Mandated universal health care is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, it's politically unfeasible, unless the Dems can manage to get 60 Senators all up in that hot mess. On this matter, I recognize that Hillary has the more idealistic position while Obama has the more practical position. I mean, even Hillary has acknowledged that she doesn't expect Congress to pass her plan - that it would merely be the beginning of negotiations.

In the long run whatever health care reform we get will happen in the Congress. Electing a Dem Congress is the best "insurance" we can get for providing for national health care. I'm not worried that Barack will not use a stick to force people to get coverage. We've had enough of dictatorship already! Eventually we must get to universal coverage, but electing Dems who are not beholden to special interests, and Barack Obama is one, is our first priority. Then we have to draw down the troops. And then focus on infrastructure and health care.

I have immense respect for Elizabeth Edwards, but she is a private citizen. And her views on health care are no more - or less - important than mine. (And I work in health care.)

Bottom line: Edwards waited too long to endorse, and at this point, his endorsement will not matter much to either candidate.

If he was going to support Hillary, he should have done it immediately when she still had a realistic chance to catch Obama.

There's no mystery to this. There have been repeated reports that the Edwards' are more comfortable with Hillary's experience, and that she's been willing to promise them that she'll incorporate various parts of their platform into her governing agenda. Obama, by contrast, has been negotiating from a position of strength - he hasn't proposed a poverty czar, hasn't embraced Edwards' vision of healthcare reform, and generally has refused to alter his stances to gain Edwards' support.

There are two ways to read this. One is that Hillary has demonstrated the flexibility needed to win over her one-time foes, and that all that's keeping Edwards from endorsing her is the sure knowledge that, well, she's going to lose the race. Which is why virtually no one has endorsed Hillary over the past month. But that his continued neutrality is a boon for Clinton.

The other way to look at it is that the Edwards family is still miffed at Obama for usurping his role as the challenger for the nomination. That they understand why some Democrats supported Hillary, but can't forgive voters (or Obama) for taking what was rightfully theirs, what they'd worked for unceasingly for four years. That they dislike Obama precisely because, on almost every issue, there's no daylight between him and Edwards. And so they're increasingly stressing the one issue on which they substantively disagree, as a rationale for his continued refusal to back Obama, as almost all of his former supporters have done.

So it's yet another political rorschach.

SCMadden - Yep.

If Edwards or Gore endorses someone in the primary, I will be as surprised as I have ever been. I don't think they will because I think they want to stay out of it and I don't blame them.

Well she bases this on the mandate, which is meaningless because it is unenforced, and they have been proven to not work. Aside from that, a mandate would be a suicide clause in any health care bill, I'm sorry but it is true, the GOP would make a field day with it, but Hillary obviously didn't learn her lesson from her last failed adventure in health care reform. And yes, that deal breaker is useless, because mandates do not work:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/02/when-lust-for-power-trumps-honesty.html

Elizabeth also likes to say that only John and Hillary have "universal" health care, because of their mandates, but the fact is NEITHER of their plans are universal, and neither is Obama's. I'm sick of these people claiming to be universal and accusing Obama's of not being universal when their own plans fall far short of real universal coverage.

Face is, it is single-payer not-for-profit or more of the same, period. Kucinich was the only one with a decent plan.

Will someone remind me why we care so much about what either Edwards has to say? This is someone with two failed runs for the presidency (and one for the vice-presidency), and he gets to tell the remaining candidates what and how to think? Let them endorse Hillary and be done with it. This relentless teasing in the media is a childish spectacle.

Furthermore, can we for once speak honestly about the bogus "universal healthcare" issue? Hillary's healthcare policy is not universal coverage; it's government-mandated access to health insurance - the primary beneficiaries of which are insurance companies. Media framing of the issue as universal health coverage glosses over this hard fact and leaves the details of the policy completely undiscussed. In the general election, the right-wing will rip this policy to shreds (as they did with Hillary's first stab at healthcare), and we'll never see any progress in the healthcare issue at all.

Without the big brother chimera of mandates clouding the issue, the Obama proposal at least paves the way for a more reasonable bi-partisan discussion (which is what it's going to take to get anywhere) of how to fix a broken system.

"Let's help poor people by garnishing their wages!"

I just don't see how that works.

When Edwards got into the race, he made clear his goal was to push a policy agenda that no one else would support -- political reform, significant rethinking of our economic policy to address the poor and the working middle, a return to domestic policy as an instrument of fairness. When he got out he said the same thing. Elizabeth's comments simply advance that goal -- saying she thinks universal health care should be the party plank and the policy of the country.

I myself am one of many, many people I know who were for Edwards and then torn between Clinton's policies and Obama's approach. It would astonish me if John and Elizabeth Edwards don't still have the same ambivalence. I think its clear from the status of the primary campaign that most Democrats don'feel the same way.

Frankly, I'm not impressed with the Edwards.

I remember Edwards spoke a good game regarding all the corporate money and influence in politics, but has been interestingly silent since dropping out of the race.

I think it even more interesting that he has said nothing about the gobs of corporate money and influence surrounding Hillary especially with the recent 'media' expose! of the undeniable influence over Hillary by power brokers such as Bill, Penn and Wolfson's who just happen to make a living influencing politicans to make policy decisions against the interests of working men and women -- I guess Edwards just doesn't care anymore?

Interesting too, that Elizabeth is now praising Hillary's health care plan? -- Taegan Goddard notes that:

"... Time notes that Mrs. Edwards has joined the Center for American Progress which "has been operating for the past two years as a kind of Hillary Clinton Administration-in-waiting."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/09/elizabeth_edwards_praises_clinton_health_care_plan.html

I have come to the conclusion, that it's just politics as usual in the Edwards household. Why, because looking at Hillary's health care plan, many physicians do not have much confidence in her plan, especially when they look at the real shortfalls of MA's plan -- the plan which is so similiar to Hillary's.

"...Woolhandler is professor of medicine at Harvard University and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. She said today: “Hillary and Obama are both right. Hillary’s individual mandates would, as Obama charges, financially punish uninsured families. Obama’s plan contains no individual mandate, but would, as Hillary charges, fail to cover 15 million or more Americans. In Massachusetts, where the individual mandates’ high fines on the uninsured will not kick in until the end of the year, few of the state’s quarter million middle-income uninsured have yet purchased coverage.

“Hillary’s, Obama’s and Massachusetts’ mandate model health plans leave the private insurance industry in charge. Hence, the plans will continue to waste nearly one of every three health dollars on the overhead and paperwork that private insurers generate..."http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/clinton_vs_obama_on.php

So why so much praise coming from Elizabeth? Hillary's plan appears just pie in the sky, unless Elizabeth can tell us otherwise. I'm just not impressed.

Yeah... uh huh... and why should I care about what you say, Elizabeth? You and John like to hint at your endorsements but really you're largely irrelevant, perhaps two faced. Who cares what you think? Not me. You guys are pure politicians who really don't talk the talk or walk the walk.

I say this because... John voted for the war. Sure, you apologized. I accept. Then John votes for the bankruptcy bill that undermined his core belief of ridding this country of poverty. John will say anything to get attention but when it came down to brass taxes, he didn't fight for anyone but himself.

I'm just going to disagree with Mrs. Edwards about Hillary. I mean Hillary did such a find job the first time she tackle this issue.

People have such short term memories and need to look at the problems with Hillary's earlier healthcare plan.

She needs to explain what went wrong with this plan.

Absolut Mexico.

oh Edwards is a slimey weayel, and I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge with his wife s name on it.

oh, and Maureen Dowd, a dumb bunny but she makes one good observation

"Condi is too busy floating trial balloons about being John McCain’s running mate to bother about the fact that she was instrumental in two historic blunders: 9/11 and Iraq."

Rice really is a good example of what affirmative action creates. Hacks who are not especially competent, but whom we must tolerate and promote in the service of a ridiculous idea, that we must at all costs have black people in prominent positions, even if they cannot handle the job. as NSA Rice was more thananyone mandated with preventing 9-11. Oh well, 3000 dead people so we can have a prominent black person in government is a good bargain, I guess.

W is incompetent, and America finally realized that that is A BAD THING. But now you are going to elect Obama. Man oh man will I laugh my ass off for another 8 years.

Edwards will be thought of as a hypocrite if he endorses Hillary. We could always document everything he has said in the past that go directly against everything Hillary is about. Im embarassed that I supported him for President initially!

I noten for the record that when the comment section turns, as it should, to substantive issues such as this one over the merits of the healthcare packages offered by both, rather than such dick-in-the-mashed-potatoes nonsense as someone's pastor or someone else's snipers, then citizens like gotalife and RaeK are nowhere to be found.

So refreshing.

"Mandated universal health care is a wonderful idea."

Yes it is but unfortunately the only one with a universal health care plan was Dennis Kucinich. When we have single payer health care mandates make sense. Then all the arguments about the bigger pool lowering costs make sense...and with single payer the costs are enormously lower.

When you are talking about many private, for profit insurers it's a completely different story. It is questionable that it lowers costs, sure hasn't in Massachusetts. No question it increases profit for insurance companies.
It also does not cover everyone. In MA about 20% got waivers. The "17 million" uncovered in Obama's plan is an estimate too. Everyone is eligible to be covered, no one is left out, they just keep the right to opt out.

Both plans provide subsidies for those under a certain income. Obama has another safety net by allowing kids to stay on parents plan through age 25, not just for college kids. That covers a lot who might skip it. Both increase the coverage of SCHIP for kids. Both plans don't let you get burnt for having a pre-existing condition.
Both have ways to hopefully lower costs. Clinton counts a lot on the bigger pool by mandates. Obama provides reinsurance for catastrophic coverage fro employers who offer insurance which definitely lowers costs for the employer/employee so more employers will be able to afford it. That is not their only ways.
But this is the difference people will feel...if you make more than the subsidy amount but still feel you can't afford it or that you'd rather pay as you need it rather then pay premiums every month plus have a big deductible and copay that will go with the most affordable plans Obama says that's your right. (Except for your kids if they aren't covered through SCHIP or other programs)
Clinton either gives you a waiver or says "That's what you think" and garnishees your wages and/or tax refunds. You have no choice.
Before I knew I liked Obama better I liked his health plan much better. Kucinich's was best of course.

I don't think mandating people to buy insurance against their will would pass Congress. That's one thing but I also don't think it should. It adds a whole host of complications and red tape. Obama says "Let's get this passed, let's see what prices do and how many get the insurance, see what we have and go from there". That makes more sense.

People compare it to mandates to pay for Medicare. That doesn't work. Medicare itself is universal single payer non-profit.
Only one level of Medicare is mandated, there are more you can get but you don't have to.
Some compare it to auto insurance, private companies but you are mandated. Doesn't work. You are mandated to get PLPD, to make sure no one else suffers a loss due to your auto. You can take all the personal loss you want.

This mandate thing drives me crazy. I think Clinton sells her plan better because I read comments in papers where they are campaigning and people think she is the one who provides it for everyone, he just lowers cost and they still couldn't afford it. Sometimes I sign up and respond. Both help lower income people but over that both make you pay for your own to get it...mandates just mean you HAVE to. They thought mandates meant the government and insurance companies have to.

Elizabeth certainly understands it correctly though and I lover her. I think she is wrong. It is not the way to start.

I think she is probably right, but it is a minor point, as Congress will ultimately decide this issue, and neither plan will be "as is".....I supported John Edwards and frankly, am very disappointed in him for not endorsing Obama. I gave a good bit of money to his campaign, and have written several times. He has to be aware that his backers mostly support Barack. Frankly, now I am just PO'd at him for his lack of a spine.

OK, I just watched the video, and I think the headline here is off the mark. Elizabeth Edwards makes it very clear that it is the policy (and this specific policy), not the person, that she is endorsing.

Nowhere does she state that she has more confidence in Hillary the *candidate*. In fact she goes out of her way, repeatedly throughout the interview, that she will not express an opinion on the candidates as candidates, in any respect - that she is only interested in pushing ideas and policies, with the stated intention of getting good policy implemented regardless of who wins any particular electoral contest.

A more *accurate* headline would be:

Elizabeth Edwards: "I Just Have More Confidence" In Hillary's Health Care Plan

Yes, most of his supporters do support Barrack. Makes me think that the things I fell in love with him for were lies. Feel like I have been pimped or something because I really believed in him!

Im not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I would think The plans have to go thru Congress and have to be vetted. With all that is going on now, I cant understand how people are putting so much importance on the two candidates plans, or things they say in a campaign. Either plan will not be ratified the way they present currently! So all this talk is much ado about nothing. Besides, I more of a charachter person, which is why I feel like a fool for supporting Edwards from the beggining. I bought the magic beans he was selling!

So let me get this straight, Affirmative Action is at fault for 9/11 and Iraq? lol...

Your post is so absurdly racist it is just laughable. If anything "whiteness" is the inherent affirmative action in this country.

W. is a freaking moron, C-student who wouldn't be where he is today if it were for his father and being a rich white man. Last I checked he is the freaking president and maybe if he wasn't on vacation 75% of the time then he could've done his job and read the intelligence report that said very clearly that we could be attacked by terrorists. The fact that you manage to blame Rice over W. or Cheney for 9/11 and Iraq just shows you are totally suspended from reality. But hey...when all else fails blame the Black person.

There were no Black people in the senate to authorize the war in Iraq (Hillary Clinton and John McCain both voted to authorize the war yet we are in safer hands with them?) and W. declared war on Iraq. Anyway...I don't even know why I waste my time talking to racist scum like you...but you seriously need a brain implant because you sound really retarded.

The plans are just talk. The fact that they are similar now, should put an end to the topic until one is nominated! How do we end up talking about fantasy health plans, when you have a something that already happenend and has not been explained or accepted by the Democratic party, like the Iraq war vote, the Rovian tactics used by HRC, and NAFTA. For John Edwards or his wife to totaly ignore the FACTS. Just irritates me behond everything else! The Candidates are campaigning, the plans are similar, can we move on to other topics? Of course not, because HRC looses when we get to the substance on those topics!

It's so very very sad that after all this time, probably a great deal of money and all kinds of shady investigating, the best anyone can come up with to smear Obama is the retired 84 year old pastor of his church, the United Church of Christ.

Dood - this is sucking wind.

I have a lot of respect for Elizabeth Edwards, and I understand why she might prefer Clinton's proposed policy. Favorable arguments can be made for both plans, and reasonable people can disagree over which is best.

My concern is over which candidate can actually get a plan enacted into law. I have no doubt that Clinton would fight for healthcare. I do have doubts on whether she could win. Her secretiveness and opposition to any compromise in 1993/94 doomed healthcare reform and sentenced us all to 15 years of nothing being done. In this campaign, she's shown the same willingness to fight, but she's not fighting effectively with an eye to the long-term. I'm not convinced she's learned her lesson.

I believe Obama can get a healthcare plan passed. He plans. He carries out his strategies calmly and effectively, addressing the concerns of his opponents and winning over skeptics with reasoned arguments and good faith. If he approaches healthcare like he approaches his campaign, it will get done.

The plan he passes will not be perfect. Both Clinton's and Obama's plans fall short of what I want, so I'm resolved to a compromise solution. Now the question becomes who can most effectively and quickly pass that compromise solution. And in my mind, the answer is Obama.

Edwards is too busy getting his hair shampooed to endorse anybody.

It's amazing. When a srong and thoughtful person doesn't go along lock step with the Obama team, they are villified and marginalized. This must be the new politics you keep talking about. I hope Randi Rhodes doesn't call her a whore.

You mean Randi thinks HRC is a Media whore, or do you think she thought that HRC was walking the streets selling her body.......So stupid!

The Obama teams message lines up more closely to the things Mr Edwards has been spewing for the last 5 years. Just like HRC cant get passed her vote to give the idiot authority, MR Edwards cant get passed his rhetorich of the past. If goes against that, it, it will be dug up and thrown in his face. Him supporting her is an Oxy-moron! Dems bees the Facts!

I notice that the new troll, "gerbil", suggests that we "check the ingredients in our hair dye."

I'll bet gerbil is very experienced at checking ingredients, especially in well-digested food that is pretty far down the "track".

That's "gerbil" as in "Richard Gere".

Deep in.

While you make some valid points about his plan, you do not address (a) the two candidates' respective electability or (b) their abilities to have coattails big enough to help the Dems get a big enough majority to be able to push the plan through.

I am an Obama supporter and I surmise Clinton's plan may be better. I really am not sure. What I do believe is is that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain in the fall and helping the party get a bigger majority in the two houses of Congress. This is more important than the details of the two plans as the plans will most likely be heavily modified during the legislative process. For purposes of winning the election the plan without the mandate will help the candidate more as it is less susceptible to the bogus, but effective, argument that he is offering socialized medicine.

From one of those Obamabots you may like to disparage

What do you call someone who blindly supports Hillary, knowing that her message or her statements in general lack substance and change as often as the wind changes direction...all for the sake of political expediency?

Trust and Hillary Clinton do not mix.

Why Edwards can never endorse Hillary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7CAIsSd44

Just wishing something can't make it true.

Isn't Hillary's health plan modeled on the Massachusetts plan? I have read one comment from a MA resident (I forget where) who really hated that plan primarily because s/he was forced to enroll. Is there anyone here from MA or does anyone have reliable information on how that plan is faring?

If Hillary's plan has caps, that must be new, because a while back, it did not have caps. Also mandating the private industry will get paid from everyone is not the way to either! As stated before, who cares about what the candidates are saying about health care, it still has to pass thru Congress. I submit to you HRC has made even more enemies of late. Again, who cares about what they are campaigning on when the plans are that similar. We all want universal healthcare. One candidate has shown an ability to bring conserves and Libs together and that does go along way. To all the obama haters, I just dont see him pulling a George Bush and pissing on all the people who usher him into office. However Hillary, (Nafta, her campaign lies) I do see her saying screw the people more easily than Obama would!

Let's see the fine print. Let's see what the actual monthly out of pocket cost is going to be for these "affordable" premiums and what they actually cover. Because the same folks who can't afford health insurance can't pay their monthly mortgage payment either.

I trust Senator Obama to work with everyone to move us toward universal healthcare and bring healthcare costs down.

I do not trust Hillary Clinton with anything at this point.

I am completely against the 'mandate' concept with regards to healthcare. I feel that it is the wrong way to bring us to universal healthcare.

Taxing people for 'having a body' is not appropriate. It is not something they can choose... you must have a body. You can choose to drive a car... so insisting on auto insurance comes with that choice etc.

So, I feel that senator clinton's plan is the WRONG way to go to get to universal healthcare.

I think Senator Obama will bring all parties together and make realistic moves toward universal healthcare. I don't expect us to get there instantly... there are a lot of jobs involved... many things to be considered. Many lives to save...

Also above explains why we didnt get 2007 tax returns and they are asking for an extension. Just enough time to hide something else from the public......But again....Im just rambling, and oh yeah....You win..

Ok, I have several issues with everything you typed above, but dont have the energy to address all. Im sorry I miss spoke, but you knew what I was trying to say, she didnt release the last 8 years, but Im sure that makes no difference to you.LOL...

I Will say again after stating you win!
Hillary supported NAFTA, I never said it was all bad, but it shows the pattern of her wanting to own the good things of her Husbands presidency, and dis-own the bad. There is a pattern of lying from her you may choose to ignore it,or own it! Im perfectly ok with letting the people make the decision of if they trust her and her pattern on lies, or Him. Saying Obama is the one with the True NAFTA issues is classic...lol., and again I dont have the energy! I am sad that you have such a hard time pulling a lever for Obama,and if I have added to that, hurts a little bit more, but even more saddened that you cant see what is being sold to you and the re-writting of history from the Clintons. Yes I do hate Hillary now, but that has to do with her Character of late. I only started to dislike her when I looked to her for leadership in the run up to the war, and she did not lead. She has gone the way of disapoint for me from there on. So I will leave you with, go ahead, let her try to drag this all the way here to Denver, and steal it from OBama by bullying the pledged and Super Dels. See what happens to the party if she does that. I think I did have a rational discusion on the issues, the fact is she cannot run from the facts. All CANDIDATES HEALTH CARE PLANS ARE JUST RHETORIC FOR NOW THAT WILL HAVE TO GO THRU CONGRESS AND THE FACT THESE TWO ARE SO SIMILIAR FOR ME MAKES IT A NONE ISSUE. For me I call it a wash until one is elected and then I try to make them do want I want. Unless one of them is saying something totaly ridiculous in the CAMPAIGN STUMP, this voter could careless at this moment in time!

Registered lobbyist means something too! Until we change our electorial system knowone will be squeaky clean and you should know that. They have to raise money and Not seeing the difference between the to shows that it is you who are just as much fooled that you claim us Obama supporters supposedly are.

To say that Obama has not shown a new version of the way politics should be run(paraphrasing) and demonstrated it with his own behavior, says to me your DELUSIONAL!!!! By the way, you have no effect on why I would have a hard time voting for Hillary, she has done that all by herself. So as I said before, its in the peoples hands now. Can't wait to see what they do!

Let me ask you though Just so I'm clear.
You dont care that she has cow-towed to fox lately?

Do you care that her husband has accepted money from the Columbian Trade Deal?

Do you care that she lied about her Bosnia trip?

Do you feel she plays the victim or cries to the refs, when I personaly think people are looking for a leader?

How do you feel that she sat down with Melescafe, you know the people that had me defending her to every conservative I know?

Do you care that she said she privately oposed nafta, but was publicaly backing it, and I gave you the proof of that above?

Do you think the way she has ran her campaign speaks to some part of her judgement?

Do you care that she lied about who opposed the Iraq war first?

Do you care that the Barrack being a muslim came from her campaign?

These are all questions of substance I believe, just would like to know do you care?