Though typically short on substance, yesterday’s Democrat debate did contain a revealing exchange on health care. John Edwards was asked if his opponents were being honest in proposing reform plans that do not explicitly include tax increases, and he answered with uncharacteristic candor:
You cannot cover everybody in America, create a more efficient health care system, cover the cracks — you know, getting rid of things like pre-existing conditions and making sure that mental health is treated the same as physical health — I don’t think you can do all those things for nothing. That’s not the truth.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, clung to her preposterous claim that universal coverage can be paid for by improving efficiency:
I have put forth approximately $120 billion in savings from health care changes that can come — everything from electronic medical records to better management of chronic care. That is about in the ballpark of what all of us believe it will cost to cover everyone.
Barack Obama responded to Edwards’ challenge with one of his trademark bromide stews:
My emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage — that we make sure the drug companies have to do what’s right by their patience instead of simply hoarding their profits. If we do those things then I believe that we can drive down the costs for families.
And you know what? What Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, Senator Obama are talking about, they’re talking about letting the insurance companies stay in charge … And I’m ready to challenge the insurance companies.
So, as scary as this is to contemplate, John Edwards comes off as the most honest among them.
Post a Comment