Contact Us


« Blunt offers state assistance to KC | Main | Portrait of Missouri first lady unveiled »

February 07, 2007



If he wants to make health care "more efficient", why in the hell would he be trusting it to government? People in the socialist healthcare systems in Europe have to wait months, even years to get treatment. Dumb idea, Edwards.

You are ill informed. My friends who live in England, France and Canada love their health care. My Canadian friends love the cost 88 dollars a year.


They may love the cost, but they don't love standing in line for checkups or routine surgery.

Everything the government is in charge of is done poorly (ie Social Security, Veterans healthcare, The IRS, border security, Medicare Part D (prescription drugs), Military procurement and the list goes on...)

So why would we hand healthcare over to bureaucrats? What would the incentive for Doctors be? How about research companies? Nurses?

I don't know about you but I don't want "good enough for government" workers in charge of my well-being.

There are better solutions that cost less and incentize those that keep us healthy.


I would rather wait in line than go bankrupt when someone in my family gets cancer.


Great comment Incredible. The screw everybody but me syndrome is alive and well. The biggest issue as I see it is the profit skimmed off the top in our health care system. The flipping of our hospitals and care systems to for-profit in the last 30 years is just about complete, and things are now worse then ever. The Pew study group estimates that in excess of $90 BILLION has gone to the shareholders of for-profit health care and insurance companies in the last 5 years (2000-2005). Growing up in NKC, I can remember fundraisers to buy our community hospital a new x-ray machine, pulmanary equipment, they are a for-profit hospital that makes millions in profits, but at what cost?
Everybody rails against the Canadian system as bad and inefficient, or Britans, etc...but how about the German, or Japans models? There is a better way, but the profit on another's misery should be a pause of concern for all of us.


Funny how you are standing up for Edwards when he is one of the problems with the health care industry.

He made most of his fortune (somewhere up towards $60 million) on suing doctors with the claim that cerebral palsy was caused by doctors. There was one questionable study that he used in winning these cases from the mid 80s throught the 90s. There were studies against the idea during his trials and it his theory on the doctors being a cause of cerebral palsy has been proven false since his days of being a lawyer.

What makes it worse is that his firms take home was 25-40% of the settlement.

So hey let's just tax people more for health care and then let it go to lawyers through lawsuits so people like John Edwards can cash in on. Of course he wants the tax so there is more money in the pot for his buddies to go after.

Wake up and look at who this is coming from.


mizzou88 posted on an earlier thread;
"communism was collapsing under its own weight."
The perfect argument against socialized health care.


mizzou82, sorry.


I'm willing to try the Canadian health care system, which is not only far less expensive than ours, but in reality does not have some of the "scare tactic" features of "socialized medicine" touted by the likes of the AMA, such as having to wait months for care.


I'm also willing to wholeheartedly support John Edwards for President next year.


If you really want to solve the problem. Take away the tax excemption from hospitals that use the term "charity" but charge uninsured patients more than the insurance companies. Or make them charge uninsured the same rate as the lowest that the hospital has negotiated with the insurance companies. That is a real solution without the rhetoric.

Political Moderate

I'm currently in Toronto and read an interesting and timely article in today's Globe and Mail. It is written by Andre Picard.
Mr. Picard writes that in the absence of political leadership, the Canadian courts are shaping health care practices in Canada.
He cites two interesting cases: George Zeliotis (2005) and Adolfo Flora (2007).
In the case of Zeliotis, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that if the public system cannot provide adequate health care in a timely fashion, (hip replacement surgery), Mr. Zeliotis was right to seek alternatives such as private insurance and private care. It wasn't illegal to do so.
Many felt this ruling would undermine the public helath care system. It didn't. Instead, it forced the government to aggressively tackle the waiting time issue.
However, in the Flora case, the Superior Court of Ontario ruled against Mr. Flora. He sought to have a life threatening operation on his liver performed. at the time of the request, it wasn't available in Canada, so he had it done in England. He paid $450,000 for the operation.
He sought relief from that debt.
The court ruled the constitution of Canada doesn't provide a guarantee solution for every issue. Government retains the right and need to have discretion. It doesn't have to respond in every situation.


In the United States, I hope we work toward a system that has learned from the mistakes of the other countries.
I believe we must do something about the 45 million without health care insurance.
For one thing, those of us who do have it are currently subsidizing those who don't through our premiums. To me, this is nothing more than taxation without representation.
I equally recognize the arguement that government programs are ineffecient and costly. They frequently fail to properly serve.

There are words that keep coming to my mind in this discussion. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I earnestly hope we can find a solution that upholds these ideals. Certainly, it is worthy of our discussion and our effort.
For that reason alone, I applaud Mr. Edwards.


What no one has responded to the hypocrite that Mr Edwards. Sure turn the blind eye and let Edwards line the pockets of his fellow lawyers.

How about some tort reform Mr Edwards, instead of just saying hey let's tax people more for it.


Craig: Take away the tax excemption from hospitals that use the term "charity" but charge uninsured patients more than the insurance companies.

1) There really isn't much of a tax exemption for 'not for profit' hospitals. The only reason they are 'not for profit' is because they were started by 'not for profit' organizations. The hospitals can't make a profit to file as 'not for profit' and that is where the taxes come into play.

2) I whole heartedly agree that the charging of uninsured at the full rate and the way that rates are determined is a major problem with the health care.

For instance, Insurance Co. A will pay $125 for a procedure, while Ins Co B will pay $95 and Ins Co C will pay $145. Medical providers can only collect from insurance comapanies up to what they charge for procedures, so to insure that they get the maximum amount from each insurance company they will put their rate at $150. They can't then just charge uninsured the $95, then Ins A and C will complain that they should only have to pay $95 which is sort of fine. But the insurance companies like this structure, because then for instance they can go to their clients and say look we paid your $150 bill when they only paid a pecentage of it.


He does have good hair.


He is so good-looking!

But he also has a big head behind that beautiful face.

Go Dems!


He has a 28.000 sq foot home, who do libs feel about that?? It must take a lot of energy to heat and cool that, how does the Bill Maher, hybrid car crowd feel about that??


"So why would we hand healthcare over to bureaucrats?"

25-40% of the cost of the US health care system goes to (corporate) bureaucrats, far more than in Medicare, Medicaid or any Industrialized Democracy's "socialized" health care system.


I don't think you have to be poor to talk about poverty. I have been so impressed with his discussion of poverty & his challenge to America to sacrifice.

We don't do enough of that.

When we sacrifice, it is to Big Oil & BushCo.

Old Drum

You have to admire how the LIES of the right wing have now become accepted truths.

TORT reform -- Actually, the awards on medical malpractice have fallen over the past several years. To think that our high costs of medicine is due to lawsuits is to believe a LIE.

Bureaucrats making medical decisions -- To my good right wing friends: insurance companies are not stuffed with "bureaucrats" making decisions about who and who they will not insure?

Socialize medicine is collapsing all over the world -- I wonder if our good friends who repeat such bromides actually pay attention to the elections in those other countries. Are the Conservatives in Canada proposing to eliminate their single payer system? Are the Conservatives in the UK proposing to end the National Health Care system? Is any party in France or Germany proposing the US system?

A suggestion to our good right wing contributors here: just because Rush or O'Reilly or Hannity or its an "in-depth" report on Fox doesn't make it true.

Gee - tort reform? I suppose if a doctor forgot he left a scissors in you after surgery, you'd want a limit on what you could sue for too! Lawyers fight for people like that...and who cares if that's how they make their living.


You "ic"kies crack me up. When you have no answer for 46 million problems, you run to that isolated story line scare tactic that will cause 46 million more problems. Because insurance companies will bump up rates to cover your tort addictions.

Government isn't the answer, it's the problem. And whose making laws now? The "ic"kies are.


dumb idiots we already have socialized medicine
we already have government controlled medicine and
health care...
does it work...ask the people on it and they will
tell you how it does...
if we fixs the problems with it why can't we do it
for the population of legal americans.....


For those of you who want us to think that Edwards is a man of substance, here he is elucidating on what he would do regarding Iran.

Here's John Edwards on what he would do about Iran (as reported by the Wall Street Journal):

I--there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a--it's a--it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have--we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is. . . . I think--I think the--we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president.

shrugging, should we start posting Bushisms now. Because if I used "the google" I'm sure I can knock that quote right out of the water.

The comments to this entry are closed.