John Edwards campaign Official Response about REQUIRED preventative care

[jsamuel]

On the record from the campaign (email correspondence):

"Senator Edwards believes it is critically important to take preventive steps that help reduce health care costs and prevent disease. The truth is many people do not currently seek medical services because they aren't covered or can't afford to see a doctor. That is why Edwards' universal health care plan would require most insurers to cover preventive measures at low or no cost. Though incentives like lower premiums, the Edwards plan would also encourage people to use preventive health care, from checkups to cancer screenings, which will result in lower costs for both the individual and the country."

as posted in other threads, his plan says exactly that. When he spoke of mandated preventative care, he was mandating that it be covered by the insurers, not that it be followed by the subscribers.


This confirms what is on John Edwards website:

(2) Invest in Preventive Care and Health. Study after study shows that primary and preventive care
greatly reduces future health care costs, as well as increasing patients’ health, but our health care
system is focused on treating diseases, not preventing them. Insurance companies have little incentive
to bear these costs. As a result, many people do not receive preventive care such as tests and
immunizations. Other Americans suffer from preventable, chronic conditions that can lead to
complications and disability. Edwards will help Health Care Markets lead the effort to realign
incentives in the health care system that reward healthier outcomes and lower costs.

• Promote Preventive Care: Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at
little or no cost. Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free
physicals and enroll in healthy living programs. Edwards will also support community efforts to
improve health, such as safe streets, walking and biking trails, safe and well-equipped parks, and
physical education programs for children.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

more

The deal is that /insurance companies/ will be required to provide
/coverage/ for preventitive care with zero copay. That's different
from having the government sending you reminders saying you have to
see the doctor in the next two months or your taxes will go up.

(1) it's a right-wing talking point, so just point to some wingnut
blogs that have linked to it.
(2) The amount of compulsory medical care (vaccinations) a kid needs
to go to school (public or private) is already much larger than one
visit every 20 years.
(3) It wouldn't be mandatory, but look, in a system where everyone has
access to a doctor for routine physicals, you're going to end up
seeing a doctor at least once every twenty years.
(4) If you see a doctor every few years, they will almost certainly
recommend cancer screening.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/edwards-the-aut.html

[rinsd]

1. That makes his quotes all the more baffling.

[Catchawave]

8. What quotes? From MSM sites or the Campaigns ?

:banghead:

[rinsd]

12. Well we have a transcript and we also have a video.

"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4

Starts around the 1:25 mark.

Why are Edwards supporters continuing to pretend this is some fabrication?

[Milo_Bloom]

16. Shhhh

You can't listen to what John Edwards actually says, only what he says he said after he said it.

[rinsd]

17. Here's the thing. Its not even part of his plan! Why in God's name did he say it then?

[GreenArrow]

42. here's the real thing:

it is/was in his plan, and he's trying to cover his ass.

[karynnj]

98. Or this alternative possibility

It is NOT in his plan and it never was - but that Edwards misspoke or misinterpreted the plan his team created.

[GreenArrow]

100. sure, that's possible

But it's not too much a reach to believe that the simplest soltution -- he said what he meant, in this case -- is the right one. He has a long history of "correcting" his positions after the fact -- particularly once they become unpopular -- from Iraq - his vote was wrong, to the Bankruptcy bill --"I was wrong" to the Patriot Act - it goes too far, his backtracking on Iran, and so forth. Given that his 2004 plan mandated purchasing insurance for children, and his 2008 plan mandates participation in some form or another, it doesn't seem a small leap to accept that maybe he doesn't, or as the case may be, didn't have a problem with mandating something like checkups. I mean, the controversial words are pretty clear, and don't really make much sense in the context of his explanation. The applicable quote:

"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

To whom is he speaking here; voters,i.e., citizens, or the insurers?

[karynnj]

101. I think my alternative could be Occam's Razor as well

though I can see that yours works very well - and that as some said it could have been a trial balloon. (It also connects to the original idea that people in the 1980s said HMOs, which covered preventive care, would ultimately lead to lower overall health costs than the traditional plans that kicked in only after you paid a fixed amount for medical. The idea was that having to only pay a co-pay, people would get all the preventative care recommended. That did not happen. I doubt I am alone in not having always followed the guidelines because I was busy or just unmotivated. Here, he has his wife as an example of why it is important to go - and he knows it wasn't lack of money or insurance that was the reason. )

Edwards new positions all all complicated plans drawn up by his team. Think of the 2004 and 2008 debates, Edwards' best answers were those when he could directly paraphrase from his stump speech. When a question could not be answered that way, he was facile enough not to look like a deer in the headlights, but the answers were often as vague as could be. No candidate develops all his positions alone - to do so would be very arrogant and short sighted, but some likely bring far more of an outline of their views to the table.

A major point that Edwards' team made was that, unlike Edwards', Obama's plan was not universal - because it was not mandatory for people to buy the insurance. His plan also mandated that all plans have preventive care. It is possible that Edwards conflated these two concepts. Edwards has always seemed better to me when speaking big picture and rhetoric than on wonk. (This makes sense from his background, where Gore or Kerry were well known as Senate wonks and the Clintons were always called wonks, Edwards never was.) This also can explain the huge changes he makes and that he is then surprised when people notice.

[GreenArrow]

106. fair points all

and you could be right. Your analysis is always fair.

Still, given the history of this candidate, and the fact that he has had two campaigns to iron out his health care plan, I'm still convinced he said what he meant.

[maximusveritas]

53. You nailed it

It doesn't just apply to what Edwards says, but what he's done (his spotty record in the Senate). He just makes a few apologies and flip-flops and his supporters pretend like he's the most progressive person in the race.

[avrdream]

87. The Republicans may just eat him for lunch if he keeps this up.

I like the guy and really do think he has addressed a LOT of problems in his health care plan but he needs to be careful with what he says.

[Clark2008]

105. LMAO!!

:rofl:

I'm glad someone else noticed that.

[Catchawave]

24. Why are some DUers determined to *kill* Edwards....you guys make me

SICK............do your fucking HOMEWORK and stop and stop promoting MSM talking points here.

[rinsd]

31. Stop your candidate's foot in mouth disease

He's the one talking about concepts not even related to his health plan.

[Catchawave]

37. And still, I have no idea what you're talking about

Fine...shoot my candidate in the mouth, but i STILL would NOT shoot yours in the foot.

Truce?

[rinsd]

38. Truce

You can't be all bad if you cheer for the Yankees (which my usual avatar) ;-)

[Catchawave]

40. Thanks...

:hug:

[Forkboy]

49. Hillary AND the Yankees?

You're killin' me. :spank:

I just saw the highlight of A-Rod's massive bomb last night.You don't see many like that at Yankee Stadium.The look on Jeter's face was awesome.

Too bad they blew it after sweeping the Sox last week. ;)

[rinsd]

56. I know. I am Satan

;-)

Arod absolutely crushed that ball.

There was an emotional letdown after the Sox series and they let a couple of games just slip away.

But there is much to be optimistic about in Yankee land.

I just ordered my custom Joba t-shirt yesterday.

The MLB shop allows you to get a t-shirt with the logo on the front and the player's name on the back with their number for any player on your team's roster. So if someone wanted say a Dustin Pedroia or a Okajima t-shirt, it could be ready by playoff time.

http://shop.mlb.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2454008&cp=1452345.1452683

[Forkboy]

58. By the time the playoffs roll around I'll be wearing my Bruins jerseys.

:)

[rinsd]

61. The Bruins? They still exist?

;-)

[Forkboy]

64. Ouch...that stings.

:D

[BeyondGeography]

84. By the way, no one's a bigger Yankee fan than BG

and too bad we ain't hittin' Washburn tonight.

Joba needs to hold 'em now...Hughes did well, btw.

[rinsd]

97. Arod is simply ridiculous.

[BeyondGeography]

99. I'm afraid we're going to have to give him a raise

something I never thought I'd say.

[rodeodance]

93. I think what gets said on the trail---quickly got misrepresented-and Edwards

shares some blame.

But, overall, he has a good plan.

[LittleClarkie]

108. Never been tired? Never misspoke?

I have.

I guess that means I can't run for prez.

[Forkboy]

35. Check the avs and sigs of the people who are complaining the loudest.

Therein lies your answer.

[Catchawave]

41. ...

:toast:

[robinlynne]

69. ahh seems to be the hillary crowd. Well she sure has great health care answers,

doesn't she... (insert sarcasm thingie, since she's still taking money from the hmos. I kinda doubt she will dismantle them.)

[FormerDittoHead]

83. I noticed that too... n/t

[slipslidingaway]

33. KICK! n/t

[Catchawave]

43. phtt....

but thanks for kicking :hi:

[PATRICK]

63. Gaffes and English style

When there are two senses to an expression and one can be more easily presumed than another you are in MSM gotcha territory if the MSM so decides- as it does regularly. I think the defense that it means you have(to be covered) for preventive care is the hard fact behind the statement. The expression, to anyone not soaked to the bone in the campaign planks like the candidate is, can more easily be interpreted on its "face" value. they also spent a good portion of labor day talking about the anti-SUV comment and whether he drives a SUV.

I love the degree of intense perfection expected of OUR candidates and the degree of ignorance tolerated by the MSM for itself. In defense of the mystified listeners they receive only encouragement from the MSM to go ballistic on first impressions.

Yes, yes, candidates have to more careful about the use of words despite having the black and white of the platforms to back them up. Having to apologize for an offense of putting the accent on the wrong double meaning of this magnitude would be another overlarge price the MSM would gleefully extract and run with, the scurrying little legs of ratty stories running at the heels of their GOP masters.

Again, the corporate media dictates and controls the terms and topics of the national discusson and a great deal of DU discussion in ways never defended against. They OWN the spotlight.

[Cameron27]

67. If his previous statement was a gaffe,

he should include that in his response. It didn't appear to be a gaffe when he was talking to Lance Armstrong, as a matter of fact, he seemed very proud of the mandatory part of his plan.

Right now we have 2 different postures on this issues from the same politician, and he hasn't bothered to address the fact that he made the forced check-up statement at all.

/spelling

[robinlynne]

70. MANDATORY FOR THE HEALTH PROVIDERS. not for you.

[robinlynne]

68. mandate for the health industry. How about you guys get over it? Let's see

Iraq, health care for all (only Edwards and Kucinich offer that), human rights, and you're going to blab on about semantics for days?

[Cameron27]

71. He's got to explain what he meant by his statement on

forced check-ups. He never narrowed his comments to the "health industry", and I'll damn well will "blab on" about a comment a politician makes about my choices in my own health care.

"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

[flpoljunkie]

91. The words do speak for themselves.

[surfermaw]

95. If this statement was baffling , maybe you need some one to translate

for you. I see nothing baffling , everyone in the U.S that reads a newspaper or turns on the T.V. knows, our health cost is much higher because some people can't afford a doctor , and wait until they are in bad shape before going to an emergency room, where they sometimes are hospitalized for a long time, if they had good care at the start the problem sometimes can be taken care with the right med. and a few days off from work.

[Cameron27]

102. You know what's funny (not) about this?

First I was told that NO, he'd never make a dumb statement like forced check-ups, stop spreading RW smears, then when the video was produced, it changed to well, so what if he wants to require office visits, nothing wrong with that, accompanied of course with the disingenuous push polls...do you resent wearing seatbelts? would you spend your precious resources?, and NOW with a lame statement from the Edwards' campaign, one that never directly confronts his previous bold, required office visits/monitoring/mandated preventive care proclamation, made on national TV, during the cancer forum, everything is somehow supposed to be settled and I'm told I need a translator. ROFL, this is like icing on the f'n cake.

No, until I hear him directly address what he said at that forum, I'm not betting that we have any idea where Edwards really stands on this issue.

[dk2]

2. Ah

Thanks much for your post, this country truly needs Universal Health Care.

[BridgeTheGap]

3. Single Payer - universal coverage - NO INSURANCE COMPANIES

It is naive to think that the insurance industry is going to go along with this. As soon as I hear any candidate talk about involving the insurance companies in a plan to cover everyone, I know it's not going to happen.
Time to stop talking and start doing.

[smoogatz]

4. Time to do away with for profit health-care

and nationalize health insurance. Anything else is a half-measure, at best.

[2rth2pwr]

5. Are we supposed to believe the campaign official

or John Edwards?

[FrenchieCat]

6. His actual verbal statement was a trial balloon, perhaps.....

with this "clarification" following a few days later in order to calm the waters after the balloon was judged to be made of Lead? :shrug:

[Catchawave]

11. It's September , take the duct tape off your avatar mouth :)

I can't wait til we move on to Free College and it's MANDATORY that the kids work 10 hours a week!

Go Team Trashers :rofl:

[pioneer111]

14. That is silly

There is no need for a trail balloon unless something controversial was being added.

Edwards plan is clear now. Insurers are to make available preventive measures that many do not have access to now.

[CTyankee]

18. Well, his words are his words. People can't have it both ways.

This statement looks pretty clear. I can understand disagreement on substantive differences in plans, but here he has clarified his earlier remarks, which is that there is no Edwards plan to force people against their will into having medical checkups. So he is not Joe Stalin and more than a few DUers have got to be a bit red faced after some of the rhetoric that got thrown around here in the last 48 hours.

Let it go, folks. It was fun while it lasted but now the party's over. The faux outrage should stop because it just looks silly.

[rinsd]

21. Why? Some of us are pissed he handed the rightwing a talking point against universal healthcare.

The GOP had a field day with a haircut.

What do you think they will do with a video of him discussing mandatory checkups as part of his universal insurance program?

[CTyankee]

25. And YOUR bringing it up again and again HELPS the Dems?

We should all be pointing towhat he has now clarified and carry the conversation about universal coverage forward.

Edwards hasn't handed the RW a talking point if we don't concede the point. All we have to do is point to his most recent statement. THAT's his policy. Period.

[rinsd]

28. I have brought it up again because of two reasons

1) Edwards supporters have been pretending it didn't exist

2) Edwards supporters went to great lengths to defend the concept of mandatory checkups.

"Edwards hasn't handed the RW a talking point if we don't concede the point."

You think if I didn't discuss this the rw would forget about it? They are eating this up.

[slipslidingaway]

39. Just repeat what is being said today and ignore damage done

by past remarks. If you do not you are helping Rush, using RW talking points, just trying to smear Edwards for your own agenda and probably not even a Dem.

:sarcasm:

In the second sentence replace the words "you have to go" with 'you are encouraged to go.'

"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

[2rth2pwr]

51. I thought we supposed to post polls

and threads mocking people who think mandated dr visits were wrong? I better get this straight.

[CTyankee]

74. Obviously, I don't fit into 1 or 2. As for 3, here is my response:

doyou think if he had NEVER said what is reported that he said, the RW wouldn't have still attacked on "socialized medicine"?

Of course they would. No free lunches, folks. BUT, if you and others on DU keep bringing it up, it will encourage the freepers to say, "You see, even the DEMS hate the idea of socialized medicine!" Why do you and others want to bring THAT on our party?

We've got Edwards's latest statement. Can't we leave it at that?

[Cameron27]

75. CTyankee, you're one of the Edwards' supporters

who I can usually find some common ground with, but I don't think I can agree with you on this. His latest statement just talks over his previous one, and there's no explanation for why he made the first one. Mandatory check-ups and monitoring are a big deal, and I for one, want to see an absolute denial by him that that's what he meant.

[CTyankee]

79. Well, let him know how you feel, as a Democrat.

I am all in favor of the people letting the candidates have a piece of their minds. It doesn't hurt and it may help! Say to him what you just have said to me. I would be very interested inhearing what he has to say in response!

[Cameron27]

81. That's not a bad idea,

I think I will. Thanks.

[2rth2pwr]

29. Ohhh, now I get it

This last few days have been practice in not conceding the point. Got it, now it all seems to make sense. The people defending his statements should have been in on this little exercise.

[CTyankee]

76. Well, I don't know if they were "in" on it or not, but it seemed to me

that if they complain about the RW using it, they had pretty much conceded their point about universal health care.

My preference would be for a positive statement, like the one Edwards' released, which desribed what Edwards' intent was. Just say it and then shut up.

The more we beat our breast, the more they will attack. Who's side are you on?

[2rth2pwr]

86. I'm on the side of choice

And Govt,Parties or people that tell me to shut up wont have my support.

Edwards' intent was clear, I am waiting for him to come out from behind the skirt and the campaign and speak for himself.

[CTyankee]

92. I didn't phrase myself well; no way I want you to shut up about issues.

My point is that once you have clarified your statement, you don't need to say more (unless asked of course). Explaining too much is sometimes not the way to go. It's like the psychology of selling: make your pitch and then stop talking.

OTOH, if a candidate is asked point blank to explain the discrepancy between statement A and statement B, then that candidate SHOULD explain further. That is why I encourage those who are obviously having a very hard time with JE's earlier statement to find a way of asking Edwards himself. I strongly believe that he should respond directly to your question. Go at it!

[pioneer111]

10. We believe Edwards documented plan

which is what he is committed to.

So we believe John Edwards the advocate for the little guy and who has a comprehensive plan.

He wants preventive measures available for everyone by their insurers. Sounds good to me.

[2rth2pwr]

27. This reminds me of the line-

"Who You Gonna Believe, Me Or Your Lying Eyes?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4

[Forkboy]

36. Well,we could believe all the people here who have the answer.

:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

44. Believe John Edwards...

Believe John Edwards...Believe John Edwards...

[Catchawave]

7. Also....for the DUers "too lazy to do their own research" and post RW dung...

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/edwards-the-aut.html

The deal is that /insurance companies/ will be required to provide
/coverage/ for preventitive care with zero copay. That's different
from having the government sending you reminders saying you have to
see the doctor in the next two months or your taxes will go up.

(1) it's a right-wing talking point, so just point to some wingnut
blogs that have linked to it.
(2) The amount of compulsory medical care (vaccinations) a kid needs
to go to school (public or private) is already much larger than one
visit every 20 years.
(3) It wouldn't be mandatory, but look, in a system where everyone has
access to a doctor for routine physicals, you're going to end up
seeing a doctor at least once every twenty years.
(4) If you see a doctor every few years, they will almost certainly
recommend cancer screening.

[jsamuel]

9. thanks, put that info in the op

[Catchawave]

19. Probably needs it's own thread....

:toast: Thank YOU for providing the facts from the campaign.

[rinsd]

15. RWers aren't making it up but they sure are running with it. Edwards was the dumbass who said it.

And this recent week wasn't the 1st time he has talked about mandatory checkups, not payment for said checkups. He is very clear in that he is talking about people having to see the doctor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4

And that is why I am pissed at Edwards. WTF was he thinking when he knows the rw is looking to sabotage universal health care.

[CTyankee]

22. Well, he's not saying it now. We have his clarified statement. Why can't you

let this go and move on? Why keep bringing it up? You're hitting the refresh button on this for some reason. If you don't want the RW to use this against universal health care, why do you take it upon YOURSELF to bring it up?

[rinsd]

26. I am sure he will be asked about it in a future debate and look forward to his answer.

[CTyankee]

73. He'll use the clarified version and that will be that.

He's a smart guy. Never explain too much.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catchawave]

45. MOD PLEASE PM ME ...YOU DELETED MY RESPONSE TO THIS ??

NOW...tapping foot.

[2rth2pwr]

48. something about "see you" nt

[Catchawave]

50. R U a Mod.....?

Calling a candidate a dumb ass wins points, at See You.

Geesh.

[2rth2pwr]

52. a post-mod nt

[Catchawave]

55. With 66 posts...?

On DU? Stop it.

[2rth2pwr]

60. Postmodernist. nt

[Catchawave]

66. Kick, before I cyberchoke someone....

MOD...Just PM me and tell me why I couldn't defend a candidate here with the same snotty comment he was attacked with?

[smalll]

72. PLEASE don't tap your foot -

think of the children!

[tkmorris]

59. YOU are running with it

Just because you are a Hillary supporter doesn't mean you need to act like they do when it comes to other Democratic candidates. Don't carry their water for them.

[be inspired]

13. Thanks.

I understood all along that he was mandating that insurance companies must provide preventative care. That has been clear from his plan all along. I do think that he somewhat misspoke the other day, or possibly that the MSM got the quotes wrong.

[rinsd]

20. So explain this video in which he is clear he is talking about people having to go for checkups

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4

Discussion about this begins around the 1:00 mark

This wasn't a quick muffed statement. This was a drawn out explanation.

[2rth2pwr]

23. Have you watched the video?

At about 1:25 does it look like he somewhat misspoke? How about his comments over the weekend, did the MSM mischaracterize him to have him drop in the polls?

It is getting confusing because of all the people in the last couple of days who have been saying that these mandated checkups are the greatest thing and that everyone who has been expressing distaste should just shut the hell up.

[GreenArrow]

46. mispoke. No, he told you what we meant

or thought he meant anyway, since it hasn't gone over real well. Now he's running in the other direction.

[sandnsea]

32. Now this was a stupid controversy

John Edwards is going to force me to be healthy and live along time -- noooooooo, ruuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnn,,,

This was partisan hackery politics on steroids...

I'm glad they clarified, but they really shouldn't have had to make the correction to Democrats for chrissake.

[2rth2pwr]

34. Yea, cuz he never said it. nt

[Vinca]

47. John is a smart man and should realize the insurance companies

cannot rake in the kind of dough they want if they're paying for annual physicals, preventive colonoscopies and other things. Why does he insist on including the money grubbing insurance industry in the solution? They caused the problem! It's their fiduciary responsibility to make as much loot as they can for their investors. If that means denying care - which it often does now - they're not bothered by it. If Edwards would support the Conyers/Kucinich bill I'd be first in line to vote for him.

[CTyankee]

77. As an Edwards supporter, I heartily support your post.

I have some problems with JE's overall policy myself, but I differentiate that (and your issue) from this awful,mandatory Joe Stalin thing of a thread.

We can, and should, differ on policy issues. This has gotteninto the Twilight Zone. We should be in the REality Zone. Let's fight the real fight here.

[Catchawave]

54. Ok, fine: from DU rules

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

[2rth2pwr]

62. There is no Nominee.

But thanks.

[ljm2002]

57. That's great...

...I for one am very glad to hear that the "mandatory preventive care" thing is just another canard.

However, I'm still dubious of his "universal health insurance" provided by "insurance companies" who will have to provide coverage for various things.

Universal, single payer health care is an idea whose time has come. I would like to see it as a platform item. Screw these half measures that try and accommodate the rapacious assholes who now have us all by the short hairs.

Just pry their damned fingers off of us and give them a kick in the groin for good measure, and let's get on with life in the USA the way it should be, not the screwed up way it is now.

[Cameron27]

65. That's fine, but where does he clarify his words at the Armstrong

forum? It sounds like he's talking over what he's already said. Was it a mis-statement or what? There isn't any retraction of his statement about forced check-ups, and there isn't a denial that that's what he meant.

I'm trying to be fair, and I've been waiting for his answer to these questions, but this doesn't explain why he said what he did at the forum, and what's being passed around at youtube.

[CTyankee]

78. C'mon, his latest statement is it. Why belabor it at this point?

Please don't carry this on, beyond what is useful for the Dem Party. We have good candidates. The debates so far have been useful. We have a plethora of talent and we look like stars up against the ugly customers on the Repub side!

Let's keep our winning edge, folks. No more dragging down the team!

[Cameron27]

80. No, I'm sorry but I can't just accept this as his final word,

when he hasn't made any attempt to reconcile the two statements. It's not difficult to say "I mis-spoke," or even "I was misunderstood when I made the comment about mandatory checkups." I told you in another thread that for me, he had to be specific in his answer to those email questions, and I meant it.

I guess on this one, we're going to disagree. :-)

[CTyankee]

82. Sure, fine with me. But you won't get it (I don't think) from JE's campaign.

If he did what you want, he would play into the Repubs hands. They would make a LOT more of his apology and it would not serve the interests of universal health care, which I know you care about, well at all. So as a campaign tactic I understand it.

I don't think we are at odds at all in terms of what we want to see for universal health care. It's just that I have not seen what you seem to have seen, a totalitarian streak in John Edwards. If I saw that, I would probably be in agreement with you.

[Cameron27]

85. No, I never said totalitarian,

what I saw was an authoritarian posturing when he talked about his mandates with Armstrong. FWIW, I don't think that that word defines him in the general sense, just in that one particular snippet at the forum.

[JNelson6563]

88. After reading this thread I wonder

What use could the time and energy wasted on snark and broadsides been better directed? Maybe some local party building efforts? Maybe something else more worthwhile?

But then again, some of the nastier comments come from those who are so ugly (personality-wise) I gotta believe they aren't too popular in RL and therefore perhaps aren't included in RL efforts for that reason?

Whatever it is I just marvel at the time and effort people have on their hands to waste on tearing down one of our own. It happens all too often here at DU in relation to all of our candidates. Who needs Rethugs when we have so many nasty DUers?

Julie

[Colobo]

89. John needs to be a bit more clear on the campaign trail.

The RW has trashed him good for the last week or so because of his choice of words.

[1932]

90. Yeah. Blame the victim. Because Edwards is going up in the polls, Drudg/MSM will tell more lies

about what he's saying, and it's the job of Democrats to repeat the truth and not to spread the lies.

[Cameron27]

94. Victim, no.

Most of his wounds have been self-inflicted during this primary.

[1932]

107. Which explains why he's going up in the polls?

[slipslidingaway]

96. I'll believe the candidate,unless he now says he made a mistake

He should know all the details of his plan, watch the video again and listen to the question being asked by Lance Armstrong


"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

In other words if You're in this universal healthcare system YOU have to go for regular, periodic check-ups,

Again watch the video and listen to the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4

[Cameron27]

103. I'm with you,

I want to hear him directly refute the previous statement. Stick around though, someone's bound to tell you that you need a translator.:eyes:

[slipslidingaway]

104. Edwards supporters only want to talk about the first sentence

and ignore the second where he clarifies what he means. They also want to ignore the question he was answering!

These statements by Edwards have done nothing but hurt the case for real single payer not for profit universal health care. They have just helped to cloud the waters IMO and people should be annoyed not cheering for the latest statement from the campaign.

:think: