I need to read more about his health plan. What I read recently upset me a great deal. From what I understand he is suggesting that preventative care be MANDATORY. That interferes with my freedom of health care choice a great deal, considering that I don't believe the medical approach we take in this country knows diddly squat about how to prevent anything...Seems to me that we just have early detection and label it as prevention. Then what? If something is found are we obliged to fix it their way? Where is this going with choice?

I choose to use all natural ways. If John Edwards can guarantee me this right, he'd go a long way in getting my vote. Right now I'm planning to vote for Dennis Kucinich, but if his numbers don't come up I might vote for Edwards. Right now he's my second choice.

I'm very concerned about Hillary's connections with the medical world. This is an issue of great concern to me, because I believe freedom of health choice is an inalienable right.

Thanks for listening to my opinion, and for offering any imput regarding this.

Vibraceous, ND

What you read is probably the inaccurate piece that's been floating around on the internet, which takes his spoken words out of context from an opinion piece that's obviously slanted. His written documented plan is on the pdf filebelow.

Funny, but HR676, which isn't Kucinich's plan (It's John Conyers plan, which Kucinich supports as one of 78 co-sponsors) contains similiar guidlines in SEC. 402. PUBLIC HEALTH AND PREVENTION. There's not much of a difference.

Prevention is the best way to fight disease. No one would be forced to do anything under Edwards plan. This is mere news spin.

Under the Edwards Plan:

• Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.

• Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.

• Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.

The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:

• Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.

• Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.

• Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.

• Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.

Securing universal healthcare for every American will require the active involvement of millions of Americans.

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

Thanks for helping to alleviate some of my concerns.  I read the plan...thanks for providing the link! 

I was very relieved in reading the plan that nothing was mentioned about any kind of forced participation in the current medical system, although "medical" insurance is required, except in some cases of hardship or religious objection.  I, myself, do object to most modern medical ways because I believe the are contrary to health, whereas I believe God provided all that we need in nature to sustain our physical form.

So that concern being put somewhat to rest...the idea of forced medical "care,"...the next question I have is to ask what provisions are made for people with different religious/spiritual beliefs about medicine?  Are their (our) needs met as well? 

The body is the temple of God, and I don't think that in a country of religious freedom should restrict how we feel led to care for our temple.  I think it is wrong to claim to provide insurance for "everyone," when people with different religious beliefs are sometimes excluded from this, because they don't make use of conventional care.  I think if we can draw a line between what we believe about health in a spiritual way, and the care we are asking for help in proving, then the help should be equally given to us...without members of the "medical" community telling us that our ways won't work.  I think there is a very fine line here regarding religious freedom, right along with freedom of health care choice.  At least there is for me, and that much I know for a fact.  I don't think the needs of myself and my family are going to be met in this plan.  Is there a provision of which I'm not aware?  I like the idea of giving us an amount of money and allowing us to manage how we use it for our health, or something more along those kinds of lines.  I could sure buy a whole lot of herbs and massages for the kind of money they spend on drugs, surgeries, and invasive tests.  I don't participate in that whole perspective of "health." 

I mean, sure, it's a great plan for people who do...which is most.  It's a fabulous plan...BUT...what about the few of us who are different in the way we choose to approach our health care issues?  Is there something in that plan for us?  If not, then he should stop saying that this plan covers us all, because if our needs are not met, it does not.  Kinda like no child left behind...

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just asking a question.  I think Mr. Edwards is definitely in the right ballpark, but he also  appears to be coming from a perspective that caters to one approach to medicine only.  YES it should be covered, of course...and everyone who wants that type of care should have access to it as in the plan.  But those of us with different perspectives on health care should be covered as well...without restriction on how the money is used for our health.  We should have equal benefits to the rest of the country.  That's all I'm trying to say, and I am concerned we will not.

Thanks for listening and for offering input...I realize my point of view is most certainly different from most, but it is based on my spiritual beliefs, so I would ask for tolerance of my ideas.

(Rev.) Vibraceous, ND

Here's an idea. Why don't you write Edwards a serious letter, or submit a video question to his campaign? We all know these people are busy travelling all over the nation, but if it's sincere enough and catches their attention, just maybe he'll respond to your inquiries and concerns. Elizabeth might be the one to contact.

I think as long as it is a medical INDUSTRY, it will by its very nature seek to survive as it's prime directive, not the health of the people.  The private medical insurance system et al, is a cancer, a blight on the landscape of healing.  What we have now is not health care but disease care. A shift in the general perception of wealth means health, to health leads to wealth is fundamental... and that certainly wont happen while those with the incentive to stay in business at the expense of the general welfare, are equipped with the means to convince the victims(the public), that fighting disease requires sacrifice and injustice to be effective.

NOT FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE NOW!

The campaign of fellow Democrat John Edwards, which has already put out a detailed a health care plan, will up the ante Monday during a speech to the Laborers' International Union of North America in Chicago, Illinois, campaign sources said.

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.

See Clinton's REQUIRED health care plan: http://www.care2.com/news/member/625564339/483617

details, I just want to say that I agree with everyone above. My idea of health is definitely not the mainstream one. I don't believe in the drugs cult and I do believe, as said above, that our temple (body) was created perfect in the first place and should get everything it needs from nature to remain close to the original perfection.

Bill, I clicked on both your links (1. John Edwards and 2. health care) and didn't see anything about Edwards or his health care plan. However, you have definitely got my attention. Got links that take me there? I'd love to read about this!!!!!

This post was modified from its original form on 21 Oct, 20:58

Health insurance just isn't the way to go. Edwards is not proposing any significant change in the system if we have to purchase health insurance to get health care. In my mind, it is making matters MUCH WORSE! It's still utlizing the system as it is. Health insurance companies are businesses -- they need to make a profit. By definition, they profit off people's need for medical care. You can't get around that. The insurance companies don't need to exist if there is a true universal health care system. American's complain that the Canadian health care system isn't as good as our system, but ask any Canadian if they'd rather have our system. The answer is NO.

To mandate that everyone buy insurance is insult too injury!

Yes, it seems one of those links has expired and one has changed. See http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf