FROM
THE WONK ROOM. Elizabeth edwards criticizes senator mccain's health care
plan
Washington, DC - Elizabeth
Edwards and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have both survived cancer - breast
cancer and melanoma, respectively. But as Edwards observed this week,
"Neither
one of us would be covered by his [McCain's] health policy."
In response, McCain adviser
Douglas Holtz-Eakin criticized Edwards, saying her comments were
"disappointing" and a misunderstanding of McCain's
"comprehensive" plan. Edwards responded in a blog post on the Wonk
Room:
Our
guest blogger is Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Presidential candidate
John Edwards.
I
freely admit that I am confused about the role of overnight funding in
repurchase markets in the collapse of Bear Stearns. What I am not confused
about is John McCain's health
care proposal. Apparently Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy advisor
to McCain, thinks I do "not
understand the comprehensive nature of the senator's proposal."
The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines
in the Senator's proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will
be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I
are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have
the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are
left outside the clinic doors.
Senator
McCain likes to start speeches with a litany of questions that,
presumably, less plain-spoken politicians would refuse to answer. Well,
here are some questions he does not ask but, as that plain-spoken
politician, he might want to answer:
1.
Under your plan, Senator McCain, would any health insurer be required to
sell you or me (or those like us with pre-existing conditions) a health
insurance policy?
2.
You say your plan is going to increase competition to the point that it
actually lowers costs. Isn't there competition today among insurance
companies? Haven't costs continued to go up despite that competition?
3.
You say that under your plan everyone is going to pay less for health
insurance. Nice words, I admit, but they are words we have heard before.
You must know when American families calculate the actual cost of health
care, they have to include those deductibles and co-pays and not just the
cost of the insurance. Are you talking about cheaper overall or just a
cheap policy that doesn't kick in until after thousands of dollars of
deductibles have been paid?
4.
Isn't the type of competition you are talking about really a rush to the
bottom? As long as you allow insurers to underwrite and deny access, you
encourage insurers to offer plans that may be cheap, but that get that way
by avoiding people with cancer or other high-cost diseases or by limiting
benefits and treatments, particularly if the treatment is expensive or
might be needed for a long time. We all live in the real world; those of
us lucky enough to have health insurance have seen how insurers cut
coverage and up co-pays or deny particular treatments. The insurance
company makes money when it doesn't have to pay for our health care. (I
suspect that if they could, they would write obstetrical-only policies for
nuns.) Doesn't your plan really encourage insurers plans to compete to
avoid people with cancer or other high-cost diseases? Don't you think that
the kind of competition that starts with a decent level of required
coverage, that doesn't exclude the care we actually need, would be better?
I
am not confused about your reputation: you are the straight-talker, you
like to say. This is about health care, Senator McCain. Doesn't the
American voter deserve some straight answers to these questions? As one of
those with a pre-existing condition, I sure would like some straight talk.
-
Elizabeth Edwards
|