« Apocalypse Not | Main | Now That's What I Call Populism »
September 17, 2007
Edwards' Counter-Strike
Today, Hillary Clinton will release her plan for universal health care. I haven't seen it yet, but rumor is that it will be a pleasant surprise. The Edwards camp, cognizant of the dangers of losing their edge on health care, sent out this advisory:
***MEDIA ADVISORY***
EDWARDS TO MAKE MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT DEFINING HIS STRATEGY TO PASS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
Will discuss bold strategy to move America towards universal coverage
Chicago, Illinois – On Monday, Senator John Edwards will make a major announcement that will define his strategy to pass real health care reform. During his address at the Laborers Leadership Convention in Chicago, Edwards will discuss what must happen to move America towards true universal health care. Edwards was the first presidential candidate – Democratic or Republican – to take on the big insurance and drug companies and propose a plan for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America. Edwards has also built on his plan, which he unveiled last March, with specific proposals for bringing down health care costs, improving the quality of care, fighting cancer, HIV/AIDS and strengthening the nursing workforce.
With no knowledge of what he'll say, I can't speak to how this will work. But for Edwards to respond to Clinton's plan by pushing the ball forward and staking ground on strategic aggression is a very smart way of keeping at the cutting edge of the conversation. More on both his comments and Hillary's plan as the day progresses.
September 17, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
This from CNN, via a diary at Daily Kos: "The Edwards proposal would cut off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009, if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then."
Great stuff. I love the populist politics of this.
Its feasibility is questionable, but that's far from the point.
Posted by: david mizner | Sep 17, 2007 9:00:54 AM
It will be interesting to see how much coverage Edwards's announcement receives today.
Posted by: Rich | Sep 17, 2007 9:04:53 AM
I'd rather spend the time getting votes for actual universal health care rather than political grandstanding on a bill that won't get the votes and would be vetoed anyways. And that Edwards can't even vote for anyways.
Interesting political ploy but really it's just an obvious attempt to take attention away from Clinton rather than actually promote this idea.
Posted by: phil | Sep 17, 2007 9:09:33 AM
"With no knowledge of what he'll say, I can't speak to how this will work"
Taegan Goddard is your friend:
Though the morning newspapers report Sen. Hillary Clinton will announce a proposed health care plan today, John Edwards threatens to steal the headlines with an initiative to deny health care to the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid-2009 unless a universal health care plan has been enacted.
Y'know, we're actually going to win this thing. January belongs to Edwards.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 17, 2007 9:12:05 AM
"Y'know, we're actually going to win this thing."
Edwards had by far the most supporters, and the most vocal supporters, at the Steak Fry yesterday, which is a measure not so much of support in Iowa but of organization, which is just as important. A great sign. Plus the campaign at the national level has been sharp. I love it when a plan comes together.
It'd be nice to get SEIU, though.
Posted by: david mizner | Sep 17, 2007 9:18:58 AM
John Edwards health plan as I understand it seems to be the "perfecto" sales approach: Medicare for everyone -- except those who want to pay more to insurance companies (or want their employers to pay more so they can pay less). Everyone gets what they want and the Republican Chicken Littles cannot call Medicare "socialism" because everyone knows exactly what Medicare is.
If Hillary (or Bill) had tried an Edwards style approach in 1993, universal health care might now be ancient history. I hope Hillary, with her heavy foot-print, does not come up with another over-complicated formula (in order to triangulate or whatever) and thereby set health coverage debate back fourteen years.
Posted by: Denis Drew | Sep 17, 2007 9:32:22 AM
From the online rumors at least, it sounds like that's exactly what she is doing with heavy regulation, but again trying to keep the status quo- only this time more of a welfare program almost for low income. Meaning stigmatization of the whole process. It's smart if your goal isn't to refom the system, but instead to turn American views of welfare against any reform of healthcare.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 9:49:10 AM
By the way - this only matters if the press chooses to cover it and how they choose to do so. I am not optimistic. It's hard for them to overcome their own cherished narratives.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 9:51:11 AM
phil- it's a strategy to force their hand in the public's eye. use of public perception is something a lot of progressive apparently don't understand.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 9:53:54 AM
I suspect coverage of today will be along the lines of "Clinton offers plan, and everyone attacks her" - Edwards may be out early, but you've got to figure Obama's gonna say something as well, and that all may get drowned out by the rabid anti-Hillary rightists reminding us that she's responsible for "disastrous ClintonCare proposal." Edwards proposition sounds good as PR, but what real impact such a proposal would have - or will have, now that he brings it up - is debatable. I think any proposal is helpful if it gets more information out to folks about what the health care debate is about. Unfortunately, I think the real problem today is that evaluations and coverage of the proposal on this day will be personality and persona driven around Clinton, and not around the issues in health care, ultimately... making it hard for people to cut through the clutter of "whether or not we like her" to think about the health care problem. I hope I'm wrong, but what I saw on the morning shows doesn't give me much hope.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 17, 2007 10:02:33 AM
no for once you aren't wrong. the weakend coverage was personality driven coverage about her. the media will be hard pressed to really care since their jobs provide them lavish healthcare coverage so this is only an intellectual rather than real discussion about which they have something at stake like millions of other Americans. indeed, i will argue that most of the coverage of her up until now has been personality driven and her actual sometimes outlandish statements have been totally soft peddled. ie, she said at one point she will not attempt universal coverage until her second term. in a different time every reporter would look at her like "are you crazy" but now its form over the substance of what she says. she's not a complete freak and they have lost their interest in bush so they are annointing her. of course, when she gets in office it will shift to all the "why didn't we see this" befores and hand wringing by the press for how they must do a better job next time.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 10:18:36 AM
its ironic that the most conservative of the three plans is considered the most liberal if clinton offers up her plan as i suspect from online chatter while the most regulation based of the three plans will probably be tauted by its supporters as centrist.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 10:24:40 AM
use of public perception is something a lot of progressive apparently don't understand.
Let's just say it: politics is something a lot of progressives don't understand. Edwards offers it on a silver platter, and many turn up their noses. It makes this progressive want to jump out of his skin. Why choose among candidates who end up echoing Edwards? I think we'd get a lot more done if we didn't wait for the echo.
It lifts my spirits to hear that things are going well in IA. One thing I noticed in IA in '04 was that once people decided to caucus with Edwards, they were immovable - unlike some for Kerry, and many for Dean. In my precinct, we never lost a single person, only gained, and our group included several nominal independents who probably vote Republican sometimes. They didn't care about getting fed or wooed. They stood quietly in the corner of a gym for almost 4 hours.
I'd also mention that the Edwards volunteers then were absolutely outstanding people. 'Wholesome' in the best sense of that word. If they have a better organization now, which they must, the prognosis could be really good.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Sep 17, 2007 10:33:31 AM
Too bad we can't get rid of the "Universal Health Care" drivel and start talking about real reform, which is "Single Payer Health Care". Still a campaign killer, unfortunately.
The biggest challenge will be how can JE explain the superiority of his plan to Clinton's without saying those actual words?
Posted by: Chris Healy | Sep 17, 2007 11:20:37 AM
I am confused- are you more interested in achieving the goal of better healthcare coverage or simply staking out how to do it your way, or no way?
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 11:52:32 AM
Wow, nice framing! You really painted me into a corner with that...
My opinion is that better healthcare coverage is not enough. Besides, universal health care implies more coverage, not necessarily better coverage. And even when it is better, that's only an incremental improvement compared to really reforming the most significant drain on the system, which is addressed by reforming the payer mechanism. There is no other way to deal with that issue, so I guess that is a "my" way or no way situation.
The advantage to Edwards' plan is (was?) that he had a way to address the payer mechanism issue, which others did not. My point was that it's hard to talk about that issue without creeping into single-payer language, and that is problematic politically.
Posted by: Chris Healy | Sep 17, 2007 12:59:46 PM
what paints you in a corner is that we won't end up where you want us to without doing it the way ou want us too. its myopia that i take issue with.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 1:41:09 PM
let me put it to you this way- where do you think we will end up under edwards plan?
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 1:41:56 PM
