Edwards Or Obama?
|
|
I've been a huge supporter of John Edwards since the 2004 campaign. He's one of the main reasons I became a Democrat, after no longer being a Republican (since 2003) and then being a self described democratic leaning Indepenedent.
He said all the things I wanted to hear during the 2004 election. His second run for president, the current campaign, started out well enough. Then, things started to go a little, well, wrong.
First, his "universal health care plan". There are a lot of good points, but I have a problem with it being "mandatory". You are "required" to buy insurance. They have this system set up in California and Massachutes. I'm not sure about Cali, but in Mass. you're fined $150 if you don't buy insurance. Now Edwards is going to "require" you to buy it? What if you can't afford it? It is true, that most people SHOULD be able to afford it with his plan. Although I'm certain that some people would fall through the cracks, and I'm afraid those people would be people like me. If it's so "affordable" why would you have to "mandate" it? I'm not comfortable with his plan.
I once thought the only thing that could ever make me not vote for John Edwards is if he called for the draft to be reinstated. He hasn't but he's called for possible "mandatory national service". He said it's something "we ought to think about". As far as I'm concerned that right there is a clear violation of the 13th ammendment, it's involuntary servitude, it's legalized slavery. The government should not own individuals lives, and that would assume that the government does own you and can force to you "serve" against your will. So with both of these "mandates" or possible "mandates", my faith in Edwards is being tested. I would of never imagined he'd call for such a thing. He doesn't have a plan for it yet, but if he does come out with one, my support for him is gone. I've already stopped my donations, most of all, cause I can't afford it. After all, he can afford to use some of his own millions if he wants to win that bad.
It would be such a shame, because Edwards does have so many wonderful plans and great ideas. He talks about ending poverty when no one else really does. It would be a shame for a couple of really bad ideas to ruin all the good.
Now I wonder, should I continue to support Edwards, or should I give my support to Barack Obama? I really like Barack Obama, I like his health care plan much better than Edwards. It's similar enough to Edwards plan without the insane "mandates". It was even brought up in the debate last night. And as far as I'm concerned, Obama won big on the issue.
On the "mandatory" language -
EDWARDS: Senator Obama came out with a plan just a few days ago, which I don't believe is completely universal
BLITZER: Let me let Senator Obama weigh in, because you did release your plan, that Senator Edwards says is not really a universal health care plan because it isn't mandatory on everyone.
I wonder if you'd want to respond to that.
OBAMA: You just identified the basic disagreement with John and I.
"But on this issue of mandatory versus nonmandatory people are not going around trying to avoid buying health care coverage. And, in fact, if you look at auto insurance, in California, there's mandatory auto insurance -- 25 percent of the folks don't have it. The reason is because they can't afford it."
"If we have some gaps remaining, we will work on that. You take it from the opposite direction, but you're still going to have some folks who aren't insured under your plan, John, because some of them will simply not be able to afford to buy the coverage that they were offered."
Obama wins, it's that simple.
The issue of "mandatory national service" came up, but much to my dismay, they didn't ask Edwards. My third choice for the Democratic nomination, Dennis Kucinich at least said "NO" - "To make it mandatory loses the point."
For now, I'm still supporting John Edwards, but I'm open to switching the support to Obama. Especially if Edwards makes a plan for this nonsense of "mandatory national service". In that case, I'd be for Obama. Until he'd make a similar plan. Kucinich already is against mandatory national service, so I guess he's my safe third choice. I've admired Edwards greatly for 3 years now, but primaires should be about winning my vote, not getting it by default.
He said all the things I wanted to hear during the 2004 election. His second run for president, the current campaign, started out well enough. Then, things started to go a little, well, wrong.
First, his "universal health care plan". There are a lot of good points, but I have a problem with it being "mandatory". You are "required" to buy insurance. They have this system set up in California and Massachutes. I'm not sure about Cali, but in Mass. you're fined $150 if you don't buy insurance. Now Edwards is going to "require" you to buy it? What if you can't afford it? It is true, that most people SHOULD be able to afford it with his plan. Although I'm certain that some people would fall through the cracks, and I'm afraid those people would be people like me. If it's so "affordable" why would you have to "mandate" it? I'm not comfortable with his plan.
I once thought the only thing that could ever make me not vote for John Edwards is if he called for the draft to be reinstated. He hasn't but he's called for possible "mandatory national service". He said it's something "we ought to think about". As far as I'm concerned that right there is a clear violation of the 13th ammendment, it's involuntary servitude, it's legalized slavery. The government should not own individuals lives, and that would assume that the government does own you and can force to you "serve" against your will. So with both of these "mandates" or possible "mandates", my faith in Edwards is being tested. I would of never imagined he'd call for such a thing. He doesn't have a plan for it yet, but if he does come out with one, my support for him is gone. I've already stopped my donations, most of all, cause I can't afford it. After all, he can afford to use some of his own millions if he wants to win that bad.
It would be such a shame, because Edwards does have so many wonderful plans and great ideas. He talks about ending poverty when no one else really does. It would be a shame for a couple of really bad ideas to ruin all the good.
Now I wonder, should I continue to support Edwards, or should I give my support to Barack Obama? I really like Barack Obama, I like his health care plan much better than Edwards. It's similar enough to Edwards plan without the insane "mandates". It was even brought up in the debate last night. And as far as I'm concerned, Obama won big on the issue.
On the "mandatory" language -
EDWARDS: Senator Obama came out with a plan just a few days ago, which I don't believe is completely universal
BLITZER: Let me let Senator Obama weigh in, because you did release your plan, that Senator Edwards says is not really a universal health care plan because it isn't mandatory on everyone.
I wonder if you'd want to respond to that.
OBAMA: You just identified the basic disagreement with John and I.
"But on this issue of mandatory versus nonmandatory people are not going around trying to avoid buying health care coverage. And, in fact, if you look at auto insurance, in California, there's mandatory auto insurance -- 25 percent of the folks don't have it. The reason is because they can't afford it."
"If we have some gaps remaining, we will work on that. You take it from the opposite direction, but you're still going to have some folks who aren't insured under your plan, John, because some of them will simply not be able to afford to buy the coverage that they were offered."
Obama wins, it's that simple.
The issue of "mandatory national service" came up, but much to my dismay, they didn't ask Edwards. My third choice for the Democratic nomination, Dennis Kucinich at least said "NO" - "To make it mandatory loses the point."
For now, I'm still supporting John Edwards, but I'm open to switching the support to Obama. Especially if Edwards makes a plan for this nonsense of "mandatory national service". In that case, I'd be for Obama. Until he'd make a similar plan. Kucinich already is against mandatory national service, so I guess he's my safe third choice. I've admired Edwards greatly for 3 years now, but primaires should be about winning my vote, not getting it by default.
Barack Obama
Link
However, I'm trying to look past the particular specifics of anyone's plan on *anything* right now, because realistically all the details will be hashed out and bantered about in Congress IF and WHEN legislation is created. I am trying to focus of leadership qualities - who has the ability to face hard situations and choices and create a reasonable solution? Who has the ability to convince those on our side AND the other side to compromise and lead this nation forward?
I truly believe that both Edwards and Obama are men of conviction and honor. I believe BOTH will lead this country to the best of their ability in order to create a better America. It will be an honor to call either one of them President...or ANY of the rest of Democratic field. Truly. I have great admiration for those souls putting themselves on the frontline of the media and us backseat bloggers who scruitinze every haircut, every mis-spoken word, every spouse, every childhood cut-up.
God bless them all. It's one hell of a job they're going after. They need all the help they can get.
I also think it's the most workable, because he kicks Big Insurance right OUT of the game!
Insurance companies are NOT in business to be charities. As long as we include them, I'm afraid it will be nothing but a giant embarrassment to the USA, similar to the Defense Contractors and their million dollar hammers.
I also think that the 'child coverage' thing gets a little too much play, and I'll tell you why.
It's ALREADY in there. Under a certain income you can insure your children with Medicaid--it's ADULTS that can't get coverage. For most kids, it's just well-baby visits & immunizations--and the odd broken arm. In other words--CHEAP.
Vis a vis mandatory service requirements:
It's very Euro, that one. Countries like Greece, Russia and Germany have it. It's a way to get free/cheap labor for your pet social projects without putting a big strain on the budget.
I prefer Dennis' idea that something like this could be paid work, like the WPA. Instead of slave labor, let it create JOBS; and let the job holders pay their taxes like anyone else thus giving back a portion to the Gov't.
I also agree with the idea of having a WPA type program, people need work, they need to have a skill so that they can be of service to themselves and others. This country needs so much work done on its infrastructure now that it is a shame. I think most people would agree that as a whole our people are not afraid of hard work if it is something that will benefit them and pay them a decent living wage.
I like many of Kucinic's ideas and plans but I still think Obama has a better chance at being elected. Above all we have to have a Democrat in the presidential office this next time around to be able to make some progress in this country.