Let's dissect Edwards and Kerry issue by issue.

[anti-NAFTA]

Even if this causes some people to support Kerry, at least it will be justifiable, reasonable support. We need to look at every issue and see who is more to our liking.

-Trade
Kerry: ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=315065#337769 ) enough said
Edwards: Sometimes comes off as a hypocrite b/c of support of China trade, but has been more consistent in his wariness of free trade than Kerry.

-Iraq
Kerry: Voted for IWR but expresses regret over it.
Edwards: Voted for IWR and is less contrite than Kerry.

You can continue this.

[anti-NAFTA]

1. kick.

This has to be done.

[citizen snips]

2. education and college.

Edwards will provide a free year of college tuition.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/education.asp

[AP]

3. Which reduces the principle for college loans, which means that

students have to "finance" less of their own economic development and progress into the middle class.

I heard a program on CBC about micro-loans. After twenty or so years, liberal economists are starting to think that they don't really work. Micro-loans have very high failure rates despite the occassional success story and countries in which they're very popular have seen even greater wealth polarization than in countries in which they're not popular.

What micro-loans do is that they ask people who have nothing -- no assets, just the ability to work -- to finance their own economic development. They make you responsible for all the loans of a group of people. The bank always gets their interest. It's practically guaranteed. However, for the individuals, there's not really an improving economy which you're tapping into. What you're tapping into is the good fortune of one of your group of 20 or so people. In these economies, most still fail. But one gets lucky, and that one ends up being responsible for the pooled debts of the whole group, which reduces that one person's ability to capitalize on his or her gains -- lots of the profits end up going to the bank.

Joe Stieglitz and others point out that the real way to grow economies isn't by forcing people to fiance their own economic development. It's to give them assets against which they can take out loans and take risks. And the best asset to give them is their own land. Apparently, countries with low rates of land ownership, or countries with ineffective land title systems have very low rates of economic development (when you're not sure who owns land, it's hard to get a loan on its value).

Land ownership is an injection of huge amounts of wealth in the working class. If you can leverage your land, rather than your labor, you can really magnify your gains. Furthermore, with a micro-loan, you're forcing 20 people to leverage their ability to work hard in an economy which isn't going anywhere because there is no wealth in the working class which they can tap into. But when you have land reform and give land ownership to the working class, you create wealth for those people who want to work to tap into.

I don't think I'm explaining this well, but I think the micro-loan situation probably has a lot in common with the way the middle class pay for education.

Education is the pathway to the middle class for people with few assets. More loans forces you to finance your education with labor in a world in which people have few assets, where 1/5 of Americans have no net worth (and average debt loads of about $9K).

What Edwards is proposing -- 1 year at a state school free if you work 10 hrs a week) reduces the debt burden by 25%. I am so sure that it's cheaper for the government to pay this up front rather than pay it out over years in the form of subsidized interest payments on student loans. Furthermore, reducing the debt burden makes recent graduates more powerful economic actors with more choices and an increased ability to make a positive impact on the economy.

[citizen snips]

21. Thanks AP.

:)

[anti-NAFTA]

56. What a shitty country we live in.

It's sad that this indentured servitude type plan is considered progressive. I'm not slamming Edwards or anything because it's clearly a step above how things are now, but it's still unacceptable.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Edwards voted for

storing nuke waste at Yucca Mt. and Kerry voted against it.

Edwards supports the death penalty and Kerry doesn't except for terrorists.

[AP]

5. What is the philosophical underpinning of "DP for terrosits only" point of

view?

[Bill McBlueState]

8. there is none

Just pandering to all the people in the middle of the country who are afraid the terrorists will attack Nebraska or Wyoming.

[mmonk]

9. pure opinion

[AP]

11. What's wrong with opinion? It's not like there's a "factual" answer to my

question.

If you have an opinon, share it. If you have a fact, share that too.

If you just want to state the obvious -- that DU posters are posting opinions -- please alert the media.

[mmonk]

17. opinion of a detractor

which I'm free to point out regardless of your distaste of my posts pointing it out.

[AP]

27. Your opinion is on opinion making, and not on politics or issues.

If you'd like to detract from others' positions on the issues, have at it.

But if you're detracting from opinion making, you're not doing very much of anything. You're undermininig the weight of your own opinon making.

I mean if it's "just opinion" why bother even sharing the one which is yours?

[mmonk]

35. my post was a post to the obvious in my opinion

with no opinion expressed other than it was an opinion. It's like your opinion of my posts. Are you saying your opinions are worthy political discussion and mine are not?

[AP]

I'm basically asking, why bother?

I'm trying to limn the dynamics of the debate here.

[mmonk]

45. I thought the post was making a political opinion

that Kerry only holds his position for the purposes of pandering to middle America. I was saying that was their opinion only with the use of the word pure (not backed up with anything). By the way, what does limn mean?

[Bill McBlueState]

13. then answer the question

"What is the philosophical underpinning of "DP for terrosits only" point of view"?

[mmonk]

18. maybe as a deterent or

maybe the nature of the crime. I suggest you ask John Kerry if you are really curious.

[mmonk]

20. or it could be just "pandering"

because I'm completely sure John Edwards never ever panders, not on the convenient trade issue of the moment nor his vote for the war nor his stand on the death penalty.

[AP]

30. So you're going to pick one of these candidates over the other on this

issue or not?

[mmonk]

38. responding to the attack

of pandering.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. I thought someone on this board could answer the question on his behalf.

Not sure I can gain access to JK.

[mobuto]

25. See #16 & #19

n/t

[AP]

31. To eliminate your enemy? Do we execute prisoners of war?

Geneva convention anyone? If we're at war with terrorists, and we have them in custody, do we then execute them just because we would have killed them had we met them on the battlefield?

The police get in shoot-outs with domestic criminals every day. But we don't think it's right to kill them once they're in custody just because, had we met them in a dark alley ready to pull the trigger on us, we would have shot them there.

[mmonk]

41. There is no declaration of war between countries

in the case of terrorism. These are individual sympathisers to particular causes or members of a terrorist organization. The Geneva conventions were designed for warring nation states.

[AP]

50. It's Kerry's analogy, not mine. If we're at war with people

it still doesn't make sense to kill them just because they're in custody and you can. Country's that don't believe in the DP still go to war, take prisoners, and don't execute them.

Once you have the upper hand with anyone, claiming that you were at war with them before you took them into custody is no more compelling a reason to exectute them than, say, you were in a shoot out with them in alley before you had them in custody, or that they raped a killed a child and might do it again.

[mobuto]

54. No, the analogy works

terrorists are enemies, but they're not prisoners of war - they don't wear uniforms, they don't attack military targets - perhaps the best comparison would be to spies, traitors and saboteurs, all of whom are executed.

FYI, Edwards supports killing terrorists as well as a lot of other people.

[AP]

62. I presume Kerry's talking about executions following convictions in

criminal court.

This is exactly what it's so silly of Kerry to pretend that executing terrorists is something that's on a different level compared to executions he opposes.

[mmonk]

28. But you said there is none

in a previous post. You also said it was pandering. Anyway, you can see the posts where it is answered. Terrorism is different because it's an attack on this country is his reasoning (the nature of the crime).

[AP]

32. see post #31

[mmonk]

42. see my response

[AP]

29. Why can only terrorists be deterred by the DP? Do you think the suicide

pilots of the 9/11 jets would have been deterred by the DP?

It probably makes less sense with terrorists.

Remember that DP conviction in the Phillipines? They defendant was ecstatic when he got the DP.

As for the nature of the crime, I'd rather rank Skilling and Lay higher than terrorists, or what about homicidal pedophiles?

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. You would have to

ask John Kerry. I was giving the differences between Edwards and Kerry. Edwards SUPPORTS the death penalty.

Many innocent people have been convicted of murder and later, through DNA testing, were found to be innocent. THAT is why "I" no longer support the death penalty.

As for the philosophical underpinning for terrorists, call John Kerry and ask him. I can't read his mind as to why he feels that way. I never said I agree with that, but at least he doesn't support it for the "every day" murderer who COULD be innocent. :shrug:

[bigtree]

16. John Kerry on the Death Penalty

MR. RUSSERT: David Broder wrote a column in June which I want to show you again: ” Kerry is also a man who opposes the death penalty, wants to restrict access to guns and voted against the resolution approving the start of ground operations against Saddam Hussein in 1991—just what you would expect from Ted Kennedy’s partner and Michael Dukakis’s running mate, the Republicans will surely say.”

The Congressional Quarterly does an analysis of key votes and let me show you. Over the last four years, Kennedy and Kerry voted exactly alike 100 percent of the time over your 17 years in the Senate now. You’ve voted, like, 93 percent of the time. Will you have Senator Kennedy’s support for your presidential run?

SEN. KERRY: Well, it’s up to Senator Kennedy to make any announcement about his support, but Icertainly would want it and I would welcome it. I think he’s an extraordinary legislator, and the fights he has fought are fights that have made a difference to the quality of life of our fellow Americans. I differ with him on some issues. He knows that, and I think you have to look at those issues. I voted...

MR. RUSSERT: But won’t you be branded another Massachusetts Ted Kennedy liberal?

SEN. KERRY: I think, Tim, as people get to know me in the course of this, they’ll know the things that I have fought for and the things I stand for. I was a prosecutor. I’ve sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I’m opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it’s applied unfairly, as even Republican governors have determined, and because I’m for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life, deprived of their freedom, never to bed. Now, I think that’s tougher. Let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, why shouldn’t Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma building, or if John Muhammad is convicted of being a sniper here in Washington—why shouldn’t they receive the death penalty?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I think that, as I said, you know, different people have different opinions about what’s worse. I’ve seen people die and I know what it’s like to almost die. I don’t think that—you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you’re alive and you’re deprived of your freedom each day and you’re in tough circumstances—and I’m talking about tough circumstances. I’m not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I’m talking about tough. But if you’re deprived of that freedom for the rest of your living days until God decides to take you, you know, that is tough, my friend, and I think that plenty of people think that.

Now, I don’t think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people. Over 100 people have been released from death row in America in the last year with DNA evidence and other evidence showing they didn’t commit the crime for which they had been committed, some of them in jail for 10, 15 years for a crime they didn’t commit.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have a moratorium on the death penalty until there’s further research.

SEN. KERRY: I’ve said that previously. I think we need to look at it. But more importantly, Tim, that’s not affected at the federal level. That’s not where the crime of this country is fought. It’s fought state for state by state prosecutors. That’s where it’s done. And I would honor, obviously, the laws of those states and that’s the way we should proceed. But far more importantly, are we going to do the things in this country...

MR. RUSSERT: So if a state had a death penalty, you would respect it?

SEN. KERRY: Of course. You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have an exception in your moral opposition for terrorists?

SEN. KERRY: That is correct. It’s not moral. I have said that I object to it on the basis of the way it’s applied and the way that it’s not the toughest punishment, but I do believe with respect to terrorists, that is correct.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001540.html

[AP]

33. My reply to this is in post 31

[bigtree]

44. Is there a guarantee that a jail would hold these terrorists forever?

What about if they are detained in other countries? Mullah Omar, Osama's deputy, was in an Egyptian prison following the assassination of Sadat. He was released and aligned with Bin Laden. The rest is tragedy.

If we catch Bin Laden, how can we assure that he won't be able to effect terrorist acts from jail? He would eliminate thousands, millions if he could with one blow. Why should we trifle with him or anyone else who would attack our country? Bin Laden certainly has no regard for the ones he encouraged to commit suicide. If we can deter others with the threat of death than I think the death penalty for these offenses, after a trial, is appropriate.

[AP]

51. If you don't have faith in the ability of US prisons to hold

the convicted, why stop at terrorists? Why don't we kill homicidal pedophiles as well?

Mafia dons and drug dealers are just as likely to run their criminal operations from jail cells as any terrorist (and probably moreso).

I think the fact is that Kerry knew that being against capital punishment is probably a liability for him so he's watering down his oppostion with an angle that one could plausibly say has changed the landscape since the last time he was asked about the DP.

The fact is, it's kind of a lame approach to the issue. And it plays into the right wing mantra that 9-11 has changed everything, so don't ask us to make your job more secure.

[mobuto]

55. Because terrorists have a history

of making suicidal attacks in prison. The classic case is of the Al Qaeda operative who, without trying to escape, took a sharpened comb at jammed it into a random prison guard's eye. The comb entered his brain and left him permanently brain damaged. There was no point to that, only to hurt Americans any way he could.

Furthermore, prisons serve as recruiting grounds for hate groups, and I don't see why Al Qaeda would be any different. Just ask Jose Padilla.

[AP]

63. Yeah, right. Only terrorists shank guards.

Ask Jose Padilla what? Whether he's going to vote for Kerry?

[Bill McBlueState]

40. thanks for the excerpt

Kerry's argument is something to think about.

[anti-NAFTA]

57. Does he ever stop bragging?

It's getting annoying.

[bigtree]

65. Lots for Kerry to brag about. It will serve him well in the upcoming GE

if he happens to achieve the nomination.

Especially in the face of manufactured, slanderous attacks on his character.

[mobuto]

19. There is a distinction

Kerry recognizes that the death penalty does not deter ordinary crime - it really has no purpose other than to effect some sort of simple-minded revenge.

But for terrorists, the situation is different. We really are in a war here, and terrorists will use their comrades imprisoned in the United States as propaganda - witness Abdel Rahman. Moreover, Al Qaeda terrorists in US custody have shown their willingness to carry out suicide missions on their own guards. One, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, stabbed a prison guard in the eye with a sharpened comb. The comb went into the guards brain, causing permanent brain damage.

They pose a danger to the general prison population and to guards and encourage recruitment. They are the sworn enemies of the United States and its citizens, and pose a constant threat to it.

[AP]

37. If we had treated 9-11 like an "ordinary crime" rather than a war, we ...

... probably would have a better idea of who caused it, why it happened, and how we could stop future 9-11s.

[mobuto]

52. And the Taliban would still be in power

Sorry, the war in Afghanistan was not only justified, it was required.

[anti-NAFTA]

58. The Taliban still is in power. eom

[AP]

61. And executing only terrorists in custody helps either way?

[revcarol]

6. Is there a reason for excluding Kucinich

or is it just that he is better on all the issues than either Kerry or your favorite Edwards?

Inquiring minds want to know why you won't inquire.

[mmonk]

7. Edwards supporters trying to narrow the field and

promote Kerry as the lessor of candidates with theirs.

[AP]

10. Nothings stopping anyone from discussing Kucinich. DU rules do not

limit subsequent posters form posts which are not responsive to questions in the orignial post.

[mmonk]

15. and thus I was answering the question posed by revcarol

[AP]

34. And nothings stopping me from jumping in, encouraging her to talk

about Kucinich.

[Bill McBlueState]

12. Hoping to hear more!

For the past week, I've been torn between voting for Dean in a last effort to get him a few more delegates, and voting for Kucinich because he's a true progressive.

But realistically, Kerry or Edwards is going to win the nomination. That's just how it's going to be.

So I, as a progressive, want to hear about the real differences between Kerry and Edwards. Can I enthusiastically support either of them? Or is it just a choice between two men who will say and do whatever it takes to get elected? I.e., they both voted for IWR, but have mildly different justifications for it. I can't get excited about either of them on that issue.

For this reason, I think a two-man debate would be really useful in teaching all of us more about the one who will eventually run against Bush.

[mobuto]

22. The differences are more than mild

Edwards supported the actual invasion; Kerry didn't. Kerry has consistently said that he favored giving the President the powers he needed to force Iraqi compliance. He never supported actually invading Iraq, and on that line he has been consistent.

Both oppose the way that Bush has handled the war, but their positions on its merits are quite distinct.

Kerry is a liberal Democrat. Edwards is a moderate to conservative. It doesn't really matter of course if Bush gets reelected.

[AP]

36. Can you support that characterization with cites?

And I totally challenge the notion that Edwards is moderate to conservative.

He's talking about exactly what is wrong with America, and wants to move America back to the left.

Kerry's been part of government which has let America drift rightward, and only now he sees the need to speak up about it? And he's not even speaking directly to the problems. He started his campaign trying to portray himself as stronger on national security, and who's for a better health care system.

Those are such small subsets of the bigger problems -- of the problem of the concentration of political, cultural and economic power into the hands of people of Kerry's social and economic and cultural class. Kerry doesn't seem to be speaking out very much about that bigger problem.

[mmonk]

39. I disagree Edwards is a move to the left

solely made on saying he opposes NAFTA and will fight corporations. Leftists don't really reside typically in the DLC.

[DjTj]

43. Doesn't Kerry reside in the DLC?

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm

Of course both of them would move the country to the left after Bush.

[bigtree]

66. So did Dean.

Dean was considered more conservative than Kerry.

Edwards is from conservative NC and is constantly reminding us that he would be more favorable to moderates and republicans than would Mass. Sen. Kerry.

[AP]

53. The DLC doesn't really like Edwards according to Dan Schorr

so, by your measure, he probably can move America to the left.

[bigtree]

68. Edwards likes the DLC

"Putting Responsibility First"
Sen. John Edwards
2002 DLC National Conversation
New York, NY
July 30, 2002

"Responsibility of the kind we have seen in New York is at the heart of what the DLC has always stood for; it is written in the record and work of this organization. From national service to community policing to deficit reduction, the ideas you have advanced around the country have been about inspiring a new sense of responsibility in all walks of American life. Millions of Americans are able to lift themselves up, give something back, and hold their heads high because you have given them the chance."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw073002sp.html

[HFishbine]

23. Edwards: less contrite than Kerry?

The way zero is less than 1, I suppose.

[anti-NAFTA]

59. huh? Yeah, zero is less than one. What's your point?

[HFishbine]

67. The point is

Edwards has shown zero contrition.

[patricia92243]

26. Likability = electability

[DjTj]

46. Details on Trade...

I know this is what anti-NAFTA really wants to talk about. Here are some votes. No commentary, just the record:

Fast-Track Authority for Bush: (Kerry Yea, Edwards Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

Trade with Singapore: (Edwards Nay, Kerry was campaigning)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00318

Trade with Chile: (Edwards Nay, Kerry was campaigning)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00319

Trade with Africa and Caribbean: (Kerry Yea, Edwards Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00098

They both voted for PNTR:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251
...but they disagreed on this amendment: "To require that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of the People's Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave labor, and organ harvesting, and for other purposes." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00249
...also on this amendment: "To require the Secretary of Commerce to consult with leaders of American businesses to encourage them to adopt a code of conduct for doing business in the People's Republic of China." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00244
...and this amendment: "To improve the certainty of the implementation of import relief in cases of affirmative determinations by the International Trade Commission with respect to market disruption to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00240
...and this one: "To require the President certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China is in compliance with certain Memoranda of Understanding regarding prohibition on import and export of prison labor products and for other purposes." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00238
...then there's this one: "To require the United States to support the transfer of United States clean energy technology as part of assistance programs with respect to China's energy sector, and for other purposes." (Edwards Yea, Kerry Nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00235

[JohnLocke]

47. Please start a thread with this!

[DjTj]

49. You got it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=375384

[anti-NAFTA]

60. Here's THE thread about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=315065

[DrFunkenstein]

48. These Are The Links You Should Have Went With...

One trade:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=373102

On Iraq:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417

[mouse7]

64. Kerry vs. Edwards - the disabled and health care

Right away, one can see John Kerry is reaching out to the disabled community. He has established a "community" on his website focused on issues relating to disabled Americans. Edwards doesn't even have an issue paper written on issues specifically relating to the disabled. Therefore, I have to pick and poke around all over Edwards website to find his positions on these issues.

On health care, Kerry has detailed information on his proposals affecting disabled Americans. From that page...

" High quality, accessible, and affordable health care should be a right for every American, and is especially important for people with disabilities. John Kerry's plan will:

(1) PROTECT AND STRENGHTHEN MEDICAID. John Kerry is firmly opposed to the Bush Administration's proposals to slowly but surely defund and turn Medicaid into a block grant to the states. Kerry's plan gives states money to invest in Medicaid, so that the health and independence of more than 10 million children, adults and older Americans with disabilities throughout our country can improve.

(2) PASS THE FAMILY OPPORTUNITY ACT. No parent should have to turn down a job or give up the custody of a child to ensure that the child gets health care. In a recent survey of 20 states, 64 percent of parents with children with disabilities reported that they turned down jobs, raises, and overtime pay to remain under the income limits required to qualify for Medicaid coverage. John Kerry strongly supports the Family Opportunity Act, which gives states the option to expand Medicaid coverage for children with disabilities up to age 18 in families with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level (or $46,000 per year for a family of four). It also grants immediate access to Medicaid services for those children with disabilities who are presumed eligible for SSI.

(3) FULLY IMPLEMENT THE OLMSTEAD DECISION. People with disabilities and older Americans must receive the support they need to live in their own homes and communities. John Kerry believes that states must be given increased resources and tools to carry out the Olmstead decision and must be held accountable for doing so.

(4) ENSURE REAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE UNDER MEDICARE. The prescription drug plan that just passed is less about prescription drug benefits and more a prescription to benefit big drug companies. John Kerry's plan will lower prescription drug costs, make sure seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare can choose their doctors instead of forcing them to join an HMO, ensure beneficiaries can get quality wrap around services through Medigap, and ensure that there is always a Medicare-run plan with a guaranteed premium in every area.

(5) ENACT MiCASSA AND THE MONEY FOLLOWS THE PERSON ACT. Americans with disabilities must be assured equal access to quality home and community living services. John Kerry is an original cosponsor of MiCASSA and the Money Follows the Person Act. Passage of both of these bills is vital to ending the institutional bias that makes it impossible for millions of Americans to exercise the most basic of human liberties: freedom, choice, and independence. Kerry supports increasing funding for independent living centers, areas agencies on aging and similar local organizations to build capacity and support people with disabilities in moving out of or keeping from needlessly going into a nursing home or another institution. John Kerry will work to provide decent wages and benefits to the community based services workers who help make independence possible.

(6) ADOPT A COMMUNITY FIRST POLICY IN AMERICA. There is an institutional bias that must be reversed to ensure that Americans with disabilities of every age have the services and supports to live in the community of their choice. To do this, John Kerry will appoint a national bipartisan Community First Commission made up of Members of Congress, Governors, distinguished older Americans, veterans, Americans with disabilities and other experts. The commission will identify short and long term policy reforms that could and should be pursued to:

Guarantee that all Americans with disabilities who can live in their community with affordable supports have equal opportunity to do so regardless of age, disability, State of residence, employment status or form of assistance required.
Create a greater federal role in equitably financing and enhancing the quality and appropriateness of all long-term services.
Eliminate the institutional bias in Medicaid and Medicare that robs millions of Americans of their most basic freedoms, dignity and daily independence.
The commission will submit findings and recommendations to the Kerry Administration and the leadership in both houses of Congress by July 26, 2005 - the 15th anniversary of the ADA.

(7) ENHANCE MEDICARE. The federal government has a critical role to play to assure that workers with disabilities have the insurance coverage they need to be as independent and productive as possible. John Kerry believes we should enhance coverage for employed beneficiaries with disabilities. He will work to eliminate the two-year waiting period to become eligible for Medicare and expand coverage for certain other competitively employed individuals with disabilities. John Kerry would also modernize Medicare benefits to include inpatient and community rehabilitation services, community transition services, mental health parity, durable medical equipment, and skilled home health service. He will direct HHS to fund a series of demonstrations aimed at identifying cost effective ways that best promote the health, independence and productivity of people with disabilities and to improve upon the permanent risk adjustment payment system to promote better health care.

(8) ENSURE MENTAL HEALTH PARITY. John Kerry believes we need to require full mental health parity once and for all. Not just mental health parity for certain benefits or certain mental health conditions or with unnecessary loopholes that allow insurers to skirt their responsibility. He will fight to pass full mental health parity legislation."

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

Edwards health care proposals are family and children focused. Disabled children will find proposals to make health care available and affordable for all those under 21 as well as requiring that those under 25 be allow to continue to buy into parent's coverage. He will expand the ability of working adults to enter the CHiP program and those older than 55 will be allowed more insurance purchasing options and also will be allowed to buy into Medicare. There are also proposals for seniors to recieve an unspecified prescription drug benefit added to Medicare. Details at these links...

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare.asp

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/seniors.asp


What stands out in all this is the the complete absense of even a mention of disabled adults that rely on Medicare for health care coverage. Is Edwards going to apply the same proposals to the disabled he is offering to seniors? Is he planning on saving money by not including the disabled? I can't tell you from what is presented on the Edwards website. The reason I don't automatically assume that Edwards plans to offer the disabled the same plan as seniors is because of Edwards discussion of creating what he calls a "Health Care Safety Net" that focuses on community health clinics and public hospitals. This is more commonly know as a two-tier health care system. Long lines and lack of choice to the impoverished, and a seperate, standard insurance-paid system in the upper tear for those who can afford quality insurance. Here's more on that proposal...

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare-safety-net.asp

Personally, I'm far more comfortable with Kerry's concrete proposals instead of trying to guess which aspect of Edwards proposal is intended to be delivered to disabled Americans. Kerry has made a clear effort to speak directly to the disabled community instead of leaving our concerns off the page and guessing as Edwards has.

http://disabled.democratsblog.com/3