Daily Kos

 Elizabeth Edwards lacerates cancer survivor John McHypocrite

Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:18:47 AM PDT

As the corporate owned media sleeps, and sleeps with John McBush, great and fearless Americans like Elizabeth Edwards are left to do their work.  

Normally journalists point out hypocrisy especially when it comes from the lips of presidential candidates.  But not in 2008--at least not as it concerns their darling du jour, John McBush.

This is because the media is totally pre-occupied with Hillary's poor memory of events on the tarmack in Bosnia, and Reverend Wright's sermons. So Elizabeth Edwards--God bless her--is picking up the slack, and doing their work.

The sad wrestling match between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their surrogates is allowing lots of important things to fall through the cracks. As the warring camps square off against each other, the real enemy, Mr. McFourMoreYears, gets a free pass to waltz through the gardens of presidential deceit undisturbed and untouched.

Thankfully, we have intrepid warriors like Elizabeth Edwards, to call out and point out that Mr. McSame is a damn, fucking hypocrite lying bastard.

Mr. McFourMoreYears is also a cancer survivor who, if elected, would seek to deny the American people the healthare that's kept him alive.

And that's where this story gets interesting.

Last week, Elizabeth gave the keynote address to the   Association of Health Care Journalists, she had some choice words for Mr. McSame and his "healthcare plan".

She might have called her talk, It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid. But she didn't because she is far more gracious than I am.

Here's a snippet which I found on YouTube, unfortunately, it doesn't contain her remarks about McSame and his hypocrisy.

Here's an article from the Los Angeles Times on what Elizabeth said on the subject of healthcare for John McBush, members of Congress, etc. and healthcare for the rest of us.

McCain's health plan fails her test:

Neither Elizabeth Edwards, whose cancer is incurable, nor the presumptive Republican presidential nominee would be covered by his policy, she asserts.

Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, said she and John McCain have one thing in common: "Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy."

Edwards lodged her criticism of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's proposal Saturday at the annual meeting of the Assn. of Health Care Journalists.

Under McCain's plan, insurance companies "wouldn't have to cover preexisting conditions like melanoma and breast cancer," she said.

http://www.latimes.com/...

Let's focus for a moment on pre-existing conditions. Mr. McSame has government healthcare, his recurring melanoma is covered and treated thanks to the generosity of the taxpayers.  But the nonsense "plan" he is proposing if God forbid he were elected, allows insurers to continue to deny any of us with pre-exisiting conditions the healthcare which has kept him alive.

McCain's plan focuses on offering new tax breaks for individuals who buy their own health insurance. But critics say the Arizona senator's proposal avoids giving insurers requirements on whom they must cover and how much they may charge.

His plan would make it difficult for people with preexisting conditions, but who aren't covered by a government- or job-sponsored plan, to buy individual coverage, Edwards said.

Cancer survivors are routinely denied insurance when they try to purchase it as individuals, health experts say.

It's all so nauseating that I don't want to quote any more, but I do suggest you read the whole piece and what Elizabeth had to say about the man who may be the next president.

What follows might make you even more ill about our dismal possible future.

A just released study from The Harvard School of Public Health revealed that  most Republicans think the U.S. Health care system is the best in the world.

How's this for insanity?

Health: Election 2008, finds that Americans are generally split on the issue of whether the United States has the best health care system in the world (45% believe the U.S. has the best system; 39% believe other countries have better systems; 15% don't know or refused to answer) and that there is a significant divide along party lines.  Nearly seven-in-ten Republicans (68%) believe the U.S. health care system is the best in the world, compared to just three in ten (32%) Democrats and four in ten (40%) Independents who feel the same way.

The stakes couldn't be any higher.

I'll leave you with some food for thought, which I'm sure will aggravate many of you.

Yes, I agree, mandates are at best questionable--both plans are  flawed, and the only possible solution is single-payer.

That said, Elizabeth Edwards appears to favor the Clinton Health Plan.

She declined Saturday to make an endorsement in the presidential race. But Edwards said she favored Hillary Rodham Clinton's healthcare plan over Barack Obama's.

"Sen. Clinton's plan is a great plan" that closely resembles John Edwards' proposal, she said. Clinton's plan mandates that every American be insured. Elizabeth Edwards said only universal healthcare would resolve one of the problems plaguing the healthcare system -- its soaring cost.

http://www.latimes.com/...

Okay, have at it, but be respectful.  

Tags: health care, health insurance, 2008, 2008 elections, John McCain, Elizabeth Edwards, Association of Health care Journalists, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 391 comments

  •  I LOVE this woman! (286+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    GainesT1958, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, vicki, Marek, Peace JD, Buckeye BattleCry, SarahLee, jennybravo, skywaker9, Gooserock, MontanaMaven, mattman, bread and roses, anonyMoses, kpardue, eeff, elfling, gypsy, sobermom, lzachary, Matilda, grndrush, musicsleuth, catchawave, Vitarai, strengthANDwisdom, RubDMC, Christian Dem in NC, Mooncat, concernedamerican, 88kathy, parker parrot, elveta, nyceve, The 1n Only Leoni, KibbutzAmiad, CoolOnion, mkfarkus, vmibran, SingularExistence, JJG Miami Shores, mbair, Miss Blue, BruinKid, Mber, Jesterfox, rioduran, Southern Bell, high uintas, hopeful, jdmorg, Donald Drennon, dejavu, nancelot, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, Dallasdoc, mrkvica, wordene, MTgirl, TXsharon, Nina, churchylafemme, BMarshall, noveocanes, snakelass, AbsurdEyes, annetteboardman, lcrp, Chun Yang, barbwires, PerfectStormer, blonde moment, zerelda, side pocket, Silverbird, jre2k8, sweettp2063, bibble, Sassy, sawgrass727, Jersey Joe, Big Tex, rapala, madaprn, angrybird, chumley, maybeeso in michigan, historys mysteries, sandblaster, Tinfoil Hat, PAbluestater, bellevie, Mad Mom, Alice Venturi, JohnB47, TigerMom, volballplr, wildcat6, devadatta, ommzms, lennysfo, Pam from Calif, concerned, jimreyn, machka, Ice Blue, blue jersey mom, Joy Busey, babatunde, PinHole, janew2, Rydra Wrong, cerulean, shiobhan, Lisa Lockwood, oibme, LisainNYC, Spathiphyllum, Ekaterin, ZinZen, carlyle4, empathy, Brubs, Mother Mags, MsCasey, martini, trashablanca, Debbie in ME, The Sinistral, jsamuel, Fasaha, myboo, Themistoclea, Yellow Canary, bluebrain, Esjaydee, Naniboujou, 123frenchwine, dewey of the desert, TalkieToaster, StrayCat, A Siegel, Lashe, funluvn1, Native Light, real world chick, JVolvo, joe shikspack, mcmom, ER Doc, doingbusinessas, Dreaming of Better Days, Jbeaudill, nannyboz, Nulwee, sdgeek, Pandoras Box, eastmt, One Pissed Off Liberal, marykk, anotherdemocrat, Cronesense, Fredly, Loudoun County Dem, SharonColeman, godislove, ColoTim, threegoal, karmsy, Wino, LillithMc, lynmar, CTDemoFarmer, la urracca, Nespolo, kath25, david mizner, profmom, Thunder Dreamer, NCDem Amy, operculum, terabytes, CarmenC, joyful, drchelo, Rex Manning, dolphin777, jedennis, keenekarl, TheCorkBoard, Junglered1, jhop7, rogereaton, pioneer111, madgranny, ImpeachKingBushII, Korkenzieher, Predictor, Terra Mystica, Empower Ink, gizmo59, martydd, mconvente, Devsd, Scioto, condorcet, maconblue, swampus, flowerfarmer, TheFatLadySings, Youffraita, Rick Winrod, Archangel, alasmoses, bettync, Greasy Grant, Lujane, Haplogroup V, evora, Jake Williams, carver, Jeff Y, ankey, mofembot, temptxan, ClapClapSnap, WisCheez, TL Eclipse, LCA, Cobbler, pedmom, valsagem, mattc129, LaEscapee, waiting for hope, DixieDishrag, Dewey Kneadleeders, armenia, BYw, JeremiahFP, tsunami, BlueGenes, allie123, priceman, Quilldriver, Guadalupe59, marketgeek, goofygringirl, csaw, Pris from LA, artmartin, litoralis, snackdoodle, plumcrazie, emmabrody, BoiseBlue, rockwilder, Dopeman, DemocraticOz, Stranded Wind, sweeper, Namtrix, Valhalla, onourway, katz5, math monkey, jandress, desertlover, Fawkes, oak510, DClark4129, NomDeKos, obscuresportsquarterly, IngeniousGirl, Shelley99, synductive99, Munchkn, realwischeese, Katie71, myelinate, Livvy5, Emalene, Amber6541, sulthernao

    I wish SHE was in a position to run for public office!

    As always, thanks, Eve!

    "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

    by Melody Townsel on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:20:47 AM PDT

    •  So do I, Melody . . . (316+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wozzle, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, vicki, Marek, Peace JD, Buckeye BattleCry, SarahLee, Mountain Don, alisonk, ScientistMom in NY, mattman, bread and roses, anonyMoses, kpardue, maddercow, eeff, suswa, willyr, gypsy, sobermom, lzachary, Matilda, grndrush, musicsleuth, catchawave, Vitarai, RubDMC, maggiemae, bara, mrsdbrown1, missLotus, CoolOnion, vmibran, mbair, roses, dgb, Miss Blue, BruinKid, Mber, Jesterfox, rioduran, Southern Bell, high uintas, jdmorg, Donald Drennon, dejavu, Moody Loner, nancelot, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, Dallasdoc, mrkvica, MadLibrarian, wordene, MTgirl, TXsharon, Nina, desmoinesdem, churchylafemme, BMarshall, niteskolar, noveocanes, Catte Nappe, snakelass, AbsurdEyes, beachmom, lcrp, inclusiveheart, barbwires, PerfectStormer, blonde moment, zerelda, side pocket, Kitsap River, Marcus L Salyer, Josiah Bartlett, bibble, Sassy, sawgrass727, Big Tex, rapala, vcmvo2, madaprn, sarahlane, angrybird, chumley, maybeeso in michigan, historys mysteries, 3goldens, Tinfoil Hat, PAbluestater, bellevie, docangel, Heiuan, PBen, Alice Venturi, Flint, kamarvt, Melody Townsel, JohnB47, TigerMom, Brooke In Seattle, volballplr, wildcat6, devadatta, ommzms, lennysfo, Chaoslillith, Pam from Calif, concerned, jimreyn, machka, Ice Blue, blue jersey mom, Joy Busey, babatunde, cerulean, shiobhan, wiscmass, sodalis, Lisa Lockwood, bunsk, oibme, LisainNYC, Spathiphyllum, JanL, Ekaterin, ZinZen, carlyle4, empathy, psyched, Brubs, curiousted, Mother Mags, martini, occams hatchet, LeftOverAmerica, trashablanca, MissInformation, Debbie in ME, The Sinistral, jsamuel, Fasaha, myboo, Milly Watt, vigilant meerkat, Themistoclea, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, Truza, Esjaydee, Naniboujou, 123frenchwine, dewey of the desert, TalkieToaster, tecampbell, birdbrain64, aepm, StrayCat, A Siegel, Lashe, funluvn1, nilocjin, imabluemerkin, Native Light, real world chick, FireCrow, Caoimhin Laochdha, JVolvo, joe shikspack, NearlyNormal, mcmom, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, ER Doc, middleagedhousewife, SingerInTheChoir, zhimbo, doingbusinessas, kurt, katasstrophy, nannyboz, Statusquomustgo, Bernie68, illusionmajik, Nulwee, sdgeek, eastmt, Tamar, One Pissed Off Liberal, anotherdemocrat, Ken in MN, Cronesense, Fredly, SharonColeman, godislove, leema, Wide Awake in NJ, gloriana, moosely2006, karmsy, Wino, DvCM, LillithMc, CTDemoFarmer, la urracca, Nespolo, kath25, david mizner, profmom, Thunder Dreamer, NCDem Amy, operculum, terabytes, CarmenC, joyful, drchelo, dolphin777, jedennis, keenekarl, TheCorkBoard, mamafooce, jnhobbs, millwood, jhop7, rogereaton, pioneer111, slowheels, madgranny, ImpeachKingBushII, Korkenzieher, TexasTwister, Predictor, Neon Mama, Terra Mystica, Empower Ink, gizmo59, Theghostofkarlafayetucker, VA Breeze, sand805, jgilhousen, AJ WI, mconvente, Scioto, condorcet, swampus, flowerfarmer, TheFatLadySings, wayoutinthestix, zerone, geez53, Youffraita, Faheyman, skohayes, Rick Winrod, Archangel, alasmoses, Haplogroup V, carver, Jeff Y, ankey, mofembot, temptxan, noddem, ClapClapSnap, WisCheez, Cobbler, valsagem, luckylizard, LaEscapee, waiting for hope, DixieDishrag, Dewey Kneadleeders, armenia, BYw, dogheaven, priceman, Quilldriver, marketgeek, Scubaval, rhutcheson, Pris from LA, Bule Betawi, artmartin, Mr Tentacle, litoralis, snackdoodle, emmabrody, BoiseBlue, rockwilder, Dopeman, DemocraticOz, demer, Stranded Wind, sweeper, txdreamer, Valhalla, history geek, katz5, SciVo, Deltones, math monkey, jandress, desertlover, Fawkes, Daily Activist, allep10, IngeniousGirl, Shelley99, synductive99, Munchkn, myelinate, Emalene, Fernham, Amber6541

      And why is she the one, pointing out such flagrant and nauseating hypocrisy?

      •  This is a great way to frame McCain's plan (74+ / 0-)

        As a melanoma survivor myself, such a detail really catches my eye.  It is a fear for many people, even  those of us blessed with decent healthcare -- what if we are put into a situation where we need healthcare but are barred from coverage?  Now I am cured (I think McCain has recurrent melanoma), but it still is in the back of my mind.

        I respectfully disagree with the Edwardses on the healthcare plan.  Politics is the art of the possible, and Hillary's mandates are DOA in the U.S. Senate because we will need centrist Democrats and Republicans to get anything passed.  The mandates can be put in in the back end, but to start with mandates will be a nonstarter.

        John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

        by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If politics is the art of the (21+ / 0-)

          possible and mandates passed in MA, then why not go for it in a national proposal that addresses HC reform?

          I disagree that mandates should be left out of the plan. I live in MA and I'm particularly incensed that my state seems to be getting trashed in the press for the mandate because the mandate is not the problem. Funding the mandate is the problem in implementation.

          Employer based plans can't address overall cost for all of us if they lack a mandate. That's the truth. Mandates aren't there to cover everyone; they're necessary to put as many people into the system as possible in order to address cost for everyone.

          As far as framing which I think is a central point in this diary, our party has to offer a "we're all in this together" approach to UHC and reform. If we just go for an incrementally better system then our plan when compared to a McCain plan will not offer voters enough of a contrast to make the choice clear and compelling.

          Look at SS and Medicare. Signing up for the program is voluntary to be sure, but paying into the system is mandatory.

          •  Let's see how Mass. does for a time. (15+ / 0-)

            As I said, we can always add mandates later.  But I am telling you it will not pass with mandates.  It will be another failure for Hillary if she were to become president.  Many senators warned her the last time, areas where she needed to compromise and she refused, she ignored them, and surprise, surprise, it died.  If Kennedy and Kerry are saying mandates are a nonstarter, well, then, they are a nonstarter.  They wrote s-chip, and Teddy got R's to support it, so I guess I am going to believe them before other politicians who talk about it but actually haven't got anything passed.

            John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

            by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:18:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Kennedy's been working on health care (31+ / 0-)

              all his Congressional life and he is tremendously knowledgeable (and practical) about it.  It's one reason I admire him.  He never gives up even after having been defeated numerous times.  
              I heard him speak on national health care in 1975 at Yale University (I was in public health school).  He was talking to an audience made up mostly of medical students and was proposing a medical draft -- free medical education but you have to work it off by going where you're needed afterwards.  The students LOVED him!  And he answered questions on topics I knew enough about to know he really knew his stuff.

              If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

              by Tamar on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Don't know how many saw this . . . (20+ / 0-)

              I found it quite unconvincing and far from satisfactory, though a start. Still way, way too expensive and totally unaffordable for the vast majority of Americans.

              But I also think Obama's pledge to reduce health insurance premiums in the neighborhood of $2500 for families also woefully terrible and inadequate. This means individuals might see a reduction of what? $500.00 a year? No good, no good at all.

              Clinton Details Premium Cap in Health Plan

              Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview on Wednesday that if elected president she would push for a universal health care plan that would limit what Americans pay for health insurance to no more than 10 percent of their income, a significant reduction for some families.

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

            •  Forget it (11+ / 0-)

              MA is screwed for a few reasons. First, the failure of the S-CHIP expansion takes vital dollars away from our ability to subsidize enrollees that qualify. We need those federal dollars to implement the plan. The S-CHIP expansion is now off the table until at least January 2009. Second, I think that Obama is going to be our nominee and he'll be running against a mandate. That sets us in MA up for much more bad press. Third, MA has a structural problem in that we don't have the ability to offer a "Medicare for all" plan as an option available to everyone because we're not the federal government.

              Having said all of that, I urge bloggers to examine our efforts in this state honestly and not through a partisan Obama-Clinton lens.

              I strongly disagree that mandates can be added later. If our nominee, Obama, doesn't campaign on it then he'll lack the mandate necessary to put in a mandate. That's the truth.

              I didn't know that Kerry wrote S-CHIP. I was aware that Kennedy did. But again, if my senators didn't have a problem with the mandate in the state plan when it passed then I can only conclude that this discussion has now devolved into a partisan battle between the Obama-Clinton camps. That's not productive.

              I don't support Clinton for the nomination, not at all. I don't even think she should stay in the race at this point. It's time to go with what we got and heal the party, my opinion only. I criticize Obama's plan as a staunch Democrat who will work for our eventual nominee in the fall because I think it's the wrong position for my party in a general. I think an employer based plan without a mandate is not going to make the sale with voters in a general because it represents the worst framing possible for the reform we're going to have to do in the next administration.  

              •  Kerry & Kennedy wrote the precursor bill to schip (4+ / 0-)

                This 1997 NYT article about the history of schip is a must read

                Not long before last fall's elections, Mr. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, the junior Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, introduced a bill that proposed paying for health insurance for uninsured children through a tobacco tax, a law that was already in place in their state.

                Another useful fact is that there were no mandates in Kerry's healthcare plan in '04 -- I would say that overrides what Kerry deemed possible in one state, Massachusetts, which is far more liberal than the nation as a whole.  Make no mistake that Kerry's healthcare plan is the foundation to all of the Democratic presidential candidates this year so this goes far beyond partisan politics in the primaries but seeing his ideas move forward.

                I'm in Georgia.  Sometimes I think you guys in Mass. have to understand that huge swaths of the country are a million miles away from what your state government is doing.

                John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

                by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Kerry's healthcare plan got zero traction (4+ / 0-)

                  If Kerry's healthcare plan was a forerunner of the current candidates' plans, he did a poor job of explaining it. His principal proposal seemed to be for the Government to take over coverage of catastrophic health costs, thus removing a significant burden from insurers and presumably lowering costs. That's o.k. as far as it goes - but it's roughly the same approach Sen. Kennedy voted against when Nixon (actually Daniel Patrick Moynihan) proposed it decades earlier. The Nixon/Moynihan proposal was defeated as not going far enough - and we've never gotten anything nearly that good in all the intervening years. I read that one reason Kennedy decided to go along with Bush's imperfect Medicare drug plan was because of regrets over his role in killing the Nixon/Moynihan plan.

                  •  Excellent (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    historys mysteries

                    You're right here on Kennedy's opposition to the Nixon plan. I attended a screening of the Wal-Mart movie where Dukakis spoke and he said that the failure of the Nixon plan was a real tragedy in light of where we've gone since then. He said that the unions wanted the Truman plan which was single-payer Medicare for all type plan and Kennedy held fast to that position. He even went one step further and said that "this was the biggest mistake Kennedy ever made" and he'd probably admit that.

                    However, Watergate happened soon after the Nixon plan was introduced and the whole concept of UHC was shelved to the detriment of the country.

                    The Nixon plan was different in that it was an employer based solution. I know you know that, I'm just posting that last bit for any readers that don't have as good a level of knowledge as you do.

                    And the Kerry plan did include an expansion of Medicare for those 55 and up, but the proposals that we're seeing now from the Democrats are a quantum leap up from what we ran on in 2008.

                  •  Kerry's plan got little traction . . . (6+ / 0-)

                    because healthcare wasn't quite on the radar to the extent it is now.

                    Either healthcare reform happens now--in 2009 with a Democratic president, or it's gone for a generation.

                    •  Agree (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      suswa

                      Either healthcare reform happens now--in 2009 with a Democratic president, or it's gone for a generation.

                      We also need to recognize that Democrats must seize this agenda item as a top priority domestic issue in the general.

                    •  Hope you're wrong (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      phonegery, ElizabethRegina1558

                      because I think it might take more than just this election cycle to purge the media of the apologists for the GOP who will continue to screamingly condemn anything that makes any logical sense whatsoever (see, for example, their shrill claims that the "surge" is "working").

                      We need single-payer healthcare, and we need it now.  But the apologists for the Evil Ones (Shrubco&McCheney) will not admit defeat ever so this is a battle to be fought over a long time.  IMHO.

                      Our economy is a house of cards. Don't breathe.

                      by Youffraita on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:05:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Kerry's ideas did get some traction (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      beachmom, gettowork

                      In particular his idea of catastrophic insurance is one of the few ideas that have both conservative and liberal support. Here is an article from 2005 that spoke of how the big three auto workers wanted it implemented.

                      Last week, the chiefs of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler went to Washington to meet with the president, the vice president, and various administration officials about the auto industry's woes.

                      Among their complaints: The heavy healthcare costs they shoulder are hindering their ability to compete.

                      And what did they suggest by way of a solution? Something John Kerry proposed during his presidential campaign: a reinsurance arrangement to pay for chronic or catastrophic healthcare costs, thereby effectively taking those cases out of private health-insurance plans.

                      "One possibility they discussed conceptually was a pool to address the disproportionate costs associated with those who have chronic or serious illnesses," says Greg Martin, Washington spokesman for GM.
                      http://www.boston.com/...

                      To me, it is interesting that just looked at mathematically  - the concept of  catastrophic re-insurance could be a back door way to get to single payer. Consider that Kerry's plan had costs above $50,000 going there. Now if pulling off bills above $50,000 and covering them from the re-insurance plan substantially lowers the total cost, wouldn't the next step be to lower the limit to again decrease total costs? (I never saw this mentioned, but it seems obvious.)

                  •  How could it get traction amidst terror alerts? (7+ / 0-)

                    I still remember him trying to talk about it, and being cut off or edited.  Not just healthcare, I may add -- also his talk about the environment and Energy Independence.  Completely ignored!!

                    I don't mean to be a jerk, but where were you in 2004?  Kerry barely EVER got to get through on the issues!  He was either being attacked with lies or ridicule or the Bush campaign was yelling, "vote for us or you will die!"  Exactly when was there time to talk about healthcare?

                    Oh, and how many times have you heard Hillary or Obama talk about how their plan is modeled after what members of Congress get?  Gee ..... does that sound familiar.

                    I'll just let Kerry's Senior Aide David Wade do the talking:

                    Kerry’s Policy Proposals

                    Published: February 9, 2008

                    To the Editor:

                    Re "The Edwards Effect" (column, Feb. 1):

                    Paul Krugman ridicules John Kerry’s 2004 campaign as "cautious" and "without strong, distinctive policy ideas."

                    Talk about a flip-flop that would even make Mitt Romney jealous: Mr. Krugman suggests that Mr. Kerry’s policies weren’t distinctive, but in 2004 when writing about health care policy he said, "The difference [from Bush] couldn’t be starker." He wasn’t alone: Joe Klein of Time magazine called Mr. Kerry’s health care reinsurance plan the first new big idea of the campaign season.

                    The ripples of Mr. Kerry’s policy innovations can be seen across the Democratic field. Indeed this newspaper reported that "the Obama campaign revives an idea advanced by the Kerry campaign — using the federal government to cushion employers from sudden, disastrous spikes in health expenditures, by reimbursing health plans for the cost of catastrophic illnesses among their employees" (front page, May 30, 2007).

                    Every time candidates talk about a "Manhattan Project" for alternative energy, service for college plans or ending tax subsidies that encourage shipping jobs overseas, they echo principles that Mr. Kerry campaigned on in 2004.

                    How is it that so many of the same policies Mr. Krugman found "cautious" in 2004 have become "bold" in 2008?

                    David Wade
                    Washington, Feb. 1, 2008

                    The writer was national press secretary for Kerry-Edwards 2004.

                    When are people going to GET that John Kerry was a pioneer, and the reason why there are few policy differences between Hillary and Obama is because they took his excellent ideas from 2004 and his Iraq plan in 2006, tweaked them a bit, and ran on them!

                    John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

                    by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:19:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  No traction because THE COMPLICIT MEDIA wouldn't (4+ / 0-)

                    allow it to gain traction.

                    Sorry to sound cranky, but it's really a ridiculous statement given how all of us know how the media hides everything that the Democrats do that is RIGHT!

                  •  That is incorrect about Kerry's Plan (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    karenc, beachmom, gettowork

                    Reimbursement of catastrophic claims was only one part of Kerry's plan.  One aspect of the government reinsurance program was that it was a means to give employers incentives to participate in the plan in exchange for being spared the expense of the most expensive claims. In return employers would be required to provide coverage to all employees and participate in disease management programs.

                    There were many additional components, including opening the Federal Employees Health Bene­fits Program to all, tax benefits to enable more to afford coverage, improved use of technology and disease management programs to cut costs,  and expanding current government programs.

                    It is also not true that it received zero traction. There were numerous articles on the benefits of the plan throughout the race for those who cared to go beyond the media's typical horse race coverage.

                    National Journal compared the plans of all the candidates running in 2003. Kerry's plan was ranked the best by a panel of health care experts.

                    •  But what did Kerry communicate to the electorate? (0+ / 0-)

                      I listened to Kerry's speech about his health care plan, and catastrophic coverage was all I took away from it - inattention on my part, I'm sure. But I felt then that Kerry's plan was too complicated by half, and his speaking style did little to streamline it for the non-expert listener. Some one like Barack Obama has the ability to sell a plan that Kerry lacked - but I am a cynic about whether health care is Obama's issue. Because of Elizabeth, Edwards really cares about health care - in a way that he did not in 2004. Because of her history, Clinton also cares; she would like a chance at redemption. Obama? If he is elected, I hope he'll prove me wrong and put health care near the top of his agenda. It goes without saying that McCain would do nothing (well, melanoma research might get a boost in funding if McCain could figure out a way to keep it from looking like a Presidential earmark).

                      •  Why not give Kerry and Obama the credit you (0+ / 0-)

                        give Edwards. Kerry had prostrate cancer and Obama's mother died of Ovarian cancer. That's as personal as Edwards' connection. Both Kerry and Obama, unlike Edwards, also worked on healthcare earlier in their legislative careers - Obama in the Illinois Senate and Kerry with Kennedy on the precursor bill to S-CHIP. Obama was praised in Illinois for bringing everyone to the table and getting a plan that could be passed.

                        I assume that what you heard from Kerry was a very short version of the long speech he had on healthcare - he added summaries of all his plans to his stump speech. Giving all in detail every day would have made for extremely long speeches. His 2006 Faneuil Hall speech -still on his web site is an updated version of it.

                        Kerry actually communicates extremely well - in interviews and in the debates - which he won hands down. He is actually better here than Obama. On speeches, Obama is incredibly eloquent - but Kerry could be incredibly eloquent as well. Watch the Faneuil Hall speech on Real Security or Dissent - or even the one on the economy. He is after all the man, who had stunned the country with his eloquence, morality and intelligence as a 27 year old man.

                  •  Kerry's Healthcare plan was called the best of (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    gettowork, ElizabethRegina1558

                    the 2004 plans and it did get good reviews. The 2004 election turned on National Security and a traumatized nation chose fear over hope. I heard Kerry's 2004 speech on CSPAN and it was very good.

                    In fact, in 2004, John Edwards, who had a plan for children only, said in one of the last debates in late February 2004 that Kerry's plan was too expensive and couldn't be afforded.

                •  I think it would be useful (3+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  jdld, BMarshall, priceman

                  for you to stop labeling MA a far left wing state " "a million miles away" from mainstream America on this issue especially since a majority in this country now favor single-payer and guaranteed health care for all its citizens. I am sick of people characterizing my state as a bunch of looney communists especially since I live in a state which has just ended 16 years of Republican rule from the governor's office.

                  Introducing a bill is not the same as writing it as you claimed in your original post. So take your own advice and read the "must read":

                  Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was the major political driving force behind the effort, along with Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, whom he enlisted in early January.

                  You're post is an anti-Clinton argument and I have no problem with you criticizing her plan but I'm not posting from a pro-Clinton perspective. I'm arguing for my state's efforts to address cost by requiring that everyone get coverage. The reason that our law has a mandate is because it's necessary for an employer based system. We're not just out of touch crazy liberals up here that don't reflect where the rest of the country is at on this issue. Deal with it.

                  Again, I'm not posting from a pro-Clinton perspective here. I do not support her candidacy and I think the time is now for her to leave the race. But it's not fair that my state is getting trashed for our efforts by partisans because Obama chose to omit the mandate in his plan.

                  As to you're advice on making no mistakes, that's just absurd and it's not true either.  

                  •  Oh, please, chill out. I would put it this way: (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    karenc, ElizabethRegina1558

                    Mass. is normal, and Georgia is borderline fascist (hyperbole).  I would love universal health care but a lot of people I talk to (and in my previous home, Virginia) don't want it.  They hate the government and want less government.  They have completely bought into the conservative frame.  Some of them vote Democratic on occasion, so it is not always a partisan thing.  But huge swaths of the country are not where Mass. is at.  And what I am saying is for you to accept reality that Mass. is way ahead of the nation.

                    I mean, my representative, who is a doctor, voted against s-chip, and both of my senators, too!  The best scenario for my district is that my rep. can lose in a primary, and we'll get a more moderate Republican.  There will not be a Democrat in my district, well, probably not in my lifetime.  And you are talking about mandates for universal health care!  Do you see the great chasm there?

                    This is why I defend Ted Kennedy when he says:  look, this is what is possible in the Senate.  My Mom's family came from Mass.  I love Boston, I lived in CT 1/2 mile from the Mass. border.  I'm not against the values of Mass. except when you guys scream -- hey, those spineless senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are "surrendering" on UHC.  Well, guess what?  There are 100 senators from all over the country and not everyone is where Mass. is at, and they all get a vote.  You need to accept this.

                    John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

                    by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:35:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Retrench and continue to defame (0+ / 0-)

                      While you instruct me on how precisely to respond. Nice.

                      That people may or may not have bought into the Republican frame on government is exactly why it is essential that we get HC reform right. It's an opportunity to prove to people that we can get the big things right. Besides which, an employer based system is not big government, far from it.

                      You claimed in your post that most people in this country a million miles away from where we are in MA, yet public opinion polls do not support that assertion.

                      I never claimed that Kennedy and Kerry are spineless or surrendering on HC and I certainly didn't scream it. I merely stated that there was no opposition to the state mandate at the time the law passed. Based on this and the endorsement of Obama, I concluded that their comments are purely partisan at this point. So take your own advice and chill out on slurring my state and our mandate for partisan, Obama-Clinton, reasons.

                      There are 100 senators from all over the country and not everyone is where Mass. is at, and they all get a vote.  You need to accept this.

                      Yet public opinion polls indicate that people in this country want guaranteed comprehensive health care for all Americans. That's for people represented by the other 98 senators in DC too. You need to accept those facts.

                      I mean, my representative, who is a doctor, voted against s-chip, and both of my senators, too!  The best scenario for my district is that my rep. can lose in a primary, and we'll get a more moderate Republican.  There will not be a Democrat in my district, well, probably not in my lifetime.  And you are talking about mandates for universal health care!  Do you see the great chasm there?

                      No I don't see the problem there. If you live in a reliably R district with no Democratic party to speak off then I agree, I don't think your district is going to vote for a Democrat, but places like where you live are not going to be the battlegrounds in Nov. It just seems to me that with this comment you're arguing for a middle of the road approach to HC reform because it might induce a district like yours to vote for a Democrat which you yourself write would never happen. Can you see the problem with that logic?

                      •  Opinion polls (2+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        karenc, ElizabethRegina1558

                        I bet you that if you parsed those opinion polls you would find a lot of loopholes, where people will say they're for UHC until you say -- well, that means garnishing your wages; then, suddenly, they're not so sure.  The truth is people don't think about this in detail the way we do.  We already know what games will be played on this, and we also know that elected officials are often way behind their constituents and get away with it for many election cycles.  It seems you are for mandates & think they will pass, when I am skeptical of them having a chance in passing, for which Kennedy & Kerry concur, and I am equally unsure if they are a good idea.  I am skeptical that a plan in Mass. can be duplicated on a national level because they are in a different place politically and ideologically than the red/purple states.  I think that's where we will have to leave this argument.  Have a good evening.

                        John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

                        by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Then why even (0+ / 0-)

                          propose anything if you're not going to fund it?

                          I bet you that if you parsed those opinion polls you would find a lot of loopholes, where people will say they're for UHC until you say -- well, that means garnishing your wages; then, suddenly, they're not so sure.

                          That's an assertion on your part. It seems to me like you're arguing for followship in this thread and not leadership on the top domestic priority in this cycle. I would never advise a candidate to just follow polling when determining policy. And in this case it couldn't be more vital that our party present to voters a clear, stark, credible case for doing HC reform together as a country. That means single-payer or mandate coverage in an employer based system.

                          I also don't like the fact that you're using right wing language here to make your point as far as "garnishing wages" goes. You pay a penalty if you choose to opt out. That's the way I hope we would all describe the mandate.

                          True, it sucks that people have to pay a penalty if they can't afford a plan, but again that's due to lack of properly funding a mandate. If you don't choose to enforce the mandate by assessing a fine, then the mandate will not be effective.

                        •  Overwhelmingly (0+ / 0-)

                          the working poor who I have spoken to on the issue in this former GM town in IN (IN-6) is that we would take a garnishment off our checks of one or two percent, even five percent, if it meant we'd never have to lose twenty-five percent to a garnishment ordered by a court because we couldn't pay a ten thousand dollar ER bill.

                          We'd pay it if it meant when we felt a little off and not right we could go see someone. When a tooth starts to hurt. When we pull or strain something. When someone gets depressed or is having rage attacks.

                          If we could pay like that, and know we had medical, vision, dental, mental health, and prescriptions that weren't bankrupting in price... We'd pay, we'd pay gladly. They can take a day's pay every month for it. Please.

                          Make it so we won't die young, so that we can work, so we can contribute. Please.

                  •  Oh, and I said it was the precursor bill (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    karenc

                    This is how it works in the Senate.  It needed to be made bipartisan so Kerry's name was dropped.  But if he did much of the groundwork, do you not think he should get some of the credit, at least amongst us bloggers who care to take the time to find out from the congressional record and the NYT archives?  Kerry did not run on s-chip because his name was dropped from the bill, and the bill changed during the course of compromise (but the basic ideas of it remained the same including it being funded by tobacco tax), and he was ridiculed for "doing nothing in the Senate".  Well, he did a lot, but as the good Democratic soldier and junior senator from Mass. he deferred to Kennedy to make sure children got health care.  He put his ego aside, and then the bill became bipartisan and had a chance of passing.  So in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, you have to admit that he did a hell of a lot of work on the issue in return for no credit.  I wish we had more public servants like him, honestly, toiling with no glory at the end of the work.  Just the satisfaction that some children will be able to go to the doctor when they're sick.

                    John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

                    by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:47:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your link (0+ / 0-)

                      does not support your assertion. That is all. I resent the fact that you're implying that I'm accusing Kerry of "doing nothing in the senate" because that is not accurate.

                      •  The Right said he did nothing in the Senate (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        karenc

                        And my link did support what I said -- do you know what the word "precursor" means?  The main ideas of the final bill came from the original bill authored by Kennedy & Kerry.  Documented as part of the story of how schip came into being in the NYT.  But apparently being "right" is more important to you than the truth.  

                        John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

                        by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Her link actually does give the timeline (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        gettowork

                        of the Kerry/Kennedy bill and SCHIP. Here are Kerry's  and Kennedy's introduction speeches in the Senate record - the big changes made to get hatch on board was to give the money to states as block grants to allow each state to design their program and to change it from being an entitlement.

                        Kerry/ Kennedy bill

                        STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - October 01, 1996)

                        THE HEALTHY CHILDREN FAMILY ASSISTANCE HEALTH INSURANCE ACT
                        Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation today, joined by my friend, colleague, and esteemed senior Senator, Ted Kennedy, to help ensure that the 10 million uninsured children in this country get the health care they need and their parents get the peace of mind they deserve.
                        Mr. President, the fact is that most of these 10 million uninsured children have parents who work--90 percent of these uninsured children have parents who work, according to the General Accounting Office [GAO]. And three out of five of these children have parents who work fulltime during the entire year.
                        Unfortunately, the problem of uninsured children is getting worse, not better--each year, more than 1 million additional children lose private insurance. No parent should have to choose between medicine for a sick child and food for the family. The thought of a mother and father, working hard to make ends meet, waking up in the middle of the night with a child in pain, and waiting to see if the pain passes because they cannot afford to go to the hospital, is a stark image of a national tragedy. Mr. President, American children without health care are alone in the world--we are the only Western industrialized nation that does not provide health care for every child.
                        I am proposing today with Senator Kennedy a voluntary subsidy program to help working families to purchase private health insurance for their children . Only families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid would be eligible to receive these vouchers. Participation in the voucher program would be voluntary. The premium subsidy would be provided on a sliding scale with families earning 185 percent or less of the poverty line receiving the full subsidy; the subsidy would phase down so that families earning more than 300 percent of the poverty line would not receive a subsidy. Cost-sharing would be limited but everyone would pay something. The proposal includes a comprehensive benefits package with a full range of the essential services needed by children . The total cost of the plan is $24 billion over 5 years and is paid for by a combination of cuts in corporate welfare and a tobacco tax increase. Although it is apparent there is no chance the plan will be enacted this year, with Congress now in its final hour before adjourning prior to the election, we are introducing it as a bill today because we want to place this issue prominently on the national agenda during the next few months preceding convening of the 105th Congress.
                        Mr. President, I want to discuss 2 of the 10 million compelling reasons to provide basic health insurance to children who are not covered now.
                        One of the first reasons is a 13-year-old student in Lynn, MA, named Costa Billias. He played football at Breed Junior High and loved the game, but said, `For the past 2 years I gave my best to football, but my mom explained that we were not insured and if I got hurt we would lose our house and everything we own to pay the hospital.' He quit the team, but he cannot
                        quit life. If he gets hurt doing something else, his family still stands to lose everything. In addition, I think it is wrong that Costa Billias is being denied the opportunity to play football again.
                        One more of the 10 million reasons we must pass this bill is the Pierce family. Jim and Sylvia Pierce were married in 1980 and live in Everett, MA. Jim was a plumber and they had three children , Leonard, Brianna, and Alyssa. In October 1993, Sylvia was pregnant with her fourth child when Jim was tragically killed on his way home from the store. In that one horrible minute her life changed forever. She not only lost her husband, but, pregnant and alone, she lost her health insurance as well. Her survivor's benefits made her income too high to qualify for long-term Medicaid, and too low to pay the $400 a month it would take to extend her husband's health plan. Sylvia said, `I've always taken good care of my children . I feed them well; I take them to the doctors immediately when they need it. All of a sudden I couldn't do that anymore.
                        Mr. President, in addition to the moral imperative, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that lack of health coverage is bad for children , delaying medical care or making it impossible to get. A recent study in JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association] found that children with health coverage gaps were more likely to lack a continuing and regular source of health care --even when factors such as family income, chronic illness, and family mobility were factored out. Numerous studies by university researchers and by government agencies show that the uninsured are less likely to receive preventive care (such as immunizations for children ), more likely to go to emergency rooms for their care , more likely to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided with proper preventive care , and more likely to have longer hospital stays than individuals with health insurance coverage.
                        Mr. President, every hour we wait to take this step, another 114 children lose private health insurance. Every 30 seconds we wait, another child loses private health insurance. America's children cannot wait any longer. Families without insurance are forced to pay the full cost of medical services--an impossible burden for struggling families, one that often takes a back seat to putting food on the table and a roof over the children's heads.
                        Mr. President, this plan is an important, incremental step toward guaranteeing health coverage for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.
                        Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator John Kerry in introducing this visionary and practical program. Senator Kerry has been a consistent leader in the Senate in fighting for children , for health care , and for working families. This initiative sets a benchmark for the next Congress and the American people. It is a proposal that is a reflection of true family values.
                        Every American child deserves a healthy start in life, but too many don't receive it. Seventeen industrialized countries do better at preventing infant mortality than we do. A quarter of American children do not receive basic childhood vaccines. Every day, 636 babies are born to mothers who receive inadequate prenatal care , 56 babies die before they are a month old, and 110 babies die before they are a year old.
                        Access to affordable health care is one of the greatest problems children face. Ten-and-a-half million children under the age of 19 have no health insurance--one in every seven American children . If it were not for the expansions of Medicaid over the past 5 years, the number would be seven million higher. Under Republican proposals to cut Medicaid, four million children would lose their coverage. Employer-based insurance coverage is eroding. Too many pregnant women--more than 400,000 a year--are uninsured, and lack access to critical prenatal care .
                        Almost all uninsured children are members of working families. Their parents work hard--40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. But all their hard work does not buy their children the protection they deserve. Every family should have the right to health security for their children . No parents should fear that the loss of a job or their employer's failure to provide coverage will put their children out of reach of the health care they need.
                        Health insurance coverage for every child is a needed step in the fight to guarantee health care for every family. The cost is affordable. The benefits are great. The opportunities for bipartisanship are substantial.
                        The legislation we are introducing today is a simple, practical proposal. It imposes no new government mandates on the States or the private sector. It does not substitute for family responsibility. It fosters it, instead, by assuring that every family has the help it needs to purchase affordable health insurance for their children .
                        Our plan will establish no massive new Federal bureaucracy. Basic guidelines and financing would come from the Federal Government, but the plan would be implemented and administered by States.
                        The program will make a major difference in the lives of millions of families, but its basic principles are not novel or untested. Fourteen States already have similar programs in place and running. Earlier their year, for example, Massachusetts enacted a program very similar to our proposal.
                        Under our plan, the Federal Government will assist all families with incomes under 300 percent of poverty to purchase health insurance for their children , if they do not already receive coverage under an existing public program. Families with incomes under 185 percent of poverty will receive a full subsidy. Families with incomes between 185 percent of and 300 percent of poverty will receive assistance on a sliding scale. Between 80 and 90 percent of all uninsured children live in families with incomes below 300 percent of poverty. Even uninsured families with higher incomes might buy coverage for their children if policies designed for children were available. Families with income under 150 percent of poverty will also receive assistance with the cost of copayments and deductibles. Similar assistance will be provided to uninsured pregnant women.
                        The program will be administered by States under Federal guidelines. In general, States will contract with private insurance companies to offer children's coverage to any family that wants it. Lower income families will receive assistance with the cost of coverage, but coverage will be available to all families at all income levels. Basic rules will guarantee that coverage is adequate and tailored to the special needs of children , especially the need for comprehensive preventive care .
                        This plan does not guarantee that every child will have insurance coverage, but it gives the opportunity to every family to cover their children at a cost the family can probably afford. It will be a giant step toward the day when every member of every American family has true health security.
                        The cost of a similar program has been estimated at $24 billion over 5 years. We propose to finance our plan by a combination of tobacco tax increases and closing corporate tax loopholes. The Nation currently spends close to $1 trillion per year on health care . The additional cost of this proposal is substantial, but it is a needed step toward healthier lives for millions of American children and peace of mind for their parents.
                        In this Congress, we made substantial progress toward improving the health care system. We turned back extreme proposals to slash Medicare and Medicaid. Working together in a bipartisan way, we were able to pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act, take a significant first step toward mental health parity, and protect mothers and infants from premature discharge from the hospital. Every Democratic and Republican health plan in the previous Congress endorsed the idea of subsidizing private insurance coverage for children . This proposal should be a bipartisan health priority for the next Congress. I believe it is an idea whose time has finally come.

                    •  And thank you (0+ / 0-)

                      for letting me know how things work in the senate. I appreciate that.

                      •  Thanks for being a jerk. Good night. nt (0+ / 0-)

                        John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

                        by beachmom on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're very welcome (0+ / 0-)

                          Listen, I've tried to engage you on not trashing my state unfairly for partisan reasons. If that's being a jerk then I'm glad for it. I think it's important, obviously, that my state not get slurred for our efforts at HC reform. There's plenty of problems that we have in getting to the finish line as I wrote elsewhere in response to one of your posts. One of the biggest problems we have is that we're going to have a nominee without a mandate in the HC reform policy put forth by the party.

                  •  In 2004, Senator Kennedy refered to Kerry writing (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    gettowork

                    the precursor bill with him in 1996. In the Senate record it is Kerry who introduces the bill for himself and Kennedy - both highly praising each other.

                    Here is how Kennedy started his speech:
                    "Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator John Kerry in introducing this visionary and practical program. Senator Kerry has been a consistent leader in the Senate in fighting for children , for health care , and for working families. This initiative sets a benchmark for the next Congress and the American people. It is a proposal that is a reflection of true family values. "

              •  The comments on mandates were there in Kerry's ow (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                gettowork

                2006 Faneuil hall speech. That speech was designed to be his healthcare plan in 2008. He tweaked the 2004 plan that he had. He addressed the issue of mandates. He did not think it possible to start with a mandate, but concluded that ultimately you needed Mandates to truly meet the commitment of Universal health insurance.

                Here's a link to a transcript of the speech:

                http://www.johnkerry.com/...

                Here is the reference to mandating insurance which he suggested happen for all by 2012 and for kids, earlier.

                "Experts--some of them here today--believe that my plan will provide coverage for all Americans by 2012. But if we're not there by 2012, we will require that all Americans have health insurance, with the federal government guaranteeing they have the means to afford it."

                I think it diminishes the effort that Senator Kerry put into his 2004 and 2008 plans to refer to his comments as "partisan". He is a great supporter for Obama, but I have not heard him say anything while speaking for Obama that differs from what he has said for the last several years.

                •  Then we agree (0+ / 0-)

                  Totally:

                  ultimately you needed Mandates to truly meet the commitment of Universal health insurance.

                  And I understand your point here too:

                  I think it diminishes the effort that Senator Kerry put into his 2004 and 2008 plans to refer to his comments as "partisan". He is a great supporter for Obama, but I have not heard him say anything while speaking for Obama that differs from what he has said for the last several years.

                  But I'm sick and tired of my state and our mandate getting trashed by partisans because our eventual nominee, Obama, omitted one from his plan.

                  And it is true that Kennedy and Kerry did not oppose the mandate when we passed it up here. Right?

                  •  I would never trash your state (0+ / 0-)

                    I love visiting it and I have a daughter in college there - who loves it as well.

                    I rewatched the Kerry comments on healthcare and mandates from this Sunday's This Week - that is on
                    http://www.kerryvision.net/...
                    The comments are at 11:20 on the timer - so you don't have to watch the whole thing.

                    He is 100% consistent with his own plan from 2006 - saying that you can't get the Republicans in if you start with a mandate up front - but still mentioning that it might ultimately be needed. His argument against mandates is that they won't be able to gain support.

                    •  Sorry I didn't respond to your other (0+ / 0-)

                      comments in this thread. I bailed last night around 10. And I very much appreciate you sticking up for Kerry here and teaching me a few things. But most of my comments here are all about trying to stick up for my state and our law in a partisan season. I don't support Hillary for the nomination at all. Really. No Way on Hillary for me.

                      I still hope that Obama will change his plan and we will run on a mandated health care plan because I disagree with Kerry that you should start out easy to garner support and then re-evaluate in the next cycle. I want to see the party make the argument for covering every single person in this country to voters. I think that if we get a hinkey flawed system to begin with then it'll be harder to ask voters the next time around to trust us to fix a mess that we created. We need a bold plan and a clear, concise choice at the ballot.

                      Furthermore, if we run with the mandate and win then that can serve to persuade the Congress to follow the president's lead. Though compromises will and perhaps should be made is the second act of this play. The first act is proposing the plan and winning. I don't subscribe to the theory that capitulation is the way to govern from the Oval Office or run a presidential campaign in this cycle. In the senate, okay, but not in the top spot.

                      The country is ripe for change. I hope that our party seizes this agenda item and leads us to health care reform that covers everyone in this country. I don't know how many people will get left out of an employer based system that allows one to opt out, but it's got to be far greater than one with an enforced mandate.

                      •  I liked the fact that it was an argument over (0+ / 0-)

                        issues. I doubt Kerry would have included Kennedy in his comment unless they had spoken about mandates. I do trust that they - especially Kennedy - have a pretty good idea of what will pass. What they may be similar to comments that the plan that Senator Bradley had bipartisan support on in the 1990s was rejected by the Clintons as not good enough, so we ended with nothing until S-CHIP was passed.

                        I am impressed that Obama had the honesty to limit his plan to what was likely to pass. The key might be the answer to the question in one of the last debates - which was what happens when a person who opted not to get insurance needs medical help. The buy in has to be possible, but it has to be high enough that it gives people pause before they opt to essentially self insure (until something really bad happens). This is really the parallel question to the one HRC got on how would you force mandates.

                        As to sticking up for your Senator, all I can say is that my vote in 2004 for President was for the person I thought could have been the best President I was likely to ever have the chance to vote for.

                        •  Listen (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          karenc

                          In MA, everyone said the bill is dead with a mandate. "It can never pass like this." Yet it did and in the end it wasn't even close. I think 2 or 3 people voted against it, not sure.

                          Apart from the fact that we can all agree, Kerry too, that mandates are the way to get the most people covered which should be the goal of UHC reform, how do you like the framing "covers a lot more people" as opposed to "covers every single American?"

                          I too think Obama is being honest about his plan, but with the kind of army that he's put together through his donor base this tactical decision is particularly reprehensible. I mean, c'mon. He's inspired a nation. He has our attention and he draws tens of thousands to his rallies. I think that it's his responsibility to lead on this issue and not accept defeat before he even begins to fight. But that's just my take.

            •  Will not pass? You assume that the (6+ / 0-)

              dynamics aren't going to change with this election.  I think we are going to have a totally different House and Seante, not to mention WH.   I think there is going to be a huge change in the dynamics, and I don't understand why you would recommend we surrender before we even get there.   This is not how negotiations work.  

              ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

              by dkmich on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Surrender"? I don't know if I myself like the (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                karenc

                idea of a mandate.  Having my wages garnished to put into the hands of a large corporation?  Yet, liberal