McCain's stand on tobacco is put to test

Ten years ago, Senator John McCain took on the tobacco industry, saying he would never back down from legislation to regulate the industry. He also supported a $1.10-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund programs to cut underage smoking. "I still regret we did not succeed," he said as recently as last October. Now, McCain's longtime effort to crack down on tobacco is being put to a new test. Within weeks, the Senate is expected to vote on legislation to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. McCain agreed months ago to cosponsor the current bill with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, but McCain's policy adviser said the senator won't commit to voting for it until he sees the final legislation. McCain has also dropped his support for increasing cigarette taxes. Last year, McCain voted against legislation that would have used a 61-cents-per-pack tax to expand a children's health program. He told a television reporter earlier this year that he would have a "no new taxes" policy as president.

Clinton Details Premium Cap in Health Plan

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview on Wednesday that if elected president she would push for a universal health care plan that would limit what Americans pay for health insurance to no more than 10 percent of their income, a significant reduction for some families.
In an extensive interview on health policy, Mrs. Clinton said she would like to cap health insurance premiums at 5 percent to 10 percent of income. The average cost of a family policy bought by an individual in 2006 and 2007 was $5,799, or 10 percent of the median family income of $58,526, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some policies cost up to $9,201, or 16 percent of median income. The average out-of-pocket cost for workers who buy family policies through their employers is lower, $3,281, or 6 percent of median income, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group.

The Murky Politics of Mind-Body

Now a critical moment has been reached in a 15-year debate in statehouses and in Congress over whether treatment for problems like depression, addiction and schizophrenia should get the same coverage by insurance companies as, say, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.This month, the House passed a bill that would require insurance companies to provide mental health insurance parity. It was the first time it has approved a proposal so substantial.The bill would ban insurance companies from setting lower limits on treatment for mental health problems than on treatment for physical problems, including doctor visits and hospital stays. It would also disallow higher co-payments. The insurance industry is up in arms, as are others who envision sharply higher premiums and a free-for-all over claims for coverage of things like jet lag and caffeine addiction. Parity raises all sorts of tricky questions. Is an ailment a legitimate disease if you can’t test for it? A culture tells the doctor the patient has strep throat. But if a patient says, ‘‘Doctor, I feel hopeless,’’ is that enough to justify a diagnosis of depression and health benefits to pay for treatment? How many therapy sessions are enough? If mental illness never ends, which is typically the case, how do you set a standard for coverage equal to that for physical ailments, many of which do end?

Texans find gaps in candidates' health coverage plans

While health coverage is shaping up as one of the major issues of this presidential campaign, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has proposed a plan that would address all of Texas' concerns. Democrats' stump speeches talk of covering all Americans but so far have avoided the politically explosive issue of whether to treat the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S.
Along with such immigrants, Texas also has the second-highest number of uninsured residents – and some of the nation's highest rates of pre-existing chronic illnesses. Those illnesses could create problems if Republican candidates' plans to encourage more reliance on individual insurance policies are enacted because those people couldn't find insurance.

Biden unveils health care plan

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Tuesday released a plan that would expand access to health coverage for all children and adults, but stops short of mandating universal coverage. . . .
The plan would cost an estimated $110 billion each year. It would be paid for by rolling back tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans, eliminating tax breaks on capital gains and ending tax loopholes for hedge fund managers and private equity partners, the campaign said.
To provide health coverage for uninsured children, Biden proposes expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to at least 300 percent of the poverty level — or about $61,950 for a family of four, and raising the coverage age to at least 21. Families that don't meet the poverty criteria would be able to purchase coverage under the program.

Bill Bradley on Politics (New York Times Editorial)

A party based on charisma has no long-term impact. Think of our last charismatic leader, Bill Clinton. He was president for eight years. He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. He was smart, skilled and possessed great energy. But what happened? At the end of his tenure in the most powerful office in the world, there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt. The president did well. The party did not. Charisma didn’t translate into structure.

Romney's rhetoric glosses Massachusetts years

On the presidential campaign trail, Mitt Romney points to healthcare reform as his major achievement as Massachusetts governor, presenting the plan as an example of how he used conservative principles to provide affordable health insurance for all state residents without a government takeover. But he does not mention aspects of the plan that may hold less appeal for his Republican audiences. For example, he decries "socialized medicine" and says the Massachusetts plan is "all a private initiative, a private-based, market-based healthcare" -- omitting the fact that the state and federal governments subsidize much of the overall cost and that a public board negotiated the benefits and prices that private insurers now offer. . . .