Edwards: Repeal top-tier tax cuts to pay for health care (including full mental health parity)

[JohnLocke]

Edwards: Repeal top-tier tax cuts to pay for health care
By Chris Dorsey --IowaPolitics.com
Saturday, March 10, 2007
----
NEWTON--The United States has a moral duty to provide health care to the 47 million uninsured people in this country and to offer insurance access to all Americans, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards told a crowd of more than 250 Saturday in Newton.

"I want to fill in the deficiencies and make sure everyone is covered," Edwards said. "There are a lot of huge gaps in the health care system. If you lose your job or change jobs, I want to make sure everyone is covered."

Newton was Edwards' third stop on a two-day swing through Iowa to discuss his universal health care plan. He spent Friday in Council Bluffs and Sioux City -- the former senator's first visits to those Iowa cities since announcing his candidacy for president in December in Des Moines.

However, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee knows he has his work cut out for him. He said following the town hall meeting at the UAW Hall that getting the insurance companies on board will be one of his biggest challenges. If elected, Edwards said implementing the universal health care plan for all Americans would be a priority -- one he envisions to be fully in place by 2012.

Edwards plans to pay for the program by repealing President George W. Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. He estimates the health care program to cost between $90 billion and $120 billion annually.

"I want to be honest with you," Edwards said about the cost. "When other presidential candidates come through ask how much it will cost (when they talk about universal health care)."

Paying for the health care program could hinder addressing other issues such as the deficit, Edwards said. If other candidates say they can address all of them, then that could be a daunting task, the 2004 Iowa Caucus second-place finisher said in January in Iowa City.
(...)
Edwards' plan would also provide full mental health parity, long-term care and preventative care -- many areas currently not available by some providers.

Being the first candidate to offer a complete plan on universal health care, Edwards said he knows he is sticking himself out on a limb. He recently sent that plan to many Iowans in the form of a letter with an accompanying DVD.

"You will know where I stand," he said.
(...)
Changing the mindset about global warming also needed to be addressed immediately, he said.

"We need to develop a global solution to a global problem," Edwards said. "This is an emergency. We have to start dealing with it now. It is time for the president of the United States to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than the war."
----
Read the rest here.

[HappyWeasel]

1. seems reasonable

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. "getting the insurance companies on board"??

Fuck 'em. They're the problem, not a part of the solution.

[HappyWeasel]

3. It really does suck, but they are the 500 pound gorilla in the room

[Solon]

12. More like a 200 pound rabid Rottweiler in the room...

ready to rip your throat out at the least provocation. I say they need to be put down.

[Joe Bacon]

23. Right now they are thawing out Harry and Louise!

The pimps and whores who run the health insurance racket will fight this tooth and nail. Right now, they're getting ready to trot out Harry and Louise to brainwash the masses again...

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Exactly. There's no point pussy-footing around them.

They're going to roll out the nukes against anyone who promises universal health care. Might as well strike first.

[AshevilleGuy]

4. I wonder if Presidnt Gore would go along with this?

Since my dream ticket involves him as well for next year.

[Cameron27]

5. How does it work?

Do you still need to go through private insurance companies, meet their requirements and rates and then the government picks up part of the bill?

Does anybody have the nuts and bolts of this plan?

[Alhena]

6. I agree with repealing the tax cuts, but ...

we've already got a huge number of promises that we've alreay made (especially in Medicare) that need to be paid for. I don't believe in spending to improve our present situation if we have to make our kids pay for it. We wouldn't do that in real life and shouldn't in governance either.

[enough already]

7. The whole idea of "making sure everyone is covered" is a load of wank

We don't need the blood-sucking leeches that are the insurance companies. Legislate them out of business and mandate free care for everyone like the rest of the civilized world.

[Cameron27]

8. That's the plan I'm looking for!

[NDP]

20. When you have a Democratic Senate that will give that to you, then give me a call. Edwards is being

practical. He moves us towards single-payer, which his plan can evolve to over time. If you think that even a 60/40 Democratic Senate would support single-payer anytime soon with the likes of Ben Nelson, you are fooling yourself.

[phillysuse]

9. John Edwards: It's called Medicare For All

Repeal the tax cuts for the very rich, make people pay into Medicare regardless of income, cut out the middlemen and with the money you save from dealing with insurance companies, you can afford Medicare for All.

If you wish, you should probably means test Medicare D as well so that those seniors making over $100,000 per year pay more.

Let's see some courage from our President wannabees.

[rog]

10. This REALLY bugs me: "The first candidate to offer a plan ..."

Edited to fix a link.

... the first candidate to offer a complete plan on universal health care, Edwards said he knows he is sticking himself out on a limb.

Bull. Kucinich may be "unelectable" (/sarcasm), but at least give the guy credit where it's due. And last time I checked he WAS running.

Details on HR676 (contains link to complete text of the bill)


This is a summary of the bill introduced by Conyers/Kucinich.

Kucinich on Universal Health Care
http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

In my opinion, the shows that he's the ONLY candidate "sticking himself out on a limb."

Note the DATE on the bill summarized here.

jeez.

.rog.

HR676 (Conyers/Kucinich) SUMMARY AS OF: 2/8/2005--Introduced.

United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) - Establishes the United States National Health Insurance Program (the Program) to provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services.

Prohibits an institution from participating in the Program unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that actually deliver care in their own facilities to participate in the Program.

Gives patients the freedom to choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

Sets forth methods to pay hospitals and health professionals for services. Prohibits financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization.

Authorizes appropriations and provides for appropriated sums to be paid for: (1) by vastly reducing paperwork; (2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications; (3) from existing sources of Government revenues for health care; (4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top five percent income earners; (5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and (6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

Requires the Program to give first priority in retraining and job placement to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration.

Establishes a National Board of Universal Quality and Access to advise the Secretary and the Director to ensure quality, access, and affordability.

Provides for the eventual integration of the health programs of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Indian Health Service into the Program.

[Cameron27]

15. Thanks for getting this info out...

This is a extremely significant issue, and I think we need to see every candidate's health care plan matched up, side by side.

Edwards' seems to be suggesting that other candidate's are being disingenuous by suggesting proposals that can't be funded. I think he's wrong & I think this is something that needs to be debated.

[NDP]

19. When you have a Democratic Senate that will give you a single-payer system, give me a call

[GreenArrow]

30. the point was that Kucinich's plan was offered first

and yes, it is a better plan than Edwards'. Can't get a Democratic Senate to give you a single-payer system? Maybe not, but you sure won't get one if you don't ask for it. Nevermind that the constituents of said Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, generally favor a single payer approach.

If Edwards were smarter and bolder, he would ask for a single payer system to start with, and then compromise down to something -- lacking as it is -- like he is offering. Instead, he's starting off with a lame position, one which, assuming (god forbid) he's nominated, will be compromised down to an even lamer position.

[Cameron27]

31. There's more support for HR 676 than you might think,

and a lot of criticism of Edwards' plan.

This is a great site for information on the single payer plans:

Snip> Something else all those so-called “politically practical compromise plans” have in common.

• They are all are just inside the beltway elites and lobbyists talking to each other (the same ones over and over, as you may have noticed).
• None actually has any grassroots support.
• The one plan with a grassroots movement behind it is Rep. John Conyers HR-676 “Medicare for All”.

HR 676 has been endorsed by over 235 union organizations in 40 states including 60 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations and 17 state AFL-CIOs (KY, PA, CT, OH, DE, ND, WA, SC, WY, VT, FL, WI, WV, SD, NC, MO & MN), as have many other civic and religious organizations. Including several locals of SEIU.

The bill garnered nearly 78 co-sponsors in the last Congress, more than any other reform proposal, including the chairman of Ways and Means (Rangel, D-NY) and the chair of Ways & Means health subcommittee (Pete Stark, D-CA). At least three of the newest members of Congress made support for single payer national health insurance a key issue in their campaigns. Senator Kennedy has been the Senate sponsor in past years.

HR 676 would institute a single payer health care system in the U.S. by expanding a greatly improved Medicare system to every resident: It would cover every person in the U. S. for all necessary medical care including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care, hearing aids, chiropractic and long term care. HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

So, here is what YOU can DO now:

1. Ask your congressperson to sign-up as a co-sponsor of HR-676

2. Get any organization you belong to — civic, religious, labor, community, etc. to pass an HR-676 endorsement resolution:

(This site provides links to do this via Physicians for a National Health Program or via a non-physician group that won't link for me)

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/universal_health_for.php

[NDP]

39. I repeat. Show me the support in the "Senate"

[Czolgosz]

11. K & R

[Vinca]

13. Edwards' plan isn't universal health care, it's universal insurance.

The insurance companies are the problem, not the solution.

[NDP]

21. Wrong. It's universal "coverage." The insurance companies would have to provide it cheaper and

with better coverage because of the government competition, but there would be a "Medicare Plus" plan that people have the option of signing up for. If more of them opt for that plan, then it either pressures the insurance companies to provide better coverage at lower costs, or it sucks the life out of them. Since not even a 60/40 Democratic Senate will give you single-payer any time soon, then the "Medicare Plus" system could change their minds if more people choose it.

John Edwards' plan is a huge step in the right direction to universal "coverage." Tell me, would the Democratic Senate give you single-payer?

[rog]

25. Would you explain how Edwards' plan differs from Romney's?

Other than the opposing positions on requiring businesses to cover employees, would you explain clearly how Edwards' health care proposal differs from Romney's nightmare in Massachusetts?

Thank you.

A couple of article, then the plans compared.

.rog.

Romney Running From His Own Health Care Plan
http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/02/romney_even_run.php

Intensive Care for RomneyCare (Wall St. Journal)
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2007/opd_07-02-26sp.html

Presidential hopeful John Edwards recently unveiled a plan for universal health care, proving that the bad idea of raising taxes on employers and forcing individuals to purchase insurance holds bipartisan appeal. Before others get carried away with this model, they should take a look at its most recent manifestation in Massachusetts.

When then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, introduced a universal health-insurance plan in the Bay State early last year, it was widely acclaimed. But less than a year after passage, RomneyCare is in the intensive care unit, soon to be wheeled into hospice.

The first signs of trouble appeared last August. ... --Many details in the article--

Note the last point in each plan, which I've emphasized.

The Edwards Plan (from his website) achieves universal coverage by:

Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.

Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.

Creating regional "Health Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.

ONCE THESE STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, REQUIRING ALL AMERICAN RESIDENTS TO GET INSURANCE.

-----

Romney's plan:

One piece is subsidizing low-income families' purchase of private health insurance, instead of reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured. The other big idea creates an insurance exchange-a public bank that will collect the premiums from individuals and pass them on to their chosen insurers-so individuals can buy health insurance with pretax dollars.

Opposed requiring employers to contribute to cost of health care plans for their employees, preferring subsidies for health coverage for low-income individuals and providing tax incentives to individuals, including the unemployed and the self-employed, for the purchase of health insurance


Favored creating voluntary purchasing pools through which small businesses and individuals could buy insurance

Pledged to cut health care costs through market-based reforms such as providing information on the price and quality of health care services to consumers.

WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE FINALLY AFFORDABLE ... EVERYONE MUST EITHER PURCHASE A PRODUCT OF THEIR CHOICE OR DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY CAN PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE.

[NDP]

26. Maybe after I read Romney's actual plan I will. The plans being put forth by the Republicans

seem to be more punitive and place more of the burden on the individual than Edwards' does. Besides, I doubt that Romney will have a Medicare Plus option that would force down health costs and improve benefits, or have any chance of transitioning to a single-payer system like Edwards' does.

Edwards' plan is realistic. It's a lot better than what we currently have, and it's something that a Democratic Congress would pass. They aren't going to pass a single-payer system, and they think guys like Kucinich are insane to even propose it. It makes no sense for people to keep complaining about Edwards' plan as if he's sold out to the insurance companies, when it is a huge step in the right direction because your Democrats aren't going to give you single-payer, so let's do "something." As if the insurance companies would like to see Edwards' plan implemented. Yeah, right.

[rog]

27. Good ... I'll keep checking back.

... because I'd really like to know. Seems like both proposals have a lot of common ground.

Be sure to take note of what the insurance companies are coming up with for "low cost plans" in Massachusetts. Seems as though many folks agree that the MA plan is not working out so well (including Romney).

By the way ... I'm sick of "realistic." The US is far behind the curve on health care. I do NOT want more of the same.

And one more thing. I might suggest that a slightly more civil tone would be appreciated.

Thank you.

.rog.

[NDP]

28. That last answer was sufficient for now. Yes, Edwards' plan is as much as you are going to get

for now. You can keep living in a dream world and keep screaming about something that the Democrats in Congress are not going to give you and end up with "nothing" or you can take a step in the right direction and keep screaming that that step eventually becomes single-payer, which Edwards can become. Get real.

[rog]

36. So you're saying you've got what? ... Nothing, right?

NDP said, ever so politely: "You can keep living in a dream world and keep screaming about something that the Democrats in Congress are not going to give you and end up with "nothing" or you can take a step in the right direction and keep screaming that that step eventually becomes single-payer, which Edwards can become. Get real."

I'm going to say this one more time. I believe it's the second time, now. I'm tired of your tone, there, my friend.

But with that said, let me get this straight. I ask a legitimate question about Edwards' plan vs. Romney's, post a point by point comparison of each plan's talking points, post articles that point out how Romney's plan is turning sour and you refer to that as screaming?

I'll tell you something. I knew you were blowing nothing but smoke after your first insulting and condescending post.

I think you're the one who needs to "get real." You're PAYING for a national health care plan ... complete coverage for all ... now. But are you getting it? No. How do you feel about that?

Come back when you're a little more up to speed on the facts, and a little more up to speed on what Edwards seems to be proposing.

Thanks in advance.

.rog.

As a favor to you, here's some reading that may do a lot to educate you.

Physicians For A National Health Care Program: http://pnhp.org

The Physicians' Proposal
http://pnhp.org/physiciansproposal/proposal/Physicians%20ProposalJAMA.pdf

The Physicians’ Proposal for National Health Insurance establishes the vision and principles of a single-payer health system for the United States. The document was composed by a distinguished group of physician leaders*, and secured the endorsement of 8,000 physicians by the time of its publication in the August 13, 2003 JAMA.

The text outlines the general structure of the single-payer plan: eligibility and coverage, physician and outpatient care payment, global budgeting of hospitals, the establishment of a national long-term care program, planned capital investment and single-payer financing.

You can browse these articles that mention Edwards' plan at your leisure. I've done your search for you.

http://www.pnhp.org/cgi/mt/mt-search.cgi?SearchSortBy=title&search=Edwards

Here are a few select articles that address Edwards' plan (and others) specifically.

Universal Health for Insurance Companies
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/universal_health_for.php

Last week I outlined the generic components of so-called mandated or mandatory plans. This week we will, with the help of Professor Len Rodberg briefly outline some of specific national proposals that have been in the news lately:

* America’s Health Insurance Plans
* Better Health Care Together Campaign
* Health Coverage Coalition for the Uninsured
* Sen. Ron Wyden with SEIU & Safeway
* Federation of American Hospitals
* John Edwards

What they share is the goal, to keep the insurance companies healthy… lets see how that works.

Why Obama, Edwards, Hillary, Romney, Schwarzenegger Don’t Support Single Payer?
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/february/why_obama_edwards_.php

The majority of the American people want a single-payer health care system — Medicare for all.

The majority of doctors want it.

A good chunk of hospital CEOs want it.

But what they want doesn’t appear to matter.

Why?

Because a single-payer health care plan would mean the death of the private health insurance industry and reduced profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Presidential candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger talk a lot about universal health care.

But not one of them advocates for single-payer — because single-payer too directly confronts the big corporate interests profiting off the miserable health care system we are currently saddled with.

Timid ideas won't fix health mess
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/february/timid_ideas_wont_fi.php

John Edwards is trying to get ahead of the political curve, but he would send us back to the future. To 1993, to be exact.

Edwards would repeat the mistake that was at the heart of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s misadventure in trying to fix a health insurance system that was then, and is now, so out of whack that it manages to cover fewer and fewer Americans at higher and higher cost.

Like Clinton did, Edwards seems to believe that you can get the private insurance industry to do something it refuses to do because, in essence, doing what Edwards wants would put the industry out of business. He wants insurers to cover everyone, no matter how sick and expensive they are. He wants employers to continue to carry on their ledgers a cost that is ever more burdensome to them and to their workers, onto whose shoulders more of the health-insurance tab is being shifted.

This doctor doesn't mince any words.

John Edwards’ Big Lie
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/liberal_fables_about.php

Edwards’ plan is a complex brew of health markets, public incentives and private mandates.

Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program has one word for Edwards’ plan—”lousy.”

“The idea of setting up a public plan to compete with private plans has been thoroughly discredited,” McCanne told Corporate Crime Reporter. “No matter what regulations are established, private plans will continue to select the healthy—especially the healthy workforce and their healthy families. The private plans cover the majority of us who are healthy and cost very little, while as taxpayers we pay most of the costs for health care for those with medical needs.”

The Edwards plan’s complex mixture of private and public plans will not wipe out the hundreds of millions of dollars in excess administrative costs needed to fund the uninsured.

[NDP]

40. No, actually what I'm saying is John Edwards' plan is better than what you've got now, and

the Democratic Senate isn't going to give you a single-payer system so keep screaming for nothing. Edwards' plan is a good step in the right direction.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thethinker]

14. This is not a good health care plan

It is a band aid approach. Edward's plan includes insurance companies. The only plan that will work is free medicare for all. Band aid approaches waste money that could be used to really fix the problem.

Also, they should out law the insurance plans that congress has for its members. If they had to deal with medicare like other people, you better believe it would get some improvements. Even if they had to get a regular insurance policy as individuals, without going broke in the process, like the rest of us - they would fix this problem. My tax dollars pay for their worry-free health care. Or, if they had to deal with VA hospitals like our soldiers, and wait for months for an appointment, they would understand this is a crisis.

Edward's plan is a gutless, "don't rock the boat" approach. Kucinish has the only plan that I have seen that will work.

Every republican I talk to wants universal health care. The corporations want government paid universal health care. Most doctors want single payer universal health care. The only people that don't want it is the insurance companies.

How would we pay for it? I suggest we get our priorities straight. Our tax dollars should go to take care of the American people first, not be spent on foreign wars.

[PresidentObama]

16. Edwards plan is the best IMHO.

At least he knows how he'll pay for it, and can explain where the money comes from. To sample the rest of his plan, of course go to johnedwards.com

:thumbsup:

[rog]

18. I'd like to refer you to my previous post, re: Kucinich

If you'd bother to read his bill, which he and Conyers introduced in 2005, you'd see that he's pretty specific about funding. There's a summary of the bill in my post and a link to the complete text above that.

You're entitled to support the candidate of your choice ... and there's a lot about Edwards that I like ... but I just get tired of people acting like Kucinich does not exist, especially when the information is two posts above.

I know ... it's a losing battle. I'll bug off now, but the fact is that Kucinich and Conyers have presented the best health plan BY FAR. I'm watching the others,and they're NOT standing up. Every damn one of them wants business as usual for the HMOs and insurance companies.

At least read the summary of the bill, if not the text of the bill itself before you start talking about "Edwards, the only one."

Thanks for your time.

.rog.

[NDP]

22. Stop living in a fantasy world. The Democratic Senate ain't passing a single-payer system any time

soon. Edwards' plan moves us in the right direction, for now, based on what you can expect from the people who would actually create and vote for the plan (the Congress).

[depakid]

29. You have got to be kidding me

Edwards plan is a joke- and frankly, that was the final straw for me with respect to his candidacy.

You can read about it here: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0306-31.htm

[Cameron27]

32. Here's more:

Timid ideas won't fix health mess:

Snip> “So Edwards wants them to be able to buy a new public insurance plan that would be like Medicare, but not exactly. And he wants affluent people to pay more taxes to support coverage of the less fortunate, but not directly.

Instead of simply asking for a straightforward tax to pay for covering the uninsured, Edwards falls back on that popular circumlocution, the tax credit. The credits are indirect subsidies that would be given to individuals so they could then purchase insurance. The political virtue of tax credits is that their cost is always half-hidden beneath a pile of budget documents — unlike tax hikes that show up as money withheld from paychecks, but pay directly for a government service. Because of this obfuscation, politicians in both parties love tax credits.”

Snip> “Edwards won’t acknowledge that the current system of private insurance is irreparably broken.
It has failed to expand coverage to millions of workers who are employed by small business, or who work part time, or who toil at low wages — companies with high proportions of low-wage workers are far less likely to offer insurance than those whose employees earn more, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Since 2000, the portion of businesses that offer any insurance to even part of their work force has fallen from 69 percent to 61 percent.

Snip> Edwards’ advisers say the candidate didn’t push public, single-payer insurance — like Medicare — because the employer-based system is what we have today and therefore, it would provide the quickest way to cover the uninsured.

But we also have Medicare today. The elderly still get care from private doctors and hospitals, and administrative costs are a fraction of what they are in the private insurance industry. And people tend to like it.

It would be just as easy — and certainly simpler — to use Medicare as the foundation for a new insurance system to eventually cover everyone. But that would require candidates to be leaders — and show more courage than those politicians who simply say they have a plan.”

Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone [phone] | Fax: [phone] | email: [e-mail]

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/february/timid_ideas_wont_fi.php

[rog]

37. Sorry for duplicating your links. I didn't see your post.

But perhaps the repetition will encourage NDP to do some reading. Good articles ... thanks, and again, sorry for the duplication.

.rog.

[Cameron27]

38. Not a problem at all...

This is an issue that may become a critical factor in the 2008 campaign...at least it may light a fire under other candidates to consider single-payer.

Let's get the info out there:-)


Organizations endorsing Single-Payer include:

• American Association of Community Psychiatrists
• American Medical Women’s Association
• American Medical Student’s Association
• National Medical Association
• American Nurses Association
• American Public Health Association
• Islamic Medical Association
• Americans for Democratic Action
• California Nurses Assocation/National Nurses Organizing Committee
• Church Women United
• Consumer Federation of America
• Consumers Union
• Just Health Care
• National Association of Social Workers
• National Council of Senior Citizens
• National Family Farm Coalition
• Neighbor to Neighbor
• Older Women’s League
• Screen Actor’s Guild
• US Public Interest Research Group
• United Steelworkers Union

http://www.pnhp.org/links/organizations_endorsing_singlepayer.php

[sandnsea]

34. It's a good plan

We have subsidized health insurance in Oregon and it is better than nothing. I hope to get on it this month. If everybody were required to have insurance in this state, then people would realize they have to have a program to make it affordable to all. Then we would get everybody in the system, get preventive care, and start driving health care costs down. If it were still too expensive, then people would recognize it's a small step to single payer and be more inclined to go there.

[FogerRox]

17. tpo tax rate used to be 92%

[Adelante]

33. Are any of the candidates opposed?

To universal health care? Or is it now part of any Democratic platform?

[Cameron27]

35. Well, some might debate what universal health care means,

but none of the candidates supports single payer except Kucinich.

[NDP]

41. Support is a ridiculous word to use. How do you know that they don't "support" single-payer. All

you know is that they haven't "proposed" it. Probably because they have enough sense to know that it would never pass the Senate, not even if there were 60 Democrats in there. You might get 30 Democratic Senators to support it at best. They have a completely different mindset than the House.

[Cameron27]

42. Hey, get off your high horse

and lose the attitude. You're pushing your candidate's agenda here to the point of arguing about the choice of a word. I took that sentence right off the website that I linked to above. Got a problem with it, email them.

edited: *better not to curse*

[Adelante]

45. It's a nasty piece

Since day one.

[antigop]

44. Marie Cocco: Edwards' Flawed Health Care Plan

http://postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc0208.html

>>
Edwards would repeat the mistake that was at the heart of Hillary Rodham Clinton's misadventure in trying to fix a health insurance system that was then, and is now, so out of whack that it manages to cover fewer and fewer Americans at higher and higher cost.

Like Clinton did, Edwards seems to believe that you can get the private insurance industry to do something it refuses to do because, in essence, doing what Edwards wants would put the industry out of business. He wants insurers to cover everyone, no matter how sick and expensive they are. He wants employers to continue to carry on their ledgers a cost that is ever more burdensome to them and to their workers, onto whose shoulders more of the health-insurance tab is being shifted.

The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee and 2008 presidential hopeful knows that no matter how many times our health insurance crazy quilt is ripped up and stitched back together, it still will fail to cover millions of Americans.
>>