Exploring the Art & Science of Marketing
John Edwards on universal healthcare
I have a feeling John Edwards is going to get blasted, dropped, crushed and put in the back seat in the not-so-distant future of the 2008 Presidential Campaign.
Universal Healthcare
Edwards platform is focusing way too much on a plan that he claims will “transform America’s health care system and provide universal healthcare for every man, woman and child in America.”
Edwards was a medical malpractice attorney in another life, and while I’m not here to judge whether his cases were just or not, it’s one of the things that will work against him on this platform issue. Edwards also used subchapter-S corporate dividend rules that allowed him to not have to pay $591,000 in Medicaire taxes. Major props to Edwards for understanding how to minimize his tax burden, but I think you can see the problem he’ll face with voters and within the media.
He wants healthcare for everyone on one hand (noble thought) while participating in activities that appear contrary to supporting it personally. Right or wrong? I don’t care, but they (Democrats and Republicans) will come after him on this one.
How John Edwards Universal Healthcare Plan Violates Principle
The Edwards plan claims to achieve universal healthcare by:
- “Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.”
- “Making insurance affordable . . . ”
- ” . . . requiring all American residents to get insurance.”
Requiring, making and requiring are the huge problems with his plan. You don’t even need to read the rest. They’re politician words for “we’ll make it the law.” We’ll make it the law means we’ll need money to draft the law, money for a government agency to carry out the logistics of the law and money to enforce the law. And who pays for government funded agencies that oversee laws? You do. I do. The people who can’t pay for health insurance and the business owners who now have to pay for the health insurance. (That means they pay for it twice.) That means less money for the employees.
What happens to business owners who don’t keep the law? They pay a fine. What if they don’t pay the fine? They go to jail. What if they refuse to go to jail? They are taken by force. What if they fight the force? They die. That’s what happens to people who fight the police. It seems crazy, outlandish and over the top, but it’s true. This is how laws work. They’re made to be enforced, and violators face consequences.
And what of his plan to require every American to have health insurance? Do they pay a fine if they don’t want health insurance?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Russ on February 8, 2007 at 10:32 pm, and is filed under Politics, Utah Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
Political wisdom of the Clinton campaign
about 4 years ago - 2 comments
Looking at the media relations strategy of the Clinton campaign, they never cease to amaze with their skill. Here’s the headline: Clinton chairman: Obama would be good running mate a) I think they really mean it. b) It positions Hillary Clinton as the President, the winner and the “real” nominee for the Democratic party. c)
Milton Friedman on Greed
about 4 years ago - No comments
In the realm of politics, this is quite an interesting video to watch. Milton Friedman was an American Nobel Laureate economist who died in 2006. Friedman was a very bright man.
Do you believe the bible? Republican responses.
about 4 years ago - No comments
I you were in the middle of a presidential debate and someone asked you if you believe every word of the bible, what would you say? Here’s what Rudy, Mitt and Mike had to say, and frankly, I think Mike Huckabee did the best job with this question when put on the spot. It sounds
The truth shows its face on Utah Vouchers
about 4 years ago - 14 comments
$9.3 million was approved by the Utah legislature for use on vouchers until it went to referendum and was voted down. So what’s going to happen to the money? It’s not going to public education because that’s not where the money came from. But again, voucher opponents and many teachers led a lot of people
Utah voucher sign theft caught on video
about 4 years ago - 3 comments
Are you kidding me? What the guy in the video doesn’t realize is that the property owner tied fish line to the sign, which was connected to his house and a ringing bell.
Myth 3: Public education money belongs to public schools
about 4 years ago - 1 comment
This is a continuation of the Myths from the Opposition series. Utah’s Referendum 1: 5 articles you don’t want to miss reading Referendum 1 for Utah? What are the REAL facts? Utah Vouchers: Myths from the opposition Myth No. 2: Vouchers will divert money from schools Myth No. 3: Public Education Money Belongs to Public
Paul Tonks: Draper City’s best choice for city council
about 4 years ago - 2 comments
Even if you don’t live in Draper, Utah to be able to vote for Paul Tonks for city council that’s okay. I still get to voice my opinion and hope that others in Draper will read this and do the same. Why I’m Voting for Paul Tonks for Draper City Council 1 – He’s the
Myth No. 2: Vouchers will divert money from schools
about 4 years ago - No comments
If you’ve been following the “Myths from the Opposition Series,” where I expose the untruths that opponents of the Utah Voucher program are spreading in Utah I’ve got a doozy of a white lie for you today. Get a load of this commonly believed baloney. Myth: Vouchers will divert money from public schools. Fact: This
Utah Vouchers: Myths from the opposition
about 4 years ago - 10 comments
I’m starting a regular series of blog posts from now until the vote on Referendum 1 November 6th, and it is specifically designed to show you the lies that are being spread about Referendum 1 and Utah Vouchers. Myth No. 1 For each child that uses a voucher, the state will lose $3k from it’s
Utah Vouchers: Oreo cookie ad exposed?
about 4 years ago - 10 comments
Can anyone address whether this video is accurate or not? Connor was first. Sure, it’s more accurate than the original oreo ad. But this one (and most of them) leave out one crucial point: who does the money belong to? The person in this video, and those who believe likewise, feel that the taxpayer’s money
about 5 years ago
Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though…here’s video proof:
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
about 4 years ago
What an idiotic, no-information commentary. Just appeal to people’s greed and fear in an attempt to dumb them down?
If you’ve got something significant to say then serve it up. We’re ALL EARS for a plan that works. Otherwise, go hoard some more money for the next person in YOUR family that can’t access the medical support they need.
Sick of do-nothing, fear-monging, cynical nay-sayers,
x
about 4 years ago
When you are willing to discuss it instead of make hypocritical personal attacks, we\\\’ll talk. You sound like every other open-handed person who thinks that people with a lot of money work in greed.
The point is, force is never a good plan. Force is what John Edwards is suggesting. Force is the ideal of a socialistic society, not a free society, and hoarding has nothing to do with it. Maybe if you stopped bitching about \\\”hoarders\\\” who are actually some of the biggest contributors to our economy and started thinking about ways to provide something of value yourself, you\\\’d find that we\\\’d be hosed without your so-called people who \\\”hoard.\\\”
The plan that works is the free market. How\’s North Carolina?
about 4 years ago
Um, I don’t know what everyone else is talking about, but this commentary is right on the mark. Making something the law doesn’t make it more feasable, practical, or even LOGICAL. It just makes it punishable.