and I favor single-payer, anyway. As I said, this would be a "bigger step" toward UHC, and that's significant to me. Every little bit helps.

I'm glad to see Elizabeth working with him. John's plan was arguably better than Hillary's.

I respectfully disagree - the Edwards plan offered an option to enroll in Medicare.

Medicare is a single-payer system.  The theory was that market forces would drive out insurance companies.  His plan was a real route to single-payer; everything else was universal private insurance.

I would hope so, and I hope they make MANY more ads on healthcare.

There are 30 million people that could be in one commercial (The uninsured).

There are 250 million people that could be in another commercial (The insured with low quality health care).

We are past having to prove to America that we are right, we need to convince them how right we are and HOW we are going to fix it.

That would be great. I'd like to see Hillary Clinton in that ad, too.

Krugman and Ezra. I'm sure there are a number of great people some in congress and others doctors, professors and advocates that would make great additions also. Are any republicans sane on the issue?

I doubt he proposes it right out of the gates.  He needs to fix the economy and Iraq first.  Those two items will probably take all of his first term.  

Throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into a universal health care plan would not be the best way to start an economic recovery.

Disclaimer:  I am all for health care reform, but I don't want to blow this opportunity by rushing into it during the first month.

Well hopefully people in our party will realize that we need to come to an agreement of the compromise.

The last thing we need is a Democrat saying "I don't support the Dem's HC plan because it's not Single payer on day 1".

Rant:[I remeber this BS in 2000 when Gore had a great reasonable plan, and Nader poopooed on it by saying his plan was remarkably different, when it wasn't.  Gore wanted UHC in stages by age group, Nader wanted day 1.
I don't think that one issue threw the election but all the immature nonexistant differences Nader wanted to manufacture were collectively convincing the low info voters for Nader that he was something different.]

We need a balanced compromise that has a chance at passing, then you do the oldest trick in the book, pile on the reform.

What we need is the precedent of ending our HC system the way it is first, after that we have an open book to shape it in the coming years.

we ALL need to work to deliver president obama an overwhelmingly democratic congress.  

What does HRC's plan have anything to do with this?

What did you think because Elizabeth indicated she liked HRCs better than BO's that she was endorsing her plan,  and even if she did that means she can't try and influence BO to evolve his own?

If you are not going to accept any positive news about our party preparing unifying and preparing our positions for 2008 than what are you doing on THIS site of all sites?

and it upset me a lot. But this is very encouraging. Elizabeth strongly disliked his plan and praised Hillary (despite the fact that I've heard she didn't particularly like Hillary in the past). She obviously disagreed with his plan enough to vote for her. This is a good sign, in my opinion. It indicates that he's flexible and open to changes.

I may be alone, but I always felt, if Obama got the nomination he would get together with both Edwards and Hillary and try and work out the best health care plan.

Krugman's analysis. I don't think Obama's plan, as it is, will be nearly as effective as Hillary's and Edwards'.

I think that's the strength of Obama's health care plan, especially when it's combined with his open government plan - in an open negotiation, accessible for any American with an internet or cable connection, there's as much, if not more, incentive for it to be negotiated leftward than there is for it to be negotiated rightward.  

Obama isn't putting the most liberal plan he can think of out there and asking people to pull it to the center; he's putting a plan out there that he thinks is a good starting point, and letting different players in the deliberative process, negotiating in good faith (because the people, watching the negotiations, are holding them to that), negotiate it in both directions.

see it more like this:

Edwards' Plan >>>>>>Clinton's Plan>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>Obama's Plan

No one said they were the same, but even Elizabeth acknowledges that Hillary's plan is good. She doesn't like Obama's plan, and neither do a lot of Clinton supporters.

This diary is not meant as an attack on either Obama or Edwards, and I have no idea why anyone would take offense. My point is, I'm excited that Obama is flexible and open to changing his plan. If Elizabeth can help him bring it closer to Edwards' than Hillary's, I guarantee that 99% of Clinton supporters will be ecstatic. The only reason I even chose her over Edwards was that I thought she was more electable. Yes, his plan is better on several levels. I would love to see Obama adopt something similar.

Medicare works well.  Why would its expansion to universal coverage work any less well.  I'm not sure what your objections are.

snark senses...tingling

John Edwards' plan was the best of the three, which is why it's so exciting that Elizabeth will be helping Obama. Hopefully, she'll push for a plan more similar to her husband's. Most Clinton supporters realize that our candidate's plan was inferior to John's. Hillary's plan is, however, still more effective than Obama's.

Not to rupture this week's lovefest, which is welcome, but there are facts, way back there somewhere.

Clearly, it's not terribly welcome, since you just couldn't resist the opportunity to get another jab in (especially in a former Clinton supporter's diary). Of course, looking at your history, I can tell immediately that you're just a nasty little Hillary-hater. Nice RW diary, by the way. I'm sure someone on RedState can tell you exactly where to go to get one of those bumper stickers. What a contribution. Bravo, really.

through his deviousness and once more, another slap across the face for Hillary's supporters when we all know that it's Hillary's priority to give health care to every single american but decides once again to bypass her for Elizabeth Edwards just as payback for her husband's endorsement. The Edwards lost all credibility when they endorsed the only candidate who didn't advocate for health care for all - I don't believe a word he says or from the mouths of his surrogates! I can't even look or listen to him - I now have to tape everything and fastforward when he comes on as I did with Bush for the past 7 1/2 yrs. He makes me physically sick!

He has absolutely no intention to try for universal or mandated health care! He's told us repeatedly that he will only think about it after he sees if it worked for the kids and only in his second term. In his own words: "He'll say anything to get elected"! He's reacting to editorials such as this one which came out the day after he annointed himself:

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/o utlook/5823929.html

Viewpoints, Outlook  

June 7, 2008, 9:52AM
Where's the commitment to universal health care?

By FROMA HARROP

A remarkable thing just happened in the people's party. Democrats have chosen a candidate, in the year 2008, who does not have a plan for universal health coverage. Barack Obama caresses the words "universal coverage" almost hourly, but his proposal offers nothing of the kind -- unlike the plans of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and other Democratic hopefuls.

Most striking, the man who showed such timidity on health care became the hero of ardent progressives. So forgiving was their love of Mr. Big that they virtually abandoned what should have been the Democrats' most potent promise: medical coverage for all.

This is political opportunity lost. In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 49 percent of registered voters list the economy as their No. 1 issue, with the Iraq war second at 19 percent. Health care comes in a close third at 14 percent.

more....

a pre-existing condition - there's no getting any coverage at all or through your state risk pool which runs twice and sometimes 3 times a normal policy and why, please do tell, why should I have to pick up the coverage of uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms through higher premiums to cover them? The only way, cheaper health insurance can be had for everyone is through a universal pool of insured, healthy or not, young or old - it's the law of average!

...if coverage is not mandatory, people who feel that they don't need coverage won't necessarily get it--instead, they'll go to emergency rooms, which is the most expensive kind of care you can yet.  They may pay out of pocket, but if they choose to do that, they're in for sticker shock.  The only real way to insure that costs come down for all, is to spread risk, and that means everyone must carry insurance.  This really is analogous to car insurance;  I have to pay extra for uninsured motorists, because some will not insure themselves.