John Edwards

Yesterday, when I was watching the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate I noticed that there was a significant number of Californian's questions that were selected to be asked of the candidates. Out of the 38 questions that were asked, eight came from Californians. No other state even came close to matching that total. Minnesota, Michigan, South Carolina and Pennsylvania had two each. The rest were single digits and two came from unknown locations.

Everyone in the country was eligible to submit a question. A state by state breakdown of the origin of all of the 2,000+ questioners is impossible to find, since we only know user names. However, during the debate they listed the hometown of almost all. So we can't know if this was a representative sample of the questions asked. Regardless, it is great to see so many Californians get a chance to ask the candidates questions during the debate. Wouldn't it be ironic if there were more CA questions asked during this debate than the one in LA?

Below the fold are the Californian questions and the name and hometown of the questioner.

Sometimes I find myself to the right of many of my fellow bloggers out here in California. Perhaps it is my East Coast roots, or my more direct experience working in politics. Health care reform is one of those issues where I diverge and stand with the political establishment.

See, I am pragmatic. I look at SB 840 (single payer bill) and SiCKO and think well gee wiz, it sure would be nice, but it just isn't politically practical right now. I see the statistics on all of the uninsured and know that we can do better than the status quo, even if it does keep in place the private insurance industry. It's why legislators like Shelia Keuhl, ever the fighter for single payer, votes for bills like AB 8 (the Nunez/Perata plan).

Similar dynamics are playing out on in the presidential campaign. The WaPo had an interesting article on the decision making that went into Edward's health care plan. He pulled in two leading academics, one who argued that our system was "so riddled with inefficiencies that it needs to be blown up and replaced by a plan in which people can buy coverage themselves." On the other side was a MIT economist, who argued for an incremental approach that would be politically viable.

A month later, when Edwards announced his health-care plan, he almost completely sided with Gruber. And he is not alone. For the first time since President Bill Clinton's plan for health-care reform, overseen by his wife, collapsed in 1994, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning in favor of universal health care. But in developing their specific plans, they are embracing the pragmatic steps advocated by the MIT professor and a group of similar-minded policy experts, many of whose ideas were shaped by their first exposure to the perils of health-care politics 13 years ago.

"Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over," said Gruber, who has consulted with the three leading Democratic campaigns about their health plans. "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better -- I just think they're political non-starters."

Politics is not the art of the possible, but rather the practical. That is not to say that what is a political non-starter today will be impractical a few years from now. Indeed, we have seen a great deal of shifting on the issue of reform in the last decade. Republicans are now much more willing to discuss significant changes to the system.

If a health care reform bill does make it through the legislature this year, it will not be perfect. Heck, it may not even be great, but more than likely it will be better than what we have got now. We are not talking about something abstract here. There are life and death matters at stake, not to mention quality of life issues. Millions of Californians do not have insurance and millions more are at risk of losing their coverage. Even more fight their insurance companies tooth and nail to get the coverage they paid for.

We can change this, at least partially. Something is better than nothing.

MoveOn held their climate change townhall this weekend and numbers are starting to come out from both the straw poll and the attendees. It was the largest MoveOn event since 2004, with over 100,000 people at 1,300 house parties. There is immense interest from activist Democrats in what the presidential contenders have to say on climate change.

Obama got a lot of kudos for his bold moves on the environment over the weekend, and broke some new ground during the townhall, announcing a proposal for carbon auctions to fund alternative energy research.

Some activists pronounced themselves delighted with Obama’s words aired over the weekend.

The president of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, said Obama’s support of carbon auctions “shows a terrifically enlightened attitude.” O’Donnell noted that a recent Congressional Budget Office study found that buying and selling emissions allowances would produce long-term economic benefits.

Interestingly, that did not translate into votes in the straw poll, where Edwards had the clear lead in both the overall vote and among those who attended the house parties. MoveOn allowed all of their members to participate in the straw poll, even though many of them may not have seen all of the candidate's remarks. Obama came in forth in both. Environmentalists' concerns with Obama's position on coal-to-liquid fuel may have effected the results. He has been moving away from that position, much in the way that Clinton has done on free trade. However, the shifting may not have solidified support for him in this particular crowd.

The results of the straw poll will go for more than just a few blog posts (even if they are on the NYT site). MoveOn will run print ads in newspapers in Iowa and New Hampshire next week, announcing the results. They used an email announcing the results to fundraise for the ads.

“The enormous response we got from our members on this issue emphasizes how important it will be for our next president to make solving the climate crisis a top priority in 2008,” said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

“MoveOn members want leaders who will take on the oil and coal industry and create a clean energy economy. That’s probably why Sen. Edwards’ support of cap and auction systems – which force polluters to pay citizens—and his call for more green collar jobs received such strong backing,” added Ilyse Hogue, Campaign Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

MoveOn will host a third and final townhall in the fall on affordable health care. The first was on Iraq.

Over the weekend, MoveOn hosted one of a series of virtual townhalls, where the presidential candidates answer questions of concern to MoveOn members. This one was on the climate and timed to coincide with Live Earth.

All of the Democratic contenders participated and were asked three questions:

1. How does your plan on climate crisis differ from other candidates?
2. Do you support the use of an subsidies for liquid coal?
3. How will Americans, not just corporations, benefit from new energy economy?

The responses were video taped and put up on YouTube. Nobody really made any real news in their comments, but it is an easy way to compare the candidates in a non-traditional format. The candidates often use the initial questions to address their broader environmental and energy policies.

Here is the highlights video.

Perhaps the most interesting tidbit was that while Senators Edwards and Obama stated their support for a carbon emissions market (cap-and-trade variation), Clinton said that it would be one of several things she would consider.

[UPDATE] 5:30 pm Check out this quick and snarky overview of the top five Democrat's plans on the environment by Grist. It is well worth a read.

SEIU has not endorsed anyone yet, but Anna Burger, one of the top leaders at SEIU International is leaping to his defense, following the insinuations by the NYT that his poverty work was improperly motivated. Burger calls it "insulting to the workers around the country he's lent his tireless support to over the years." She has penned a piece for the Huffington Post on the subject.

Ask them what they think of Edwards' work on poverty, and they will tell you about the difference it's made in their lives. When 450 poverty-wage janitors went on a two-month strike in Miami for a better life for their families, Edwards didn't hesitate to offer his support. When Edwards was asked to join the hotel workers campaign, he rolled up his sleeves and made those workers' struggles his own. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, he traveled to Louisiana not for a photo op, but to do real work for those affected. And he held a summit on the failed response to which I and other national leaders were invited to devise ways to ensure the mistakes of the federal government were never repeated.

Burger sounds personally offended by the NYT article, which the Edwards team has been aggressively pushing back on.

To call into question the motivation of a person who has done so much to advance the cause of workers is unwarranted and unjust. Voters have a right to reject or support a candidate based on the facts. My union, SEIU, hasn't endorsed a candidate yet because we feel strongly that it's still early and our members need time to evaluate where the candidates stand. But voters can't make an informed opinion when reporters focus their efforts on trying to raise controversy where there is none.

Edwards efforts to woo the support of labor is paying off. He may not have an endorsement, but he has vocal backup.

It seems like this is the week to roll out new TV ads for the Democratic presidential contenders. Yesterday, Obama released his first two ads of the cycle, now here is John Edward's offering called "Strength of America". The ad is airing in New Hampshire and features a cameo by Elizabeth Edwards.

This weekend I had the opportunity to join a few fellow bloggers and interview Elizabeth Edwards. I had written a post last week arguing that there was not a huge controversy between the advocacy of Michael Moore for single payer health care in SiCKO and the presidential contender plans that would by and large stay within the private health insurance industry. This was an opportunity to put that to the test. I opted to ask Elizabeth about the differences between single payer and John's plan and she immediately emphasized that they really were not that far apart.

They are not that different... And honestly single payer is not going to pass in this country. It is not going to happen. We may get to single payer, but we are not going to jump to single payer.

John is in favor of bold moves about a lot of things, but we have to be realistic and the point is to get people covered. So, John's program allows private insurers, if they bid and are willing to follow a pretty stringent set of rules to participate. But he also has a government option.

After a bit of back and forth, Elizabeth explicitly presented the Edwards plan as a transitional piece of legislation between the current system and single payer. She highlighted the support from Paul Krugman and another health policy expert at Princeton that John has the best plan.

It's got the specificity, got the capacity to pass and is actually is probably our most logical path for us to take, if we are ever going to get to single payer.

This is right in line with what I have been writing on these pages. The interview was the first time that I have seen a campaign argue along these lines. The country is not in a place to pass single payer right now. First people need to see that the government can provide affordable, more efficient health care, before there is support for a truly universal governmental program. It is fascinating to see this kind of progressive policy argument be made.

Last week, John Edwards fleshed out more details of his universal health care plan. The cost savings from his proposal would save the average family $2,000-2,500 a year and cut waste in the health care system by $130 billion. One of the biggest piece of his plan is the establishment of health markets to encourage competition among insurance companies. They will also have to compete against what Edward's calls "Medicare-plus", a government plan that all people can join. The new information mostly centered on the cost savings reaped by the potential implementation of Edward's plan.

Edwards would require that insurance companies spend 85% of their revenues on patient care, in contrast to the 70% they spend now. He also wants to add a new option for drug companies to forgo their long patents. Edwards would give them a cash prize on the front end for developing drugs that treat diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. In exchange, they would drop their patent rights, so that the end result is a generic more affordable drug. He would also require chronic care management, with each patient having a doctor in charge of their coordinate care. Chronic disease treatment and preventative care would be required to be covered in all health care plans. He also encourages the adoption of electronic medical records. Edwards wants to create a central organization within the Institute of Medicine that tests new devices and drugs head-to-head, disseminates best practices nationally. He advocates for the creation of a health care Consumer Reports-type publication to help patients make better choices and encourage providers to offer better services for lower costs.

While, not technical a cost reduction piece of his plan, Edwards also did detail his plans to improve working conditions with the goal to lure back 50,000 nurses who have left the profession and bring in another 50,000 young people into nursing.

Here is is at his press conference:

For more information read this official campaign blog post.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown wrote a whole stack of letters, one to each of the 18 presidential contenders on Friday. He requested they weigh in publicly in favor of approving California's request for an EPA waiver to allow California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes. AP:

He asked them to submit written testimony to the federal EPA, which is weighing whether to grant California a waiver needed to put in place a state law that would cut greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide, by 25 percent from cars and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles beginning in 2009.

At least 11 other states are ready to follow California's lead if the state gets the needed federal waiver.

"As one who may be the next president of the United States, I believe that your written statement, which we will submit to EPA as part of the legal record, will help bolster our case," Brown wrote in the letter sent late Thursday. "I urge you to give us the strongest possible statement for submission to EPA."

Brown asked the candidates to weigh in by June 15, the public comment deadline.

John Edwards and Bill Richardson have submitted testimony in favor. Hopefully, a few more will join them. The issue certainly has been in the news a lot lately, with the attempts by two Democratic legislators to push forward a bill to strip California of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It is a fairly straight forward request and one that more candidates could fulfill.

During last night's debate the Democrats had an in-depth back and forth discussion on health care reform. You can watch the video below, but I would like to focus on two specific sub-topics, universality and how we pay for the needed reforms.

John Edwards directly addressed the lack of an individual mandate in Barack Obama's plan and Obama responded.

On this issue of mandatory and non-mandatory. People are not going around trying to avoid buying health care coverage. And in fact if you look at auto insurance, in California there is mandatory auto insurance. 25% of the folks don't have it. The reason is because they can't afford it.

So, John and I we are not that different in this sense that I am committed to starting the process. Everybody who want it can buy it and it is affordable. If we have some gaps that are remaining, we will work on that. You take it from the opposite direction, but you are still going to have some folks who are not insured under your plan John. Because some of them will not be able to some of them will simply not be able to be able to afford to buy the coverage that they are offered.

Obama is correct. No matter what we do, short of passing a single payer plan there will be people who will not be covered. There will be a percentage of the population that subject themselves to the punitive effects of Edward's proposal. It certainly should be much smaller than 25%, given that it is the less well off who often go without car insurance. That same population would have access to care in both Edwards and Obama's plans.

It is a scary word isn't it? Unfortunately, most health care experts believe it is the only way to achieve our health care goals. However, for months now, I have been railing against Arnold's plan because of its insistence on individual mandates. Those two sentence are not in direct conflict with each other and let me explain why.

Mandates are a good thing, when you are forcing people to participate in a plan that actually makes sense and will be beneficial to the individual and society. Arnold's plan forces individuals to purchase insurance that does not cover enough to justify its cost. The problem is particularly acute for lower-income Californians, since he is not subsidizing expenses at a high enough level. On the whole, Arnold's plan does not do enough to reform the private health care industry and that makes his mandates worse than the original problem.

The folks over at the Courage Campaign have been asking the presidential candidates to speak to Californian voters and answer a few questions. Today they are featuring a response from John Edwards. Here is the video. In it he talks about health care and the environment, with a bit of discussion of his international education program.