Can someone explain to me why it would make sense for Edwards to cut off the health insurance

of those Senators and Members of Congress who voted FOR universal health care in order to punish those who didn't? Will he also prohibit the wealthier Members of Congress from buying their own insurance? And what about those Members of Congress who aren't wealthy and can't afford to buy insurance?

And he also threatened to cut off the health care of those in his own administration. What's up with that? Does that apply to EVERYONE in his administration (including the single mother holding a low-level political appointment in one of the departments)? Or just the cabinet? And, as with Congress, would he forbid those whom he cuts off from getting insurance on their own? And what would he say to those cabinet officers who can't afford their own insurance at the next cabinet meeting when they tell him their sick kid can't get the operation she needs because President Edwards got mad at Congress.

I'm not trying to be funny - I'm really trying to figure out just what he has in mind with this thing. It sounds good and is nice red meat for the crowds. But this proposal makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

doesnt mean that insurance will cover their families medical problems...so they would witness what happens to the rest of us personally

(who has little kids) and every other member of Congress who is not independently wealthy and who did absolutely nothing wrong, in order to force them to "witness what happens to the rest of us personally?"

Wow.

which their constituents don't enjoy were made into a public issue.

Edwards would make an issue of it (he would also forgo the benefits himself, by the way).

I'm sure that those in congress who lost their health insurance as a result could find ways to cope just as their constituents do.

Everyone else in Congress can't.

This looks like nothing but grandstanding. Not only doesn't he have the power to do this, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

47 million americans, on the other hand, I know don't have enough money.

That and because he's still trying to schmooze people into this fantasy that he's a populist candidate, lol.

And they are perfectly free to argue to Supreme Court that they should have health insurance while their constituents don't.

:headbang:
rocknation

"When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009 – in six months – I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care."

Only Congress itself can grant or take away or change its own health insurance. The president is not the boss of them. Maybe John Edwards thinks he would be, but then he fundamentally misunderstands the concept of separation of powers, like Bush. Or maybe he just wants us to think he can be the boss of them, which means he's banking on our being stupid.

Leaders lead by persuasion ... not by threats and force. It's a bad sign all around.

Of course, congress would refuse to abide the will of the people, as they always do unless it involves starting a war.

That is his point- the whole culture in congress needs to change- everyone knows it and that is why his threat resonates... and I doubt Congress or the Clinton camp looks good calling his "bluff" on this.

I've read it again and again.

So, Edwards is proposing punishing legislators for voting FOR universal health care?

I'll repeat the exact words you asked:



I always thought Edwards was FOR universal health care.

Am I wrong? Did he say something recently?

Edwards' threat to cut off Congress' health insurance would apply not only to those members who vote against universal health care, but to all of those who vote FOR it. So he's threatening to punish even those people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. Conceivably, a 59 Senators could vote for universal health care, to have it blocked by a filibuster by 40 members and, if Edwards is true to his word (and if he could legally do it) he would force all of the Senators - including the 59 who voted the way he wanted - to lose their health care.

As I said, it makes no sense to me.

So, in other words, punishing even the legislators who voted FOR the plan.

Gotcha.

Sorry for my confusion.

Only one SUV for every family member. Get over it.

adequate health care.

That should be reason enough.

will ensure that everyone else gets health care?

Sorry - I think the whole notion - which is clearly just posturing and red meat tossing - is stupid and not helpful at all.

it's BS, if you want to hit them where it counts, sign a presidential directive to outlaw campaign donations from the medical companies.

It would be equally as unconstitutional as his proposal, but that doesn't seem to be much of an obstacle for presidents anymore.