Well, like some of the other commenters, I'm not sure I understand David's point about John Edwards' harsh tone towards moneyed special interests. It sounds like David is asking for foolish consistency from Edwards — to the point of actually misunderstanding what Edwards is saying.
Here's question 1: Should AHIP and PhRMA have any say over any eventual health care plan? No: Their interests in profit or survival are simply vastly outweighed by those of the many millions who are uninsured and underinsured.
Question 2: Should public opinion be considered in crafting a new health care plan? Should it honor the public's wishes, including people's reluctance to give up their current health insurance — which is only to be expected? Of course.
Alone among the top three, Edwards has put his finger on the central problem of *who holds power in DC*. The insurance and pharma lobbyists are not our friends; they are not entitled to set the agenda. We don't have to settle for Godzilla vs. Mothra politics and have the wealthy interests divvy the spoils, leaving scraps for the rest of us. Edwards has firmly planted his flag with the general public and against special interests, whereas most politicians try to play ball and accomodate the interests, in the false hope that a.) they can serve two masters — that what's good for GM really is good for America, (e.g.) or, b.) no one's really paying attention anyway.
Edwards does indeed understand political reality — but that's a matter of where the general public is, not moneyed interests. There's a big difference. Many people do not wish to give up their health insurance in favor of a government plan. That is understandable! Therefore he crafted his health care plan as essentially *optional single-payer:* You can buy into a government plan, or keep your private insurance.
Edwards deserves a lot of credit for having issued his plan before the other major candidates. He has set the tone for the field on the substance of policy. We can argue about whether his rhetoric is effective, or beautiful, or whatever; but to me that's so much figure-skating judging. I chose Edwards because he knows what he's up against, and because he's led the pack on the stuff that actually matters.
And fighting to reclaim American values is the core, the central meaning, the goal of John Edwards life. So I believe.
<
p>And that means a government of, by, and for the people. And a new birth of freedom.
<
p>To quote the Gettysburg Address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…
That, with all due respect, is open to serious debate. When a candidate is asked what he has to show for his six years in the Senate, and he picks out a bill that never even made it through the House, one has to wonder.
<
p>Also, does trying to enact a health care plan without enlisting the cooperation of all the players remind you of anything? (Hint: it rhymes with “MillaryCare 1.0”)
Senators should get credit for legislation even if it gets vetoed or blocked–especially when something as reasonable (and bipartisan) as the Patient’s Bill of Rights is blocked by the Right Wing Republican Leadership. That is also an example of how, to people like DeLay and Bush, “bipartisanship” means completely giving in to their demands.
Of course it was. But the point is that Edwards didn’t find a way to get it through (or anything else of significance, apparently). What does Edwards think — that once he’s president, everyone who is opposed to his proposals is going to fold their tent and go home? That the big evil corporations aren’t going to push back? How is failing to get a piece of legislation through the Congress indicative of future success?
I guess Edwards gets no points for enunciating the problem clearly and pledging with “every fiber of his being” to commit to doing something about it. He didn’t prove he could something about it earlier so we can’t trust him now. Is that it? He’s the only viable candidate talking about the deepest underlying problem but because he did not have strong accomplishments as a senator, let’s cover our ears and block out his remonstrations about corporate influence on public policy.
I think what David is trying to point out (and if I am putting words in David’s mouth, then what I think the problem with Edward’s argument is) that Edward’s promise to be an agent of change isn’t really backed up by a track record of actually bringing about change. If you use as your argument to show how you can bring about change in Washington an example where you actually failed to bring about change, then aren’t you undercutting your own argument? Also, in the debate, Edwards made a point of how he worked in a bipartisan nature to get the Patient Bill of Rights passed the Senate (name checking McCain). If he truly is this bipartisan wonderkid who will be able to get everyone together to enact change, shouldn’t he have then been able to get this bill through a Republican controlled House and signed by a Republican President?
Let me say this: I am going by my strong gut reaction to what John Edwards is talking about now – today – regardless of what he focused on several years ago and regardless of how stellar, or not, his Senate record was. My gut tells me he means it now. People evolve and grow. I think Edwards has made his peace with his candidacy and his issues and knows what he wants to fight for.
<
p>The formula for me is:
<
p>[Worst threat to US is domination & distortion of public policy and our very democratic system by corporate and ultra-wealthy interests] + [John Edwards’ single-minded focus on this worst threat] + [my sense that Edwards is honestly committed to this and no other candidate is] = [Edwards is best candidate for president in 2008]
<
p>janalfi’s post below is excellent.
…George Bush’s gut told him that Vladimir Putin had a good soul. I do like Edwards, but I don’t think gut feelings are enough.
This is what Edwards points out himself as his greatest achievement as a Senator.
First, a new Edwards email makes pretty clear that he’s not talking about “negotiating from a position of strength” vs. health insurers or Pharma or whatever, or any such subtle thing. He just doesn’t want to talk to them at all.
<
p>
<
p>So that’s settled. Now, as to this point by Charley:
<
p>
<
p>It’s just not that simple, though, is it? I mean, you can’t literally mean that the “survival” of drug companies and hospitals and health insurers is irrelevant to the health care question. You must mean something more nuanced than that. But I can’t figure out what it is.
<
p>As for the objection to pharma “setting the agenda”: no one is proposing that (at least, none of the Dems). But as I hear Obama and Clinton, they both say you have to bring those guys into the conversation. Edwards says you don’t. Different philosophy. I have yet to be persuaded that what Edwards says will work — that was the point of my post to which the Edwards fans are so vigorously objecting.
<
p>Yes, absolutely, Edwards gets credit for putting out his plan first, and perhaps for Obama’s and Clinton’s plans being similar. But to downplay the importance of his “rhetoric” as an exercise in “figure-skating judging” seems to me to belittle what he and, especially, Obama are up to these days. Hillary would be delighted. From an email earlier today:
<
p>
David, what exactly does that mean?
<
p>AHIP and PhRMA don’t exist to help craft good policy; they exist to maximize their profits through government action. The president’s job should not be to mediate between these interest groups, and strike a deal so that they’re happy. The president’s job should be to advocate on behalf of the public with a Congress that is, after all, already bought and paid for by these groups.
<
p>If you think this all sounds like a bunch of posturing, you’re absolutely correct. It emphatically is posturing. But it sets a very strong tone as to what the priorities are going to be; who has the power in an Edwards administration and who is going to have to ask pretty-please.
<
p>I have my concerns about Edwards’ language, and they’re much the same as yours. I don’t want to defend everything he says and how he says it. But I think there’s an essential truth that Edwards is getting at: Why are these interest groups so powerful that we just assume we can’t strike a deal without them?
<
p>Hillary and Obama don’t give much, or enough, of an idea of what the power relationship would be when they sit down to negotiate.
<
p>As for talk: Look, that’s all we’ve got these days. We got three senators who have been contending (until recently) with a GOP President and Congress. So we’re not going to see Kennedy-like records of achievement. Boo hoo. Vote Richardson.
Heh. Yup, and that’s why I backed Dodd. Too bad not enough Iowans saw the light.
Anyone not believing that out-of-control corporate power over Congress and our democracy had changed our country and endangered it is not in touch with reality. Edwards, for all his imperfections, has gone out on a limb, staking his candidacy on flat-out repetition of this truth and his commitment to dealing with it. I am extremely grateful to Senator Edwards for doing this. Disparaging his message is akin to saying you’d rather continue sleepwalking through civic life (perhaps nibbling around the edges and improving things a bit temporarily) but basically just giving up on America.
<
p>Strong words? Yeah. Do I really believe this? Yeah. I do NOT believe Edwards will refuse to negotiate with corporations and lobbyists and Wall Street elites. What I believe is that he will draw lines and tell them “this is where we can go and cannot go, this is what we can do and cannot do.” And he will fight.
<
p>List the problems of America and you will see that corporate greed and impotent, craven politicians are behind most of them. There’s plenty of money in America. Connect the dots. Why do we still have 47 million uninsured, festering inner cities and crumbling bridges? It’s not for lack of $$ in the USA. It’s where those dollars are funneled. Nothing that a little remedial redistribution can’t cure. Are you scared, ultra-rich people? You should be. But don’t worry. You can stay rich, just not so obscenely rich while many Americans work hard, full-time, and still don’t make enough for a decent standard of life.
<
p>Seriously, though: we need corporations. They are a fundamental engine of our economy. Edwards is not out to destroy corporations. He’s out to reign them in.
<
p>Am I sure Edwards will do these things? No, how can I be? But I believe that the problem is exactly what he is describing, God bless him, and I want to give him a chance to tackle it while we still have time.
Obama, stung by Paul Krugman’s accusation that he is living in fantasy land if he believes that he can get corporations to relinquish their considerable power and profits over a conference table, has morphed his message into one that is closer to Edwards. He now says that he, too, will fight the corporate interests in Washington. But will he be smart and tough enough to follow through? Who knows?
<
p>I certainly did not know this troubling fact from Michael Moore’s website:
<
p>
<
p>John Edwards is my candidate because I think the first step towards solving a tough problem is recognizing its source. I also believe that Edwards will use the presidency to expose the money-for-influence dynamic that has come to be the status quo in Washington. He seems to understand that someone has to tell the people what is really going on before it is irreversible.
<
p>I think Obama is mouthing similar words but whether he knows what he is up against is questionable.
while others choose to ignore it. Whether he is able to do anything about its foul odor is up to the people. In order to change tax policy and trade agreements to level the playing fields, he will have to do things with unpopular consequences.
<
p>International trade started with “we grow wheat and you grow rice, why don’t we trade some of it to each other”. Now it is “we can do your work cheaper than you, so give us your business”. Fixing the inequalities that lead to this situation will result in higher costs to the consumer. Are we ready to stomach that in order to raise everyone’s boat?
No doubt some of you BMG’ers heard Pulitzer Prize-winning NYT investigative reporter David Cay Johnston on the just-ended segment of On Point.
<
p>He was talking about his new book, Free Lunch
<
p>
<
p>From the On Point teaser, about Johnston:
<
p>
I am glad Edwards is speaking the raw truth about who holds the power, and who is interested in keeping health care expensive.
<
p>The big pharmaceutical companies break the law hundreds of times every day in their many attempts to keep the cost and demand for their brand name drugs as high as possible.
<
p>My employer Prescription Access Litigation, based in Boston, fights the drug companies in the courts by launching class action lawsuits against them.
<
p>Using litigation we are able to level the playing field.
<
p>Ready to help us sue big pharma for lying, cheating and stealing?
<
p>Tell us your story at: http://prescriptionaccess.org/…
<
p>See the rest at Huffington Post.