OK, it's 'Universal Healthcare' enough for me...

although, I must admit, any system without insurance is my personal preference as it takes the profit out of the pain and suffering of any insured american.

What is Universal enough for me?  John Edwards' Universal Coverage through Shared Responsibility.

The following is a notable item of interest to a single woman whose gross income (from a mostly full-time job) is slightly over $11,000 for this entire year. A year in which I will not be able to claim either of my two children for IRS purposes, as they are now both over 18 with jobs of their own (although the older is at home again with a grandchild and fiance).  I work in healthcare for a four person clinic serving about 95% Medicare and Medicaid patients.  I make $10.00 an hour.  I've asked for a raise, but I'm not sure it's possible, considering we get about 30 to 40 cents on the dollar billed to either Medicare or Medicaid. I currently earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little to afford my own healthcare insurance.

My M.D.-boss cannot afford healthcare insurance for himself, much less the three employees in his clinic.  I know this because I bought his rather new fridge from him, when he lost his home to foreclosure this year due to delays of payments from our regional Medicare carrier for over 3 months.

Here is the part of the Edwards plan that I found refreshing, dollar numbers for income levels for their revamped health insurance for all.  It calms my fears that I would be mandated by the federal government to purchase healthcare insurance with dollars I don't have nor does it look like I will be earning in the foreseeable future.

Expand Medicaid and SCHIP:
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) play essential roles in helping low-income Americans getting the health care they need. Edwards will strengthen the federal partnership with states supporting these programs, committing the necessary federal resources to allow states to expand Medicaid and SCHIP to serve all adults under the poverty line and all children and parents under 250 percent of the poverty line (about $50,000 for a family of four).

.

While Edwards in not advocating my personal choice of healthcare reform he is presenting a plan, that if enacted, could be the basis for a future phase-out of insurance-based healthcare.

It's a good a plan as I've been able to find, that appears to have more than passing chance to become legislation and not just a policy plan.

For this alone, I am now choosing Edwards as my primary choice.  Outside of ending the Iraq Occupation this is my sole issue this election cycle.

•  Single payer is always best...

  ...however Edwards seems the least "tone deaf" of the current primary contenders.

  by Pris from LA on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 10:29:27 PM PDT

  •  I find that many confabulate single-payer

    with not-for-profit.

    Single payer does not necessarily mean no health insurance.  It just guarantee's a centralized biller-payment system.

    My own choice is, of course, not-for-profit (meaning no insurance companies).  But this plan of Edwards seems utterly doable in the short term, and will get the entire nation on the road to preventative care policy, which will, over the long term, lower the amount of dollars needed.

    by Angie in WA State on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 10:53:57 PM PDT

•  What is it with these Southerners and trusting

  state governments? I'm sure a few of our fifty states would not offer coverage if they were allowed to avoid it. Even so his plan seems pretty good, but as Pris from LA says "Single payer is always best"

  committing the necessary federal resources to allow states to expand Medicaid and SCHIP to serve all adults under the poverty line and all children and parents under 250 percent of the poverty line (about $50,000 for a family of four).

  by Sacramento Dem on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 10:34:13 PM PDT

  •  trusting States

    likely goes back to post Civil War, when southern states sure were not trusting the Federal government.  And your State government is more likely to respond to you and reflect your views than the Federal government.

    by wondering if on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:31:14 PM PDT

•  What company is most likely

  to administer the public plan under contract?

  My M.D.-boss cannot afford healthcare insurance for himself, much less the three employees in his clinic.  I know this because I bought his rather new fridge from him, when he lost his home to foreclosure this year due to delays of payments from our regional Medicare carrier for over 3 months.

  by SingleVoter on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 12:02:49 AM PDT

•  It isn't perfect-- but it is a start

   and his plan seems to be heading in the right direction.

   

  by Carib and Ting on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 12:15:07 AM PDT

•  "serve"

  Both Aetna and United Health Care probably believe they serve people in many states.

  The Internal Revenue Service provides services for people in all 50 states.

  by SingleVoter on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 12:19:18 AM PDT

  •  This is to serve

    in the same way that you serve a tennis ball.

    by CalbraithRodgers on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:14:46 AM PDT

•  It's good enough for me too

  because it means everyone will be covered...as opposed to Obama's plan.  After reading Krugman's latest NYT article about Obama's plan...which would not mandate Health Care...but allow people who didn't sign up to sign up when they decided they NEEDED it, it seems to me the system would be more expensive to those who were prudent enough to sign-up before they needed it.  And, leaving lots of people uninsured just places the burden right back on emergency rooms and so on...without the preventative care so badly needed.

  Edwards has the most workable plan...so if we truly want health care, we know who to vote for.

  by Persiflage on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 01:33:56 AM PDT

•  State control dooms Edwards plan

  Why does he let the health industry destroy the good part of his system by leaving it's control to states with smaller budgets than the insurance giants.  The health industry will eat this plan alive at the state level, buying off state legislators and capturing the health agencies as they have done forever - leaving only the ridiculous and soon ignored mandate to buy unaffordable insurance.

  by SmithsLastWord on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:04:44 AM PDT

•  All of the big 3 plans will fail

  They have so many details which will each (detail) be vulnerable to attack. Since the HC establishment (ins cos and managed care plans) will attack with every thing they've got (read $$$$$$) these plans will all go down like the '90s Clinton plan.

  We might as well go for broke. Expand SChip to age 25 and start including everyone into Medicare. First add 25-34 year olds then 35- 44 year olds, etc. Relegate Ins Cos to the extras that Medicare won't cover.

  sam, MPH

  by samddobermann on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 10:31:50 AM PDT