Blogcritics: Comments on The Man who Promises Everything...

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 8 Aug 2004 19:02:34 EDT

By the way, while I prefer a single-payer/universal health scheme sort of along these lines, you can find a one-page summary of Kerry's Health Plan in the August 16th issue of Business Week. Some highlights:

The Kerry plan would insure 27 million additional Americans, resulting in coverage for 95% of the nation's citizens and 99% of its children at a 10-year net cost of about $650 billion. Kerry would pay for his health plan by rescinding the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes in excess of $200,000 a year, restoring their tax rates to the levels that prevailed under President Bill Clinton. Perhaps the most important component of Kerry's health plan is the creation of a government reinsurance program to cover a significant share of the costs of catastrophic claims, reducing their burden on private insurers and businesses that provide insurance for their employees. Health economists estimate that Kerry's reinsurance program would cut health-insurance premiums by as much as $1,000 per year and make them more stable over time.

There's more there for those of you more interested in facts than politically-motivated foofawraw and fallacies.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 8 Aug 2004 15:25:13 EDT

If you're going to play with "Facts," RJ, you should use facts, not Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute spin. Kerry's tax rollbacks will raise more than $600 billion. From Business Week 8/2/04:

Kerry offers a $650 billion health-insurance plan and $200 billion in education spending, to be financed by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 -- about 3% of taxpayers. That could free up some $600 billion to $860 billion.

A single-payer health plan will reduce health care costs for everyone. Contrast that with the latest Medicare Bill signed by Bush: that even makes it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices with providers. With the above, there's no need to address the irrelevant hypothetical you mis-label as "Fact 3." Who, exactly, is lying?

Comment by JR

Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:27:15 EDT

I've never voted FOR anybody. Voting has always been about trying to keep the worst candidate out of office. I can't think of any politician in my lifetime in whom I've had any confidence.

Comment by RJ

Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:01:18 EDT

John Kerry's "promises" simply cannot be kept. He promises socialized-medicine, which would cost between 10 and 20 percent of GDP. Kerry promises to cut taxes, while merely "repealing" Bush's tax cut on "rich people" making over $200,000.00 per year. Kerry promises to balance the budget. Let's take a gander at the relevent facts here... FACT #1: Cutting taxes for most people, while raising taxes only up to Clinton-era levels on a tiny percentage of "rich" people, will not bring in much, if any, additional federal government revenue. FACT #2: Kerry's health care plans are incredibly expensive, and the taxpayer would be picking up the tab. FACT #3: Assuming #1 and #2 are actually implemented (in other words, if Kerry keeps just TWO of his promises), the budget deficit will vastly INCREASE. That means he will be unable to fulfill his promise to eliminate the budget deficit and begin to pay down the Nat'l Debt. So, in short, Kerry is lying. He can't keep his promises. He's been Senator for almost 20 years, and has almost no legislative accomplishments during that time. So, he's running on empty promises and exaggerated claims about his few months spent in Vietnam (approximately one-sixtieth the amount of time he's spent in the Senate). I can understand voting AGAINST Bush. But how can anyone actually vote FOR this man?