Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Edwards: I'm pulling THEIR coverage in 2009! (Congress, President, etc.)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 09:48 AM
Original message
John Edwards: I'm pulling THEIR coverage in 2009! (Congress, President, etc.)
John Edwards: I'm pulling THEIR coverage in 2009!
by nyceve
Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:08:07 AM CDT

This morning, in a speech in Iowa, Hillary Clinton will offer her healthcare reform proposal.

I hope everyone will listen carefully to what she has to say. The early word is that it's not exactly what we're all hoping for, but it's a start.

The big news in fact is coming from John Edwards. If the traditional media is true to form, they will punt the Edwards announcement. Shame on them. Here's what CNN is reporting.

The campaign of fellow Democrat John Edwards, which has already put out a detailed a health care plan, will up the ante Monday during a speech to the Laborers' International Union of North America in Chicago, Illinois, campaign sources said.

The Edwards proposal would cut off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009, if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then.

Edwards is expected to outline "basic principles" the health care plan would have to meet, the sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/?ire...


more...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/17/72510/4915
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. As if they could not pay for private insurance...
Edited on Mon Sep-17-07 09:52 AM by Mass
Please, can we be a little bit serious... If anybody thinks that cutting coverage for the House and the Senate is going to do anything, they must be dreaming...

And that is assuming he has the power to do that, anyway...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. That is the point. They could pay for health insurance,
so why don't they. They don't care one whit about the fact that I pay megabucks for lousy health insurance although I don't make nearly what they do. You hit the nail on the head. It's us little folks that pay for the health insurance, not the senators and representatives who make twice what we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. SO what ! How does Edwards propose to pass this if he does not have the vote to pass the full bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. He will make it politically uncomfortable for Congress
to vote against him on this measure by pointing out that they have free health insurance. Voters will support Edwards on this. Voters are angry about this. The cost of health insurance is oppressive. It is absolutely criminal. I know of a young family with three children. The father drives a truck and has no health insurance. The youngest child was born with a serious health problem that needs constant attention and a very special diet. The middle child has seizures. Can you imagine what the cost of their health care does to their budget? And meanwhile Congressmen do not know what health care costs because they do not have to pay for it. Don't worry. The votes will be there. People are screaming mad about this situation. This is a life or death matter for many people. Far more voters are affected by health care costs than by Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. You forget about those "pre-existing conditions."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Uhm! Let see! How long would it take for an insurance company to waive that
for somebody as powerful as a senator or a rep?

That is, of course, assuming that a president has the power to cut the coverage for federal employees.

Seems more of a gimmick for pandering reasons than anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yeah, a private insurer is going to agree to pay out
hundreds of thousands of dollars for a $5000 premium on a person with cancer.

Not gonna happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. How would he have such a bill passed, anyway!
This is pure political gimmick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Why I support John Edwards?
Because he really believes in the following:

-A national community based on social justice and equality for all;
-Restoring popular sovereignty and civic duty in the American republic;
-New international alliances to respond to the challenges of our time"

... Gary Hart

He believes in these principles and fights for them. What about you? How can you be fore a national community based on social justice and equality for all and restoring popular sovereignty and cynically ask how such a bill could be passed. Here's how: leadership. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew how to lead. Kennedy knew how to lead. Edwards knows how to lead. That is how. Are you a paid political operative?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Geez, no call for that insinuation...
And why are you answering legitimate questions with comments that have nothing to do with the questions being asked anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I didn't realize you were asking a question.
I answered it further down. Edwards will keep talking about and introducing the idea of this bill. And the more he pushes it, the more people will like him and his ideas. Congress needs to get re-elected. Eventually, they will get behind the idea to save their own political skins. It's called leadership. We haven't seen real leadership in a long, long time. We have seen intimidation, but not leadership since Bush took over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well, that's different
Otherwise their plans seem fairly similar, except Clinton's is a few billion cheaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. If he can't get his health care plan passed,
how is he planning to get the cut off passed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Edwards is responding to what voters are saying.
He is listening to voters. I know because I am out there talking to voters on Edwards' behalf every week. Voters want Congress to pass health care funding legislation or give up their own freebies. People are absolutely incensed about the fact that members of Congress have free health care while the rest of us pay huge amounts to these companies.

I am looking at a document entitled NewDemPAC Second Annual Retreat. It is dated June 7, 2007 and addresses "Retreat Participant"s.

It is a conference to discuss "important and challenging issues facing Congress, including Trade, Health Care, and Energy Independence and Security. The "Honorary Members" include Brian Baird, Adam Schiff, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Ellen Tauscher to name a few. And who are the proud sponsors? Among others Peter Begans, Medco, Victoria Blatter, Merck, Holly Bode, United Health Group, Tammy Boyd, Johnson & Johnson, Jeff Cohen, Federation of American Hospitals, Megan Cundari, American Hospital Association, Sean Donohue, Eli Lilly and company, Bryant Hall, PhRMA, Janet Howard, MetLife, Eli Joseph, BIO, Peter Lawson, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (???? how right-wing can you get?????), Jennifer Luray, Abbott Laboratories, Buddy Menn, BI Parmaceuticals, Howard Moon, Amgen, Cynthia Morton, American Health Care Association, Peter Muller, Genentech, Charles Nau, Johnson & Johnson, Cathy Nyce, State Farm, Peter Rubin, Merck, Peter Slone, Medtronic, Jerry Steffle, Wellpoint, Wendy Sussman, Caremark RX, Jonathan Topodas, Aetna, AJ Wociak, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Duane Wright, America's Health Insuance Plans.

http://www.ndcpac.com/files/PRECON_JUNE2007.pdf

This is what Edwards is talking about. It's the corruption guys. Congress gets special deals, and the American people pay for it. Congress serves the guys who pay for their retreat weekends and we who pay for their health insurance get left to pay for our own too -- all by ourselves. And if we get sick and lose our jobs, we also lose the ability to get insurance even if we could pay for normal insurance. Do you realize how much the insurance companies charge to insure someone like Elizabeth Edwards with a history of cancer? It is astronomical, I assure you. This is criminal greed. It kills just as surely as other weapons. And Edwards was the first of the candidates to present a plan. And now he has a plan to make sure his plan or something like it gets enacted.

Hurrah for Edwards -- He is the best of the candidates. He is for the American people, for change and he is the only one with a real plan to enact change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. I didn't say anything about what the voters want,
Edited on Mon Sep-17-07 10:33 AM by seasonedblue
I asked how he thinks he could get a cut off passed if he couldn't get the health care plan passed.

edited to say that telling voters what they want to hear, without any hope of getting it to work is known as pandering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. No shortage of people who like being pandered to...
even here. That's been obvious for quite a while now.

As for your question, shhhhh...We're not supposed to stop to think about stuff like that...Just feel good...it doesn't matter if the words mean anything or not...just feel good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Because the Congress won't dare vote health care for itself
and not for the people. The only reason the situation is as it is now is that the topic has not been raised. Congress members want to be re-elected. This would become a huge problem for them with their constituents. They will face effective competition for their seats if they vote wrong on this issue. Besides, Edwards will keep sending the bill back. And every time he sends it back, he will become more popular. Congress will see that and give in. That is how a leader does business. And, of course, always with a smile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. He won't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's a nice applause line
Probably not something he could deliver in practice.

But it plays to the "Full-throated populist" image he is going for.

I sometimes wish he would stop telling us what he thinks we want to hear.

If Gore stays out, then I will probably be supporting Edwards.

I especially like his positions on energy and the environment.

As does the League of Conservation Voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well now................ Edwards playing hard ball.
You're up to bat, Congress. Ya gonna hit a home run or a FOUL ball?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
8. Seems kind of gimmicky to me.
Even if the president could do that without Congress (which I'm not sure about), does anybody believe it's really intended to push Congress to pass "universal" health care, and not intended for political points from voters? Would that really be the leverage that'd move Congress -- as if they're worried about not affording their flu shots? (And, I'm still waiting to hear why Edwards and others think it's better to keep for-profit insurance companies involved rather than to adopt Kucinich's plan.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Agreed, Sparkly
Give what Congress gets to the rest of us, single payer, and be done with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'm considering changing my avatar now! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Woooo!!!
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :toast: :pals: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
14. With the WH and Congress in the 20% approval vicinity, setting oneself up
as their opponent could be a HUGE winner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
19. More grandstanding...
So now the President is going to cut benefits of members of Congress? It'd be a great gimmick if it could actually happen, but it can't/won't. As far as I know (i could be wrong) Congress would have to actually vote for this.. and I don't see that happening.

I'm sure it won't stop him from repeating this line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
25. Wicked awesome!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
26. k n r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
29. Is this a new form of a unitary President?
I seriously doubt that the President has the ability to take the insurance away from the Congress and all appointees. If he could, it would create one pretty substantial problem. There might be many less rich appointees and office holders, who could not afford to serve. As it is many sacrifice a higher public salary to do so. Do we want only the richest people in the country in office?

This is pure rhetoric. Why threaten something you can't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slick8790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. He can't do it? Think again.
Edited on Mon Sep-17-07 03:12 PM by slick8790
I have no idea how exactly he plans to, but I can think of at least two ways to do it, one binding while the other more political. The first way, and the only way to force it, is to attach congress's healthcare package to the bill for Edwards' health care plan. I.E., if they vote against the bill, they are voting to take away their own healthcare.

Secondly, he could also introduce them at the same time as separate bills, and challenge them to make the extremely bad political move of voting for their own healthcare while denying it to others, all within a short amount of time.

No, he can't just take away their healthcare in the snap of his fingers, but it's definitely do-able through legislation.

As well, you say some congresspeople can't afford to pay for their own healthcare? Then all the more incentive to do what's right and provide everyone with the care they take for granted. They can't afford healthcare on a congressman's salary? boohoo, tell that to the person working 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job, and see how much sympathy you get.


*edit for spelling*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. It looks like it's unconsitutional:
"On the first day of my administration, I will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in both branches of government on July 20th, 2009 -- unless we have passed universal health care reform."

"Theres already some chatter in the blogosphere about the possibly dubious constitutionality of this idea, at least as it applies to members of Congress. (The 27th Amendment says, No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.)

Senior political appointees, though, could be out of luck. But maybe Schedule Cs will get to keep their coverage."

FedBlog

http://blogs.govexec.com/fedblog/2007/09/no_health_care...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-17-07 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
32. I thought the populist idea was to cover everyone......
not to start excluding certain folks, congress or otherwise? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC