Kerry Asks Bush for Monthly Debates Until Election Day New York Times
QUINCY, Ill., March 13 — Senator John Kerry came here to the site of one of the legendary Lincoln-Douglas debates on Saturday to repeat his call for President Bush to engage him in monthly one-on-ones from now until Election Day, saying, "Americans shouldn't have to put up with eight months of sniping."
"We confront big issues — as big as any issues in the history of our nation — and they call for a new and historic commitment to a real and informed exchange of ideas," said Mr. Kerry, the four-term Massachusetts Democrat who has all but locked up his party's presidential nomination. "I believe the American people are hungry for a genuine conversation about the fundamental questions before us, and they are ready to begin this now."
Mr. Kerry declared: "Surely, if the attack ads can start now, at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America's future."
posted on March 14, 2004 10:10:40 AM new
Linda, you are quoting what Republicans are claiming Kerry's plans will cost, not what he has proposed. Do a google yourself.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 14, 2004 11:27:35 AM new
bunni - Brushing me off just like that rather than showing me where kerry says his national health care program is going to cost less than $89Billion a year....only ONE of his spending proposals?
I've given many non-partisan groups evaluation on this cost. And you say they're republican numbers? Okay....I don't believe that but can't you at least point me in the direction of where I can read kerry's own projected cost of this program?
There seems to be a large consensus on approx. 20 google links I've reviewed, that this program alone will cost the $900BILLION dollars in 10 years.
Here's another one from a think tank.
[taken from Charleston.Net > Business]
[i]Coming at a time when deficits are running high, the cost of the plan is a fraction of what Democrats are pushing: $89 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based, nonpartisan, health-care think-tank.
Also are you saying John Edwards statement about kerry's proposals are republican numbers? Because he also said kerry's proposals would drive this country into even higher deficits. Was he taking the republican side on this issue?
Are all those sites taking the republicans numbers when they're arrived at this yearly cost?
posted on March 14, 2004 12:30:48 PM new$900BILLION dollars in 10 years.
It would be money well spent. We spent far more on the Cold War, and the space programs.
Curious that conservatives think it is OK to run up a deficit and spend billions on Iraq, but it it too expensive to spend money on health care.
The irony is amazing. Consrvatives posit that the government is incompetent to do anything, except when it is spending billions in Iraq to enrich political friends, or cut taxes to enrich wealthy political friends.
It was reported last week that the Walton family received more in tax reductions from Bush THAN EVERY EMPLOYEE THAT WORKS FOR WAL-MART COMBINED !!!And Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the US.
Is it any wonder the middle class is being decimated ?
Anyone who works for a living and votes for Bush desrves to lose their job.
posted on March 14, 2004 02:37:51 PM new
Wow, that's some comedown--89 Billion over 10 years from 900 Billion.
Let's see: 89 Billion over 10 years is 8.9 billion per year for health services. Or using your original figure, at 900 Billion that would work out to 90 billion per year.
Linda, have you everlooked at Bush's health budget?
"The HHS fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget furthers the goals of President Bush's initiatives to ensure the health, well-being and safety of our Nation. The FY 2005 budget totals $580 billion in outlays, an increase of $32 billion, or 5.8 percent, over the comparable FY 2004 budget. The discretionary portion of the HHS budget totals $67 billion in budget authority, an increase of 1.2 percent over the FY 2004 level."
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 14, 2004 06:40:44 PM new
Too right. You can bet that, if people start speaking up & pointing out just how much Bush is spending for the same thing, that Bush & Co. will turn around and start saying "look how little Kerry wants to spend on this--he doesn't care about you!"
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 14, 2004 08:39:40 PM new
taken from Slate.com
2. Expand public and private health insurance. Kerry would automatically enroll any uninsured child with a household income up to 300 percent of the poverty level in the State Children's Health Insurance Program upon entering school. To help states afford this, the federal government would pick up the cost of all 20 million children covered by Medicaid. Kerry would let any company or individual buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He would add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare while loosening restrictions on making cheaper generic drugs. One distinctive feature of Kerry's plan is a "rebate pool" through which the federal government would reimburse each employee health plan for 75 percent of all costs that exceeded $50,000 for a single individual.
This promise would sharply cut each insurer's risk and alleviate its need to raise premiums. Kerry estimates the plan's cost at $72 billion per year for the first five years. To pay for it, he would repeal some of the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts.
-----------
posted on March 14, 2004 09:28:13 PM new
WOW! first down to 89 billion from 900 billion, and now down to 72 billion! And over 5 years, that's 14.4 billion per year.
A drop in the bucket compared to Bush's spending. Which he still hasn't told us where he'll get the money for without raising taxes and continuing tax cuts... And I notice in the news that Bush's proposed budget for next year is deliberately leaving out a "wartime request" of upwards of $51 billion dollars until after the election! Guess that's meant to be a little re-election "gift" to the nation (on top of the $401.7 billion budget [7% higher than this year] he proposes for the military already).
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 14, 2004 10:34:02 PM new
Yes,I did misread that. However, if we can stopour spiralling war cycle, we can put that $51 billion that Bush wants toput into war into health instead.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 14, 2004 10:47:38 PM new
Currently we have earmarked 87 billion per year to support our foriegn policy and conduct military operations in the middle east. Over a 10 year period that amounts to 870 billion dollars. Money better spent to improve the lives of working Americans rather than what is being done with it now.
posted on March 14, 2004 11:03:15 PM new
This site has a running tally of the cost of war in Iraq.
War affects everyone, not just those directly involved in the fighting. This webpage is a simple attempt to demonstrate one of the more quantifiable effects of war: the financial burden it places on our tax dollars.
posted on March 15, 2004 07:12:52 AM new
Finally.....I found an article where kerry himself says "Yes" when asked about his insurance program costing $900BILLION dollars.
And to those who think this amount isn't to expensive....it only insures 1/2 of the estimated 41 million un-insured.
JUST WAIT until we start insuring the other 20+ million people. What ? at DOUBLE that cost.
And remember too, that under this program the average "Joe/Josephine" still has to buy/purchase their own insurance.
So out of approx. 300 million Americans we'll be paying $900BILLION dollars to only insure 21 million people.
And like any government program....this is only the beginning of the costs.
posted on March 15, 2004 07:23:26 AM new
LOL Do you really think that anyone can spend more than George Bush.
Rightwingers like spending their bucks on wars and nation building while Americans go without health care...a benefit that other countries in the world consider basic.
Helen
Edited to add, they also like to enrich their corporate friends with tax breaks and crony contracts
Many excellent articles on health care issues we're trying to make decisions/choices on today. [prescription drugs from other countries, etc.]
This is but one, speaking to the issue of the un-insured in American:
Some Choose To Forgo Health Insurance Plans
by Sally C. Pipes
Now that Washington has promised America's seniors subsidized pills, politicians have turned their focus to the uninsured. The presidential campaign season has produced a flurry of plans to solve, forever, the problem of the uninsured. This isn't going to happen.
Short of moving to a totally government-run monopoly health system, the uninsured, like winter in Buffalo, N.Y., will be a much-cursed but intractable fact of life.
The good news is that the bad news about the uninsured, upon examination, isn't that awful.
The first piece of happy, if often ignored, news is that being without health insurance is not equivalent to living without adequate health care. The U.S. health care environment offers a variety of avenues for people to acquire health care, from the old-fashioned method of writing a check, to community health centers and county hospitals.
Americans without health insurance actually spend roughly the same amount of their own money on health care ( $242) as do the fully insured ($211). To put this in perspective, the average U.S. household spends $296 on bakery products and $349 on alcoholic beverages.
Doctors, for example, spend, on average, three hours a week treating patients for free. Hospitals write off another $21 billion. The safety net functions as a catastrophic health plan -- the more care a person needs, the less one pays. The uninsured who do land in a hospital pay a mere 9% of the costs attributed to their treatment.
Better Off Without
In some cases it might improve one's access to care to be uninsured. A recent study found that private practice internists were more likely to accept the uninsured, even if they had to cut fees, than patients covered by Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor.
When we examine who the uninsured are and how long they actually remain uncovered, it's clear that for many, going without insurance is a rational choice, not an affliction.
Most don't remain uninsured for long.
While some Americans are chronically uninsured, three-quarters of the roughly 44 million uninsured remain so for less than a year.
Expect to hear much this political season of the 8.5 million children under 18 who lack health insurance. That's 11.1%, and that's certainly too many. But it also means that nine in 10 U.S. children can rely on someone other than their parents to pay for most of their health care bills.
What you'll hear less of is the fact that of the 8.5 million children, the Urban Institute estimates that half are eligible for taxpayer-sponsored health insurance, be it Medicaid or some other program. They simply haven't taken advantage of the program or refuse to sign up.
Of the 35 million uninsured adults, one in four are under 24, and half are under 35.
Thinking like a young adult rather than a health policy analyst, it's not hard to figure out why many in this age range choose not to purchase health insurance. With few assets to protect, fewer health problems, a sense of invincibility and limited income, health insurance often appears to be a bad deal.
Some Decline
The uninsured aren't universally poor. One in three uninsured live in households with income greater than $50,000, and one in seven live in households that earn more than $75,000 a year. Nor are all deprived of access to employer-subsidized insurance. One in five workers who are uninsured and offered group health insurance actually decline it.
What then can be done to address the problem? Both of the current 100% solutions are unpalatable.
Lawmakers could pass a government mandate that individuals purchase minimal health insurance, similar to the command to purchase auto insurance. That's the approach Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is taking toward children's health insurance. He would actually fine parents who didn't take advantage of health insurance programs for their children.
Or lawmakers could increase taxes and create a government monopoly health insurance system.
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is taking this approach.
Short of these extremes, policy-makers face incremental steps that include coaxing parents to sign up their eligible children for government provided insurance, facilitating small-business buyer's associations for group insurance, and providing tax incentives for businesses and individuals to purchase health insurance.
What none of these approaches will achieve -- and what no politician can offer short of instituting compulsory, government monopoly health insurance -- is a total solution to the problem of the uninsured. For some, going without health insurance is simply a rational choice.
posted on March 15, 2004 08:10:37 AM newwe can put that $51 billion that Bush wants toput into war into health instead
I sure haven't read any where that kerry's said that would be part of how he'd pay for this program. But being he voted against the funding that was for our troops in Iraq, after voting FOR the war, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add: [taken from MSNBC's First Read - today]
Yet as Kerry traveled to Pennsylvania and Ohio to talk about health care, MSNBC's Nina Bradley says, the Bush campaign and its surrogates fired back with a slew of press releases. Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said in his release that Kerry has done little in his long political career to help the nation's health care system, and claimed that Kerry had missed 36 out of 38 votes on prescription drug legislation.
"The only thing he has ever done on behalf of America's seniors is vote 8 times for higher taxes on their Social Security benefits."
Said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., on the eve of Kerry's visit to Pennsylvania: "Senator Kerry has acknowledged that his health care plan alone will cost at least $900 billion and says he would not resort to deficit spending to cover the cost. His numbers don't add up, and this means at least a $900 billion tax hike on all Americans."
