I'm pleased that Hillary Clinton once again supports health care for all Americans. That's only fair since Americans provide the very best socialized health care to the members of Congress and their families.

I'm very disappointed that her plan forces everyone to buy health insurance. I don't think that's constitutional, it's certainly not free market, and it sets a bad precedence for the next industry that comes along and gets Congress to force all Americans to buy the product/service of that industry.

Massachusetts passed a law to force everyone to buy health insurance with predictable consequences: prices went up, poor people were forced to pay for something they couldn't afford and now have less money for rent, food, shelter, utilities, transportation and daycare.

I do accounting for a living. I want a law passed that forces every American to purchase accounting services. Would such a law make sense? Only if the purpose of the law is to guarantee the accounting industry a profit.

Why does the health insurance industry need a law that guarantees it a profit? It's been nothing if not profitable for 35 years. I see no reason to force Americans to buy its services and guarantee it the highest possible profits forever.

Hillary's idea of subsidizing poor people is really just another way of guaranteeing health insurance industry profits with taxpayer money.

Again, in what free market are profits always guaranteed?

Warming over the current system and calling it "universal" really means that everyone will be universally forced to contribute to health care industry profits. That is a horrible deception.

If forcing everyone to buy health insurance from for-profit companies is such a great idea, why is that that no other industrialized nation uses that method to finance their national health care? Firstly, that type of plan has built-in profits which makes it 2 to 3 times more expensive than a government provided non-profit plan. Secondly, the best health care is obtained when people can freely go to any doctor or hospital they choose (as they do in countries with universal health care) instead of being forced to choose among a limited number of doctors in a group. Thirdly, as we know only too well here in the US, for-profit companies will always choose profits over the patient's well-being.

The other problem with Hillary's more-of-the-same-only-worse health care plan is that employers would still be involved with health care. Having worked as an accountant in many types of businesses for nearly 3 decades, I can tell you that dealing with health insurance is a huge waste of time for any company and I'm not just talking about high premium costs. Large amounts of time are spent by staff dealing with employee questions about benefits and dealing with obstructionist health insurance companies who deliberately delay resolving problems of inaccurate billings and enrollment. Then there's the payroll processing cost and staff time to deal with payroll deductions for health insurance. NO OTHER BUSINESS IN ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION HAS THESE COSTS. Therefore, American businesses, at least the ones operating on US soil, are at a severe competitive disadvantage. Let's get American companies out of the business of paying for and dealing with health insurance so they can spend their resources on what they do best.

We are in a unique position whereby we can study the universal health care systems of every other industrialized nation in the world and identify the very best features that are working well in those systems. We can then construct our own national system incorporating those features.

It's time to for Americans to become self-insured for health care just as we are for police, fire, emergency services, military, libraries, schools, highway maintenance, etc. It's time for all citizens to enjoy the same health care that we provide to members of Congress and their families. For 2 to 3 times LESS MONEY than we're now paying, all citizens will be covered and we'll be a stronger, more competitive, and certainly healthier nation.

"It's easy to tell me what I want to hear."

Would you rather he tell you what you don't want to hear? Give it a rest. If you REALLY think Hillary is going to enact sweeping healthcare changes, you are fooling yourself.

Anyone (aka Hillary) who talks about how great lobbyists are, because they represent Americans and have done a lot of good of for America is not going to change healthcare drastically.

She is more in bed with lobbyists than Bill was with Monica.

"It's easy to tell me what I want to hear."

Would you rather he tell you what you don't want to hear? Give it a rest. If you REALLY think Hillary is going to enact sweeping healthcare changes, you are fooling yourself.

Anyone (aka Hillary) who talks about how great lobbyists are, because they represent Americans and have done a lot of good of for America is not going to change healthcare drastically.

She is more in bed with lobbyists than Bill was with Monica.

Thanks for letting HRC have the last word on an article about what Edwards said. NOT! What is wrong with the media? I'm afraid this was a little too obvious today. HILLARY HILLARY OBAMA OBAMA ENOUGH! There are more interesting candidates with better ideas. Can you try to let us have a choice?
P.S.CNN.. Please don't take this comment off just because it is negative towards the media,like you did yesterday when I wrote almost this very same thing.

Cancer Care is a big political issue for the Drug Companies.

Cancer Wellness is not a medical concept.

NIH has shown that medical Vitamin C can selectively kill cancer cells without harming the patient.

Apparently John Edwards will do anything to get traction for his failing presidential campaign.

John they don’t give money to losers! Get a new issue!

I commend Senator Clinton's earlier attempt at a plan at universal healthcare.

However… I watched the town hall meetings she used to have about the subject, to get the American people fired up about it. I still remember it as the time I started to question her communications skills.

she made what should have been overwhelmingly obvious and a simple no brainer of universal healthcare into something very convuluted and hard to understand. So therefore, even with good intentions, she actually wound up giving the big pharma lobbys the ammo to make her sound even more confused and thus kept the crappy HMO for profit system in place.

There are simple things she could have hammered at again and again that she didn't.

ie. The Repubs say you should be scared of socialized medicine. However, who thinks their health should be a for profit venture? Would your fire, police and mail departments be better off if they were for profit? does the government have problems putting out fires or delivering your mail?

No.

That would have shut up her well funded detractors.

She meant well. If she's the nominee, I will support her efforts even though I feel they will be tinged by the HMOs she couldn't defeat and that have become even more powerful since.

But she'll do that because she can't overcome them.

Barack Obama can cut through the crap and actually communicate to the American people in a way that is both understandable without becoming a sound bite. He would honestly analyze the situation and not talk down to any party, whereas with Hillary when she attempted her health plan she felt more like my substitute teacher than my President, (or first lady I suppose.)

The bottom line is that Hillary isn't good at distilling the issues into something that sounds both intelligent and comprehensible. She gets caught up in the little details, in the rhetoric, and she forgets that we're dealing with very basic and important issues that should be considered human rights, not human privledges. The fact that she failed on her health care plan mostly due to her own personality flaws is a big reason that I'm supporting Barack Obama.

Obama would never make the mistake of alienating any party involved or talking down to them. He would also not feel he had to settle for a bad deal when it comes to health care. He would have the communication skills and real world knowledge from walking the streets of Chicago as a community organizer dealing with health issues everyday, to actually really accomplish something that not only gives us healthcare but makes us feel like participants in the system.

It is not that they are really talking about fundementally different things, they're not. It's in the approach, the style, and the rhetoric. Obama can cut through it, the other candidates consistantly get mired in it.

Also, I believe that Hillary's experience with these issues is her burden, not her boon. It makes her gun shy, hesitant to be as visionary as she was in the 90's.

Whereas Obama's freshness on the subject allows him to take the bold strokes that need to be taken and allows him to speak to the American people as a person of both knowledge and new, rather than rehashed ideas.

Just simply as a matter of perception, people will take Obama more seriously than they will Hillary when it comes to a comprehensive health care plan, because he won't be seen as the boogey man and she will be, because she's already crashed and burned on the issue and been villainized for it.

Obama = universal healthcare.

Hillary = same old thing.

The American people should DEMAND one answer immediately … concerning the 'health care problem'…….!!! What justification is there for the fact that our congressmen and their families enjoy the benefits of 100% health care — actually "socialized medicine" — while the rest of us are denied those benefits….. We are accused of wanting "socialized medicine." That's what the Congress has!!! All talk about this 'health care' issue MUST be predicated on that question…….

Hillary's health care program died a horrible death during the Clinton Administration because Hillary had no political clout. She was the First Lady. She wasn't an elected official. At the time I recall asking myself who she thinks she is by trying to make policy. It seemed very arrogant of her, which is a first impression of mine that has lasted a very long time.

Realistically it only makes sense that all the players have a seat at the discussion table. That is the way to make good legislation, by getting input from everyone. That includes the drug and insurance companies.

Of course that isn't what people want to hear, which is why Edwards comments are what they are. Personally he comes across as someone pandering for votes. It's easy to tell me what I want to hear. That isn't a very good trait for a President however.

WHY does an article about EDWARDS talking about the differences between his plan and her plan on health care, end with her having the last word.????
I swear we are being brain washed by the media to vote for the candidates they want to win so they will have something to talk about." WOMAN WINS DEM. NOMIMATION" Give me a break and please tell me this race is about more then headlines. We must look beyond the media hype for answers and make up our own minds. If not, we're going to be in trouble again