the more I listen to edwards the more I think he has no chance of winning. he is too openly left-wing on economic issues for the US and provides too many opportunities for attack ads. union support, income redistribution, openly for increasing taxes etc.

it's too easy to draw a picture of a far-left socialist to win a general election.

I like Mr. Edwards, and know he will bring lots to the table for millions of americans. As one of those 47 million who cannot be insured, I look forward to a healthcare policy that includes everyone...not just the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and the doctors.

Don't get me wrong, I believe all of those sectors need to get paid, but how much is enough, when millions continue to go uninsured and are facing bankruptcy if anything 'tragic' occurs. I just try to live my life with freedom and 'caution'.

I am a healthy 37 year old man who can afford health insurance, but have yet been able to get BCBS or any other insurance companies to insure me. Age discrimination maybe? I dunno, but it is frustrating.

Ironically, I was one of the first General Electric (NBC) employees to be 'placed in layoff status' back in 2001 as part of the overall 50k GE layoffs.

We are the wealthiest nation in the world, and the last to offer it's taxpaying, obedient citizens guaranteed quality healthcare or education.

Anyway...

Wealthiest nation in the world?

The national debt is currently $8,700,000,000,000 and climbing at 1.5 billion per day.

The Bushites have sacked the treasury. The US is near total economic collapse, just like the Soviet Union. They had the bomb as well and that didn't save them either.

There will be no universal health care.

"it's too easy to draw a picture of a far-left socialist to win a general election."

If you ask Americans whether they are willing to pay more in taxes to provide better health care and more health care, majorities say yes in scientific polls. That's why the GOP focuses on choice when they attack these plans. People are not afraid of paying a little more in taxes, because their health care costs blow any tax increase out of the water. But if Edwards can show that his plan provides choice to people, then it will be a plus not a minus. I thought his health care plan in the last election was the best one, and it will probably be the best in this one. Note that Hillary will probably not be able to touch health care with a ten foot pole.

I am a devoted reader of this blog but, I am Spanish. It's interesting to hear about what's gonig on in the States since I spent some time in your country. This tax thing is something I don't understand... US is a wealthy country and it can afford a tax raise and still be competitive. After all US is paying more or less like any other country... Why is this such a problem?

Sorry, this is a better tax comparison source.

You are Spanish? Which country? And, do your citizens like paying taxes?

What kind of question is that? Of course no one likes to pay taxes. This isn't a matter of deciding whether it is enjoyable or not to pay taxes, but of understanding that we need a monetary source that can finance this healthcare plan.

I believe Luxembourg is the wealthiest country.

I'm not a huge fan of his plan. It's complicated and seems to still leave too much up to chance while not providing any benefit to businesses or incentive for anyone who is already insured to want to pay more in taxes.

I think a simple across the board national health care for everyone no matter what system just like they have in the countries with the best medical care would get more support from everyone aside from insurance companies; it's a proven system, it reduces the massive burden on businesses and corporations that do provide health insurance, makes unions more viable (since they'll have less of a chance of killing a company by forcing them to pay higher and higher premiums every year), eliminates premiums for individuals, eliminates (or hopefully at least reduces) copayments, eliminates having to pay out the nose for hospitalization, eliminates the risk of losing everything over chronic illnesses... In summary, it's good for businesses, and it's VERY GOOD for all people. Most people would be willing to pay higher taxes for that.

Meanwhile, Edwards' plan can be construed as requiring higher taxes while putting a bigger burden on businesses (talk of requiring businesses to provide health insurance) and not necessarily providing any benefit to the already insured.

If this is the best we can get, I'll take it, but I think we can do better...

The primary reason we in the US do not have universal health coverage is greed. Someone figure out how to solve that problem - greed, and the universal health care puzzle will be easy in comparison.

Even if there was a solution that included raising taxes to pay for healthcare we cannot afford the annual increase in healthcare costs. I suppose offering free healthcare to all children is a good start. There is no workaround to the US government eventually taking over the healthcare industry. The US government has the nerve to invade foreign countries but not the will to seize the healthcare industry. Are we afraid? It would seem like the healthcare management organizations could be compensated fairly.

Anyway, we deserve leaders with vision and Edwards talks about patching the system but universal health coverage should be our goal.

I agree that this tax plan is ridiculously complicated. Why waste more 'bigguns and bigguns of dollars' when you can institute a federal agency that ensures universal healthcare? Sadly, it's not Mr. Edwards's fault that the US idea of healthcare is a quilty patchwork of band-aid solutions. It is the product of a long history caused by the ceaseless tug-o-war between the right and the 'left' (read: not-so-right) in America.

Either way, universal healthcare in almost any form will help create greater social equality in the US, which is really what it needs.

I stand corrected...third wealthiest. But still.

"I think we can do better..."

I think this is exactly what all the insurance company ads said back when Clinton's health care plan was proposed. As it turned out, they didn't come up with their own plan, they just fought tooth and nail against any change.

The plan as he presented it is not really that complicated. It's the truth. Political problems are complex, and we shouldn't expect the solutions to be simple just because we're used to consuming them on TV. Bush's privatization scheme was in fact quite complex, but it didn't seem that way because the presentation was fundamentally dishonest.

There are several reasons why any health care solution is going to be complex, but the major one is that there are multiple health care problems that need to be fixed. One problem is that costs are skyrocketing. We've got to bring costs down and find a way to pay for those without at the same time.

Edwards' "plan" sounds very vague and squishy to me. I hear little that is new or insightful.

We will take the first steps towards universal coverage when we ask the question "Is it moral or ethical to profit from the misery and suffering of others?" Until we consider that question, all of the talk about "creating efficiencies" in the current system of health insurance is perfuming a pig. Health insurance companies exist for one reason: to return a profit to their investors.

Health insurance companies do not create or add to the wealth of the nation; in fact, they manage the flow of healthcare delivery by manging the flow of money, skimming the cream off the top for the benefit of their inverstors. Look at the profits of major health insurance companies over the past decade. Profits are averaging 300%.

Until the so-called leadership of this country is willing to confront the health insurance industry (and, by extension, a verrry profitable sector of the financial services industry), there will be no meaningful health insurance reform in the United States.

We should be focusing on preserving the incentives for those who truly bring innovation to healthcare and relief to suffering humans (e.g. doctors, nurses, pharmacologists, bio-medical engineers, etc.) and remove parasitic paper-pushers from the equation.

This is likely to be feasible only through a universal system, administered by that boogeyman of all right-thinking Americans, their own government. Yeah, I know, "socialized medicine". Somebody tell me why a universal payer can't be at least as efficient as the patchwork system we have in place place now, especially since it won't be skimming profits right off the top.

Edwards is blowing smoke.

"The primary reason we in the US do not have universal health coverage is greed."

While that's a satisfyingly negative evaluation of the situation, I don't think it qualifies as truth.

The real reason that we don't have universal health care is because we are a violently anti-Socialist nation. We defined ourselves through the majority of the 20th century as being anti-Socialist and anti-Communist. Since that conflict only ended a little less than 20 years ago, some residue should be expected.

"We will take the first steps towards universal coverage when we ask the question 'Is it moral or ethical to profit from the misery and suffering of others?'"

Again, a frightening oversimplification. The bottom line is who pays the very real charges for providing a service for 'free' to the public. This doesn't only apply to health care - it applies to police, emergency services, education, etc.

The US would be very capable of providing these things "free of charge" (that is, paid for by reasonable taxes) if we Americans didn't have to have everything so damn perfect. If private people could run their own low-cost bus lines; if doctors could afford to have private practices and charge competitive rates; etc. Have you ever been on a bus in Southern California? There are televisions. It's insane. Give me a platform with a chair on it strapped to a riding lawnmower, charge me $0.50. I'm happy.

What's wrong with universal health care? Pretty much every country in Western Europe has it, and believe me, we're far from being all "far-left socialists".

"Pretty much every country in Western Europe has it"

But there are many other differences between the USA and Western European countries, and to pretend that you can go around the world cherry-picking the 'best' ideas and get none of the worse ones ... is a bit naive.

I'm not against everyone having health coverage. But I think the concept is tremendously over-simplified by its supporters (as it is over-complicated by its opponents).

We are moving towards a more universal solution. We're just doing it slowly, because doing things through the system takes time, effort, and some missed turns. I look at politics in this country like two screaming groups of people pulling as hard as possible in opposite directions. Sometimes one side gets too much power and you spin in circles - you might even end up going backwards for a while. But generally you're on course.

Spanish are from Spain... or do you use "spanish" in exchange for "latino"?

Farging commies.

No matter how you slice it, utilizing force on others to get them to do something is immoral (i.e., force a person(s) to pay taxes under threat of imprisonment and/or death).

If you force a person to work, and you take away 100% of their earnings, then you are making that person a 100% slave. If you take away 50% of his/her pay, then the person is 50% slave. No matter what you call it (i.e., "taxes" or "your 'fair' share"), it's still slavery.

I own myself. I own my labor.

"Income" is legally defined as "corporate gain." I'm not a corporation. My labor is my property, and when I give my labor away, I'm performing an equal exchange...my property (my labor), for your property (money).

Forcibly taking away the money I've earned in trade for my labor is theft. You are stealing my life.

Shit. If I weren't so heavily taxed (approximately 40-50% of my yearly earnings (which is not "income," as "income" is legally defined)), then perhaps I could afford my own health insurance. Hell, I'd be able to afford some kick-ass health insurance.

Commies.

Besides, why should any working person be forced (at the point of a gun) to pay for the health care of anyone but themselves? I did not know I lived in China.

Eh...as long as it's for the benefit of the commune...er, um...I meant, "community".