View Story | 623 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
and real change.
"There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:34:11 AM PDT
Which candidate hasn't taken a dime from healthcare and pharma lobbyists? John Edwards that's who.
Who's going to take away health insurance coverage from Congress if they don't pass his UHC plan by July 2009?
John Edwards!
Elect Harry Taylor
by mdgarcia on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:38:03 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
He has no power to take away congress' healthcare, and if he did, you really think they'd pass his legislation? Please... That's the most empty campaign promise I've ever heard...
OBAMATHON! We CAN Believe Again!
by JustAngry on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:45:03 AM PDT
Thinking it won't work. And thinking Congress is going to allow themselves to be portrayed as selfish pricks by fighting tooth and nail against President Edwards to keep their own healthcare, while denying healthcare to America.
by mdgarcia on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:47:09 AM PDT
they don't have to do anything. They would have to pass a bill to take away their health insurance. Instead, they'll let it die in committee.
Even IF JRE was able to use it to get them to pass his health insurance plan (which won't happen), he will pass absolutely 0 after that. Congress doesn't take kindly to my way or the high way. At least not from Democrats. sigh
by JustAngry on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:51:09 AM PDT
ready to give up before even trying.
Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:00:25 AM PDT
Some of the comments by Obama-philes display a cynicism about substantive change coming to our country.
It seems like they think as long as Obama is president things will just be sorta hunky-dory, a little on the naive side I would say.
Well I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari... Tehachapi to Tonopah--Lowell George
by frandor55 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:29:23 AM PDT
take Edwards solely on his word, and discount his prior tenure in government, and his current lack of a public service position, and the fact that he will have to work within a huge government structure?
by msanthrope on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:37:41 AM PDT
Your point applies to all the candidates. Obama has cut a sorry figure on a number of issues that are critical to me, such as FISA and funding the war. As has Clinton and Edwards was no saint while he was in the Senate.
The issue is who will be the strongest most effectiove progressive. What I see now is Edwards running as a "populist." I see HRC running as a "statesman" and I see Obama running as a "conservative" Dem.
Unfortunately, Obama's "conservatism" has become more apparent of late, while Edwards's "progressivism" has become more pronounced. On Clinton, I just don't know, but I have a wierd sense that I understand what moves her wheels.
I suppose at this stage, I find Edwards the most credible, Obama the least credible and Clinton somewhere in the middle. (I'm talking about credibility, not politically).
"Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:51:06 AM PDT
However, I think Edwards' increased populism is a direct result of him not being in public office, and having the freedom to make statements that he in no way has to back up. If he wins the primaries, I suspect that would be dialed back significantly.
I don't see Obama as conservative at all. The fact that he knows he has to make his ideas palatable to a majority is just a given, and something that even Edwards would admit to if (in my opinion) he wasn't so heavily pandering.
I am not such a fan of HRC, but having seen her campaign recently, she is probably the most disciplined campaigners that I have seen, ever (and living in MO/close to IA, I have seen a bunch). Even not being a fan, I think there is a possibility she could pass more legislation that I like in the end, even though Edwards and Obama have more legislative ideas I like in the beginning.
by msanthrope on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:04:38 AM PDT
farther from the center in the primaries and moves towards the center for the general election. Any candidate who starts closer to the center will end up farther to the right. No thank you. Start as far left as you dare to. Move to the right as little as you have to.
by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM PDT
who will his supporter's believe?
Their lying eyes (and ears)?
Never fear: Saint Obama can do no wrong, Saint Obama can do no wrong. Rinse and repeat.
If Obama is talking right, or slandering Dems, it all means nothing to the faithful. They'll find a way to excuse it, or ignore it.
by judybrowni on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM PDT
Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com
by MarkInSanFran on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM PDT
Was Obama's campaign thinking?!
Or - even worse - did they INTEND this?
by Timothy J on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM PDT
atlleast not the Obama campaign.
I think this pic is of Obama campaigning for Lieberman in 2006.
by MarkInSanFran on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM PDT
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:24:20 PM PDT
as did Clinton.
Only Edwards supported Lamont.
So followers of Saint Obama, how do you like your boy now?
(Whhhhhhy do I even bother to ask? Saint Obama can do no wrong.)
by judybrowni on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:52:48 PM PDT
the primary, very stupid.
Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
by bluecayuga on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM PDT
Really wish Obama hadn't done that either, though.
by Timothy J on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM PDT
here.
by kidneystones on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:14:06 PM PDT
of that picture.
There are fences around each house.
The fences have been placed because there are people living nearby that are desperate enough to commit crimes.
Mandating everyone to buy "coverage as good as your Congressman gets" or plans chosen by $50,000 a year+ bureaucrats really is silly when one candidate talks about children being hungry.
by SingleVoter on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:11:35 AM PDT
....Bush, that Bush, the righteous anointed messenger of the Almighty, can do no wrong. Here we go, again!
by calibpatriot on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:29:52 AM PDT
allowed to have his own opinion... that is not putting down Edwards. Edwards has changed his stripes so many time, I think it's amazing he has gotten this die hard progressive support when he was as far from being a progressive 4 years ago as Hillary is. I think it's great Edwards is singing another tune but back off Obama... he's been the same man for many years now. Let's find the real enemy here... HILLARY. Want the same old same old? Then let Hillary win... want change, pick the guy who called George Bush's war 'stupid' when it counted. Calm down.
by bluecayuga on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:27:15 PM PDT
and feared a Clinton win, but the longer this campaign goes, the more it appears Obama is the most likely to continue the SOS. I jumped the gun on Clinton and bought the media hype about Obama. So, I'm still undecided between Clinton and Obama, but Edwards is still by far my first pick. I don't trust any of them completely, but at least Edwards is really talking the talk.
by poxonyou on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM PDT
did my comment generate this reply? Mystifies me.
by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:33:22 PM PDT
H ecosponsored the Patient's Bill of Rights and helped pass it.
That is the biggest falsehood: That Edwards was not progressive.
Yet Obama peddles right wing lines TODAY and you ignore it.
Sorry, I think Michael Moore and Granny D are right.
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM PDT
Edwards was a founding member of the DLC.
While in the senate he was to the right of the Democratic party on most issues.
http://www.dlc.org/...
by nisleib on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:58:34 AM PDT
member? Because he joined 8 other Democrats to form a "New Democrat" coalition in 2000? Check your facts. The DLC was founded WAY before 2000. Besides, in 2000, the DLC hadn't gone completely batshit crazy yet.
As for the issues, membership in a group doesn't automatically mean that he was to the right of most Democrats on the issues. So, try again.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:19:22 AM PDT
Do you think that Moore is endorsing Edwards?
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The USA for an amount of "up to and including my life." - unknown
by AJsMom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:14:28 PM PDT
Reading his comments indicates to me that he is leaning toward Edwards a little. But he cleary says he is not endorsing anyone now.
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:29:02 PM PDT
by AJsMom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:04:58 PM PDT
I'd say Bush's message has been "my way or the highway," and how have the Democrats responded to that? They've given him everything he wanted.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio
by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM PDT
It's not just gonna "die in committee" when there is a President who is using his bully pulpit everyday to raise hell about it. Not when there is a president who is reminding Americans daily that Congress is keeping their health care and denying them any. Not when there is a president who will make sure that whichever Congressman or Senator is blocking this bill will get a visit in his home district from the President of the United States reminding his or her constituents of his or her selfishness. The other things you are not taking into account are:
First, assuming Democrats are still in the majority, the House will pass a bill backing the Democratic President and forcing Republicans to negotiate, and when the Senate blocks it, there's going to be more coverage and more embarrassment, and more people calling.
Second, the president has this power called veto. If it comes to that, Edwards can start vetoing spending bills that fund Congressional and cabinet health care.
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM PDT
The country isn't going to elect a president whose plan is chaos, stalemate and more hostility between congress and the president. They don't like it now...I can't imagine what makes you think they'd like more of the same.
I get it that you think this is how it could come about but there is no way John Edwards - or anyone who's been inside the government - would pursue such a strategy to accomplish a policy goal.
There are many books illustrative of the relationships (positive and negative) between congress and the executive and some presidential and staff biographies and autobiographies pointing the way to success. None of them mention your plan...
Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.
by oldpro on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:36:36 PM PDT
Edwards as a bully? Yeah right. I don't think we've ever heard if he actually "punched that kid in the nose" like his daddy told him to back in elementary school.
535 Congress people will not ever be bullied into passing some bullshit that is going to hurt them. What is most likely to happen is passing a compromise plan that brings people together and across the aisle. That's why Obama's plan makes the most sense - its the most realistic.
by conntexdem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:07:16 PM PDT
if he can get it passed in the next congress and get President Clinton to sign his bill!
by oldpro on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:23:31 PM PDT
It's not just gonna "die in committee" when there is a President who is using his bully pulpit everyday to raise hell about it. Not when there is a president who is reminding Americans daily that Congress is keeping their health care and denying them any. Not when there is a president who will make sure that whichever Congressman or Senator is blocking this bill will get a visit in his home district from the President of the United States reminding his or her constituents of his or her selfishness
Did JRE say he was going to do this? In all honesty, there is absolutely no way he can do this. For one thing, he will have a lot of things on his plate and for another people will get tired of him harping on one issue. If he shuts down the govt via veto, he will be a one term president.
by AJsMom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:33:28 PM PDT
Did JRE say he was going to do this?
Umm, yes, he did say pretty much exactly this. And no, people will not get tired of the President trying to ensure universal health care. People WILL get tired of their Congresspeople cheating them out of it, and then throw them out. You saying the president's bully pulpit won't work is giving up the fight before it even begins. It WILL work.
If he shuts down the govt via veto, he will be a one term president.
Really? Hmm... when the Republicans in Congress shut down the government, remind us how they immediately lost their majority in Congress. Well?
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:02:11 PM PDT
Many of our Democrats have taken walking order from Bush-Cheney for 7 years. Surely, they will listen to a President from their own party that wins over 50% of the vote even with more than 2 running for office.
Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."
by NC Dem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:16:17 PM PDT
Congress doesn't take kindly to my way or the high way." ?
It looked like thats all they play...Bush's way or the high way...and what did we have? Bush's way. In a new Congress, we may see more cooperation than the last 7 yrs. We may have voted in new people with a spine and good intentions. We may have the rest of those old hangers-on starting to see the light, by their barely scraping through that election and vowing to ahem do the right thing or begin their stints elsewhere. Edwards' ideas aren't that unpalatable that he would have untold opposition, in fact common sense could often prevail across the board...remember the people are enraged and engaging. We are going to get CHANGE... Or else?
by rylly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM PDT
JRE is gonna go Rambo on Congress...you know, because he's a fighter and everything ; )
snark
"Change We Can Believe In" Obama '08
by bigpappa10834 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:47:41 AM PDT
Ironically, its the Obamabots who don't want real change. The just want to hear someone talk about it.
Obama wouldn't have this Reverend Wright problem if Americans didn't have the idea that their president has to be a man of faith. --Jane Smiley
by journalschism on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:58:32 AM PDT
quintessential example of why these candidate diary comments are awful.
A supporter of Obama is an Obamabot, comparing by inference to Ron Paul libertarians.
And a sweeping generalization that says if anyone supports Obama they don't want real change.
Does this in anyway further the discussion of the difference in the healthcare debate? I say no.
Its just a quick easy punch in the nose. Silly just silly.
under construction
by dogheaven on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:09:50 AM PDT
True.
Just like if we don't support Obama, were all racist and if we don't support Hillary we're all sexist.
Join the club.
by journalschism on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:24:29 AM PDT
This coming from an Edwards supporter is to funny to be true.
Edwards is a founding member of the DLC and was to the right of the Democratic party on most issues when he was in the senate.
Clean up your own backyard, would'ya?
by nisleib on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:00:55 AM PDT
The same DLC that was the primary reason Edwards left the Senate?
The DLC brought Edwards to the dance. He played their game. He found out he didn't like it. Once the DLC realized he wasn't a gracious partner, they shunned him. Fact.
You have no leg to stand on with that argument.
by journalschism on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:05:58 AM PDT
are not, to my understanding, anyone who supports Obama. They are, rather, those who trash other candidates using any tool available - regardless of the tool's validity - in order to support Obama. They are people who, in their zeal to support their candidate, show disrespect for other candidates and their supporters. They are by far not the majority of Obama's supporters - or at least, I should hope so.
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM PDT
Barack Obama has no power to enact his health care legislation. Fir that matter, most of the promises candidates make are silly because there's not much a President can do without Congress.
by billybush on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:37:45 AM PDT
Repeat after me:
"Position papers are perfect predictors of Presidential performance."
(3 times)
Got it?
Help! I can't tell the Republican trolls apart from the Democratic trolls, anymore!
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:09:19 AM PDT
to block and fight a Democratic President's agenda when they've been rubberstamping Bush's agenda, then they should be publicly shamed and kicked out of office.
It's like Apple and Microsoft. Without Apple, Microsoft wouldn't have anything to copy. Edwards is the idea factory. -demwords
by Jiminy Cricket on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:19:11 AM PDT
Obama - penalties for the People! To me there is no real difference.
The issue is funding. Not laws which impose a mandate and/or penalties without funding the thousands of dollars of insurance costs.
Who is talking about how much the healthcare insurance will cost people in any real detail?
by CAL11 voter on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:51:21 AM PDT
"It takes a village." The cost to be concerned about is the cost to someone without insurance, or who is underinsured by an unregulated insurance industry when they have the misfortune to be sick. That cost can be death.
I accept that to protect these people I will have to take a tax hit and perhaps an insurance mandate (which I can live with if it is accompanied by industry regulation).
Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!
by barbwires on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:11:51 AM PDT
Obama is now running as Bill Clinton 2008. Steal GOP talking points and frames, throw a meatless bone to progressives, and pretend to be something new.
I dislike this guy more and more each day. I really do.
by journalschism on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:56:46 AM PDT
This has been debated, diaried, and discussed to death. He can introduce anything as long as one member of Congress will do it for him. Then, if the Republicans (or others) drag their feet, John Edwards will use the bully pulpit to specifically call out the Republicans standing in the way of real reform.
It's a fine political move: the President going into a red district and saying to the people --
"Your Congressman likes the health care coverage you bought him just fine, he just doesn't want you to have the same thing. Is that why you sent him to Washington, to keep you from having adequate health care coverage?"
EENR blog, a progressive community focused on issues with a side of fun
by edgery on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM PDT
in the Senate and introduce a bill now.
Other candidates could just throw a bill into a hopper.
Only Kucinich has introduced or sponsored a UHC bill.
by SingleVoter on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:17:43 AM PDT
I think you're taking it too literal and not looking at the whole picture, and misunderstanding perceptions. What is silly is to think that a president doesn't have any influence on a certain issue.
Look at recent history: Bushies and his people repeatedly linked 9/11 and Iraq, without even saying the words "Saddam attacked us on 9/11." and what do you know, there was support to invade Iraq. I can't remember the exact percentage, but until recently a large portions of Americans still thought Saddam perpetrated 9/11.
It's all in the message, as I'm sure you know. While the pres can't take away the health benefits for congress, if the new pres, Edwards in this case, constantly speaks about, his people speak about it... that congress shouldn't have healthcare benefits unless and until all Americans do, that will greatly change the mindset of many, and we'll have a chance for significant reform.
Edwards doesn't want to "work with" the people who run healthcare now; he wants to change how it works. Obama wants to "sit down" and work things out with everyone. The latter plan hasn't worked and won't work.
The primary won't matter; we'll be at war with Iran, and using fear-mongering, the public will be so afraid, they'll HAVE to vote for McCain.
by gooderservice on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:34:27 AM PDT
everyday from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM and sat in the lobby with a sign that read "my NC Congressman does not support health care for you or me like they are provided" and when traffic was slow as I know it will be, I would walk outside, carry my sign, and then call their office every 15 minutes to ask if they were ready to support President John Edward's health care plan. During the other 14 minutes I would hand out a flyer that gave their telephone number to citizens that passed me and ask them to call their office and make the demand that they support president John Edwards. This is all part of the "bully pulpit".
by NC Dem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM PDT
by AJsMom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:36:31 PM PDT
UPDATE: ABC News' Sunlen Miller, traveling with the Obama campaign, reports that the ad has been running for approximately 10 days, according to the campaign. Asked why the campaign did not send out a media advisory about the ad, one aide said that there typically is not much media interest in radio advertising -- and kept a straight face. The campaign did put out a press release for a radio ad in October, to announce Obama's endorsement by Duffy Lyon, the sculptor of the famed "butter cow" at the Iowa State Fair.
UPDATE: ABC News' Sunlen Miller, traveling with the Obama campaign, reports that the ad has been running for approximately 10 days, according to the campaign. Asked why the campaign did not send out a media advisory about the ad, one aide said that there typically is not much media interest in radio advertising -- and kept a straight face.
The campaign did put out a press release for a radio ad in October, to announce Obama's endorsement by Duffy Lyon, the sculptor of the famed "butter cow" at the Iowa State Fair.
link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
"The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg
by grannyhelen on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:38:04 AM PDT
-- the second paragraph, pointing out the lie in the first paragraph.
"Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon
by Cream City on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:41:36 AM PDT
We are the ones we have been waiting for. Obama '08
by bawbie on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:48:20 AM PDT
Why are they hiding their light under a bushel basket? Campaigns, as a general rule, want to get all the publicity they can for ads. Why do they want this one to come in under the radar?
This ad, in and of itself, isn't that big of a deal. Taken in the context of so many other things that the Obama campaign has done lately, however, it becomes a much bigger deal.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:09:06 AM PDT
by Cream City on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:58:18 AM PDT
was kind of funny.
by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:04:24 AM PDT
Trying to hide it and use it at the same time. That's why there was no link on the internet.
Thanks, grannyhelen.
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:44:33 AM PDT
by grannyhelen on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:45:52 AM PDT
Yup, must be working, as a C-Span caller today spoke about how she hated that her adult kids, who have trouble making ends meet now... with the higher fuel costs, house and car, food, et cetera, are going to be FORCED to buy health insurance that they can't afford.
by gooderservice on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:39:57 AM PDT
Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.
Link: http://www.michaelmoore.com/...
by grannyhelen on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:44:56 AM PDT
Do you think the Obama campaign will do oppo research on Moore like they did on Krugman?
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:45:59 AM PDT
I'm sorry Bruce... these boys get that syrup in 'em, they get a little antsy in the pantsy. -Capt. John O'Hagen (Super Troopers)
by The House on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:50:17 AM PDT
by grannyhelen on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:05:28 AM PDT
"aiding and abetting the enemy" did he?
by bawbie on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:12:38 AM PDT
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:20:22 AM PDT
by journalschism on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:00:36 AM PDT
obama and his minions would have us believe that paul krugman cant be trusted or that he is a stealth spoiler.
sorry, krugman's body of work far surpasses that of obama's. instead of smearing a true progressive obama should be listening very closely to people like krugman. in fact, if elected he should ask krugman to be an advisor ... someone who truly understands the issues and the politics of implementation. obama certainly doest have this understanding yet.
How dreadful knowledge of the truth can be when there's no help in the truth. Sophocles, Dedipus Rex
by bamabarrron on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:09:10 PM PDT
I had not seen that quote! I'm glad to see Michael Moore understands and approves of John's goals for universal healthcare!
I am puzzled, though, about why I hadn't heard this quote on the TV news.... Moore is often quoted, and it seems like this is something people would want to know about.
by bettync on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:07:45 AM PDT
Also, I'm wondering why it really matters what Moore thinks. He is a film-maker, not an economist, and I would much rather hear what Paul Krugman or Robert Reich have to say.
by msanthrope on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:19:59 AM PDT
the health industry in this country.
by barbwires on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:13:28 AM PDT
But economically speaking, I respect Michael Moore's views on healthcare more than Krugman or Reich. I wonder just how many people Krugman's personally met and how many of their stories he has gathered... unlike Michael Moore, who had spent two years doing research and reading thousands upon thousands of people's healthcare nightmare stories, meeting with them, following up on their stories, not to mention paying some of those people's healthcare bills.
Michael Moore gets it... just like I do. I'd also be interested in hearing Krugman's and Reich's personal injustices they've been dealt while trying to receive healthcare they couldn't afford. Or the desperately needed medicine that they couldn't afford to buy for their families. Oh, that's right. They c
