Kucinich Confirms His Opposition To Dems' Health Care Reform Plan--Even If He's The Deciding Vote (VIDEO)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

March 9, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to FreeRider

The anonymous pussy speaks!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to T Groan

No one forced you to speak so why are you complaining and calling yourself a pussy?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to FreeRider

Why isn't this troll banned?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to wbgonne

"Kucinich will vote for HCR if his vote is needed," said wbgonne.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to wbgonne

Because he really is an anonymous loser elf.

You can be progressive and still be a team player. Ted Kennedy made a career of being just that. Ted Kennedy had a long list of accomplishments. Dennis Kucinich has two failed presidential campaigns in which he overstayed his welcome. Why does OH 10 keep sending him back to Washington? Are they afraid he'll run for mayor of Cleveland again? Or are they all mush-for-brains perfect-as-the-enemy-of-good values voters like he is?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

PJCoco

March 9, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to Steaming Pile

Kucinich is returned to office because his constituents know exactly what he stands for: their welfare. Kucinich has been fighting for the people of Ohio, as well as the people of the United States for decades. Look at his record. Learn what he stands for. No, he doesn't live up to the "great image of the great fathers of this country", but he is, in fact, a bigger man that the one we put into the Oval Office in 2008. Kucinich has more integrity, more guts, and has NEVER been bought by Wall Street, the medical industrial complex, PhRMA, or any other anti-American-people interest group. He may be physically small, but he is a giant in comparison to nearly all in Congress and in this administration. Perhaps you should learn from his integrity, from his relentless determination to fight for what is right for the people--not for Goldman Sachs, AIG, PhRMA, or the insurance companies. Wake up and smell the garbage you are being force fed. Learn exactly what is in Kuchinch's amendment that Pelosi removed in October 2009 at the behest of our Betrayer-in-Chief, Obama--perhaps, then, you will realize that Kucinich is fighting for YOU, and you are mistakenly selling your soul, your life, to the corporatists who are giving you nothing in return but laughing at you all the way to the bank where they are depositing YOUR money into their already bulging accounts.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to PJCoco

You should try to publish your fiction for money instead of writing it here for free. You have quite the imagination.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Honey Bunches Of Stoats

March 9, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to PJCoco

He had a pretty good record of telling poor women to go to hell when it came to their reproductive rights, until he ran for President that is. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-05.htm

Then he flipped like a little bitch to appease the pro-choice constituency of the Democratic party. I wonder how the heavily Catholic, heavily anti-choice constituents in his district felt about that?

Sorry, Kucinich is a POLITICIAN. He has changed positions on key issues, including abortion and the war in Afghanistan (he voted for it, remember?). I'm pretty sick of people lionizing him as some sort of lefty saint.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

PJCoco

March 10, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to Honey Bunches Of Stoats

Once again, check your facts. Try votesmart.com and you'll find that he's a politician that follows through on what he believes. No, he has not voted with the Republicans, he has voted against twisted bills that our weak Dems try to make us think are for our benefit but are nothing more than giveaways to the military industrial complex, and all other Wall Street moguls. Check your facts!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Honey Bunches Of Stoats

March 10, 2010 12:42 AM in reply to PJCoco

Are you saying that he didn't have an abysmal record on abortion rights before he ran for President? If you are, you're wrong. NARAL gave him one 0% rating, and one 25% rating prior to his Presidential bid. I put the link related to that in my previous comment.

Are you saying he didn't vote for the war in Afghanistan? If you are, you're wrong. He absolutely did. Go look it up on Vote Smart, HJ Res 64 on 9/14/01.

He also voted against cap and trade on 6/26/09, along with almost all of the Republicans. Michelle Malkin sang his praises for that one, no doubt. Again, you can check Vote Smart.

Look, I don't disagree with Kucinich on most issues (except abortion, and some of the weird pseudoscience stuff he spouts), but his actions can be destructive. When they are, he deserves to be called out for it the same as any other politician.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

PJCoco

March 10, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Honey Bunches Of Stoats

I agree with your final statement. Your earlier statements are predicated on the title of the legislation, not the content. NARAL, very like such groups as World Wildlife and the Sierra Club (who purport to be strong supporters of animals, are actually in league with corporations who are giving them big bucks). However, getting back to the abortion votes, please read the content of the legislation being passed and what bills they are sneakily attached to. I am completely in favor of a woman's right to choose. I am completely against the crazies like Stupak, but when the pro-abortion bills are attached to increases in war bill or other ridiculous legislation, I would support a NO vote for the overall legislation. That's what congress does constantly.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to FreeRider

GO DENNIS! Time somebody stood up to the right wing loons!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell

Dennis stands up to the right wing loons by voting WITH the right wing loons.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Measure for Measure

March 9, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to FreeRider

Yeah, I'm convinced that Kucinich is a closet Republican. I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to FreeRider

still 100% better than freeloader's hero Lieberman.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to human

100% greater than zero is zero.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

PJCoco

March 9, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to FreeRider

Your response, obviously supported by your dearth of knowledge about the issues involved in the Kucinich amendment is truly sad. Learn what Kucinich is fighting for. Learn what happened to his amendment in October 2009, learn what it means for anyone paying the usurious medical insurance and PhRMA rates, then see if your response is warranted! Until then, your comment simply represents the many ignorant individuals who are, in fact, sheep--sheep who respond as they are told to respond by the Titans steal the eyes from your head and swearing you were born blind!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to PJCoco

Kucinich has voted with the Republicans on all the major issues for the past year. He is a fucking loser elf!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Donald from Hawaii

March 9, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to FreeRider

We get your point. Now, try to show us that you have a more expansive vocabulary, and please lay off the "effin" remarks about Dennis Kucinich's height or lack thereof - unless, of course, you've got some jokes handy about his campaign to become the Mayor of Munchkinland!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ws84

March 9, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to FreeRider

It's funny how we progressives went from demanding single payer to demanding a public option to insisting we don't have to have either. I'm sorry but the dems and Obama haven't convince me that this bill is even a 'start'. I'd like to believe that it will keep premiums down and stop insurance companies from deciding what procedures I have to have instead of my doctor. If the rest of you believe this, then you can be angry with DK.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to ws84

Nobody cares what you're convinced of, you loser!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Measure for Measure

March 9, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to ws84

I don't expect to be spoonfed information by professional politicians. The bill as it exists now deserves passage.

Radical thought: The point of health care legislation is to -wait for it- advance human health is a sustainable way. The primary goal is not to stick it to the corporations. The latter puts ideology above human welfare.

The bill is terrific, as bills go. 31 million obtain insurance. Nobody gets turned down for a pre-existing condition. The medicare donut is closed. Health care experts marvel at the efforts at cost containment and suspect that the CBO underestimates the benefits. Only a Republican could object to all of this.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Marinus van der Lubbe

March 9, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to FreeRider

Narcissistic elf...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TBender

March 9, 2010 9:18 AM

Question to Mr. Kucinich: Where are the Congressional votes for your preferred solution?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to TBender

The UFO is bringing them down soon.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

stillidealistic

March 9, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to TBender

That is MY question. If we can't get even a watered down version, where are the votes for the "robust public option?" I guess what he's saying is nothing is better than something, and we'll get another chance (huh? when?) The repubs don't like this, in part, because it paves the way for single payer...isn't THAT what we want?

Pass the damn thing, we'll improve it in stages

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to stillidealistic

"Pass the damn thing we'll improve it later."

This will go down as another one of those great saying like: The checks in the mail, trust me, I know what I'm doing and I won't cum in your mouth.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mr.E.

March 9, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to henk

Actually, it's more like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA, voter rights, environmental protections, zoning laws, equal rights laws, public education and desegregation, building codes, land, sea and air traffic safety rules, medical privacy laws, FDIC insured savings, food and drug testing, mine safety, standardized phone and electric services, sanitary sewer systems, automobile standards. . .
The Constitution was adopted in 1787; the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, were passed four years later in 1791.

Laws rarely are created out of whole cloth and are always amended. That's the way the process works.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to Mr.E.

Seriously, I'm beginning to think if these progressive messageboard la-la landers were alive in 1864 they would not have supported the Emancipation Proclaimation because it wouldn't have totally done away with racism, and then argued that the freed slaves would be even "worse off" than they were under the protection of their slave masters.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Measure for Measure

March 9, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

The emancipation proclamation won't free a single slave. We should oppose it as it does nothing to advance the revolution, man.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Virginia

March 9, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to henk

Gee, lame cliches contribute so much to this discussion, don't they?

And anyway, sometimes the check IS in the mail!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

stillidealistic

March 9, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to Virginia

And sometimes he does know what he's doing, and sometimes he doesn't cum in your mouth!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to henk

I can assume you helped put these people in the majority, right? Why are you distrustful that they'll actually do their jobs? Is Dennis Hastert still the Speaker in your world?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tropicgirl

March 9, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to TBender

Since you most likely didn't watch the video, Kucinich addresses that whole "trap". He is one man with one vote, which is why "being the last one" or "the deciding one" has been adequately addressed by him and that is all a representative should be responsible for.

Aside from that, I really believe the so-called "progressive" blogs really need to re-assess themselves after this issue is over, or impassed. I don't think it was in the best interest of readers to gloss over this very bad bill, and push for it to be implemented no matter what, to save the presidency of a man who has gone backward the "progressive" agenda from day one. There is a well-documented history of progressives. He is not one. Its too bad the progressive blogs couldn't be more honest. Perhaps going forward.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Maritza

March 9, 2010 9:25 AM

Kucinich is a loser Elf.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mc mark

March 9, 2010 9:27 AM

It is just amazing to me how Democrats will constantly cut off their nose despite their face.

Pass healthcare you moron and then fight to make it better!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:30 AM in reply to mc mark

The morons are the people who actually believe that reduced Dem majorities are going to revisit this bill anytime soon, after all the angst involved in getting to this point. I (reluctantly) support passage of what we've got, but don't kid yourself- it's what we'll be stuck with for the foreseeable future. Evaluate it with that in mind, not with pie in the sky fantasies of how it will be improved next year or the year after that.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JZ

March 9, 2010 9:34 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

He should still vote for it if he actually cares about helping people. H

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcrose68

March 9, 2010 11:42 AM in reply to JZ

The hopeful naive in me wants to believe that Kucinich's position helps the bill. "See there, the crazy lefty thinks it's no good" helps put the bill more in the center.

Yup. Hopeful, and naive.

I certainly don't love the bill as it is - mandates without a public option competetor certainly looks like a "give-away" to the insurance companies to me.
But my take is this - it's better than what the Republicans would pass - and trust me, it's not that the Republicans won't spend the money THEY WILL. They'll just spend it directly on their contributors - more prisons, more war.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mc mark

March 9, 2010 9:35 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

No legislation is perfect. S-CHIP, Social Security, Medicare, they all have been tweaked over time to make better. This bill is just a foundation (granted, as Mr Kucinich said, a soft one) but it is a start.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:42 AM in reply to mc mark

No. It is NOT a start. It is the endpoint for the foreseeable future. You do NOT get to assume imaginary improvements that are supposed to magically happen down the road when doing an honest evaluation of it.

I have made that much tougher analysis and, though just barely, I come down on the side of passage. But I do it with my eyes wide open and with no disposition to ignorantly disparage those who come down on the other side of the question.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:48 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

*Yawn*

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:49 AM in reply to FreeRider

Yup, that about sums up the intellectual content of all your comments taken together, troll.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

*Snooze*

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to FreeRider

what, too many gin and tonics at the latest DLC circle jerk last night?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to human

Rahm. DLC. Corporatist.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to FreeRider

"firebaggers", elf, blah, blah, blah.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to human

Pssst: firebaggers are opposed to this bill.

Get your terminology straight, Jethro.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to FreeRider

psst, I'm pointing out your mindless resort to namecalling--you know, your own hypocrisy Jethro.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to human

dlc. corporatist. rahm.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to human

Not even worth it. You would think Rahm would have more important matters to attend to, like fluffing Obama for his next public appearance.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:50 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

If it is an endpoint for the foreseeable future, and I'm not sure I fully agree because I consider even 3 or 5 years out to be foreseeable, it is still better than what we have now. So I agree - all who care about reform should vote to pass it and if there are those who will work to make it better, great.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

March 9, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to Rick Jones

It will however not be the endpoint, what this bill does, albeit rather badly, is put health care on the list of policy issues about which there is debate.
Getting this bill passed and having it be marginally better than the status quo removes that "third rail of American politics" aura from the issue and makes politicians realize that it is possible to do something with it that will not end their political careers.

Yes the bill blows, but it seems that we will not get anything better right now so lets start with this.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

And you know that - how????

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to lousgirl84

Common sense, which you so conspicuously lack. After this prolonged, bloody struggle, health care is the very last thing the next Congress is going to be willing to revisit.

Which, if you were a little smarter, you would realize is actually the best argument for passing this bill provided one is convince that it's truly better than nothing (which I do believe thigh it's a closer call than many imagine.)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

madmatt

March 9, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Gonna pay my mandate for a policy which I won't be able to afford the deductible? Just funnel billions to the insurance companies and they don't have to do shit becuase there are no enforcement mechanisms.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to madmatt

you're correct. And some folks consider this "half a loaf".

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I fully expect the next Congress, with a GOP majority in the House and a coalition of GOP and Blue Dogs in the Senate will "improve" the current HCR package by eviscerating the subsidies, eliminating the cadillac tax, widening the loopholes for recision and denial, speeding up the regulatory race-to-the-bottom among the states, and cranking down further on the coverage for reproductive services and immigrant families.

Don't think the GOP can't make this bill worse. They can and they will.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 7:43 PM in reply to s9

Unless we elect the Democrats of at least the caliber we currently have or better yet much better ones. Go Connie and Bill!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

KeithL

March 9, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I don't always agree with your Steve. But on this, we are in accord. This is only just barely good enough to pass and I would vote for it, myself. However, the fix it later crowd are whistling in some pretty dark holes.

Historically, we HAVE been able to improve inadequate legislation. 5, 10 or 20 years later. Anyone who thinks ANY Democrat currently in Congress, or the White House, is going to revisit this issue before 2012, at the earliest is delusional.

With a couple of dozen Democrats stamping their feet, holding their breath and screaming NO at the top of their little lungs, it's beyond irony that the single most honest and open LIBERAL left in the House, is the target for such personal vitriol and brainless abuse.

Save your fury, if you want to be rational, for the venal cowards, corrupt bastards and would-be theocrats who have driven all good ideas from the field, at a time when we MAY have actually had a chance to achieve real reform.

Why do the reactionary elements of the party get excused as, Well, we have to pass what's possible and the ever loathesome, Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Just because they are amoral asshats, THEY get a pass but the only person always pushing for the good (AND the will) of the people is excoriated with righteous fury. It sounds to me like we have some folks on these Kucinich threads with personal issues. Either they like right-wing corruption or the are whipped into thinking they must accept it.

Dennis is truly ONLY one vote. He neither accepts not deserves the blame for this ugly fiasco. And, I suspect, he doesn't give a bubbly fart about the anger expressed here. While I may disagree with him, he has my respect.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to KeithL

Excellent comment--describes the likes of freeloader to a t.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to KeithL

Tell me, how are we going to improve this 5, 10, 20 years down the road when there isn't any law to improve upon? If we don't pass this, when will we get another crack at it? 20, 40, 60 years down the road? Is that really acceptable to you?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to Steaming Pile

In considering your answer, also consider that the time since the previous attempt was 16 years. Are you willing to wait that long before getting the ball again?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

KeithL

March 9, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to Steaming Pile

Hey Steamin'! If you had read my message, you would have noted that I would reluctantly, agree to pass the current, POS bill just BECAUSE it's a broken foot in the door. I actually agree that nothing now would be poisonous to something later.

I was just stating the (to me) obvious fact that what we get NOW is what we'll be stuck with for a while (i.e. 5, 10 or 15 years). I would personally hope that Democrats survive the 2010 elections with intact majorities and somehow they begin to feel some heat from those of us who are less that satisfied with their corrupt, pathetically venal performance and mayhap, after Obama becomes a lame duck, we'll have an outbreak of courage and actually get something like Medicare buy-in. THAT would be a true foot in the door to genuine reform.

However, such hopes for the future should not prevent us from trying to enforce maximum leverage to improve SOME parts of this garbage. Why shouldn't liberals have a chance to pull a Baucus? If Dennis is truly the final vote, then maybe he can actually use his leverage to do some good. He's actually concerned about we the people, rather than his corporate constituents

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

justaJ0e

March 9, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I have to admit that, forcing people to buy insurance and NOT making an afordable public option available to them seems quite troubling. My question though, is where has this guy been? Why isn't he on every talk show and calling daily press conferences and making a HUGE P.R. presence that shows the country exactly WHAT the public option is and WHY we need it?

His tactic of sitting quietly by and then voting against HCR because it isn't perfect, simply REINFORCES the Anti HCR propaganda machine's generic argument that HCR is BAD and that even Dems don't want it (lie). They pick up his "NO" message and boost it's signal without including any of the reasons why he say's "no".

If he really wants HCR, if he REALLY wants the public option he has GOT to shout above the 24hr anti-HCR propaganda roar of the FAUX News Hurricane and sell this thing to the American public.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to justaJ0e

I certainly hold no brief for Dennis's effectiveness as a legislator. As one who live in the Cleveland area and is familiar with his career (including the parts he'd like us to forget, like the ugly racial appeals in his mayoral campaign), I hold the man in minimum high regard. All the more reason why I'm saddened that on this question, we're stuck with him as the only House Progressive who has kept his promise not to vote for a bill that doesn't contain a public option. The others who have made that promise and reneged should be ashamed that this clown has demonstrated the backbone that they conspicuously lack.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to justaJ0e

There was no "affordable public option", Einstein. Every CBO estimate said that hte public option premium would be higher than private insurance.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

justaJ0e

March 9, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to FreeRider

You are wrong.

It's basic economic theory.
An insurance plan covering 35 million(plus) people has HUGE discount buying power and the fact that is NOT being operated for the sole purpose of making an increased profit EVERY 3 months ...
all means a basic insurance policy at a rate that even a minimum wage employee can afford.
Studies done by economists show this time and again.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to justaJ0e

Except the public plan you described was never proposed so that's irrelevant.

The public option would have covered 6 million people (at most) and had higher premiums than private insurance. I still would have purchased it for my family but to throw the entire bill out because people will have to buy from private insurers is absurd.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to FreeRider

The CBO only said that about the last, most neutered version they scored. Not every one.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton

BS. When I want shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to FreeRider

You are almost singlehandedly ruining this blog.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to wbgonne

You would say that--after I've pwned your dumbass too many times to count.

"Kucinich will vote for HCR if his vote is needed," said wbgonne.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to FreeRider

Everyone makes incorrect predictions, and will continue to do so. You weren't exactly worried about Scott Brown as I recall. No one's interested in following you around with quotes, because no one wants to read that.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton

10 days before the election, I thought Coakley would prevail because (a) she was still leading in the polls and (b) MA is a very blue state. In other words, based on the best available evidence.

Wbgonne predicted Kucinich would support HCR even though he voted against the more liberal bill, said he wouldn't support anything but single payer and is known as a sanctimonious little prick.

Wbgonne also said LBJ gave permission to Thurmond and the rest of the southern democrats to filibuster and vote against civil rights because he did not need their votes.

Now, I ask you: is wbgonne just making a few bad predictions or is he an ignorant fuck? (hint: the answer is "b")

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton

you have to understand that freeloader is a legend only in his warped little mind. He lives in an alternate reality where he thinks he impresses anyone but himself, and believes that regularly insulting and pissing on the base of our own party will somehow cause it to grow.
When it's his idols Lieberman and Nelson holding HCR hostage until it's watered down to meet their demands, he insists on immediate capitulation. When it's a real progressive making demands, his pointed little head explodes and it's nothing but adhoms against "firebaggers" and the "elf" and anyone else who actually has principles, unlike himself and his crowd of worthless beltway villagers.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to human

corporatist. dlc. rahm.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dudeguy

March 9, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to justaJ0e

justaj0e:

Thank you thank you thank you. That is exactly the problem.

Congressional maneuvering is inside baseball; this battle was lost in the town halls. We needed a better statement of our case in catchy phrases in the public consciousness. It was a missed opportunity.

All legislators are spineless. People keep talking about growing spines, when we should be focused on creating an environment where spine is unnecessary. Sad but true.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

March 9, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I agree Steve. Good points. On balance this has to be done. It's no good, but the status quo is worse.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Left-wing-libertarian

March 9, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to mc mark

Do you understand that the limited public option will save oh say $10 billion over ten years over the national non profit insurances managed by the omb? Thats f---in chump change. Go look at the netherlands healthcare system thats where we need to get, public option can help but it wont make a long run difference.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GOPinNYC

March 9, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to mc mark

None of those have gotten better. If anything worse. The federal government does very little well and this program would just be another in a long line of bad policy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to GOPinNYC

Does your/your dad's Social Security check arrive on time every month? When was the last time the Post Office lost some of your mail? Are we not making progress in Afghanistan? How about that Interstate Highway System? A truly inspired marvel, isn't it?

I could go on, but my point is, you're full of shit. Government does indeed do quite a number of things well. The truth is, government doesn't do very much well when Republicans run it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to Steaming Pile

OH, but what you don't realize is that you're responding to the one person in this country who has his own self-contained water-catching and plumbing system, who employs his own police and fire department (located on his property, who travels through private property only whenever traveling anywhere (of course, in a self-built off road vehicle), grows and maintains his own crops, treats himself when sick or injured, has his own banking system that he regulates and administers, etc etc etc.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to lyleleander

Oh, and he has his septic system rigged to capture methane to run all of his gas appliances, starting with the generator he uses to generate electric power to run the TV on which he has Fox News blaring all day.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GOPinNYC

March 11, 2010 3:42 PM in reply to Steaming Pile

First. I have no idea if my mother or father receive a check since I do not speak with them about money. However they also aren't old enough to be retired since they were born in 1950.

Second. The USPS is a rather poor example to use since it runs a $3.5 billion deficit most years now. However since it is a constitutional mandate of the federal government I only take issue with the how inefficient it has become. I'm fairly certain we can almost agree on that.

Third. We shouldn't be in Afghanistan. I never supported the concept of removing the government there. I certainly don't support our occupation of that country still. FYI I also think we should get the hell of Iraq, Korea and a whole bunch of other locations.

Fourth. I don't believe the federal government needs to be involved in building roads. I see no reason why two states can't negotiate building a road that meets at their borders.

Fifth. You seem to think that everything has to originate on a federal level. I believe that is backwards. I believe the federal government should do as little as possible.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Majorajam

March 9, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Indeed. The smart money is on building an enlightened progressive majority by siding with Republicans to undercut the most progressive initiative in three decades. You people are on point. No flies on you. In the meantime, good luck finding insurance or keeping it if you have a preexisting condition or you once had asthma. Maybe you won't get ill. Maybe you will and you will die because you're underinsured and/or go bankrupt. The fun is in the uncertainty of it all!!!

I especially love how you Kucinich 'progressives' are so much better informed about our health care system and what counts as meaningful reform than e.g. Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, and just about every progressive who's ever cracked a book. Great stuff. Keep up the good work here, and don't let the educated trick you into believing you aren't helping the country. Yours is an invaluable service!!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to mc mark

How naive. Once this bill is passed that will be it. Obama won't want to touch healthcare anymore. Either get it done right now, or never get it done at all.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to sethcohen

"Anymore" in Internet years, that is. In Internet time, one week=one year. So its seems unlikely that Obama will touch health care again for decades, and possibly even centuries, after this passes.

That's also why we're all so mad at him for not getting all the other boxes on the Internet Progressive wish list checked off yet. I mean, the man's been there for, what, sixty or seventy years now?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

'Internet Progressive Wishlist' I suppose is slang for his own campaign promises. When the President reversed himself on the public option, drug reimportation, military tribunals, and a few other matters... it's a fair indication it isn't about time or a matter of waiting. He's not doing it period. I wouldn't suggest Ohio primary voters hold their breath waiting for Obama to reopen NAFTA for example.

But regarding the subject at hand; what acknowledging the political difficulties in reengaging on healthcare has to do with being impatient I don't know. The fact is that the Democratic party is not going to have more power to reform healthcar in the future than they do now. These were the largest majorities assembled by any party in decades. If they don't want to go further now, they probably are not going to go further later.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to sethcohen

Speaking of naive, if this bill doesn't get passed don't expect any Democratic President to touch healthcare again for decades. Why would anyone touch the poison pill that killed Clinton AND Obama?

And in the meantime, Republicans and the insurance industry will only grow bolder knowing that if they raise enough ruckus and spread enough information that they can kill any attempt at Healthcare reform. They're 2 for 2 so far.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcrose68

March 9, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Oh, that is where I have to differ from you.
If this bill does not pass, Republicans WILL pass a bill more to their liking.

That bill will involve tax cuts for insurance companies, and direct goverment payments to private contractors who will be hired to "advise we eliminate goverment payments to doctors". Of course there will also be a significant allocation for contrators who will "measure" the success against stadards setin a church in Texas.

If you believe that Republicans have ANY reticence about spending taxpayers money, then you might as well stop reading TPM and go watch Fox News.

If you look at the Bush tenure, and realize that the craziest of the Bush Republicans are now the ones running the show, you should see pretty quickly that if this bill fails - they WILL pass a bill to spend all this money and more; and that would not be pretty.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

susanthe

March 9, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to mc mark

That doesn't even make any sense. Why not pass a better bill to begin with?
Oh, wait - because the corporate sponsors of the Democratic Party wouldn't like it...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

March 9, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to mc mark

Get on the PHONE to your Senators and tell them to sign the Bennet letter in support of the PUBLIC OPTION!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

howie

March 9, 2010 9:31 AM

Dennis is always about Dennis. He's the flipside of the Lieberman coin.

Bernie Sanders is a better "Democrat" than Dennis.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Moose49

March 9, 2010 9:37 AM in reply to howie

True -- because unlike Kucinich, Sanders is a Socialist, not an Egomaniac.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JZ

March 9, 2010 9:33 AM

At least Nader had some real accomplishments before he turned into a total narcissist. Anyone want to primary this fool?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:33 AM

There is a serious argument to be made- though on balance I disagree with it- that passage of the "fixed" Senate bill could actually be worse than doing nothing. Kucinich-bashing is not a counter-argument- it's merely a crutch for the intellectually lazy. Instead, you should be prepared to debate Marcia Angell, who has forgotten more about the health care system than all our Obamabot trolls put together will ever learn: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/transcript3.html

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JZ

March 9, 2010 9:39 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Speaking of Moyers, did you catch last week's episode, where Wendell Potter, darling of the Firedog left, said he would vote for the bill? Despite its limitations, he said it goes a long way toward halting insurance company abuses and helping the tens of millions who can't get or can't afford insurance. I guess he's an Obamabot troll now, too. Here's another transcript: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/transcript1.html

And some thoughts from a solid lefty:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/17728/the-complete-list-of-ways-progressives-strengthened-health-reform-legislation

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:44 AM in reply to JZ

Can you read at all? I didn't say everybody should agree with Angell's position- I don't myself. But it is a serious position and not one to be lightly disparaged by those with 1/1000th of her knowledge.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I saw the show in its entirety. Smart, interesting woman but her solutions are unrealistic, unfortunately.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to lousgirl84

wow, based on your convincing rebuttal, I guess she is wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/transcript1.html

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NobleCommentDecider

March 9, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Wendell Potter interview:

WP- .. But I think we need to look at this as a win for consumers as well. Yes, it'll be a win for the insurance companies, but I don't think we're going to wind up with the insurance companies walking away, winning the whole ball game. If we don't do anything right now, that's what they'll-- that's what will happen. They'll win everything....

WENDELL POTTER: Increased regulation, as we talked about. And also, this will, if the president's proposals go through, there will be more regulation at the federal level. There will be more effective review of these rates, and the Secretary of HHS will be able to determine if those rate increases are appropriate or not-

BILL MOYERS: Before they're made?

WENDELL POTTER: Before they're made--

BILL MOYERS: Not after the fact. Now, many states has the review after the fact.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: So, what else?

WENDELL POTTER: Well and it will also limit the amount of money that people pay out of their own pockets for care. And this is extremely important because one of the ways that these companies are continuing to make more and more money every year is shifting the cost of care from them and from employers to us.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to NobleCommentDecider

We already have something very similar in the Utilities arena. They have to submit their proposals for rate increases. The very rarely if ever are rejected. Sounds good in theory but in practice just another way of getting around real regulations.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 9:40 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Steve:

I'm with you. I think the Dems can get this bill through. They better do it fast. however, and they better be prepared to take the fight to the GOP immediately after the reconciliation fixes are announced. Don't waste one second. Get out in front. And hammer away until Nov.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:50 AM in reply to wbgonne

"Kucinich will vote for HCR if his vote is needed," said wbgonne.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 9:55 AM in reply to FreeRider

You really are an unrelenting asshole.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to wbgonne

Well, after all, that's exactly the abusive tone, the intellectual vacuity, and the lack of principles that Rahm has set as the standard for mainstream Democrats. Naturally the clone army falls right into line behind him.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Rahm. DLC. Corporatist.

Ooooohhhhhh, those boogie men.

*snooze*

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to FreeRider

Too stupid to avoid immediately exemplifying what I said. No surprise there.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Teabaggers: birth certificate, Ayers, Rev. Wright, Rezko, Socialist.

Firebaggers: Rahm, DLC, Corporatist.

Two sides of the same stupid ass coin.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to FreeRider

Also too stupid to notice that I support passage of the current bills. Again not surprising.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

With "support" like yours who needs opposition.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to FreeRider

Stupidest response yet, which is going some. If you'll only accept the support of uncritical cheerleaders then I guess you'll have no valid compliant if the entire Progressive Caucus decides to vote "no" after all. Oh, and the Blue Dogs too, since they have their own reservations.

Here's a free clue, dumbass- people with a mental age greater than 5 will take support where they can get it, without threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue if the support isn't 100% on their terms.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

"Supporters" like you and Schultz and Huffington are to blame for HCR polling so low with your whining, bullshit lies so fuck yourself, dipshit!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 7:58 PM in reply to FreeRider

Obama's incompetence as a cheerleader for true health care reform and his unwillingness to push the parts of it that are popular such as the public option is responsible for HCR's poor polling. If you offer people a loaf of bread and hand them a moldy crust don't expect it to poll well.

(Not to mention a ton of right wing advertising of various descriptions shouting that the bread has been poisoned.)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to wbgonne

You make it so easy by being so loud and so wrong.

Wbgonne: LBJ gave his blessings to Thurmond, Byrd & Russell to obstruct and vote against civil rights because he didn't need their votes.

Wbgonne: LBJ never ran for reelection in 1968; his name was on the primary ballot because he was the sitting president.

Wbgonne: Kucinich will support HCR if his vote is needed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Donald from Hawaii

March 9, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to FreeRider

Hey, did you hear that? Your mom's calling you back home - something about a copy of Lusty Lesbos under your bed. She sounds really pissed, dude.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bowtiejack

March 9, 2010 10:41 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Well put. I agree.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dr Lemming

March 9, 2010 9:39 AM

I hope that progressives in Kucinich's district will make their views known loud and clear.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 10:06 AM in reply to Dr Lemming

Yeah, loud and clear that they support the one person that actually stands up for them.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dswx

March 9, 2010 10:22 AM in reply to sethcohen

"...they support the one person that actually stands up for them."

As opposed to the over 100 people who will die today due to lack of basic heath insurance. Sounds like quite the Republican thought process actually. Putting the people that need it most, last. Meanwhile Kucinich has great health care coverage so what does he care if more people die because of his very narrow-minded view. Sorry Dennis (and the Repubs), but people dying trumps even the fact that there is no robust public option.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

susanthe

March 9, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to dswx

And forcing people to turn over a hefty portion of their income to private, for-profit corporations is going to save lives? There is nothing in that bill to control costs, to ensure they don't continue to jack up the rates, or to bust up the monopolies that about 6 corporations have over this country. One company covers 70% of my state.

Take out the mandate and put in a public option - and get rid of the anti-woman Stupak bullshit and I might be interested. As it stands, Dennis is right. This is theft. This is forcing me to give money to Big Insurance. I have every intention of refusing.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

March 9, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to susanthe

You cannot take out the individual mandate, it is an integral part of the bill like it or not. If we want insurers to stop discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions then we must have an individual mandate. Otherwise healthy people will not sign up for insurance until they get sick, this way health insurance will quickly cease to be a business anyone wants to be in, while this would be the quick way to single payer (system collapses, no other choice), that does not necessarily make it good public policy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

March 9, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to susanthe

You're saying you'd rather go without insurance at all than to have to pay a premium to a private company?

I suspect that most of those who are without insurance would not agree with you.

But hey, show us where the votes are for what you propose, and I would support it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to sethcohen

Yeah, the same Kucinich who loudly proclaims to "Buy American" to his union base and then outsources his fundraising website overseas. Or the Kucinich who raises a stink about how unDemocratic it is that he's not invited to participate in Democratic Primary Debates, but then unexpectedly cancels debates against Democratic challengers in his district.

...this guy is looking out for you.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Progressive Party

March 9, 2010 9:44 AM

How easy you find a scapegoat in Dennis rather than the 12 dems voting to eliminate choice and follow Rep Bart Stupidak....Don't be so easily led and letting a progressive take the fall...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

geofu54

March 9, 2010 9:47 AM in reply to Progressive Party

No, they are *equally* stupid. Bart Stupid & Co. and Kucinich, both of them.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to Progressive Party

The Stupak 12 have been vilified here. Kucinich is no scapegoat; he's a self-important little obstructionist toad who doesn't give a fuck about his constituents.

He's an ideologue. That's why he was a terrible mayor. He's also a terrible congressman but it's less obvious because he's 1 of 435.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to FreeRider

"The Stupak 12 have been vilified here."

Not by you. You save your venom for Progressives generally and Kucinich in particular. For that matter you despise anyone who favors a public option. Hmmmm. Interesting.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:38 AM in reply to wbgonne

Yeah, like my posts calling Stupak a lying asshole who is not negotiating in good faith?

That explains why you think LBJ never ran for the nomination in 1968 and gave Byrd a pass to obstruct civil rights.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

geofu54

March 9, 2010 10:01 AM in reply to FreeRider

He's an ideologue. That's why he was a terrible mayor.

He indeed was. That's an inevitable result of trying to govern the real world from a feelin'-good fantasy land.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to geofu54

Yep. He did the same thing from the left that Sanford did from the right. These turds think nothing matters more than their ideology--not even the real life people are supposed to represent.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Captain

March 9, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to FreeRider

Yea as opposed to the rest of the Dems who only care about corporate profits!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to Progressive Party

Agree. These people should be fired up about Stupak, not Kucinich. DUH!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:41 AM in reply to sethcohen

So we should be angry about Stupak's NO vote but please with Kucinich's NO vote?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to FreeRider

To certain extent yes -- because Kucinich left in place would vote for a good bill if it was presented to him and Stupak will never vote for a bill which is fair to women.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:09 PM in reply to AJM

Kucinich's "good bill" doesn't have any chance in passing and he knows it. That's why HE's not negotiating in good faith.

You do know that Kucinich is anti-choice, don't you?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

geofu54

March 9, 2010 9:45 AM

Oh please, Dennis. Stop showing us your political masturbation anymore, we don't want to see such a shit.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 9:50 AM

Is Kucinich ready to have blood on his hands of hundreds of thousands of Americans lives who could have been saved if not for pre-existing condition loopholes that would have been shut with this legislation?

Anyone who believes that sweeping change is anything but a long, arduous, incremental process that takes place over decades (if not centuries) is either intellectually lazy, ignorant of history or stuck in petulant adolescence. Racism wasn't eradicated from America after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but that doesn't mean that it was a worthless gesture.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tanjaoui

March 9, 2010 9:51 AM

Good for you, Dennis! This bill enshrines the insurance industry's role as gatekeeper to health care in law for generations to come. It fails to address the problem of spiraling costs and what minimal gains it makes in rendering health care affordable to those on cheap-o bronze plans will be temporary, as provider costs continue to skyrocket. This plan doesn't touch fee-for-service, doctor's fees, has no reliable risk adjuster, allows plans to charge older insureds 3x what the younger ones pay, perpetuates the insidious link between employment and health insurance, etc. etc. Just look at how the system in MA is unraveling.

Obama is simply obsessed with sounding moderate and bipartisanship. His watered down gruel of a bill just tinkers with the current system and puts off substantive reform to some later date...probably the next Democratic Admin.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:54 AM in reply to Tanjaoui

Check in with reality on occasion. You might find it a nice place to live.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:07 AM in reply to FreeRider

Good morning FreeRider. I see you are in great form as usual.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 10:15 AM in reply to lousgirl84

You mean you two don't sleep in the same room at boarding school?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to wbgonne

"Kucinich will vote for HCR if his vote is needed," said wbgonne.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to FreeRider

Moron. There hasn't been a vote yet.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to wbgonne

So, you're saying Kucinich is lying now.

"Kucinich will vote for HCR if his vote is needed," said wbgonne.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to wbgonne

Didn't your mother teach you that it's rude to barge into other people's conversations?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to Brownbagger

Fuck you. Now THAT'S rude.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to wbgonne

Oh my! Such language! You are almost single-handedly ruining this blog!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to wbgonne

Yep, as I said. Thanks for confirming.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 10:08 AM in reply to Tanjaoui

Completely agree, Tanjaoui. Democrats are just another party owned by the corporations. At least we have one politician willing to stand up for everyday people and not insult us with a crappy bill that just gives more money to the corporations that caused the problem in the first place.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Rich in NJ

March 9, 2010 9:59 AM

Dennis, you made your point. It's time to be a good Democrat and do what's right for the country, not just yourself.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

madmatt

March 9, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to Rich in NJ

Yes get those unaccountable billions to the Ins Cos as quick as possible, because now they promise to behave better....what a joke, not a single enforcement mechanism in the bill. You gonna pay my mandate for a policy that is unusable to me due to high deductible?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Rich in NJ

March 9, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to madmatt

That's factually inaccurate according to the CBO, and if your income is under the threshold in the legislation, then yes, you are subsidized.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 9:59 AM

Looks like when Leadership decided to shut out Dennis, and instead woo Stupak and insert his abortion language (and not the language Dennis asked for), they misjudged the political reality afterall.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to Indie Pro

the K-man is correct:

"This bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry," Kucinich told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. "$70 billion a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance...I'm sorry, I just don't see that this bill is the solution."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to Indie Pro

Indie:

I have reluctantly come to believe that the HCR bill should be passed. Obama and the Dems need this win or there may not even be a chance to fight another day. I think Progressives have made political in-roads during HCR but it is frightening to discover how low we have been on the Dem totem pole. If you can't bring yourself to support it I accept that. I hope you can see my point, too.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 10:29 AM in reply to wbgonne

I see your point. You think if HIR passes the demcorats will not have a bad time in November, I think that is wrong. The democrats will have a hard time no matter what, due to the economy, anti-incumbent moods, and the natural flow of mid-terms being bad for the party in power. Things just don't look good.

Saying this bill needs to pass, in order to help an election is crass, in my opinion. It is that kind of lack of principles that says it is OKAY for Obama to make backroom deals with AHIP and the insurance industry.

I continue to echo thoughts liek these:

'It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the healthcare crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry,' said NNU co-president Karen Higgins, RN."

But I do respect you. Fight for what you believe.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to Indie Pro

I hear you. I feel like I fought as hard as I could. And I am horribly disappointed by the White House (not to mention its nasty cheerleaders like those who've just about ruined this blog for me). But what's done is done. I do think the Dems can recover for Nov if they enact this HCR legislation, weak as it is. To me, the principled that the Dems can lead and that government can positively impact people's lives is worth an Aye vote. Like I said, I was shocked to learn how in contempt Progressives are held by the Dem Establishment. We made some noise and I think we have moved the needle a bit. I have reluctantly concluded that's the best we can hope for at the moment. It is truly pathetic. The Dems are like battered spouses blaming themselves for getting beaten and pretending that if they were just like Republicans everyone would love them. All that said, the Republicans are frighteningly stupid and nasty and, for the time being at least, it's either A or B. I will fight the next battle as hard as this one and hopefully have a greater measure of success to show for it. But I do want to ensure that there WILL be a next battle. If the GOP gets back in control we are totally screwed. A miserable state of affairs but here we are.

Best of luck to you, My Friend. I look forward to future battles alongside you.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to wbgonne

good on ya. We all have roles to play. I understand yours.

The fight does not end with this legislation. Whether it passes or fails.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 10:01 AM

I am a little shocked (although I guess I shouldn't be) about all the so-called progressives here attacking the one politician who has always stood his ground on the left. Progressives who still hold on to hope that Obama actually gives a crap about them despite the fact that he proposed a bill without a public option, that holds the Senate abortion language that takes steps backwards with women's rights, that guarantees the insurance companies millions of more customers....the list goes on. We have one politician with the guts to stand up for what's right and everyone attacks him? This is exactly why you guys lose your battles every time. Look at Stupak - he's willing to let this bill crash and burn because of his stance on abortion - where is the anger against this idiot? The reason Stupak gets his way and progressives never do, is that the other side has more people willing to let the bill fail. So then the White House caters to those people. Kucinich is the lone hero on the progressive side, and the only way that progressives will ever get what they want is if they DEMAND it, like Kucinich is doing. I assume that those on this board who are attacking him are 1) not really progressives or 2) those who love the abusive relationship you're in with a Democratic party that uses you for your votes.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:05 AM in reply to sethcohen

Yup. Ironic, isn't it, that when politicians are constantly (and rightly) abused for breaking their promises, one of the few who is actually keeping his gets bashed for .

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

March 9, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to sethcohen

You're right. The obama devotees (losergirl, freeloader, etc.) are as sick as the W worshippers. They are obedient to their master, follow without questioning, and amazingly insulting to anybody that dares differ. Their allegiance is to obama not the people of the US. They are no different than those that were and still are unable to admit W ever made an error.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to T Groan

If you're so upset about being an anonymous talking pussy, why do you keep doing it?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 8:31 PM in reply to FreeRider

Yep. Just as I guessesd -- a right wing sexist posing as an Obama supporter with the aim of being so offensive that people are turned off from supporting Obama.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to AJM

You and Massa are really good at this conspiracy stuff, ain't you?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

March 9, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to T Groan

An army of 2. Hardly representative.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to sethcohen

Not all of us here are "progressives". Some of us are just good liberal democrats. I don't dislike Kucinich but I disagree with his position here -- He has not always held his ground and he like all other politicians are opportunists and he's no different.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

March 9, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to lousgirl84

"Not all of us here are "progressives". Some of us are just good liberal democrats."

Please tell me the difference between "good liberal Democrats" and Progressives.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

John M

March 9, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to wbgonne

Liberal Democrats are people who sell out to the Joe Liebermans and Ben Nelsons of the world. Progressives are people who stand up for their values like Denis Kucinich.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to John M

In other words, liberal democrats are willing to compromise to get a half loaf and "progressives" are willing to walk away empty handed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to FreeRider

um "half a loaf" would have been a public option. The whole loaf would have been a single payer system. Obama started negotiating with a watered down public option and then went to zero. so no lousgirl, you're not even getting half a loaf. don't kid yourself.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to FreeRider

it ain't half a loaf, moron, at best it's kicking the can down the road a bit in hopes that real reform can be passed before the entire house of cards collapses--which won't be happening any time in the near future with a much smaller Dem majority or a Repub majority, so spare us the "fix it later" bs.
The only reason I support this is because it gives us some more time, but not much--anyone who knows anything about this joke of a "reform" bill knows that it still allows insurers to jack up rates and drop people from coverage at will based on "fraud".
Anyone who continues to lie about these issues(such as yourself) will continue to be hammered.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to human

More shit from the shithead!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George C

March 9, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to sethcohen

The argument comes down to ideological purity v. political reality. Whatever else the reconciled bill does, it seems to enable people to obtain health insurance who couldn't do so previously -- either through subsidies, the small business exchanges, no exclusions, etc. To vote against this will continue the status quo, in which 15,000 people a day lose their insurance.

While this is obviously a personal decision, I don't understand how it's better to vote the thing down because it doesn't include something that lacks majority support in the Senate. Of course, if it has majority support in the Senate, they may yet add it to the reconciliation provisions. Otherwise, I don't get it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 8:26 PM in reply to sethcohen

Stupak is getting primaried.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeffgee

March 9, 2010 10:02 AM

What a little ego-tripping prick. And what would he get for derailing HCR? A self-satisfied feeling? This chance won't come again soon if the GOP increases their numbers in November.
Any lawmaker who doesn't want HCR for the rest of us should give up his taxpayer-funded health insurance.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hobbs

March 9, 2010 10:06 AM

After viewing Marcia Angell and Wendell Potter on Bill Moyers, I am not really sure if I would disparage Dennis Kucinich. I like guys who stick to their principles.

Mr. Kucinich may force the administration to work on getting the Public Option done during reconciliation if he becomes the deciding vote.He may also convince 'them' to remove the language in the bill that allows the insurance companies to sue the State Governments if they adopt a Medicare-for-all approach.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to hobbs

Agree hobbs - I saw the same episode of Bill Moyers. What a show!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to hobbs

You're forgetting that Kucinich voted AGAINST the House bill that included a public option, aren't you?

There's no satisfying the Elf.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hobbs

March 9, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to FreeRider

From the video it appears that congressman Kucinich voted against the bill even though it had the public option because the PO had been watered down too much to be effective in controlling costs. IMHO, he makes logical arguments for not supporting the current bill.

I noticed that he did leave the door open a little to vote for the bill if his concerns were met in the reconciliation process.

We are hearing the same thing about premiums going up after this bill's passage from two different individuals. I think it may be worth paying attention to both the congressman and Marcia Angell and address their concerns before we blindly support the current bill.

All this bill does, IMHO, is prolong the inevitable. Also, IMHO, what this bill does is only incremental, despite statements to the contrary from the administration.

A Medicare-for-all would have galvanized the masses to go out in a big way in support the president and democratic party.

Instead, the current bill has hacked away at all the enthusiasm of the voters who supported obama during the election.

What a missed opportunity!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

UglyMoe

March 9, 2010 10:07 AM

Democratic leadership would obviously rather appease Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe than Dennis Kucinich, despite the fact that Dennis is in their party.

That is the same way democratic leadership treats the base, since registered democrats overwhelmingly (polling as high as 80%) want a single-payer system.

Perhaps it is time to put a stop to that abusive, one-way relationship?

What other way is there than to stand up for yourself?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to UglyMoe

I think the base needs to learn from the tactics of the other side, which always has gotten their way lately. Yes - time to put a stop to the abusive relationship and make Democrats do what they promise in their campaigns.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dick c

March 9, 2010 10:31 AM

This is the position Obama campaigned on and I applaud Kucinich for sticking with it. For the most part Democrats are simply trying to convince you they're doing all the can while while delivering for drug and insurance companies. To hell with them.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Zell

March 9, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to dick c

Obama campaigned on the idea of all or nothing? That's funny, I thought Obama campaigned on the idea of pragmatism while keeping sight of loftier goals.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Zell

March 9, 2010 10:38 AM in reply to Zell

For example, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." He said that, and variations on it, over and over and over again.

Were you not paying attention?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to Zell

maybe he talked to healthcare professionals like these:

"NNU Co-president Deborah Burger, RN challenged arguments of legislation proponents that the bill should still be passed because of expanded coverage, new regulations on insurers, and the hope that it will be improved in the House-Senate conference committee or future years."

“'Those wishful statements ignore the reality that much of the expanded coverage is based on forced purchase of private insurance without effective controls on industry pricing practices or real competition and gaping loopholes in the insurance reforms,' said Burger."

"Further, said NNU Co-president Jean Ross, RN, 'the bill seems more likely to be eroded, not improved, in future years due to the unchecked influence of the healthcare industry lobbyists and the lessons of this year in which all the compromises have been made to the right.'”

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Zell

March 9, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to Indie Pro

Your capability to find a couple Chicken Littles who happen to have nursing degrees does not alter the facts that this bill:

* Will significantly expand the scope of Medicaid coverage;

* Will ensure that we all have health care whereas tens of millions currently do not;

* Will ensure that poor people will get subsidized to pay for it;

* Will ensure that insurance companies cannot refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions;

* Will ensure that insurance companies cannot drop people after they get sick

* Will ensure that broad pools of the insured will be set up so that everyone pays basically the same rates for the same coverage;

* Will enforce out-of-pocket caps so that people are no longer driven to bankruptcy by medical costs (which currently happens even to people who have health insurance);

* Will stop the current and odious soft-indenture caused by the fact that many people are afraid to leave their jobs for better ones specifically because of their health insurance;

* With all of this, is projected to actually reduce the deficit by a large amount;

* And many other things.

But in any case, even if your quoted Chicken Littles are correct in their opinions, this really has nothing at all to do with my point, which is that the person I responded to claimed something that is factually untrue, and laughably so - i.e. that Obama campaigned on the idea of "all or nothing".

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to Zell

* Will ensure that we all have health care whereas tens of millions currently do not;

you mean force people to buy insurance.

* Will ensure that poor people will get subsidized to pay for it;

and yet, like Mass, 25% of those will be too poor to actually use the insurance. And with HSAs now in the forefront, and with bronze level plans being cheaper, many will find themselves on the hook for up to 40% of all costs, without any subsidies to help there. Plus, many people will have insufficient subsidies, and some will have none. Not to mention, without reining in premiums, you are simply throwing money at a problem.

* Will ensure that insurance companies cannot refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions;

Insurance companies can still claim fraud under the Senate bill, which is one of the main ways they drop people when they are sick now, or don't cover.

* Will ensure that insurance companies cannot drop people after they get sick

see above. and they can charge more.

* Will ensure that broad pools of the insured will be set up so that everyone pays basically the same rates for the same coverage;

the senate bill offers State based exchanges. Not national.

* Will enforce out-of-pocket caps so that people are no longer driven to bankruptcy by medical costs (which currently happens even to people who have health insurance);

people will still go bankrupt due to medical expenses. See the new talk of HSA accounts, the Bronze and silver level packages, etc

* Will stop the current and odious soft-indenture caused by the fact that many people are afraid to leave their jobs for better ones specifically because of their health insurance;

cadillac plans are being taxed. Great insurance as part of a pay package is a thing of the past.

* With all of this, is projected to actually reduce the deficit by a large amount;

the true conservative mantra. more money could be saved with a robust PO, and let's be honest, the accounting is spurious, and when over ten years out, often very wrong.

* And many other things.

yes, and many other things contrary as well.

as KOS wrote about the Senate bill:

"You pass a s——-y program now that further bankrupts our nation, and we won't be talking about 'fixing' it in a few years, but whether it should even exist."

as Dean said about the Seante bill:

As it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America,”

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George C

March 9, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Indie Pro

I don't get the concern with "forcing people to buy insurance". We "force people to join social security"; we force people to pay for Medicare. What's the difference?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to George C

what difference is there between social security and private insurance companies?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George C

March 9, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to Indie Pro

No. What is the difference between being required to pay a monthly sum to obtain social security in the future, and being required to pay a monthly sum to obtain health insurance now? While there's obviously a difference because one insurer is public and the other private, I'm not sure that's a sufficient difference to produce a different result.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George C

March 9, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to Indie Pro

In fact, use the medicare analogy. Medicare recipients pay a monthly premium for their health insurance, while everyone under 65 will have to pay a monthly premium for their health insurance. While medicare is a better deal, it's also going broke.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to George C

for me, the private/public difference makes all the difference.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcrose68

March 9, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to George C

The concern is about forcing people to buy insurance in a non-competative market, for a product that has infinite potential inflation.

Social Security is a defined benefit and defined contribution program. When you remove life-time caps health care has open ended costs. Do we take extroidinary measures, or extra-extroidinary measures to save a life?

In a mandatory coverage world, insurance companies NO incentive to reduce the cost of health care - because their profits are percentage of the total bill.

Let me say that again : The profits of the insurance company are a percentage of the overall cost of health care.

Remove life-time caps and the $60,000-$600,000 that regualarly gets spent performing extroidinary measures in the last 3 weeks-3 years of life turns into $600,000-$6 million spent in the last 23 days - 39 months of life.
If everyone is required to purchase insurance, no matter the price, the individual insurance company prefers that all insurance companies are required to pay the $6 million. Because 5% of $6 million is more than 5% of $60K

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcrose68

March 9, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to mcrose68

That said, I want to see this imperfect HCR passed into law because :
1. I do believe (perhaps naively) that it has cost control in place.
2. If this HCR doesn't pass, Democrats will lose a lot of seats and the Republicans will pass their own version of HCR which will involve tax cuts for the rich, and additional spending on contractors (which will by complete coinicidence be friends of theirs who give them money), but no money for doctors or actual health care.

And somehow they will sucede in the convincing people that they cut taxes while raising spending, simulaneously blaming the massive debt on those damn democrats

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George C

March 9, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to mcrose68

I'm not sure I agree. I'm not an actuary, but it seems to me that if premiums are supposed to cover the transition from $6k - $600K, to $600k -$6m in payouts, premiums will be unaffordable anyway. I agree with your analysis of amounts spent during the first and last year of life, but I don't think industry profits are the hero or the villain.

I also have a hard time believing that if HCR goes down now, the Repubs will pass their own version. First, they don't want it. But second, Obama will veto it if it doesn't expand coverage, and there's no real way to expand coverage without doing many of the same things they're not willing to sign onto now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcrose68

March 9, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to George C

I don't intend to paint profits as a evil. But profits are the gentle hand that pushes the market one way or the other. And my specific point is that the current insurance market has little profit dis-incentive againt growing health care cost.

The dis-incentives that do exist are :
1. when insurance is so expensive that people choose to stop buying it,
2. businesses choose to stop providing it because it's no longer cost effective way to recruit/retain employees
3. health insurance cost forces business into bankruptcy so they can no longer buy insurance.

Along come manadates for companies and individuals.

And mandates recognize the fact that many people will not be able to afford insurance, so they provide help.

In this model the only remaining cost controls are when the clients (e.g. GM) go out of business, and/or the nation goes bankrupt. But that takes time, and most CEOs/management teams care about their own bonus, not the bonus years down the road.

Now, I'm not an actuarial either. And the CBO has projected that people will actually upgrade their policies by choice down the road because they will be better value - so there must be some cost-control measures the CBO has recognized; but I don't know what they are. So my support for this bill is largely based on my faith that Obama and the people or the CBO are honest people who can do math.

My expectation that Repubublicans pass their own bill if this bill doesn't pass are largely based on my perception that the Republican Party of the 21rst centurty simply loves to spend money. Medicare Part D, War in Iraq, No Child Left behind. All spending in quantities that rival the HCR. But worse because they are all unfunded spending, amounting to more deficit and debt.
They are either ignorant of math (ala GW Bush or the Tea Partiers of "protect my medicare from the goverment" fame) or simply dishonest about the debt they are creating (ala Delay or Cheney).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 8:44 PM in reply to Zell

Condescend to nurses much?

NNU is the National Nurses United with a membership of 150,OOO -- largest union of registered nurses.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RhodaA

March 9, 2010 10:55 AM

Kucinich Contacts:

Phone: 202-225-5871

Accepts email from outside of Ohio:
http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bidalah

March 9, 2010 11:10 AM

I wonder what Kucinich thinks of Social Security? Does he believe it is a PERFECT program for seniors? If not, would he vote to abolish it? Following his logic in the interview it should be offensive, and against his values to vote to keep an imperfect solution afloat wouldn't it? Or perhaps his logic only applies to new programs; perhaps existing programs which are popular and doing great good despite their lack of perfection are exempt from Kucinich's posturing.

Or perhaps Kucinich is just another ideological one-track moron like so many of the Right, who prefers living in his own head.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:27 AM in reply to bidalah

I think you're letting the hyperbole about 'perfect being the enemy of the good' hamper your logic. A lot of people seem to feel the bill is bad, not incrementally good. I don't think anyone has ever said a bill must be perfect.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bidalah

March 9, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton

I don't see the discussion of "perfect being the enemy of good" as hyperbole at all. You can't exaggerate the serious nature is of this problem or my contempt for petty kingmakers like this guy.

The issue of health care in this country has reached the proportions of national security. Wingnuts from both sides of the political spectrum are deluding themselves and/or us by pretending that the alternative to this bill is a better bill. The alternative to this bill is the status quo and the status quo is the Titanic just before the iceberg.

Anyone who believes that this bill will make America worse off then the current system is simply not paying attention.

If Kucinich were emperor I would expect and demand a better health plan. As he is only a single legislator I expect him to add his voice to many to create the best possible health care reform bill that 435 independent legislators can collectively devise.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to bidalah

What's hilarious is these people actually believe if we wait it out we'll get public options and "meaningful" (whatever that means) reform down the road.

Please, if this bill doesn't pass no politician is going to touch healthcare reform again for decades. Why would anyone willingly revisit the poison pill that killed both Clintons and Obama's first terms, unless they're an outright sadist? The Republicans and Insurance Lobby will only be more emboldened knowing that if they raise enough stink and misinformation that they can kill any health reform (they're 2 for 2 so far).

So anyone wanting to kill the current bill, I hope with you're happy with our current system ... it's the one you'll be stuck with for most of your lifetime.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 8:52 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Nope. The alternative is to work our fannies off dumping the Blue Dogs and installing better Democrats.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbeats

March 9, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to bidalah

This bill will make us worse off. You simply have not been paying attention.

Thank you Dennis Kucinicnh for being one of the few honest politicians. Too bad Obama has become a two faced back stabber of the middle class.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/senates-bill-helps-working-families.html

March 9, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to rbeats

Educate yourself in the numbers instead of the screeching screeds of talking head hacks.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cornelius

March 9, 2010 11:16 AM

We're fighting over the crumbs. That's all Obama and company are offering the American people. The President is mandating insurance w/o cost controls for products provided by profit driven companies with voracious appetites that have also been granted monopolies. NO ONE can successfully argue for that position! It's like someone you voted for telling you "well if you're going to be raped, why don't you lay down and enjoy it"!

Obama has unfortunately become, as Brando says to Sheen in Apocalypse Now, "You're a messenger boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill".

You're a messenger boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill. ...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to Cornelius

If you think closing the pre-existing conditions loophole is "crumbs" methinks you're probably a 20 something who has never had any first hand experience dealing with our current healthcare system.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jsdc007

March 9, 2010 11:35 AM

And this moron thought he had a chance at the Presidency.

I'm sure Jane Hamsher just LOVES him!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

OhioGuy

March 9, 2010 11:50 AM

Dennis has been one of the most reliable Republican votes ever since Obama was sworn in. Why should he change now?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to OhioGuy

False. Check ProgressivePunch.com for the numbers. Dennis comes from a strong Democratic district and has a lifetime record of voting with progressives in close votes 85.90 of the time. This ranks him 72 among representatives.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kuro

March 9, 2010 11:55 AM

Kucinich is a idiot. He is no better than a Republican. He has nothing to offer. Single payer is not realistic and there are not enough votes for the public option. So instead of helping to pass health care reform, he is just going to be a 5 foot tall cry baby douche bag.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

March 9, 2010 11:56 AM

I'll show that damn Massa... Try to out purity me with the crazy, will he?

Well... I've been crazying it up longer than he has - NOBODY steals Denny's schtick!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbeats

March 9, 2010 11:59 AM

Citizen: "Hey I can't afford high deductible health insurance."

Obama/Congress: "I know how to fix it. Empower the IRS to force the citizen to buy it, or fine the shit our of them."

Honest Citizen: "That is not reform, that is a form of slavery."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

joeinmaryland

March 9, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to rbeats

And how is a penalty of $750 for not buying insurance "fining the shit out of them"?

Remember--If this person has low income--they will either be on expanded Medicaid rolls or get a subsidy to buy coverage. Odds are the person not electing coverage doesn't qualify for subsidies or got lazy and didn't enroll.

One day in a hospital is $3,000---someone's got to pay for it. A person who doesn't elect coverage is forcing all of us to pay for it as they don't accept responsability for their actions.

I fed up with people who complain about "having to buy insurance"

After health reform, if you want a public option so bad--get a $10 an hour job and get on Medicaid.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbeats

March 9, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to joeinmaryland

Single payer or nothing. I will not be forced into buying junk insurance or being fined by the IRS.

That is garbage. Supporting that is despicable and cowardly.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to rbeats

And when you get sick and injured, who is going to pay for your healthcare? Oh, all the rest of us who have chipped in.

You're just as bad as the teapartiers who don't believe they should pay any taxes but should still enjoy all the public goods as everyone else.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jcfinsf

March 9, 2010 12:03 PM

Shocking to read all the name calling and vitriol in response to this story. TPM editors seem too busy to moderate their boards, and now, instead of debate, we got a bunch of school bus antics and drive-bys. Embarrassing.

On the issue at hand, I can't recall being more impressed by DK in his political life. He stated his position (months ago), and unlike other cowardly dems, he's sticking to it. This doesn't mean he won't find a way to vote for the bill, folks. It means he's keeping up the good fight longer than everyone else.

But For godssake: if you're a progressive you got to be a bit ashamed of this bill. It's a shell of what it should be. Okay, so you can vote for it as a political maneuver and a down payment toward real reform, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking this is worth splitting the party over. It is not. And spare me the lives that it will same malarkey, because just as many will be lost after being priced out of the for-profit insurance market, subsidies or otherwise, folks that will take their chances with ERs and skirting the new law...see: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/24-5 .

So Obama and co will learn about failed leadership the hard way with lukewarm excitement from the base in the fall. The President has been hammering my email (like everyone else's), asking for me to call my senator or to do this or that. I did that, Sir. Over and over. I'm tapped out with nothing to show for it. I've fired a few dozen hand-written letters, but I did so through the fall, back when the bill was about real change and not more of the same. Now the only one I'll write is DK--to thank him for not quitting on us, for REALLY fighting to get health care reform and the kind that will work.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to jcfinsf

hear, hear!

Shocking to read all the name calling and vitriol in response to this story. TPM editors seem too busy to moderate their boards, and now, instead of debate, we got a bunch of school bus antics and drive-bys. Embarrassing.

Word.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

human

March 9, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Indie Pro

started with freeloader right out of the gate. Adhoms he can do, intelligent commentary not at all.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to human

You are exhibit A of what happens with siblings marry.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 9:06 PM in reply to FreeRider

You just proved human's point.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 9:12 PM in reply to AJM

Human's point is on the top of his head and so is yours.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to jcfinsf

[QUOTE]So Obama and co will learn about failed leadership the hard way with lukewarm excitement from the base in the fall.[/QUOTE]

And the base will learn about reality the next time they try to get their insurance to cover a big ticket item when it's labeled a "pre-existing condition" and Republicans in charge are starting a new war in Iran.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbeats

March 9, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

You don't get it do you?

The Health insurance bill still won't fix that because it ha the loophole of limits on yearly payments, and deductibles of 10 grand.

You will still go BK, and you will still have procedures denied.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/senates-bill-helps-working-families.html

March 9, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to rbeats

Please, educate yourself on the numbers intead of the screeches of teh intrawebbings.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rbeats

March 9, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

I read it and it does not address what I brought up.

Funny how Nate is like, well 1600 a month is allot for rent and you can buy a big house in many parts of the country...blah blah blah.

1600 is not expensive when you live in a big city like me. Getting a 2 bedroom home in my neighborhood is about 2200 a month and a mortgage would be around 2900-3300 a month.

So you want to fine me an additional 750 a year to buy high deductible junk insurance?

Whatever, Give me a single payer bill, or STFU and look somewhere else for a vote in November.

I am sick and tired of the Obama admin screwing over the middle class.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to rbeats

If you can afford $3000 a month on rent, you're not poor .. you're just allocating your money poorly through your own living choices.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bidalah

March 9, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to jcfinsf

See the "FLAG ABUSE" link on the right? Use it. I have.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ws84

March 9, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to jcfinsf

I totally agree. The name callers sound just like the right-wingers who walked the line with W. I can't believe they are ready to go from single payer to public option to the hell with it let's just give the insurance industry 30 million new customers. Dennis is not just standing on principal he sees the handwriting on the wall.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

HusseinTenaX

March 9, 2010 12:05 PM

I hate him.

What a disgusting little grandstanding hypocritical, anti-choice, pos.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX

just curious, what happened to "one love"?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

geofu54

March 9, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX

Tena! Good to see you here again.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

March 9, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX

Hey Tena! Glad to see ur grainy b&w pretty face!

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000336/votes/against-party/

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gpleigh

March 9, 2010 12:10 PM

Why does this guy call himself a Democrat? Dennis Kucinich has voted NO:

on hate crimes legislation
on stimulus
on budget
on climate change bill
on the Joe Wilson reprimand resolution
and now on health insurance reform

Take a look at just how often he votes with Republicans and against his own Party:

Unbelievable!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GayIthacan

March 9, 2010 12:12 PM

Actually, I think you ALL need to learn how to read English.

NOWHERE does he say he will vote 'NO' on the bill. Read his sentences carefully and politically. They reek of what politically savvy observers call 'plausible deniability' for later use.

"If that sounded like...." is quite a bit different from "Yes."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to GayIthacan

Delusional much?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GayIthacan

March 9, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to FreeRider

No, dear.

I merely know how to read and interpret English words and complex concepts - two skills that a reading of your previous contributions to this site would seem to indicate that you lack - in spades.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

March 9, 2010 12:46 PM in reply to GayIthacan

Get back to me when the Congressman Smurf votes NO.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to FreeRider

Go get FR. School them on the deal...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to GayIthacan

He used a bunch of the usual weasel words, but answer me this: Why would he go on TV if he didn't intend to stir up some controversy over the probability he'd vote NO on this?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

March 9, 2010 12:19 PM

Kucinich is an egotistical asshole.
A worthless grandstanding piece of shit.

Shame on those who "thought" he was worth a shit.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

David Dunham

March 9, 2010 12:20 PM

K has re-earned his name "Dennis the Menace."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 9, 2010 12:26 PM

LOL!

Love you, Dennis!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

readytoblowagasket

March 9, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket

This is the funniest thread since the primaries.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:30 PM

Go Dennis! You are the real deal. Time Progressives stood up and demand to be heard!

Worked for Lincoln, Nelson and Baucus. We having nothing to lose since this bill is garbage without a public option that starts in 2010!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jaymay

March 9, 2010 12:33 PM

If Kucinich is against this on principle, it seems like a very good sign that HCR is going to pass, no?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreemanW

March 9, 2010 12:34 PM

GO DENNIS!

Thanks for standing up to the right wing looney-tunes.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Davran

March 9, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to FreemanW

Freeman, it would seem to be more accurate to say:

"Thanks for standing up WITH the right wing looney tunes."

Yeah, thanks a lot there Dennis.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to Davran

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that WAS what he was-- ironically-- getting at

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Davran

March 9, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to lyleleander

Hope so. It's hard to distinguish the ironic posts from the ones posted by some of the real(?) Kucinich supporters.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 12:42 PM

Okay, all you Dennis bashers, what do you call a bill that forces everyone to buy health insurance, but gives them no option other than buying insurance from the private insurance industry? An industry that the president himself was decrying as dishonest just yesterday? Its really funny, Obama is saying hate this industry, they are crooks. Now go out and buy their product or else! Funny eh? What do we call that?

Oh, but hey, we'll fix it later, right? And in the mean time, we are going to trust this hated, crooked, industry to set up some nice "fair" plans, wrap them up nicely in a bow then put them in an exchange where you WILL go and buy one. Super, no need to question if the money will go to food or health care, you MUST comply, so health care it is. Great idea. People will love Democrats for this.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to henk

They call it "PROFIT"!

These so-called "Dems" populating this site are sitting in some insurance company call center funded by FreedomWorks.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

And why are the insurance industry spending millions of dollars trying to fight it tooth and nail again?

Oh, that little unfortunate factoid doesn't jibe well with your simple minded, 2 dimensional conspiracy theory, does it?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

"Our industry strongly supports health care reform because we recognize that the current system is unsustainable," Ignagni said in a copy of her remarks provided to TPMDC...

Ignagni said her group still favors several of the reform programs supported by Democrats, including an end to preexisting condition screening. In the past AHIP has also expressed support for the coverage mandates found in the Democratic reforms, which would guarantee millions of customers are added to insurance company rolls. Documents obtained by TPMDC last year suggested the group at least privately opposes a public option.

2 posts below this one, on this site.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Yes, thanks for linking the article stating that the AHIP is spending millions of dollars in commercials to attack Obama. It really helps your position that he's in their pocket and they love the WH's version of HCR.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

they are spending money to clean up their image, not attacking Obama. Afterall, Obama is protecting the deals he made with them. HAve you seen that article? It was on TPM as well.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Indie Pro

You mean the article that states the following?

"America's Heath Insurance Plans, the lobbying arm of the nation's health insurance industry, is stepping back into the health care reform debate with more than $1 million in TV ads over the next few days, an AHIP official tells TPMDC. The ads, which will run on cable, will focus on "setting the record straight about rising health care costs" as the Obama administration goes after big insurers for raising insurance rates."
...

"Despite an alliance with the White House at the outset of the reform debate, AHIP swiftly joined the ranks of critics attacking Democratic reform plans, which the controversial AHIP audit said would raise insurance premiums dramatically. Now, the White House and the industry appear publicly to be at odds over reform -- this week, the White House has directly targeted insurers as Obama tries to drum up enthusiasm for one more reform push."

...

Yeah, sounds like they love the Obama Health Care plan.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

March 9, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

no the deals he made with Pharma and the insurance industry.

again, this is how they feel:

"Our industry strongly supports health care reform because we recognize that the current system is unsustainable," Ignagni said in a copy of her remarks provided to TPMDC...

Ignagni said her group still favors several of the reform programs supported by Democrats, including an end to preexisting condition screening. In the past AHIP has also expressed support for the coverage mandates found in the Democratic reforms, which would guarantee millions of customers are added to insurance company rolls. Documents obtained by TPMDC last year suggested the group at least privately opposes a public option.

2 posts below this one, on this site.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

You really believe that?

Insurance and pharma have so much money, they can afford these attack ads. They know that 60% of Americans are in favor of a public option. And if they come out against this watered down Senate bill hard with attack ads, Americans will be so scared out of their mind reform will fail, they will jump at anything.

Classic reverse psychology. But isn't that only supposed to work on children?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

Hysterical knee jerks also work on children. Occam's Razor tends to win in the end.

Occam's Razor tends to indicate the insurance industry is against the current version of HCR because it's going to pass regulatoins mandating that they provide minimum coverage.

They'd much rather keep the system they have now ... where 70% of Americans are buying their "fool's gold" coverage and they're not actually required to pay for anything.

This is the system you think we would be better off keeping.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

One of them couldn't resist commenting on your comment.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to henk

Resist? They are getting paid to respond. I wonder if they are getting medical bennies through their minimum wage job?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

You're the one maintaining that we're just better off keeping the current system than passing HCR, where insurance industries go completely unregulated or held accountable to provide coverage to people who pay into the system.

Who's the working for the insurance industry?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Look, I'll tell you a little story about insurance. I live across the border from Canada and I have friends who live there. They have a mandatory auto insurance law just as we have in the state of Washington.

So we are all forced into buying insurance. Only difference is, their government also provides a "government run" insurance option and my friends pay about a third of what I pay every month. My premiums have risen consistently since the beginning of this mandate 20 years ago.

This bill, like the auto insurance mandate, forces us into the FOR PROFIT market and yet does nothing to regulate costs.

Is this the health care bill you want?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

I have my own version of the "pie in the sky" bill I would ideally want passed. Until the day comes I'll take this one.

Sorry, it's just intellectually dishonest or lazy or naive to say that mandating insurance companies provide minimal coverage to it's constituents and closing the pre-existing conditions loophole is "no different" than the system we have now where Insurance Companies are allowed free reign to commit almost outright fraud against the poor, working poor and lower middle class families.

No need to lecture me about public options .. my wife is from Denmark. They put Canada's system to shame. The public option is not the argument at the moment. That's not the argument, and hasn't been for months now. The argument is whether we're better off with the system we have today or with the current HCR. So far I haven't heard one single convincing argument why we're better off with the system today other than "Wah, I don't want to pay for healthcare coverage. I'm a 20-something hipster who wants to put the money towards I-Phones and over-priced microbrews, and if some unforeseen catastrophe happens to me then the rest of you can pay for it."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Yeah lazy. Clearly you were too lazy to read the bill. Have a look at how this mandate works. Look at how much those with pre-existing conditions will pay.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

March 9, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

Your ad-hominem discredits any legitimate points you make. Some of us may genuinely differ in opinion, shocking is it not?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to Given Up

You mean name-calling? We don't need fancy logic words here. I never called anybody names. I simply pointed out they worked for the industry. What other explanation could there be for supporting this corporate welfare bill?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:44 PM

Dear Dennis "Asshat of The Year" Kucinich: if HCR is such a gift to the health insurance industry, why are they fighting it like their lives depend on it. Explain me that, and you win.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

Explain to me how forcing 30 million people to by their flawed product isn't a handout to them?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to henk

Like I said, explain to me why they're fighting it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

a) It closes the pre-existing conditions loophole, which allowed them to cash in from customers without ever having to actually pay for anything.

b) The reform mandates insurance companies provide minimal levels of coverage, ending the current days of insurance comapanies selling people "insurance" that doesn't actually cover anything.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

Insurance and pharma have so much money, they can afford these attack ads. They know that 60% of Americans are in favor of a public option. And if they come out against this watered down Senate bill hard with attack ads, Americans will be so scared out of their mind reform will fail, they will jump at anything.

Classic reverse psychology. But isn't that only supposed to work on children?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

They aren't fighting the requirement that everyone buy health insurance in fact their lobbiests fought hard for that. They fought for government subsidizing those who can't afford it. They are fighting the public option and more regulation. They are fighting for loopholes in the other nice sounding things the pre-existing conditions language, etc...

Besides you asked Dennis to explain why they were fighting it. I asked you why handing them 30 million new customers, some of them subsidized with taxpayer money, isn't a give away?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to henk

It's only a give-away if they're allowed to take advantage of the situation. When the government mandated seat-belts for all cars, no one cried out that it was a give-away for seat-belt manufacturers. Why? Because it's a competitive business, duh! You can't cheat people when someone else is willing to undersell you, duh! If the government had chosen one company to make all the seat belts and charge whatever they wanted, sure. But if we have HC reform that creates competition, the monopolies will end, the pool of insured will be large enough and healthy enough to allow COMPETITIVE insurance companies to offer lower prices (just like they do in the COMPETITIVE auto insurance business) and we'll all be better off.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

PS == that's what the insurance companies are fighting against. They don't want to be handed all those new customers if the condition is that they actually have to treat them like valued customers.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

susanthe

March 9, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to JimmyBobby

Theater. The opposition of the reform by insurance companies convinces gullible fools that this is actually reform.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stephen Daugherty

March 9, 2010 12:45 PM

Dennis Kucinich is not President, not mayor, but a Representative. This means that any action he takes that is not part of a larger majority, or which does not change the overall bills is largely symbolic.

There's a reason Kucinich has never won all the presidential primaries he's been through. He doesn't seem to understand the dynamics of building support for policy.

Kucinich doesn't understand that, to be crude, that we have to deflower the virgin on this issue. We have to make healthcare reform an issue of actual policy instead of just a matter of hypothetical proposals.

Republicans and Insurance companies aren't fighting this now without reason. They understand that if this passes, it encourages the further passing of legislation. Whether or not Democrats retain a majority, healthcare reform will be law, and so any folks who hope to repeal it, reform it, or what ever, will have to deal with what the policy Americans want is. It makes it an active political issue, and no longer merely a glimmer in a committee's eye.

More important than getting healthcare reform perfect is making healthcare reform real, even in a flawed form.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

March 9, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to Stephen Daugherty

Perhaps Kucinich doesn't realize he has to sell his soul to corporate interests, as obama did, and govern according to what benefits them as opposed to the majority of the people.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

March 9, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to T Groan

Perhaps Kucinich has never realized that politics is about making deals and always has been. If you are too pure to make deals, you will never be a very effective politician.

That's the whole reason things are so clogged up in the Senate. Too many Senators who are too pure to make deals.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

eclecticbrotha

March 9, 2010 12:45 PM

Kucinich is an idiot.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to eclecticbrotha

The only idiot in Congress who will still have job after next November.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

March 9, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

That will be good for him; I doubt it will do anyone else any good.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:46 PM

Aside from principle, I think the real, simplistic answer as to why he's taking this position can be found in what's right in front of all of our eyes... him on Television. Is he invited on this program if his public position was to maintain his beliefs but also let Obama know that he will not single-handedly KILL the bill, in the face of a Republican resurgence and lowered (if not eliminated odds) down the road?

Probably not.

It's not even necessarily a bad thing, if in the end he intends to get in line, after making his point, when the other option is to, again, as one man, single-handedly kill the biggest piece of progressive legislation this country has been faced with in generations.

I know, it's far from perfect, and some would strain to call it 'progressive'. But it's something.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to lyleleander

I'll agree with you on two things: It is "something." What I don't know and some would stain to call it progressive.

Otherwise its a piece of crap that a lot of folks here seem to think is a Baby Ruth.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

March 9, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to lyleleander

progressive???? ha ha ha . Pretty good joke!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to T Groan

It might not be Progressive, but nobody can say it isn't Progress from the BS we have now in this country. And I don't think anybody believes, at this point, that reform isn't going to need to happen incrementally and over a substantial period of time.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:49 PM

Yes, the insurance industry loves this "handout" so much that they spend millions of dollars lobbying to fight it.

I swear, sometimes our progressives make the teapartiers look like rocket scientists.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

This is the second time you've posted this crap. The insurance industry has been fighting the public option not health care reform that hands them 30 million new suckers.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to henk

Retard, the insurance industry is still fighting the bill. If it wasn't all the Republicans they've been paying by the busload would vote for the current version of it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

No need for name calling, unless you aren't convinced that your reasoning is sound, then you may need that. After all if you yell very loudly and call others names, I am sure you will win the argument.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/ahip-lobbyist-to-gop-dont_n_329828.html

March 9, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to henk

Long after the public option was dead....

"UPDATED BELOW

A top lobbyist for the major private insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), urged Congressional Republicans to not even consider helping Democrats pass health care reform lest they aid an "enemy who is down."

Steve Champlin, a lobbyist for the Duberstein Group who represents AHIP, declared that the road to a bipartisan health care reform bill was, essentially, dead. And he urged GOP members to keep it that way.

"There is absolutely no interest, no reason Republicans should ever vote for this thing. They have gone from a party that got killed 11 months ago to a party that is rising today. And they are rising up on the turmoil of health care," said Champlin. "So when they vote for a health care reform bill, whatever it is, they are giving comfort to the enemy who is down."

.... congrats for siding with the Health Care Lobby.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Same to ya:
August 24, 2009|Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger

WASHINGTON — Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall.

The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ru4862

March 9, 2010 12:51 PM

Stupak, Kucinich, and all these wavering democraps are full of crap. They should take their high moral act to someone who's actually cares, because this voter is not listening. Stupak and Kucinich are putting ideology before the people they represent.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

March 9, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to ru4862

And Obama isn't? If he was serious about helping the majority of the people we'd have single payer or something comparable. Instead he has to mandate/craft a bill that requires every citizen to be a customer of the insurance industries.

What a goddamn cashcow for the corporations.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 12:53 PM

Do these people even realize how much these people resemble the teaparty?

"I want healthcare, just don't force me to pay for it through taxes !!"

"I want healthcare, just don't force me to pay for it through subsidized premiums !!"

It's two sides of the same spoiled, self-entitled, "I want it all, just don't ask me to pay for it", retarded American coin.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

geofu54

March 9, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Exactly.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Subsidized premiums without price controls on the industry is just handing tax payer money to insurance companies. That sounds like something they would agree with.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/24/nation/na-healthcare-insurers24

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Here this might help you understand why the Insurers want this bill and what they were paying those lobbiests to do.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/more_conservative_misinformati.html

March 9, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to henk

And this might help you understand why the insurance is still funding the Republicans to fight this tooth and nail and until the very end.

"Spruiell goes on to say a bunch of other things that are not true. I'll just focus on one: He says the bill "causes premiums to go up," and "makes up for this with subsidies." I'll assume that he's just confused about this CBO report (pdf). But it's really not that confusing. The answer to this question is on Page 6, where you'll find a table comparing, among other things, "Difference in Price of a Given Amount of Insurance Coverage for a Given Group of Enrollees." That is to say, how much will the same insurance package for the same people cost before and after reform? The answer is that it would be 7 to 10 percent cheaper after reform."

....

"The confusion with this report is that it also says that the premiums people in the individual market are actually paying increase after reform (people outside the individual market -- the majority of the population -- see their premiums go down, full stop). There are two reasons for that: The main one is that the subsidies make it possible for them to purchase better policies. Second, there are minimum levels of coverage that insurers will have to abide by, ending the days when they can sell people something called "insurance" that doesn't actually protect people in the case of a health-care problem."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

I didn't say they weren't fighting certain aspects of this legislation, what I have been saying and you refuse to hear, is that Kucinich is correct. It is a big hand out to insurance companies. You posting evidence of their fighting the legislation does nothing to counter that argument.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cornelius

March 9, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Inman, were you born stupid or do you just work on it everyday?
Yes, I said we are fighting over the crumbs and you respond with "If you think closing the pre-existing conditions loophole is "crumbs" methinks...". No, methinks you don't think. You just run your mouth w/o any details. No one's "closing" pre-existing condition bs, they're just being allowed to triple the premium if you have pre-existing, so a $300 premium could cost you as much as $900 per month. Pay attention now: this "loophole" is closed but no one can afford it anyway! This is a classic Catch 22. Why do you need this explained to you?

Congress is mandating insurance w/o cost controls for products that can only be provided by a handful of profit driven companies with voracious appetites that have also been granted monopolies. NO ONE CAN SUCCESSFULLY ARGUE FOR THAT POSITION!

This bill could be made right if the Progressive Caucus takes a stand. They have the leverage but don't realize it. The President is desperate to pass this. Make him cave. It shouldn't be too hard. It's what he does best. Make him answer to us, not his donors. Don't we deserve it?

If they hold out for a least a guaranteed PO. All that's needed is a few more pols like Kucinich that will

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to Cornelius

Ugh, I have a dependent who had cancer who my insurance company tried to deny coverage to claiming that it was a pre-existing condition. $900 premium is unaffordable? I had to pay $15K in legal bills to get "lawyered up" to get my insurance company to pay for the treatments.

So you tell me wise one .. in which world is paying $900 "worse" than paying $15,000.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Seriously, I just have to wonder how many people on this board are 20 somethings who have never had to deal with insurance companies on any level. College kids who are still covered by their mommy and daddy and angry, or uninsured hipsters who would rather just go ot the ER than rather than have insurance coverage cut into the their beer or Iphone money, and now they're angry might have to start paying for something now.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cornelius

March 9, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

Ugh to you to. Simple question:
how many of the 31 million that are to be receive (can't say provided coverage) the "opportunity" to purchase coverage, how many of them can write, like you did, a check for $15,000 to fight for denied coverage? You're making my point. What the insurance provider did to your loved one will continue to be done to the 31 million ghetto care freshman class of 2014.
You know this is true but you want to see SOME progress. And you also probably realize that by 2014 this legislation will be so marginalized you'll wonder if all this was just a dream.
And no I'm not a 20 something that doesn't have, as you implied, any life experience. Wish I was. And I have the same war stories you have. But when I look at the details in this bill I can't see anything good coming from this. And I refuse to accept the crumbs because my President refused to stand against the powers that are providing those crumbs. If we want to get out of this 10 ft hole we're in, we have to stop digging!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

March 9, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to Cornelius

No one's "closing" pre-existing condition bs, they're just being allowed to triple the premium if you have pre-existing, so a $300 premium could cost you as much as $900 per month.

No, I believe you are wrong about that. My understanding is that insurers will be allowed to charge up to 1.5 times the basic rate for smokers, and up to 3 times the basic rate based on age, but that's it -- no higher ratings for pre-existing conditions.

Three times the basic rate may sound like a lot, but it's not unusual now for older adults to pay at a 7:1 ratio, and there is currently no cap on what insurance companies can charge based on age.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreemanW

March 9, 2010 1:09 PM

The deafening roar of silence is the corporate main stream media and the right wing echo chamber sitting back eating pop-corn while the Democrats do their bidding and craft a bill to bail out the over-leveraged, under-capitalized, on the brink of collapse, insurance industry.

But then, every other corporate sector is sucking up taxpayer money, why should the serial killing health insurance corporations be left out?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to FreemanW

But hey they didn't forget about the people, aren't they spending a couple million on unemployment benefits extension and a few hundred thousand on job creation? Maybe not much compared to the hundreds of billions handed out to industry, but still something right. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good or some such bullshit.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Hummon

March 9, 2010 1:12 PM

Dennis, my uninsurable type 1 diabetic brother has been your ardent supporter for years. I'm sure he appreciates you leaving him hanging for the sake of your precious ideological purity.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Brainpicnic

March 9, 2010 1:17 PM

This has been one of the more humorous threads I've read here, I guess Kucinich brings out some deep stuff.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to Brainpicnic

Nothing is simultaneously more emotionally satisfying and less productive than punching the dirty fucking hippies. Remember, when in crisis or in doubt, punch a hippie. It won't do anything to help your situation, but you'll feel better anyway.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jsdc007

March 9, 2010 1:18 PM

Most Americans have private health insurance and most of them are quite happy with the quality and quantity of care received. I see nothing wrong in regulating the private healthcare market to ensure that all Americans can purchase private health insurance. The whiny, whinging, useless and self-defeating far left refuse to accept the current political and economic realities in their quest for the holy grail of the "public option." However, while the left repeats the phrase "public option" like a demented parrot, they seldom understand its very limited scope even if it were enacted. It would be nirvana if we lived in a world where we could just hand over a social security card at a hospital or clinic and get the same treatment received by Donald Trump for next to nothing, but we don't. Give me a system that's a private/public matrix over the left's pipedream of a single payer system or the right's nightmare of a Darwinian, fully privatized and unregulated nightmare.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreemanW

March 9, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to jsdc007

Hear, hear!

Thank you for making the case against this bill!

Really!

Thank you. ;-)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

March 9, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to jsdc007

I can't understand this comment. The commenter seems to be saying that the current system is ok and that only loonies would want something superior. Go figure.

I've seen enough whining about people that won't accept mediocrity, this comment is another of those.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to T Groan

But to people who have mediocre ideas (or worse), mediocrity IS superiority.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

March 9, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to jsdc007

I have employer provided health care and NO ONE here is happy with it. Our premiums are going up 49% this year. I think what ever study you are trying to cite is way out of date or was not done very honestly.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 1:28 PM

OK, I think we can all stop arguing the pros and cons now.

If Democrats didn't have all the incentive they needed to pass health care reform already, then conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh may have provided the final push they needed by vowing to flee the country if the reform bill is passed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Brownbagger

I think he said "fleece" the country.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Rick Jones

Well, eh emmmm, Rush has been known to change his mind.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Brownbagger

See Massa.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

March 9, 2010 1:31 PM

Get on the PHONE to your Senators and tell them to sign the Bennet letter in support of the PUBLIC OPTION!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreemanW

March 9, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

Now there you go again! [/Ronnie Rayguns]

/how dare you promote right action ;-)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

That's great for all you 20 somethings who have 30 years to wait for a public option to feasibly pass, and until that time can continue to put off health insurance because your mommy/daddy claim you as a dependent or just go to the ER because insurance coverage cuts into your hipster budget of beer and Iphones.

But for working families, particularly poor working families, we need some regulation on the insurance companies today to protect us from predatory practices.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to InmanRoshi

I happen to be poor and in my 40's. I have actually READ the key provisions of this bill and it will only help a small segment of our population at great cost to the majority.

The working poor already have Medicaid and your kids are covered. What about middle class Americans barely above the 150% of poverty?

They get squat!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

March 9, 2010 2:10 PM

For all those of you demanding single payer just realize that no democracy has ever had truly radical change, if you want radical change start a revolution, incrementalism is all we have, it's a shitty start but it is a start.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to Given Up

Most Dems would consider the public option to be "incremental".

We can wait a while for single payer. I think most people are at least that pragmatic.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 2:39 PM

Well, if nothing else, Dennis sure has brought out the best in everyone.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cornelius

March 9, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Rick Jones

Yes he (Dennis) does. I just feel we deserve more and we won't get it down the road. Once this goes to the back burner as jobs, jobs, jobs moves to the front burner and the election cycle goes into 24/7 mode, real HCR will never resurface. Just my opinion but after 66 yrs I've seen too many great ideas marginalized or defeated due to a lack of political will. Don't know much about Dennis but his stand speaks volumes.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to Rick Jones

Yeah, it couldn't be the do-nothings in the Senate who are burying the Democratic Party platform.

NAW!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

March 9, 2010 2:49 PM

Okay. Primary him. Treat him like the Blue Dogs he votes with.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to mcc

He HAD serious primary opposition last time out- one of the candidates was a popular Cleveland city council member endorsed by the mayor and the Plain Dealer- and crushed it. Like it or not- and I don't, particularly- his constituents love him.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/09/poll/index.html

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 2:54 PM

I'll give two great posts on why progressives are deluding themselves when they think that Obama is their champion:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/23/democrats/index.html (directly relevant to this HCR bill)

So let's cut the "let perfect not be the enemy of the good" crap. If Obama wanted real reform, he would be fighting for it everyday. Instead he's fighting for a watered down bill that will do nothing for most people - it will just let them pass something to get credit for passing "HCR". everyone on this board who thinks that the bill will actually help them in a significant way - I feel bad for you, because your optimism is naive. You're being forced to buy into the same system that has caused all the problems in the first place. They're feeding you crap and telling you that it's cake.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to sethcohen

The "we stand steadfastly against anything less than unicorns and rainbows for everyone in the great and glorious worker's paradise to come" faction is telling us who's naive. That's rich.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

March 9, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Yeah, count them in with those stupid enough to believe 'change you can believe in'.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

That's the problem - you think this is rainbows and uniforms, while many of us think that this is the first step in having any semblance of real change.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to sethcohen

Uniforms? Freudian slip?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

March 9, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to sethcohen

Defeating the bill would be the first step toward "real change"? Maintaining the status quo would be the first step in reforming the system??? Did you misread NCSteve's message, or do you inhabit some sort of Orwellian alternate reality?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to slb

SLB - I personally am not for just "defeating the bill". I kind of doubt that Kucinich's overall goal is to "defeat the bill" also. The goal is to get a bill passed with REAL reform and change in it. The strategy in this case is to fight against this bill until it has what we want in it - just like Stupak, Nelson, and Leiberman have done / are doing over this past year. They're getting what they want, if you haven't noticed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

susanthe

March 9, 2010 3:12 PM

Priceless. Absolutely priceless. Instead of blaming the spineless Democrats for coming up with a shit bill, blame the guy who points out the emperor is naked.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

innocence is a lie

March 9, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to susanthe

amen.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreemanW

March 9, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to susanthe

. . . and a hallelujah to go with that amen.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

March 9, 2010 3:29 PM

Get on the PHONE to your Senators and tell them to sign the Bennet letter in support of the PUBLIC OPTION!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

I'm not against the public option, but my state has two Nazibots. Waste of time.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to Brownbagger

Doesn't hurt to call. Makes them fidget a bit.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

Trust me. I've done it. Like talking to a wall. Nevertheless, I'm not opposed to your call for calls. Go for it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Brownbagger

You do realize the latest Quinnipiac poll shows 34% of Republicans are for the public option?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:42 PM

How sad is it for the House leadership that Dennis Fscking Kucinich could turn out to be the spoiler on this? Jeebus, that's got to sting. The dirty fucking hippies are never, ever, EVER supposed to get that close to being important in the political calculus.

This is just sad. Are Democrats really so pathetic that they'd let this happen? Jeebus.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to s9

You do realize JESUS was a "dirty fucking hippie", right?

It was the Romans (Republicans) in collusion with their Hebrew subjects(conservative "Dems") who murdered him.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

Modulo the fact that I'm an atheist, I got no major quibble with that. I know the various versions of the story well enough. I'm just saying there appears to be a curious lack of situational awareness among the people bitching about Kucinich doing what he's always said from day one that he would do if given the chance. I want to grab them by the scruff of the neck and yell at them, "Don't act so surprised! You knew this would happen, and yet you didn't care until it was too late!" Morons. The Democrats are led by morons.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

March 9, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to s9

This has been clear every since Obama set a political goal by which to judge him that could be torpedoed at will by the opposition: Bi-partisanship. Further, by setting bipartisanship as the criterion of his own success he rendered it less likely. If he had simply resolved to present the best proposals for the country and challenged the Republicans to support them any refusal on their part would have been judged against them. Instead he focused on his own ability to get third parties to do what he wanted as a mark against which to judge his own actions. Very, very poor strategy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 3:49 PM

"jeebus"?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jen R

March 9, 2010 4:12 PM

Thanks for not giving a fuck about all the people this bill *would* help, even though it's far from perfect. I'm sure the people with pre-existing conditions who can't get insurance, and the people who get cut from their plans as soon as they get sick, will thank you for putting your principles ahead of their health.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 4:30 PM

Thanks for caring about those of us who can't afford insurance!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 4:40 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

So you really think that this bill will change things enough to help you afford insurance? What in this bill will bring private insurance rates down? Please educate me.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

March 9, 2010 4:49 PM

No. I think THIS bill is a pieace of human dung. I think a bill with a antitrust regulation, a STRONG public option and an immediate start date will be a step in the right direction. It will take single-payer to really fix our economic and coverage gap woes.

But I'm willing to compromise and accept all of the above.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

Some would say that Single Payer is the compromise position. The idealogical purity test is support for a British style national health service.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 9, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to s9

Nobody (of any consequence) has argued for a "British style" system. Not Even one like Canada. I've heard lots of praise for Germany and France, however.

Both of which have better and cheaper outcomes than ours. They spend roughly 11% of their GDP on health care, while we spend 17%! And they live longer and on a per hour basis, out perform U.S. workers.

Not to mention they get roughly 8 weeks per year paid vacation and handsome subsidies for child care.

OUCH!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sethcohen

March 9, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell

When it comes down to it, i agree with you.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chigger

March 9, 2010 7:28 PM

Kucinich reminds me of Paul Wellstone.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Edwin

June 12, 2010 5:46 PM

Good for you, Dennis! This bill enshrines the insurance industry's role as gatekeeper to health care in law for generations to come. It fails to address the problem of spiraling costs and what minimal gains it makes in rendering health care affordable to those on cheap-o bronze plans will be temporary, as provider costs continue to skyrocket. This plan doesn't touch fee-for-service, doctor's fees, has no reliable risk adjuster, allows plans to charge older insureds 3x what the younger ones pay, perpetuates the insidious link between employment and health insurance, etc. etc. Just look at how the system in MA is unraveling.

Obama is simply obsessed with sounding moderate and bipartisanship. His watered down gruel of a bill just tinkers with the current system and puts off substantive reform to some later date...probably the next Democratic Admin.

m65 kamagra