TPMDC
Leaning No: Will Kucinich Become The Ralph Nader Of Health Care Reform?
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Share
Send to a friend!
As the health care reform fight enters its final days, most eyes are on about two dozen pro-life and vulnerable Democrats in the House, where the greatest number of votes remain in play. But could the fate of reform actually rest in the hands of a long-serving progressive?
House Democrats are doing whatever they can to secure the 216 votes they'll likely need to pass the Senate bill, and it's shaping up to be a squeaker. Abortion foes are threatening to defect, as are some squeamish vulnerable Dems. Balancing them out, leadership hopes, are several members who voted "no" on the House health care bill in November, but are now back in the mix--these are, for the most part, retiring members, and freshmen from competitive districts.
But one of the House's leading progressives says he's unlikely to be swayed. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) voted against the House health care bill. And his office confirmed to me today that he remains opposed to the Senate bill.
Last week, there were some signs that Kucinich might be persuadable. At a White House meeting Thursday, President Obama apprised Kucinich of a measure in the Senate health care bill--authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)--that allow individual states to create single payer systems several years down the line. Kucinich was said to be interested in the provision.
Apparently not interested enough.
A couple important caveats: 1). There hasn't been a whip count yet, so members might still be jockeying for leverage, and leadership hasn't had to draw out their big guns yet. 2). In a vote this close, and this important, everything will likely be fluid until the last moment.
But there is some chance, however small, that Kucinich will cast the deciding vote. And for the time being, he's saying he'd rather be the Ralph Nader of reform, instead of its kingmaker.
Comments (211) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mans_best_friend
March 8, 2010 4:56 PM
It's bozos like this that give Stupak his leverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 8, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
No it isn't. Whether Stupak is happy or not has no effect on how Kucinich votes. Nor is Stupak's leverage predicated on only one vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
March 8, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I don't see how this gives Stupak any leverage. Stupak is looking for pro-lifers who are sufficiently in favor of health care reform generally. Kucinich is pro-choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 8, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to Mateo123
I wouldn't have thought this needed explanation. By voting against the bill he makes Stupak and his cronies the swing votes which enables them to hold the bill hostage. If Pelosi had enough votes she could tell Stupak to go pound sand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 8, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Give me a break kid.
Kucinich is not the bozo, grown adults beholden to barbaric ideology written by misogynistic sheep herders 2000 years ago are the real bozos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 8, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to rbeats
Ah, the tolerance of the left in full view.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 8, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to masanf
Sorry in the 21st century tolerating bigots, misogynist, and mystics is not acceptable. In fact its regressive and barbaric.
Grow up, educate yourself, and become a member of the civilized society.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
March 9, 2010 7:48 AM in reply to rbeats
Okay, I agree, fuck Stupak and his 2000 year old reactionary ideological purity play that he's ostensibly using as justification to kill HCR.
But Kucinich is still a twat for his indignant ideological purity play sacrificing the common good for the unattainable Utopian purity that he uses to justify the killing of HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
racetoinfinity
March 9, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to rbeats
"Mysticism" is evolved not regressed; look up your terms, if you've never experienced the transpersonal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
March 9, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to masanf
As if you even know what compassion means...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 8, 2010 11:57 PM in reply to rbeats
I think there are plenty of bozos to go around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Patterman
March 8, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Mans Be is right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 8, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
A) Only if it's a one-vote margin
B) Only if Kucinich is harder to get a bargain with than Stupak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Heretic
March 9, 2010 3:52 AM in reply to Mateo123
Kucinich began his career as a pro-lifer. While he rates well with NARAL (100%) since 2002, it is pretty clear that he made this move solely to shore up his presidential aspirations. He would have no chance in the primaries otherwise. He is definitely not a principled person on this matter. Read his answers to a series of questions on the subject. His stated reasons for changing his mind in 2002 would have applied in 1992 and 1982. He's an opportunistic, like them all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 9, 2010 10:06 PM in reply to Heretic
Excellent point.
Kucinich is a product of a typical midwest ethnic Catholic political machine that exactly mirrors that of Stupak of Michigan and Casey of Penn. They are pro-union, reliably pro Social justice pro Economic justice members of the New Deal Coalition. Just as by and large the Catholic bishops were in all those decades from th 30s to the early 70s. Then the Democratic Party face a choice: extend social justice to women and gays or not. And while I think the Party made the right moral choice just as LBJ did in 1964-65, choices have consequences.
Southern Dixiecrats broke from the New Deal Coalition, Big City Northern Machine Democrats stuck with it. But they still like the Bishop showing up at their sponsored festivals.
That people like Kucinich and Stupak score big on New Deal issues and even Great Society issues shouldn't blind us that they just are not fundamentally that in to bi-coastal styles of liberalism. They still have to face their Mass attending aunts and their friends at home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
March 9, 2010 7:50 AM in reply to Mateo123
Kucinich became pro-choice as a matter of convenience when he decided to run for president. But I assume being pro-life, like being anti-health care is how he convinces himself when he goes home at night that he's a "different" sort of politician -- one who at least occasionally puts principles before politics, even if, somehow, it's usually at the expense of little and not big people.
I find him to be more annoying and more dishonest than the average politician but this takes the cake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
March 9, 2010 9:33 AM in reply to rb6
So now being pro-choice doesn't count unless he was always pro-choice? Kucinich being pro-choice isn't good enough because his motivations might not be 100% pure? Kucinich has voted pro-choice since 2004. That is what matters.
Dennis Kucinich is one of the most courageous, honest, and left-wing politicians in the country. The idea that he is a "typical politician" because he changed sides on an issue for any reason is totally ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 9, 2010 10:27 PM in reply to Skybolt
The incoming King Henri IV of France had a choice in the 17th century: renounce Protestantism in favor of Catholicism to become King of France in the midst of a bloody struggle between French Protestant Hugenots and French Catholics. His famous conclusion? "Paris is worth a Mass".
At pretty much the same time James the Vth of Scotland faced the decision of whether he could put the execution of his mother Mary Queen of Scots, partly though not entirely the product of plots to put Catholic Mary on the English throne in favor of Protestant cousin Queen Elizabeh, aside in the interest of being officially Protestant James I of King of England, he not only accepted the conversion but both both sponsored and participated in the banned by the Catholic Church translation of the the Bible into what is still known as the King Jame's Version.
Excusing people at the peak of access to power either on the basis "he was wih us then" or "he is with us now" is dangerous territory. Because just as Paris was worth a Mass, London was worth renouncing one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VCubed
March 10, 2010 11:59 PM in reply to Skybolt
Hmmm, that's right! Kucinich was anti-choice until 04 - when he made his first run for POTUS! Go figure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 14, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to VCubed
"POTUS"? I vote we go back to "president" maybe "prez", but "POTUS"? Sounds kind of internetty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 8, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"It's bozos like this that give Stupak his leverage."
Seriously? That is what you believe.
. . . and in other news; some believe they deck chairs on the Titanic were a contributing factor in the collision with the iceberg.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Homefries
March 8, 2010 7:47 PM in reply to FreemanW
". . . and in other news; some believe they deck chairs on the Titanic were a contributing factor in the collision with the iceberg"
No, but the pilot of the Titanic certainly was. Difference being, the pilot then didn't know there were Icebergs in the vicinity. Kucinich and his ilk know full well what they are doing.
No doubt the true lefties will have some cute retort about e-honor, pride, and what-not. Get back to me when you can tell me how many cups of coffee that will buy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 8, 2010 8:03 PM in reply to Homefries
So you support empowering the IRS to fine citizens for not buying high deductible ($10,000 deductible)junk insurance, from a monopoly?
That is laughable. The fact that you support that gives me pause as to your ability to function in any reasonable manner in society.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Homefries
March 8, 2010 9:35 PM in reply to rbeats
"That is laughable. The fact that you support that gives me pause as to your ability to function in any reasonable manner in society."
TANSTAAFL. There are many benefits to this bill that have already been cataloged by others. My preference would be single payer, but that ain't happening given the political climate.
And has been pointed out ad nauseam, the bill can and will be tweaked over time--once it's passed.
Also, you might want to work on your charisma skills a bit. No offense intended, of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
March 8, 2010 10:54 PM in reply to Homefries
Sorry, but this bill's real purpose is to drain off what's left of the savings of middle class folks and forcing the poor into higher debt levels so "health care" CEO's can increase their salaries and stock options.
Dennis told the truth on Countdown tonight. THis is just another welfare scheme for insurance company stockholders at the expense of everyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 3:14 AM in reply to Homefries
What political climate. Obama gave the greenlight for Reconciliation.
They already had 50+ votes for the public option when the Senate bill passed with 60 votes.
PO should be a done deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 8, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to rbeats
Do you support people getting a free ride by not buying insurance and then jumping into the system at the last minute?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 9, 2010 10:57 PM in reply to rbeats
There is no provision for $10,000 deductible insurance in the Senate HCR bill. It is possible that a family earning $88000 might in the case of of a combination of horrific circumstances pay as much in premiums and co-payments in any given year could pay that much but the suggestion that it would be the norm either within a family or between families is just propagandistic bullshit.
Taking an extreme outlier as the norm is just to be the victim or promulgator of a disinformation campaign. Which are you? And be sure to bring links, section numbers and pages.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 11:51 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Don't give up Dennis! A public option for individual states YEARS DOWN THE LINE? What a joke.
WTF? 60% of Americans want and need a Public Option today! Obama promised this during the campaign and now that he has authorized Reconciliation, he won't support it?
Something stinks here. Just who is paying Mr. Obama? Clearly the $400,000 a year and the private jumbo jet are not enough. Most Americans settle for far less than a quarter of that, sans jet.
Can't imagine what the insurance and pharma outfits are laying on him!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 9, 2010 3:19 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
That is utterly stupid.
"Birther" too? "Truther"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 3:29 AM in reply to JNagarya
Yeah, that's it. What, are you new here? Have a look at my posts before you make such a brash statement.
I get a kick out of you Obamabots who think ANY statement critical of your beloved hero is some sort of righty plot.
My wife and I happened to work for his campaign. It wasn't until we saw what a sellout he has become that we have had second thoughts
I haven't given up hope on the guy. Apparently he has given up on all of his campaign promises. Whatever happened to "YES WE CAN"?
Its time somebody reminded him and the clowns in his party who put them there. I hope they wake up to this fact soon or they are cooked in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 9, 2010 3:44 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I get a kick out of you Obamabots who think ANY statement critical of your beloved hero is some sort of righty plot.
_____
I'm at least as fed up with that bigotry -- yes, asshole, BIGOTRY -- as substitute for fucking THOUGHT. I was for Hillary. SHE LOST. I was for ANY DEMOCRAT WILL DO. That Democrat happened to be Barak Obama. And, yes, I like him, trust him, and view him as being brilliant. That DOESN'T make me some sort of DUPE like those who -- such as you -- spew baseless, paranoid conspirabunker's nonsense.
Bottom line: I'm FED UP with ignoramouses, such as you, who bash gov't, and smear politicians for representing more than ONLY THEM.
Get it through your baseless intolerance: WE the people ARE the gov't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to JNagarya
Just what Obama needs, more Yes-men. Haven't we learned anything from Bush Jr.?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 14, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
He could certainly use more yes-men in Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to JNagarya
And grow up. Bigotry? Really? That all you guys got? You are a sad lot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentata
March 9, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Not to argue with an emotional reaction, but according to the article it was a provision for a *single-payer* system down the line. It may very well be a mirage as well, but single-payer would be significantly better than a public option option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 5:01 PM
Kucinich already *IS* the Nader of HCR. He is a freaking nihilist and is of no use to his party or his constituents. Kucinich represents one of the hardest hit districts in OH--Cleveland--and he's fucking them over with his grandstanding bullshit.
Just last week, some booger-eater said "Kucinich will vote for HCR if his vote is needed." HA!
This runty 'lil prick is as reprehensible as Stupak and the Blue Dogs but watch the folks who castigate the Blue Dogs give Kucinich a free pass for voting "NO".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 8, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
That's a very narrow and incorrect view. Stupak and Kucinich have very different voting records on a variety of different subjects. Even here they're campaigning for completely different things.
Besides, it's always better to be negotiating for a vote with someone demanding positive changes instead of negative ones. Outsiders to the political establishment (Which is just about every American) will also appreciate efforts to drag all legislation to more populist territory. This may be effected by the final calculation for passage, but there's more than one reform or bill under the sun to be concerned about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 5:57 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
There is no more negotiating because the Senate bill can't be changed. So Stupak and Kucinich are demanding something they know is impossible so they can vote against it. They are both scum.
A "NO" is a "NO" and all of you people making excuses for Cong. Elf are full of shit. It's this bill or NOTHING and Rep. Shrimp is trying to make sure we get NOTHING.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 8, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to FreeRider
Not true. The bill is being changed right now with reconciliation, and they haven't settled yet the full nature of the reconciliation fix.
Stupak's demand certainly can't be reconciled, but Kucinich isn't demanding one single thing that can't be reconciled.
Moreover, it doesn't change that Kucinich is still of greater value to voters than Stupak is because this isn't the only issue or bill or vote healthcare or otherwise that people should care about. Nor is it true that Kucinich is trying to ensure that everybody gets nothing. If he was, he wouldn't be negotiating or pushing for a more expansive bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 8:03 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
More bullshit. Kucinich is as ridiculous as Stupak. A no is a no.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 8, 2010 11:59 PM in reply to FreeRider
Ditto. If they don't pass the Senate bill, there's nothing to change, and health care reform is dead for another two or three decades.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 8, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to FreeRider
Why would anyone with an ounce of intelligence vote for that bill in it's present form? My God! Read it. Then, come back and tell us who is being an idiot. It won't be Kucinich, he actually reads things before signing them.
Now, the pundits are saying "just pass something...blah blah! Something very unpleasant will be passed, mostly a mandate demanding all Americans buy health insurance with no cost controls, no anti-trust revision....nothing but more power to the corporations running this country. They did make one change to the senate version of this bill. Instead of 2% fines for people who won't or cannot afford to buy unregulated and questionable health insurance, the fines were raised to 2 1/2% administered by the IRS.
I think it is a terrible bill. They have managed to keep the worst and make the rest even more unbearable. In CA where I live we are looking at 40% rate hikes with no controls. People who cannot afford it will be forced to beg to the broken state government that cannot afford to fix our schools or highways.
Think and read before calling people names, you sound like a total fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Heretic
March 9, 2010 4:05 AM in reply to goldiera
The current senate bill is definitely a boondoggle for insurers. It could be improved dramatically through reconciliation and could lay the foundation for true reform. But that is a big "if." People keep talking about what it does accomplish for the uninsured. The question is at what expense and whose. It will require those who currently do not have insurance to buy from private insurers and without adequate subsidies in most cases. I understand that you cannot cover pre-existing conditions unless everyone is in the pool, but this is not a good way to accomplish that. There are as many people on the left as the right who have a problem with this.
So, the question really comes down to whether reconciliation will really be able to fix this thing in an election year. I am skeptical, because there are too many in the Senate and House who are too beholden to their corporate masters. They may agree before the fact to support a reconciliation package, but when push comes to shove, I doubt you will find a simple majority in either in either chamber who supports a proper fix. Without such a fix, this bill is worse than nothing for the majority of those currently uninsured (the possible exception being those added to the medicaid rolls—though it is very unclear if there are enough doctors willing to take on these patients).
Obama was an utter fool to put all his cards in this basket. He should have spent his political capital on a proper stimulus bill. As it is, the year will end with no major reform passed on any front and the economy still in the crapper for years to come. Hello, President Romney.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
March 9, 2010 8:05 AM in reply to Heretic
Okay genius. So what you're saying is that HCR was an impossible dream that should never have been attempted because congress is too beholden to their political masters.
And what makes you think then that a 'proper stimulus' bill could have been possible either in your cynical world view? And what is this a 'proper stimulus' in your book? So Obama is an idiot for trying for HCR that most of the public supported coming into his presidency and that the majority STILL supports. He should have been less ambitious and bowed to the supremacy of public interest and taken on more 'manageable' legislative policies huh?
Since you seem to have all the answers, why are you depriving the world of your political mastery and omniscient understanding of congress by sitting on the sideline kibitzing rather than running for office to impose your ingenuity on the world? That's mighty selfish of you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
March 9, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to Heretic
I see this bill as being the first building block of getting this country to a point where we are once again competitive in the world market. If we cannot get health care off the back of business, and more money in people's pockets with lower health care costs, we will never be able to compete in the global market, or recover from this recession. That IS stimulus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
March 9, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to FreeRider
I am very thankful Kucinch is taking a stand on this. No democrat that lives in the 21st century would vote for a bill that sets women's rights backward. These rights were hard fought. Even if Stupak's odious medieval views are set aside, this bill is an entitlement program for the insurance corporations. Obama is out there railing against them, and if they are so bad why should we be mandated to buy them? Secondly, The IRS will be used as a collection agency that also will administers punitive measures for refusal to pay tribute to a private company. That's fascism dude. Go visit the DLC's website and see the common terms slung around by the people that constructed this rube goldburg legislation that is not designed to fix the problems but extract more private profit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 9, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to shekissesfrogs
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Shit from the shithead. Move along, folks! Nothing to see here!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VCubed
March 11, 2010 12:08 AM in reply to shekissesfrogs
I read it, and it helps people I love who are utterly shut off from insurance because it costs more than they earn in a year. Wanted more, fought like hell - and on my aching feet and cane, gathering petition signatures from neighbors and strangers, not just online - to get the public option. I'm on Medicare now that wasn't available to me as a disabled person when it first passed. It was improved upon later. I'm on social security that I wasn't eligible for when it first passed only for the elderly, though I worked 35 yrs. It was improved upon later.
Single mothers are the ones most excluded from insurance. I was a single mother. I think kids have a right to hope their moms live to see them become adults. Kucinich is an opportunist. Remember, he was anti-choice - right up until he decided to run for Prez in 04.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 9, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Nope sorry got to call Bullshit.
Kucinich was against the Public Option before he was for it. He promoted Single Payer while demonizing the Exchange and it's individual mandate as a straight out give-away to the Privates while ignoring the competition that a Public Option, however limited would offer, and in the process got FirePups and allies whipped into a yelping froth and now wants to present it as some defence of the PO?
Give me a fucking break. He pushed Single Payer way beyond it's date of no return by villifying all bills out there and now claims he was just holding out for some form of the PO. Not everything goes downtbe Memory Hole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 6:49 PM in reply to FreeRider
Kucinich won't get a free pass from me. But let's keep this in perspective. About 15 blue dog democrats voted against HCR in the House last Fall. A total of 2 progressives joined them - Kucinich and the now departed Massa. The vote count is near the bottom of this post:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/after-massachusetts-road-to-218-is-long.html
I'm not sure why FreeRider goes on and on about Kucinich, although admittedly the congressman is fun to kick around. I agree with his underlying point though: we should keep tally of all Dems who vote no, regardless of their excuses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 8:06 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
Q: Why do you divide the democratic "no" votes into blue dogs and progressives? A No is a No.
I'm as equally disgusted at the blue dogs and liberals who voted against this bill. I keep going on about Kucinich because people here castigate the blue dogs for standing in the way of HCR and blow kisses to Congressman Smurf!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
March 8, 2010 5:11 PM
Kucinich, one of a tiny few with integrity and who has a REAL reform bill btw.
So support this guy because he wont play you for a fool.
And I notice how the fools respond to him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minnesotan
March 8, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to JadeZ
Only a fool would think his grandstanding and killing of this bill would make a difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 9, 2010 9:05 AM in reply to Minnesotan
This bill won't make a difference. It's such a regressive approach to reform it doesn't really qualify as health care reform. This is health insurance reform, making the industry the charge of the state and enshrining their status as officially sanctioned gatekeeper to health care for generations to come.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 8, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to JadeZ
Hear, hear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 8, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to Indie Pro
[Kucinich] has previously insisted that the law allowing insurance companies to sue states that adopt single-payer systems must be changed. And on this front, Sanders admits, his provision has a "weakness."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/kucinich-becomes-target-o_n_490280.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to JadeZ
You support this fool because you are one, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 8, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to FreeRider
What a succinct reply. You got me rooting for your side. Which is to empower the IRS to fine middle class citizens for not having health insurance.
GTFO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to rbeats
Another firebagging purity freak speaks. *yawn*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 8, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to FreeRider
Purity freak indeed. Aren't you the one whining about every 'no' vote being an indication of uselessness?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 9, 2010 9:08 AM in reply to FreeRider
If wanting to make health care affordable and containing cost mark one as a 'purity freak'...sign me up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
March 8, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to JadeZ
So you'd rather have an imaginary "real" reform bill than a real one that will allow real people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance? You are a purity troll, and nothing more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
charlie8080
March 8, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to JadeZ
If this bill doesn't pass because of Kucinich, I will donate money to whoever his opponent is (irregardless of party).
He will be the the new Ralph Nader. He would be the very reason we would have to wait another 20 years before health care reform is attempted again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to charlie8080
Why would you have to wait 20 years? Introduce Medicare for all tomorrow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to bluebell
In case you didn't know, universal health care reform was attempted in the 1950s, 1970s and the 1990s. It failed. We get an opportunity for passage about once every 15-25 years.
Sure, we can *propose* single payer any time we want. Getting it passed is another matter though. Frankly, replacing everyone's existing health plan with a government run one overnight would be a hard sell.
We don't need symbolic proposals, we need to cut some tough deals. Objectively, if the insurance companies buckle under the new regulations (and they may) a public option might not be far behind anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
In case you didn't know, this is not universal healthcare. Even the President doesn't claim that it is. You can have the chance every session. All it takes is the will. If the incumbents don't have it, throw them out
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
March 9, 2010 8:19 AM in reply to bluebell
The problem with your logic is that it doesn't take into account present day real world considerations, like the fact that a republican congress would never bring such a bill to a floor vote. Or that a GOP president would veto such a bill outright. So for such a bill to have a chance at success requires a democratic congress and democratic president, which seems to occur every 20 years or so.
It's all well and good to say that if they don't vote for HCR to throw the bums out. But in the real world, it doesn't always happen according to script. Instead, incumbents often have the upper hand for a variety of reasons, money and influence being what they are. So while you enjoy pontificating in a vacuum, the rest of us living in the real world suffer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 9, 2010 9:11 AM in reply to arias
If the Democrats are so rarely in power, it's their own damn fault. They continue condescending to voters, especially confusing 'independents' with 'centrists'. If they'd stuck to their Great Society and New Deal guns, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 10, 2010 3:14 AM in reply to bluebell
UHC = 98-99% coverage. Throwing 31 million on to the streets for the sake of a couple of percentage points makes no sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
March 8, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to charlie8080
regardless, or irrespective...not irregardless (sorry...pet peeve)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
March 8, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to JadeZ
Kucinch votes against everything--even the House resolution condemning Joe Wilson's "You lie" incident. How is voting with the Republican every time good for his constituents?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 8, 2010 7:08 PM in reply to happycozy
He doesn't vote with the GOP much at all, let alone every time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 8, 2010 8:27 PM in reply to JadeZ
You are right on! Kucinich is one of the few who won't sell his soul to corporate interests, but he will soon be destroyed thanks to the supreme court giving corporations free rein to spend limitless funds on all candidates they want to buy and sell. So, corporations will buy all candidates who are running, those who won't obey will be spent out of office for another stooge who will follow orders.
Of course, the fools are the ones who hate him, and they will be used by corporate interest to replace him with one of their own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 8, 2010 9:48 PM in reply to JadeZ
I pray Kucinich has the opportunity to kill this rotten piece of legislation unless it includes a public option that is made available to every citizen who wishes to choose it from day one. Otherwise it's an easy call: kill it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 8, 2010 10:15 PM in reply to oleeb
That's right. Kill the bill and start over with a clean sheet of paper. If it does pass then run on a platform of repealing the health care bill. You can probably book a seat on that Tea Bagger bus and travel the country telling everyone who will listen how this bill will destroy America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
March 9, 2010 8:34 AM in reply to oleeb
Do you understand that the PO can be passed independently of this bill and has a much better chance at success if this bill DOES pass? Why? Because when the weaknesses of this bill manifests in allowing insurance companies the ability to arbitrarily raise rates to unacceptable levels, the subsequent crisis will force the issue of the PO as an unavoidable necessity. Why is it so difficult to understand that the bill doesn't need to be perfect right now, it just has to pass so that the recalcitrant public can come to depend on the improvements it brings to their standard of living and the political will will be shaped to fix the parts of the bill that aren't working so well?
The New Deal had all sorts of absurd and useless legislation in its initial passage that were removed when the time came to eliminate pointless parts of it. But it never would have passed if purists like Kucinich had had their way and we would all be worse off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 9, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to arias
I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. There's no evidence whatsoever of any of the powers that be in the legislative realm (Obama, Reid or Pelosi) have any intention of doing what you describe. Obama in particular is obviously opposed to any public option as he has been the one that killed it several times during the legislative process due to being beholden to the insurcance companies as he so clearly is. Your attempt and those of others to blame Kucinich who has been absolutely consistent and right on this issue is kind of sad.
The legislation stinks to high heaven and therefore is very difficult to pass. Don't blame Kucinich that the Republican Lite Healthcare insurance profit protection act doesn't pass. Blame your leaders who sold out to all the worst, greediest and most selfish interests involved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 9, 2010 11:31 PM in reply to JadeZ
Only a fool would believe either that the Kucinich Amendment or that the co-sponsered to Conyers HR676 Single Payer Bill was a "real bil"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
March 8, 2010 5:25 PM
So Dennis let's say you get the entire thing killed. I fully expect tell us how you plan to get you bill passed and do it before the mid-terms. Because after the mid-terms HCR will not be brought up again for the foreseeable future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
charlie8080
March 8, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to jsfox
Amen. Based on the 1993 experience, it would be another 17 years or 2027. A lot of people without insurance will die by then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 6:38 PM in reply to charlie8080
This can't be possible. I must have been assured 1000 times that any problem with this bill can be readily fixed. So, readily fix it and introduce it again next session.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
March 8, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to bluebell
After the mid terms fewer Democrats, no HCR a lot fewer Democrats and thus no HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
March 8, 2010 9:06 PM in reply to bluebell
There won't be enough dems to get another vote to the floor...remember the whole cloture fiasco? The repubs do not want this to pass in ANY form.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 8, 2010 10:03 PM in reply to bluebell
Bluebell, is your position to kill the bill and start over?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 9, 2010 1:34 AM in reply to bluebell
But first you have to have something in place to fix. Getting that first foothold is the hardest part, and that's the part you guys want to scrap now that we are very near achieving it. It's like abandoning a hard-fought mountain climb within sight of the summit and saying, "Oh, never mind -- we'll come back next year."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to jsfox
Why not? Are Democrats serious or not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 8, 2010 8:31 PM in reply to bluebell
Not. The Democrats work for the same people the republicans do...corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 12:53 AM in reply to bluebell
No need to start over, just add the PO to start immediately, add antitrust regulation and drug re-importation.
Pretty simple really. They already have the 50+ votes for it.
Why not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
March 9, 2010 8:26 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
If the vote wasn't there in the Senate for the PO the first time around where are they going to come from now? And the first time there was one more Dem. Senator who was in favor now there is one less. And if not done by mid-terms when you know some if not several Senators will be gone it going to be really impossible to get the votes for it.
No if not now it isn't going to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
March 9, 2010 9:11 AM in reply to jsfox
The votes for the PO would be due to it being enacted by reconciliation which would require only 50 votes (Biden being the tiebreaker) to enact. The reason there wasn't votes the first time around was because Reid, in his infinite passivity, took it off the table in order to appease republicans to get on board with the passage of a bill that could garnish bipartisan support and exceed the 60 votes needed for normal passage of legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to jsfox
Yes it was! There were about 52 at least who committed to the PO. It was this "super majority" BS that derailed it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 9, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Harkin said there were 55 for the PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to jsfox
Don't your remember? Even old Blanche Lincoln was for it BEFORE she was against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 9, 2010 9:15 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Of course the President would have to want those things to pass, and he's already made his deals. That was too radical for him. In fact, there were intimations earlier that he had been working behind the scenes to kill the PO. His silence on these subjects speaks volumes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
He killed it when he wrote the Senate bill with the pharma and insurance outfits last summer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 9, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
God forbid we should do that and make the bill popular with the American people to boot! What a dumb idea huh? It's far smarter and more important to make sure the bill is massively unpopular with the public and offerrs them no relief at all for years to come!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to oleeb
It offers them no relief period. This Senate piece of dung, is very targeted. It leaves 20 MILLION UNINSURED, yet at gunpoint from the IRS makes ALL of us pay!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 9, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
God forbid we should do that and make the bill popular with the American people to boot! What a dumb idea huh? It's far smarter and more important to make sure the bill is massively unpopular with the public and offerrs them no relief at all for years to come!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ft
March 8, 2010 5:26 PM
An old adage says victory has many fathers and failure is an orphan. In this case it's the reverse.
The "Nader of _____" metaphor for the progressive stab-in-the-back of reform is an oldie but a goodie. It goes back at least to blaming Eugene McCarthy for Nixon winning the 1968 election.
If Pat Buchanan had won a few more votes from Bush in Iowa Gore would not have needed Florida. Just saying.
Also, for those priming their bile spewers for Kucinich, ask why you want to call him puny, insignificant, a joke and so forth, and at the same time wail in despair that he has all the power. We didn't get Bush because of a left-wing splinter candidate and HCR won't rise or fall because of one congressman. Nor will it all be on Stupak, or Reid, or Obama, or Pelosi, or even the GOP. It's been a collective meltdown.
Meanwhile, I'm searching the archives for the TPM headliner on how Grijalva and the CPC are backing passage of the Senate bill.
(http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/85067-cpc-chairman-indicates-liberals-will-support-health-bill)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to ft
More excuses for this 10 pounds of shit in a 5-pound bag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ft
March 8, 2010 9:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
Feed the troll. Feed the troll. Troll is hungry. Troll wins thread for Kucinich.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
March 8, 2010 5:28 PM
Bernie Sanders needs to keep working on him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 8, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to Maritza
Is Sanders actually doing this? Cuz that actually sounds like a pretty good idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 8, 2010 5:28 PM
Kucinich is really probably not the problem. The Stupak faction claims to have 12 votes. Kucinich is 1 vote. If Grijalva were still threatening to bolt, that would be a problem, because maybe other reps would go with him. Kucinich speaks for himself, so unless it's literally a 1-vote margin, Kucinich matters less and is less important as a target than the blue dogs.
Still, every vote counts, and maybe one should expect Kucinich to be more reachable than a blue dog. Along those lines it seems to me if anybody's going to reach Kucinich, it's probably going to have to be his constituents. My understanding is that Kucinich has already gotten in some amount of trouble once for letting his aspirations of being a national progressive symbol get in the way of actually representing his constituents; his 2008 campaign for President was cut short so he could go back home and campaign for his own seat. So my question would be-- what's happening in his district? Is he hearing from his constituents that he needs to be supporting this bill (assuming that is what his constituents think)? The Ohio is in May; could he have a challenger?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 8, 2010 5:34 PM
Otherwise known as doing the "full Massa".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
March 8, 2010 5:40 PM
Ku, Ku, Kucinich; Ku, Ku, Kucinich. Go, Big Ku. We got your back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
March 8, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
I'm sure he's comforted to know that he enjoys the full support of serial TPM trolls everywhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
March 8, 2010 5:43 PM
Fight the good fight, Dennis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to Winston Smith
Please wake us up when he starts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmwarnick
March 8, 2010 5:59 PM
Will Kucinich become the Ralph Nader of health care reform? We can only hope somebody will. The Senate bill is worse than doing nothing. If House Dems vote for it they will be making a very big mistake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
charlie8080
March 8, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to rmwarnick
Please tell that to my brother who has a pre-existing condition and no insurance...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 9, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to charlie8080
Just because he's insured doesn't mean he'll be able to afford health care. Consult deductibles and copays for the less expensive plans (unless your brother can afford the platinum or gold plans). He could go broke/get deeply into debt once starts using his bronze or silver insurance. A lot depends on his financial health. So we continue to tie health care strongly to one's ability to pay for it out of pocket.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to rmwarnick
30 million more insured? The end of recission? Nobody gets turned down for a pre-existing condition? Closing the medicare donut?
If that's failure, give me more of it. A half-assed public option isn't worth fighting for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 8, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
Except that the bill doesn't end rescission and 30 million more people only get insurance because they're required by law to buy it with their own money.
So yeah, the bill is a massive failure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 7:12 PM in reply to NR
Er, wah? From Reuters: " Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to anyone because of a pre-existing condition. They also will not be able to charge higher premiums because of gender, health history or occupation. Insurers also will be prohibited from dropping people when they get sick."
That last part, "Prohibited from dropping people when they get sick", covers rescission.
As for your second claim,
"Federal subsidies will be available to help them afford coverage. The subsidies will be available for people with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level, about $88,200 for a family of four. ...
Small businesses will be able to tap into federal tax benefits to help buy medical plans for employees."
The bill would be an enormous win for American welfare and competitiveness.
Here's the article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK0KA20091221
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 8, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
That the bill ends rescission is a common piece of misinformation. But read the actual text of the legislation. It doesn't ban rescission. It bans rescission except in the case of fraud. So the insurance company will just claim fraud, you will have to go to court to challenge the decision, and the entire process will take years to resolve, during which time you will be going without potentially critical medical care. I hope you manage to survive long enough to see a verdict in your case.
The fact is that the insurance companies already cite fraud as the #1 reason behind rescissions, so this bill changes absolutely nothing in that regard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to NR
Interesting point. I have a serious question though: if insurance companies can't turn people down on the basis of a pre-existing condition, what would be the basis of a fraud claim? I mean, if a policyholder lies about their age, that could end up in court. But that sounds like a rare occurrence. Insurance companies can claim fraud now if there's a minor error in medical disclosure. But that gaping loophole would be sealed shut.
If the source of your information did not address the above, I respectfully submit that you should pursue discussions with greater rigor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 8, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to NR
I am sorry to say it, but you are 100% right. The so-called health reform has given all the goodies to the insurance companies. You know, if you or I were working for someone and took money from their customers or competitors, we would be jailed for self-dealing. Our corrupt leaders call them lobby interests.
We might as well be living in Mexico, our government is totally corrupt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 9, 2010 2:07 AM in reply to NR
Well of course it allows rescission in cases of fraud; you can hardly expect the legislation to say it's OK to commit fraud against the insurance companies!
Please read this post here on balloon-juice.com, because this guy sounds like someone who actually understands law and is not just repeating talking points. The conversation is from December, but it should still be relevant on this particular point.
The insurance company cannot simply say "Fraud!" and cancel the policy. For one thing, I think there is a mandatory independent review of any act of rescission. Bu also, as the poster I linked to said, the insurance company has to show that the misrepresentation they are claiming was intentional or recklessly negligent, and that it was material to their decision to issue a policy. No longer can they say, "Oh, he didn't tell us he had acne as a teenager, so the policy is null and void." They'd have to show that the information was deliberately concealed, and that they would not have issued the policy had they known. They certainly can't show the latter if they are required to offer coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 9, 2010 11:22 PM in reply to NR
Fraud is defined in the bill. It doesn't mean whatever the insurance companies claim it does as under the current system.
Precision matters. Or should.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 9, 2010 11:50 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
It is not clear to me that the insurance company has ANY rights to your health history. Date of birth? Check. Smoker? Check. Whether you have a spouse and kids on your coverage? Check. But under the no-pre-existing condition, no recission, Acceptable Benefits Package what wod give the insurance company even have the right to demand the information still less try to find a claim fraud?
When I started working for the County the enrollment form for employer insurance asked for name, age, sex of me and theoretical spouse and kids. Under the new bills those same privacy protections should extend to individuals and people working for small employers. Not a lot of ground for a fraud claim there. (Unless your six year old is a two pack a day smoker).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
emears
March 9, 2010 12:28 AM in reply to NR
You'd have to buy the public option with your own money, too. It isn't free or even cheap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
March 8, 2010 9:48 PM in reply to rmwarnick
rmwarnick = Dumbass
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
March 8, 2010 6:07 PM
Did I get from the article that there exists a law which allows insurance companies to sue States which attempt to provide single payer coverage to their constituents.
I want HCR passed, but it would seem a pretty easy change to say that insurance companies shouldn't get to maintain monopoly buy stealing funds straight out of taxpayers pockets. After all, if the company sues the state, who's got to pay for it. Who will stand up and defend such a law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Monster
March 8, 2010 6:07 PM
The whole thing is a scam, but more specifically a counter-scam. We're trying to un-scam narrow parts of the current industries' orgiastic Republicanism (take more and more for less and less).
I don't like the material, as I've heard about it happening. It doesn't do what I want, but it sets motion in that direction. Therefore it is symbolic.
Symbolism should stand for something. I can't fault him on his philosophical rigor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
March 8, 2010 6:15 PM
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is batshit crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 8, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
The "perfect" is single-payer. Progressives are long past wanting a perfect bill.
This is a bill full of Republican ideas that Republicans won't vote for because Obama is president, bundled together with a $300 billion bailout for the private insurance companies.
Progressives have gotten absolutely rolled on this bill; they made compromise after compromise after compromise and got absolutely nothing in return for their lobbying efforts and the votes of the Progressive Caucus. And so the bill that the public least supports is the only thing that can pass and the bill that the public most supports was never even considered.
So kudos to Rep. Kucinich for being willing to stand up for progressive principles despite being vilified from every direction. Would that we had a lot more like him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
March 8, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to NR
I am a progressive, but I have come to terms with the fact that single payer (Medicare for All) isn't within the realm of the possible.
Some of the ideas in this bill may have been originated by Republicans. For example, the late Sen. John Chafee championed an individual mandate in 1993. The reality, however, is that virtually every Republican opposes these ideas now, and never proposed legislation that would have codified these proposals when they controlled Congress.
But really, bfd. Non-partisan assessments have reached the conclusion that the provisions of this bill would cover more people, lower costs for people who have insurance, and reduce the deficit and debt.
Consequently, the good that this bill would offer is substantial. The health care industry whistle blower Wendell Potter supports this bill, as do I.
I suggest you do the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minnesotan
March 8, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to NR
Everyone forgets that this bill is only the beginning. Like Passing this bill would effectively state that healthcare is a federal problem that is the federal government's responsibility to deal with. Social Security effectively made the welfare of our seniors the responsibility of the federal government, which eventually lead to Medicare (not to mention both programs have been beefed up since their original inception, doing far more for seniors than thought of before). If we pass this, there's no reason why future administrations won't be forced to tackle the issues of healthcare costs and coverage, regardless if they are Democratic or Republican. And in doing that, it's the only way we will ever get on the path to single-payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 8, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to Minnesotan
We're going to fix it after passing a massively unpopular bill costs us our historic majorities?
Adding a public option would give Harry Reid and other endangered Democrats a big boost in support.
So if you really want to fix the bill later, then you should be pushing with everything you have for the popular provisions NOW that will help elect the Democratic majority that we'll need to fix the bill later.
But get this straight - "Elect us and we promise to fix what we fucked up" didn't work for the Republicans, and it won't work for the Democrats, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
March 8, 2010 11:06 PM in reply to Minnesotan
We were told "Pass NAFTA and we'll fix it later" and it never got fixed.
We were told "Pass GATT and we'll fix it later" and it never got fixed.
We were told "Pass No Child Left Behind and we'll fix it later" and it never got fixed.
We were told "Pass the Patriot Act and we'll fix it later" and it never got fixed.
On and on we've been told to hold our noses, let bad laws get passed and they'll get fixed in the future and they never get fixed.
The Democratic leadership has lied too many times for me to believe them on this. Sorry, but I've given up expecting any help from Washington. I'll work with others here in California to pass single payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 8, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to NR
Yes, he is too honest for this corrupt system. Our vote is now of no value thanks to the supreme court's ruling last Jan, a congressman's still matters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
March 8, 2010 6:17 PM
You have to keep in mind the hidden agenda: Kucinich, until he toned it down to run for president, was strongly anti-choice on abortion. He's really anything but a progressive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
s9
March 8, 2010 6:17 PM
At least Kucinich is negotiating from a consistent position. Stupak is just plain full of shit.
But are we calling HIM the "Nader of Health Care Reform" here? No. Of course not. We save that kind of language for when we're punching hippies. And punching the hippies is a temptation that even TPM can't resist, sometimes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to s9
Stupak has been called every despicable name in the book on this site. He deserves those and many more. So stop your bullshit that only Kucinich is given a hard time.
Kucinich is not negotiating because he knows the bill can't be changed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
s9
March 8, 2010 8:21 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah, but they saved the Nader smear for Kucinich.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 9, 2010 8:40 AM in reply to s9
Ummmmm. That's because Kucinich is hurting Dems from the left, genius. You can't say that about the conservadems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
March 9, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to FreeRider
They are hurting themselves. He's just exposing them because the contrast between them and the most principled progressive is so damned stark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 8, 2010 6:27 PM
I think it is a beautiful thing.
All these posters running (naked) out their front door to scream from street corners and defend the indefensible Democratic Party and hoist a scape-goat as the specious reason for the Democrats FAILURE.
They haven't had a chance like this since the 2000 Presidential Selection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to FreemanW
Another booger-eater weighs in. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 8, 2010 6:30 PM
This current "health care reform" is nothing but a Health Insurance Industry BAIL OUT.
'nuff said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to FreemanW
Then why do you keep saying it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 8, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
"Then why do you keep saying it?"
While I am a recovering cynic, I suppose it's the eternal optimist in me; hoping against hope that the uneducated and unconscious will awaken from their daze, have an epiphany, and realize that the legislators in Washbag, D.C. are doing business as usual and bailing out another sector of the corporatocracy that runs this country.
Not to worry though, with every one of your posts, I am less inclined to be addressing you. ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 8, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to FreemanW
Let me keep posting so you won't be inclined at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 8, 2010 9:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
Hey FreeRider. It was a crazy busy day for me so I couldn't get into the fray -- but as usual, you can handle yourself without a prob.......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 9, 2010 8:46 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Hey, Lousgirl! A person in a coma could handle these losers!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
March 9, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to FreeRider
These comments expose your actual purpose for being here. It's certainly not to learn something, or exchange ideas. You think you win because you parrot platitudes or call names?
ha!.
If you want to change minds you'll have to resort intellectual arguments that use reason, logic, and evidence to discourse with. I haven't seen any examples that you are capable of that here. This is just your litter box, as the gatekeeper for ideas that don't agree with yours. You are a bigot, and an obnoxious one at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 9, 2010 7:52 PM in reply to shekissesfrogs
Says the booger-eater!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
charlie8080
March 8, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to FreemanW
Then why are they fighting it tooth and nail?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
March 8, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to charlie8080
They are not fighting it tooth and nail anymore.
Have you noticed, the mass murderer Karen Ignangi has essentially STFU and has made some mild statements since the Senate bill passed without a PO.
Pay attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
March 8, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to rbeats
Well said.The Insurance Companies are the winners.
All the "BS" about passing some kind of a bill
and then they would come back & fix it is pure BS.
Anyone remember the FISA bill that Obama was going to fix once he became Prez ?
Well .......it ain't fixed I hope Dennis holds his ground.
This Prez just don't have the gumption......we need a leader at this moment in Time,Obama is not the leader for the crisis that our nation is engulfed in.I quite frankly don't see any real leader but maybe that why our country is going to go up in smoke.
I am sure I am not the only one who voted for the guy......and feel he has failed big time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
March 9, 2010 8:55 AM in reply to Juble
Sorry, but your comparison to FISA is like comparing apples and oranges.
Due to the length it will take for reform to actually happen, it being years away, it might very well be that Obama is not the one that will fix it. But when it's finally enacted and the problems become apparent, there will be the political will to fix it and WHOEVER is in office will feel the pressure to do so. The New Deal had numerous problems that needed later fixing. Social security and Medicare needed tweaks, as neither was implemented properly the first time around.
I have a difficult time understanding where people like you are coming from. Passing an imperfect HCR at least leaves the door open for improving the bill and fixing its shortcomings. Killing it removes all hope. How do you foresee a future political climate that will be more favorable to the perfect HCR bill that you want? With every generation that's tried to pass this thing and failed, it's only become more difficult. Nixon was for HCR back in the day. Now republicans treat healthcare like its a communist mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 8, 2010 7:26 PM in reply to rbeats
You're an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to charlie8080
Because the right, never stops fighting for every fraction of an inch of their agenda, win or lose, ever! You'll ever hear the right say something stupid like "if we lose this vote we can't try again for 20 years".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
March 8, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to bluebell
blubell this is exactly what I am talking about.
Poor leadership.Any real leader won't employ such a half ass strategy.
Really pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to bluebell
Sure we can *try* next year, just like we could *try* after the 1993 plan collapsed. But a serious opportunity only comes around every 15-25 years, as the late Ted Kennedy was aware. Knowing this, Mitchell even turned down a Supreme Court appointment in 1992-3, because he thought health care reform was that important.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
Why? Because the Democratic Party is crap or what? I just hate it when we get these brainless arguments. Did we stop passing legislation after 1933? Didn't we pass all kinds of stuff over the next 30-40 years? Till we surrendered to the right? The defeatism is what's paralyzing. We're so worthless, we can't ever pass another bill. Well, I guess I can believe that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to bluebell
"Because the right, never stops fighting for every fraction of an inch of their agenda, win or lose, ever!"
Heh. True. But they haven't had much success in eliminating or phasing out social security for the past 80 years or medicare for the past 45. Opportunities for reform are fleeting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
Yeah, if I believed this was "reform" whatever "reform" is. Howard Fineman was just making fun of the "reform" word saying that the public remains clueless about what the heck it means.
You are right - the Republicans can't defeat Medicare. So why did the Democrats run away from Medicare? Do they have a death wish or what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to bluebell
The US political system has many, many veto points which stymie both Republicans and Democrats. The Founding Fathers called them "Checks and Balances", but as it has evolved it may have gone overboard. So passing reform of 1/6 of the US economy will be very, very hard. Those who attempt to do so seriously deserve accolades.
Look, Ted Kennedy was a deal-cutter. Kucinich is a poseur. But talk is cheap.
And this bill is terrific. 31 million gain insurance. No more recission. Nobody gets turned down for a pre-existing condition. The medicare doughnut ends.
If that's failure, give me more of it. A half-assed public option isn't worth fighting for. I really don't care who does the payment processing, only that patients receive top quality medical treatment and the US climbs the international vital statistics charts. This bill will advance American interests, American welfare and American prosperity. It deserves passage.
Or as MoveOn, SEIU and the NAACP put it, pass the damn bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
s9
March 8, 2010 11:43 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
p1. 31 million people, which is not nearly a large enough number, get a paltry subsidy for insurance they still won't be able to afford, but they'll be penalized anyway for not buying it... from private, for-profit racketeers.
p2. Recission without cause is ended, but there are loopholes. Big ones.
p3. Nothing in this bill will contain the growth in costs.
p4. Reproductive rights take major damage in the Senate bill, and the "compromise" that Stupak is planning to force will be a killing blow.
Sure, go ahead and pass the bill, if you think it will help, but I'm not going to give a flying fsck if it fails. When that happens, I fully expect you to gnash your teeth and rend your garments. You'll find some hippies to punch, and that will make you feel better for a little while. Go ahead, get it out of your system. We know how it goes.
The trouble with punching hippies, though, is that it never brings any useful results. Does it? I mean, those GOP daddies don't remember your heroic stand against the patchouli crowd for very long, do they?
No, they don't. Enjoy it while it lasts, though...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 9, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to s9
p1: 31 million isn't large enough for you? That's 10% of the country! You seem to care more about ideological hygiene than human welfare.
p2-p3: Wholly unsubstantiated claims. Ditto for p4, which may rise to the level of half-truth.
Ok, so you don't care about advancing human health and welfare, staving off bankruptcies, advancing preventative care. Check.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 8, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to FreemanW
You got it. Mandated new customers in the 30 million plus range. Not bad considering there will be no public option, no competition and no anti-trust revision. A huge gift to the insurance companies. If citizens cannot or won't buy, the IRS will fine them 2 1/2%. It is a total giveaway to greedy corporations. Now the supreme court has ceded our voting system to them, the people of this country have lost any say in the system.
I have never been so disgusted in my life. The idiots running this country ought to be fired, forced to live on unemployment and pay for COBRA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 8:52 PM in reply to goldiera
Insurance companies can no longer turn people down for pre-existing conditions. They will also have to spend at least 85 cents on the dollar for employer provided care. And there are subsidies for those who earn less than 4x of the poverty line.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK0KA20091221
The policy is sound. You can't ban pre-existing conditions without mandating insurance, because people would just sign up when they get sick. But you can't require people to get insurance without subsidies. This bill is an honorable fix to a health care system that is slowly circling the drain. It deserves passage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 10, 2010 12:11 AM in reply to goldiera
Price Health Care Insurance that will come in less than 2.5% of your income. And then winder why you would submit your sick kid to the mercies of the Emergency Room choosing not to send your ass to bankruptcy because you decided that both you and her were invincible.
Yes there is a class of Americans who would be better off betting they could self-insure and take a 2.5% penalty: self-indulgent children of upper class families that could count on Daddy picking up the bill if you ran your motorcycle into a tree. Or sociopaths. Which overlap.
2.5% probably doesn't cover your actuarial burden on the health cafe system to start with. If you want to gamble that amount against the odds okay, but claiming it is so
e huge intrusion on your rights just shows you were more focused on the sex in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress than the TANSTAAFL parts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
March 8, 2010 6:57 PM
Being opposed to the Senate bill in principle is not the same thing as declaring that you are going to shoot down either part of the reconciliation compromise package in the 11th hour.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 8, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Agreed. We should lay off poor Dennis Kucinich, provided he shows up at the 11th hour.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
March 8, 2010 6:58 PM
So by TPM's own admission there are a couple dozen Democratic votes in play, but it is still the progressive who will be at fault if HCR fails.
How come it isn't the two dozen DINO's that will sink HCR by voting no? Why aren't those the votes that sink HCR? Even TPM likes to kick the dirty fucking hippies in the teeth apparently.
I think maybe TPM should stick to the National Enquirer type reporting it does so much of lately...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 8, 2010 7:08 PM in reply to McMia
What you're seeing is the beginnings of a coordinated campaign to blame progressives for the defeat of HCR, should it fail. Another story on TPM today quoted a "senior Democratic leadership aide" saying that HCR was in jeopardy because liberals weren't fighting hard enough for the bill.
Of course, all these "centrist"/DLC types are desperate to blame progressives for the failure of HCR because they need to draw attention away from their own failures. And of course, they have to ignore the factual record of how we got to where we are today in order to do it.
No, don't blame Obama for wasting months and months last year trying to get the votes of Republicans when it was obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that they were never going to support the bill no matter what was in it. Don't blame Max Baucus for bottling the bill up in the Senate Finance Committee for months at the behest of his insurance industry masters. Don't blame the "centrists" for making the bill so awful that the public hates it now.
No, if this corporatist abomination that now carries the name of HCR fails, it will all be the progressives' fault. And this is despite the fact that every so-called progressive in the Senate voted for it, and the vast majority of progressives in the House are going to do so as well. Because gosh darn it, the problem is that they just didn't fight for it hard enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
s9
March 8, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to NR
Progressives should probably start figuring out how they're going to own this failure. Because, as you point out, they're going to be making payments on it for at least a generation, until the next time health insurance reform becomes politically possible again.
If it were up to me, progressives will answer for this by saying, "Hell yes, we killed HCR. Just to watch it die. Just to show that we could. Now, watch this drive!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 8, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to s9
Nah, let's just vote all the centrists out of office now so we don't have to spend a generation putting up with a Congress occupied by spineless defeatists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 9, 2010 2:28 AM in reply to bluebell
Hey, good luck with that strategy. Seriously -- I would love to see more progressives in Congress. I don't think you're going to be successful with it any time very soon, but I do wish you luck.
Meantime, I'm inclined to take what can be gotten now, and work on improving it by increments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 10, 2010 12:25 AM in reply to McMia
Maybe because Kucinich understands that math and would take the bill down ANYWAY. And brag about it?
"Well it wasn't me who shoved the car with the bound captives up to the edge of the cliff. How can you blame me for shoving it over?"
Maybe because Progressives should have more moral suasion over one of our alledged own than people on the other side of the ideological spectrum?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
March 8, 2010 7:07 PM
Rep. Kucinich has my support in terms of using his vote to leverage as much change in the direction of what is best for the people of the country as he can possibly get. If he can get changes into law that will stop the insurance companies from being able to sue the states if they choose to go single payer, more power to him.
The idea that we should swallow a mandate without real and meaningful choice and without removing the antitrust exemption for insurance companies is stupid and ironic.
I am pushing now writing senators to support voting the public option in reconciliation in the senate fixes.
The excuse that some senior senators are using that 'the votes just aren't there' is idiotic. I wish news organizations would force them to state their real reasons and not let them get away with that bs. I can't believe for one second that if it came up for a vote that it would not get the 50 needed to pass. It would never happen.
So, hey Josh, could you see about getting some senators on the record with their 'real' reasons for trying to prevent a vote on the public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KateO
March 8, 2010 7:15 PM
Kucinich is a delightful idealist--in another universe or another plane, his perspective would be welcome. Here, on Earth, in the USA, he is woefully uninformed about the realities of health care services and economics. I like the guy, but he is the definition of the perfect being the enemy of the good. He will jettison everything for reaching the ideal. Maybe he should be a priest. No, maybe not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
March 8, 2010 10:10 PM in reply to KateO
Yes, how dare Kucinich not sell out to corporate interests. How dare he think that forcing people to turn over a hefty percentage of their income to for-profit corporations is a bad idea. How dare he disagree with Stupak, who wishes to sell women down the river?
Ah, that Kucinich. What a jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miguelitoh2o
March 8, 2010 11:22 PM in reply to susanthe
:)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 9, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to KateO
Well said...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wial
March 8, 2010 7:34 PM
What, you mean like making cars less unsafe and writing the clean air and clean water acts and creating a legion of civic-minded lawyers many of whom went on to be leaders in society in other capacities as well (Chris Matthews among them, oddly) ... or what?
I do hope no one sensible blames Nader for Gore's implosion. All Gore had to do was applaud instead of attacking the Nader supporters who were going out and registering voters Gore's people really should have been registering themselves. He should have funded them, really. But no room for real democracy, history shows, in the mind of that scion of oil wealth.
Lord save us from realists who deny the reality of suffering and the possibility of real change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 9, 2010 12:08 AM in reply to wial
Start with baby steps. Get your little baby foot inside the door, and work from there.
Pass. The. Damn. Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 10, 2010 12:40 AM in reply to wial
Hmm what? Anyone that credits Nader with the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts is deeply in revisionist territory. The various PIRG groups sparked by Nader mostly had little to nothing to do with the original legislation and where they did drew nothing from Nader.
Nader was never an Environmentalist, at best he used the issue to bash his real enemy which was Corporatism. Both Chomsky and Nader had good instincts within their limited visions but have been given too much credit by Progressives, neither were or are that much into you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cassady
March 8, 2010 7:53 PM
The Ralph Nader of HCR? You mean the person the Democrats decide to unfairly scapegoat when the Democrats blow what should have been a cakewalk due to their own incompetence? Yeah, he might be the Ralph Nader of HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
March 8, 2010 8:46 PM in reply to cassady
That would be him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 8, 2010 8:20 PM
He sounded awfully smug on Keith's show just now. I've got no problem with him voting his conscience, but it's clear he wants single payer, which adults know is not going to happen anytime soon. So if he won't compromise on anything, what's his function there?
By all means, use your vote as leverage, but when the time comes, do something to advance the ball. Sitting back and voting "no" on principle seems destructive when your fellow "no"'s include every single member of the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
March 9, 2010 9:39 AM in reply to Dorn76
There's a lot he could ask for in return right now. He won't get anything, though. Obama's already made his deals with AHIP and Pharma. He's simply obsessed with appearing moderate. Which, in the end, boils down to making busy. This bill is a temporary measure. It won't do anything to bring down costs (look at MA), and the gains in access to health care will be temporary as a result. People will point to it as an example of government inefficiency and the incompetence of Democratic solutions. What a wasted opportunity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chigger
March 8, 2010 9:21 PM
I just watched the Huffpo guy interview Kucinich on tv, and if they're trying to set the Representative up as a scapegoat, then it may backfire, because Kucinich sounded good, really good. He makes more sense than anybody I've seen interviewed lately. This bill, as it stands now, is a Christmas present for the insurance industry. I'll bet the insurance lobbyists have their fingers crossed, praying that Kucinich doesn't ruin this for them. GET RID OF THE MANDATE, IDIOTS, UNLESS YOU INCLUDE A PUBLIC OPTION AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS IT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
March 8, 2010 10:15 PM in reply to chigger
Absolutely! No freakin' mandate without choice and get rid of this stupid anti-trust exemption that protects the health insurance industry from competition. The first thing that congress should have and could have done immediately was get rid of the anti-trust exemption.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moremony services
March 8, 2010 9:56 PM
This is very good news but it was not in Real life in US. medical school
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Liberal Jesus
March 8, 2010 10:17 PM
This health bill is not good for us. He is right! This is a sellout to the insurance and big pharma. We're better off without anything than being forced to subsidize the profits of the insurance industry. Single payer or a public option is the only way to force insurance companies to compete. And though I love President Obama, I am so disappointed in his hard headedness. JOBS JOBS JOBS should have been the battle cry from the time he took office, health care should have waited until the economy came back around. And any health care bill with no public option or single pay system is nothing but a sellout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 8, 2010 11:52 PM in reply to Liberal Jesus
Amen! The PO IS THE COMPROMISE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
March 9, 2010 8:38 AM in reply to Liberal Jesus
And you were so prescient that you've been preaching this approach for the last year. Not. Hindsight is the red meat of critics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 3:12 AM
Dennis Kucinich is certainly no Nader. Dennis has been waging and winning elections since 1970.
Nader? "0"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 10, 2010 1:00 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Kucinich for President got more traction than Nader for President?
I barf in Ralph's shoes general direction but claiming that Kucinich's record of successfuly pursuing office puts Ralph in the shade ignores performance at the highest levels.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 10, 2010 1:21 AM in reply to Bruce Webb
Never said anything about his Presidential bid. Frankly, I'm damn glad he didn't make it there. Just sayin', the man has paid his dues and done well for his constituents. They keep electing him after all.
Other Dems should take leaf out of his book and remember the people who put them in office when deciding what HCR will look like.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roblevi
March 9, 2010 3:13 AM
There are no Ralph Naders in the Republican Party. Democrats should think about this as they blow what chances they have for reforms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 3:20 AM in reply to roblevi
What Republican Party? All of their Naders left for the TEA Party.
I say good on 'em. We need more REAL Dems to do the same (God bless Bernie Sanders). I'd like to see a multiparty system emerge from this gridlock.
THIS is what the Dems need to think about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
March 9, 2010 4:13 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
And it shouldn't take more than, say, 25 or 30 years to realize your dream, if ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 9, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to rbe1
Well, the way I see it, Perot paved the way 20 years ago. Should be about 10 more to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
March 9, 2010 3:41 AM
Well some of may have news for Dennis: vote no, kill this bill, and watch us flush the party down the toilet in November by sitting on our hands, Mr. Progressive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 9, 2010 3:46 AM in reply to rbe1
And some of us have news for Obama and his DLC crowd: vote yes, pass this bill, and watch us flush the party down the toilet in November by sitting on our hands, Mr. Corporatist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
March 9, 2010 4:03 AM in reply to NR
And your plan for implementing a more progressive bill in the current political climate is ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 9, 2010 4:12 AM in reply to rbe1
Obama could start acting like a leader for a change.
Absent that, I got nothing. But the Senate bill is worse than nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
March 9, 2010 4:29 AM in reply to NR
I have to repeat my question: what kind of progressive bill will the democrats be able to bring to the president for a signature, given the current political climate ?
I'm in sympathy with your point of view, but if the progressive wing of the party kills HCR, the voters will walk away in November, because whether they understand the shortcomings in the Senate bill or not, they will perceive no real difference between the two parties, and in that case, you will be able to kiss the democratic majority goodbye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 10, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to rbe1
I think you'll see just the opposite. Massachusetts already has a health program just like the Senate plan being considered. No public plan competition.
Scott Brown was just a microcosm of things to come in November if Dems pass this giveaway to the insurance and pharma industry.
And Kucinich will still be a hero in his district. He's a mensch!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CPM
March 9, 2010 9:58 AM
Right up front I'll disclose that I am pro-choice and a single payer supporter. I suppose that makes me a Kucinich supporter. But I don't see why it's more objectionable for a liberal Democrat to stick to his values than a conservative Democrat. To say Kucinich is the vote that will make of break health insurance reform is not exactly fair or accurate. By last count there were approximately a dozen Democrats who can be counted as "no votes". Any one of them could be the vote that makes a difference in the outcome of the House vote on the Senate bill. To single out Kucinich as the Ralph Nader, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu or Blanch Lincoln as the only power broker of health insurance reform seems a little narrow minded. If it takes 216 votes to pass in the house then any one of the house members could be the deciding vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MT from CC
March 9, 2010 5:11 PM
Simply put, Nader and his "principles" had the effect of feeding the media's effort to blur the very real differences that existed between Gore and Bush (from the left, no less). he had considerably more votes than the margin of Bush's "victory" in NH, IA and FL, and saddled us with John Roberts and Samuel Alito (and with them, a very partisan, right wing SCOTUS) for another generation, which will be undoing most of the best things Nader ever did one piece at a time, for the next 25-30 years (unless by some stroke of luck one of those guys actually retires or expires before the usual 85-90 year life expectancy of a justice of the SCOTUS). Well done, Ralph. That will be DK's legacy if he kills HCR because it did not go far enough. get over yourself, Dennis, there are 25 -35 Million working class and middle class people who would have access to medical care that they lack now if HCR passes, whose lives literally depend on HCR, imperfect though it may be. Spend you energy fixing it, making it better, not killing it out of some deluded notion of how to get from Point A to Point B by destroying the paper you are writing on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MT from CC
March 9, 2010 5:15 PM
PS - The conservative democrats who are holding HCR hostage to anti-abortion riders should be ashamed of themselves. It is every bit as objectionable as what DK says he might do. It's time to get over your petty differences and do something. Anyone who stands in the way of something this important, over something so fundamentally peripheral, should be unseated ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kali Star
March 10, 2010 3:05 PM
Stick to it K. and stop this corporate giveaway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
quizmasterchris
March 20, 2010 1:10 AM
Here's what I find funny:
You people are using "Ralph Nader" as if that's a dirty word, and you're using it specifically on a topic in which Nader has been consistent, honest and brave... while Obama and Kucinich have been craven liars on same issue.
Democrats: LOSING LOSERS WHO LOSE. Bolster the Green Party, vote for independents, or stop pretending to be "liberal." Every Democrat in Congress combined isn't half the human being Ralph Nader is. Anyone see him DESTROY Kraven-ich today on Democracy Now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 5:46 PM
These comments expose your actual purpose for being here. It's certainly not to learn something, or exchange ideas. You think you win because you parrot platitudes or call names?
ha!.
If you want to change minds you'll have to resort intellectual arguments that use reason, logic, and evidence to discourse with. I haven't seen any examples that you are capable of that here. This is just your litter box, as the gatekeeper for ideas that don't agree with yours. You are a bigot, and an obnoxious one at that.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?