The Very Best Of John Kerry (Vol.1)

[DrFunkenstein]

John Kerry can radically change the course of the 21st century. Think about that. Here is a man with a real sense of vision - not dreams or hopes (we all have them), but an ability to see with great scope and depth AND the ability to create real action. Kerry knows that you have to keep your eyes on the prize in the face of powerful opposition and invariable setbacks, and keep a sense of short and long-term goals.

If one thing can be said of Kerry, he is a driven man. He has a qualities befitting his career as a prosecutor - hard-nosed and tireless. Time and again, he has proven himself willing to take on the thankless jobs that make real change actually occur. And his voluntary refusal to take PAC money his entire career as Senator has left him with the rare clean nose in Washington. He is not beholden to any special interests, and you can't be if you are actually going to do something as President.

Kerry has the talent and character to be one of those once-in-a-generation Presidents like Roosevelt and Kennedy. Kerry is one of the only people in recent history that could actually stand his ground with the Founding Fathers. His standards are Jefferson and Hamilton, not CNN and FoxNews.

He has some wonderful positions to speak of, but I really want to get to his Big Ideas and why they separate him from the pack. There are 6 major ideas that I want to focus on. Here are the first three major visions for America, any one of which would radically change the landscape of our democracy:

1. Energy Independence - From baby-steps to moon steps. Many candidates have "moonshot" energy plans, but most range from pie-in-the-sky to empty campaign slogans. With a LIFETIME (18 years!) rating of 96.5% from the League of Conservation Voters, and a presence at EVERY major environmental conference, Kerry's experiences at the forefront have led him to create a DETAILED plan to actually transform the fundamental nature of U.S. energy, leaving fossil fuels the way of whale oil lamps.

It starts off small, and he is clear that we must be honest about how slowly things will start and the upfront costs of investment (always a crowd pleaser), but that we will work our way through car, home, and business efficiencies while reversing the $1.8 BILLION lavished on Big Oil pork vs. the $24 MILLION ($0.024 billion) on alternatives.

Kerry would make a push for clean, domestic renewables a hallmark - not an afterthought - of his Presidency. This would open up a vast, untapped motherlode of jobs in design, engineering, production, maintenence, etc. Kerry would reconcile business and environment at long last, paving the way for what Time called "The Green Century."

Learn more from this speech:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_0122.html

2. PASSABLE, Damn-Near-Universal Health Coverage. Kerry's plan is incredible on many levels, but it has two things going for it that make it much more likely to pass Congress. 1. It is simple and catchy - Let all Americans opt into Congressional coverage. Period -end of story. 2. It makes cost control its primary focus - Congress will have its feet to the fire when Americans realize how cost-effective the plan is. And I'll throw in reason #3 - it will cover all children (aw, shucks).

Perhaps the most impressive idea is taking catastrophic cases out of the insurance pool, lowering premiums up to 10% in one shot. Kerry will also emphasize upfront preventative care (Teresa is big on this!) before expensive procedures become necessary. He'll cut out prescription price-skimming by corporate middlemen, and cut bureaucratic waste by up to 50% through upfront technology purchases and digital record-keeping (reducing medical errors up to 88%!). He'll also provide targeted tax credits so small businesses can afford Congressional coverage.

Learn more here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0516.html

3. The "Porkchop" Commission. Kerry has an amazing plan for eliminating tremendous amounts of government pork projects by creating a rigorous bi-partisan commission (ostensibly tied to the GAO) to recognize wasteful and redundant programs. That commission will then bring their findings to Congress for a straight up-and-down, yes-or-no vote. No amendments, no shenanigans from special interests.

Every member of Congress will be put into a high-profile spotlight and forced to vote for or against a wasteful, pork-laden government. Beyond the bi-partisan commission, he will also create a Presidential line-item veto to eliminate wasteful spending in another up-and-down vote.

In addition, Kerry will refuse government contracts to corporations that use off-shore tax shelters, accounting fraud, and other corporate "excesses." And he will finally give the SEC and the Accounting Oversight Board some real teeth to take on corporate crooks.

He'll cut the Federal government’s administrative costs by five percent; cut the number of political appointees and ban providing bonuses for political appointees; cut fraud and abuse in government programs – fraud and abuse is estimated to cost $12 billion in Medicare alone and end rules that prevent the Federal government from having the same purchasing authority as the private sector.

Finally, he'll balance 1/2 of the national debt in 4 years while maintaining tax breaks for the middle class.

Learn more here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0828.html

<>

The Babe Ruth pose just about sums up his idea of America is.

[mb7588a]

1. Three cheers for this post,

but not only the things you mention, he's got the passion and balls, to really stick it to George W. Bush where it hurts. I would pay my tuition to see that debate in person. He's taken on some of the most coniving little jerks this country has ever had, and always come out on top.

I think you're completely right. A man who could hold his own in a debate with a founder is a man we should have for president. People who cater to cable news and special interests ought not run this country. I've said before, he's probably the most qualified man for the job since Hamilton.

[Bill of Rights]

2. I really like John Kerry

I was very impressed with his performance at the last two debates. I wish he was doing better. Thanks!

[ldoolin]

3. Sweeping FDR style programs...

Good! I like that. But I already mentioned a couple of reservations about Kerry's platform in another post. Kucinich is also offering sweeping FDR style programs, but without making the promotion of more militarism in our society part of his platform. (Unfortunately, 2004 isn't Kucinich's year - he should try a run for the Senate or get a cabinet post in the next administration.)

I am going to offer this constructive criticism of Kerry, and if the Kerry partisans want to throw insults I can't help that. His campaign has sunk like a rock and it's pretty clear that it's a Dean-Clark race for the nomination with Lieberman a possible wild card. Kerry was expecting the nomination to be his and it isn't happening. Al Gore, I think, learned a lesson from 2000 and did some soul-searching over why so many couldn't get excited over his campaign and why Nader got the support he did. Maybe, just maybe, Kerry will come out of this campaign season with some lessons learned, do some soul searching, and come back and try again in 2012.

Let's see, where to begin? To me, the left means labor and civil liberties, period. Kerry may have a 96.5% rating from LCV and he may be as pro-choice as they get, but I expect strong defense of labor and civil liberties, and his voting record in the Senate shows otherwise; he's been a fairly reliable vote in favor of most of the really bad major legislation that vitally needed to be stopped. To be fair, so were a lot of other Democrats. Kerry voted in favor of all of the following major legislation:

Iraq War Resolution
USA Patriot Act
Homeland Security Act
No Child Left Behind
Orrin Hatch's Juvenile Justice Act
North American Free Trade Agreement
Welfare Reform Act (1995 - Clinton vetoed)
Identical welfare "reform" in 1996 - Clinton signed
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Kerry's votes in favor of all of the above are identical to Lieberman's votes in favor of same - and stand in sharp contrast to the Senate voting records of Russ Feingold and the late Paul Wellstone, who had the guts to vote no on most of them. Kerry's problem as I see it is the exact same problem as Al Gore's was in 2000. He has offered an admittedly liberal platform and expected the nomination to be his, but people haven't forgotten how he has voted over the years when it mattered, and he cannot excite the liberal base. In 2000, Gore's centrist waffling and support of such things as NAFTA and the WTO drove some voters to Nader. Right now Kerry is watching the liberal base, that he thought he had some entitlement to, flock to other candidates.

Kerry's including the promotion of more militarism in our society in his platform has been addressed in another post, but that's the last thing we need in this society right now. And coming from Kerry, it's downright stunning. Is this the same Kerry who once was the Senate's leading critic of Reagan's Central America policy, the same Kerry who helped found Vietnam Veterans Against the War and threw his medals back at the capitol building at a protest?

What's not in his platform that should be: How about doing something about the biggest single problem facing this country, that of the rise of the prison-industrial complex? Putting a halt to the construction of any new prisons, and cutting the existing prison population so that the US no longer has the highest per capita imprisonment rate? Job, housing, and voting rights for ex-felons? Legalizing marijuana and ending the war on drugs? Repealing federal mandatory minimum sentences and letting judges have more discretion? Abolishing Selective Service registration once and for all? Abolishing the practice of civil forfeiture in drug cases? Repealing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Abolition of the death penalty? His platform on crime is typical tough on crime posturing, touting his experience as a former prosecutor, which addresses none of these issues which need to be addressed. To be fair, Al Sharpton, and to a lesser degree, Dennis Kucinich, are the only candidates addressing those issues in a satisfactory way, but the rest of the Democratic Party will continue to ignore them at our peril, or else more Naders will happen. Guaranteed.

On another issue, gun rights. Kerry is just plain wrong on this issue. Howard Dean at least has said where he will draw the line, and made it clear that he will not push for any new gun laws beyond that line. Yet Kerry continues to insist on being the most vocal of all the candidates in his attacks on the NRA (an organization which I am not all that fond of myself - but Kerry is attacking them for all the wrong reasons.)

Okay, so he has a mostly good liberal platform offering the most sweeping FDR style programs of all the candidates, and that is what we need (if America's ready for them - maybe yes, maybe not yet.) But he can't just expect to come along and excite the liberal base if he has been voting with Lieberman in the Senate the past several years. The DLC's strategy of voting with the Republicans on trade and welfare "reform", trying to outflank the Republicans from the right on civil liberties and criminal justice, while relying on peripheral issues like abortion rights, the environment, and (ahem) gun control to maintain a liberal facade, is bankrupt. I want somebody with Russ Feingold's voting record, not Lieberman's; otherwise, the liberal credentials are lacking. And that is why Kerry hasn't excited me all that much.

[sandnsea]

4. Kucinich is doing worse

So what's that tell you about the support of the liberal base?

Dean's record is worse than Kerry's (if you call this bad), nobody cares.

Clark is an unknown and people are fine with that.

Gephardt fought welfare reform, NAFTA, and voted along traditional Democratic lines in most areas. Nobody cares.

This primary makes no sense. People certainly have their own views, but when you add it all up, it tells us nothing in my mind.

Bush destroyed the economy and our foreign relations. Trippi came along and created Dean, the angry man. He transferred the anger over the state of the country to Washinton Democrats, who didn't deserve it. They certainly all don't have the same voting record, yet they're all lumped together as Washington Democrats and the populous is eating it up. Well, a small percentage that is unfortunately going to pick the candidate that has to compete in 100% of America that does agree with Kerry's voting record.

This party is in a shambles, that's for certain. Dean, Clark and Lieberman are in the lead. The three people who are actually to the right in the Democratic Party. Clark's military experience is to create that exact perception. The people to the left, Kerry, Gephardt, Kucinch, are struggling. That ought to tell us the truth about which direction the party is really taking.

We have an opportunity to get someone strong enough on defense and policing to win, who has also proven to have the kind of liberal compassion we say we want. He has addressed imprisoning people instead of treating people, for example. And part of that Orin Hatch bill was a youth program he created.

Instead we're choosing Dean, whose prison spending skyrocketed by the way. Who slashed funding to legal aid. Or Clark, who we have no idea what he'd do really.

Like I say, this primary makes no sense.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. I am hoping that Clark's support will mostly transfer to Kerry

once we clear up who stood where on Iraq. Kerry is so obviously the tried and true Democrat who can take out Bush.

[ldoolin]

23. I'll try to answer these one at a time

So what's that tell you about the support of the liberal base?


I think the reason Kucinich isn't doing so well is because he comes across as young and inexperienced, and not very telegenic. It's sad that being telegenic is seen these days as a prerequisite for being electable, but that's just the way it is. I'd like to see him try running for the Senate and building up more experience as a progressive leader, and maybe trying again for the White House in a decade or two. That doesn't say anything about the liberal base, who are more energized this year than anytime in recent memory.

Dean's record is worse than Kerry's

On fiscal issues I cannot tell much of a difference. On civil liberties issues, Dean signed Vermont's domestic partnerships law; what we got at the federal level from the DLC was the Defense of Marraige Act, which Clinton signed. Kerry voted for every one of the abominations I mentioned in the above post in the U.S. Senate; Dean was governor of Vermont, and I have no idea how he would have actually voted on them if he had been in the Senate. He did very little (other than flip-flopping on the death penalty) that I have any reason to be concerned about. Dean's position on gun rights is superior to Kerry's in my view, which I realize is probably the minority view among liberals but it's important enough to count as an extra notch in Dean's favor for me. I have no reason to be angry at Dean the way I feel betrayed by Kerry.

Clark is an unknown and people are fine with that.

I know next to nothing about Clark and have severe reservations about supporting him for that reason. Who is he? What does he want, really? How would he govern? Nobody knows. No argument from me here, except that Clark is generating grassroots excitement and we have to admit there are probably good reasons why he's one of the frontrunners. I just don't know what those reasons are yet.

Gephardt fought welfare reform, NAFTA, and voted along traditional Democratic lines in most areas. Nobody cares.

Gephardt has been staunchly pro-labor and (unlike Kerry, Clinton, and Lieberman) fought NAFTA, GATT, and welfare "reform". He should have been my first choice in the primary, but he's not. His sellout on the Iraq War resolution was what sealed it for me. It showed me that he won't stand on principle when it really counts and his vote is up for the highest bidder. The despicable attack ads on Dean have bumped Gephardt all the way to the bottom of my Democratic primary choices. I'll vote for Gephardt over Bush if it comes to that, but I'll vote for Lyndon LaRouche over Gephardt in the Democratic primary - that should make how I feel about him perfectly clear. He has a lot of apologizing to do and should drop out of the race.

Bush destroyed the economy and our foreign relations. Trippi came along and created Dean, the angry man. He transferred the anger over the state of the country to Washinton Democrats, who didn't deserve it. They certainly all don't have the same voting record, yet they're all lumped together as Washington Democrats and the populous is eating it up.

The anger at Bush is completely justified. Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, the late Paul Wellstone, Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, all have excellent voting records and don't deserve any blame. But in looking at the voting records of most in the House and Senate, Howard Dean has a very good point and I do think he is tapping into a very deep feeling that a lot of liberals have. Part of the problem is that Democrats have been letting the Republicans define the terms of the debate, then rolling over and capitulating when vote time comes around, while offering up a few token amendments to make the right-wing legislation more palatable for Democrats to pass. (That is, I believe, how No Child Left Behind and Hatch's Juvenile Justice Act wound up with so much bipartisan support.) We have been letting the New Deal, Great Society, and basic civil rights and civil liberties deteriorate in this country to the point where America is literally in a crisis state - brought on by both the organized right-wing extremist movement that controls the Republicans, *and* by Democrats who capitulate to the Republican agenda, or worse, by those like Bill Clinton and Dianne Feinstein who try to outflank the Republicans from the right on issues like crime. In a few cases some of the most abominable legislation passed the Senate unanamously, as is the case with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Again, in the Senate I see Russ Feingold as the liberal conscience of the Senate who other liberals should be emulating, and John Kerry's voting record comes up far short of the ideal. Feingold is the ideal. The House has several people who I look up to and know will vote the right way most of the time, like Kucinich, Jim McDermott, and Barbara Lee, but even there they are a minority even within the Democratic Party.

This party is in a shambles, that's for certain. Dean, Clark and Lieberman are in the lead. The three people who are actually to the right in the Democratic Party. Clark's military experience is to create that exact perception. The people to the left, Kerry, Gephardt, Kucinch, are struggling.

You have no argument from me about Lieberman, and I don't know enough about Clark but don't really trust the guy. But Howard Dean is speaking a lot of the issues that liberals in the party, who have felt marginalized for years, have been waiting for somebody to address. Even if his record as governor of Vermont is that of a centrist, he has stood firm on issues like Iraq and domestic partnerships where others have waffled, he has correctly in my opinion identified part of the problem as being Washington insiders playing ball with the establishment instead of voting their conscience, he has shown that he has the guts to stand up to Bush and the extreme right wing where others were afraid to criticize too much, and it cannot be denied that he has energized a lot of grassroots support and momentum that can propel him into the White House. I wish I could agree with you that Kerry and Gephardt are people to the left, but I cannot. They have played too much ball with the Washington establishment and vote with the right far too many times. Dennis Kucinich really is to the left and votes his conscience, and I really wish he were doing better than he was.

Looking at the primary in a practical sense, the only two real liberals in the race are Sharpton and Kucinich, and those are the two whose views line up with mine most often, but I also recognize that they have zero chance of winning the nomination. Edwards is also an also-ran. Among the frontrunners, I think it is important that Lieberman not get the nomination, I don't know enough about Clark yet to know which way he would govern, and Kerry and Gephardt have alienated me. That leaves Howard Dean, who alone among the frontrunners has shown an ability to energize the grassroots, go after Bush where others have been afraid to, and stand firm against Bush's Iraq policy.

I said it in another post below, that I would switch to Kerry in a heartbeat if he would change his tune on some things. He was a promising Senator in the 1980s. I wish I could say better things about him than I do.

[sandnsea]

25. Dean is a centrist, but... oh well

He stood right with the centrists and was for things Kerry and Gephardt were fighting against. But somehow they're penalized and he's not. Like I said, nutty primary.

Dean gets credit for signing a civil union bill. Kerry gets zip for voting against DOMA and introducing the first GLBT rights bills back in the 80s'. Again, nutty primary. Nutty litmus tests.

And Gephardt. Why in the world would you think he voted for the IWR out of expediency? That is the one that gets me the most. People who are willing to toss aside the opinion of experts and leaders all over the world and think our Congress should do the same. Even Kucinich said Saddam was a threat, inspectors needed to go into Iraq, Saddam must not be allowed to get weapons into the country. But Gephardt's & Kerry's votes were expedience. Is reason anywhere to be found these days, on the right or the left?

[ldoolin]

29. DOMA

Kerry did vote against the Defense of Marraige Act and I apologize for not mentioning that. However, my point in bringing it up was to illustrate one of many reasons why so many of us are angry at the Democratic establishment. Clinton *signed* the damn thing.

As for Gep's vote in favor of IWR, what possible other reason could there be except for political expediency? Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States, period, and if Dennis Kucinich ever said he was I would be very surprised. Link?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. It seems you missed the news about the alleged weapons Saddam had

which could hit the east coast. Yes, that's what the Senators were told.

[ldoolin]

36. Um,

You don't buy that one, do you? :)

I certainly hope that no Democratic Senators bought that one. As of yet there have not been any WMD's found in Iraq, much less anything that could hit the east coast.

[Octafish]

5. Kerry voted against making the turd Rehnquist Chief Justice

If you want to nitpick over a few votes, fine. Sen. Kerry voted against the turd Ashcan as Attorney General. In fact, John Kerry voted against a lot of the very turds and monsters that haunt our nation now.

Don't forget the big picture. Consider that the guy is a genuine war hero who's put the country ahead of himself his whole life. The guy believes in public service.

Kerry also is the most LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE, and ACTIVIST candidate for President in two generations with a chance to win. Sen. Kerry — in the tradition of FDR, HST and JFK — believes in using the power of government to make a better country for ALL Americans.

[ldoolin]

21. Nitpicking

The reason I nitpick over those few votes is because I consider them to be the worst pieces of legislation passed in the 1990s, and among the worst passed in the history of this country. They were direct attacks on labor (NAFTA, GATT), the New Deal and Great Society (welfare "reform"), and civil rights and civil liberties (most of the others); bills that liberals should have been pulling out all the stops to oppose. Instead, we wound up with only token opposition from a few heroes such as Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, and Dennis Kucinich, while I watched as supposed liberals like John Kerry, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, etc. voted for most or all of these bills, and Bill Clinton made the passage of several of them key parts of his program. Al Gore went so far as to become Clinton's campaigner for NAFTA and GATT to pass.

I never forgave Al Gore for that, nor for his vote in favor of Gulf War I in 1991. I have been angry at Kerry, Lieberman, and several others for years. Gephardt's voting record is somewhat better, but when he stood on stage with B*s* as the IWR was signed, he ensured that I wouldn't be supporting him either. We are constantly told, "elect Democrats", "elect Democrats", but if we cannot count on Democrats to stop these kinds of abominations from passing, and indeed, if Democrats are among the main promoters of some of those bills, what's the difference?

Bush is the most dangerous man to ever occupy the White House, but in the 2000 election it sure didn't look like Gore would be any better. I think a lot of Democrats still do not get or will not admit to themselves why Ralph Nader happened, and why Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich are happening now.

Kerry already had his chance, and he failed us. This truly a shame because I had high hopes for him when he first got elected to the Senate in 1984. I still remember the election returns in 1984 when the network declared Kerry the winner in the Mass. Senate race. They had some right-wing nut on to comment and he called Kerry a "communist sympathizer" and said something to the effect that he would be working to "expose" Kerry and make sure he didn't get re-elected. In other words, if the reich wing hated him so much he should have been great. And for a while, he was. What happened?

I would switch to Kerry in a heartbeat *if* he would admit that he was wrong and Dean and Kucinich were right on the Iraq invasion, apologize for his waffling on the Iraq issue, change his tune in general on Iraq and stop attacking Dean's position, apologize for voting for the legislation I mentioned above and pledge to make repealing all of those bills a priority if elected, drop his platform plank on cutting off funding for colleges that don't have ROTC, pledge to halt and reverse the growth of the prison-industrial complex in the US, and make a clear and unequivocal statement that he will *not* reinstate the military draft if elected. This goes for any other candidate too, by the way. All I'm asking is for liberals to really govern as liberals once again. Is that too much to ask?

[ACK]

7. I like Kerry a lot

It either him or Clark for me in the primary.

I think I have finally narrowed it down.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. I hope more Clarkies are like you

If JK has any hope it lies with him getting you guys on board.

[ACK]

10. Not a Clarkie... been a three way split for me most of the time

I initially was all for Kerry.

However, I felt his campaign was not being run very well and he did not seem to have the fire in his belly. Love the man's record and I have lived long enough to see most of it.

Then I was for Dean. He seemed conservative enough for the moderates and he had that fire, grassroots organizational skills and a campaign that understood the power of the new media. But his tax stand and other problems I have with him on the issues have put me off. I am having real problems with the idea of backing someone that is that conservative.

Then there is Clark. I like Clark a lot. He really seems to mean well and he has the stature of a President. Then again I am having problems with the idea of voting for a man that has never run for office before in his life. I want someone with experience.

In many ways I am still so very torn. This is ripping me apart. We have some really incredible candidates running.

[blm]

15. Clark has been aligning himself mostly with Kerry's policies.

I see that as a good sign.

[oasis]

27. Either one would easily trounce Bush in the general election. (eom)

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Vice Versa may be true also

The problem for Kerry is he is, relatively speaking, a known entity. At the very least he has a very familiar name and face, and that's retail politics folks. Not that many people are going to at this late date suddenly discover Kerry. After spending so much time and money in NH, coming from a neighboring state, it is literally deflating for his campaign if Kery can not at the very least finish a reasonably close second to Dean. Distant second just won't cut it. A close second is problematic but likely survivable.

Clark's situation is quite different. Clark can finish a close third and remain viable coming out of NH. I like both Clark and Kerry. I prefer Clark on his own merrits, but if I thought Kerry was more likely to have a chance to defeat Dean for the nomination, I might support Kerry over my first choice. I hope that is something Kerry supporters are keeping in mind also, assuming like me, that you like both Kerry and Clark. I went on at length about how I see this election playing out on an obscure recent thread called "Establishment Politicians Have Already Lost", in case anyone is interested..

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. I agree and am (of course) aware of that

Kerry will have a fine showing in NH and he will survive it respectably. He is not going away.

[curse10]

8. Thanks Dr. Funk

keep posting the positives on Kerry :-)

[oasis]

40. It's never too late to educate voters.

[HFishbine]

11. Health Care Question

Can you tell us more about "opting in" to Congressional coverage? Is this basically an HMO? What would the costs be? What of those who cannot afford it? What are the benefits of opting in? How is "damn near" universal coverage achieved?

Thanks in advance.

[Octafish]

12. Kerry's Health Care Proposal TOP RATED.

Go check JohnKerry.com. It's all there.

[sandnsea]

13. Here

First of all, Howard Dean's plan depends on Medicaid and Medicare. His solution in Vermont was to allow HMO's to manage Medicaid. So the person most likely to stick people into HMO's is Howard Dean.

Kerry's Plan:

In a new compact with the states, the Federal government will pick up the cost of Medicaid coverage for children in exchange for automatic enrollment of all school children eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program. Eligibility for coverage will be extended to 300 percent of poverty-level incomes for children, and coverage will be extended to the six million single and childless adults who are uninsured and live below the poverty line. Independent experts estimate that the Kerry plan will cover 99 percent of America’s children.

Nine million Federal employees get health care through the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits program (FEHBP), which offers a wide range of plans with good benefits. The Kerry plan will allow every American access to this system. With tax-based incentives to employers and tax credits to individuals and the self-employed, the Kerry plan will ensure that this coverage is affordable.

By joining the new Congressional Health Plan under Kerry’s plan small businesses will be able to provide more affordable coverage. Kerry is also proposing refundable tax credits up to 50 percent of coverage to small businesses and their employees to help subsidize the cost of health insurance.

John Kerry believes that when you lose your job you shouldn't lose your health care. That is why he is proposing a 75 percent tax credit to assure workers can keep their health insurance between jobs.

In 2001, only 4/10 of one percent of private insurance claims were for individuals with health expenses in excess of $50,000. However, these claims accounted for nearly 20 percent of medical expenses for private insurers. Under Kerry’s proposal companies and insurers that guarantee a pass-through of the savings to their workers through reduced premiums, would be reimbursed for 75 percent of catastrophic costs above $50,000. To be eligible for this relief, employers would have to: provide affordable health coverage to all their workers; demonstrate they will pass through savings of up to $1000 to workers; and encourage disease management to improve and hold down the cost of care.

Prescription drug assistance using the federal government's purchasing power to induce giant drug wholesalers to pass along to consumers the rebates they get from the drug manufacturers; getting more affordable generic drugs to the market, giving states the flexibility to negotiate better deals, and allowing people to buy quality drugs through Canada.

More, yes, there's more.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/healthcare/

[HFishbine]

16. Thanks for the answers

There's one thing I'm still not clear on, what happens to the people who cannot afford to enrol in the FEHBP? Tax credits only work if one pays enough in taxes to deduct health care costs. What about those wh are employed at or near minimum wage or under-employed, how do they get coverage with the Kerry plan?

Another aspect that seems a little less than satisfactory to me is the 75% tax deduction for people who lose their jobs so they can keep paying for health care. Many of us live paycheck to paycheck, how does a tax credit help someone who is laid off make their premium payment this month and next?

Trying not to be too critical, just wondering.

[blm]

18. You'll also be less likely to be laid off thanks to this health plan.

One of the problems for businesses, especially small businesses, is the rising cost of healthcare for their employees. By taking all catastrophic cases out of the equation (50,000.00 and up) EVERYONE else gets their premiums reduced by about 1000.00 per, and that means better prices for employers, too.

[HFishbine]

19. Clever

But doesn't answer my question.

[blm]

20. just adding a perspective

that should be factored in.

[sandnsea]

26. EITC

The EITC is refundable and can also be credited into your paycheck. This will be the same, where applicable. Also, in the small business plan and the catastrophic plan, the savings must be passed on to the employee to start with. Alot of these savings will occur regardless of any buy-in or other programs a person might qualify for. The rest of the basic structure is similar to Dean's, the biggest difference is you're getting federal health insurance instead of a Medicaid HMO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Kerry? Isn't he the guy who pretended to be a liberal and then

backed a rightwing republican president to invade Iraq for no reason?

Yeah, I remember him. I imagine the people of Mass. will soon elect a real Democrat to replace him as senator.

[oasis]

24. If you would take the time to read Dr. Funk's original message you

would possibly have a different opinion. That is unless your mind was already made up to post your negative comments.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. I did read the original message.

And stand by my "negative" comments. If you consider the truth "negative" - that's your problem.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. pretended to be a liberal?

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. That's right.

Unless you consider an aspect of "liberalism" voting to have people killed so you can wave the flag in order (mistakenly) to increase your chances to win the nomination.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. Senate was told Saddam could strike the U.S.

and again, Kerry voted for an international effort to inspect Iraq and make sure there were no weapons. IWR did not mean there had to be a war. And the bottom line is that ensuring America's security is the only way to ensure any future liberalism.

It's certainly interesting to see Kerry's vote cynically interpreted as something other than an honest effort to ensure the safety of Americans.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. And, 23 senators were able to see it was pure BS.

I remain unconvinced that Kerry, with his experience, was so easily duped. I can think of little, over the years, that has disappointed me so much as to see Kerry, a man I respected, so obviously sell out for political gain.

To believe, for more than a nano-second, that Iraq, whose inept armed forces were so easily destroyed in the Gulf War, a country that had been left impoverished by strictures imposed by the UN, posed a credible threat to the mightiest military power in history is laughable. Not only did 23 senators but millions of people worldwide see that this was to be a war meant to enhance the perception that Bush was a decisive leader.

This has since been proven correct. The "war" (if you can the contest between a 10th rate army and the military of the USA a "war"), has done nothing, zero, to improve the safety of America. In fact, by spurning the rest of the world, spending billions of dollars, wasting American lives, killing thousands of civilians, it has accomplished exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted. The Muslim world is now convinced that we are their enemy.

Kerry, to his disgrace, voted for this.

[cindyw]

30. I love people who misunderstand what the IWR was.

IWR was not a vote on whether to invade Iraq. You may accuse him of trusting the president to keep his word, but to say that Kerry ever supported the invasion is a pure lie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Kind of like saying that he trusted Bush to be "compassionate"

because he said he was. Despite the evidence to the contrary.

Give me a break. He and the other 3 collaborators damn well knew that Bush was going to invade Iraq and they signed on because they thought it would enhance their chances to be president. They lacked the backbone or the ethics to vote against the polls.

You can't possibly be that naive.

[oasis]

37. Please don't fret cindyw. Even the shallowest of anti-Kerry posts kick

this very important thread back to the top.

[absyntheNsugar]

39. No doubt Kerry would make a great president

I just think his campaign has some major achillies heels in it, and he really needs to explain in full detail his stance on the IWR.

I understand it but he's not putting out the message. Also changing managers midstream was a major mistake.

Wouldn't be surprised if he ran a stronger campaign next time around.