HD Blog

"You don't value families by denying real prescription drug coverage to seniors, so big drug companies can get another windfall."

This is a knock on the current prescription drug benefits in Medicare. It's a convoluted mess, but an improvement from what we had before. Kerry seems to be arguing for more drug coverage which would be good for those in our community that qualify for Medicare. The comment about "big drug companies" and "windfall" is worrisome from a research funding standpoint as price controls tend to kill research. But not much can be read into that phrase without details.

"We believe in the family value expressed in one of the oldest Commandments: "Honor thy father and thy mother." As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together, we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can't afford lifesaving medicine."

Privitization is HD neutral. The benefits/risks are dependent on the details. There is no current plan so there is no way to analyze positives or negatives. The promise to "not cut benefits" is a good one, though I've not heard of any plans from either party that would including cutting. The mention, again, that seniors would have a strong prescription benefit would aid the senior members of our community.

And that is the choice in this election.

You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service, if you deny veterans health care, or if you tell middle class families to wait for a tax cut, so that the wealthiest among us can get even more.

This sound good for our community in that he supports improving veterans health care. In this the two candidates are in agreement. Veteran health care spending has greatly increased under Bush. To know this would continue under Kerry is good.

What does it mean when Mary Ann Knowles, a woman with breast cancer I met in New Hampshire, had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family's health insurance?

As it turns out, this paragraph was a mistake for the Kerry campaign. I don't agree with the Union-Leader in that this was a lie, but it turns out this reference was VERY incorrect. Candidates rely on their campaigns to verify these stories for speeches, in this case they didn't do a good job. However, this error by Kerry's campaign did not have much affect on his national campaign. Kerry does show a sensitivity to health care coverage with this antedote.

What does it mean when 25 percent of the children in Harlem have asthma because of air pollution?

I'm including this because it relates to health. There wasn't any proposals or health care initiatives tied to this statement.
And we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Affordable is good. How he plans to acheive it is another matter. Hopefully not at the expense of research.

Since 2000, four million people have lost their health insurance. Millions more are struggling to afford it.

You know what's happening. Your premiums, your co-payments, your deductibles have all gone through the roof.

All true.

Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums. You'll get to pick your own doctor and patients and doctors, not insurance company bureaucrats, will make medical decisions. Under our plan, Medicare will negotiate lower drug prices for seniors.

I have not gone over his plan in detail, so I can't comment. I'm not sure how he would reduce "waste", "greed", and "abuse". As long as the cure isn't worse than the disease, this isn't bad. But this statement raises many questions (for another time).

And all Americans will be able to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada.

This one is hurtful for our community. There is ample evidence that this would hurt funding for medical research - something our community desparately needs. For those diseases with effective treatments this is helpful.

The story of people struggling for health care is the story of so many Americans. But you know what, it's not the story of senators and members of Congress. Because we give ourselves great health care and you get the bill. Well, I'm here to say, your family's health care is just as important as any politician's in Washington, D.C.

To put it mildly, there's a logical problem with this statement unless he is arguing to take away the benefits of those in Congress.

And when I'm President, America will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected it is a right for all Americans.

So every person would have health insurance? The problem is in the details but this, of course, sounds good.
What if we find a breakthrough to cure Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and AIDs? What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?

This statement "believes in science" falls in the "cheap shot" category. Research spending, even stem cell research has greatly increased under Bush. However, it is apparent that Kerry would more broadly fund fetal stem cell research than Bush.

So that's it. Kerry makes several references to issues that are important to our community. Based on what the pundits are speculating we probably won't see as much of this out of Bush.

To sum up Kerry's comments and stands:

Health care coverage - Good. Want's everybody to be covered.
Health care costs - Discusses lowering, chance that it could hurt research
Medical research - Minimal mention, seems to be secondary to cost containment. I wish there had been discussion on expanding funding of NIH and helping private research.