Obama '08?

POLL: Kaiser Family Foundation Health Care Tracking Poll

Additional results from the recent Kaiser Family Foundation national survey (key findings; full results) of 1,500 adults (conducted 8/2 through 8/8 by Princeton Survey Research Associates) finds:

• Of all the candidates for president in 2008 regardless of party, 19% of Americans say Sen. Hillary Clinton "best represents" their own views on health care; 6% say Sen. Barack Obama.
  
  
• 27% say Clinton is "placing the biggest emphasis on health care issues;" 6% say Obama, 5% say Edwards.

"I think most journalists would agree that I'm the most progressive, Senator Obama next, and Senator Clinton closest to the center. But I'd be willing to bet that if you ask most Americans the same question, they'd reverse it." That's not only, he says, because "she's a woman and he's an African American and Ah talk lahk thee-is. It's simple geography. Ask Middle Americans: You've got three Democratic candidates. One's from New York, one's from Chicago and one's from rural North Carolina. Who do you think is most like you?"

Very perceptive of Edwards.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Very perceptive of Edwards.

Not very perceptive of Edwards at all. Edwards would like to blame it on something other than the fact that people don't want to vote for a slick lawyer that claims to be for the little guy in Two Americas but gets $1200 haircuts, lives in a 28,000 square foot house, and has sued the bejeebers out of doctors so that medical insurance costs have been driven out of sight because of guys like him. Its also because the Democratic machine is behind Hillary, not him, but its not because he is from North Carolina.

Boston Globe

Rising doctors' premiums not due to lawsuit awards

Study suggests insurers raise rates to make up for investment declines

By Liz Kowalczyk, Globe Staff | June 1, 2005

Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.

The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is that malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.

The Dartmouth economists studied actual payments made to patients between 1991 and 2003, the results of which were published yesterday in the journal Health Affairs. Some previous studies have examined jury awards, which often are reduced after trial to comply with doctors' insurance coverage maximums or because the plaintiff settles for less money to avoid an appeal. Researchers found that payments grew an average of 4 percent annually during the years covered by the study, or 52 percent overall since 1991, but only 1.6 percent a year since 2000. The increases are roughly equivalent to the overall rise in healthcare costs, said Amitabh Chandra, lead author and an assistant professor of economics at the New Hampshire college…

Meanwhile, malpractice insurance premiums for internists, general surgeons, and obstetricians have skyrocketed since 2000, jumping 20 to 25 percent in 2002 alone…

''It's not payments that's causing this," Chandra said. ''The simple explanation that comes to mind is the underwriting cycle. If they're making less money from the investment side of things, it's going to cause [insurance companies] to raise rates."

The study's conclusions are sure to generate praise from some malpractice lawyers and outrage from many doctors and insurance company executives, who argue that jury awards are out of control and the solution is a cap on noneconomic damages for plaintiffs, commonly referred to as ''pain and suffering" awards.

The American Medical Association, a national organization based in Chicago that represents doctors, and the Physician Insurers Association of America, a coalition of malpractice insurers based in Maryland, are lobbying for a nationwide $250,000 cap, and President Bush has made a cap on noneconomic damages a key component of his malpractice reform proposal…

Edwards would like to blame it on something other than the fact that people don't want to vote for a slick lawyer that claims to be for the little guy in Two Americas but gets $1200 haircuts, lives in a 28,000 square foot house, and has sued the bejeebers out of doctors so that medical insurance costs have been driven out of sight because of guys like him.

Medical insurance costs haven't been driven up by malpractice lawsuits, Okie. You might want to do a little research on the poor investment strategies of the insurance industry in the late 90's if you want to find the reasons insurance costs have risen so high.
Cycloptichorn

If Democrats love him so much, how come he has no chance.

If a doctor has to make a few hundred thousand just to pay for insurance before he pays other expenses before he even dreams of making any money each year, how is that going to affect your bill for the work he might do on you? Do the math.

I personally know doctors, one which retired because liability costs just became too high and he said it wasn't worth it anymore.

okie wrote:

If a doctor has to make a few hundred thousand just to pay for insurance before he pays other expenses before he even dreams of making any money each year, how is that going to affect your bill for the work he might do on you? Do the math.

I personally know doctors, one which retired because liability costs just became too high and he said it wasn't worth it anymore.

hunh. whoodathunk okie was going to come up with such a good argument for public health care.

okie wrote:

If Democrats love him so much, how come he has no chance.

Because they like the other two even better (their favourability ratings tend to be even higher); or because they think the other two stand a better chance in the general elections; or because they might like Edwards (which is what favourability ratings measure), but not believe he would make a very good President; or because, as Edwards was saying, the Democratic primary voters, who are mostly liberal, still perceive him to be the most moderate candidate (facts be damned), and therefore prefer voting for a more liberal rival; or because of a combination of the above.

But pretty clearly not because they "don't want to vote for a slick lawyer that claims to be for the little guy in Two Americas but gets $1200 haircuts, lives in a 28,000 square foot house, and has sued the bejeebers out of doctors" -- because according to every poll out there, they do actually personally like the guy.

ehBeth wrote:

hunh. whoodathunk okie was going to come up with such a good argument for public health care.

No, I just made a good argument for major tort reform, which the Democrats always block because special interest lawyers are in their pockets. And most of them are lawyers to begin with, unfortunately.

most of them are lawyers to begin with, unfortunately

Obama campaign descends on London for fundraising drive among US ex-pats

Ed Pilkington, New York
Saturday September 1, 2007
The Guardian

Britain is to get its first taste of the Barack Obama fervour sweeping through the US when his campaign arrives London in October hoping to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from wealthy Democrats in the capital.

A fundraiser to be held at the Landmark Hotel in central London on October 15 will provide a glimpse of the excitement surrounding the Obama campaign. There will only be one drawback: Mr Obama will not be there in person, he will be represented by his wife, Michelle.
The dinner, announced last night by ABC News, is designed to tap some of the thousands of Democratic-leaning Americans living in Britain. Mr Obama has proved himself to be a master of fundraising - a key to success in the TV advertising-driven US primaries. In six months he has raised more than $58m (£29m), compared with Hillary Clinton's $52m.
Though campaign chiefs are reluctant to let Mr Obama leave the US at a time of intense electioneering across the US, Mrs Obama is seen as a respectable stand-in. She is beginning to develop a presence of her own on the campaign trail that will help to chip away at the advantage Mrs Clinton has in the form of her spouse, the former president.

She has also begun to attract controversy. In a recent appearance on the stump, Mrs Obama made what some interpreted at a dig at Mrs Clinton's inability to control her husband's sexual indiscretions with an intern. "If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House," Mrs Obama said, though she later denied it carried any such connotations.

The London fundraiser will be subject to the same legal restrictions as those in the US. Only American citizens will be able to contribute financially, with an upper limit of $2,300 per person.

But the campaign has let it be known that anyone managing to draw together contributions from a group of 10 or more eligible donors totalling at least $23,000 - a process known as bundling - will be invited to a special VIP pre-reception.

With wealthy American bankers increasingly spending time in London - the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, for instance, spends six months of the year in the City - the attraction for fundraisers seeking to drum up support for the many candidates running for 2008 is self-evident.

Most candidates will not have the time to come in person, though Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York who is a leading contender on the Republican side, will be coming to London on September 19 to give a speech and hold a fundraiser.

British-based Americans could also play a small role in deciding who wins the nomination for both parties. The Democrats will be holding a primary election in Porchester Hall, west London, on February 5, the same date as a swath of states. Supporters unable to reach London will be able to vote on the internet.

"The Democrats need to represent the swelling ranks of have-nots as vigorously as Bush has stuck up for the haves" comments Gary Younge in today's Guardian. And carries on that "[W]ith the brooding resentment at growing insecurity now reaching a critical point, Obama and Hillary are also shifting their focus."

Walter Hinteler wrote:

"The Democrats need to represent the swelling ranks of have-nots as vigorously as Bush has stuck up for the haves" comments Gary Younge in today's Guardian. And carries on that "[W]ith the brooding resentment at growing insecurity now reaching a critical point, Obama and Hillary are also shifting their focus."

The problem with trying to represent the have-nots are shown right here on a2k on the political threads. Conservatives keep claiming that Bush has been doing a good job on our economy, and everybody they know are doing better with good jobs. It doesn't matter that seven million more Americans are living without health insurance since Bush took over the white house. Maybe the 15 million families who are expected to lose their homes during the next year will vote for the democratic candidate.