I again kindly remind you: Edwards needs to be Clinton alternative, there's no need to burn bridges.

There is no permanent enemies or friends in politics. Have you noticed the changing tone of Edwards campaign? I certainly hope you're smart enough to follow suit...

'their girl.'

Wow!! That tells me all I need to know, in case I didn't already know it!!

I think it's actually a very interesting interview that raises a lot of issues, but I sorta get the feeling this might not be the diary where a serious policy discussion breaks out.

Per CNN:

Can I honestly tell you I spend not a nanosecond listening to what each of them are saying sniping toward each other, so I have no idea what you're talking about."

-- John Edwards, quoted by CNN, on Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama criticizing each other.

This little game of being 'positive'/'negative' is actually quite amusing. But I like how Clinton mixed up with Obama.

how much has aetna given contribution wise?

More double talk? Is Clinton telling them one thing and us another?

Ezra Klein has a great commentary on this interview:

I wouldn't take too seriously the idea that Mark Bertolini, President of Aetna, actually doesn't know what he's talking about. Rather, the reason he's calling Hillary Clinton's plan moderate and Obama and Edwards' plans less so is because he's trying to curry favor with Clinton, assuming that she will be the nominee and it will be her office with whom his company will need to negotiate. It's a gamble, and it may be a winning one. Aetna sees, in all of the Democratic plans, an opportunity for profit -- for the government to subsidize 47 million new customers. And they're right! The question is whether they can make these plans nothing but an opportunity for profit, whether they can rob them of the weak cost control mechanisms currently proposed, and erase the public insurer that can serve as a pressure agent on the private insurance system.

For evidence of their hoped-for future, look further into the interview, where the Aetna executive waxes rhapsodic over ending state mandates, and inadvertently explains everything that's wrong with the private insurance system. End coverage mandates, the interviewer asks, and the cheaper policies won't cover as much, right? "It's not the same coverage," says Bertolini, "but all the benefits in the Connecticut policy may not be things that I necessarily need. ... As an individual, why would I want to pay for coverage for Gaucher's disease?"

I don't know, maybe because you might have Gaucher's disease. Aetna doesn't want to pay for expensive diseases like Gaucher's, so it's trying to convince folks that they don't need the coverage. But what health coverage is supposed to do is defray the costs of treatment for rare, costly diseases. It's not supposed to excise such ailments from the coverage rolls so private insurers can be more profitable. That's why Hillary, and all the other Democrats, mandate minimum benefit levels for private insurers, and force community rating to boot. Those regulations -- which would force coverage of diseases like Gaucher's and force the insurers to cover patients with such illnesses -- are what Aetna will try and convince Clinton, or any Democrat, to excise from their plan. The question is whether they'll succeed. By lavishly complimenting Clinton now, Bertolini is hoping to better his odds when that negotiations finally comes.

working in a doctors office, i must say, we have less problems with aetna covering patients than any other insurance group

When the CEO of a huge health insurance corporation comes out in favor of a Democratic candidate's plan you know the system is rigged.

may I ad the President of Aetna has contributed to Lieberman and Nancy Johnson multiple times as well as Chris Dodd (the CT contingent where Aetna is) and Hillary Clinton.
he also maxes out each year to the Aetna PAC

i'm so glad nancy johnson got booted out of office.