The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Who Pays $1000 for health insurance? (no one) Or better yet who receives multi-billion dollar bonuses every year? (insurance company executive) perspective. The thing needs to be destroyed and pieced together. I am all for profit but when it comes to the private sectors being virtually unregulated the masses lose.

PLEASE READ ME, I REQUIRED THOUGHT

As a type I diabetic, but also a college engineering/economics major, I have to say that I support McCain's plan. First of all, insurance does not exist to "pay for your medical expenses". The point of insurance is that getting sick can be very expensive, but the AVERAGE COST of receiving medical care is manageable. If it costs one million dollars to treat 1000 people, but only 100 of them get sick, it is easier for everyone one to pay 1000 then for only the 100 sick ones to pay 10,000. That is the point of insurance.

The goal of McCain's plan is to move people to independent insurance groups based on their individual health rather than who they work for. This will cause people with a higher risk of getting sick to pay more than those who have less chance of getting sick. This makes sense, because the AVERAGE COST of treating the sick ones is higher than treating the healthy ones. At some price it will still be possible for us diabetics to get insurance, and if we are willing to pay for it, we will get the level of insurance that we desire. This is better than being denied insurance by your employer, because you still have the option of getting insurance. If you don't consider the moral aspect, this is very logical and makes sense.

However, as with most political issues, the moral issue plays a big role. Many would argue, and validly so, that everyone has a right to medical care. For those who the AVERAGE COST of treatment would be higher than they would be able to pay (diabetics, cancer patients, amputees, ect.), insurance is effectively not an option because average medical costs of these people (and therefore the price of insurance) is more than they can pay. In my opinion, it would be good for the government to help out these people, referring to those who will never be able to make enough money to cover the care of their own exceedingly expensive medical care costs. This brings us to the central debate among this issue, "When should the government start helping people because it is to expensive for them to pay". There are several ways to look at this. An ultra conservative talk show host might say those who don't make enough money to pay for insulin deserve to die and should not be treated if they can not pay. A more reasonable person might say the government should pay only when the average cost of care for an individual is greater than a certain percentage of that person's income. Alternatively one could say that only people with certain conditions should receive government money. Or you could just say that the government should pay for everyone, whatever they need (this is getting deeper than I originally planed, but what ever). All of these options have pluses and minuses. Getting back to my main point, a minus of the government controlled health care plan is that if health care is truly free to all citizens, then its cost will not reflect the benefit those who receive it derive. For an extreme example, I might go to the doctors just to have someone to talk to or because I am bored, and the government will have to pay his $125 fee. The quantity of medical care used in this case will be inherently inefficient. Also, assuming that there is a limit to how much medical care the government provides (as is the case with most socialized health care programs), the way of receiving that scarce medical care might be waiting in line or having to be really sick before you get treated. In the current US system all you have to do is pay more money if you really want to see a doctor. At least you have the option. The benefit of McCain's plan is that one receives as much medical care as they want based on its price, rather than just getting as much as they want based on it being free. I believe that if one really wanted to "moralize" McCain's plan all you would have to do would be to include some sort of smaller government program which would help out those essentially unable to pay for their own care, like diabetics or the extremely poor. Another thing to take into consideration is that generally speaking, corporations run much more efficient shops than governments, but that is taking this issue deeper than I have time to write about.

In conclusion, insurance works because spreads out the financial risk of medical problems over many. In one context it is better than universal health care because it distributes a more efficient amount of treatment. Medical care must be balanced with other needs of people such as food, cars, and vacations. There are a limited amount of resources out there, and we must try and distribute them in a way that gives people the most satisfaction. While McCain's proposal does seem to not help out those with existing conditions, it does make the insurance cheaper. In all reality, those severe medical care problems should probably be covered by their own independent program, autonomous from McCain proposal. While it may not be perfect, of the three ideas being proposed by the candidates right now, I think McCain's is the best. Sorry to Mrs. Edwards, and I hope she recovers.

Beware of Mrs. Edwards = Same ol' politics of yesterday. Just last year she was pounding Mrs. Clinton on this same issue saying: "Clinton's new health care plan is a virtual copy of her husband's, with one difference being Clinton would invite lobbyists to the negotiating table."

Also:"She's wrong on how it is we get universal health care - and her own experience should have taught her that"
Link is below, just so we can stay on the facts for all of you that aren't sheep
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/25/2007-09-25_clintons_tanked_90s_health_plan_for_clou-3.html

Don't try to fool me, Lady!

Giving the health care companies the soverign and unchecked power to deny claims and payments, and set rates as they see fit is one of the basic problems with our system. The insure only healthy people and justify every reason in the world why they can. The health care lobbiests are alive and well in Washington, and if something isn't done to alter this behavior, no promises the new president can make will change the environment. I know plenty of people who have a brush with cancer and various other ailments, who are healthy now. What do you think their health care costs are now, if they can get coverage?

My experience with an insurance Co. in L>I>,NY 19 years ago has ewmained with me and will remain for the rest of my life. Our Ulster County Chamber was changing health insurance companies that cover business people. A meeting was called to inform business owners who would be covered. I had Ovarian Cancer with severe complications and was free of the cancer. When I put this info. on my application the rep. of the insurance co. read the details, looked at me and without a word to me just TORE THE APPLICATION IN HALf. I was in shock. He was telling me by his actions that I was as good as dead. I have now had my 81st birthday and was 62 years old at the time. So much for Health coverage in the USA

Lizzy if you're so concern why don't you donate a million or two of your money before you start spending mine. You people make me sick. You're so concerned for the downtrodden poor and you live so lavishly. You and the other liberal rich want to spend my hard earn money while you live the life of a millionare. you people ought to put up your money if you're so damned concerned.

Why is a multimillionaire talking about health care for, other than political? She is the pot calling the kettle black.

I cannot believe some of these posts. Mz. Edwards is not thinking of herself, she is thinking of the average person.

If Hillary's plan is the best, why did she do such a terrible job when Bill gave her the Universal Healthcare proposal as "her baby"? It was such a disaster, Congress would not pass it. AND YOU WANT HER TO TRY AGAIN???????

Do you people have short term memory loss or didn't you bother to pay attention to how the Government was run during the "Clinton years"?

Well, well, well. It looks like the generalization about "unhealthy lifestyle choices" that so many non-smokers use to discriminate against all smokers may not be supported by the facts according to three recent studies documented in the article below.

So if not everyone who smokes develops cancer how do you justify your discrimation against all smokers? And for those people whose genes put them at greater risk will you now advocate that everyone who smokes take genetic testing so you can single these folks out for discrimation? And what about those whose genes supposedly put them at greater risk yet they never develop the disease? Should they get refunds for their higher premiums?

Seriously, everytime we let the insurance companies use generalizations to discriminate against our fellow citizens we open the door for them to keep on finding more and more reasons to discriminate? You may not smoke but because you allow them to discrimate against those who do you put yourself at risk when the next study shows that using cellphones increases your risk of getting brain cancer or drinking coffee makes you more prone to getting liver disease. If you allow them to single out one group you give them license to use the same discrimination formula on others.

Genes hint at why some smokers are worse off
BY SETH BORENSTEIN • ASSOCIATED PRESS • April 3, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Why do some 90-year-old chain-smokers avoid lung cancer, while other people who smoke far less wind up dying of the disease? How can some people light up now and then without getting hooked, while others are addicted almost immediately?

The answer, at least in part, may be in their genes.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080403/NEWS07/804030445/1009

To all you dolts that can't read: she said that if she did not have the money to pay for treatment (i.e. if she were not rich), she would not be covered under McCain's plan.
In other words, a Jane Doe whose family makes 70,000 a year and had the same condition as Mrs Edwards would not be covered.
Before ranting about how rich she is, pay attention to what was said.

Whenever the health care issue is raised proponents of the right and the left attempt to wax-eloquent on a topic for which they have no aptitude to understand. Private Insurance companies have the money to "brainwash" the public and preach moral fortitude. Insurance companies make money from suffering clients and can rob them of their homes and livliehood. No person in Canada has suffered these indignities. No person in Canada is denied a full comprehensive health-care plan. All Canadians have access to the doctor of THEIR choice and US statsitics will continue to pooh-pooh these FACTS just as Canadian statistics show that as an average Canadian family mywife and I have two point seven children.

Wow -- OK, I'll attempt to explain. First, please go back and actually read my post -- I said nothing about the fairness or my personal beliefs regarding the fact that people with costly and chronic diseases are excluded from coverage. In fact, I do not agree with this at all -- I was simply acknowleging the fact that they are excluded and pointing out that, without significant regulation of the health insurance industry, this will continue to be the case.

Second - I live on the planet of the educated and the experienced. Smokers should pay a premium. Obese individuals should pay a premium. IV drug abusers should pay a premium. On the topic of diabetes -- the vast, vast majority of diabetics are adult onset type 2 diabetics, which is the direct result of working your pancreas to the point of failure -- kansas, those in your family fall into the minority of all diabetics, and they suffer from the disease through no fault of their own. These individuals should not be punished and their rates should be that of the background population and risk pool. I do believe, however, that if one chooses to be morbidly obese, not exercise, continue to eat McD's and donuts, etc, they then must accept some modicum of responsibility and pay more for their coverage as a result of their decisions.

The same holds true for cancer patients -- they should neither be excluded nor have their rates adjusted (skyrocketed) because of their diagnosis. Some cancers are the result of lifestyle choices -- smoking and lung cancer being the best known example. Smokers should pay higher rates from day one to cover the costs associated with this habit; however, they should not see their rates hiked or have their coverage dropped once they are unfortunate enough to develop disease.

Who is going to decide what is healthy and what is not. Most people in the health care field are over weight. I remember a kid in high school doing a project with two rats, he fed one rat the proper diet and the other rat junk food. You guess which one died. Yes the rat that ate the so called proper diet. It's so hard to get two doctors to agree at all on a subject for treatment

Mrs Edwards should thank lawyers such as her husband for the way heath care is today. Lawsuits brought on by lawyers such as her husband has driven heath care up and has caused many insurance agencies not to cover various people. If you think universal health care works you should visit Canada as an example. It doesn't work, you would appriciate what you have. The other factor to take in consideration is illegals in this country has also contributed to high heath care cost and has caused many hospitals and clinic's to close their doors. Just look in California for examples of this happening. Also check in Maryland at Prince Georges County as the state raising taxes to keep this hospital open at the expense of the tax payers. If this keeps up we all will be unemployed and on the mercy of the state for care. Over Worked and Over Taxed I'm not going to make it at this rate.

Having worked in healthcare for over 40yrs, I agree with the writer who commented that the treatment of chronic illness is the most costly drain on healthcare dollars. Obesity, smoking,alcohol and drug abuse create a cascade of damage and failure to body systems that turn one into a hugh comsumer of doctor, hospital and pharmaceutical products and services. Why should Lifestyle choices that create an inevitable decline in function and ability merit the same care benefits as cancer, genetic deviations or accidents?There are even some cancers that could have been prevented by lifestyle changes. Education and prevention is the most glaring deficit in American healthcare, cause you can't make money from it!
We need to put resources into prevention and wellness and the illness will decline over time. Now push away from the keyboard and take a walk! Eat an apple!

Posted by: zeusmohr | April 2, 2008 10:21 AM

I hope I never come into contact with a healthcare worker like you who feels that only certain people deserve healthcare. Your comments come straight out of the insurance company playbook.

Insurance companies love to pit one group against the other so that they can use the habits of the smoker or obese person as an excuse when they raise premiums (something they would do regardless). And unfortunately people like you buy their bs hook, line and sinker.

Who in the hell are you or anyone for that matter to decide what "lifestyle" choice should exclude someone from coverage?

Now that the door is open for discrimination because of what people like you have allowed to happen to smokers and obese people whose next? How about the people who like to skydive or go deep sea diving? How about people who ride motorcycles? All of these "lifestyle choices" are dangerous. How about women who "choose" to have babies as opposed to those who don't. Why should we cover the women who risk their lives to bring children into the world? How about excluding miners from coverage because they risk developing black lung? How about excluding people who work at the CDC because they may develop a disease while working in the field? Do we really want to live in a country where we only cover people who live their lives according to your rules or someone elses rules?

I'm really sick of people who feel the need to exclude people because they don't agree with their lifestyle. We all do things in our lives that have risk attached to them but we shouldn't be punished for our choices because insurance companies are looking to make more money. And we certainly don't need our fellow citizens shilling for the insurance companies because they can't recognize an insurance scam when they see it.

I am curious as to how many of the writers on this site have bothered to register their opinions over the last seven years while George W. and his compliant cronies dismembered our existing health care to benefit large insurance contributors.

If you're just now awakening, welcome to outrage!

dick brandlon

From BBC today - and they have socialized (universal) medical coverage!

Sight-saving injection approved
An eye
The AMD disease leads to a progressive loss of sight

Thousands of patients in England and Wales will soon be getting the sight-saving drug Lucentis on the NHS.

The injection treats age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of sight loss in the UK.

Some Primary Care Trusts in England and Wales only made treatment available to patients who had already lost their sight in one eye.

The drug, which is already available in Scotland, will be part funded by the manufacturer Novartis.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) is publishing its final appraisal document, to ensure that all trusts fund the drug.

The disease destroys the central region of the retina - the macula - leading to gradual loss of sight.

With this decision, it means that patients are no longer put in a situation where they have to choose between their sight and their life savings
Barbara McLaughlan
RNIB

It comes in two forms - wet and dry - with the dry form being much more common. However, the wet type is more aggressive and is responsible for about 90% of blindness caused by the condition.

If there are no appeals, Nice's final guidance will be published in June and the NHS is then expected to implement its recommendation for using Lucentis, which is also called ranibizumab.

Some 19,000 of the 26,000 people diagnosed with wet AMD every year live in England and Wales.

Costs covered

Nice also announced that the NHS would only fund a course of 14 injections, with the cost of any more being met by the manufacturer Novartis.

This scheme, labelled as "dose-capping", was recommended by Novartis, which will reimburse the NHS for any additional jabs.

The two-year cost of Lucentis is about £10,700, for a course of eight injections in the first year and six injections in the second year.

Barbara McLaughlan, of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, has been campaigning on behalf of patients.

She said: "This is really a huge step, because we've been fighting for two years to make sure that people get access to the treatment.

"At the moment, if you develop wet AMD, you're most likely to be told you'll just have to lose your sight in one eye before you can get treatment on the NHS, and in some areas you may be told that you cannot be treated unless you can pay yourself.

"With this decision, it means that patients are no longer put in a situation where they have to choose between their sight and their life savings."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said: "The dose capping scheme put forward by Novartis, and which Nice has endorsed, means the NHS will be reimbursed for the cost of Lucentis if a patient requires more than 14 doses per eye.

"This benefits both patients and the NHS. This scheme will come into effect when Nice issues its final guidance, and will remain in place until the next review of Lucentis by Nice."

Dear Joanlyon, you are ready to vote for McCain, I hope you have enough money saved for your retirement, or if you are retired you have enough money for the rest of your life, because McCain will not only will not givie you Healthcare insurance, but diminish or cut your social security; good luck to you and the rest of McCain voters.

God bless Elizabeth Edwards. Thumbs down to jcedge01.

How dare you say the chronic health issues that beset some of us is preventable and we should not share in universal health care. I have cancer and heart disease and still work full time. My sister died at 20 with childhood diabetes; my daughter has had diabetes since she was 4 and also has heart disease. She too works full time.My grandson has had diabetes since age 9 and is in medical school.

And you are telling me all those diseases were preventable. On what planet do you live?

Thanks, Elizabeth Edwards, for pointing out that there are real issues involved in this race. The simmering intra-party anger among Democrats seems to be brewed most easily when voters completely forget that there are issues involved in the presidential race.

Elizabeth's husband is no longer a candidate. It's senseless for her to challenge McCain on anything.

She should just shut up or allow her husband to speak since she never was a candidate in the 1st place.

Elizabeth Edwards needs to look no further than her ambulance chasing husband to find the reason why healthcare is unaffordable.

Elizabeth for Veep!

It frightens me to read some of these responses, particularly those that attack Elizabeth and John Edwards. Elizabeth I thank you for taking the time to weigh in on what may be the most important domestic issue of this campaign. You are right and as usual you are amazing. I wish you the best, but hope you don't read these posts as too many are offensive.

Anyway wake up folks - if you vote for McCain you will not get any improvement in our health care system and probably many more years of war. A vote for Nader is a waste and says you just don't understand the issues. Both Clinton and Obama have addressed the health insurance crisis (neither as well as Edwards) but it will be very tough to pass the appropriate reform measures until the power is taken away from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies or the system becomes so broken that the middle and upper classes begin to revolt.

Elizabeth Edwards is amazing!! You go girl! I absolutely agree with her challenge to John McCain, it is all too easy for candidates to gloss over health care. It is important that all running for President make clear to the American people what they intend to do to help fix this problem. Too many people are not covered. Like Hillary Clinton and Barrak Obama, John McCain needs to clearly states what he intends to do. If he does not have a plan and thinks that things need to stay the way they are, he needs to say so.

Thank you Elizabeth for pushing this issue.

I LOVE U Elizabeth!

Okay I have the solution to Obama/Clinton....let them both step aside for Elizabeth!

Thought the same thing in '04

Having worked in healthcare for over 40yrs, I agree with the writer who commented that the treatment of chronic illness is the most costly drain on healthcare dollars. Obesity, smoking,alcohol and drug abuse create a cascade of damage and failure to body systems that turn one into a hugh comsumer of doctor, hospital and pharmaceutical products and services. Why should Lifestyle choices that create an inevitable decline in function and ability merit the same care benefits as cancer, genetic deviations or accidents?There are even some cancers that could have been prevented by lifestyle changes. Education and prevention is the most glaring deficit in American healthcare, cause you can't make money from it!
We need to put resources into prevention and wellness and the illness will decline over time. Now push away from the keyboard and take a walk! Eat an apple!

Anyone who has compared the plans and/or works in the healthcare industry knows HILLARY HAS THE BEST PLAN.

As the late great ANN RICHARDS SAID, "We can perform, afterall, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did but backwards and in high heels."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CsCXh8sgTJU

Obama's plan leaves out many to be insured. As a breast cancer survivor myself I can relate to Elizabeth. Hillary has the best plan for universal health care. A friend of mine, single mother of 2, as a result of having no health insurance, was diagnosed at stage 4 breast cancer. This is unacceptable for anyone living in America.

John and Elizabeth Edwards are multi-millionaires. They won't have any trouble obtaining gold-plated insurance under anybody's health care plan. Period.

Mrs. Edwards, your husband is no longer a candidate. I'm sorry that you apparently miss the spotlight, but you need to step aside now.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | April 1, 2008 11:36 PM

Say what? The writer evidently thinks that the fact that Mrs. Edwards can afford to buy insurance (something Mrs. Edwards has hardly kept a secret) should somehow exclude her from speaking out to help those who can't afford insurance. What kind of twisted logic is that?

The only thing I can think of is that WashingtonDame must be a Bush Republican because she evidently can't grasp the concept that some people actually care about other people and are willing to speak out to help them even if it doesn't benefit them.

And evidently, seeing Mrs. Edwards speaking out to help others must be some kind of threat to WashingtonDame's "I've got mine, who cares about you" view of the world which would explain why she thinks Mrs. Edwards should "step aside". This kind of distorted view of the world is really kind of creepy when you think about it which is why I'm glad that there are people like Elizabeth Edwards out there who represent an alternative view.

You go Elizabeth!

Although Elizabeth Edwards thinks she may not be covered under John McCain's health care plan, chances are she would not be treated under a socialized medical system such as Canada's or Great Britain's. And if she were lucky enough to be treated, her survival rate would be dramatically lower than if she were treated in the United States. I suggest that Mrs. Edwards should do some research before shooting from the hip:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15734

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15694

God bless Elizabeth and John Edwards. Although this campaign is over for them, they continue to fight for what's right. Denying health care coverage to sick Americans, either by insurance company policy or by prohibitively high premiums, is immoral. We are better than this. The United States of America can, should, and will take care of our own. But not under McCain's plan.

God bless Elizabeth and John Edwards. Although this campaign is over for them, they continue to fight for what's right. Denying health care coverage to sick Americans, either by insurance company policy or by prohibitively high premiums, is immoral. We are better than this. The United States of America can, should, and will take care of our own. But not under McCain's plan.

God has a sick sense of Humor. He not only proves it on me, he allowed Elizabeth to get Ill, not her Tort abusing Doctor Destroying Husband! :-(

John Edwards deserved to have a Doctor tell him bad news like this: :-D

Does Elizabeth Edwards realize that Dr. ¨Death¨ Jack Kevorkian is out of prison? What is she waiting for?

God has a sick sense of Humor. He not only proves it on me, he allowed Elizabeth to get Ill, not her Tort abusing Doctor Destroying Husband! :-(

John Edwards deserved to have a Doctor tell him bad news like this: :-D

I am a lawyer, I used to do plaintiff personal injury. 99% of the people who came in my office were only there because they had medical bills they could not pay. Usually they came in to ask about bankruptcy. When I suggested they sue somebody, like a doctor or an insurance company, they usually said okay, but only for the cost of their medical bills. That is all they wanted. Of course, I told them I wouldn't take the case unless I could make some money off of it. Once in a while somebody would come in wanting to sue somebody, but those people were rare, and I would never take their cases because they make bad witnesses. If we had universal health care, my business would have gone up in smoke on the first day. All that money spent on all those lawyers and paralegals and judges and experts would have all been saved. I wouldn't have minded, as there are better things I can do for a living. I used to sit in courtroom during slow parts of trials and just marvel at all the money being wasted just because some guy couldn't get some treatment for a normal injury.

I do not know the details of McCain's plan, but I will say I have never been denied healthcare and I have had cancer. I also elected not to receive chemo or radiation. It has been about 15 years since diagnosed and since my surgeries. McCain has been ill and so clearly he would want to at least offer a plan that would cover himself. Instead of Elizabeth jumping on his case and pretending healthcare costs are a concern for her personally, why not just structure some questions for him to answer like a concerned citizen would. It is in our best interest as a country to find the right direction to go to solve the healthcare issue. So it may be that none of the candidates has exactly the right plan, yet. I agree with the poster that is asking the question of whether healthcare is a privilege or an entitlement. I think at the very least there should be a minimum policy for every citizen from birth, but that every citizen has the responsibility to live a healthful life, which would not include smoking, drugs, and a very moderate amount of liquor. If we all pledged to do our part I guarantee the hospitals would over a relatively short period of time start seeing reduced patients for the some illnesses.

OF course, she would support Hillary's health care plan, it is the best for us ALL COMPARED TO THE OTHER TWO.

It is universal, non-discriminatory for pre-existing conditions, portable, and affordable.

HEALTH CARE IS a very good reason to vote HILLARY.

Krissah Williams, it was not 'three months ago' that John Edwards suspended his campaign. He suspended on January 30 which is only two months ago. It does seem like an eternity ago, but you should get your facts straight.

John and Elizabeth Edwards are multi-millionaires. They won't have any trouble obtaining gold-plated insurance under anybody's health care plan. Period.

Mrs. Edwards, your husband is no longer a candidate. I'm sorry that you apparently miss the spotlight, but you need to step aside now.

Obama has yet to raise an issue, and his health plan is a diversionary tactic.
He has no plan. No one can pin him down on any issue.the only reason he is up in the numbers poll is because of the
"Anybody but Hillary", The party made a mistake to abandon Edwards. We will have to
wait for Ralph Nader to raise the issues of the working classes as the Machine candidates do not have the balls to do it.

Yeah! Go Woman!

And don't let the Door hit your Fat Butt on the way out! ;~)

See, it is NOT Medical Treatment that Obasama and Billary are offering.

It is INSURANCE! As in "Oh, but that is not covered" or, "That was pre-existing" Insurance!

While Insurance Companies love THEIR Lives! :-(

Stay tuned for McCain's proposals-AFTER THE RAT ATTACK!

RAT believes in TREATMENT-NOT INSURANCE! ;~)

Oh, you BAD RAT! ;-)

"Under the presumptive Republican nominee's health-care plan, Edwards told reporters, she would not be covered, an accusation that McCain's aides deny."

Well no, unlike the majority of us I think the Edward's make enough money that health insurance shouldn't be a problem for them.

Yawn. Another partisan acting like a partisan. Stop the presses.

GOOD FOR YOU ELIZABETH. YOU GO GIRL!!!

jacksmith...

Elizabeth and John Edwards are totally correct in making these points and I specifically applaud her for coming out and speaking on behalf of the americans that are suffering now with the problems that we currently have with this system.

The time has come for America to take a position on Health care and resolve it. It is utterly embarrassing that this country cannot sacrifice and deal with this issue to cover ALL people.

John and Elizabeth, I also admire you for taking your position to stay neutral and hope that when your time comes you do it for the better candidate who has matched you in many of the areas that you fought for and that is Hillary Clinton!!!

Although I can appreciate John Edwards and his wife speaking up but at the same time I am a little skeptical. Is it possible that John Edwards is trying to get back in the headlines to regain maybe some value in reference to having an effect in a positive way when he endorses Hillary. I believe he is positioning himself and if he endorses anyone it will be Hillary. He is going to use the health care issue as the reason for endorsing her over Obama. Remember he made all kind of remarks about Hillary such as she is what's wrong with Washington. Such as she's lock step in line with the lobbist. Such as she is not a change agent. Remember how in more than one debate he said with conviction how he and Obama are the only 2 change agents in the race and that Hillary is just the status quo.

I have always liked and respected John Edwards but the fact that he didn't not come out and endorse Obama after all he said during the contest has cause me to take a step back. John Edwards seem to me to be more interested in positioning himself than endorsing the right candidate. I am sure Hillary offered him everything except the world where as Obama doesn't operate in that manner. Obama don't want to be indebted to anyone for anything. Obama is not going to kiss anyone behind for their endorsement. Don't get me wrong he will ask and maybe several times but he will not do anything against his principle in order for them to do it.

I hope I am wrong about Edwards but I believe I am not. Actually he has silently endorsed Hillary by just keeping quiet. Well the people who followed John Edwards because they believed in what he was touting on the stump overall will not follow Hillary Clinton.

listen Charlie Gordon and Omaidna On of you must look like Hillary to be offended , I can speak 4 languages I think I am doing pretty good with the english language I was born in Europe I served in the U.S.M.C.I am a Viet Nam Veterans I accomplished more than that draft dodger of Bill clinton and as far as Hillary being cozy with the insurance companies I think you better do your home work better , And as far as me going to bed with any one I am very selective ,of who I go to bed with it would not be one of you, idiots

The reason why McCain is strong in Dem states, all the big ones that Hillary has won, is because Obama and his vicious supporters made the huge mistake of callously maligning the Clintons and now, as a direct result, Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain. Obama should never have run, it was too much too soon for him and the Dems will lose n November because of all Obama has done to divide the Democrats with his hate speech. Personally I am so disgusted with Obama and the elite of t he Dem party supporting him I will be voting for Nader in November if Hillary is not on the ticket. I will also be registering as an Independent and disassociating with you disorganized, hate mongering, racist Obama/Democrats, I no longer want anything to do with it. Good riddance to you all and I hope Hillary does the same and runs as an Independent if she does not win the Dem nomination, the Clintons are good people, the most successful Democrats we have known and the Democrats do not deserve to have them, and it is high time we have a viable third party in America.

The United States is the ONLY developed country which does not have universal health care. We spend more per capita than any other country in the world, 53% more than the next most expensive system, Switzerland's. Yet we rank 37th in the world in quality of health care delivered. A survey just released show that physicians by almost 2 to 1 support universal health care and national health insurance. The same old tired and discredited arguments against national health insurance just do not hold up. Here is the survey: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3143203520080331?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

And what good is nationalized health care for all if no one can get seen while they are sick. There are little to no good answers in any system. I hate that healthcare costs me $350 a month. My wife is a doctor. But she has to make that much for if she's sued in some frivolous lawsuit because a patient was mad and wanted to sue cause even if they don't win which usually they don't the hospital has to pay the lawyer fees. You want to drive down costs of healthcare, prevent, stop or penalize frivolous lawsuits. Making it "free" doesn't do anything except spread the dramatic costs to EVERYONE one way or another your gonna pay it. Other countries show the benefit, lower lawsuits and amounts = better care and lower costs = lower insurance costs. Look at Texas its lower to receive coverage in TX cause we have a cap on the max law suit. So for the same person with the same problems living in NY vs TX costs are much lower for many reasons including lawsuits. Its like any job, being a pilot is risky so we pay them well, being a doctor is risky (lawsuit wise) so we pay them well, that means the hospital has to shell out the money, they get money only from patients. Isn't it amazing the more lawsuits a hospital has in a year the effect it has on next years charges.

Anyone who is so obviously sick as "Capskip" would be lucky to be in bed with ANYONE>
Mr. Woo Woo

Yo, capskip, nice ad hominem argument. Now, do you mind terribly if we get back to a discussion of the issues?

Oh, one other thing, please learn the difference between subjective and objective case.

As to Ms. Edwards, YOU GO GIRL!

Ms. Edwards is partially correct; without changing the rules and regulations affecting the health insurance industry people with potential costly diseases (cancer patients, diabetics, major heart disease, etc) will continue to be excluded from plans where possible and placed into prohibitively expensive plans when not -- when they must obtain single coverage. Being part of a larger risk pool is absolutely necessary.

America faces a very fundamental decision -- is healthcare a right or a privelege -- and the answer to this question, depending upon your position, serves as the springboard for determining which healthcare plan one should support.

I, for one, support the sometimes unpopular view that healthcare is a privelege -- in large part because the most costly consumer of the healthcare dollar is chronic diseases that, in large part, are very preventable and associated with lifestyle choices. Universal healthcare will be an absolute disaster for this nation.

The Commonwealth Fund is a nonpartisan, private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency. They too hold a low opinion of McCain's approach to health care reform. Here is a link to their analysis of the candidates' positions on this issue: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=647708

The only thing she needs to do now is her and her husband need to endorse Obama because Hillary is in bed with the insurance company , even though I dont think anybody wants to be in bed with that woman

Thank you, Elizabeth Edwards! I have been wanting to hear John McCain's answer to your question. I might be willing to vote for him if he would clarify that insurance companies would be required to accept everyone.

I can't wait to hear his answer! What good is a health care plan if it leaves out sick people?

Go get 'em, girl!!! :)

She is an amazing woman, and all the more so for taking the fight to McCain while Obama and Clinton continue to run for the nomination.

Since the Democratic Party currently lacks a nominee to carry the banner into the summer months, we need people like Elizabeth Edwards to step up and start making the arguments now against another four years of Republican rule.

It look's like the rest of the Democratic party has gotten tired of waiting for Obama or Clinton. Edwards and Dean seem more than willing to end McCain's free ride in the media.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.