Edwards Pushing Universal Health Care (says more important than budget deficit)

[Herman Munster]

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0107/384548.html

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards says it is more important to invest in universal health care and lifting people out of poverty than to reduce the budget deficit. The 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an interview broadcast Sunday said "there is a tension" between the two directions, but he has made his choice.

"If I were choosing now between which is more important, I think the investments are more important," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Edwards' proposal, which includes tax cuts and a million housing vouchers for the poor, may place him at odds with Democrats in charge of the congressional spending committees.

The incoming Senate and House Appropriations Committee chairmen, Sen., Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, have announced a plan to fund most domestic agency accounts at 2006 levels.

They envision some increases to avoid layoffs of federal employees and for politically sensitive programs such as veterans' medical treatment.

Edwards said he wanted to get the country "out of this ditch we're in fiscally" but acknowledged his plan "means you cannot do about the deficit what you'd like to do, that's true."

[Upfront]

1. He is right.

Glad to see this.

[Mass]

2. Who says you cannot do both?

Of course, it depends whether you want tax cuts for the richest or not, but a good universal healthcare (meaning single payer so that you can really negotiate prices) is not in opposition to reducing the budget deficit. There are many places where you could actually cut the budget without impacting programs for the middle class and the poors. And reducing the deficit means less money to banks and foreign governments and more for the needs of the American people.

[Herman Munster]

3. All they have to do is increase FICA

taxes a few percentage points and eliminate the wage cap on FICA.

Problem solved. I think for most people, other than the super rich, having universal healthcare would be much cheaper than saving a few percent on FICA.

[Dr.Phool]

5. Check out H.R. 676 by John Conyers.

About 70 other Dems in the House are co-sponsors, and Kennedy has a companion bill in the Senate, Medicare for all.

www.healthcare-now.org

[Jcrowley]

7. From link

K&R

Look folks if the Dems want to romp in 2008 and put the Republican party in the dustbin of history this issue should be Numero Uno and broadcast loudly. They don't even need to say we are going to slash the War Machine to get the funds that can be done after the fact.

You want to get folks of all stripes to galvanize on something this is it. You want to famously triangulate and play political charades and then sell out to the insurance companies then go fuck yourself in the closet somewhere off the coast of nowhere.

Little known fact is that the part of the US health care, if it can be called that, system that is government run and funded operates at a much more efficient rate and lower cost than privately insured health care.

[Sapphire Blue]

13. For all those touting Medicare, can you afford the 20% balance that Medicare doesn't cover?

[Solon]

14. It can be modified to reduce that balance to 0%. n/t

[Sapphire Blue]

15. I want that in writing... that it 'will', that is, rather than 'can'.

[Solon]

16. We'd have to lobby for it so that it WILL be put in any UHC bill that extends Medicare.

Guarantee 100% coverage for all medically necessary procedures, stuff like that.

[rodeodance]

4. He is smart cookie , He can multitask

[SoCalDem]

6. "Universal" is the key word here, folks

"Requiring" everyone to have universal insurance could end up like the way states "require" people to have auto insurance, but they set the "floor" level so low, that even though it "qualifies", it covers very little.

Here is CA it was $5K liability, so of course a LOT of people got the el cheapo coverage so they could get a license or register their car, but what happens if a poor person with $5k insurance slammed into a brand new BMW? would the $5k cover it? hardly.

Single-payer/nationalized-socialized medical coverage for EVERYONE is the only true solution. Some accommodation to make sure that doctors and the actual providers are well compesated..turning all the hospitals back into non-profits, and beefing up the supply of US citizen doctors, by perhaps subsidizing their educations.

THAT's how you start..

and

If the pharma companies need to be broken up like they did with MaBell all those years ago, then so be it!

A country full of people who have little or no access to decent health care is a security hazard..

[etherealtruth]

8. This man speaks more and more to me ...

I started out really liking a lot, to boot.

[bobbolink]

22. Absolutely! 1 Million Housing vouchers?! Hurray for Edwards!

Really, why can ALL Dems be pushing these sensible and humane measures???

I think I'm beginning to :loveya: Edwards!

[AspenRose]

9. K&R

:kick:

[benny05]

10. Heck Yeah

Bush's war is costing $2B a week; UHC would cost less than that...and more expansion to all Americans.

[w4rma]

11. I like him even more. (nt)

[ljm2002]

12. Good for him!

About time we have a Democratic leader who is out front on issues like this.

Time for the party to get back to its roots. Dean has helped to cultivate the grass roots, and has given us a spiffy new Internet-based fundraising engine. Now we need someone who can speak to the populace, shake them out of their lethargy, and get them to vote for their own -- and their neighbors' -- self-interest for a change.

Go John! (and no, I've not yet decided who I want to see as the candidate... and yes, I'll vote for the Dem, whoever it may be)

[illinoisprogressive]

17. It's not original or feasible.

Many have proposed health care for all. States have adopted it. Here in Illinois we have it for all children under 18 ( and pushed by Edwards rival Obama)
So, it is not an original plan.
Most democratic senators are coming up with a plan or have. Kennedy is the biggest proponet of it.

[Shakespeare]

18. Uh, did I miss where anybody claimed it was original?

And I'm sorry, but if the other industrialized nations can make it feasible, then so can we.

[bobbolink]

21. Health care for ALL is NOT health care only for those under 18!

[lovuian]

19. More Democrats need to get on the band wagon

if we had Universal Health we would be competitive with countries who have UNIVERSAL HEALTH
and thats most of the World

[smoogatz]

20. What's he going to do about global warming?

For me, that's the number one issue--even more important than getting the hell out of Iraq. What's his plan to stop/reverse global warming?

[Lex]

23. Here's this

John Edwards Identifies Global Warming as a Priority in His Presidential Campaign

http://www.blueclimate.com/blueclimate/2006/12/john_edwards_id.html

[smoogatz]

27. Looks like he passes the lip service test, at least.

But apparently he's yet to offer an actual plan. That's not a great sign if what you're looking for as a voter is serious commitment to the issue.

[bobbolink]

24. What are other candidates doing for poverty?

.......

...oooops, doesn't even come up, does it?

[smoogatz]

26. You win tonight's "non-responsive answer" prize.

Nice work.

On edit: Global warming, like most environmental catastrophes, will affect the poor disproportionately. I guess that hadn't occurred to you.

[Lex]

28. Questions are okay

I would think.

[smoogatz]

29. Answering a question with an unrelated question

is kind of the definition of non-responsiveness, isn't it?

[Lex]

30. I think it was making a well-placed point which is why

it seems to annoy so much.

[smoogatz]

31. A point which is irrelevant in the context of my original question.

I wasn't asking about what other candidates' views are on the problem of poverty in America. I was asking a question about Edwards, who is the subject of this thread. What I got was a defensive and petulantly non-responsive "answer," which you are now defending. I take that petulant and non-responsive "answer" to mean that Edwards has no plan to combat global warming, and that his cheerleaders would prefer that the question not be asked, which did annoy me a bit, yes. No doubt it's your opinion that I'm reading too much between the lines.

[bobbolink]

25. I think he is definitely going to be my candidate! Nobody else for poverty

issues anywhere near where John Edwards is, and he just gets better and more outspoken all the time.

It's a wonderful feeling to feel cared about again!

[Selatius]

32. I'd stand behind Edwards on this point.

I just wish others weren't so tepid whenever taking a stand for the poor and the dispossessed.

[bobbolink]

33. Absolutely! And, if others were taking such a strong stand on poverty,

I'd certainly feel like I had more choices in a candidate!

Not to mention, I wouldn't feel so alone. Being supported makes a huge difference in how one can relate to the world. :hi:

What I really liked, was Lamont apologizing for his lack of conviction on poverty issues, and crediting Edwards for enlightening him. If Edwards is doing that with all the candidates, then... maybe something good will happen!

Thanks for understanding... sometimes it's lonely out here...:hi: