Question to those who oppose Edwards but care about Universal Health Care.

Please explain to me which other candidate has thoroughly and thoughtfully put any consideration into health care?

Who else can I vote for, assuming Edwards is out of the picture, who I can honestly trust on the matter of Universal Health Care.

Edwards has said this is the Only Issue upon which he refuses to compromise.

As much as I admire and respect HRC and BO, what have they done to assure you they care about universal health care?

Tell me something that can reassure me I am safe voting for them, and will get at least this--universal health care.

But his walk has been in the opposite direction. The hedge fund specializing in predatory lending was the last straw.

"So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates."

http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=221

which is Hillary's approach - would make it into law.

It is actions that one must evaluate - and Hillary's actions in health care are the best in the group.

Get past the smears that have no factual basis, and note that Hillary is not perfect as in her bankruptcy bill vote is a reason to tear her down - and note that there is not a damn thing in health care that she has ever made a decision on that was not correct - from begging Bill to include single payer in 93 to the children's and veteran's health care expansion bills she has initiated and passed.

In 93 I worked with our lobbyists (I was in international taxation and its integration into US insurance company taxation - I was head of the tax Department and responsible for all tax planning and taxes paid and tax notices required by law in the US for Sun Life of Canada). Hillary was the only Democrat that was pushing for single payer back then - as she notes in her book it was Bills decision to both start the task force and to tell Hillary that her task force was forbidden from reviewing single payer - so at the very beginning she was hand cuffed by Bill - and Bill went in that direction because our insurance company lobbyists told him the ins companies would support universal if he promised no single payer - we lied.

I see crap on DU about Hillary being weak om single payer - based on what I personally know, that is nonsense.

If your concern is universal and leaving an estimated 15 million out is universal enough for you, Obama is as good a choice as Hillary. Please note that Obama is correct that a mandate does not guarantee universal coverage as some refuse to get covered - even after free insurance for the poor and subsidy to 3 times poverty level - like Mass mandate - with monthly premium for least expensive plan, area rated, with starting cost of zero, then at 150% of the Federal poverty level a cost of around $20 to $30 per month per adult person, ending for those above 3 times the poverty level with a cost that is between $322.87 and $350 (living in Worcester, Ma is $322.87 while living in Boston is $342.13). Better coverage is available at a higher cost but all policies must meet state approval for value of coverage versus premium - meaning a massive cut in policy costs for individuals. That all translates to the minimum non-subsidy official premium being around $4200 (area rated) on $50,000 annual income). But Obama is OK with 15 million uninsured out of the 47 million now uninsured - rather than the mandate effect in Mass of 300,000 signed up out of 375,000 thought to be in the uninsured before sign-up. Mandates as in Edwards and Hillary's plan do work to get more people insured.

Ted Kennedy tweaked it and helped carry it through, Hillary gave it WH support. Let's get real here.

And let's get real about the 15 million. Nearly half of them are illegal immigrants who Hillary doesn't cover either. Mandates do not guarantee coverage, as we see in Massachusetts and with auto insurance. There are estimates that her plan could actually leave more people uncovered because she doesn't provide as generous of assistance as Obama does.

We appear to agree that Hillary spearheaded children's health care bill but with you noting that Kerry wrote the bill with Teddy doing the heavy lifting in the Senate.

As to lets get real about the uninsured estimates:

the 47 million uninsured comes from the census bureau http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf and that report has no break out of illegal immigrants - only non-citizen immigrants, and that is not even in the report - you have to dig deeper.

You quote a "half" as "illegal immigrant" where the "half" I believe tracks to the Kaiser (a for profit HMO) study that asserts such a percentage for the total uninsured in that part of the uninsured population (and it is not far from the 43% that the census obtained for "non-citizen immigrants").

There is no logical way to get to uncovered illegals from the above numbers - indeed most of the illegals have fake SS numbers and if their employers offer coverage they have coverage. The census bureau report notes this. An arm chair estimate of those for whom their fake ID will fail and they will not be covered is of course always as good as the background of the person making that estimate. Could you post the name of the person and their actuarial or social science or demographic background or who they consulted with to get that 7.5 million illegals number that they threw out as the number that would not be covered under Hillary's/Edwards plan?

I agree and stated in the post you are responding to that Mandates do not guarantee coverage, as we see in Massachusetts and with auto insurance. But the Mass level of only 75,000 still uncovered out of the original 375,000 uninsured is about the level of the auto liability 1% uninsured that is found in most mandate states. Obama leaves the percentage uninsured in the 5% range. There is a difference.

As the specific subsidy structure of any plan by anyone is just as yet not published, I am at a loss as to how one can say they Hillary structure is less generous. If it comes from the assumption that all of the announced cost of the plans are in the subsidy, that is a poor assumption. And if it were true, then the Edwards plan must be giving 30% more than Obama as a subsidy. Again there is no data on which to base such a statement.

Hillary told Bill to support it.

"there is no data on which to base such a statement"

So I'm just supposed to take Hillary's word that I can afford whatever "percentage" her insurance won't rise above, and that she will provide the money even though she won't put it in her plan, and that she won't make me wait until the end of the year for a tax credit while I try to pay $1000 a month. Just trust her, since "there is no data".

The original number of uninsured in Mass was between 500,000 and 650,000. They exempted 60,000 adults already. They have had 200,000 people sign up for insurance. They aren't anywhere near the 1% range, even though all experts agree that no plan will get better than 99% coverage. That means we'll always have several million people uncovered, under anybody's plan.

The entire 15 million uncovered Americans is pure bullshit propaganda. It's not real. Phony. Just like the WMD.

they have 300,000 signed up - are we reading the same PR releases? There was even an idiot group that claimed 1 million uninsured in Mass - I'm surprised you didn't quote them.

Total population of Mass is what - 75,000 is what percentage of that number?

We agree on "all experts agree that no plan will get better than 99% coverage" - I'm one of those "experts" - at least I have paper after my name that is said to assert "being an expert".

The only "pure bullshit propaganda" is not the 15 million uncovered Americans under Obama's plan - it is the idea that the ass kiss Obama gave the insurance industry by not including a mandate is something other than a mistake if viewed from the single payer advocate section of the pews. Or if you prefer - it's a necessary compromise to a less good plan so as to get something passed.

But DU shouted down election audits for 2008 (because only paper only was acceptable), and I have no doubt your view will become the majority view on DU.

By the way - do let us know what the Obama subsidy structure is - when you find out what it is.

Which is well above 500,000 people. The number has been dropping, or Massachusetts simply changed the way they count, the way some cities changed the way they counted crime a few years ago. Yes, the most recent number is 300,000, but that includes private insurance. I think I saw an article regarding the state plans only. Regardless, they are not at the 75,000 figure. Even after they exempted 60,000. If they keep exempting people, they'll be at 100% coverage in no time.

I don't have an exact subsidy, but at least he understands that people are going to have to have help paying monthly premiums and they can't wait until the end of the year for a tax credit. And at least he understands costs are going to have to be gotten under control BEFORE he mandates people into premiums that could bankrupt them. Mandating people to pay expensive insurance premiums is what is a gift to the insurance companies. I don't even understand your thinking in saying it isn't.

By the way, Edwards' plan calls for cutting costs and implementing the entirety of his plan BEFORE mandates as well. Did you know that, Mr. Expert with papers after your name?

Do you seriously believe people are going to accept a mandate for the government to take part of their money when they don't even know how much it will be? It's crazy.

Expanded health care to thousands more children. Implemented a Hospital Report Card system to track the effectiveness of Illinois hospitals. Established a commission to develop a plan for universal health care in Illinois. Among over 200 other proposals he sponsored.

And understands you cannot risk making working families homeless by implementing mandates before we're sure there is a working and affordable program in place.

And the truth is that he's going to have just a hard time getting his current plan passed, so why not start off with the better bill. It makes no sense.

Health care. It would mark the end of private health insurance, when people saw how far superior the single payer is.
He would subsidize the poorest Americans 100% and decreasing according to income up to $100,000. a year income earners.

Kucinich.
Healthcare is one of the most important issues with me, and that's one of the reasons I'm rooting for him even if it looks slim nowadays.
Universal healthcare.
Not that I necessarily oppose Edwards either :shrug: