Edwards plan sounds really horrible to me .. and im a democrat ...

Create another government bureaucracy. That’s an innovative plan? Sounds like the same old Democratic solution to me.

What about care for illegal aliens?

Currently, we have 12 to 20 million in the country illegally, greatly stressing hospitals by failing to pay for treatments they receive. Only an absurd government would force illegal aliens to sign up for mandatory health care coverage--but then turn around and let them get away with actually being here illegally in the first place.

so for peopel that cannotr afford insurance now but make too much to be considered indigent or working poor, you'll put more hardship on them all year long with the promise of a tax credit, if you can't keep up with it you'll garnish an already inadequate wage and put another hit on what would be shaky credit. Whoo-hoo! Not to mention you still would need to pay co-pays and medication costs, dental and vision not included. lemme see this would be a crappy plan, yes. I bet the insurance compnies love it though, now that it is mandatory they can charge what they like and cover what they want.

Edwards is absolutely correct about the need for a fundamental change in healthcare and he's brave enough to propose specific ways to get universal coverage, although I would favor Dennis Kucinich who wants to take healthcare away from the insurance business entirely and have universal single-payer government provided health insurance. But I'm realistic enough to realize that Kucinich is not electable.

Brilliant, cute boy! You think adding another layer of bureaucratic mess will be the answer to the health care crisis?

The way it ought to be is the price should come down enough and people will buy it. Who are you to enforce anything on my health? What's next, if I dont shed my extra 10 pounds, you'll deny me my FAFSA for school?

It's crazy!

But I appreciate your candor. You are at least honest and forthcoming unlike Hillary!

The statistics I have access to show that approximately $1.8 trillion dollars is spent on health care in the U.S. or approximately $6000 per person, twice that and more than other industrialized western nations. Despite spending so much, over 15% of our population is without any health insurance and cannot afford to see a doctor for preventive care and health maintenance, and that up to 60% have insurance with inadequate coverage with high premiums and deductibles. If you accept that health care is an essential service and the health of the nation has an affect on production, education, economy, and general welfare, it would be in the best interest to have a national insurance plan that would take the dollars already being spent and insure that more of them go to directly provide health care to individuals.
First order would be to insure that the government would be banned from building or operating any civilian hospital. Medical care for the military would not be affected but there will not be any government run hospitals for the public. It is critical that medical facilities and providers remain competitive and independent.
Costs: Capping malpractice insurance rates at a percentage of income and awards for litigation. By allowing hospitals to compete for patients with the guarantee that every patient seen will have their costs covered, overall cost of coverage will come down, the goal being no higher than $3500 annually per capita or $1.05 trillion, needed per year. This amount is on par with the per capita cost of other industrialized states, and still would put us high on dollars spent.
Coverage: A review of conditions and procedures that are currently covered in any percentage by current commercial insurance will be covered 100% by national insurance. No co-pays, no prescription costs, including dental and vision.
Payments: A review of currently negotiated rates with hospitals and Drs will set the base for payments to them for services rendered; renegotiations can use inflation and cost of living as bases for increases. Profit in the medical community will be primarily determined by those that provide the highest quality care efficiently, thus being able to see more patients and have more income. Upon receiving an accurately completed claim from the provider, payment is issued.
Prescriptions: Price and quality will be the basis for negotiations for medications. While American companies will be a priority, there will be no requirement that they be the sole suppliers.
Funding: At a savings to all of the currently insured; their rates will drop from their current premium to 10% of monthly income up to $100 per month. With the low estimate of 100 million workers in this category, that raises $120B a year, employers will also save by having a reduced premium for insurance at 4 times what their employees pay and this will result in an additional $480B. $600B collected while putting more money back into the economy. Everyone who works will pay the 10% of income per month with the $100 cap. There are approximately 50 million more workers, with little or no insurance. Assuming the lowest income under the poverty line for this group, these workers will still contribute $1000 a year each or an additional $50B, their employers working on the same sliding scale will provide an additional $200B. So from the workers and employers $850B, can be garnered, and the remaining $200B required has already been appropriated under Medicare, Medicaid, VA medical and any number of other programs that provide medical services both federal and local.
The role of government in this process - pay the bill. Review and oversight will be in place to address issues of abuse. Like the tax database, a medical database can be built to monitor national health and provide support and direction for medical research. Procedures or medications not listed as covered will be reviewed by state medical boards and the basis for approval will be benefit to the patient, not cost of the procedure.
This benefit will only be available to legal residents of the United States. Illegal residents will be treated, but also deported once able to travel.
Using the free market so hospitals compete for patients will make for better services and shorter wait times. With over $1 trillion available for the market, it will be a very profitable for hospitals and Dr's, look for insurance companies to open their own health care facilities and provide private insurance for previously uncovered procedures.
If there is relevant data that would show that such a plan would not work, please share it. I am no specific fan of socialized medicine, having the government run oversight on medical decisions is a bad idea. National insurance will allow for all citizens to have better access to care, a better national database for health trends across the country, and more money available in the economy seem to be only the initial benefits of such a plan.

taking the profit out of health insurance is the only thing that makes sense.

Make it free and pay for it by cutting the subsidies to the oil companies and ending the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy.

End the insurance companies' greedy grip on society. We don't have third party private corporations brokering our public education funds for profit...

Then end the wars and get us off oil. By that time we'll be back to a semblance of normal balance.

It's important for any plan to be universal and mandatory, it's the only way to bring down costs for everyone and to get rid of 'preexisting condition' clauses. People have to pay their fair share, healthy people with money shouldn't be allowed to wait until after they get a bad diagnosis or accident to pay in.

I suspect Obama and Clinton know this too, they just aren't being honest about it.

We seem to have forgotten what the concept of insurance is: risk spread across the population.

Since none of us can predict whether we are going to get sick or have an accident, the risk is the same. So long as everyone has insurance, the cost of care is a reflection of the relative health of the nation.

When people opt out of insurance for whatever reason, the risk is still spread across the population, but the cost is being carried by those who DO have insurance. THEN when those who opted out get sick or have an accident and discover they don't have the cash to pay for their CARE, the cost of the CARE and then the cost of the INSURANCE both rise... add to this those who can't afford health insurance and don't qualify for the various government programs...when these people get sick, they not only do not have insurance, they have no resources to pay the bills, either...and the costs for care go up...and then the cost for insurance... now FEWER people can afford the insurance coverage...and around we go again.

How many time do we have to go around before we realize that everyone has to have coverage to keep the cost of care AND the cost of coverage DOWN?

John Edwards plan is complex, but it is comprehensive. It resolves the problems of preexisting exclusions and requires the addition of coverage for preventive services...another pressure on healthcare costs is that people wait to get care until they are so sick it requires more expensive care...because they don't have coverage.

I would prefer single-payer, non-profit...and in fact, one of the Regional Health Market Plans would be just that. We get options under John Edwards' proposals...if you like your for-profit insurance, you'll get to keep it...if you prefer single-payer, non-profit...you'll get to choose that. But in any case, everyone will have insurance and that is the single best think we can do to lower the cost of both CARE and COVERAGE.

You need to read the full proposal before you can make an educated opinion about it.

he needs to go the extra step and make the entire plan a non-profit plan.

Edwards has a firm grip on how enforcement would work. No one can fault him for this idea. It happens right now in every judicial district in America. I don't know if the voters will reward Edwards for his honesty. Democrats don't like to think about enforcement. Republicans don't like to think about government control. Let's not fix anything. It's more fun to fight about it and feel like we've won the moral high ground. :)

Would not this mandatory policy destroy a healthcare "system" that is already suffering an acute shortage of workers?

Because premimums would be mandated, would not the Government also be required to mandate workers for the healthcare industry? And would not the Government mandate when, where, and how many times a person could visit the doctor? And would not the Government be required to place limits on the cost amount of care within a given period? And why would this be any better than the conditions already prevailing if cash was required up front? I'm thinking. I'm thinking.

This is typically what you get
from Democrats! Do it my may or I'll force you!
You can bet that Edwards isn't the only
Dem candidate thinking in these terms!
Do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama come to mind?
Talk about taking away our freedoms, if any of those three are elected President of the U.S.A. we'll know what its like to be living under Putin in Russia!

Why do all the candidates act like buying or not buying health insurance is a personal choice? Do they truly not realize that there are millions of people deemed "uninsurable" by the health care industry who cannot get insurance on their own at any cost? It irritates the heck out of me that they paint this as a "personal responsibility" issue when my responsible decision to treat my hypertension is exactly the reason I can't get insurance now!! Had I refused treatment and not seen the doctor for several years, I wouldn't have a pre-existing condition that disqualifies me from every policy I've applied for. People with a history of treatment for depression are similarly SOL--regardless of whether they've recovered or not. Unless they plan to provide equal access at equal prices for all Americans (which you know the insurance lobby will never stand for) none of these plans has a snowball's chance of making it.

hey reaganfan,

Actually, Obama's plan is different than HIllary's or Edwards, in that Obama does not want to force adults to do anything.

Obama is the only one (of the top 3) who understands that the problem isn't that people don't WANT insurance, but that it's just too expensive, or that they don't "qualify".

Obama's plan would help those who want it, to buy coverage, not force them to.

bill lynch for president!!! ;)

Thank you BAH!

If an idiot off the streets like me can figure this stuff out, then why oh why can't the geniuses with all the titles and degrees and position do so as well?

thats an easy one bill, but truth is , sadly ,one word rules all today.

PROFIT!

thanks for your post ,at least there are 2 of us.

;)

The last thing I want is for the government to garnish any of my wages. To force people to pay in a manner the government goes after delinquent student debt or child support payments is insulting. Edward's proposal is just another tax. Why do these same politicians continue to serve, in a platter, billions of dollars for Bush's war, and not use it towards healthcare?