From the horse's mouth: Kucinich's position

[depakid]

This past year, as reform legislation began to take shape, I led a group of members of Congress to create a set of policies that clarified elements of a suitable compromise. I joined a majority of the 77 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who promised to oppose any legislation that did not include a public option.

When a bill was considered in the Committee on Education and Labor last summer, I worked hard to improve it. I won five separate amendments, each of which improved the bill significantly. A key improvement was my amendment to allow states to implement a single-payer plan, the only model proven to control costs while covering everyone.

The amendment waived the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for any state that signs into law a single-payer health care plan. My budget-neutral amendment was passed by a bipartisan vote of 27-19. The promise of single-payer health care reform in the states constituted a safety net, if the underlying bill otherwise failed to control costs.

I voted for this version of the health care bill, and it passed in committee. It was a compromise, but a reasonable one. However, the version of the bill that reached the House floor was considerably watered down. It had a severely weakened public option and the employee-retirement waiver had been stripped. It no longer constituted an incremental step forward that would provide relief to my constituents, so I could not support it. The version of the bill that passed the Senate was even worse.

Absent a strong public option or legal protection for states that wish to pursue single payer, the bill that the president is proposing is a step in the wrong direction. Even with the few modest improvements in the bill, the insurance companies will still have dozens of loopholes to deny care and continue to find ways to leave Americans with the unpayable bill.

More: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/03/latest_health_care_reform_bill.html

[ProSense]

1. Still grandstanding and making

lame excuses.

"The amendment waived the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act"

Kucinich just wants his way. He seems to be so stuck on getting his way that he refuses to support a superior provision.

"the bill that the president is proposing is a step in the wrong direction"

Yet Congressman Grayson states the exact opposite.

[IndianaGreen]

2. How can a bill be superior when it lacks a public option?

You guys have gone alone with so many compromises, that you are settling for the scraps that have fallen on the floor, and you are happy even when you get kicked.

[ProSense]

3. Maybe you should read it again.

Also, the public option was never a panacea for everything wrong with the system. There are provisions in the bill that will go much further in addressing key issues.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[derby378]

46. An individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional without the PO

The legality of the mandate is on shaky ground as it is. Forcing me to purchase a particular consumer product sounds so, so - well, corporatist.

[depakid]

4. Kuchinich is exactly right- Democrats sold you all down the river

If this passes in its current form, denials of treatment, denials of claims and portions of claims and will continue, and the appalling rate of medical bankruptcies will be unabated. Patients will still be lefty without adequate remedies- and every abuse and bankruptcy will be laid at the party's feet.

Does that mean a congressman should block the legislation in an attempt to force more responsible policies?

Maybe maybe not. Personally, I'd like to get this turd out of the living room, because there are other- and bigger fish to fry.

But this is state of affairs- and this is Kucinich's position- laid out in black and white.

As opposed to the relentless distortions and propaganda promoted by health insurer's backers.

[Change Happens]

6. Kuchinich is a LUNATIC!

[Go2Peace]

7. He's a COMMUNIST and must be Destroyed!

oh shoot, no that was what the Republicans say and do, I got kind of confused; the rhetoric here looks similar. But we are Democrats and don't do that stuff right?...


right....? It's so confusing

:shrug:

[ProSense]

8. Nonsense.

"Does that mean a congressman should block the legislation in an attempt to force more responsible policies?

Maybe maybe not."

Nice trying to have it both ways.

Kucinich is wrong, and his so-called pricipled stance is nothing more than grandstanding. He is the one willing to sell more than 31 million people down a river because he can't get his way.

[depakid]

10. Your usual response when confronted with reality

Kucinich is EXACTLY right about the consequences of the legislation.

You think that's acceptable- other people don't.

My personal preference is for the progressive caucus to vote in a cohesive block to ensure that Obama and the so called "centrist" Dems don't continue pandering to the corporate right (and constantly enabling and legitimizing Republicans and their policies).

[ProSense]

11. Reality is Kucinich is wrong. n/t

[depakid]

15. You know that he's correct about the policy- as do I

The political expediency is a different matter.

[ProSense]

17. No, he has completely mischaracterized the bill because

he can't get his way. Claiming the bill is worst than the status quo is ignorant.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Really. How is this little gem NOT a lie?

"Unfortunately, if the president's plan becomes law without substantive change, you would still be only a major illness or injury away from personal bankruptcy, except the federal government will have required you to buy a private health insurance policy."

[depakid]

23. Lead researchers in the Medical Bankruptcy studies agree there will be little effect on bankruptcies

Deborah Thorne, Ph.D. states unequivocally:

Unfortunately, Washington politicians seem ready to cave in to insurance firms and keep them and their counterfeit coverage at the core of our system. Reforms that expand phony insurance - stripped-down plans riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions - won't stem the rising tide of medical bankruptcy."

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/illness-medical-bills-linked-to-nearly-two-thirds-of-bankruptcies-harvard-study

[depakid]

21. It IS worse health policy than the status quo in many ways

You've enriched, empowered and further entrenched an uneconomical and abusive set of entities that are the major root cause of the problem!

Without even including a method to move away from what anyone who studies the comparative systems knows is a failed model.

[sabrina 1]

27. Speak for yourself. Kucinich couldn't be more right.

And he is supported by a majority of the American people.

Byron Dorgan's Amendment was treated the same way BY DEMOCRATS!

Who needs Republicans when we have Democrats to do what they don't want to dirty their hands doing.

This is now a completely Democratic fight. No Republicans to blame since they are not even part of the battle anymore.

We arranged this. We worked to get the majority that has made Republicans irrelevant.

And now, we see that it doesn't matter. Dems have been exposed, their 'blame the Republicans' excuse will not work next November.

Thank god we have a few good Democrats left like Dorgan and Kucinich, but Dorgan is leaving, which he announced right after being betrayed by the WH. I don't blame him, but it is a great loss for us.

[krawhitham]

31. 1st bill pass by a handfull of votes, it would not have passed if denny had his way with the bill

what can you people not understand about that

It passed by the skin of its teeth, a more Kuchinich type will would not have passed at all

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

13. Democrats actions here and elsewhere are going to hand 30-50 seats to Republicans!

And you're blaming Kuch!

Obama and the Democrats could have relegated Republicans to the fringe for a generation- and now you're staring down at a loss of your majority. The leadership turned away from popular and effective provisions insisting instead unpopular and ineffective ones...

And you're blaming Kuch?

[jefferson_dem]

16. I'm talking about policy, not politics.

Curious as to why you would change the subject. It is true 2010 will be a tough year for Dems. There are several explantions for why that is the case. But any astute observer knows that it will be even tougher for Dems if they fail to get reform passed NOW. And you know who's trying to stand in the way?

Labor has promised to unload on any and all representatives who oppose reform. Hopefully, Kucinich gets the treatment he deserves if he carries forth with the nonsense.

[salguine]

22. I'm afraid I have to ask again...Someone tell me why I should fear

Republicans winning back Congress and the White House in 2012? Really? If this is the best the Democrats can do?

[mzmolly]

25. Correction. A new timeline is here:

I still don't understand how DK can claim this bill is not a HUGE step forward.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill50.pdf

[ncteechur]

12. he votes no. He is against HCR. that is all there is to it. DK = bart stupak

[jefferson_dem]

14. DK = bart stupak / teabagger / hannity / scott brown / boner / demint....

That's the result. I don't care about his stupid rationalizations.

[depakid]

19. Therein lies the problem

Anyone who stands up for progressive principles is demonized (even as the party bends over backwards to mollify the blue dogs and every two bit extortionist in the Senate).

For some bizarre reason- progressive votes on popular issues are worth a LOT less than those who make their stands for such popular groups as health insurers and big pharma- based on failed ideology.

[sabrina 1]

28. Of course you don't, you only care about your team winning.

Kucinich cares about the American people and he is 100% correct.

If this bill passes without a strong PO, Democrats will lose in November. Mass voters sent a strong message to Dems. 80% who voted for Brown, support a PO. And thousands of Dems who normally would have been out in droves to fight for Kennedy's seat, stayed home.

The Dem Party will be responsible for a Republican resurgence, and many of us will never forgive them for that.

Keep fighting Dennis. You've got all the right people riled, which means they know how weak their case is.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Yet Bart Stupak basically got what he wanted re: the bill letting him sniff panties.

'Cuz you know, we must appease the Blue Dogs.

[suzie]

42. Actually, Bart Stupak seems more honest than DK.

Stupak has an issue that bothers him about the health care reform legislation. And whether we agree with it or not, it is a legitimate issue.

But, Stupak has come forward and opposed the legislation honestly.

DK had years and decades of voting the same way as Stupak--until DK had his magical thinking change when he wanted to run for the Presidency.

Something makes me wonder if DK isn't still doing a wink, wink and opposing this bill for the same reason as Stupak. However, DK isn't honest enough for that, so he has to grandstand and blame everyone else for his usual vote with the Republicans.

How one gets to be the darling of so-called "progressives" by always voting with Republicans is still a mystery.

[salguine]

20. Looks like this'll get unrecced into oblivion. Why is the truth so painful to so many people?

[mzmolly]

24. No longer constituted an incremental step forward?

Is he joking or lying?

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill11.pdf

[philly_bob]

26. "Absent ... legal protection for states that wish to pursue single payer...

...the bill is a step in the wrong direction," says Kucinich.

Folks, Kooch is playing smart politics. Those of us who would have preferred strong public option will be much better off if the bill makes it easier for states to do their own single payer. That is an entirely reasonable position.

If it turns out that 1) bill includes legal protection for state single payer and 2) Kooch votes for bill, I expect to see apologies from everyone who's been so hostile to him.

Of course, if Kooch votes AGAINST the bill and the bill loses -- well, consider the political circle of hell reserved (perhaps unjustly) for Ralph Nader.

[sabrina 1]

29. Yes, he's way too smart for the party loyalists.

But the Insurance Lobbyists probably saw the threat to their profits in his amendment.

It won't matter, states are already getting ready to fight for that right. This bill will start a war that will go on for decades and many who are now supporting it will one day realize how wrong they were.

It reminds of when Dorgan was one of only eight Senators who refused to vote to rescind the Glass/Steagal Act.

It took ten years for all those who voted in favor, to realize how right he was and how much harm their capitulation did to this country.

This fight must have reminded him of that. When Democrats betrayed him on his amendment to the Health Insurance Bill, I think he had had enough.

[zulchzulu]

35. Sanders put in the inclusion that states can start Single Payer in the bill

I guess Dennis was too busy looking for UFOs to read the fucking bill.

[sabrina 1]

36. You're getting confused, that was Kucinich's amendment, which

had bi-partisan support and like every other amendment that benefited the people, Dorgan's comes to mind, the WH killed it.

Sanders deal was different. He got funding for free clinics.

No wonder people disagree with Kucinich, they don't even seem to understand what is going on. But that is what the WH wants and the reason why Obama will not even explain what excuse he has left NOT to include a PO in this bill.

Republicans are no longer an excuse and neither is 'we don't have 60 votes'. So, what IS his excuse and why won't he explain it?

[krawhitham]

30. is he too stupid to realize you can build on the bill over time like Canada did?

[depakid]

32. Do you know how Canada built their health care system?

Might want to do a little research and read the Op Ed piece again.

[Spazito]

33. Yes, we built it incrementally as the above poster stated...

It started in a province, Saskatchewan, in 1947 with hospital insurance, NOT universal healthcare.

10 YEARS LATER, 1957, the federal government addopted hospital insurance, NOT universal healthcare, nation-wide. Doctors, insurance companies and big business fought against it but lost. The CMA (Canadian Medical Association) fought AGAINST ANY publicly funded healthcare.

1962 - Saskatchewan, 15 years AFTER implementing hospital insurance, brought in the first national healthcare system.

1966 - 4 years AFTER Saskatchewan moved, the federal government introduced a national Medicare program with the federal government paying 50% of provincial health costs

13 years later, the government backed off the 50-50 cost sharing and went to block funding, reducing their share.

1978 Doctors begin 'extra-billing' to raise their income.

1984 the government enacts the Canada Health Act, banning extra-billing.


So, if you don't think taking 37 years to go from no coverage to what we have today isn't to be considered incremental, well, I don't know what to say.

http://www.healthcoalition.ca/History.pdf

[depakid]

38. That's right- it started with one province

Now read the OP again.

[Spazito]

44. I did, I read it before and again....

there is nothing about Canada or how it's system came to be. Our system was built over 37 years, incrementally. Implementing such policies incrementally seems to work.

[depakid]

48. Must have missed this part:

The amendment waived the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for any state that signs into law a single-payer health care plan.

And it doesn't wait until 2017 to do it.

[zulchzulu]

34. Does this pinhead know how to read? What about Sanders' inclusion of states and single payer?

Do we have to point this out to Mr. 2%?

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

37. If you're talking about Sanders Bill that he withdrew in December

the pinhead would not be Kucinich. Sanders has recently introduced an amendement, asking for a PO.

You are like your anti-Kucinich colleague above, confusing Kucinich's amendment requiring that the states be legally allowed to have Single Payer to Sanders deal made to get his vote. That deal was to get funding for clinics so that they could treat the poor, who now with this travesty of a bill, will be covered under pain of punishment but still unable to afford health CARE.

Iow, it was Kucinich who introduced the amendment you are crediting Bernie Sanders with. The WH killed it.

If you're going to disagree with Kucinich, at least have some facts. There is one thing about him that even those who disagree with him know, he does his homework and would never make the kind of mistake you just accused him of, and definitely not the kind you yourself just made.

[slipslidingaway]

39. Delayed Until 2017 & Getting Around ERISA ...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/08/how-to-get-a-state-single-payer-opt-out-as-part-of-reconciliation/

"...The current Senate health care bill has a provision (Section 1332. Waiver for State Innovation (PDF)) that will allow states to opt out of the current reform structure if they can provide the same level of care for the same amount or cheaper with a different plan. Given how poorly designed the Senate bill is, that shouldn’t be hard on a policy level. In theory, this could allow for state-based single payer plans, and reconciliation could deal with two major problems with the provision.

Delayed Until 2017

The first problem is the date of implementation. States can’t apply for the waiver until 2017, which is completely ridiculous. There is no reason for the delay, and it would make state innovation very difficult to implement. It would first require states to go through all the work of setting up the new system of exchanges for 2014, only to turn around and try to replace it with another new system three years later.

The other big problem with the date is that 2017 would be right after Obama left office (assuming that he served two terms). Since it is very rare for one party to hold the presidency for three straight terms, it will likely be a Republican in the White House in 2017. Assume their HHS secretary would not be open to granting the waiver for a state-based single payer system, it would likely not be until 2020 or 2024 that this provision could be used for creating state single payer, and that assumes a supportive Democratic president is elected. This is completely unacceptable..."

[robinblue]

40. "This is completely unacceptable..." I second the e-motion

[slipslidingaway]

45. Welcome to DU :) n/t

[LWolf]

43. He's right. nt.

[jillan]

47. Why did he vote against the House Bill when it HAD a PO?