Thread: Edwards: Garnish Wages If Needed to Cover All

Edwards: Garnish Wages If Needed to Cover All
November 29, 2007 1:13 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is hoping to stand-out from rivals on health care by portraying the plan of rival Barack Obama as leaving 15 million uninsured and portraying Hillary Clinton as lacking the candor needed to get to universal coverage.

"Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people," said Edwards. "The truth is that some people will choose not to buy insurance even though it's affordable, knowing that the rest of us will pay for their emergency room visits."

"But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there," he continued. "Hillary Clinton says her plan will cover everyone through a 'mandate' but does not provide even the most rudimentary idea much less a detailed plan of how this 'mandate' would work."

Like Clinton (and unlike Obama), Edwards' health-care plan would require every American to have health insurance.

But unlike Clinton, Edwards is now detailing how he would enforce his mandate.

Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.

If someone did not submit proof of coverage, the Internal Revenue Service would notify a newly established regional or state-based health-care agency (which Edwards has dubbed a Health Care Market).

Those regional agencies would then evaluate whether the uninsured individual was eligible for Medicare (which covers those over 65), Medicaid (which covers the indigent), or S-CHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program which targets the working poor).

If the individual was not eligible for either of those existing public programs, the regional-health care agency would enroll the individual into the lowest cost health-care plan available in that area. The lowest-cost option could be a new Medicare-like public option or a private insurance plan.

The newly covered individual would not only have access to health benefits but would also be responsible for making monthly payments with the help of a tax credit.

The exact size of the financial obligation would vary according to a person's income (lower-income Americans would receive larger tax credits).

If a person did not meet his or her monthly financial obligation for a set period of time (perhaps a year, perhaps longer) the Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual's wages for purposes of collecting "back premiums with interest and collection costs."

The process, according to the Edwards campaign, would resemble the process used to collect money from Americans who are delinquent on federal student loans or child support payments.

The Edwards campaign has not put a dollar figure on the amount that would be garnished from wages because the cost of the lowest-priced plan in that region could vary and is not yet known.

While raising the specter of wage garnishment could expose Edwards to the criticism that he favors a bigger, more intrusive government, he is hoping that Democrats will reward him for offering a plan that is bolder than Obama's and more candid than Clinton's.

"To get fundamental change in our health care system, we need a fundamental change in our politics," said Edwards. "That starts with being clear and direct about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it."

November 29, 2007 in Edwards, John, Vote 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (81)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/23781018

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Edwards: Garnish Wages If Needed to Cover All:

User Comments

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

Posted by: Stephen Jordan | Nov 29, 2007 1:28:08 PM

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

Posted by: Royce | Nov 29, 2007 1:33:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Lefty Healthcare Gestapo | Nov 29, 2007 1:43:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Louis | Nov 29, 2007 1:52:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Judith | Nov 29, 2007 1:53:04 PM

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!

Posted by: Wayne | Nov 29, 2007 1:55:18 PM

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.

Posted by: Louis | Nov 29, 2007 1:56:26 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill Lynch | Nov 29, 2007 2:31:13 PM

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.

Posted by: AJ | Nov 29, 2007 3:05:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Sandy D | Nov 29, 2007 3:38:54 PM

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

Posted by: Louis | Nov 29, 2007 4:03:07 PM

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.

Posted by: Sean O'Brien | Nov 29, 2007 4:10:49 PM

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.

Posted by: EMANUEL MCCRAY | Nov 29, 2007 4:37:17 PM

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!

Posted by: reaganfan | Nov 29, 2007 4:37:28 PM

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.

Posted by: Michele | Nov 29, 2007 4:53:02 PM

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.

Posted by: julie | Nov 29, 2007 7:20:33 PM

bill lynch for president!!!

Posted by: bah | Nov 29, 2007 7:22:04 PM

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?

Posted by: Bill Lynch | Nov 29, 2007 7:42:54 PM

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.



Posted by: bah | Nov 29, 2007 8:16:09 PM

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?


Posted by: redsolomon | Nov 29, 2007 9:36:33 PM

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

Posted by: reaganfan | Nov 29, 2007 11:53:26 PM

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.

Posted by: SOS | Nov 30, 2007 1:27:56 AM

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.

Posted by: kim | Nov 30, 2007 2:27:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Enzo | Nov 30, 2007 2:29:09 AM

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.

Posted by: | Nov 30, 2007 3:41:32 AM

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.

Posted by: kimba | Nov 30, 2007 3:51:56 AM

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

Posted by: APB2007 | Nov 30, 2007 4:29:27 AM

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.

Posted by: jwdent | Nov 30, 2007 6:33:25 AM

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.

Posted by: Rich | Nov 30, 2007 6:54:20 AM

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!

Posted by: S | Nov 30, 2007 6:55:19 AM

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

Posted by: G from NC | Nov 30, 2007 6:55:44 AM

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.

Posted by: dujew | Nov 30, 2007 7:02:29 AM

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?

Posted by: elDiabloLoco | Nov 30, 2007 7:10:29 AM

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.

Posted by: J Kenney | Nov 30, 2007 7:21:01 AM

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

Posted by: Al | Nov 30, 2007 8:01:26 AM

Socialism, Anyone?

Posted by: Tony | Nov 30, 2007 8:46:21 AM

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?

Posted by: Veritas | Nov 30, 2007 8:46:50 AM

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.

Posted by: JB | Nov 30, 2007 8:50:58 AM

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.

Posted by: rdlee | Nov 30, 2007 9:06:55 AM

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

Posted by: Dave | Nov 30, 2007 9:38:43 AM

I can't believe American people would stand for more government control of our lives. WE need to take responsibility for our lives and keep government out....
Consumer driven health care is the way to go. Benefit programs etc.... Then we would bwe driving the cost for health care not big companies.
I love AmeriPlan USA. It is the way to go!

Posted by: Patty | Nov 30, 2007 9:44:56 AM

What if we send 20 million illegal invading law breakers back to their own countries? That would solve this and many other problems. No more bankrupted hospitals because of the EMTOLA Act giving illegals FREE service. No more anchor babies, TB, hepatitis and aids cases being brought in. Oh, not to mention leprosy which is now back in America. Is this solution just too simple?

Posted by: Jeannie | Nov 30, 2007 10:07:11 AM

This the thinking of Communism and the whole Democratic Party has now turned to Communism. Hillary is the leader of the pack.

Posted by: Eugene A. Byers | Nov 30, 2007 10:07:52 AM

Only a nutbag would consider garnishing wages. Making this worse its espoused by a person who already has millions and will never worry about garnishment.

The democrats sure have a sorry array of candidates.

Posted by: Bob | Nov 30, 2007 10:14:12 AM

So Mr. Edwards, you want to garnish my wages if I don't buy healthcare? What right do you have to tell me what and what not to spend my money on? Last I checked, we don't vote for king or dictator in the USA. Can anyone say communistic, anti personal liberty, anti personal responsiblity liberal? Gov't healthcare is a guaranteed way to run our economy into the ground. Not to mention how it massively goes against the principles our country was founded on.

Posted by: Dwayne | Nov 30, 2007 10:26:38 AM


We will be married 40 years by the end of the year. We have never had insurance, and I have paid every bill when it was due. Just think 40 Years at an average cost of 8000.00 a year thats 320,000.00 then compound the interst. I just paid approx 22000.oo for my wifes knees replacements cash. When you pay up front they do it for about half the cost. If insurance companys can make money insuring you, you can make more money insuring youself. It's high time we americans wake up and learn who the real thieves are. Most Americaans don't think for themselves ANYMORE.

Posted by: sandy | Nov 30, 2007 10:32:18 AM

Edwards is such an idiot, he needs to be a shampoo model, not a lawyer or politician. There is NO RIGHT to health care, nor is it a function of the Federal (or State) Gummint to provide or coerce participation in socialist medicine. Gummint run health care will reduce us all to British style health care... phooey.

Posted by: Tom | Nov 30, 2007 10:43:48 AM

He sounds like a classic closet socialist. He wants more government, then more government, then even more government involvement in our lives.

Posted by: Ron | Nov 30, 2007 10:47:32 AM

Edwards and all these democrats are communists pure and simple. Hillary says we have to take your money away from you for the common good. Edwards would mandate Everyone has to buy health insurance. I would never vote for any of them. What right do they have to tell anyone to buy health insurance? With their logic everything should be free. What ever happened to freedom in America? These democrats never discuss FREEDOM!!! The founding principle of this republic. It is all about government Mandates and growing the size of the federal bureaucracy. What a JOKE. The American people better wake up and think twice or three times before electing any of these communists as president.

Posted by: Hehrbehr | Nov 30, 2007 11:00:18 AM

John Edwards became filty rich by suing doctors for malpractice. If the doctors did not have to pay such high premiums for malpractice, the medical bills that they charge could be much lower. So many of the lawsuits are frivalous, but it is often cheaper to pay them than to fight them for years. Now Edwards has the audacity to think we want the government to be able to take even more of our money? Edwards himself and his malpractice cohorts are what has raised the cost of medical care and of medical insurance.

Posted by: KC | Nov 30, 2007 11:09:10 AM

Where does it say that the government has to take care of you and provide for all your needs? That's communism, pure and simple!

Posted by: Eva T | Nov 30, 2007 11:10:35 AM

What closet? He's been showing his socialist credentials since running for
Vice President and now President, thank
God he doesn't stand a chance. NO garnishing my wages, why not just have all the ill-legals pay for their own and
leave Americans alone. How much would we
save $$$ hum?

Posted by: Sharon | Nov 30, 2007 11:20:43 AM

The only way nationalized or mandatory health care can cut health care cost is by rationing health care and establishing business like "economic benefit analysis" in deciding who get what treatment. This is already done, to one degree or another in every country with socialized medicine.
The elderly are sent home to die. Many cancer patients die waiting for treatment. hundred of thousands of Canadians come to the US every year for treatment they can not get in Canada. My mother-in-law would already be dead if we lived in Canada because there is no economic return to keeping her alive. She is 85, blind, diabetic and in the not so early stages of dementia, and had her right leg amputated. She requires 24 hour care. In Canada they would have let the infection in her leg kill her.
But none of the Democrat candidates want to talk about this.
Any do any of you really believe Hillary is going to wait in line behind her maid to see a doctor?
Lawyers are responsible for a huge amount of the cost of care. If a doctor wants to take home $100K a year he has to bill at least $400K due to high taxes and high liability insurance costs. That cost is passed on to us.

Posted by: Mark | Nov 30, 2007 11:48:31 AM

What if I don't want healthcare coverage? What if I don't want conventional medicine treatment? Who is the government to tell me that I must have health insurance if I don't want it? This is big brother looking down on us. What next? are they going to tell us what mandatory medicine we have to take? Government needs to butt out of our personal lives. This sure does smell of socialism. John Edwards, Obama and Hillary need to remember that they represent the people, we are thier boss it isn't the other way around. People need to remember the Roman Empire for we are there. Vote for Ron Paul for President.

Posted by: Tired of Government | Nov 30, 2007 11:53:14 AM

I do NOT want your socialist view of the world to run mine. I've lived under several types of socialism & all achieve the same goal: control of every facet of society. And that is what you are after, Mr. Edwards, at least have the intestinal fortitude to admit it.

Posted by: Steve | Nov 30, 2007 12:08:22 PM

John Edwards is an out and out economic terrorist for trying to steal even more of our money to pay for a plan that is bound to fail. Why is the plan bound to fail? Because government can't do anything right, or efficiently, or cheaply. Because creating a monopoly ensures that there will be high prices and poor service. Because attempting to make something available at zero cost will cause shortages.

To Louis, and others who think like him, taking the profit motive out of anything is the surest prescription for unaccountability. In the free market, producers who please consumers survive; producers who don't, don't. If the profit motive is taken away, how does anyone gauge if consumers are satisfied?

This whole idea of socialized medicine, single-payer health care, or whatever you choose to call it, is LUNACY! If Americans fall for this, and elect anybody who is in favor of any kind of government-run health care, we will prove that we are sheep, and we will richly deserve the Hell into which we will be dragged.

If it is reform you want, let's start by going back to square one. Let's end the link between employment and health care. Let's get the government completely out the health care system. Let's end the notion that somebody else should pay for every hangnail and nose bleed. Let's get back to being responsible adults who make provision for our medical needs through market-created institutions and informed decision making.

I give John Edwards credit, though. At least he is up front about his plans to fleece us all, and sic the IRS on us. I wish the other Democrat candidates were as honest about their plans.

Posted by: Tony | Nov 30, 2007 1:07:46 PM

I would love for grocery stores to not make a profit either...someone else get rich because I have to eat...how ridiculous! I mean, I have to eat, right? That's just so unfair. Bad profits, bad!

And I guess I should do my current job for free also, God forbid I make a profit working!

Posted by: Jessie | Nov 30, 2007 1:13:25 PM

The commiecrats are good at spending else's money. We need to get the government out of our lives.We allready have too many programs that the tax are paying for.And too much of that money is going to people who DON'T deserve it,Like illegals. We should not give the illegals any helth care period.If the goverment wants people to have coverage they should get medical cost under control first(how much do we pay because of the ambulance chasers?)
The middle income people are the ones who will end up paying for this in the long run.

Posted by: colyork | Nov 30, 2007 1:13:30 PM

Looks like the freepers have hit this thread pretty hard with their mindless diatribe and talking points.

Only thing I can say is they had complete control of the US government for the past 7 years and look what a mess they made.

Republicans and Corporatists are destroying our country at an alarming rate.

Their theories have all failed in practice and have led us into stupid wars and, since the beginning of "Reaganomics", have run our national debt from under 1 trillion to nearly 10 trillion dollars today!

Who is going to pay that debt? Certainly not the billionaires...

Instead of taking orders from your minders like Rush and O'Reilly why not spend some time educating yourselves and engaging in some true critical thinking?

The Corporatists care nothing about our America.

Posted by: Bill Lynch | Nov 30, 2007 1:56:20 PM

If this plan goes in effect who the hell is Edwards going to sue. What we need for affordable health is for every citizen to join and force tort reform. I wonder how many women have had totally unnecessary c-sections because of his junk science. He may be responsible for more deaths than Teddy K.

Posted by: Sol | Nov 30, 2007 2:06:24 PM

I've been an independent for years..... and this is how their attempting to convince me that their worthy of my vote. Frankly, this guy is floating the next LEAD balloon trying to get some traction on a campaign which is “on the tracks.â€

Another government beauracacy. How about adding that if you have more than 2 kids adios! Why is it the Mexicans who are supposedly so poor have soooo many kids??? How about sterilizing them. I am totally serious. It just sickens me every single day seeing the illegals always pregnant,pusing double strollers and one or two more kids are following. They could care less. They know America is the gift that just keeps giving.

Mr. Bigshot John Edwards, with his multi million dollar estate, $400 hairdo's, and ambulance chasing ways is an absolute idiot if he actually believes this load of crap he's trying to feed American voters. Garnish wages of American taxpayers to pay for health coverage? Puhleeze! I suppose illegal aliens will still be privy to FREE healthcare- after all, they're entitled, right? Or will they somehow be exempt from the ex-senator's health payment plan once he makes them all legal? Let's not forget, Mr.Edwards' 'tax credit' won't make a hill of beans because he WILL raise taxes for middle class Americans (or what USED TO BE considered middle class). It's a lose-lose situation for the regular folks. Edwards is SO out of touch it's disgusting!

Is this guy crazy or what?

Garnish wages to pay for health care? I think its time for a lot of reform in government. They don't pay one dime for their generous perks and health care, its all on our backs, let them start paying premiums or open the health care plan they have to all, at the same payment they do..........

These people are soooooooo out of touch with American citizenry, they have no idea what is going on at home, just spouting whatever garbage is tossed their way, without any thoughtful process. They are all string puppets, and not one has any integrity. Definitely the "look out for me first and if there are any leftovers, I may let you have some. Maybe!"

Has insanity gotten such a hold in this country, things can't be fixed?

One thing for sure, they can't be fixed with the same ole - same ole.

People are going to have to step out and take a change - do something daring and something different.

I think a lot of people are going to vote for the ones annointed by the media because 'think of what the neighbors will say'. They want to be hep, smart, want the media to tell them they are 'one of the crowd'.

There was a time when Americans were very good at being independent and a little obstinate.