Tapped’s Ezra Klein writes: “it has widened the field of the debate, and unless the other candidates want to explain why they lack the boldness of Edwards’ plan, they’ll have to offer similarly comprehensive proposals. What they will have to match is full community rating, a public insurance option, total universality, scaleability towards more public involvement, and a willingness to propose something comprehensive enough to require revenue increases to fund. In other words: The goalposts have been moved. To the left.”
TomPaine.com’s Isaiah Poole offers: “It does not go as far as many progressives would like, but it is a good starting point for giving what our broken health care system needs: an overhaul, not just a series of patches.”
Huffington Post’s RJ Eskow has a nuanced take: “So is the Edwards plan ‘the solution’? No, and my concerns aside, that’s one of the things I like best about it. The ‘Health Markets’ approach suggests that it’s designed to evolve, rather than impose change from above, while guaranteeing certain basic ‘health rights.’ That’s an approach I think can work – politically, and structurally.”
The Mother Jones blog says, “It’s a fairly neat mix of the public sector and the private sector, and it relies on the market to drive down costs instead of government protections” while also noting, “There is even the possibility of a single-payer future.”
Booman Tribune and Managed Care Matters knock the media for solely focusing on Edwards plan to raise taxes for those earning over $200K to fund the program. Media Matters takes a swipe at CNN’s misleading coverage.