The REAL difference between Kucinich & Edwards' health plans

[slipslidingaway]

It's the leader!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=50215&mesg_id=50244

There is a REAL DIFFERENCE on how Kucinich would promote his healthcare plan vs. what Edwards said in this clip.

Kucinich would bypass the lobbyists and take his cause directly to the American people! Saying that you will fight the lobbyists only legitimizes their power.

Edwards will fight the lobbyists. Why should they dictate our laws and future of our country?

Kucinich, if elected, would take his plan directly to the people who would then be able to pressure their elected representatives.

In this way Kucinich gives power to the people, not to the special interests.

A major difference in how they would approach the problem.


And if he was elected he might receive adequate air time :)


Kucinich explains it here, two and half minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PcMb9SDbZ8

Edwards explains it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N62mz7Zpd40

[datadiva]

1. You put that point out there very well.

I am not sure Edwards wants insurance companies out of the picture. I know where Kucinich stands with them. I believe he would be the best for us in health care. I just don't think he'll be elected. Not enough money. I dearly wish we'd had him these past years.

[puebloknot]

7. Thanks for this information. Two good men...

The two of them working together in some configuration would be powerful. I'm for Kucinich. He's spot-on about *everything*! But Edwards impresses me, too, with his willingness to say he was wrong on the war, and his apparent efforts to help the people of the country.

[liberaldemocrat7]

28. I'm taking my plan to the people now right here.

I have a plan to force GOP contributor Rite Aid, one of the biggest pharmacy chains that profits from Medicare Part D to get us the needed legislation enumerated below or they lose a lot of our business.

Please pass this to your friends.

Call Rite Aid - Eckerd Pharmacy at 1-800-325-3737 ask for the manager and tell the manager to get your CEO to get the congress to enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care into law and repeal Medicare Part D and place the prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80 percent of all medication with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and until you do, we will not buy consumer products and prescription drugs from your company, Rite Aid.



Rite Aid recently bought Eckerd Pharmacies. This plan allows the people to pressure a GOP contributor to get us legislation we want.

[puebloknot]

35. Something solid to sink our teeth into. Thanks! Have you...

... posted this as an OP?

[slipslidingaway]

14. Thanks, Edwards wants to leave the health insurance companies

in the picture. There is a big difference in their plans, how they would market them and how they would take on special interests.

How do you take on the private, for profit healthcare providers and insurance companies if you let them have a seat at the table? Do you ask them to leave before desert :)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3482997

snips from the first video...

Speaking of the government paying for Medicare and Medicaid which props up insurance company profits by removing two segments of citizens who have high health care needs.

Arnie Arnesen

"We left the insurance company with the youngest, healthiest people and no wonder they are making a profit, because we've taken away the most expensive part of healthcare, which obviously is going to constantly sink us like a stone. Because insurance is about spreading the risk, we don't spread the risk, in fact what we do is prop up the insurance industry. Which is why they are so frightened about changing anything in the way of a system because it is about their profits and their CEO's and not about our healthcare..."

Dennis Kucinich

"For profit insurance companies make money not providing healthcare..."


Kucinich Health-Care Program Part-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjA3CV95i4

Kucinich Health-Care Program Part-2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FNp0wjAgfo

[bvar22]

23. Edwards dislikes the For Profit (insurance) system.

As I understand it, Edwards would institute a Non-Profit Government Administered System, like MediCare) that would be available to everyone. The FOR PROFIT system would be free to compete with the Non-Profit system. :) (HINT: The FOR PROFIT system wouldn't stand a chance.)

The good thing about Edwards' plan is that he would let the For Profit system die on the vine instead of legislating it out of existence.

I'm DK All the Way, but I believe Edwards approach to Single Payer is very good.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Do you have a link to a more detailed plan? Would everyone

now enrolled in Medicare automatically be switched to the government plan. Also there is no mention of dental or long term care.

This is the link I have, is there another with more details? Thanks.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/

[pnwmom]

2. Ignoring the lobbyists won't make them go away.

Edwards is correct that it will be necessary to fight them.

[burrowowl]

3. Yes, but fight with the People by your side

from the Bully Pulpit!

[pnwmom]

8. And what makes you think Edwards wouldn't do that?

[Clark2008]

13. Well, he didn't when he was a senator.

That's what we have to go on.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Based on what? Cherry picking a few votes out of hundreds? nt

[Clark2008]

30. Nope.

Based on his entire DLC-sponsored record.

OK. OK. He did vote in favor of poor people... ONCE.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. Votes? nt

[cyclezealot]

11. We have not had a president use the Bully Pulpit

for populists causes since FDR. Lobbyists rightfully have lots to fear , should Dennis Kucinich have that Bully Pulpit. In that case, their millions would be ineffectual. Kucinich would be their worst nightmare. Because the truth will set you free.

[slipslidingaway]

19. "Kucinich would be their worst nightmare." He sure would be! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

17. Exactly, thanks...

:toast:

[slipslidingaway]

16. Correct, but if you are going to fight another group it is best to

build your army first, Rumsfeld knows about this :)

[1932]

4. Fighting lobbyists gives them power?

[slipslidingaway]

22. Yes, it gives them a seat at the table. Edwards wants the

healthcare providers and insurance companies to be a part of his healthcare plan, while fighting them? It legitmizes their power by giving them a voice instead of ignoring or bypassing them initially.

"Kucinich would bypass the lobbyists and take his cause directly to the American people! Saying that you will fight the lobbyists only legitimizes their power."

[1932]

40. I'm not following the logic. Edwards criticizes lobbyists like no politician I've seen

and you're saying he's giving them a seat at the table?

[Greyhound]

5. Edwards is a worthy second choice. I feel his proposed solutions,

at least those that were proposed earlier, have little chance of making any substantial difference. Lately however, he has altered his message to indicate that he may be willing to take a more populist stand.

Maybe it's just more political gamesmanship, maybe it's the realization that "playing by the rules" won't work now that the foxes own the hen house outright. In any case we will surely see.

[eridani]

6. Agreed, but that's why you should start off supporting Kucinich

If you will be satisfied with a kitten, ask for a pony.

[pnwmom]

9. I don't want a kitten or a pony.

I want a tiger to go after the wolves in the other party.

And "endless peace" Kucinich doesn't come across as much of a tiger.

[Stevepol]

10. Ask the con men and bankers and high rollers in Cleveland

who tried to force the sale of MUNY if DK is a pony or a tiger. The mafia decided the only way to silence him was assassinate him. DK escaped by sheer luck being gunned down. Peace can't come by backing down on principle.

[eridani]

12. He isn't sucking up to culture warrior Republicans, like some we could name

Uncompromisingly putting out his agenda IS going after the other party.

[Clark2008]

31. Oh... like this "tiger" went after the Republicans on Iraq?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2934244

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Or Wes "I probably would have voted for it" Clark who helped raise money for Republicans in 2001 nt

[slipslidingaway]

20. For me there are too many disconnects between his language

and actions, past and current. Talk is cheap :eyes: :eyes:

[Greyhound]

52. I agree, he is the "half a loaf" option at this point, if even that.

The other two are "crumbs" at best.

[Sparkly]

18. "Fight them" vs. put them out of for-profit business

Insurance companies -- no matter how much somebody "fights them" -- have fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, which means denying people care as much as possible.

Kucinich's proposal is to remove that profit motive. Get rid of the need for health insurance companies.

I think that's the key difference, and I still don't see a clear argument against Kucinich's plan.

[slipslidingaway]

21. As I said above how do you fight them and still let them sit at

the table?

[GreenArrow]

24. One wants the government to mandate that you

buy insurance; the other wants the government to ensure that you have health care.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Short and to the point, that is what I am seeing as well. In

addition I have not seen anything in the Edwards' plan address the future Medicare costs the government will be paying?

I'm still looking at the real apple, thanks.

:hi:

[Adelante]

27. GreenArrow is pithy always

Kucinich has the only health care worth its salt, IMO. A mixed private/public plan would weaken the public plan as the real strength is in single payer to negotiate the best possible deals with hospitals, drugs, etc. I understand the others when they say it has to start someplace and progress, I do, but it's never going to start anyplace because the opposing powers are too powerful. They need to be taken out of the game.

[slipslidingaway]

32. I agree about the needed negotiating strength...

There are too many moving parts in the Edwards' plan which could allow corruption and failure, not to mention a long journey to a 'possible' single payer system. Thanks :)

[GreenArrow]

45. Pithy? I like that!

Usually, I'm a jerk, an asshole, or an "extreme hater".

[Cameron27]

29. Yep

Get the insurance companies out of our health care ... and I don't want my check-ups mandated thank you, but no thanks Mr. Edwards.

[ProudDad]

63. To put it another way..

One criminalizes you if you can't afford to buy health INSURANCE

The other provides Health CARE for everyone...

[GreenArrow]

68. right.

And it can't be stated often enough. One would think the distinction might be considered a point of insult, but apparently not...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. The real difference is one plan is achievable and the other can't get out of subcommittee

I like Kucinich and he does a lot of great things but there is a reason why HR 676 can't even make it to committee. If you prefer "purity" and not getting anything done than Kucinich's plan is better; if you want results and want to see more Americans have health insurance the Edwards plan is superior. The Kucinich plan will insure 0 people because it has 0 chance of ever becoming law. That is the sad truth.

[slipslidingaway]

34. Edwards still wants to give the insurance companies a seat at the

table and hopes by some miracle that his plan will morph into a single payer system at an undetermined time in the future.

And how will this get through Congress

"Reforming the insurance industry by setting national accounting standards requiring insurers to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care."


Did he say yesterday some of the funding for his program will be from the elimination of the tax credits? We never had that money as far as I can tell, it was put on the Bank of China credit card.

What about dental...

etc. etc.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Do you prefer results or rhetoric?

Edwards has the best achievable health care plan in the field.

[GreenArrow]

37. just because something can be achieved

(debatable in the case of Edwards' plan) doesn't mean it should be. The American people are "tired of people pushing for incremental gains and half-measures, even from our own Democratic Party. We do not have to accept mediocrity or compromise our values."

Let him put his money where his mouth is, instead of offering the insulting, half-baked crap that he has.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. So we should expand health care to 0 people for the sake of purity? nt

[GreenArrow]

43. no, we should mandate buying health insurance to all people

for the sake of expediency.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Extending health care to 40+ million people is not a half-measure and beats extending it to 0 people

[GreenArrow]

44. It just takes someone with the will to fight for the issue

Rather than decrying how Americans are sick of incremental measures, let a leader step up and take the bold approach. The issue needs a champion, and lets face it, Universal Health Care is not being held up by the American people, it's being held up by politicians and business interests (too often one and the same). If Edwards hasn't the stomach to take on that battle, he needs to quit play acting, can the chap book rhetoric, step aside and let someone else do it.

Consider how Bush has run his Presidency; if he were interested in actually doing useful things for the country, and wanted to enact an universal health care plan, he would have gotten it done. The man says what he wants and goes after it. He doesn't start out with a compromise plan that will be even further diluted as the process goes along. He goes after the whole enchilada, right from the get go, and when he does have to compromise he has been able to do so from a position of strength. The Democrats could learn from that approach. Shoot for the moon.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. To fight for the sake of fighting or to achieve results?

I think HR 676 would have a lot more credibility if it could ever make it onto the House floor. What is the point grandstanding about something that will extend health care to 0 people because it can't get passed? Let me make clear that I am not bashing DK. I like and admire him. I just think he often takes approaches that are not realistic. I prefer progress to preserving the status quo because we demand the impossible.

We can't even get the Republicans to support SCHIP. How are we going to get them to accept government financing of our entire health care system?

[GreenArrow]

48. Kucinich is realistic.

The fact that HR 676 can't make it on to the House Floor says more about the credibility and nature of our Government and leaders, than it does about the practicality of Kucinich's plan. His plan is more cost effective, more inclusive, and ultimately, more humane than the others. Plus, it is in line with what most people, Dems and Repubs alike, want. The other plans -- whether Edwards' or Obama's -- are not realistic, and will not challenge the status quo, because they do not deal with the fundamental issue, namely, that our health care system is built on a for-profit model. Plans such as these remain tied to that for-profit structure, and as such will change little or nothing, particularly when they rely upon mandating that citizens participate in them.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

55. Kucinich isn't. Even if DK is elected HR 676 still won't go anywhere

==The fact that HR 676 can't make it on to the House Floor says more about the credibility and nature of our Government and leaders==

None of that would change simply because DK is in the Oval Office. Hr 676 simply has zero shot at becoming law for the foreseeable future. It is better to expand health care to 40+ million Americans than achieve nothing because we insisted on something that cannot get passed and hence will provide health care to 0 people.

[ProudDad]

65. It would make it to the floor

if the cowardly Dems would get of their FUCKING ASSES and work for the People for a change instead of the fucking health insurance industry and big pharma!!!!

What's NOT realistic about passing a great piece of legislation that would SOLVE the problem instead of pasting band-aids over the problem?

That's my personal emotional answer as someone who would NOT be covered under Edward's plan but WOULD BE COVERED BY HR676!!!!

-----------

I can give you the pragmatic answer, too.

The reason it's bottled up in committee is because there's NO WAY to pass ANY Health Care improvements while * is in the White House and while there are not 60 votes in the Senate (to cut off the inevitable filibuster).

Of course, the repukes won't support SCHIP, * will veto it and it will NOT be enacted into law. The repubs and "conservative" Dems can be counted on to block anything that's good for We the People. They're in the business of aiding the "have-mores" and the "have-a-fuck-of-a-lot-mores" not us.

The bullshit myth that Dennis Kucinich can't "work well with others" is NOT the reason the bill is not coming up for debate or a vote so that canard should be abandoned, please?

-----------

Therefore, this whole debate is moot.

Nothing will pass to repair the deviant health care industry in this country until there is a majority in the House, 60 votes (Dems and socially conscious repubs) in the Senate and someone in the White House who isn't OWNED by the health care mafia...

I KNOW Kucinich would sign HR676 into law. I believe that Edwards would sign it. I'm NOT sure that ObamClint would sign it...

So you and I may not have much to argue about beyond my point that a simple, proven plan like extending enhanced Medicare to all (HR676) in 2009 would be easier than trying to pass a patchwork quilt that DOESN'T COVER EVERYONE like Edward's "plan".

[slipslidingaway]

39. Who says it's achievable? There are many hurdles in his plan

before it can be implemented and then we are left with???

I'm not taken in by his rhetoric of late, the corporations are not scared of Edwards, but they are scared of Kucinich.


And no Edwards supporter has ever explained why he is not speaking out on the draft Oil Law. He had an opportunity in the interview on Sunday and once again said nothing. Here's his chance to speak out against the potential profits and control of Iraq's oil by U.S. Oil Comapnies. No wonder Maliki cannot achieve this benchmark, it is rather difficult to sign away potential profits of your nation and the future of your citizens.


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/18/sestak-oil-law

"I mean they are going to get much more, if the draft is correct, of profits than we would under a normal oil sharing agreement, of these oil companies to a country like Saudi Arabia or others. Heaven forbid that at the end of this time, after all this, if we find out that there’s undue advantage given to our oil companies."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. There are hurdles in any plan

The difference is Edwards plan has a shot at becoming law while HR 676 can't even get out of subcommittee. Edwards learned the lessons of the Clinton health care debacle in 1994. Anything that can be painted as a government takeover will not become law. That is just reality. Why do you think HR 676 is stuck in subcommittee?

The draft OIL law is an important issue. I don't know much about where candidates stand on it. I think that is important enough to perhaps warrant a thread on it alone.

I think both JE and DK agree on the end on health care but disagree as to the means. Edwards takes a realistic approach, Kucinich an idealistic approach that, as the fate of HR 676 shows, will not work. I think the candidates that should be under fire on health care are Obama, whose plan would leave at least 15 million people uninsured, and Clinton who has yet to present a plan, although she promises to do so next month.

[slipslidingaway]

49. What Green Arrow said above..."Kucinich is realistic.

The fact that HR 676 can't make it on to the House Floor says more about the credibility and nature of our Government and leaders, than it does about the practicality of Kucinich's plan. His plan is more cost effective, more inclusive, and ultimately, more humane than the others. Plus, it is in line with what most people, Dems and Repubs alike, want. The other plans -- whether Edwards' or Obama's -- are not realistic, and will not challenge the status quo, because they do not deal with the fundamental issue, namely, that our health care system is built on a for-profit model. Plans such as these remain tied to that for-profit structure, and as such will change little or nothing, particularly when they rely upon mandating that citizens participate in them."

Thanks Green Arrow :)


And Dennis has said that he took his proposal to the platform committee's in 2000 and 2004, both times they wanted to have a role for the 'for profit' healthcare systems. If elected he will take the plan to the people. Watch the video.

Dennis Kucinich on his Universal Healthcare Plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk


--Edwards needs to set up Health Care Markets across the U.S.

--"Reforming the insurance industry by setting national accounting standards requiring insurers to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care."
http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care/20070614-health-care-costs/

--Create new tax credits for people
http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/

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

--And finance his plan with Bush's tax credits, money that we never really had in the first place! Either it was charged to Bank of China/Japan or borrowed from the SS Trust Fund or ?

After he does all of these things, and you can just imagine all the potential cracks for corruption, the people will be mandated to purchase a plan. Which plan?

And at the very end of all this Edwards has still not addressed the future Medicare costs, although he admits something must be done.

The Conyers/Kucinich plan would move all healthcare under one umbrella and not leave the government saddled with the most expensive healthcare costs, such as Medicare, again which he still has not addressed! I see the Edwards' plan as being fragmented, leaving too many potential holes for corruption and people having to figure out which policy, from which carrier. If they opt to keep an employer plan or a private plan what stops the insurance companies from raising co pays, deductibles in the future.


snips from the first video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjA3CV95i4

Speaking of the government paying for Medicare and Medicaid which props up insurance company profits by removing two segments of citizens who have high health care needs.

Arnie Arnesen

"We left the insurance company with the youngest, healthiest people and no wonder they are making a profit, because we've taken away the most expensive part of healthcare, which obviously is going to constantly sink us like a stone. Because insurance is about spreading the risk, we don't spread the risk, in fact what we do is prop up the insurance industry. Which is why they are so frightened about changing anything in the way of a system because it is about their profits and their CEO's and not about our healthcare..."

Dennis Kucinich

"For profit insurance companies make money not providing healthcare..."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. HR 676 is stuck in subcommittee because people don't want it

The truth is most Americans would oppose it because of fear of "big government." Ask the Clintons. It is easy to grandstand on an issue but there is a reason it is stuck in subcommittee. When Kucinich gets it onto the House floor, or even to a committee, it will have more credibility.

[GreenArrow]

61. but people do want it

It the parasitic insurance industry and its political hosts that don't. It's a values question: either one views affordable health care as something akin to human right, an essential part of an humane, just and decent society, or one views it as a commodity, which happens to be the case among most of our self-styled "leaders." Any plan which is currently passable is by default going to be tied to and driven by that latter perception.

Now, what most Americans may not have figured out yet, is that there isn't much difference between "big government" as you put it, and big industry/corporations. They should know this; the business of America, is after all, business, but they don't really much like carrying forth that idea to its logical conclusion. Still, they may be getting there, and certainly, mandating participation in a health insurance plan, when they already are having trouble paying for their other necessities, may bring that realization a little closer to home for them.

Nevertheless, you're right, Kucinich is not going to win, and his plan is not going to be adopted and the problems with our health care system are going to persist and worsen, and no amount of "reform" -- so long as its foundations are rooted in the prevailing profit-centric modality -- is going to change anything. Kucinich is a prophet, he's several steps ahead of his times, and eventually someone will come along and take the bull by the horns and make a real health care, not insurance, program in the USA. Ain't nobody in this election cycle offering anything other than the same old shit on health care. Win or lose, Kucinich is fighting for this not so much because he thinks he can "win" it, but because he knows that we as a country must win it.

[slipslidingaway]

70. Most people do not even know about it! I do not see how the

Edwards' plan will work. It work be nice if you would address some of the issues I have raised with the Edwards' plan. Maybe there is something I am missing?

[ProudDad]

75. Other than parroting the health insurance mafia's talking points

for them, what makes you think "most Americans would oppose it"...

Try taking Medicare away from seniors... HR676 is Medicare for everyone...

One would only have to put on hours of Seniors talking about their Medicare and you'd sell most of the country on HR 676!!!

The reason it's stuck in committee is because it would NEVER BE SIGNED by *...

I've already covered this canard in post #66.

Please don't piss in the water with RW talking points... Thanks :hi:

[GreenArrow]

62. thanks for the good word

It sometimes amazes me just what passes for realism and practicality. What we are doing on health care is not practical for the vast majority of us.

[slipslidingaway]

71. YW and thank you for participating in the discussion. As

unfamiliar as HR 676 would be to most people, when I look at the two plans I cannot see how the Edwards' plan would be effective for most people.

[slipslidingaway]

50. And on the other topic, the draft Iraq Oil Law...

There have been several threads on the issue and I have asked the question a few times...no answer from the Edwards' supporters.

He obviously supports the oil companies on this issue...he has been silent.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

57. Why not post a thread on where all the candidates stand on it if you want an answer? nt

[slipslidingaway]

72. I've already called their offices and they cannot really answer the

question. The more important question is do people know where their candidates stand and do they care?

[ProudDad]

64. What makes you think the Edwards "plan"

is achievable?

How would he pass all of this against the lobbying power of the insurance companies?

If he can pass his kludge of a plan, why not get on board with HR676 -- the actual solution to removing the for-profit health insurance leeches and big pharma's power from the equation?

[Stop Cornyn]

46. Another REAL difference. Congress has already rejected Kucinich's plan (which is the best by far but

we haven't got the votes to pass it).

We need to find another pathway to the goal which Kucinich correctly identifies.

[slipslidingaway]

51. When was his plan defeated? What we need is to give Kucinich

a platform to take his plan to the people.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

59. It has been in subcommittee for what, 6 months? It is effectively dead

Even if Kucinich gets a platform the people will reject his plan. Do you realize how conservative the country is when it comes to "big government"?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. Exactly. It could not even get to a committee nt

[ProudDad]

67. I refer you to my Post #66 (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

60. Agree with Kucinich -- but we should just EXTEND Medicare to everyone ---

[ProudDad]

66. This whole debate is moot

Nothing will pass to repair the deviant health care industry in this country until there is a majority in the House, 60 votes (Dems and socially conscious repubs) in the Senate and someone in the White House who isn't OWNED by the health care mafia...

This cannot happen until 2009 at the earliest...

That's why HR676 has not emerged from Committee -- why bother wasting one's "powder" (shudder) on an impossibility and allow the health insurance mafia to begin their lying propaganda campaign early. I'm CERTAIN that Conyers and Kucinich are well aware of this and concur in the decision...

I KNOW that President Kucinich would sign HR676 into law. I believe that President Edwards would sign it.

I'm NOT sure that a President ObamClint would sign it...At this point, I tend to doubt it.

My point is that a simple, proven plan like extending an enhanced Medicare to all (HR676) in 2009 would be easier than trying to pass a patchwork quilt that DOESN'T COVER EVERYONE like Edward's "plan"...

Until then, the issue of Universal Single-Payer Health Care MUST be strenuously pushed at every opportunity and not allowed to slip from the top 2 or 3 issues in the '08 election!!!

[slipslidingaway]

73. Edwards might sign onto HR 676, but the real question is whether

he would use his position, if elected, to push for this plan. Since he has another plan my bet is that the answer would be no. Precious time will be lost in trying to pass the 'patchwork quilt plan' and then dealing separately with the future Medicare costs. All this while a significant portion of people retire and look to Medicare and Social Security for benefits. The SS Trust Fund has 2 Trillion
'on paper' which the government has borrowed from the fund.

So I do not see where all this money is coming from that our government will need shortly unless the profits from private insurance companies are used to fund healthcare. I can only imagine that it will come from the working people in the form of a tax increase.

I believe the only way to pass this plan in the foreseeable future is to take it to the people and have them pressure their elected representatives. So far only one candidate is willing to do this.

"My point is that a simple, proven plan like extending an enhanced Medicare to all (HR676) in 2009 would be easier than trying to pass a patchwork quilt that DOESN'T COVER EVERYONE like Edward's "plan"..."

Thanks for your thoughts.

[ProudDad]

76. Thanks to Michael Moore's "SiCKO"

and our allies in the health insurance mafia and big pharma, who are screwing over more and more folks every day, the pressure WILL come up from the people.

By '09, if those of us who are "in the know" keep the pressure on, the pot should be at full boil!

Possibly even ObamClintWards would be forced to sign...(hope springs eternal)...

[slipslidingaway]

77. Yes Moore helped quite a bit, but you have a bit more hope

in the top three than I do. Can you imagine any of them abandoning their helthcare plans for HR 676...I'm trying to picture it???

Hope YOU are right :)

[ProudDad]

78. Well

since HRC hasn't detailed any Health Plan...

And Obama hasn't detailed a Universal Coverage Health Plan...

And Edward's wouldn't get passed and would leave out millions (and ME)


There's not much for them to abandon :hi:




(Edited as Usual for grammer, synax or spelling -- I usually only explain an edit when I change a meaning or point)

[slipslidingaway]

80. Well that answer is just too logical! :) Dennis rec'd standing

welcome from the The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, although the endorses Clinton.

Only watched the first 15 minutes, link at his site or here. About 50 minutes

http://www.goiam.org/content.cfm?cID=11154

http://www.dennis4president.com/home/

:hi:

[ProudDad]

81. Company Unions' "leaders"

always try to suck up to the perceived "winners"...

It doesn't do them any fucking good but they keep trying to suck up to their corporate capitalist masters...


My Unions:

www.iww.org
www.local1000.org

[slipslidingaway]

82. Well the workers will hopefully see who would really help them

if elected and vote accordingly.

Thanks for sharing a bit about your unions :)

[dmallind]

69. But the REAL real difference....

...Is that Edwards has at least a realistic if slim chance of being able to put ANY plan into play.

You might as well point out that Screaming Lord Sutch has a great healthcare plan (in fact he no doubt does) for all the relevance that has in US politics.

[slipslidingaway]

74. See my post #73 above n/t

[ProudDad]

79. What slipslidingaway said (n/t)

[Visigoth1]

83. Kucinich only candidate favoring single payer, universal plan, nt

NT