January 26, 2005


Kerry proposes health coverage for all children (Rick Klein, January 26, 2005, Boston Globe)

Vowing to use his new ''national voice" in the wake of his presidential campaign, Senator John F. Kerry yesterday unveiled a sweeping plan to bring health coverage to all children, paid for by repealing recent tax cuts for the highest-income Americans.

Kerry's bill would make healthcare for children universal by encouraging states to expand coverage under Medicaid and its companion state-federal program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. He would also give higher-income parents tax incentives to insure their own children.

''It's just unacceptable in our country that we have so many children -- millions of kids -- who are uninsured, they get no healthcare, some of them get learning disabilities for the lack of diagnosis of something as simple as an earache," Kerry said in an interview with the Globe. ''This has to be priority number one. It's a place to start."

Kerry said the bill fulfills a pledge he made on the campaign trail, where he vowed to make such legislation the first bill he'd file as president. He has signed up 300,000 ''citizen cosponsors," recruited via his campaign e-mail list. Kerry said he is planning to ''gin up energy" for his bill through speeches around the country.

He will have his work cut out for him: The bill is not expected to get a warm reception in the Republican-led Senate, although Kerry promised to reach across the aisle to Republicans members who favor expanded healthcare.

It's too bad that Senator Kerry isn't a serious person and that the New Democrats no longer exist, because legislation that created universal HSA's for every American from birth--with opt outs for the fully insured, employer mandates, and federal funding for the poor--would be good policy.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 26, 2005 9:53 AM

Kerry has always been on the Ted Kennedy side of the Dem party. During the campaign he tried to gloss over it but now it appears he go back to being more openly liberal.

Hillary seems to be moving to the center while the rest of the Dem party is moving left. She is probably correct politically but if the party moves far enough left she may be out of touch in '08 (like Lieberman in '04) and even her star power may not get her the nod.

Posted by: AWW at January 26, 2005 10:18 AM

He would also give higher-income parents tax incentives to insure their own children.

Who is he talking about, divorcees?

Who are these people?

Posted by: Sandy P at January 26, 2005 10:19 AM

Or is he talking about those between the ages of 19-21 in college?

Posted by: Sandy P at January 26, 2005 10:23 AM

It makes no sense to ensure most young people, who will have rather few health expenses, which is why HSAs make so much sense, allowing everyone to build up huge nest eggs.

Posted by: oj at January 26, 2005 10:32 AM


The nomination is hers for the asking.

Posted by: oj at January 26, 2005 11:01 AM

Not if David Rosen is convicted.

Posted by: ratbert at January 26, 2005 11:20 AM

Vince Foster killed himself and it didn't slow her down.

Posted by: oj at January 26, 2005 11:53 AM

He was dead and couldn't talk. This is different, and it will play differently in NY.

However, it will require someone from the MSM to follow the story - the blogs can't do it alone.

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 26, 2005 12:22 PM

OJ - It's Hillary's for the asking right now. Will it be in 3 years? Probably but it is not a certitude.

Posted by: AWW at January 26, 2005 2:37 PM

Did Kerry actually put a bill in the hopper? it would be the first in about a decade. Its hard to believe that he will actually break form and start working after 20 years of doing nothing.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 26, 2005 2:53 PM


What if Giuliani beats her? He is a national hero after 9/11, after all.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at January 26, 2005 3:12 PM


If he declares she won't run for just that reason--she'll announce she's focussing on the presidential.

Posted by: oj at January 26, 2005 5:40 PM


After their 2006 midterm losses Clinton nostalgia will only be stronger among Dems and a strong woman candidate is formidable in a woman's party anyway.

Posted by: oj at January 26, 2005 5:43 PM