I am a recent registered Democrat only to cast my vote for Sen. Obama in an upcoming primary. I didn't hear Elizabeth Edwards endorse either canidate. Elizabeth said she favors Clinton's health plan over Obama's plan. It boggles my mind that so many concluded Edwards has endorsed Hillary. So What! The last time I knew we live in a country that allows one to think and form an opinion. George W Bush is not the only idiot that thinks he's right all the time. Finally! If the people in this country continue to fight over silly arguments we will all lose. Repeat after me China and Japan. Who's laughing now?

The legislation was called the: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

A weasely speech doesn't change the law that Hillary voted for!

Just be honest about it.

It is so incredibly sad to me that so many feminists and political figures I admire will not deal with this issue honestly.

I guess they don't have brothers who were lucky enough to survive one Iraq deployment. and don't want to press their luck again.

Elizabeth Edwards is a great woman. She is married to the man who, had the media given as much coverage as they gave Obama and Clinton (they gave Edwards one-third the coverage) would have been our nominee, and we would not be going through what we are enduring now. As President Edwards would fight this health care battle for the American people that I fear neither Clinton nor Obama have the strength or the will to fight. I think Obama or Clinton would make a good President; Edwards would have been another Roosevelt (Teddy and FDR), and the future of our beloved country would be much brighter than it appears today.

Dear Koy..... All I was saying is that most on this post are just minor birds repeating Rhetoric and not investigating the real health-care plans and there differences. I agree, healthcare is a very important issue and as Obama says his plan will start with a childrens plan, so you'll still be without, Hillary says cover everyone now!

Yes, hillary's plan calls for universal coverage. What Mrs. Edwards neglected to mention is that in a million years, hillary's health care plan ain't getting through Congress.

Mrs. Edwards's comment does raise another issue: Who the hell cares what she thinks? She's the wife of a politician. Smart, sure. But her husband isn't even in office.

I don't think anyones healthcare plan looks good....face it...anything that "involves' insurance companies does not benefit the consumer. Insurance companies will forever be protecting their profits, and so long as a humans life competes with "profits" you can bet....money beats life everytime.

Michael Moore, for all his faults, hit the nail on the head in SICKO. Single payer healthcare is the only alternative that will benefit AMERICANS. Anything else is just a band-aide.

On paper or in theory the Clinton healthcare plan looks good....however, it doesn't have a prayer in legislation. Very few politicians are going to endorse a plan that will require penalizing or "garnishing" wages. Furthermore, this plan only means to benefit insurance companies who are salivating at the idea of having every american paying into their bottom line....and trust me...having been the spouse of an AETNA employee....I've seen how your money is spent from the bottom up, and it would make your stomach turn.

Regardless of who gets the nomination, congress should pass the health care plan that was put forth by John Edwards. Just because a presidential candidate favors a particular plan does not mean that plan will be implemented once the candidate is elected. What's important is that the president pass the health care bill presented by Congress. There is still time to advocate for a plan superior to both Clinton's and Obama's. And that's the Edwards plan.

Massachusetts now has mandatory health insurance, which is what Hillary is proposing. Some people are having their wages garnished or are paying fines because they haven't purchased health insurance. Our dollars are being stretched to the limit these days and some legitimately cannot afford the additional expense.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that we are not electing a health care plan in November -- we are electing a leader. There will surely be health care reform under any administration and it will be proposed, knocked about and solidified in Congress. Congress, will study and debate all the proposals and hopefully come up with the best alternative. All we need to do is to make sure that we have a President who will not veto the best plan Congress can come up with. Vote for the best leader, not for what you think might be the best health care plan!

I agree with Elizabeth Edwards. Health Care has to be mandated and Clinton's plan comes closest to providing Universal coverage. If someone is too poor to pay premiums, fees will be adjusted so they can be covered. I'm always amazed that when Barack, the "rock star", gets criticized, his supporters go ballistic. Ironically his supporters remind me of Bush's supporters' undying loyalty. Verrrrrrrrrrry scary!!!

Even if you could convince me that mandates were better, on the federal level, where we supposedly have the budget to pay for all the subsidies needed (even with the debt, and the war, and the bailing out Bear Stearns...) I would STILL be for Obama. Why? Because Hillary effs everything up. She effed up healthcare the first time. She's effing up in campaign tactics. She's effing up her campaign's finances. I could totally see some bastardized version of her healthcare plan coming out of the congress where nothing but the mandates are intact--and the insurance companies who contributed so heavily to her when she was "inevitable" would cheer. I have paid all the money I can into this goddamn system, tens of thousands in the past few years from buying on the individual market and having a pre-existing condition, and NOBODY is going to MAKE me buy some crap insurance when I have finally run out of money to buy what passes for "good" in this pathetic system. Obama wins on this issue because at least he won't make it worse.

I believe in single-payer true universal health care, neither candidate is offering that. And while I like and respect both Edwards, I do not agree with their opinion here. If you are not going to do a single-payer plan you are not having universal health care coverage, the Clinton plan mandates coverage, but it does not mandate any other costs. It leaves the burden on the American taxpayer, but requires all Americans to buy coverage. Both plans expand on federal coverages and states. But hers appears to leave people more vulnerable to costs, and I am afraid people will end up with minimum coverage plans just to cheaply meet her mandate. Obamas plan while leaving out the mandate for everyone but children, deals directly with costs, and has alot stronger wording on regulation, and even discusses malpratice insurance to reduce costs on the doctors side. While Hillary tries to act like Obama doesn't have the details she has, his healthcare plan looks more solid and detail oriented than hers. And I really have to question why she is talking about mandatory insurance, and offering federal insurance programs, but is failing to go all the way to a single-payer system. Obamas plan seem more reasonable on costs and will make it so everyone can and should easily have health insurance. His plan also goes into more detail on drug benefits, research and other health care issues.
I am American, either make it single payer, or make it optional.

Good God, someone else said it besides Clinton, and, it was televised, therefor it did really happen! ;-) Makes me think of how ridiculous it has been with Obama being challenged just this week on his claims that he doesn't take big money from oil etc. Hopefully they extend that scrutiny to his claims about lobbyists.

Nothing will reduce healthcare costs until the PROFIT motive is removed from the equation. It is not that difficult to see this point. Agencies that provide for societal needs are better served, and serve better, when profit is not their objective. Period. Police Forces, Fire Departments, Emergency Medical Techs, the Military -- and, yes, healthcare.

Because providing services of this nature necessarily cuts into PROFITS, the quality of these services suffers if profit must be made. Insurance companies will undoubtedly keep costs up as long as they are involved in the process -- there is no other outcome. Remove them completely, and you cut costs considerably.

If Elizabeth Edwards likes Hillary's health care plan, why doesn't she outright endorse Hillary? Is there something she knows that we don't know? Could it be that Hillary is too sneaky, too deceptive and too much calculating for her taste? You can't have a cake and eat it too. Either you endorse Obama or endorse Hillary-these statements don't help anyone.