But this week, our plucky, but distant third place contestant in the run for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards, finally delivered the most detailed proposal of his vision for a universal healthcare system, even as his wife battles breast cancer. Seizing the opportunity to position for appeal between the decidedly female base of rival and heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, herself having offered up precious few new ideas (although, in case you forgot, Hillary's nascent attempts at reform during her husband's administration nearly sunk him, but at least she never admitted to being wrong in her Senate vote on going to war in Iraq) and supporters of Barack Obama, the true-left's only choice and credited with a proposal that might be smart and serious, but is still vague and unarticulated. Since Edwards' started living in Iowa last year in hopes of getting the big win he needs to survive past the Iowa Caucus, pharmaceutical and health insurance companies have started rethinking their business models in the event a populist radical like Edwards has a good showing and ends up running a re-energized campaign of his own, or even repeats his 2004 sidekick routine as an activist VP with a central healthcare agenda, so a Hillary or Obama President can worry about solving the energy crisis, healing the environment, tackling immigration reform and ... oh yeah, getting us out of Iraq. Clips from an article by Sven Gustafson, Edwards Details Health Care Proposal, from the Associated Press sums things up below:
But don't hand the keys to the Rose Garden over to the Democrats just yet; if Edwards does well enough in Iowa to invigorate his campaign without cutting a VP deal with Clinton, he could make a run as an Independent, which would reenact for Democrats the disastrous Republican split that brought a very different Clinton to office in 1992 when Ross Perot drew enough of the isolationist wing of the Republican Party to his Reform Party. Maybe that's why some executives in the healthcare sector - including Pfizer and Blue Cross Blue Shield - are quietly funneling small campaign support Edwards' way...? Nah, that's way too conspiracy-theory of me to think business would try to fuel a quixotic campaign that could result in a much more satisfactory character in the nation's highest office... then again, the thought of a Guiliani or Romney Presidency goes a long way toward easing the tension healthcare executives started building the first time they pictured Hillary that chilly January day in 2009 ... taking the Oath of Office. Oh and, if the video below is any indication, she's probably be ready faster in the morning. Enjoy. Categories:
|
SearchLoginPollWhich CI Software Vendor does your Organization Use? Acuity 0% Cipher 2% Coemergence 9% Comintell 15% Digimind 3% Novintel 18% QL2 0% Strategy 5% Traction 0% Wincite 7% OTHER 10% MULTIPLE 1% NONE 31% Total votes: 105 Online0 guests and 0 users online:
|
||||||
What frustrates me about the current so-called debate is that not one of the candidates has yet properly defined what they mean by "affordable" healthcare. So far we have heard the usual cutting drug costs and reducing the extent to which admin and profit increase insurance costs. It appears that what the politicians are interested in is the process of cutting costs without due consideration for the consequences of those actions. Removing patent protection for drugs will, quite simply, remove all incentives for drug development - not to mention the multiple international treaties that such a policy would contravene. How does Edwards imagine that the international pharmaceutical industry would react?
The sheer complexity of the multiple markets so conveniently described as "healthcare" requires a much more sincerely thorough analysis of methods by which incentives can be aligned so that the quality of care goes up and the costs are contained. This will take much more space and time than I have here, but the banality of the political responses so far is exceptionally disappointing.