Edwards: If members of Congress won't give Americans a healthcare plan, I'll take away theirs.

[SammyWinstonJack]

One of the many reasons he was run off? :shrug:


Last week Edwards launched a series of ads across Iowa promising that if he were elected and Congress didn't pass his healthcare plan, he would strip lawmakers of their coverage.


But while the ads represented a very nice piece of political rhetoric by Edwards,make no mistake: It's also the public presentation of a serious and thoughtful healthcare proposal -- one that would cover every American--that is both pragmatic in its approach and also the most progressive in the field after Dennis Kuchinich's

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/67917/



x(

[tritsofme]

1. It was an empty threat.

Only Congress can take away its own healthcare.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Beat me to it. nt

[dflprincess]

3. But it does call attention to the healthcare Congress gets

and that may wake some people up.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Exactly!

[Donnachaidh]

8. But it got the PEOPLE thinking and listening, didn't it?

Neither one of the handpuppets we have left to chose from would have the CAJONES to say that in front of a camera.

Both of them want to INCLUDE the insurance companies, and all the other bloodsucking leeches that call themselves health maintenance organizations in the *discussion*. Money and *deals* being made in back rooms, enriching everyone BUT the consumer.

Hope and Change -- TRANSLATION -- MORE of the SAME.

The average american might as well bend over and apply the lube themselves, because they're going to get the big shaft once AGAIN. And this time it will be a BLUE one. :grr:

And Congress will have full coverage for $35 a month, while the taxpayers who are sick will get sicker, or even die.

[tritsofme]

12. Not really.

Judging by the longevity of his campaign.

[Donnachaidh]

13. yeah, the MSM and the idiots that turned the campaign into American Idol helped that

But hey, now you have the choice of an empty suit with little experience or the big bad witch who is married to a former President. Both will be behind closed doors with their corporate cronies slicing up what's left of US for their own personal gain.

Great choices, huh? You gets what you deserve.

[rove karl rove]

10. yes but it was a good line

I don't think the issue gets near the attention it deserves.

[Donnachaidh]

14. And it's not going to either

Obama and Clinton are best buds with the healthcare and Pharma groups. They both raced each other gathering up that campaign money from those interests. Now those companies are in the catbird seat, no matter which one wins.

The only losers are the American public.

[zonmoy]

5. I figure that congress should be made to chose between no health care

or medicaid or other health care plans for the disabled. figure that would start them making it so that providers might actually be willing to take disabled patients rather than having to hunt down the charities for health care.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. No healthcare for them until they get off their greedy butts and provide coverage for every single

one of us! Fair is fair!

[Donnachaidh]

9. Anyone have KUCINICH'S phone number?

I'll bet HE can be talked into setting up the bill dissolving Congressional healthcare UNTIL the day it becomes UNIVERSAL for everyone in the country.

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. Being the successful and principled litigator

I'd like to see Edwards being an Equal Protection case against the US government on behalf of some citizen lacking healthcare. The government provides access to healthcare to some citizens and not to others. Some are more equal than others. That is the stuff that gives birth to Equal Protection cases.

[dflprincess]

11. Not until we have a different Court

The one we have now doesn't believe in equal pay - they're hardly going to rule that health care is a right.

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. Under and equal protection argument

they don't have to recognize health care as a right.

All they have to recognize is that it is unequal for the government to provide access to health care for some while denying it to others. The focus is on benefits provided rather on rights available.

[dflprincess]

16. You know that and I know that, any person who ever took a civics class knows it

but does the Roberts court know it? Let me rephrase, they may know it, they just don't care and will continue to side with with big business. They've made it pretty clear the Constitution means nothing to them. The equal protection clause has been used in the past to uphold civil rights laws and we're dealing with justices that would just as soon overturn Brown v the Board and go back to Plessy v Ferguson being the standard.

[Coyote_Bandit]

17. If one believes

that this is a country subject to its constitution and governing documents then one ought to be willing to fight and defend those principles. Giving up that fight and failing to make those arguments has the same effect as saying the constituion ain't worth the paper it is printed on. They win because we are silent. And why are we silent? Are we just lazy or is it because we assume we will lose the battle? One thing is certain, if we do not fight we will lose. If we remain silent we respect neither ourselves nor our governing principles IMHO.

You don't have to fight. Your choice. But given the opportunity I will. And if I were a skilled and principled litigator I would fight the battle to the bitter end. If you follow Supreme Court opinions through history you will find it is quite common for minority and dissenting opinions to become prevailing positions at some later date. The law is not static. It grows and evolves because we litigate matters that are important to us. It's called the principle of stare decisis.

So I say again: the fact that the US government makes access to health care available to some of its citizens while other citizens are denied the same benefit is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

[dflprincess]

20. I don't disagree with you about the equal protection clause

and it's an interesting way to approach the health care issue. But when we have a court that doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work I think it makes more sense to spend time trying to get a Democrat into the White House and a larger majority in the Senate so we can get some decent judges appointed. Perhaps I'm just getting old and tired but why try and break new ground when we're losing the gains made over the last 60 years?

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. We absolutely need to

get a Democrat into the White House and a larger majority in the Senate so we can get some decent judges appointed.

That doesn't preclude trying to break new legal ground. We wouldn't have a right to privacy or to contraception and nobody would be hearing their Miranda rights read if somebody hadn't dared to try and break new legal ground. Did you know that as recently as 1942 the US Supreme Court struck down a statute that allowed forced castration for repeated felony convictions? Yep, it was a case out of Oklahoma.

It would be wonderful if there were a legal right to health care. But that isn't going to happen in one fell swoop. The right to reproductive freedom and contraception evolved through a series of court decisions over a number of years. I would not expect health care to be different. It truly is time for somebody to start litigating these health care issues.

[dflprincess]

23. Both Miranda and Griswald were decided by the Warren Court

Griswald was decided by a 7-2 vote in 1965 and was the first major birth control case the court heard (earlier ones had been rejected and not eve heard by the court). Griswald applied only to married couples though it did lay the ground work for subsequent cases that allowed single people access to birth control and, of course, Roe V Wade.

Miranda also was handed down in 1965 and even with the Warren Court the vote was 5-4.

I wouldn't want the current court hearing either of these cases. If it had, we still wouldn't have a right to privacy or know our Miranda rights. The right wing hangs the idea that Roe was a bad decision on the idea the framers did not intend to imply any right to privacy.

The danger in having a case land in the Supreme Court before the make up of the court changes is that the decision could (and with this court would) go badly. As a rule, the court is reluctant to overturn a precedent - even if the majority of the court doesn't like the original decision. Instead they'll just pick away at it like they've tried with Roe.

Again, I think this is a great tactic to take, I'd just like to see the odds look a little better for a good outcome. I have no objection to a new Democratic administration using Rovian blackmail tricks to convince some of the justices that they might want to spend more time with their families if that's what it takes to get some decent justices on the bench. :evilgrin:

[Coyote_Bandit]

25. If we wait

to fight until we are certain of victory then we will never fight.

Majority opinions don't come out of nowhere. It is very common for majority opinions to cite earlier dissenting and minority opinions. Somebody fought and lost and in doing so laid the groundwork for somebody else to come along later and fine tune the legal argument in order to prevail. With few exceptions Supreme court cases are all about addressing novel legal issues. Facts and outcomes are merely adjuncts to those issues.

Before Griswold, the right to reproduce was established in the Oklahoma case striking down forced castration. Griswold was not without a foundation. Had the legal right to reproduce not previously been recognized the court would not have recognized the right to reproductive freedom in Griswold. The court often determines whether or not to grant cert and hear a case based simply on how the legal issues are framed.

Nobody is going to walk into a court - liberal or conservative - and have health care recognized as a right without some legal foundation to make that claim. The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not necessarily translate into a right to health care. One gets to that end result by incrementally building foundational legal arguments. Think of it as the legal equivalent of geometry proofs.

[dflprincess]

27. I didn't say fight only when you know you'll win

but there's no point in fighting a case like this in front of the current court when you know you're going to lose. At this point, I'd put my efforts for the health care fight somewhere else.

[Coyote_Bandit]

30. Winning is never a certainty in any courtroom

unless somebody has bribed the judge and jury. Even then it is dicey at best.

You don't have to fight. You don't have to understand the nature of the battle or the strategy to win the war. You don't even have to support those who choose to take on this battle. But please don't discourage them.

Electing Democrats isn't going to magically result in health care suddenly being made available to all regardless of their medical history or their ability to pay premiums. Ain't gonna happen. The proposals of our remaining candidates both fall far short of universal health coverage. People die in this country because they can't get health care. I am grateful for those who choose to fight the battles of those our nation finds disposable and less than equal. I hope some day our judicial system recognizes health care as a basic right necessary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As a student of the law who is licensed to practice I do find merit in making the equal protection argument. Or perhaps bringing a taxpayer derivative suit against the federal government. Clearly some citizens are being afforded a benefit by their government that other citizens are not - a benefit many do not have the ability to obtain through their own effort. That benefit? Meaningful access to health care.

Your certainty that the court will refuse the argument assumes that the court will hear the case and decide it on its merits. You need to realize that most cases which are presented to the court are denied cert and never heard. The court only hears about 200 or so cases a year. It can take years to find a suitable plaintiff and then several more years for a case to work its way through federal and appellate courts in order to even have an opportunity to go forward with a petition for certoriori. It is not at all uncommon for the court to refuse cert even in cases presenting novel issues. Many times the court does not choose to hear these issues until application for cert has been presented several times in multiple cases. Since the court is not obligated to hear every case presented it cherry picks cases and often seeks out cases that can be decided on very narrow legal issues. The current make-up of the court is irrelevant to litigation that likely will not be heard by the court for many more years. Nobody knows what the court will be like when the matter is presented for cert at that date.

Pursuing an equal protection argument will begin in federal court. It will work its way through the federal appellate courts. Then there will be an opportunity to petition for certoriori and a hearing in the US Supreme court. Denying cert does not mean the court made any determination with respect to the merits of the case. That means there need to be several cases making the same argument working their way through the federal court system. Different jurisdictions will apply different case precedents and different legal reasoning. Some cases will be stronger than others for this reason. IMHO it is past time for those talented and principled litigators to begin fighting this battle.

[mopinko]

18. get over it.

it is time to get behind our nominee. i never thought i would see anything more annoying than the followers of st dennis, but the people who can't get over john edwards make them look like perfect pragmatists. at least dennis has had the same set of conviction for his whole career, as opposed to edwards, who changes issues more often than he changes hairstyles.

really, it is past time for this kind of post.

[dflprincess]

21. Did I miss the convention?

I wasn't aware we have a nominee yet. Until we do, I will continue to visualize the convention deadlocking and an alternative candiate having to be chosen. Perhaps we could actually get a Democrat as a candidate and not some corporate sell out.

[mopinko]

24. barack obama is our nominee

you need to get on the train. there will be no deadlock. there will be riots if there is. that is not a threat. that is just a fact. we need to take our democracy back. magic number or no, one candidate has a decisive lead. period. this deadlock bs is antidemocratic in the extreme. such a move just plain cannot be allowed to stand.

[davidthegnome]

28. Correction

No nominee has been decided on yet. The debate will continue - the numbers will continue to shift.

I am a pledged delegate for (and solid supporter of) Barrack Obama, so my own bias on the issue is pretty clear. That does not mean I'm going to arrogantly assume a victory before the battle is finished, and it isn't. Period. Edwards has some pretty solid ideas which deserve - if not outright support, at least serious consideration.

As for St. Dennis, there are few men within the ranks of our "elected" government officials who come anywhere close to deserving Sainthood, but you may have found one. Interesting, I'll have to write a few letters to the church suggesting they begin the canonization process.

I repeat, there is not YET a nominee, and your statement to the contrary does not change this fact.

As far as Edwards and St. Dennis go, well, you're entitled to your opinions regarding the two of them, even if they are wrong. You aren't, however, entitled to your own facts.

[Skittles]

29. no it is not

we are reminded daily of what happens when we allow the MSM to pick our frontrunners

[Nutmegger]

19. R&K for John Edwards!

Thank you.

[poppysgal]

26. I miss him and want him back

he had a plan, I want him back, and I really wish that he could at least be VP.:shrug: