« The Electoral Map: NBC News's take | Main | The Politico v. The DNC -- Why I Think The DNC's Interpretation Is Correct. » Cancer Politics03 Apr 2008 01:42 pm Did Elizabeth Edwards play politics with cancer? ABC's Jake Tapper quotes Edwards as saying of McCain, "Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy." Fred Malek, an entrepreneur and major Republican fundraiser who is close to McCain, responds here. Is her point legitimate, albeit provocative? Or does it cross the line? And what is the line, anyway? Comments (34)
Doesn't cross any line. She is not playing politics with cancer, she is talking about pre-existing conditions which are frequently not covcered when someone gets new insurance. There are exceptions (thanks to HIIPA) but it is still a perfectly valid point to make. 
Totally legit. I have a close friend who, because of a much less severe condition, is unable to get health insurance. The use of pre-existing conditions to deny health insurance to anybody who might be a risk is one of THE major points in the healthcare debate.
What am I missing, except that he didn't actually answer the question? Pretty standard ad-hominem
She has cancer... She can pretty much say whatever she wants about it.. Now that he can't get covered cause his old insinuation now that's just over the line! She isn't old enough to assume she knows what old people go through. The nerve of her.
Pointing out that John McCain's health care plan sucks is now playing politics? Fine, maybe McCain can also play politics in return by coming up with a plan that doesn't suck. This isn't just some rhetorical point, this is about affordable care for people with serious diseases.
Did Fred Malek play politics with anti-Semitism? Yeah, he did actually. It's her cancer, cut her some slack.
After the interview, Edwards said she was going to one of her cancer treatments, which, she said, she'll be going to for "the remainder of her life." Not "rest of," like most would say, but "remainder." Let her say whatever she wants to say.
Yes, let's not actually talk about health care in way that relates to real people's lives. Policy papers and hypotheticals are much more "appropriate." Real people get cancer and many of them are not covered today or in McCain's plan (McCain has a health care plan?). "Playing politics" is trying to get the media to focus on something other than that central point.
Taking anything Fred Malek says seriously? Really, Marc? Aren't you above that?
The problem is she is not playing ENOUGH politics with cancer. One of the biggest problems with chemo is the drugs all have serious mental effects --- you get what is called chemo brain. Ditto but not as persistent as treatment with radiation. So her mental abilities are severely affected if she is on chemo. For heaven's sake, if she is able, she ought to speak up about how these mental effects, which are often so severe to totally knock out a person's ability to function in any mentally demanding job, like being a politician's spouse, is something that the medical profession think is "no big deal". Want a real scandal? The most common chemo drugs date from before the FDA, so they were never seriously tested for safety and side effects with modern methods. If they are introduced today, most of it would probably not be allowed on the market. SO go speak your mind, Elizabeth. Speak up for the indignities of cancer treatment and the side effects of drugs, and speak for people who cannot. Damn it, politicize it!
The cancer conversation is best left to the experts, researchers, and doctors. Looking back, this is worse than weak. This isn't a "cancer conversation", it's about healthcare. And how are the "the experts, researchers, and doctors" involved in cancer necessarily knowledgeable about people being turned down for health insurance? McCain needs to learn that "competition" does not provide anything approaching universal healthcare unless you force companies to cover higher risk people to gain access to low risk ones. These are businesses and by definition (not because they're "evil") they exist to make money. Even supposed "non-profits" like Blue Cross operate this way. They will compete for the most profitable policy holders and avoid high risk people. That's how business works. High risk people get coverage only when large groups (i.e. a company's employees) negotiate as a block. That's why individuals are screwed. No wonder the GOP can't seem to get the economy right. They don't even understand how businesses function. I guess they've never learned to separate patronage (think Bush's cut of the Texas Rangers) from actual work.
I think the question implication is that she brought up McCain having cancer for its own sake, rather than to make a point about healthcare. I think it is a pretty silly implication to make. She did not cross any lines. She was making a point about policy & made it more poignant by relating it to their own lives.
Interesting that I wrote a comment on Malek's post over 1/2 hour age and it is still awaiting moderation. Needless to say, it points out just how wrong he is, so I doubt it will actually ever show up.
Oh my goodness, the lines! Won't somebody think of the lines! Especially when our tender Maverick's feelings and bullshit domestic policy are being invaded!
Gee, God forbid bringing deadly illnesses into the health care debate. It's so much better for us to argue about it in the abstract, so conservatives can ignore the effect it will have on real people with real illnesses.
If you don't know what the line is, then evidently she didn't cross it.
This part by Malek is so condescending: The cancer conversation is best left to the experts, researchers, and doctors. That practically defines condescension.
Beth, Hear! Hear! And what happens when the "experts" basically are in denial on the severe "side" effects of their treatments ? Many a cancer patient's lives have been destroyed by the "experts", "researchers", and "doctors".
Well, there are now 3 responses on Malek's site to this post, all against what he said. Looking through his other posts, this appears to be a record response for him.
How dare you implicate Elizabeth!!
Great to see that one of the most telling and tough criticisms against McCain at this point is coming from Elizabeth Edwards, while Clinton and Obama fiddle. I imagine how sweet it would have been if JRE were our candidate at this point. I see he has said he will not accept the nomination for the Vice Presidency. No need to get "Kerried Away" twice I suppose.
The quote Beth in VA provides really is indefensible. Heaven forfend anyone with cancer be involved in "the cancer conversation." I think EE's reference to McCain touches on his having cancer (I think skin cancer?) a few years ago, not his age. Elizabethrex, if Edwards were the candidate there would be a list of two dozen things people couldn't stand about EE--look at the present perceptions of Cindy McCain vs Ann Romney. People only bother to hate you if you're winning. That said, I'll certainly grant she's doing exactly what the original writer decried--cutting through bs about 90 page policy papers to talk about how health care affects a real person. Effective. Once Obama is elected she might be a powerful force in getting health care/insurance reform through. And at least thinking of which of those we're reforming.
Dear Deborah, I fully agree that if Edwards were ahead in the primaries or had sewn up the nomination then both he and Elizabeth would be catching more flak from the likes of Malek. But, that said, I think both of them were (are) better at cutting through the B.S. and bringing policy issues down to the personal level than either of the remaining frontrunners. If others don't see it that way, fine, but I do, and that's why I regret JRE is not going to lead the charge in the general election, although I'll support and vote for whomever the democrats wind up nominating.
how arrogant to exclude cancer patients from the "converstion "
I think her point is entirely legitimate. Maybe if more people played politics with health we'd get something done faster, instead of letting people die from lack of insurance and collectively ignoring it.
First off, she's entirely correct. Secondly, if she lives under the threat of dying from this disease, she can say whatever the hell she wants about it.
She is dead nuts on. Also, is McCain's dementia or is his PTSD a pre-existing condition? Would that be covered? Brian
Elizabeth Edwards is arguing policy with a hard hitting anecdotal example. Unless you want to ban anecdotal examples from politics I can't see where anyone other than somebody on the "Elizabeth Edwards is kicking my ass here" end of the argument would have any problem with what she is saying.
Of course it is legitimate! Seriously. People in this country are getting screwed on health insurance because they get cancer or something else and it becomes a preexisting condition and you ask, gosh, is it all right for somebody who has one of the conditions and also cares about reforming healthcare (instead of blowing a lot of hot air and calling it a "reform") to mention it? Jesus.
"I have a close friend who, because of a much less severe condition, is unable to get health insurance." LFC, you may have crossed the line. How dare you mention that people get hurt by our disgusting medical system. How dare you sir (or ma'am).
You are acting like a ridiculous patsy about what's "out of bounds." Yes, talking about fatal diseases that kill people in the context of health care policy is in bounds. And it's not close. And any journalist who thinks otherwise is incapable of providing decent political coverage that actually matters as opposed to worthless horse race coverage, and is once AGAIN not only treating McCain with kid gloves but trying to get Democratic politicians to do the same.
Wow Marc...I've seen negative comments about your blog before, but you got a royal a**-kicking here today! It was rather dumb to even post this and give Malek a spotlight at all, except if you actually foresaw the comments and wanted us to beat up on him...
If E.E. is "playing politics" over the fact that she has/had cancer, what about the candidate who eliminated her husband from the race playing politics over the fact that he was born half black?
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
he didn't really respond to her point about not being covered though...
he said, basically, shame on you for mentioning you have cancer.
he changed the subject without answering the criticism.
Posted by freaktown | April 3, 2008 1:59 PM