Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Edwards: If Members of Congress Won't Give Americans a Healthcare Plan, I'll Take Away Theirs

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 15, 2007.


His campaign insists that it's not just symbolic.
edwards iowa ad

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Joshua Holland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Last week, John Edwards launched a series of ads across Iowa promising that if he were elected and Congress didn't pass his healthcare plan, he would strip lawmakers of their own coverage (you can view the ad in the window to your right).

Arguing that ordinary Americans deserve access to healthcare that's just as good as what members of Congress get is a devastatingly effective message and has long been a crowd-pleaser among progressives. Edwards told radio talker Ed Schultz, "There's no excuse for politicians in Washington to have heathcare, but America doesn't have healthcare, and I think we have to shake this place up a little bit. What we would do is we would submit legislation saying if universal healthcare is not passed by this summer, that the Congress and members of the administration would lose their healthcare coverage."

It's a beautiful piece of populism -- a message that appeals to an American Main Street that polls show to be as disdainful of Congress as it is hurting from spiraling healthcare costs in the face of stagnant wages. It's a campaign that can showcase how much lawmakers appreciate the kind of coverage they receive and just how hard they'd fight to keep it, and, importantly, will make it that much harder for opponents to mouth the inevitable blather about the perfidy of "government-run," "socialized healthcare" with a straight face.

But while the ads represent a very nice piece of political rhetoric by Edwards, make no mistake: It's also the public presentation of a serious and thoughtful healthcare proposal (PDF) -- one that would cover every American -- that is both pragmatic in its approach and also the most progressive in the field after Dennis Kucinich's.

Edwards's plan, like that available to members of Congress, is built around a lot of choice. Employers would have the option of either covering employees privately or sharing the costs of purchasing coverage from among a menu of state-run plans -- called "health markets" -- with different amounts of coverage and at different prices. These would all have the advantages of economies of scale and of spreading risk out over large insurance pools. All of the plans would be "open to everyone," regardless of "pre-existing conditions, medical history, age, job and other characteristics."

Some single-payer advocates have criticized the plan because, unlike Dennis Kucinich's call to establish a not-for-profit health system, Edwards' plan would leave the insurance industry in place to suck patients dry and add enormously to the nation's healthcare tab.

But while it's well-intentioned, most of the criticism misses a crucial aspect of the plan.

The key to Edwards' approach is that it mandates the creation of at least one health market that's fully public, based on the Medicare model and available to all. That means that the public sector would be allowed to compete with private insurers -- a concept that's anathema among conservatives -- and consumers would be able to choose the option, public or private, that gives them the best bang for the buck.

The idea is that once the benefits of a single-payer system become clear -- especially the lower costs advocates predict -- eventually most people would move, voluntarily, from the private health markets to the fully public one, and the politics of the transition to single-payer would be infinitely more manageable.

That Edwards' healthcare plan anticipates that transition is no secret; it's spelled out explicitly:

Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.
Some observers have argued that Edwards' threat is a nice piece of political theater -- a means of making a point -- but not much more. When blogger Ben Smith asked University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein about some legal questions surrounding Edwards' proposal, he said that the question was irrelevant. "It's a stunt," he replied, "Congress isn't going to enact legislation taking away its own healthcare."

But the campaign is adamant that this is a very real proposal -- one that Edwards feels strongly about -- and not a mere stunt. "He's deadly serious about passing this," a senior staffer with the campaign told me. "And, contrary to what many are saying, I don't see how Congress could not pass it."

That may just be true. As blogger Ezra Klein noted: "The idea behind this bill is that it will ratchet up political pressure for change, creating a situation in which congressmen come to the table because they fear losing their seats if they don't. It's a strategy based on the application of political pressure, not legislative finesse." Edwards promised Ed Schultz that if he's elected and Congress doesn't pass his bill, "I'm going to go as president into their congressional district, into their Senate states and say your senator or your congressmen is supporting healthcare for himself and against healthcare for you."

One thing is clear about Edwards' proposal: Audiences in Iowa eat it up. What remains to be seen is whether it's enough to give him some traction in a race that's seen Hillary Clinton build a commanding lead nationwide. Edwards trails Clinton by 15 points in New Hampshire, but is statistically tied with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, where the first primary (caucus) will take place in about seven weeks. According to a recent New York Times poll, primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire prefer both Edwards and Obama on the issues -- and say they're more likely to speak honestly to voters -- but favor Clinton in terms of electability. While that's probably a dubious means of evaluating a candidate's strength, it does indicate that some portion of Clinton's support is purely tactical and not deeply held.

That's an opportunity. Momentum can shift quickly in those early primaries and, with a bit more smart politics like Edwards' latest campaign on healthcare, we could be looking at a very different race in early 2008.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: healthcare, election08, edwards, iowa, primaries

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Listen to me now and hear me later
Posted by: vox persona on Nov 15, 2007 12:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being from NC I can give you the heads up on our former illustrious Senator. Serving in his one term, he spent most of his time running for president. How would you feel? The word opportunism comes to mind. He seems to say some of the right things, and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his kind of raw ambition maqkes me uneasy. Having said that, I do like that his ultimate goal, according to the article, is eventually a single payer system of health care. I'd prefer Biden, Kucinich, or even Dodd, but I'd vote for Edwards over the two front runners, and especially over any Repug (except for maybe Ron Paul, just to shake things up). I am disheartened, but still hopeful. Why can't Dems get it together and send up someone that is the whole package? This election is theirs to lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Listen to me now and hear me later Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Listen to me now and hear me later Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» How about "Ron Paul is a loon"? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» Plus his health plan is a sham Posted by: B. Spoon
» yer not the only one from that state Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Uh-oh
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 15, 2007 12:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Edwards is the nominee, I'm in trouble. I'm counting on Hillary to make the Greens players in the election.

Let me quote Matt Taibbi (last I heard, a doctrinaire Dem), interviewed on Brad Blog: "If it comes down to Hillary versus Giuliani, the Green Party could run Big Bird and get 28% of the vote." I think we can do better than Big Bird.

Edwards is the only one of the Big Three who could hold progressives in the party. For that very reason, he is highly unlikely to win, unless the party completely loses control of the process.

I'm still planning on Hillary. They haven't lost control since McGovern, and next year they get to win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unless they throw it away. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Unless they throw it away. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: LouisFallert
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: DanoM
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: Basenjis
» how Posted by: Rod
» RE: how Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Uh-oh Posted by: surfreality
» I'm voting for Dennis Posted by: wireup
» RE: Dennis isn't running for President. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Dennis isn't running for President. Posted by: Joshua Holland
Edwards Fatal Flaw
Posted by: oregonscribbler on Nov 15, 2007 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a fatal flaw in the Edwards Plan. He says the ultimate aim of his plan is single payer— that private care will just wither away because it won't be able to compete with the public system. This is just nonsense. It is legislators and administrators who will determine just how good the public plan is, and for years they have been in the deep pockets of the medical insurance industry. Under the Edwards Plan, as under Hillary's and Obama's, at best there will be a system of "gerbil care" instituted for the masses, and "concierge care"-- with a variety of menus!-- for the well to do. Because there is a public plan, the heat for reform will die down, and the US will take yet another false turn in health care, as we have at every crucial point in the health care debate since Harry S. Truman first promised Universal Care in America in 1947. That's how we've gotten to the state we're in. There have been so many false turns that we now have the most expensive yet skimpiest coverage of any industrialized country.

Every time anyone proposes universal health in the US, the flimflam artists come out with piecharts and flowcharts and Rube Goldberg schemes designed to obscure the fact that so much of the health money is going to CEOs and shareholders, and that so much of our GOVERNMENT— our PUBLIC money is thrown into a system which provides skimpy care.

Kucinich is the only candidate that calls flat-out for single payer. It astounds me that the public is going along with the three top Democratic candidates beginning their health care discussion with passing a law requiring all Americans to buy insurance! As if people don't get health care because they are parasites! What an insult.

We need a bold plan, to really revolutionize our health care system. Make it single payer and decentralized, like in Canada, with people going to the doctor of their choice. Make it labor intensive and include alternative health practitioners — because simple attention and touch are often as healing as pharmaceuticals, only without negative side effects.

We ALREADY PAY for a fabulous health care system, we're just not getting. It's time we forced the bureaucrats and plutocrats and industrialists to stand out of the way and let the rest of us make it happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kucinich first... Posted by: peacelf
» RE: dwards Fatal Flaw Posted by: fedupw/bush
» Agreed Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: Agreed Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Agreed Posted by: werewolf
» RE: dwards Fatal Flaw Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: dwards Fatal Flaw Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: dwards Fatal Flaw Posted by: wcox
Florida property insurance history bolsters Edwards' predictions
Posted by: scheherezade on Nov 15, 2007 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Florida's state-run Citizens' property insurance history is any gauge, Edwards' plan shows real promise.

Citizens initially arose when greedy insurance companies refused to cover high-risk property owners.

At first, the agency could only write wind and other coverage private companies refused to cover. They were required to be more expensive than private coverage.

After the 2004 hurricane season, the laws changed. Now Citizens can compete with private insurers, and can write multiple coverage policies.

This allows them to incorporate a variety of propertyowners into the coverage pool, greatly spreaking risk.

Citizens' coverage has jumped from 600,000 policies (covering $148 billion) in 2002; to 1.3 million policies covering $440 billion, today.

Of course, the Florida Legislature did not create a de facto 'single payer' agency out of the goodness of their politician hearts.

Citizens is necessary because developers, Florida's kingmakers, cannot continue to build, build, build without an adequate insurance coverage presence.

Edwards proposal to stick a poker under U.S. lawmakers via their personal health coverage will probably not be enough to get them moving in a similar direction, but it is certainly an excellent start. Perhaps Mr. Bush's generous signing statement legacy will offer further possibilities in that direction.

H.R. 676 (introduced by John Conyers, incidentally) already lays out a plan for single payer public health insurance. It has been languishing in committees since it's inception...maybe this is the year we get lucky.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice idea, but probably doomed
Posted by: Trazom on Nov 15, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
due to the influence of Big Health Care providers on Congress. I agree with Oregonscribbler to some degree. What's to prevent Congress from further subverting the competition between public and private healthcare by lowering the bar on the public system?

Plus, the public healthcare system is not without its faults. Granted, its better than nothing, but there are some serious flaws that need to be dealt with. For instance, my brother can't qualify for Medicaid because his estranged wife is currently drawing from it, so that disqualifies him from it apparently. Has something to do with only one claim per state (yes, they live in different parts of the same state). So he is screwed, even though he badly needs some form of insurance. Even under Edward's proposal, my brother still has no choice without further changes to the law.

This is just one example. I'm sure there are many others, which is why I believe removing private health care is the only way to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

adam054
Posted by: TZ on Nov 15, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About 25 years ago here in Cleveland, Blue Cross.Blue Shield held sway. Then one of the crafty bosses decided to take this company private into what is now called Medical Mutual. By so doing he needed the Board to approve it and thus they paid each Board member an average of $500,000.00 for their vote. The crap hit the fan when it was made public, but it still went through.

The total Administrative costs of the old plan were often touted as about 3% for each dollar spent. Now our friends at Medical Mutual have an average administrative cost of about 40%. I wish to hell I was one of the bosses at Medical Mutual.

Now you wonder why our costs are so high and care so low. The Insurance Industry will not admit this and Medical Mutual in Cleveland (Ohio) claim they cannot break out these costs. They do not want us to know this but we do know it since some clients have "Third Party Administrators" working for them and since these folks review each claim, they only pay what are really medical bills. Maybe the Candidates ought to push for a mandate to force the Insurance Industry to use real, independent, Third Party Administrators.

These administrator could not be part of the Medical Providers in any manner, shape or form.

By the way, Medical Mutual just purchased one of the largest Third Party Administrators in Ohio. By so doing they will keep the cash cow producing milk. It is disgusting.

Think of it folks, we could save about 15% to 20% of our total bill and the private insurance boys would still make one hell of a living. It would not be as huge, but still very nice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very interesting! Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: adam054 Posted by: Ames
Who Wants Choices When It Comes to Healthcare?
Posted by: pdxstudent on Nov 15, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know I don't. I want the system I'm using, which is only one, to work. I want its inefficiencies and otherwise short-comings to be dealt with rationally, rather than opportunistically. I sure as hell don't want my health or unhealth the prerogative of anyone who stands to gain from exploiting it. Anyone who wants "choice" in our healthcare system is more concerned with the assurances of Capitalist rhetoric than healthcare, in much the same way health insurance companies could give a shit less about your health except for where it equals profit for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're flipping the bill
Posted by: packofwolves on Nov 15, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should members of Congress have healthcare insurance when you don't? You're paying for their healthcare and I think they and you forget that. What Edwards is proposing sounds good to me and something I'd probably do myself if I were in his place. Until the lawmakers have to play by the same rules we do and suffer the same consequences they give us nothing will ever change. They need a taste of their own medicine. Go Edwards! We need something new in the oval office - Clinton is just more of the same. Don't think for a minute she's any different than what we've already got.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You're flipping the bill Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
How Many in Congress Couldn't Afford Health Insurance?
Posted by: pdxstudent on Nov 15, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not many, if any, I imagine. So, in a nation where money=access to a quality life, why would taking this free service away be that threatening of a charge? What's more is the Health Insurance industry would not have to "invest" much to make sure that, even if Edwards were to be good with his threat, Congress would get Health Insurance, and therefore not experience Edwards threat as much of a threat. Boning up the money to actually provide healthcare for a thousand people is much less of a profit drag than doing the same for hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

For all these reasons, I don't think Edwards threat means anything. So fucking what if we make the empty gesture of not paying for Congress's healthcare if they won't pay for ours. It's rhetorical bread and circus more than anything, because it isn't really a lever of influence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JOHN EDWARDS IS DA MAN!
Posted by: AlohaTerry on Nov 15, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's the only choice We got!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JOHN EDWARDS IS DA MAN! Posted by: Landbaron
So What - An empty gesture is still empty?
Posted by: pdxstudent on Nov 15, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My point is that precisely those people whose thinking this should change (Congress) are not likely to be affected by getting their government health insurance taken from them when: (1) affording health insurance on their own for most of them is probably not even a minute financial concern and (2) it is likely that various players from the Healh Insurance industry would do what they could to mitigate Edwards' threat. This second part is no small stick either, considering, you know, the Health Insurance industry has at their finger-tips the ability to provide precisely what Edwards is threatening to take away.

Edwards' threat plays more to people's sense of ownership and selfishness than it does to their common- or even good-sense about our government's relationship with the health insurance industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's Wrong is That Edwards Says This... Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» You have to start somewhere... Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Very Well Stated J. Guardian Posted by: MeridaLady
Show me the money!
Posted by: rocketman on Nov 15, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm waiting for the one candidate who will recognize the self employed are being sucked dry by insurance companies and address the cost of being insured.

I can get insurance but it has cost me almost $20,000 a year for a decent plan. I've switched to a so so plan for $12,000!.

If the poor gets it for free and I have to continue to pay these enormous rates, democrats will never get my vote!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Show me the money! Posted by: chloe08
» RE: Show me the money! Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Show me the money! Posted by: Basenjis
» ...a so so plan for $12,000... ? Posted by: Bearzerker
» ...a so so plan for $12,000... ? Posted by: Bearzerker
I'll take Kucinich...
Posted by: peacelf on Nov 15, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kucinich is my candidate. There is no other candidate that fits the progressive agenda better and inspires hope for a better world. Yet, I see a political savvy in Edwards that makes me look at him more carefully.

Edwards' plan makes smart political sense, even though it caters to the health insurance lobby. I think a public health care program in competition with private health insurance is a smart move toward a single payer system.

Yes, I am as cynical about our political leadership allowing a program like this to fester into, shhhh! "socialized" medicine. However...

Like social security, once in service, the people will not let public health care coverage die. It will become a political hot button that voters will defeat anyone who touches it. And, it could solve once or for all the conservative's argument that the private sector can do it better.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If not Kucinich, then take Edwards Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
EDWARDS IS GETTING BOLDER
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 15, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Josh-

And of course Edward's set the mark for the other candidates by coming out with health care reform specifics first.

Believe me - no matter which DEM gets in we will see major changes in their first term despite the fearful-spineless politicians from both sides of the aisle

The US people, including the middle and upper middle class, have had it- especially with insurance companies.

(I keep hoping for more prevention in ALL the proposals includinf Edward's)

Be Well,

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reminds me of my dream
Posted by: buh on Nov 15, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have often imagined being elected to congress by beating out Pete Visclosky as an independent or member of the Green or another progressive party. I would then refuse the congressional health care package and buy a plan for my family, staff, their families, etc. I would then challenge the rest of the house and also the senate to do the same as publicly as possible, though I doubt that the MSM would want it in the limelight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More hot air
Posted by: Knot_Rich on Nov 15, 2007 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As stated, it's a beautiful piece of populism, more political hot air. As prez, does he really think he'd have the right to strip federal employees of health care? Who would sponsor this legislation, and just how many politicians of either party does he think would support it? More campaign drivel. Worthless rhetoric designed to impress the masses. If health care, why not also take away the generous pension plan until they fix social security? Maybe if Washington wasn't so cushy with health care and pensions some of these career politicians who've done absolutely nothing their whole lives but sit around the beltway fantasizing they understand what it's like for Joe Blow in Idaho would move on and we'd get some fresh blood, and air, in there. Power climbers like Ed and Hillary who become senators simply as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal will say and do anything. Focus groups, polls, planted questions in rallys, anything at all to tell you what you want to hear. Who can believe when Arkansas Hillary ran for New York senate she had any real interest in New York? We're tools to be maipulated for these people to get what they want. If they really cared about what we want, they'd get their hands out of our pockets and we could afford our own insurance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Helicopter
Posted by: 15delta on Nov 15, 2007 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will make this real short.
Edwards says he will stop congress and there health care. After that Ed Schultz asked him if he could really do that?
His answer was no, but I can scare them.
That makes Edwards a liar and has no right to hit Hillary with ANYTHING!
He is also a hypocrite.
And he lost me.
Clean your own yard Edwards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Let's get this straight ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Let's get this straight ... Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: Let's get this straight ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Joshua, I Know You're a Smart Guy Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Joshua, I Know You're a Smart Guy Posted by: Joshua Holland
Single payer System...
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Nov 15, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Edwards was a change Candidate he'd be for Single Payer Health Care..

But he isn't so he's not..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Single payer System... Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Single payer System... Posted by: Landbaron
Edwards is obviously not scared to step on toes to get things done!!
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 15, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is openly honest and not afraid, he deserves a chance more than anybody else!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

really good discussion about things that really matter
Posted by: Suzon on Nov 15, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would boil it down to the fact that universal health care (and progressives do mean care, not treatment which can often be detrimental) is the goal of progressives and other people who might not define themselves as such.

Many people who are not in the protected elite don't really care how they get social justice. They just understand that they deserve it.

So far only one person very important to me has suffered (for years) and died (prematurely) because she didn't have medical insurance.

That's one too many for me. Congresscritters, wake up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now, THIS is the time for a voucher plan!
Posted by: Rune on Nov 15, 2007 3:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't interesting that the good folks who assure us that vouchers are the best way to use market forces to steer a public/private school system toward better outcomes completely forget their dogma when it comes to options for improving a completely broken healthcare system in which private providers are the default and public providers are the option of last resort (i.e., the exact opposite of school systems)? Maybe they need a little reminder.

If their objection is that they think the government will find a way to be less reliable or efficient than the private system with costs that increase at many times the rate of inflation while denying more and more of the care that doctors and, in many tragic cases, coroners say is/was needed, wouldn't a voucher system that can be used in public or private facilities protect against that--according to the logic they have been spouting about public and private schools for years?

And, just to make sure the public system isn't dragged down by politicians on the take from the medical and insurance companies, let's limit the government's input to making laws that recognize the public's system and provide vouchers and seed capital to help fund it. The directors of the program should be directly elected by the people and help accountable for keeping open books and obeying stringent accounting and other fiduciary responsibility laws. The new public system itself should be a U.S. resident owned self-insurance program, thus giving the public that uses and relies upon the system control and a stake in the system without having to worry about corporate manipulation and takeovers. And just for good measure, let's dust off those antitrust laws that guard against predatory pricing and refusal to deal with a certain buyer--and beef up the enforcement of those in the new market for healthcare insurance for next decade with, say, about a month's worth of Iraq occupation spending, just to help things get off to a good start.

Oh, and did I mention that the government will automatically pay the buy-in costs for all vets and members of the military? Yeah, that should be another good jump start.

What else should we add to the system to make sure it not only functions but short circuits the political mumbo jumbo that will be used to argue that it cannot work? How about a little positive brainstorming instead of the usual testimonies to hopelessness and cynacism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes!
Posted by: Jeanne on Nov 15, 2007 9:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is precisely what I've been proposing to anyone who'd listen. Make Congress as vulnerable as the rest of us when in comes to health insurance. When they have to navigate the byzantine labyrinth that is our health care system, they might develop a conscience. Maybe they'll even develop a workable, humane system. At the very least, it will cost us taxpayers a lot less.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Congress Can Afford Coverage, or just give themselves another raise every year
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Nov 16, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congress votes and passes salary increases for themselves every year during which time an increase to the federal minimum wage took how long? Nine years?

Imagine the impact removing their health coverage would have. They earn quite enough money to afford any coverage they want. They give themselves raises every year. They can increase their salaries to counter any monetary loss if their health coverage is eliminated, meaning they will find a way to make up for that loss, guaranteed.

Edwards is posturing. Why doesn't the public see through him or any other candidate's campaign promises? I'm aware of a particular conservative who ran for Congress last year and in an interview said cutting payroll taxes would allow people to afford medical insurance. Who hasn't heard that one before? Does the math work?

Absolutely not, but these candidates fully expect some of you to just accept what they were saying as feasible or possible. In fact, some of you are willing to believe anything these people say, defend their failing points, even considering the real possibility Edwards will not win.

I don't know who I should be more upset with, a bunch of liars in Congress, or those of you that think Edwards' claim has any meaning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Practical Side
Posted by: westomoon on Nov 16, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Might be a good thing to think about this from the practical end backwards -- in other words, from the health-care end first.

I get my health care from the program Edwards is threatening to shut down -- the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It's not a great insurance program -- co-pay for most things is around 25% of strange low-ball numbers set by the insurers plus the substantial balance of the actual market cost of care, and it contains nothing that isn't approved by Senator Foghorn Leghorn and his snake-handling fundie constituents -- forget about coverage of chiroprtactic, acupuncture, naturoppathy, or any other foreign and satanic practice.

Reading the article, I also went into a swoon of despair at the "same old, same old" approach -- until I processed the fact that Edwards is also building in a Medicare option. Trust me, I would opt for medicare this instant if I could, and so would you, if you'd seen it in action. It's a relic of the days when health insurance actually covered what you needed to get well, unlike any of the insurance plans in the market these days. It won't take long for the rest of the country to make the same choice, once they're given the option. And voila, you then have National Health with no discernable bad guy who made us shift to the Communist way of life.

Back to the Federal plan. The one good quality it does have is that nobody gets turned down, and pre-existing conditions are covered, after a waiting period. For Congress (and their staffs) to dodge Edwards' ploy by opting for individual plans, nobody in their family could have a pre-existing condition, and they'd have to be ready to cover mental health, maternity costs, and a lot of other categories out-of-pocket. Simply having money to spend (and Congressional salaries these days put them in the middle class, not the ranks of the wealthy) is not enough to get you insured.

We have already split into concierge-care and gerbil-care -- but Congress isn't in the concierge-care plan. For us regular gerbils, a Medicare-based plan is much closer to concierge than anything offered by a private insurer today. I'm not convinced yet that Edwards is the progressive's best hope (my vote is still with Seabiscuit), but this is a damn smart approach to letting the country bring about a single-payer system by "voting with its feet", and thus depriving the right-wing noise machine of its next thirty-year grievance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Practical Side- Medicare For All Posted by: oregonscribbler
BAD IDEA. WRONG IDEA. WRONG MAN.
Posted by: halg on Nov 16, 2007 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edward's health care plan is just the latest in the long evolution of free-market healthcare "solutions." This essentially creates one more confusing and inadequate choice into the mix of already-existing confusing and inadequate choices.

In order for the government to be competitive in such a market, it would have to forego certain treatments just like its "private" competitors. If the government-run system is permitted to spend more to provide such treatments, the private market will scream bloody murder that the government has an unfair advantage against them.

So long as corporations or government can limit what your doctor is allowed to do for you -- as opposed to what your doctor should be doing for you -- then we don't really have a healthcare system. The only true solution is universal, one-payer. It, too, will not be a perfect system, but duh, what is? At least people will get the care they need, and the system will encourage preventative healthcare which the current system does not have any motive to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electability
Posted by: Marcy on Nov 22, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't get why everyone thinks Hillary Clinton is more electable than John Edwards. I don't care what the people of America SAY, when those curtains close behind them, a substantial number are not going to vote for a woman. While I fervently WANT a woman as Prez, I do not want this particular woman. I'm baffled as to why Edwards is running behind her and Obama. I'm hoping that changes, because I believe he's the best candidate, and the most electable as well. Otherwise I'd be supporting Kucinich--but he's clearly too radical for most voters. Edwards is way more progressive than both Clinton and Obama. Let's support him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shame!
Posted by: lamac66 on Nov 22, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's absolutely appalling that everyone in this country that works has no healthcare coverage.

I like the premise Edwards presents, if they won't pass healthcare legislation they should not benefit from what they have on our dime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement