It'll be interesting to compare HRC, Richardson's, Clark's and Obama's plans. Edwards has laid down a pretty strong marker.

I am opposed to any plan which places the burden of health care on employers.

It is that fundamental mistake which has doomed not only health care but US jobs for decades.

No other economy asks businesses to pay for its employees' health care. Perhaps the single most powerful disincentive to hiring American workers is the requirement of paying health care costs. This is one of the major pillars of the globalization that is destroying the American middle class.

Furthermore, the political key to passing universal health care is dividing and conquering the business lobby. The only way to offset the lobbying clout of the insurance companies is to get GM and Ford and other big companies to stand up for their interests, which are to be relieved of the burden of paying for health care.

Finally, complexity is death in a proposal like this.

Keep it simple: government pays for health care and businesses are freed up to hire more Americans and pay them better wages because they are freed from the burden of health care.

I don't like this sneaky approach.

I am disappointed.

I like Edwards.  But the fantasy being indulged here is that once the public gets to see the private system and the public system competing side-by-side, they'll realize single-payer is the way to go.

In a perfect world, maybe it would work like that.  In the real world, people are not going to have perfect information, and they're going to have to deal with a powerful insurance/health care lobby that has every incentive to distort the outcomes available from the private system.

We already have an excellent single-payer model.  It's called Medicare.  If people don't already understand that Medicare offers better outcomes and is extremely efficient, how is Edwards' plan going to change anything?

I really think we netroots folks have to be uncompromising when it comes to single-payer, because it's not going to happen otherwise.

"Spitzer talking about cutting funding to public hospitals to balance the budget?"

No.  Spitzer is proposing taking inefficient state subsidy funds for private hospitals and redirecting them to expand coverage for 400,000 children in NY.  The hospital subsidies include funds for graduate medical education which is already subsidized by the fed govt, indigent care subsidies based on historic usage at hospitals rather than actual usage and revising Medicaid payment formulas that haven't been updated in over 20 yrs.

Spitzer is taking money that now goes to support institutions and redirecting it to people who actually need health care coverage.  It is excellent public policy and the state will be better for it.  

It should be noted that NY spends two times per capita on Medicaid what California does for virtually the same benefits package.  The program has become a subsidy for powerful healthcare interests in NY.

Interesting proposal.  Health Markets - sounds like a new name for the old Clinton health care purchasing coops to me.  I find it fascinating that almost all the new universal coverage proposals include them.  

They aren't a bad idea - the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which covers fed employees, is one and it is very successful in giving choice and keeping costs down.  Politically, they are easy to pick apart as we saw in 1993-94.

I see what Edwards is trying to do in giving people a choice between the public and private systems, but I worry about the complexity compared to say (single-payer medicare for all).

It also concerns me that it seems like the current plan he's put forth would have us spending more than we already are on healthcare. By setting up the whole "let the people choose private vs. public" tactic it's also leading to increased costs compared to moving to single-payer universal health care.

I don't know whether full single-payer UHC would be found acceptable by the public and whether it would be enacted by congress (or even make it out of the house for that matter). Perhaps the tactic he seems to be going for, along with the required cost, is what pragmatically has a chance of being enacted.

Interesting timing... Now THAT I will give ballsy credit.  Basically, once this passed the whole presidency would hinge on this bill... If he is elected and achieves the bills goal of 2012, he'd probably be a lock for re-election.  Screw it up, and its one termer status.  That does take guts to push the chips all in like that.

I did forget the Fair terms edict of the plan.  This will be what the insurance industry fights the most, but if it passes then THAT would be truly great for Americans.

This is good. I gave the report a B+. My only concerns are with some of the details of the presentation. The report correctly makes reference to deficiencies in patient to doc/nurse ratios but isn't clear on how his plan will address the problem. Also, there is no clear, and specific references to prescription drug coverage. My assumption is that medication costs  will be covered. The question is to what extent, and how does this plan impact existing government susidized plans like, medicare, medicaid, verteran's benefits, etc. Also, there is no reference to long-term care coverage.

Otherwise, I think the plan lays out a do-able transition into a single payer system of health care.

Wait... Businesses are required to provide insurance or pay into a pool?  How the heck are small businesses supposed to come up with the money?

Why create more types of taxing structures?  Why not just use existing tax structures like the income tax.

1. Big mistake calling for "increased taxes" for this plan.  The entire media has picked it up as a tax-increase issue.  Why not call a spade a spade: NON-RENEWAL of Bush's temporary tax cuts.   That is unless the money generated from the rollback of the enormous Bush tax cuts is not enough to pay for this.  In which case "tax increase" would actually be correct and politically dicey.  

2. The burden on small businesses is too great.  6% will indeed create a small-business hardship.  

3. Individuals HAVE to buy insurance or lose income tax deductions.  Many are squeezed and can't afford health coverage.  A middle-class couple may opt to buy it for their children and go without themselves.   They simply can't pay the extra $300 per month for the two of them.  Now we are going to mandate coverage or loss of tax deductions.  That is akin to a tax increase on middle-class and lower-middle-class working families.

This plan is a good start to get the debate going.  I'll wait for the Clinton and Obama plans.  The worst failing is that this plans puts additional burdens on hard working individuals and couples who simply can't afford health insurance although on paper they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.  It does not take the current middle-class income squeeze into account, thereby appears more coldly calculating rather than giving me the "warm and fuzzies."    

Don't let anyone fool you that it..whine..can't...whine..won't..whine.. work.

We have Big Insurance and Big Pharma spending billions of buckaroos on advertising every year, not to mention the lobbyists who represent them on the Hill too.  Oy.

Even if they agree to suck it up, cut ads , we still have the MSM who will lose that revenue..hello!

Is it any wonder that Edwards' Plan will be stoned by the very people we trust to take care of us...physically, mentally and informationally?