You people trashing Kucinich should be ashamed of yourself! He is the only brave Dem there!

[KansasVoter]

Here is his statement. You people trashing him are really misguided! Wow, this place has turned into a joke! The GOP kisked your ass, they fought you until you were willing to love any HCR bill.

===================

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy -- in which most Americans live -- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”

[saltpoint]

1. I had read the statement before posting that I thought it was Kucinich

who should be ashamed.

[KansasVoter]

3. Join the other wimps. Looks good for our party!

[saltpoint]

5. If you call us wimps, KV, you're going to hurt our feelings.

[liberalmuse]

9. I prefer 'pragmatist' or 'realist'.

Our country was founded by such. I guess Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, etc, etc, etc, were wimps too, because even though they vehemently disagreed on many issues, they dared compromise rather than stubbornly hold onto their ideals and get nothing done. The record shows Kucinich voted with the Republicans. No one in the future is going to care why. 220-215 is all they'll see.

[liberalmuse]

2. Words, good. Vote, bad.

I appreciate his good intentions, but that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you look at his voting record.

[Jennicut]

4. DK does what he wants out of his principles, which is fine.

I don't have time to sit around and wait for reform to be as perfect as my principles are. And disagreeing with Kucinich does not mean "trashing" him. I doubt the ability of some to deal with criticism of their political heroes. Obama gets bashed on a daily basis, multiple times. That is what a discussion board is for, discussing, criticizing, etc.

[SoFlaJet]

6. fuck him

he's a petty man-principled my ass. He's jealous of Obama and just like all the other petty republicans that he votes with on every big issue, he wishes failure.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoFlaJet]

11. hardly-I've been here since right after the coup of 2000

I don't care what reason DK gives for his 'principled' stances-vote against the dems and you are just as bad as the republicans. He did it on the stimulus and now HCR. Again, fuck him.

[scheming daemons]

48. The freepers actually agree with Dennis on this bill... try again...

[Barack_America]

7. I'd like him to go without insurance himself until single-payer is passed.

Which is what he asked millions of Americans to do last night.

Same goes for the Blue Dogs and GOP.

[msallied]

17. +1,000,000

[dave29]

30. +1000000

.

[Phx_Dem]

33. He's too "brave" to do that.

:puke:

[Cha]

43. You've hit it, Barack!

Is "brave" what they're calling selfish these days?

[CakeGrrl]

61. EXACTLY. He has all the time in the world to vote his principles doesn't he? n/t

[Ikonoklast]

8. He voted with the Republicans.

In his self-appointed quest to tilt at windmills, and decline to participate in the actual political real world, he voted against the good while holding out for the perfect.


People would die waiting for the 'perfect', because the alternative to passing this would have been nothing for a good many more years, for a great many people that will now have health care, in spite of him taking a stand on his principles.


End of story.

[ClarkUSA]

12. He voted with the Republicans against the climate bill and the stimulus plan, too. Fuck him. nt

[Ikonoklast]

15. Now, now, his third wife convinced him not to vote against women's choice anymore.

Even though for most of his political career, he had no problem voting against womens right to choose, every time.

Principles. He stands on them, unless it's politically advantageous to change them.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Yeah, I noticed he changed his tune. Some principles, eh? I hope he gets primaried and loses. nt

[argonaut]

29. Yeah, Kucinich is the ultimate hack.

He is our Sarah Palin (well, okay, that's a little harsh). I'm almost looking forward to the arrogant bastard being crushed when he challenges Obama in 2012.

[ClarkUSA]

40. Agreed. He's a wannabe Ralph Nader but w/o the record of past achievements.

Both men are arrogant bastards who make a living off their "principles" while doing everything they can to enable the Republican legislative agenda
by attacking any and all Democratic efforts to effect realistic change.

[Ken Burch]

58. That would mean electing someone to Dennis' right.

Nobody who wasn't as left as Dennis could be worth anything for that district. A quiet, bland centrist rep would be worthless.

[Cha]

45. Why wasn't the Climate Bill perfect enough

for him?

[Armstead]

13. Some of you are missing (or ignoring) Kucinich's point

He did not vote for this bill because -- in his opinion -- it is going to transfer MORE power and our money to further entrench the cause of the problem.

Reform and compromise means you whittle away at the problem -- IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU MAKE IT WORSE. And Kucinich believes it will make it worse by making us MORE RELIANT on the private insurance industry, and giving them even more ;power over us all.

You can agree or disagree with his assessment. However those of you are claim it is based on ego or "ideological purity" are missing the point.

You don't fix something by making the cause of the problem worse.

[Xipe Totec]

14. Charge!

[ProSense]

16. Brave? He voted against

a historic piece of legislation that is packed with significant reforms that are going to change people's lives.

Starting next year, private insurers could no longer deny anyone coverage based on preexisting conditions, place lifetime limits on coverage or abandon people when they become ill. Insurers would be required to disclose and justify proposed premium increases to regulators, and could not remove adult children younger than 27 from their parents’ family policies.

For the elderly, the group that has been most skeptical of Obama’s initiative, the House package would immediately offer discounts on prescription drugs and reduce a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage, closing it entirely by 2019. Uninsured people who cannot get coverage could join temporary high-risk insurance pools, and unemployed workers would be permitted to keep their COBRA benefits until the public plan and insurance exchanges started in 2013.

link

“For all Americans, this legislation makes a big difference: no discrimination for pre-existing medical conditions, no dropped coverage if you are sick, no co-pays for preventive care. There is a cap on what you pay in but there is no cap on the benefits that you receive. It works for seniors closing the donut hole, offering better primary care, and strengthening Medicare for years to come. It works for women preventing insurance companies from charging women more than men for the same coverage. No longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition.

link

Supporters of gay rights have long been trying to change the tax treatment of health benefits provided by employers to the domestic partners of their employees. In effect, such benefits are now treated as taxable income for the employee, and the employer may owe payroll taxes on their fair-market value.

Under the bill, such benefits would be tax-free, just like health benefits provided to the family of an employee married to a person of the opposite sex.

Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, who proposed the change, said it would “correct a longstanding injustice, end a blatant inequity in the tax code and help make health care coverage more affordable for more Americans.”

Joseph R. Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, said federal tax law had not kept up with changes in the workplace.

link

[Armstead]

18. You can disagree with Kucinich -- but he sees the overall bill as empowering private insurers over

the system is a way that will make problems worse not better.

[msallied]

19. Anything short of what he envisioned would have fit that description for him.

That's the man's problem.

[vaberella]

69. You are very right. That's he problem .n/t

[ProSense]

20. Yeah, killing the bill and all its reforms was the best way to get back at insurance companies.

Idiotic.

[Armstead]

22. I can't speak for him but I'll say this.....

The Democrats had a different choice than "all or nothing."

They could have set an agenda that tackled reforms in smaller bites, instead of a systemic change.

Start with the things that there had popular and widespread support (along a wide political spectrum) such as the pre-existing conditions, creating an exchange for people not covered by employers, providing subsidies to open up insurance to more people, etc. They could have also put in basic rate regulation that would have set basic levels and forced insurers to justify and receive approval for any increases beyond that. Etc.

That would have addressed many of the issues supporters of reform want. Then as step 2 they could have been a push for the more controversial and systemic aspects of reform, including what form a public option might take.

That way, something would have gotten done that would have fixed many of the specific problems right away, without putting in distorted and bad systemic polices that end up being the proverbial elephant (a horse drawn up by committee).

[ProSense]

24. "They could have set an agenda that tackled reforms in smaller bites, instead of a systemic change."

Good grief. Yeah, let the Internets light up with cries that the Democrats are being timid and selling out to insurance companies.

There is only one true path to reforming health care: systemic change.

[Armstead]

28. I agree with you in the long run -- But bad systemic change can be worse

There are some aspects of health reform that almost everyone (except wingnuts and insurers) agree on, whether they are moderate or progressive or even conservative.

Those would bring substantial and positive change to the system as it is. If those were adopted first, it would make an immediate difference to people and also show that the Democrats can be effective in making life better for people.

The systemic changes are more controversial and complex. Rather than rush to make a bastardized form of systemic change for the short term that does more harm than good, why not use the momentum of initial reforms and biuld more awareness and hinest debate over tghe subsequent options?

[liberalpragmatist]

39. That's exactly what this does do

This IS an incremental bill. It basically aims to make sure everyone is covered, while taking some modest steps towards imposing a more rational structure on the system.

At its core it (1) makes sure everybody has coverage by (a) expanding Medicaid, (b) requiring large employers to cover their workers (as most do), and (c) creating subsidies for individuals to purchase coverage if they don't get insurance through their work. Secondly, the bill (2) puts in place insurance regulations everybody agrees with, like banning exclusions for preexisting conditions, rescission, etc.

You could say, fine, let's just expand Medicaid. But that won't provide coverage to people outside poverty, and if you creep Medicaid upwards, you'll just have a shifting of workers from employer-based coverage to Medicaid. So you need an employer mandate. And for those in between, you need to, at the very least, make it affordable for them to buy individual policies, so you need subsidies and an insurance exchange so that they can buy at group rates. And you need to require that ALL individual policies be sold within the exchange b/c voluntary pools have been shown not to work - they become dumping grounds. And, yes, you need an individual mandate to make the insurance regulations work, or else you'll get people opting out and the pool becomes riskier and more expensive.

This is a modest effort. Take away any of the pieces and it rapidly comes apart - you really can't go for anything less than what this bill does or else what you do try to accomplish won't work.

People - mostly on the right, but on the left too - have drummed up controversy over the details. And what's so frustrating is that this is exactly the kind of small-bore, moderate reform bill that really shouldn't be controversial. I hate false equivalences, but the bill is neither the Nazi/Commie/Socialist takeover of health care the right is screaming about, nor is it some permanent-end-of-all-reform-efforts bill that the lefties in GD are screaming about.

My feeling is that once this is established, the next steps need to be:

- Opening up the exchanges to ALL businesses (something the House bill permits after 2015) and I'd like to see it amended so that individuals can opt out of employee-based plans and join the exchange too (like what Wyden has proposed).

- Nationalizing Medicaid and merging it with Medicare. This bill already takes steps in that direction, by boosting Medicaid rates to match Medicare rates and having the federal govt. picking up the tab for the expansion of Medicaid to 150% of poverty.

Do those, and you end up with a hybrid system with the vast majority of people covered within the exchange and nearly half the country insured by government through Medicare/Medicaid and the public option.

[SoFlaJet]

21. he has successfully morphed into Joe LIEberman PS

again, fuck him.

[dionysus]

23. i assume he did some grandstanding and voted against the bill?

par for the course with him.

[vaberella]

42. Dionysus why are you so late?!

House passed the bill 220 to 215. If we didn't win those two seats in the last election, it's a good chance we would have been screwed. 39 Dems voted against this. Mainly were uber conservative, I think Kucinich was the only liberal to vote against this bill. There was one Republican from Louisiana, who voted for it. Cao,but Obama won his district by 75%. However the key thing was that DK voted against this and basically voted against helping a lot of women and people. His statement as to his decision is what the OP is posting. Ugh.

[freddie mertz]

25. What Kucinich did was principled, as I am sure many supporters' actions were principled

I can understand why a congressperson would vote for the final bill even if they despised certain amendments.

It was probably tough choice either way for a lot of them.

The ones I really cannot abide are the Dems who voted FOR Stupak.

THEY are the slimeballs we should be angry with, not decent folks like Kucinich.

[scheming daemons]

49. What 176 Republicans did was ALSO principled...

...and DK apparently shares their principles on HCR.

[freddie mertz]

71. Utter nonsense.

Kucinich does not oppose HCR.

He could not bring himself to vote for the Stupak version.

These are NOT the same thing.

But you already know that, don't you?

[stray cat]

27. As the only one anyone could like why can't he win national office?

He is a local congressman who speaks up for his consitutents but doesn't accomplish much outside of his district at a practical level

[Bluenorthwest]

37. This country only votes on one national candidate every 4

years, so if that is the measure, only 44 have ever matched it. You make 'national office' seem like a common thing, instead of the single most rarely won thing in America. No club is smaller. None.

[Aramchek]

31. He made the wrong call. Quit defending it. History will not look kindly on his vote.

[kid a]

32. +1

[POAS]

36. Blasphemer!

[earth mom]

34. There are a huge amount of DINOS here on DU these days.

:thumbsdown:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Dennis Kucinich is voting the same as Joe Lieberman.

Why should he be treated any different?

[vaberella]

41. The DK lovers will descend upon you. Be prepared. n/t

[Cha]

51. The teabag cons

love him.

[liquid diamond]

68. That says it all.

Yet people continue defending this piece of shit.

[Teaser]

38. Kucinich fails to interest or impress

.

[WeDidIt]

44. Kucinich can kiss my progressive ass

He's no progressive.

[vaberella]

70. Which,"High Lord" is he?

[WeDidIt]

46. Kucinich voted against HCR on principle, Just Like EVERY REPUBLICAN EXCEPT CAO!

The arrogant prick Republican wannabe.

[geek_sabre]

47. DU: Party over principle. We won. Fall in line. Bend over.

No way this bill passes the Senate in any real way. I guess its better to accept whatever we get, even though it very clearly written by (or heavily influenced by) insurance companies. Its still a "win."

[scheming daemons]

50. DK voted party also... the Republican party

[geek_sabre]

54. umm... he voted the Boener amendment?

Didn't think so.

Voting against it doesn't mean he's voting for the Rethugs. I thought *'s "with us or against us" mentality was frowned upon here?

...or, its ok when we do it...

First we settle for public option over single payer...
Now, we settled for this botched version of public option with private insurance handouts/mandates...
Next, we'll settle for private insurance mandates without the public option in the senate.

Count on it.

[sudopod]

57. Cool story bro.

[ProleNoMore]

52. Thank You Dennis Kucinich

eom

[Politicub]

53. I haven't trashed him, but I do defend the other progressive dems who voted for the HC bill

There are other great dems in the senate rather than just Kucinich, and so may of the threads about him bash other dems.

So I post and point out how absurd it is to hold him to some paragon of virtue, when he has cast his lot with the blue dogs and GOP. He couched his vote of nay for a different reason than them, of course. But at the end of the day every rep had a binary choice of yes or no. He voted no.

But it doesn't mean that other thoughtful, progressive dems read this bill, knew what they were voting for, and understand that while it isn't perfect, it will transform the fairness of HC. And, it will put us in a better position for improving HC down the road.

[LatteLibertine]

55. Anthony Weiner, Alan Grayson and Howard Dean are also brave IMO

I'd rather get something done that will make the passage of future legislation easier. In addition, lives will be saved with this legislation. Also if it went down it would make it harder for President Obama to get anything done for the rest of his term.

It's a shame people don't realize these things will get done in increments. I wish President Obama could flip a switch or wave a wand and change the United States too, and it's not going to go down like that.

[Cha]

56. You should be Ashamed of yourself.

[freddie mertz]

72. I've had enough of excuses regarding the war on poor and working women

So there.

[Orsino]

59. I *think* I disagree with his vote, but his stated reasons are arguably good. n/t

[Azathoth]

60. Fuck Kucinich

His true colors emerged when he said he wouldn't have voted for the bill even if he had been the key vote. Despite its flaws, this reform is going to help millions of Americans, but Kucinich isn't interested in that, and he never has been. Dennis is only interested in Dennis. He wants to protect his status as doyen of the naive leftist purists -- the people who still think the workers' revolution is coming any day now -- and he figures the best way to do that is to make quixotic demands that he knows are unattainable and then wash his hands of the matter and play holier-than-thou martyr for his followers when he is rebuffed. For him, it's not about achieving anything practical; it's about putting on a show of how pure and uncompromising he is. If this bill had created full single-payer insurance, he would have voted against it because it didn't cover treatments from shamans and faith healers, and then he would have released a statement proclaiming himself the only one brave enough to refuse to compromise on alternative medicine. Fuck him.

[Cha]

62. The more I read

about Dennis the more I'm agreeing with your statement.

[burning rain]

63. Dennis is a grandstanding, self-serving, loudmouthed but ineffectual populist dick.

Despite their differences, Traficant and Kucinich have that in common. What's in the water in Ohio?

Anyhow, Kucinich reminds me of Republicans so fanatical they always vote against tax cuts for millionaires and corporations, because the tax cuts aren't big enough. Oh snap, Republicans don't do that.

What a dick Dennis is. I wanna duct tape him to a chair and make love to his hot wife right in front of him.

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. +1

[Odin2005]

65. Kucinich is an attention-seeking flip-flopper.

He was anti-choice before she started trying to run for president.

[mkultra]

66. drinking the kucinich koolaid?

:spray:

[Kaleva]

67. I don't pay much attention to him so I neither like or despise him

[onenote]

73. when a building is on fire is it "brave" not to pitch in but to stand on the sidelines saying

you're not doing it right?

That's DK.