Kerry calls for health insurance for all by 2012

[sabra]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/31/kerry_calls_for_health_insurance_for_all_by_2012/

Kerry calls for health insurance for all by 2012

BOSTON --Sen. John Kerry on Monday proposed requiring all Americans to have health insurance by 2012, "with the federal government guaranteeing they have the means to afford it."

The Massachusetts Democrat, his party's 2004 presidential nominee, repeated his campaign call for expanding the federal Medicaid program to cover children; creating a program to cover catastrophic cases so an employer providing insurance doesn't have to pass the cost to his other workers, and; offering Americans the ability to buy into the same insurance program used by federal workers such as members of Congress.

Kerry proposes to pay for the program by repealing tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that benefit those earning over $200,000 annually. He did not immediately elaborate on how he would enact his insurance mandate.

"One of my biggest regrets is that fear talk trumped the health care walk, and that we are less safe abroad and less healthy at home because of that," said the prepared text of a speech Kerry planned to deliver at midday at Faneuil Hall. The senator has already delivered two other speeches at the Revolutionary War meeting house laying the ground work for a second presidential campaign.

[babylonsister]

1. Oooh, a plan! It's a start, and I'm sure all those dollar-heavy

Americans won't mind helping to pay for the rest of us.

[rodeodance]

5. and Russ Feingold put out his plan last week. Way to GO Dems.

[Ian David]

2. I have a proposal to get this program started...

We should first start a small "pilot program" to test this plan.

People could sign-up to be among the first to receive free health care ahead of the rest of the pack, by registering now to vote as Democrats, and agreeing to support a progressive agenda that includes rolling-back Bush's programs, withdrawing from Iraq, and legalizing gay marriage.

The question then becomes-- do you value your health more than you hate gay people? Prove it.

[BadgerKid]

3. Sounds great but will Congress

support it? It has seemed to me that health gets treated like a partisan issue.

[babylonsister]

7. The current repug Congress won't, especially if tax dollars

of the rich are involved. That doesn't mean healthcare issues shouldn't be addressed. This should be shouted from the rooftops; I guess Kerry will be doing that from Faneuil Hall today!

[liberal N proud]

4. As long as the republicans have any power, it will never happen

The business controlled republicans will never let their friends in the insurance and medical industry down by allowing such things tagged as "social programs" pass in this country. If it does not have a silver lining for big business forget it.


damn, I am in a pessimistic mood this AM, must be the bu$h regime having it's effect on me.

[Lasher]

14. And it might not happen even if we controll Congress & the Presidency

We had a chance to deliver universal health care in 1993 & 1994, when we had Clinton and a Democratic Congress, and we blew it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

If Hillary had gone from the start with a single payer system, I think we might have pulled it off.

[Demeter]

29. You and Me Both

That abortion of a health plan is what keeps me from wanting anything to do with Mrs. Clinton. It was a corporate giveaway program, and she STILL couldn't sell it to the Powers-That-Be in her own party, let alone the corporations. I doubt whe could sell water in the desert.

[blm]

34. Actually Kid's First universal care plan has a great chance of passing

even in this congress. Kerry wrote the bill in a way that GOPs would have a really hard time to vote against it without declaring that they really don't mean a word they say about children.

Kerry has also been putting up billboards touting the plan specifically in GOP districts. I believe he's been doing this for over a year by now. He's been preparing for this showdown quite awhile.

[Telly Savalas]

65. When's the showdown going to happen?

Before the midterm election? How much longer can we wait?

This isn't meant to be a finger pointed at Kerry, since he's just one man and at least he launched this project. I'm just peeved that the Democratic Party hasn't made this one of their top priorities. To overdo the sports metaphors a bit, it's a slam dunk issue where we aren't only going on the offence, but we're doing it with home-field advantage too. Yet you seldom hear a Democratic talking head mentioning it on TV, etc.

[blm]

80. I don't know. It seems like leadership needs to force it on the schedule

I hope they aren't waiting till AFTER the election even though I can understand why they THINK it might be better to do so - I just don't agree with waiting. They know the bill is written so even GOPs will vote for it, so maybe they don't WANT the GOPs to appear more reasonable before the elections.

I just don't know why else they would wait.

Kerry said in a HuffPo column why he's not stopping his push for healthcare:

Excerpt

>>>>
Hearing both of them today reminded me why -- as long I'm in public service myself -- I'm determined to get health care right for our country. I fought hard for a health care plan I believed in when I ran for President. One of my biggest disappointments about losing the election was that we couldn't send our health care plan to Congress in the first 100 Days of a Democratic Administration. The learning gained from getting knocked on your ass in defeat is not my favorite way to gain insight and knowledge but it is an event in life that sticks with you. You are forced to confront your shortcomings, you have to figure out what you did wrong, you have to listen and you have to commit yourself to change. In defeat you also learn what really matters to you. And in defeat I was reminded that as lousy as it felt to lose, life's a hell of a lot harder for the working father who wakes up every day without health care for his kids. Life's a lot harder for the mom who is afraid to let her kids go outside to play in case they get hurt and she ends up with a medical bill she can't handle. So no matter what anyone thinks, I thought I had an obligation to dust myself off and fight for those families again.

>>>>

[ckramer]

6. John Kerry for president!

Go John and speak out!

[MH1]

11. I'll second that! nt

[LeftHander]

8. Sure Bill Frist is all for this....

Considering he made/makes millions on healthcare....

[soothsayer]

9. Don't like the word 'requiring'

[sandnsea]

36. Everybody has to pay their share

That's how you stop the idea that some people are getting a free ride on the backs of others. And, everybody is required to participate in single payer countries. It's astonishing to me that people who bitch about any plan that isn't single payer turn around and bitch about the basis of single payer, that everybody MUST participate and contribute financially for it to work.

[alarimer]

50. We need to get insurance companies out of health care

Let Medicare administer it. The overhead there is quite low, with no million dollar CEO salaries. If insurance companies are involved, it will be no better (and probably worse) than what we have now.

[sandnsea]

61. Did I say anything about insurance?

No. I was talking about the fact that everybody has to contribute in order for any universal health program to work, and that means you have to require participation, like social security insurance. That's it, that's all I said. Address that or respond to somebody else.

[Solon]

75. Apples and Oranges...

Single Payer covers every citizen of the country in question, regardless of ABILITY to pay. If you end up unemployed in Canada, and break an arm, you don't LOSE your health insurance, and you STILL pay nothing or a small co-pay depending on the Province. Not to mention that since EVERY citizen that can, contributes to the tax system, the pool for premiums to pay for everyone's healthcare costs is extremely low compared to private insurance premiums. This plan sounds like you HAVE to sign up to extremely expensive PRIVATE insurance companies, or are simply shit out of luck if you can't afford it. I forgot to mention that in Single Payer countries, there is no such thing as "Pre-existing Conditions" and other bullshit that private insurance peddles here in the states to reduce their own costs.

[sandnsea]

76. "sounds like"

Which doesn't mean that's what it is just because it "sounds like" something to you. He specifically addressed pre-existing conditions, catastrophic illnesses and subsidized assistance for low-income people so how you came up with your conclusion that people would be forced to pay outrageous sums to private insurance or be SOL is beyond me.

Actually, it's not beyond me, I completely understand how and why people come to such erroneous conclusions. Something to do with putting ideology and political agendas over actual words in front of ones face.

[Solon]

85. Subsidized Assistance?

See, my first problem is this, right now, private health insurance is too expensive for most poor people because the premiums are too high. Now, there are TWO reasons for this, the first is that insurance companies are actually investment companies first, and on the side, they MAY cover your medical bills, if you are lucky. So when the stock market tanks, premiums go up to cover the difference. Now, the second reason is this, the idea of insurance is that the cost of medical treatment is spread across all the customers of said insurance company, but see, the thing of it is this, no insurance company can spread the cost nearly as efficiently as the Federal Government. The reason is rather obvious, none of them have monopolies, and only cover a limited section of the population, so this is part of the reason for outrageous deductibles and co-pays.

Bear in mind this, I hope beyond HOPE he isn't talking about you HAVING to sign up to an employer's plan. Most of those plans, for low income workers, are shit, premiums are cheap, but deducts are into the thousands of dollars, so the insurance is next to useless. Hell, half the time, the employees can't even afford the comparatively cheap premiums, so I hope he is talking about 100% subsidization and covering the deduct 100% as well. Otherwise, poor workers that make just barely enough to not qualify for Medicare/Medicaid ARE shit out of luck.

My problem isn't ideological, its practical, to REQUIRE people to carry health insurance in a similar manner to car insurance, is going to require a HUGE bureaucracy. For unlike cars, you actually do NEED your own body to live. Who will qualify for assistance, how much assistance will they get, etc. will all have to be tracked and the money dispensed in equitable manners. To be honest, I find this a burden that is unnecessary, why not, oh, I don't know, raise FICA taxes on a progressive scale, cover everyone under a Medicare-like plan, and leave the private insurance companies to cover botox injections and plastic surgery?

[KKKarl is an idiot]

10. Hope this is handled better

than the Bush farce. He put more money into medicare but now people pay more than they did previously for medication. We need to secure a fair price for medication before a bill like this is enacted. If it is not done the process will fail & we will be left with higher health care.

[Imagevision]

119. 2012? - yeah, a lot of boomers will be dead by then, save some cash

for the government.

[MH1]

12. "...fear talk trumped the health care walk..."

"and that we are less safe abroad and less healthy at home because of that."

Bingo.

[MH1]

13. RNC response to Kerry plan - laughable if not for the tragic reality

From the article linked in the op:

"It's unfortunate that John Kerry's bitterness over losing the election clouds his ability to recognize the president's prescription drug plan is providing millions of seniors with more affordable medicine," said RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

Has Ms. Schmitt talked to any doctors lately? That is, any doctors who treat people who actually needed a Medicare drug plan?

I have. And her statement is completely divorced from reality. People are getting HAMMERED right now by the "donut hole" of the vaunted republican "plan" - and these are the same people who are especially stressed by the current heatwave affecting much of the nation.

Is it possible for such cluelessness to exist without an assist by fundamental evil?

[wisteria]

17. Schmitt is clueless, she a parrot that repeats her assigned

talking points without fully understanding the issues she is asked to speak on. She looks good though, she must have been from the poole of Fox News bimbos.

[ladym55]

63. Got to love the Republican response

Okay, let's immediately attack Kerry's character--he's BITTER. Can't actually RESPOND to the ideas Kerry presented. :sarcasm:

And, wow, Medicare D has been JUST TERRIFIC!!! Seniors finding that the formularies changed once they signed on, so the drugs they were supposed to get at a reasonable price either have become horribly expensive OR totally unavailable. And did I forget to mention the "doughnut hole" of coverage that was also misrepresented???

Yeah, great program ... for the drug companies. Weren't they the ones the plan was supposed to help? :eyes:

[wisteria]

15. I agree with Senator Kerry, we should all have access to the same type of

coverage as the Congress does. No child or adult should have to settle for substandard care or no care at all. Our country has money for what it wants to spend it on, we should be pressing on this matter. I want to hear all those "poor" people making over 200,000 a year complain about losing there tax break in order to insure children and adults in receive the help they need. How could anyone complain about returning a little bit in order to do so much good?

[warrens]

16. This has to be a major part of the 06 campaign

Take back Congress so we can have health care, beat Bush and his thugs over the head with the LAW, and get the economy back on track. And force Bush to start withdrawing troops ASAP.

[bemildred]

18. Bugger off John, we need single payer.

When the current system is broken, and it is, we are outsourcing surgery now, the answer is not to force everyone to use it anyway.

[MH1]

20. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, I appreciate any effort to make the system better for more people. Gee, sounds like what "progressive" actually means. Hmm.

[bemildred]

21. This is not an attempt to make the system better.

It is attempt to force everyone to use it.

[MH1]

22. Not true. Read the entire plan.

The idea of requiring everyone to participate only kicks in in 2012, if universal coverage hasn't been attained by the other measures.

Read Kerry's Kid's Come First Act for how the "requirement" piece might work.

It really would improve the lives of many, many people, even if you don't want to admit it.

[bemildred]

25. It is true, I did.

They can pass a Canadian-style single-payer system anytime they want to. That's their job. They don't want to. They don't even want to talk about it because they know that is what the American public wants. This is shuck and jive to keep the old for-profit slush-fund driven system alive.

[MH1]

27. Wrong. Your post does not address my point:

Kerry's plan will improve the situation for many, many people.

Since your "plan" will NOT be approved by Congress - and his could be - let's see - should we just say "screw you" to the people Kerry's plan would help?

And what the American people "want" - enough to vote for - was made clear in November 2004. If Kerry can get a compromise bill that helps more people than the current system, THAT is an improvement for those people.

[bemildred]

31. Then we need a new Congress.

Kerry's plan won't do shit for poor people.

[politicasista]

40. How do you know?

since you think that he (and his plan) "won't do shit for poor people?"

How do you know it won't do anything? Has your candidate proposed something better?

What is your plan to help poor people?

[heliarc]

19. We have to wait that long?????!!!!

Jeez, that's a long freaking time! Is there even going to be any US at that point?

[blm]

23. I believe getting universal healthcare for ALL children to 18 is a GREAT

START and will bring people along faster to universal healthcare for all. I think Kerry understands it is the best way to get it through congress - in steps that WILL get the votes.

[MH1]

30. Exactly

Too bad so many people fail to appreciate the value of actually getting something done.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. REALLY!

I'll almost be eligible for Medicare by then.

We middle-aged people need relief NOW.

[Overseas]

125. And it sounds so needlessly complex -- We need Single Payer !!

Single payer universal health insurance coverage. Economic necessity. I hate these "we must make it possible for everyone to be able to purchase insurance"... It just shows the power of insurance and for-profit healthcare lobbyists because the current system is so very clearly detrimental to 95% of Americans' physical and economic health.

[Demeter]

26. Why Does IT Take 6 Years????

There is no need for a national single payer system to take 6 years. What bullshit! I am so sick of John Kerry and his fake Presidential posturing.

[MH1]

28. So - how fast can YOU get it done?

What's your plan?

[Vinca]

35. How about tomorrow?

Everyone can go online and sign up for Medicare if the program is extended to the entire population. How difficult can it be?

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. You're paying for that with what money?

Medicare is not the answer - ask anyone who's been on Medicare how efficient the system is.

[Vinca]

39. It doesn't have to remain the same. It would have to evolve.

The reason to use Medicare as a starting point is because it exists - the mechanisms are in place. How to pay for it? Taxes. If you aren't shelling out $12,000 a year for health insurance (plus a huge deductible), you won't mind ponying up a fraction of that in additional taxes. Other countries used a VAT tax. Tax is not a bad word if it buys a healthy population. If you don't want to expand Medicare, look to the VA - another operating "universal" system. The only reason this is so hard is because "big bidness" has its tentacles on Congress. They love the insurance companies for their jumbo campaign checks.

[alarimer]

71. And it's a good way to separate employment

from insurance. People do not have to stay in sucky jobs just for the insurance (such as it might be). And it frees employers from having to pay premiums (they can pay higher wages instead-yeah, right!). So their overhead is lower too.

The VA has really had a turn-around in recent years. Well, during the Clinton years anyway. Bush has been closing VA centers and cutting benefits but prior to that they were doing much better. And probably could be a model for universal health care.

[alarimer]

51. Insurance companies are not they answer either

THEY are the problem. The government needs to set the rates for everything. Otherwise we will STILL have $500 premiums.

[loyalsister]

70. As a matter of fact......

it's more efficient than any of the private insurers, and offers good basic health coverage for less money.
For basic health care needs it is a very good plan with the kind of low overhead necessary for universal coverage.

[reprobate]

112. I am on medicare. And the system is extremely efficient.

Administrative costs at 3% as opposed to private insurance costing 25% to 40%. Far less hassle at time of services. Just present you card and get treated.

You asked the question. This is the answer.

As one who sold insurance for 20 years I can tell you that NO private insurance can compete with medicare as to costs, administrative efficiency, and coverage.

The ONLY way to spread health coverage thru the whole population is to take the profit motive out of it. And that means universal coverage with a single payer system. Everybody contributes thru payroll taxes. Everybody is covered.

End of problem.

[Massacure]

42. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will this nation.

[MH1]

57. And, HOW will you GET it extended to the entire population?

And I repeat, HOW FAST will YOU get that to happen?

[FujiZ1]

45. God I agree so much.

Seems like everyone else is such a fucking apologist for Democratic representatives that want a media headline.

[SOS]

123. Re Six Years

Germany passed the Health Insurance Act in 1883.

We're 120 years behind our European counterparts!

[dwahzon]

32. Thanks for posting this

Jibsail just put up a good summary of Kerry's speech at dailykos. Go give it a rec if you can so it gains some visibility there.

[bunkerbuster1]

33. Anything to get this issue front and center again

where it needs to be.

This is a huge winner for us, and we should be pounding the Goopers on this at every opportunity.

Where's their plan? Where are their ideas?

[karendc]

37. I'm one of those who wish...

...we could wave a wand and have single payer for all tomorrow. It is what makes the most sense, if human beings being's health is important to us. I'd like free drug treatment and free and clear high quality medical help for veterans, neonatal care for moms and infants, HIV treatment, and a whole lot more.

But I am also very glad that John Kerry is speaking up as he is. His plan makes the most sense, and is, perhaps, the best approach to shaming the Congressional do-nothings into some critical thinking.

People are the best investment we have in this country. Children are the future of that investment. All of the decisions about health care and insurance in this country need to use that as a guiding principle. Right now, we have a bunch of profiteers and bloodsuckers making these calls and it is killing us all.

[superconnected]

41. And the repukes fall over themselves laughing their heads off

I am completely for it. But first we have to oust the dictator robbing us blind.

[Xenotime]

43. John Kerry is a great American..

America will be a better place when that happens.

[samsingh]

44. why didn't he raise this in 2004?

[politicasista]

47. He did, but the media chose to prop up * as a leader

From May 2004

Kerry Addresses Health Care Costs

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 11, 2004; Page A04

EDINBORO, Pa., May 10 -- Sen. John F. Kerry charged Monday that President Bush was ignoring soaring health care costs, as the Democratic presidential candidate launched a week-long campaign to highlight his plan to reduce insurance premiums and extend coverage to 27 million uninsured Americans.

Under the Kerry approach, the federal government would pay for the most expensive health expenses, known as catastrophic costs. The plan would also provide tax credits and other benefits to businesses to provide lower-cost coverage to employees and would permit the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada, among other things. The idea is to push prices down by easing pressure in several areas, from business to bureaucracy, simultaneously.

To spread coverage to the uninsured, Kerry would expand existing programs for lower-income workers, through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

The senator says he would pay for the health care changes by repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making $200,000 or more each year. Independent experts predict this tax-cut rollback would generate $800 billion to $900 billion over the next decade, which would cover the health program's cost but leave little room for other spending increases in a Kerry administration, assuming he adheres to his pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

"It is a plan that learned the lessons of our efforts to provide health care in the past. We are not going backwards," Kerry said at a speech here at Edinboro University. "It is a plan that recognizes and honors the values of America: People want to chose their doctor, and under our plan they will. People want to chose their plan; under our plan they will. People want choice competition between plans; under our plan they will have it. People don't want the federal government making choice for them; under my plan it doesn't."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15745-2004May10.html

[karynnj]

54. He also highlighted it in his acceptance speech

and spoke of it in the third debate. It was a standard part of his rallies as well.

[samsingh]

69. thanks for the info

[blm]

48. Media never told you that Kerry's healthcare plan got the highest rating

of all the candidates. Kerry talked about his healthcare plan ALOT. Did media ever discuss his plans?

Kerry also submitted his Kid's First plan in early 2005 - he is continuing his push on it because he wants to keep the issue alive and move it closer to some progress.

[sandnsea]

77. You've been at DU since 2001

How come you didn't know what your Dem Presidential candidate's platform was? That's YOUR responsibility.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. I'm with bemildred on this. Screw incrementalism!

I am so tired of - we will deliver a health care system, but only to certain segments of the population and ever so slowly. Single payer universal healthcare now! We can afford it! The citizens of the US are lagging BEHIND the other nations of the world. We give money that we could allocate to affordable healthcare to : tax relief for the super wealthy, corporate ass kissing and subsidies - hell, we LOSE more money n Iraq between the seats of the Blackwater Humvees than it would cost to run a national health! Stop being such pathetic patsies!

Single payer Universal Healthcare now!

[eridani]

49. Are we "required" to enroll in the fire department to get fires put out?

Just as stupid as requiring people to buy health insurance. Let's just be done with it and treat health care as a public good to be paid for by taxes, just as fire protection is. Universal single payer health care now!

We are already paying for universal health care; we just aren't getting it. --Dennis Kucinich

[Lars39]

52. In some areas, yes.

Our 'Rural Fire Protection' bill every year was tied into how much the house was worth and was required in order to get house insurance.
The last one I paid was $150/year.
The Search and Rescue Squad came by Sunday looking for donations to buy a 'Jaws of Life'.
This is stuff our tax dollars should be covering.

[eridani]

59. Sounds like a substitute for the property taz--

--in use by more populated areas.

[Lars39]

60. This was in addition to property taxes.

Wheel taxes were pretty steep, too.

[eridani]

66. Odd that it isn't included

My fire district tax is listed right there with schools and everything else.

[Lars39]

68. I wish it was like that.

I got to calling it the Extortion Fee. :D

[AmericasReporter]

53. I hope Univeresal Healthcarer comes ALOT SOONER

This is definitely good news. I hope this comes true!!!



START THE IMPEACHMENT
START THE REVOLUTION

[Sgent]

55. Notice

he didn't call for government run coverage -- but universal coverage.

There is a difference, and the second has a chance in our lifetime, the first probably does not.

[Oak2004]

124. No it doesn't

Universal coverage without government coverage will bankrupt America. It's just not possible to maintain the private health insurance system -- i.e., inefficiencies and profits -- with the wealth and blood of Americans. Create private "universal" coverage and the system will collapse, fast. Then the protofascists will run about saying "see, proof, universal health care doesn't work, better we dump the whole idea en route to creating the North American Third World Nation we aspire to".

Furthermore it's these sorts of complicated plans that permit opponents to muddy the issues and turn the voters against a plan (a la Hillary's plan). Add some "mandatory" components and you've got a real losing proposition. Voter reaction against Hillary Clinton's plan was a significant component in how the Democrats lost Congress.

What's needed is a twofold approach: a candidate with the guts to campaign for the single payer system Americans actually, in great numbers, want, and a source of campaign funding able to compensate for the inevitable loss of funding from insurance and investment firms.

I think I can see where the latter might come from (listen to the rumblings coming from most other US industries, the ones who surely do not want a bill that sticks them more forcefully with the continued burden of providing insurance). I do not see, yet, where we'll find a candidate with guts.

[Sretto]

56. And...

People actually voted for this buffoon?

[blm]

84. Tell us what part of the plan is buffoonery to you?

.

[bvar22]

58. Implementing the above plan...

..will delay or sink TRUE Universal HealthCare.

Beware Democrats selling "Affordable HealthCare"

[loyalsister]

72. Bingo

It's a divisive plan at the end of the day. As long as it is tied to how much a person is able to invest or afford, people are marginalized.
Excluding people, in practice and philosophy is something we should avoid.
It would continue to aggrevate the disparate class conditions in our country.
Single payer coverage would be a great equalizer.
Settling for less in policy allows the people who can afford it, the superiority they crave and preserves an American caste system with less educated, and people who have health problems or disabilities at the bottom.

[NoodleyAppendage]

62. Nice idea. But, once again Kerry proves he's politically challenged.

Rolling out a domestic plan in the middle of a friggin' war in the Middle East is SO STUPID. The media isn't going to give this plan one bit of sunshine because the correspondents and stories are all over in Israel/Lebanon. If Kerry was hoping for grand coverage of his plan, then once again he shown that he is "tone deaf" when it comes to using the media to meet his political needs.

Kerry. Nice guy, but no chance in hell of being President.

[blm]

83. Actually, he's staying on TOP of the issue, and this is an ADDITIONAL step

But then, you would know that if you ever bothered to read Kerry's actual healthcare proposals and efforts over the last 20 months. You won't. because it's YOUR quest to just keep attacking Kerry every time he submits a speech or a bill, and could care less what is actually said or done. Like clockwork.

[NoodleyAppendage]

88. Enjoy reading Kerry's healthcare plan and enjoy wasting your vote.

Like clockwork, you and your ilk continue to tilt at windmills. Kerry will never be President.

J

[blm]

89. Why are you so concerned? Did you have an account at BCCI?

Is it your job to protect all the crooks who will be exposed when Kerry open the books one day?

[NoodleyAppendage]

90. Hmmm...BCCI. When was that? 25 friggin' years ago. Kerry's so fast.

If I could I would bank the time it will take for Kerry to do anything definitive about BCCI. Promises...promises...promises...that's all we get from Kerry.

J

[blm]

91. Not big on math, are ya? And since you have no clue what BCCI means to

almost everything that is going on today, then you aren't big on comprehensive analysis, either....so....why bother?

[NoodleyAppendage]

94. Abedi formed BCCI in 1972. Danny C. & the Octopus...blah, blah, blah.

BCCI was well established by the time Kerry decided to do anything about it in 1991. 25 years or so referred to the formation of BCCI, my rude friend.

J

[karynnj]

99. There are many reasons for this

1) Kerry was a private citizen in 1972 and BCCI didn't immediately do anything wrong
2) Kerry started investigating them when he found that they laundered Noriega's drug money. (Kerry was chairing a subcommittee that looked into this) This was in the late 1980s.
3) He and his investgators then spent several years trying to understand this whole web - with huge parts of the government stonewalling. BCCI had bought off Republicans and Democrats. Kerry had prominent Democrats - including Jackie Onassis asking him to stop digging. Several Carter people were implicated.

As the Republican involved, Senator Brown, said that Kerry was the only Democrat willing to be involved on this. Kerry did it because it was right. So, it took him till 1991. It was not as though it was easy - and the real question is why NO ONE else anywhere in the world took the time, energy and effort to really investigate and close this down.

If you have ever untangled a knotted ball of string, I assume you know it is easier to do when new - there are fewer knots, they are less tight and it's easier to figure out what string to pull. Kerry became involved when it was already very complicated.

[blm]

103. JK started in on BCCI soon AFTER he uncovered IranContra while other Dems

and most of DC set out to stop him. That was in 86. He worked 5 yrs on it - so why are you pretending he only decided to do something about it in 1991 when he was able to get the bank closed down internationally, as if it was an act of frivolity?

Looks to me like you still haven't figured out much, but have yourself convinced that you have - or is it your job to mislead others here at DU so they ignore what BCCI means to world events?

My guess is that most of DU will stick with the researched facts posted by Octafish and H2O Man over your abbreviated and skewed analysis.

[NoodleyAppendage]

114. Look. You LOVE Kerry...and I don't like him as a candidate. Nuff' said.

I'm entitled to have an opinion about Kerry. He's too stiff and wishy-washy for me and I think his media savvy capabilities are nil.

J

[blm]

115. Have an opinion but don't use misleading disinfo, you'll get called on it.

.

[NoodleyAppendage]

116. It is not disinformation to say that Kerry is stiff, uncharismatic to most

J

[blm]

118. You have little working knowledge of BCCI and have no clue how it effects

events todayu - you mislead people when you treat it as an unimportant part of ancient history. I would guess that is how David Horowitz and Karl Rove would work to dismiss it. So, if you're not a duck, stop quacking.

And BTW, Walter Shapiro followed all the Dem candidates around for close to a year. He said Kerry is the one you want to have a beer with at the end of the day. That everything he was expecting (via the corpmedia) about Kerry wasn't what he found in the actual man.

[NoodleyAppendage]

120. YAWN. Kerry couldn't even get a football stadium name right...

Your "everyman" hero Kerry screwed himself during the 2004 campaign in his inept efforts to prove that he was "one you want to have a beer with at the end of the day."

Lambo field mishap, silly windsurfing pictures, "voted for it before voting against it" verbal gaff, etc.

Last word. Tag.

[blm]

121. Dedicating your last word to right wing spin - big surprise.

So easily spun by corporate media. Liars and the duped who parrot the lies.

[karynnj]

92. Something definitive - such as get the info he and his team unearthed

to the right people to close them down - after his committee was ended and the justice party rfused to do anything. Closing down is definitive!

He tried three senible ways before suceeding:
-his committee
-the justice department
- the NYC federal DA

and you did what???

[blm]

93. complained about Kerry while patting Dems who did nothing or considerably

less in their terms on the back.

[NoodleyAppendage]

95. Kerry's a great guy. But, I'm sorry to break it to you...he won't be Pres

I know it breaks your heart, but Kerry is not Presidential material. Sorry.

I'm so confident of this, that if proven wrong 2008 I will publicly apologize and permanently retire my DU name.

What will you wager? Come on. If you have so much faith in Kerry...put up or shut up.

J

[karynnj]

98. The probability that anyone specific person gets a nomination

is low. If you look at it, it is likely that at on average less than 3 people born in any decade will get each parties nomination - only 6 in total. When you consider that incumbent Presidents get the nomination almost by default the number is smaller.

Kerry may never be President, but he was already seen as being Presidential material by his party. Though some want to re-write history, Kerry scored a very impressive victory in capturing the nomination in 2004 without being a party favorite or a press favorite. Other than Jimmy Carter, I can't think of another example of this. (Though Clinton was not well known to people in general, he was a party favorite, a DLC favorite and had a long NYT magazine article in 1990. He also had the keynote speech at Dukakis's convention).

Looking at the possibilities, I still think Kerry is best, but it is a given that he will never be a party favorite - because he truely is a principled maverick (Contra/drugs and BCCI were work he did that was unpopular with a large part of the party and it wasn't a vote, but at least 5 years of sustained work) - and he will not be the media favorite. In 2004, he flew under the radar, that will be harder in 2008.

I see no reason to give up anything if Kerry doesn't win, other than the hope he ever will. I will not regret my support and there is nothing wrong with it. I will support the Democratic candidate - some more happily and fully than others. Whether Kerry becomes President or not, he has a place in history as a man of integrity and he had even when he was 27 years old, that is more than can be said of many of his competitors.

Who if anyone do you support?

[NoodleyAppendage]

100. Feingold, Gore, Clark, Edwards...

And, not necessarily in that order. Greatest affinity for Feingold, but like Kerry, he's not likely to be President. Gore and Clark have a great chance given the uncertain times we live in now. If things were calmer geopolitically, I would favor Edwards more heavily. He's got the stuff, but is weak in foreign affairs and would be hammered hard about what to do with the mess the Chimperior has placed at the next President's feet.

Like I said, Kerry is a great guy. But, these days Presidential elections are not about who's the most qualified (sadly). They are modern popularity contests where charisma and connectivity with the "common man" is paramount. It is on the latter point where Kerry fails miserably.

J

[karynnj]

101. Fair enough

I disagree and think Kerry connects better than given credit for - as 2004 points out. In person, he is very charismatic. The biggest problem is I don't see the media giving him what might be necessary - positive coverage with some unfiltered views of rallies. If they would have done that in 2004, he would be President. The CSPAN rallies in October were incredible - easily as good as the 1992 Clinton rallies. The problem is if the media denied him this as the Democratic nominee, they won't give it to him as a 2008 hopeful.

I like your list and agree on Feingold - he IS the loner the media tried to say Kerry was. As to Clark and Gore, I do not see either as personally more charismatic than Kerry. I know Clark came in late in 2004 - but he came in designated by Bill Clinton as "the only star of the Democratic party other than Hillary." and with a very positive media splash. From there it was downhill, because he didn't have the political experience. I think he shares one thing with Kerry - he is a private person - but Kerry though has dealt with the political demand not to be for decades. (I don't find this a negative personally, but the media hates it.)

Gore is more complex - as a politician he was NOT charismatic at all throughout his political career. He ran on his own for President in 1988, as the first DLC endorsed candidate - and made Dukakis look personable. He went nowhere. He did a great job as VP, but was a pretty boring candidate, but very decent person in 2000 - who still won. In 2000, he had a weak opponent. Bush had one of the worst resumes ever and Cheney was far to the right of the country. In 2004, Bush was an incumbent President. The media absolutely distorted the first debate - what was worse, Gore sighing or Bush not giving good answers?

But, Gore now, speaking about what really interests him is almost like a different person. Gore, speaking about global warming is interesting and charismatic. He also may not scare the media as much as Kerry obviously did. I suspected the media is wary of Kerry because he has managed to be a politician who was willing to challenge the establishment on a fundamental level - which is what BCCI really represented.

In 2004, reading of Kery's work to make the US follow its own laws on not funding Contra military activities and BCCI while Kerry ran on more conventional issues, there was a sense that Kerry was unique - he had the stature to win, but he had not been corrupted by the system. Gore, since his loss has some of those characteristics as well which weren't there in 2000. Some have made the conjecture that Kerry's commitment to holding America accountable to its own values came out of the deep sense of betrayal he felt in Vietnam where he realized that the leaders of the country - some of whom he had personally met - lied to him and the country. Could Gore's current strength have a similar root? He was betrayed by the political system he had been part of all his life stealing a Presidency he earned.

I trusted Gore in 2000 and I would trust him in 2008. What I wonder about is whether the media (and whatever powers control them) will continue to show Gore in a positive light. They have had mood swings - in 1992, they loved his addition to the ticket, in 2000 they were bored by him, in 2002 they treated him as if he was strangely angry, and now seem to be respecting him. I hope that continues, because he deserves it. As a candidate, he is my second choice. (which makes my thoughts on whether I hope he runs very very confused - on the one hand, he is my second choice on the other, I think much of the Gore support could go to Kerry.) A cynical side of me worries that the media Gore love affair could be a replay of Dean 2003 - and that it will be followed by tearing him apart after he firmly becomes the anti-Hillary. This of course allows Hillary to coast easily into the nomination.

I agree with you that Edwards is too inexperienced on foreign policy. There are only two things that make me trust Edwards - that Elizabeth married him and that Kerry picked him. On his own, he seems like he did nothing political - even at a local level (other than the normal for all high powered people, serving on the boards of charities) until he ran for Senate. After about 4 years, he was already running for President. It also bothers me that in 2003 and 2004, he ran as a fairly conservative hawkish Democrat and he is now trying to run much further to the left. My sense of Edwards is that he will be whatever he needs to be to win.

[blm]

104. So you missed the recent Frank Luntz focus group info that media tried to

cover up or ignore?

It accidently got out when Matthews was interviewing DeLay and the cameras were rolling during the commercial break - Kerry got the best review from the bipartisan focus group.

But the media only noticed that DeLay made a remark about Hillary - gee - why would they ignore the other part that slipped out....that Kerry was viewed the most favorably?

Had it turned out another way, with Hillary, McCain or Biden scoring the highest, then the media would have talked about it nonstop. But since Kerry came out the best, the focus group details were buried. Matthews only mentioned it when he thought he was off-camera.

[karynnj]

108. The highest rated sound bite by far in the focus group

was Kerry's concise list of things to do, starting with "tell the truth". The focus group was some time ago and since than others including Dean - have developed variations, similar in style and in Dean's case keeping, "Tell the truth" first. Hillary has tried a list as well. (I know lists are standard and have existed forever - what was copied was tone and style.) So, within the party the focus group was noticed.

Oddly, Edwards in some way might heve done the worst considering CW - people didn't like him and thought he was too slick. (with focus groups this could have been the impact of an outspoken person saying it and others agreeing.)

[Lifelong Protester]

64. I can't help but think ANY START would be a good one

fir cryin' out loud, let's get SOMETHING going...

[bvar22]

73. Sorry,

This proposal moves us AWAY from Universal HealthCare.

Including a proposal for "Universal HealthCare for Children" in this package is like the Republicans including the Minimum Wage raise in their Estate Tax Repeal. Throw some scraps to the dogs, but a HUGE bundle to HMOs and Insurance Companies. This plan is likely to RAISE the cost of HealthCare in the US.

It IS hard to "Say NO" to this plan, and they know it. It provides a small amount of relief to a small population, but cements in place a huge, inefficient, for profit system.

This is not an area where compromise will pay off for the Working American or the poor, but they will use sick children to try to sell it.

Sorry, No Thanks.

"65 percent (of ALL Americans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes."
http://alternet.org/story/29788 /



Beware of Democrats selling "Affordable HealthCare"!

[GAPeace]

67. SAY SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE

Please have someone say this. Something like 80 Dems in the House support it. It has some political will. So let's get behind a real solution, please.

[mainer]

102. Medicaid and Medicare ARE single-payer healthcare

He's calling to expand Medicaid to all children. Sounds like an excellent first step to me.

And the only way to cover everybody is to require everyone to contribute to the pool. It's analagous to Social Security. If people can opt out, it doesn't work.

[Overseas]

126. YES PLEASE - NOW PLEASE -- Long Overdue !! --eom--

[barronvonsloat]

74. some thing to think about

Did sen Kerry mention how his little plan will work with our new come one come all immigration policy.

[sandnsea]

78. Well let's see

If they were becoming citizens and not fearful of being deported for standing up for their labor rights, they'd be able to demand more money and be paying a fee into the health care system so people could stop whining about low income people daring to visit a doctor or hospital.

[barronvonsloat]

79. Labor rights

Just because they demand more money does not mean they would get it. Dont get me wrong Kerry's plan is not a bad idea it just seems you are asking for economic suicide if you do not solve the problems of immigration first. Is there a limit to how many people you let "stand up for their labor rights" does that anyone from anywhere can come and" stand up for their labor rights". 30 million ,40 million at some point you start running into financial problems. By that logic you can go to Canada "stand up for your Labor rights" and see first hand the problems with government run health care.

[sandnsea]

81. Other people would just do the low income jobs

Why do you think these jobs would just go undone if immigrants didn't do them? Or wouldn't remain relatively low income jobs, even if they were paid more of a living wage than they do now? The immigrants aren't the problem, labor exploitation is the problem. That's what needs to stop, here and in Mexico so Mexicans can start building an equitable economy of their own.

And this isn't a government run health program so that doesn't even belong in this discussion.

[bvar22]

86. Some problem!

"see first hand the problems with government run health care."

EVERY Canadian has access to quality HealthCare......
What's the problem? :shrug:

We should NOT settle for LESS, and the plan Kerry is offering provides MUCH LESS!

[shadowknows69]

82. I haven't had health care in 15 years

what's another 6 I guess. Oh yeah, probably my death.

[Megahurtz]

87. I Hope It Happens.

Because these days if you don't have health insurance,
don't have the money or credit cards right there and then,
then Doctors will refuse to see you and send you right back out that door and say "Buh bye!!!" :(

Doctors don't care anymore like in the past.
The Health Care business has all become very cold and strictly Corporate-America business oriented.

:puke:

[NotGivingUp]

96. "requiring all Americans to have health insuranc"....no, fuck you kerry!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. That's like solving homelessness by requiring all Americans to buy

a house.

[mainer]

110. This is the only way to address insurance "death spirals"

Here's the problem. Healthy young people, who often think they're immortal, drop out of health insurance plans, leaving sicker people to be covered. The premiums therefore go up. More healthy people, now finding it expensive, drop out, leaving a higher percentage of sick patients. The premiums go up more. People with minimal health problems then drop out. The premiums go sky high, leaving only really sick people (who can't go without) covered.

The health plan has gone through a death spiral. It's now too expensive for everyone, and only the really, really sick (and expensive) patients get covered.

The only way to keep EVERYONE covered and keep the premiums affordable is to require everyone to enroll. Healthy or not. It's how Kaiser Permanente manages to stay in business -- by having a large pool of healthy working people. It spreads the cost around. It's the same principle as social security -- everyone contributes, and everyone gets something back.

There must be universal enrollment. That's how nations with nationalized health care do it. And everyone who can afford it must contribute to the pool.

Or would you prefer our current system where 40 million people have no insurance whatsoever?

[eridani]

117. Why not just have a health tax based on income?

Leave private insurance, which does nothing but engage in theft by cherry-picking, entirely out of it.

[karynnj]

111. That is the Boston Globe's word

Kerry did not say they will be "required to by" - the closest was that Kerry said all Americans will "have" insurance. I know MA's plan requires people buy insurance - I did not hear Kerry say that this year or last.

[ckramer]

105. John Kerry is the best man Americans can get after Bush

Go John!

[ckramer]

106. John Kerry needs to make up his mind on issues and stick with them

Don't change positions easily.

But this one is good.

[karynnj]

109. He actually doesn't change positions without reason

On health care - this is essentially his well regarded 2004 plan. The environment plan has many concepts from 2004, but goes further - because with Gore's work (which he praised as visionary) what is possibel may have increased since 2004. Additionslly the situation has gotten worse.

His Iraq plans from 2004 to 2005 to 2006, actually have similar principles and come from the same world view - what changed were the facts on the ground and what was doable. There is consistancy.

[ckramer]

113. That's good

I believe John Kerry one day will be the president. Just keep trying don't give up, John. American people will reward you for that.

[zann725]

107. Great idea. But SIX YEARS is a LONG time for a lot of folks w/o coverage

We need to address more IMMEDIATELY the needs of We the People, instead of squandering our dollars abroad fighting dozens of wars (directly OR covertly)...for OTHER 'we the people' who do NOT pay taxes here, and are NOT American citizens.

Take care of our own first NOW. Talk is good. But SIX YEARS is an eternity to the poor.

[Iniquitous Bunny]

122. Let's hope it works.

The fact that so many people are uninsured is the shame of our country and a burden to our small business. Conservatives preach economic growth, but fail to give arguments saying how small businesses can grow when medical insurance costs keeping rising at such astronomical rates. My point: the don't care if small business grow, no do they care about the middle class. Feudalism is the way to go apparently.