by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 2, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

romising to be one of the pivotal issues in the '08 campaign, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards proposed universal healthcare should he be elected president. Of course Edwards isn't running for president but the Democratic nomination, believing national healthcare and unequivocal opposition to the Iraq War plays to his Party's base. Other Democratic candidates, including frontrunner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and runner-up Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.), have been more reticent about national healthcare, receiving campaign contributions from Washington's powerful insurance lobby, opposed to government getting into the healthcare business. All Republican candidates, including frontrunners former N.Y. Mayor Rudi Giulianni and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, condemn national healthcare as a costly, low-quality government boondoggle.

      Hillary knows better than most how her 1993 universal healthcare plan was shot down by the insurance industry. Most political objections to universal care focus on (a) the whopping price-tag and (b) the poor quality associated with government programs. As Hillary found out, the real objections stem from the insurance lobby, that doesn't want premium dollars taken from the private sector and handed over to the government. If government foots the bill and competes with the private sector, it's difficult for Republican hopefuls to compare it to the problematic Canadian and British systems. What Hillary found out in 1993 is you have to accommodate the powerful insurance industry that derives its revenue selling insurance policies. Yet since former President Lyndon Johnson and Congress passed Medicare in 1964, the nation has had national healthcare for seniors and the disabled.

      Raising political opposition to his plan from the get-go, Edwards wants to raise $120 billion in taxes on taxpayers earning over $200,000. Like the Medicare prescription drug plan, there's no need to raises taxes on the so-called rich. Ending the Iraq War would pour at least $10 billion per month into government coffers. Combined incomes of $200,000 for joint wage-earners is hardly rich for taxpayers living in the inflated areas of big cities on the East and West coasts. “It requires that everyone be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” Edwards told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs at the Cedar City courthouse, requiring all subscribers to get regular check-ups. Raising taxes is a deal-breaker to independents and Republicans, already complaining about the chunk government takes out paychecks. Raising taxes could be harmful to a pro-growth economy.

      Medicare and Medicaid schedule fees to participating providers, assuring volume discounts for medical care. Many on the right argue that universal care would downgrade the U.S. health system, much like what's seen in socialized countries. Yet since 1964, senior have been getting government-paid healthcare, with patients, doctors and hospitals reaping the benefits. Because the Medicare and Medicaid system are already in place, it would be the logical to expand coverage to children and working adults. “If you're going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK,” said Edwards, preaching to the 65-million Americans currently without health insurance. GOP proposals have centered on giving tax breaks for medical savings accounts or subsidizing insurance coverage.

      Expanding Medicare to cover all children and working adults would be a seamless way of covering every man, women and child in the U.S. To placate the insurance lobby, the government could offer various plans through private insurers that add more benefits to a basic universal plan. “The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death,” explained Edwards, arguing that paying for healthcare is money well-spent. Most experts place the costs at about $10-billion a month, about the cost of funding the Iraq War. Sooner or later the war will end and the government will either spend the money or run surpluses, as it did during the final years of the Clinton administration. It's essential that any healthcare plan be part of a pro-growth agenda that doesn't cripple the economy. Ending the Iraq War and spending the savings on national healthcare would be a good investment.

      National healthcare for seniors and the disabled in the name of Medicare has worked well since 1964. Bush expanded Medicare in 2004 to include prescription drugs, seeing the basic system as sound. However the system is funded, Medicare already has the infrastructure needed to expand coverage to every man, woman and child in the U.S. Whether you end tax breaks to the rich as Edwards suggests, conclude the Iraq War or create a new payroll tax for employers and the self-employed, universal care would cost around $10-billion a month—less than the current cost of the Iraq War. “I think all of us have to make progress,” said Edwards, believing that the nation is ready for universal healthcare. No one can deny that for 43 years Medicare has provided quality care to seniors and the disabled. Expanding the Medicare system to cover all qualified citizens only makes sense.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.