Political Punch

Does that mean that they get their mansions taken away too? Cause I don't have one, how about their yachts, I don't have one of those either.

Why limit it to members of congress? How about lets take everyone's stuff and then redistribute it equally to all Americans so we all have exactly the same amount of stuff.

hmmm... sounds familiar

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

John F. Kennedy

I think that it is time for calmness.
The idea sounds good, but would COngress
be in a good mood to pass a bil when
threathed. Ms. Clinton, the recipent of health lobbist money wouldn't do anything still. I just think that
50,000,000 uninusred are out of luck if either get in. especially if Clinton gets in. Remember the Clintons could
passed Natfa but thye had 8 years
to work on health insurance and did
little.

I am with Edwards on this issue. Edwards speaks with passion and conviction. He speaks the truth. In order to get congress to do anything, other than raise their own salaries you must put their feet to the fire first, that all he is was doing.

First Edwards is showing his ineptness of the Constitution, the President does not have that authority, Congress would only have that authority.

Secondly - They are both Socialists

MaryinBelltown and the remaining libs, What did the President and VP do against the constitution, please elaborate with Facts or stop the lies, and why can't a lib debate an issue without bringing up Pres. Bush?

Will Edwards refuse his Insurance? NOT!

I laughed out loud. Finally, a little wit in the running for president. This is a negotiating tool, folks, not a constitutional crisis. We've already got one of those with the present resident and his VP.

Sean O'Brien,
Beautiful! your email would , hopefully put a light under the pants in congress and begin UHC now.

Edwards can't take away health care from Congress by himself. The ad is a lie and I hope he is called out on it.

"Forty-Seven Million Americans live with that cruelty everyday." Oh please! First of all, emergency rooms have to take emergency cases regardless of whether the patient has medical insurance or not; and even if they have no means to pay for the service. Secondly, millions of those included in that total are families who have the means to pay cash for their medical services. They don't want an insurance company or HMO telling them what services they can't have. And the illegal aliens are also included in that total.

Now then, be careful what you wish for! Universal health care is a disaster. Why do you suppose it is that hundreds of Canadians cross into the United States every week to pay cash for medical services? It's because some procedures that doctors say are necessary are considered elective by the government. And therefore require months if not years to be scheduled.

Right now you have the right to refuse medical treatment. When the government takes over health care, the government will tell you what procedures you can or cannot have; and which treatments you must have. Oh and don't forget, you cannot sue the federal government for malpractice should something go wrong!

John Edwards is right on. The citizens of this country have had it.

Listen: If GWB can tell lies and pull this country into a vanity war invasion in Iraq that costs over a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and over a million of Iraqi lives. . .

then I'd bet you a sane President can tell Congress, "Get off your butts and get this done for the country".

You corporate owned pundits with your corporate paid health insurance just don't get it.

And that's WHY the country needs a sane President with guts.

Edwards laid out this strategy in more detail than can fit into a 30-second spot in September, and, yes, it involves proposing legislation to Congress.

That is, the first step is the Presidential power to recommend legislation to Congress for their consideration ... that's in Article II, Section 3.

The idea that such a law must be unconstitutional involves a confusion about the 27th Amendment. The 27th Amendment rules out Congress passing a unilateral change in its own compensation without first going to the polls ... as, for example, a Congressional majority that expects to shortly be a minority declaring a "bonus" to pocket before losing its power. It does not extend to the regulatory powers of the President. So if the legislation involves granting the President the power to withhold Congressional Health Care under specific conditions, there is no constitutional bar to that ... that would not be a unilateral change in Congressional compensation.

Politically, this is a triple winner ... it gives Democratic challengers the opportunity to promise to support it and challenge Republican incumbents to follow suit, it places massive pressure on Congress to pass UHC if it passes, and it places massive pressure on Republican Senators to allow UHC to come to the floor for a vote if they in fact successfully filibuster the "one in, all in" law.

I really don't know which is worse. One is a coniving female who has no relevant experience and the other is a pretty boy who has no substance. This is the democrats best bet. Oh, yes, I forgot about the other candidate who sees little green men. You democrats have really done up yourelves on this one.

Hilarious! Yes, it is cruel Jake. That's the whole bleepin' point. Forty-Seven Million Americans live with that cruelty everyday. And the political class doesn't care a wit, until they are rudely threatened. Interesting that, isn't it?

Congress is hired by the people for the people, so how is Edwards wrong? I'm sure nobody runs for Congress for the health bennies.

Jake: Edwards' plan isn't cruel. The affected legislators and Cabinet members would get insurance for themselves and their families. But first, they would be forced into the commercial marketplace for health insurance. Here they would join scores of others who must navigate the maze of private plans, requirements, exclusions, and the like. If they'd lived well within their means they would be able to afford quality coverage. If not, they would have to entertain sacrifices in other areas of their lives, or accept more limited coverage, higher copays, higher deductibles, and other compromises. Not cruelty, but the unfortunate status quo.

All I would like is the same health care coverage that members of congress have. Oh yes,and at the same cost.
If the health care plans that ordinary Americans have is so great why don't senators and representatives quit their plans and sign up for ours.
Phil

At some point, the Congress must authorize spending to cover the Health Insurance for its members. It may be in some budget or some sort of appropriations bill, but it has to be passed by Congress AND signed by the President.

President Edwards could threaten to veto the bill if it included health coverage for the Congress but not for the rest of America and he would be be well within his COnstitutional rights. Of course, the Congress could overturn his veto with sufficient votes. But then who is going to vote so openly in favor of their personal interests over the benefit of "regular Americans?"

Jake Tapper said: And even if he could, the move might seem awfully cruel for those members of Congress with bad health (or relatives in bad health) who depend upon health insurance.

Oh, so not having health insurance would be hard on Congress members and their relatives? Welcome to the world of the millions of American people who don't have health insurance.

I think this argument shows how insulated the press has become. There was a time in this country when the press represented the people, now they just represent the people with power. Jake is very sympathetic to Congress and their family members but he just doesn't get it when it comes to the rest of us.

Both are ridiculous in their positions...Edwrads cannot legally take Congress's benefit's without taking away all civil servant's benefits...secondly, Clinton ensured that the US will never have a form of socialized medicine through her own hand in 1992...she made a mockery of civil administration planning and utterly poisoned the "well" for generations.

The "unconstitutional" charge is right out of the Obama supporters' handbook, as witness at a number of major blogs. That said, the Clinton folks seem just as ill-informed since proposing legislation (which is what Edwards has said he'll do) to eliminate a perk is not against the Constitution.

Just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that such proposed legislation was challenged on constitutional grounds. I fail to see how some members of Congress fighting desparately to retain their hold on health care coverage while refusing to pass legislation to provide universal coverage to all Americans is anything less than a winner for those of us in favor of UHC.

So all in all, thanks, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, for clarifying that Senator Clinton thinks it's more important that Congress retain its health care than that the rest of American have access.

I love Edwards' idea. I've thought for years that members of Congress should be paid the going federal minimum wage. The only problem would be that only the wealthy would be able to afford to serve in Congress. But isn't that the way it is now anyway?

Sounds like the Clinton campaign is worried and rightly so.

I took the Edwards proposal to mean that he'd propose legislation and then use the bully pulpit to get Congress moving on getting universal healthcare for Americnas. I actually like the idea. If they don't do it the American people will be awfully mad that they are keeping their plan and not giving the American people universal care. It's a pretty clever idea.

I think Edwards is over-stating his case. He certainly doesn't have the power, even as president, to take away Congress' health insurance. Perhaps, he is promising to lead the charge for a proposed bill which would do that. I frankly cannot see that passing. No one is more self-interested than members of Congress. However, Clinton is taking the bait because her campaign is crumbling under pressure. She is very good at railing against the establishment, but she does not know how to answer criticism now that she is leading the polls. Edwards is a much more effective litigator than Clinton. He knows how to argue a case. Clinton would be wise not to make a federal case out of this. However, Clinton hasn't shown much wisdom in the past week or so.