Kerry supports Kennedy HELP bill, yet, on senate tallies he's not listed that way

[blm]

and only listed as a general YES for public option.

I think it is important that Kerry be LISTED alongside other senators like Dodd who specifically support Kennedy HELP bill.

Can his office PLEASE make this support PERFECTLY CLEAR for the blogosphere?

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14836/senate-whip-count-update-no-democrats-oppose-public-option

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/08/28/senate-update-warner-wont-vote-against-a-public-option/

[beachmom]

1. Where do you see that he doesn't support HELP? I may be blind

but he is down for "Yes" on all four questions and I didn't see anything about HELP.

Also, I was floored to see Isakson down as "maybe" for the public option. Um, I guess I will give him a buzz to urge him to go the right way.

[blm]

2. Other senators on the updated lists specify they're for Kennedy HELP bill.

I know Kerry is for that and it should be noted.

The openleft tally states HELP bill - http://www.openleft.com/diary/14836/senate-whip-count-update-no-democrats-oppose-public-option

Healthcare Now tally calls it Kennedy HELP bill.

[karynnj]

5. Everyone for whom backing the HELP bill is listed is on the HELP committee

Here's a link to the membership - http://help.senate.gov/About.html

They all voted for the bill when it was voted out of committee. Of the non-HELP committee members, 4 YESs is as good as anyone gets.

In this case, Kerry is not being attacked.

[blm]

6. I'm thinking pre-emptively. Kerry does support HELP bill as written and that should be made clear

We all know there are forces in the left blogosphere who have Kerry targeted for a teardown and have no problem distorting his positions for their own entertainment.

[karynnj]

7. I agree in general, but on that site, he actually is counted properly

I really don't get the far left, there are few who are as consistently on their side as Kerry, yet they are constantly acting as if he is on some special probation. While others only have to demagogue the way they like it (ie John edwards) or do one thing right (Jim Webb) - and they are heroes.

On healthcare, they should KNOW where he stands from 2004, but they don't. One wonders how useful they were in 2004. So, I do see your vigilance as important - especially as it is useless to wait until there is a full blown attack when the first 50 or 60 posts join.

[Inuca]

3. Don't they use MAYBE

for those who did not clearly said yes or no? I doubt there is much hope with Isakson (you DO have lousy senators), but some say miracles do occur.

[sandnsea]

4. Re Isakson

Let's get his actual words. If it's like Lincoln and Pryor, there might be honest cost issues involved. If we can truly answer those issues directly to them in a rational way, maybe we can start to make some headway with having an honest debate in this country.

Basically, moderates do not want a tax based health care system. Now the subsidies are going to be tax based and I don't see any way around that, that I've heard anyway. So if we can define the private/public premiums and subsidies in a way that makes sense to folks, maybe we can make some head way.

[karynnj]

8. On costs, I have not seen any thing on any demand that private companies

"give back" to those paying the premiums, the savings from eliminating (or at least greatly eliminating the costs that are currently loaded on paying customers for those with no insurance who can't pay. IF that happens, a small tax increase equal to the premium decrease (on average) might be easier to sell. If it doesn't, it is a bonanza for the insurance companies, whose costs go down while their revenue goes up because they write more policies.

Have you heard if they are addressing this? (Your posts on this issue have been among the best I've read.)