
A: Yes, I do.
Q: How would you pay for it?
A: I would pay for it by three ways. 1) I start off dealing with going into a prevention-and-treatment mode here that required us to simplify and modernize the system. That could save $100 billion a year in redundancy that goes on right now. 2) I would immediately provide for catastrophic health insurance for all Americans, and I'd immediately move for insuring every single child in America. That would cost less than what the top 1% tax break costs, $85 billion a year. 3) Then what I would do is I would move to insuring everyone through one of two vehicles. Either a system we work out among the stakeholders, an agreement that everyone essentially gets Medicare from the time you're born or a system whereby everyone can buy into the federal system. Those who don't have the means to buy in, then you subsidize them into the system. I would pay for that by direct revenues.
A: Absolutely. We have to view it in three ways. Prevention. You know, an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure is real. We virtually do not have anything that rewards those people who are engaged in their physician's or insurer's companies that emphasize prevention. The second thing we have to do is we have to provide for changing the way we think of it as an employer-based system totally. We have an overwhelming opportunity now to get universal health care, because business needs more than labor or business needs it more than the uninsured. They cannot compete internationally. We have to think about it really differently, but the delivery of health care we have to think about differently, too. The idea we're not going to be opening up little clinics in shopping centers all across America that is going to generate avoidance of operating of emergency rooms is just not reasonable.
A: $90 to $120 billion a year. I know that there will be some who argue that they can do universal health care either for free or for very low cost. I don't believe that's the truth. And I think we need to tell people the truth about this. My plan is $90 to $120 billion a year. And I pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year.
A: Well, basically what I decided was, first, the only way to have universal coverage was to actually mandate it, in other words, to have a legal requirement that every man, woman, and child in America be covered. That was probably the single most controversial element of my proposal when I made it. I believed that that was important because if anybody's plan is not universal, then they should be made to explain to the American people what man or woman in America is not worthy of health care. I think they're all worthy of health care. And then I constructed it in a way that everybody required to be covered, that people could choose between a private plan and the government plan, which is essentially Medicare plus.
A: I constructed my healthcare plan in a way that everybody is required to be covered, but that people could choose between a private plan and the government plan, which is essentially Medicare-Plus. I did that for a very simple reason. Because there is a very good and legitimate argument that we should go straight to single-payer health care as other countries have. I've also heard the flipside of that from lots of people, who are nervous about going to a Canadian system, for example. We're going to have the American people deciding what provides the most cost effective, most efficient, best health care.
Q: You would not necessarily eliminate a single-payer system as the best way to go?
A: Oh, no, I would not. I mean, there are huge advantages to single-payer. Much lower administrative costs. But I thought it was something that we should let Americans decide. Get everybody covered, get rid of the holes in the system.
Huntsman and his administration went on to support a 2007 United Way of Salt Lake City plan which called for a mandate. That same year, his cabinet and others pushed draft legislation that mirrored the Massachusetts model and the United Way plan and included a mandate. When the Utah legislature balked at such a mandate, it was taken off the table. Instead, in 2008, Huntsman passed a reform bill that established a health care exchange for small businesses known as the Utah Health Exchange that left uninsured individuals unaddressed. Huntsman has denied that he ever supported a mandate.
"I wouldn't shy away from mandates. I think if you're going to get it done and get it done right, a mandate has to be part of it in some way, shape, or form. I'm not sure you get to the point of serious attempt without some sort of mandate associated with what you're trying to do. Certainly a market-based approach is part of the solution as well. Nobody likes the word mandate, but without that kind of insistence--that directness, I don't know that you can achieve something this challenging in a short period of time, which is what I think we need to do as a nation."
A campaign spokesperson replied, "Gov. Huntsman studied and considered all the options for health care reform in Utah. In the end he fought for and signed market-based, consumer empowering legislation--without a mandate--that is the model for conservative health care reform. "
But Hawley is one of the 20 state officials who has signed onto a new lawsuit seeking to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's guarantee of coverage, which they argue is unconstitutional. Hawley is also a longtime supporter of Congress repealing the law outright. "It's simple: ObamaCare must go," he told supporters last year.
Hawley would have Missourians believe there is nothing contradictory in his rhetoric and action--he simply wants to get rid of "ObamaCare," not the law's promise of insurance for anybody regardless of pre-existing conditions.
In reality, Hawley and other Republicans have no plan for replacing the law with something that would provide the same kind of access. The GOP, including Hawley, is now talking up a Senate bill experts have said wouldn't solve the problem.
A spokesman for Perdue's campaign said that there was no conflict in Perdue's previous support for the idea of a federal health care law and his current opposition to ObamaCare. "David supports the full repeal of ObamaCare," the spokesman said. "However, he along with many other Republicans recognize that there are issues that must be addressed at the federal level. For example, Georgia Congressman Dr. Tom Price has a great patient-centered alternative to replace ObamaCare."
In January, Perdue wrote in a blog post that he and his wife's health insurance was canceled and their insurance premium doubled because of the Affordable Care Act.
"We did not have a 'substandard' plan with a second rate company," Perdue wrote. "We had done our research and picked a plan that met our needs. However, our federal government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that we grandparents needed maternity coverage among other things."
Several Republicans also have voiced support for vaccinations. "Unless they are immune-suppressed for medical exceptions, but I believe all children should be vaccinated," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said. "Absolutely, all children in America should be vaccinated."
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said all children should be vaccinated, and didn't know if another law was required.
Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) helped fuel the controversy this week, saying parents should "have some measure of choice" in vaccinating their children.
A: I'd pay for it with a retail sales tax. I favor universal coverage of quality medical care. I favor it through a device of using vouchers where everybody would be able to get a voucher. They'd sign up for it every year. It would guarantee them equal health care. All citizens would get the same health care. They would be able choose from insurance plans or a government plan like Medicare. That's how we would have health care, and the only way you're going to pay for it is not by saddling business. All you do by forcing business to pay for health care or passing a law telling people they have to go buy insurance, which is a subsidy for the insurance companies, all these plans are going backwards.
A: By one, making the whole process competitive. Two, by changing the control that's held by the pharmaceutical companies, by the insurance companies and the health-care industry over the Congress so that they cannot properly design a health-care system that meets everything that you defined. Stop and think what failure we have in this country. Bismarck put this in place in 1888. Truman advocated this in 1946. And we still can't get it right. Maybe there's something failing in our society. And there is. It's called representative government. And what we need to do is to equip the American people to then step in and be able to make laws in partnership with their elected officials.
A: It's not so difficult, and it doesn't take a lot of rethinking. There's nothing wrong with a wealthy--supposedly wealthy--country like ours to define that everybody should have the same health care. And that's what I've done with my program, [designed by] people that have really fought, they've spent their lives at this. It's not that difficult if you have a commitment. But when the industry that profits from health care calls the shots on the way health care is going to be delivered, then you are going to see the anomalous situation that you have in this country where they can't even deliver it to everybody fairly.
Q: So, how would you prohibit that kind of influence?
A: Well, you can't. This is representative government. They put up all the money.
"I'm not sure I'm different from the president or anyone else on the position," Paul said. "We have rules to encourage people to have vaccines in the country, but I don't think anybody's recommending that we hold them down."
Pressed on whether vaccinations should be required when an illness could spread to other children, Paul said certain school vaccine requirements were already "somewhat of a mandate," but really more of an encouragement. "Interestingly, 48 out of 50 states do have a religious as well as philosophic exemption if you have a problem," Paul said.
"We do so much better when we have the views of other federal judges who are certainly no less qualified than we are," she said. "Then we have the range of views before us and we can make a better informed decision."
Palin didn't just criticize; she offered her own policy suggestions for improving veterans' lives. She suggested, for instance, that Congress should pass legislation to secure veterans' benefits permanently. She also said that the government should provide vouchers to veterans to pay for health care outside the VA system.
"Grandfather everyone currently on Medicaid, and then admit no more people and end the program at the federal level," he wrote. "Charity is not allowed by the Constitution, and it should be left to the states--even better, left to the private and nonprofit sectors."
| |||
| 2016 Presidential contenders on Health Care: | |||
|
Republicans:
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX) Carly Fiorina(CA) Gov.John Kasich(OH) Sen.Marco Rubio(FL) Donald Trump(NY) |
Democrats:
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY) Sen.Bernie Sanders(VT) 2016 Third Party Candidates: Roseanne Barr(PF-HI) Robert Steele(L-NY) Dr.Jill Stein(G,MA) | ||
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||