julie: Thank you for correcting me on
Obama's plan!

Edwards is an idiot and its one of the worse ideals I have heard period! However, he is not alone, as each candidate's concept of mandatory health-care is straight out nazism.

OMG....another loonie democrat idea to stick it to ... everyone. If someone does not want health insurance there is no way the government would have the right to garnish their wages and force them to buy insurance. BTW, if Edwards would cut back on his $400.00 haircuts he could pay for those who can't or won't. Get a clue Edwards...this is a free country and you can't force anyone to buy insurance they don't want. But then, they will just raise taxes on all of us so we will be so poor we won't be able to pay our house payments or car notes. Democrats are working extra hard to socialize the USA. Don't be fooled by these charlatans.

It is not the governments job to give us healthcare. The government should provide you with a decent education, protect the country and help businesses flourish and then get out of the way.

We already got social security shoved down our throats. I would have way more money if I invested it myself.

I've read the most amazing post by Louis on this very site. I think it should be used by professors in universities in order to teach fuzzy thinking. Seriously!

The guy starts with a declaration that US spends too much on health care. He does not explain why this is happenning and what could be the ways to cut the medical costs today without destroying the private system. For example, he thinks he can cut the price of the government run medical insurance by capping the medical lawuit bills and
denying the benefits to the illegal alliens. Now, why not try all these measures today, BEFORE we start experimenting with the government run medical insurance? Louis is silent on this obvious point, which reveals his fuzzy thinking.

Next, he spends awful amount of time describing who will be forced to pay what - without even an attempt to explain in any detail how the people would be able to control their health care - and I mean individually, not as a collection of 300 million folks, each with his own interests. How would htey be able to guard their interests, and be sure that the same folks that run the DMV don't screw them? Moreover, on what actual principles will the government be running the medical care?
Here are a few nice attempts from him:

"It is critical that medical facilities and providers remain competitive and independent."

Here it is utterly unclear how can medical facilities become independent if the government is the sole and completely arbitrary decider on the prices and quality of the services rendered. Ever dealt with the monopoly, which has unlimited power? Multiply it by 100 when you are dealing with the government.

"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."

Here again, it is the government deciding which treatments are to be chosen, and which is the "effective" way of dealing with particular illnesses. Anyone who feels differently
than the government buecracy should use prayer as the most effective way of changing the situation.

"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."

Who is to negotiate with whom? Moreover, the socialistic ideas that prices can be simply calculated by the government should examine the example of Soviet Union, and how effectively the prices were decided there. For some reason, stupid humanity did not find a reliable way to find the actual price for a product by theorical calculations, and the only known way is a free trade between actual interested parties, and it's definitely not the government telling the doctors how much their services are worth.

"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."

Okay, so "efficient medical care" is now judged by the number of people who went through your facility, not whether they actually got better. Hm. Funny. I would like Louis to explain how this exactly works. I am curious. Really.
Also - who decides whether the claim is accurately completed - and based on what exact standards? I mean, all around the world government folks know how to play the system. And it is very easy when the power is unlimited and no general principles are given.

"Prescriptions: Price and quality will be the basis for negotiations for medications."

This is clear as night. Price and quality tend to go together. Which is preferrable to the government - lower priced, lower quality, or higher priced, higher quality? Louis, you are sharing words, not ideas here. Grow up, boy.

"The role of government in this process - pay the bill."

And to decide how much everything costs. Which, if you think about it, is a tremedous power.

"Using the free market so hospitals compete for patients will make for better services and shorter wait times."

Sure. Government price controls make wonders with wait times and better services. Just go and take a look at the housing with price limits. They all look dandy, and they are plenty of them for everyone.

The ending of the Louis' post is brilliant. "If there is relevant data that would show that such a plan would not work, please share it."

In other words, Louis wants to take a trillion dollars out of people's pockets, by force, he promises it will work (somehow) - and he puts all the burden of proof on the skeptics. Listen here, Louis, before I even think about attempting to prove to you that your fantastic plan won't work, how about you describe in painstaking details how your plan will be actually working? Here is topic one - explain based on what general principles the government will judge if they achieved the following: "Prescriptions: Price and quality will be the basis for negotiations for medications."
Also, explain how the government will be determining the "profit" for the medical companies. Say, one company dealt with 5 people with a particular type of cancer - and all of them were cured. Another company in the exact same time treated 10 people, and only 8 were cured, while 2 died. Now, as you said previously, "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." Tell us, who should be payed what and why? Go ahead, make my day.

If the government is involved they will control it and you (us). Anything and everything that can contribute to accident or illness will be controlled. You will NOT be permitted to smoke. You will NOT be permitted to drink alcohol. You will not be permitted to eat unhealthy foods - the gov. will check on you purchases at the supermarkets and restaurants. You will only be permitted an agreed upon amount of caffeine, chocolate, etc. etc. etc, etc,. This is exactly what the democrites envison - total control of the masses. Unfortunately, the republicruds aren't really any better.

I keep hearing everyone say universal health care. Its not a lack of health care that is the problem. its health care insurance, and there is a world of difference. With or without insurance no ER room will turn you away, and others don't foot that bill, as some think, you will be billed for the visit.

But what people need to think on is this...Health care insurance isn't a right, it isn't a privilege, its a service you choose or don't choose to have.

APB now, APB forever

National health insurance, MANDATED by the federal government is a very slippery slope. The way it is being presented is a major red flag in the first place. Health Care and Health Insurance are NOT the same thing and never will be. The federal government does not have the constitutional right to mandate that I have coverage I don't want. This is NOT a facist state. At least not yet. Finally along with these mandates such a Obrainless is proposing come the next phase of government ownership of its citizens (a completely opposite approach to what the founding fathers and the constitution intends)is to MANDATE checkups, mandate vaccinations, mandate specific criteria for care. B.S. And finally when the federal governemnt takes on this mess and costs spiral out of control as they do in virtually EVERY government program it will bankrupt many, especially small business if they are mandated to provide coverage for their employees. And then consider this. If the government does succeed in taking on this folly has anyone pondered what that will do across the board to other aspects of insurance brokering? Home owners insurance, auto insurance, and the like will spiral upward out of control as the independent insurance agencies try to make up for their losses.

It's amazing to me. If I ask all you Universal Health care folks to name me one thing the Government does better then the private sector you would be very hard pressed to come up with an answer. Is the Government more efficient? NO. Is it more effective? NO. More responsible? More Thrify? More Moral? NO. NO. NO. Yet somehow you think handing over your health care to them is going to be better.

The Government is a major reason the current system is a mess right now and you believe that some way, some how this time they will do better? They screw it up and some how handing it over to them is the answer? With centuries of failure you somehow think that this time they will get it right? My god what is wrong with you people. You do know your betting your life and the life of your loved ones on this don't you? Remember this, when the lines are long, the quality is worse and the cost is more your better remember that you were told this would happen and you chose it.

What we need to do is pass a law that tracks everyone and what they buy. If a person is on record as not having purchased health insurance, they should be banned from buying smokes, fast food, sweets, fatty foods, etc. And let's not stop there. No tattoos, no sports car, no SUV, no aftermarket rims for your car, ipods, downloads, or clothing item over $50.
Really, Edwards is starting to make sense to this neocon!

Isn't AMERICA great???? Edwards just proved that you can get rich here by being so incredibly stupid.

Great idea! But first we need to fine tune it for a few decades before we spring it on the tax payers. Lets start it out with Edwards and all his fellow trial lawyers. We can tax them at 100%. They care so much for the poor, do they not? I am sure there is not a hypocrite in the bunch that would not work pro bono for life. Let's see your tax return John.

So....
A woman has the right to choose to terminate a baby, but not the right to choose her own health care situation, because that will be by gub'mint mandate?

What--is she too stupid to make the health care choice?

The federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide or manage anyone's health care, period, end of story. I have no intention of being taxed further by a bloated federal government to provide health care for anyone, including the "poor", elderly, children, or their real goal - illegal aliens. We take care of the truly needy already. Grow up, it's your responsibility to provide basic necessities for yourself and family. Get a job, go to work, improve yourself, and don't bother me. Grifters, fools and socialists are the bain of a free society and they seem to be mostly Democrats lately.

Why don't we just vote for someone that will turn the US into Cuba and all our problems wiil be solved ?

Socialism, Anyone?

You cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. So the question remains, how much are taxes going to be raised under his plan, and for who, to pay for the healthcare?

Welcome to Amerika - the Politburo will take care of you - the proletariat. This is what we spent the Cold War years fighting. I think Edwards has a severe case of Stockholm syndrome and/or egomania.

I do not have an answer for the health care crisis but none of the plans I have read about seem to take into consideration how people that fall into the crack will pay for housing, food, clothing, transportation, day care, and the many other responsibilities we have in our daily lives with the added cost of mandated health insurance.

I would choose to have health insurance if I could afford to have it for my entire family. At my place of employment if I choose to take the health insurance for my family, my cost would be close to $300 per month. Which is affordable for some but when I take into account that I bring home around $1000 per month and my rent is around $400 per month, my utility bills(electric, water, gas, phone) run around $400 per month, not to mention car insurance, gas for said car, food, and the now added cost of co-pays if I took the offered health insurance I cannot afford the health insurance but yet I make to much to get help from the state.

Is there an answer to this crises? I do not know but I do know that mandated health coverage as Edwards would enact is not the answer.

The fact that an aspiring politician would even suggest such a plan means
WE ARE DOOMED.