Edwards on Bill Maher

[question everything]

He was good and it is clear that Maher, like most media people, root for him (if for the simple reason that the white man provides the comfort of the familiar)

But I have two comments:

He says that Clinton's health care calls for negotiating with the insurance and the drug companies - keeping the status quo - while he wants to take them out of the equation. Yet, he keeps employers in the system which is as much as a status quo as Clinton's. How will employers provide insurance? By contracting with insurance companies, the way they are doing now.

Comparing Clinton to Dean who, before Iowa, appeared to be the "inevitable." The difference is that Dean was pretty much unknown for most of us, not from the Northeast, while Clinton is well known.

P.S. - so far I, too, am rooting for Edwards as I did in 2004, even sent him contributions but I want him to do better.

[Stop Cornyn]

1. Here is a really good discussion of why Edwards health care plan is the second best after Kucinich's

In a crowded field, Edwards' health plan sets him apart by Rob Christensen

“What we have is a dysfunctional health-care system in the United States of America,” Edwards said at a recent Democratic presidential forum on health-care reform. “We need big, bold, dramatic change, not just small change.”

But what kind of plan is Edwards putting forward? Who would it help? Who would pay for it? And does it have any better chance of getting through Congress than the plan backed by the Clintons more than a decade ago?... Edwards is the only major candidate who has laid out a specific plan for making sure that everyone is insured. (Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate, has proposed extending Medicare to cover everyone.)... The Edwards plan would require every American to have health insurance by 2012 - the last year of Edwards’ first term if he were elected. The plan would first make health care available to everyone and then require people to carry health insurance, just as motorists must have liability insurance.

The plan is a mix of public and private strategies. Employers would be required to either provide insurance to their employees through a company policy, or to help fund coverage for their workers by contributing to regional nonprofit government entities that Edwards calls health markets.... The health markets would use the economy of scale to negotiate affordable policies through insurers. Uninsured individuals could obtain coverage through a health market. So could employers seeking to provide group policies for their employees.... Health markets would offer traditional plans from private companies such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Aetna and Cigna, as well as a government-run plan similar to Medicare, the federal health-insurance program for the elderly. The public-sector plan would resemble Canada’s single-payer system, in which insurance is publicly funded to control costs but doctors and hospitals remain private.

“The idea is to determine whether Americans actually want a private insurer or whether they would rather have a government-run ... single-payer plan,” Edwards said. “We’ll find out over time where people go.” The mix of market and government initiatives makes Edwards’ plan much harder to attack than Clinton’s early 1990s plan, said Leif Wellington Haase of the Century Foundation, a liberal-leaning think tank. “In this plan, the changes happen much more gradually,” Haase said. “Each element has a market element that deflects the attack. I think it’s a very smart political document.”

Although Haase thinks the Edwards plan does not go far enough, conservatives fear it would take the country too far toward government-run care. “It sets up a slippery slope to move toward a single-payer, government-run health care system,” said Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. “He realizes that Americans are not going to take that in one bite.” Tanner contends that under Edwards’ parallel system, private insurance would be unable to compete with a taxpayer-funded system. The single-payer system, Tanner argued, sounds good. But it would not be popular with citizens because it would ration treatment for expensive and long illnesses, and would discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new drugs. “Single-payer systems are good if you are not sick,” Tanner said. “They provide routine care at low cost. But they don’t provide intensive, expensive medicine for people with serious illnesses.”...

Edwards ... proposes to pay for by repealing the tax cuts pushed through by President Bush on families with a taxable income of more than $200,000 per year. “I do not believe you can have universal health care without finding a source of revenue,” Edwards said.

The whole discussion is well worth reading: HERE.

[question everything]

7. Agree. But if he does rely on private insurers

like Blue Cross, Aetna and Cigna, why does he attack Clinton for doing the same?

And I don't see anything wrong with keeping these players since most Americans, who do rely on employer-provided insurance, like them (until they do not...)

Never mind that this creates an unhealthy dependency on an employer even when any other job-related benefits no longer exist.

I know of too many people who stick by their jobs because they know that their pre-existing conditions will not be covered by individual policies.

I even know of individuals who schedule non-emergency surgeries before the open enrollment starts since they do not know what type of policy and providers they will have.

As for extending Medicare to everyone - as Kucinich suggests - how does he propose to pay for it? While talks about Social Security going broke do provide headlines, we don't hear much about Medicare even though I think that it is in similar binds.

[Stop Cornyn]

11. Here's the key: Edwards' plan for a mix of public and private doesn't "ban" private insurance so it

avoids the insurance industry argument that "Edwards is taking away your choice in health care" because Edwards can respond "you can opt out and have your same private insurance."

Edwards plan is not job-dependent because (1) you keep your insurance when you leave your job and (2) if you are unemployed you can get the public Medicare-based coverage.

This isn't as good as Kucinich's "single payer now" plan, but Edwards plan will naturally lead to single payer in the long run. Here is the most important passage from the whole article I posted above:

conservatives fear it would take the country too far toward government-run care. “It sets up a slippery slope to move toward a single-payer, government-run health care system,” said Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. “He realizes that Americans are not going to take that in one bite.” Tanner contends that under Edwards’ parallel system, private insurance would be unable to compete with a taxpayer-funded system.

[question everything]

15. I understand this. So why attack Clinton that she

is leaving the private insurance in place?

[Stop Cornyn]

22. Because Clinton has ONLY private insurance & no realistic avenue for evolving to public single payer

[surfermaw]

20. Here is one reason Blue Cross might be an excellent bet

My husband and me retired at the same time and took out supplementary policies.. We both started out ten years ago paying the same price, today my Blue Cross is 120 dollars each month, his with a different company is now at 200 dollars a month. Looks like John knows his stuff.

[MADem]

2. WTF??????

Maher, like most media people, root for him (if for the simple reason that the white man provides the comfort of the familiar)


What a LOAD!!!! You apparently don't know much about Bill Maher's dating habits, social life or network of friends.

That's a pretty cheesy thing to say--AND it's false. But it's like one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" sentences. You're IMPLYING that the guy is a 'bit of a racist.' Because OF COURSE, that's the ONLY reason he might like Edwards as a candidate.

Shame on you.

Consequently, I can't even read the rest of your post, when you start out with pure shit like that.

[silverojo]

3. Bill Maher said he was a friend of mAnn Coulter

Anyone who would give that manbitch the time of day is pond scum in my book.

[MADem]

6. Ah, you're a LOCKSTEPPER!!!! He's friends with Arianna Huffington, too.

And Cornel West, Andrew Sullivan and DL Hughley, and that's just for starters.

He listens to a wide spectrum of people, and then tells them if he thinks they're full of shit. He's learned how to disagree without being terribly disagreeable.

Gee, what a concept....!!!

[DrDan]

8. I don't think it has anything to do with him giving her anything . . . quite the opposite

as I understand . . . and it tends to keep her quiet . . .

[venable]

4. media roots for john edwards?

not in the universe I'm currently visiting. they ignore him. I've been out of the country for 7 weeks, but was told by friends that Edwards union endorsements were not covered in the NYTmes, until today when there is a piece at the bottom of page 13. these endorsements are huge, and hugely ignored. as are all of his important policy positions. the media would rather cover the rock stars (and I don't believe they are covering them because they are ahead, I believe they are ahead because they are being covered)

not sure what 'comfort of the familiar' means, but I'd like to think it has nothing to do with race or gender in your opinion.

[MADem]

5. You need to read the OP. Again.

Those aren't MY words.

The OP clearly meant to say, and did, that Edwards being a white guy had the comfort of the familiar to Bill Maher, implying that Maher was a lazy fellow at best in choosing the candidate to support, and a bit of a racist/sexist (by ruling out Obama/Clinton/Richardson??) at worst.

It's not about Edwards, it's about Maher's SUPPORT of Edwards.

If you didn't see the REAL TIME show, you're out in left field.

[venable]

9. easy now, I was referring to the OP, not you, even if it linked yours.

if you read my post, you'll see we are saying the same thing in opposition to the OP.

[MADem]

10. You responded to the wrong post, then! nt

[venable]

12. i thought my post was clear in it's message

and that the particular post it threaded off was irrelevant.

I'm going to continue to proceed on that understanding that the central feature of a post is its content rather than its placement.

[MADem]

13. Well, if you aren't responding to the right person, odds are good they'll never see what you wrote.

Because they'll look at MY DU and not see any indication that you replied to them.

OTOH, if you reply to one person with remarks intended for a different person, they'll think, like I did, that your remarks were intended for the person to whom you replied.

[ChiciB1]

14. WELCOME BACK!! I Have Some That I PM With Where You Went!!

You've had so much to offer and made many very good intelligent points, so I figured this place FINALLY got to you!

And YES, Edwards has been ignored a lot, but Chuck Todd has made several several "veiled" remarks on several programs about the "Edwards Syndrome" while not naming names! He says the D.C. Elites HATE him, but doesn't elaborate. MAYBE, just MAYBE he'll give it up in time!! He KNOWS a lot and the fact that he comments on it this much speaks VOLUMES to me!

You can reply, but I've got some sort of stomach virus today and have to go drink some bouillon or something! My daughter recently started back working in a "hospital" again and I KNOW it's coming from there. She was working in Administration for several years, but got fed up with GOVERNMENT Intervention!! We live in Florida and MEDICARE is kind like National Health Care here!

[venable]

17. Thanks, ChiciB1

So sorry you're not feeling well. Take that bouillon. Rest up. We need your strong voice.

I was in Asia for 2 months, and I have to say that I missed DU, but also appreciated the break from so much nastiness. Anyway, I'm back in the States now, and headed to DU immediately.

Take good care of yourself.

[ChiciB1]

18. Thank You Too... Doing Better Today... DU HAS Been Sort Of A

firing squad of late, and I have to take my breaks from time to time! But it is "addictive" even with all the sizzle! I continually try NOT to spew vitriol, but don't always win the battle!

Welcome back!

[Hieronymus]

16. "Maher, like most media people, root for him (if for the simple reason

that the white man provides the comfort of the familiar)"

Who ever wrote this, and it's not clear who did, is such a racist.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Media people do not root for Edwards

I have never seen such universal hatred among journalists for any candidate, even Al Gore.

Right or wrong, fair or unfair, the Washington press corps despises him.

That's why the delight in running bullshit haircut stories, and then running them over and over and over.

[surfermaw]

21. Kurt you got that right, just have to watch Blitzer to realize the story

If you hear Wolf mention Edwards name you know it is going to be something nasty for Edwards, wonder how long it will take CNN to move Roberts into his spot.