Edwards bashes Romney health care plan "Mitt Romney's cure is worse than the disease,"

[rndmprsn]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/08/edwards_bashes.html

Even as Mitt Romney is laying out his health care plan at this hour to Florida doctors, Democrat John Edwards wasted no time bashing it.

"Mitt Romney's cure is worse than the disease," Edwards said in a statement. "Not surprisingly, he's unwilling to take on the big insurance and drug companies. As a result, it will make a dysfunctional health care system even worse."...



...Edwards, who claims to have the only health care plan that would cover all the estimated 47 million uninsured Americans, slapped Romney for not proposing all the major features of the Massachusetts plan for national health care reform.

"If universal health care was good enough for Massachusetts, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?"

[R_M]

1. Romney only supported a watered down version of universal healthcare...

in Massachussetts because it was popular in the state. He now has to play to his base as well as his "true" vile self. Flip-Flop anyone? :eyes:

[youngdem]

2. Massachusetts does NOT have universal healthcare.

It has a nearly universal requirement that individuals buy shitty, overpriced insurance policies or be TAXED as a penalty, thereby taking away what little money they had to provide care for themselves. There are some subsidies for 'low' income people, but the 'low' starts WAY too low, leaving TENS OF THOUSANDS out of even this terrible system.

The Mass. System is really terrible. It is better than nothing I guess, but just barely. And it doesn't address the key problems, namely GREEDY, HEARTLESS insurance companies denying coverage for what should be covered, hospitals' and drug companies' RAPACIOUS prices, and the 1/3 of Americans who CANNOT AFFORD ANY OF THIS.

The ONLY solution is Single Payer Universal Healthcare, with a sliding scale of assistance based upon a REAL measure of one's ability to pay, and the dissolution of health insurance companies completely.

[hfojvt]

3. even though I already have health insurance

the last thing I would wanna see is Massachusetts 'plan' go nationwide. Mitt is probably proposing something even worse.

I do not like the use of the word 'bashing' though. It implies a hateful person who is irrationally attacking out of spite. The media does not even play a fair Romney says/Edwards says game - it uses negative terms to describe what Edwards says.

What it needs to do is research of its own so instead of a Republican says/Democrat says story they can present the facts. Objectively call Republicans on their lies and distortions.

[bluerum]

4. How is it better - than ANYTHING?! In a sane world it would be seen

for what it is - extortion by the insurance companies. They bought a crooked idiot politician (read Mittens Romeye) and he passed a law that requires everyone in the state to pay the health insurance companies.

The health insurance companies. One of the richest most bureaucratically bloated corporate entities in the world. They need more money.

Explain to me how this helps anyone - besides the insurance companies.

[youngdem]

5. For those who CAN afford it but for some reason don't have it, the law does THAT subsection good

other than that, the handful of people who are purchased insurance or placed on medicare by the program are also assisted.

Otherwise, absolutely. You are right.

[bluerum]

6. I would guess that, those who can afford it already have insurance through

their employers.

If they are self employed and elect to pay for health care as they go, why should they be FORCED TO PAY THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES? (Sorry for shouting)

It. Is. Extortion.

For car insurance I can see some benefit and some distinction. My car gets wrecked, I get a new car. I am covered if some a$$hat runs into me. Also, I can elect not to own a car and not have to take out car insurance.

My feeling is that this plan should have targeted the most vulnerable - the poor and un-insured with SUBSIDIZED health insurance from the insurance companies. The insurance companies should have been the ones threatened with taxes if they did not comply.

[youngdem]

8. It's no more extortion than the car insurance requirement

If you get really sick or injured, hospitals are REQUIRED to treat you, and if you could have afforded insurance but chose not to, you have impacted the ability of the hospital to afford to provide care for the truly indigent.

Do you oppose mandatory liability insurance for cars? Same thing.

If you can afford it and choose not to afford it, the state should be able to fine you to contribute to a pool of money to treat your*(not personally you) lazy ass when you inevitably need help.

Don't get me wrong. I wholly oppose the approach, but I do endorse the idea that if you can get insurance without it putting you out on the street or forcing food off of your table, it should be your obligation in a society to provide coverage for yourself.

Again though, I support single payer. And, frankly, a gas tax for no fault auto insurance, with private supplemental if you want it.

[bluerum]

9. Point is I can elect not to own a vehicle. I agree that anyone driving a

vehicle should have insurance. I think that there are still a couple of states that don't require you to have insurance though.

I suppose that if the government is going to tax anyone, it should tax everyone. Not just the person who does not have insurance.

It is clear that everyone WILL need health care. Just a matter of time. It is also a fact that everyone (presumably) is taxed. It is up to the government to manage the taxes and develop a sane health care plan that benefits its citizens.

Caving in to the insurance company lobby and passing legislation that forces citizens to pay into a protection racket is extortion.

[undeterred]

7. Well its nice to hear a Democrat bashing a Republican for a change.