A Kuestion for Kucinich Suppoters
He Was Against It Before He Was For It
First there is a mountain , then there is no mountain, there there is.
Looks like The Dennis Kucinich show is over – at least until 2012 when he runs for president again with no staff, no money and no strategic plan.
Now Kucinich will be voting YES on the health care plan that 2 days ago he was denouncing as one of the greatest sell-outs in modern American history. He clains he just realized that Obama’s presidency itself was on the line. Duh. Maybe’s hes been reading my blogs.
So, now, a simple question to those who had been supporting Dennis’ naysaying. You only have two options:
Admit that, in your eyes, Dennis has joined the scumbag, Blue Dog insurance lobbyist crew that will set us back 25 years.
Or… you just happened to have the same exact reconsideration he did on the very same day he did and now you are supporting him supporting the bill.
I guess there is a third option: maybe you realize that Kucinich is an ineffective gadfly who once more has made a bit of fool himself. After all, he got NOTHING for his sudden conversion, so what was that tantrum all about?
March 17th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-inc-triumphs-kucinich-folds-his-hand-health-care
March 17th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Kucinich moving from no to yes…
Moves me from being highly pissed at DK’s immaturity to very annoyed that he wasted the President’s time – time that could have been spent cajoling blue dogs.
Sheesh.
I guess better late than never, Dennis.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
So he’s joined the Mile High Club. Big deal.
Now that Michelle Obama has made curbing childhood obesity the rage, another effort with a similar wow factor is pressing the case for schools to provide healthful foods to replace the sugary and fatty products the first lady wants to send to the principal’s office.
To publicize a bill being dropped Thursday to push school cafeteria veggies, promoters are rolling out dishy actress Scarlett Johansson and redheaded activist Elizabeth Kucinich to talk up the bennies of “plant-based meals.”
It was a foursome.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/03/16/michelle-obama-gets-backup-from-scarlett-johansson-on-healthful-eating.html
March 17th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
“Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced that the Bureau of Reclamation’s 2010 Central Valley Project Water Supply allocations have increased throughout the valley as a result of additional precipitation, improved snowpack, and improved storage at Shasta Reservoir”
Gotta love this country.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
That could turn out to be a really, really expense plane trip for American taxpayers. Maybe those taxpayers will give Kucinich a bus ticket home in November.
March 17th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Third Charmer… here’s the deal, dude. As soon as I get to a real computer I am banning you from the site. You have nothing to contribute except juvenile attacks on me. Ordinarily I dony care and they usually only amuse me. But having had a few too many fiends actually tortured, Ive decided to push the FLUSH button. Get in your last little dribbles before I get back to my laptop and go crap up someone else’s site.
@ahmed What a bunch of thetorical crap/ I thought u were smart enough to make ur arguments and no resort to cutting and paste dogmatic cant.
Of course the Democratic Party is a corporate party. DUH.
March 17th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I have my problems with Dennis Kucinich (Everytime I hear him calling for the creation of a department of peace, and his insistence that he has seen UFO’s, I get this gritty taste of Grape Nuts Cereal on my tongue), but I have to say that this Kucinich bashing has been rather unbecoming of this site and its posters. His opposition to Obama’s health care plan – although I disagree with him on it – has been well thought out, and well principled, unlike his “GOP allies,” as the press puts it. Those on here, including Marc, who compare him to the GOP is just, well, shortsighted. You just haven’t been paying attention.
Just as insidious has been the jabs in previous Marc discussion boards at Kucinich for his stated support of the Catholic Church (the progressive wing of that institution) in interviews. So any Democrat that recognizes and appreciates the Catholic Church is worth maligning? Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens’ borish rants against Christianity is the standard by which to judge statesmen and politicians? Good luck expanding progressive support with that, or to be taken seriously on a wide basis.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
More buying of Congressional votes with taxpayer money: Code Red Moves Cardoza and Costa to “Yes” Votes on Gov’t Healthcare Takeover After Water Deal
March 17th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Sorry, this is not directly related to Kucinich. Although I believe the HCR bill needs to be passed for all the reasons enumerated by our host and others, I don’t so easily dismiss those on the left who oppose it.
Say the average American is mandated a plan that costs $1,000 a month with a $20,000 deductible provision, and is larded with insurance industry friendly loopholes? Will you all say that’s progress? Is such a plan really better than the status quo? Can you guarantee me this won’t happen if the current HCR bill becomes law?
The liberal conventional wisdom is that HCR can be improved over time. I’m far from convinced. Again, I’m all for the bill’s passage, but I’m not so ready to admit it’s passage will significantly improve health care in this country. I hope you’re right and the critics are wrong. I really really hope.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:30 am
David – your slamming of Grape Nuts cereal was uncalled for.
Also, can’t believe Bob Williams is for kids eating shitty, greasy food.
And what’s 2:44 about. What am I missing ?
March 18th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Well said, David.
Marc, your fulminations against DK are what we should be exploring rather than DK’s very clearly stated rationale ( I read the full statement) for what he did. DK was rational and principled and will be proven right– depressingly so. You, Marc, are going to get a lot more mileage for your blog out of the fuck ups and calamities as a result of this bill passing.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:38 am
John Boehner was featured speaker at the American Banker’s Association yesterday, railing against consumer protection regulations and more watchdog rules to keep the banks from f-ing us in the ass again.
Bob Williams is riled up about water reservoir allocations.
Fuck Republicans. The worst people in the damned country.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Also: Marc, how do you reconcile your feelings for your martyred Catholic activists in Chile with shitting on DK for his Catholicism? Radical Catholics have pretty much been the back bone of many progressive movements.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Now that the CBO has evaluated the final HCR bill as the biggest deficit-reducing legislation in the last 25 years, let’s remind ourselves that every time the critics slam the “cost” of this bill they are nothing but liars.
If anyone wants to take Woody-the-human-TurboTax’s insane, hate-filled rants over Peter Orszag and the CBO, they are welcome to their room in the asylum. The most objective budget analysts have shown the GOP and it’s minions to be nothing but a gaggle of liars and cranks when it comes to the economics of health insurance reform.
You guys are welcome to crawl back in your holes, as soon as you’ve had a couple more days of honking horns, hysterics and PMS from Michelle Bachmann.
You’re losers. Get used to it. I’m looking forward to November, based on the GOP’s solid record of opposing consumer protection in everything from credit cards, to home loans to health insurance. You fuckers really do hate America. What do you think people care more about – a congressional district in Central California getting increased water allocations for farmers, or John Boehner bowing down to the bankers ?
Yes. Very much looking forward to November.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Marc, your fulminations against DK are what we should be exploring
Perhaps you need your own blog.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:29 am
The question is kind of an ink blot, so it shouldn’t be surprising that we get projections as answers. Me, personally, I’ve never gotten really worked up about Kucinich because most times his vote doesn’t matter. But at a meeting of the post-election OFA group, I suggested that nationally, we go after his vote. Apparently my thought was not original, as it was already happening.
So kudos to the president for bringing DK home. It doesn’t matter all that much whether DK is a fool, a deep and wise thinker, or just an ineffective politician. If the Dems pull this off by 218 – 225 votes or so, it will be a big boost for Obama’s reputation as somebody who can bring home the win.
DK’s remarks also sound as though he suddenly figured out that he might actually be able to contribute something as a congressman rather than remain the official gadfly for the rest of his career.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:41 am
What Bob G said.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:46 am
David, I think the issue that I and many others have with DK and as Marc calls them, ‘keyboard progressives’ is that they take ‘principled stances’ and politically silly times. No one should goose-step to whatever Obama says. But setting your own agenda back for the name of purity is just not smart.
HCR is watered down because despite what it may appear on this and other lefty boards (I’m a regular poster to Bartcop and Field Negro myself), most of America are right wingers in comparison to many of us. (Read, Blue Dogs). The issue politically was never to win over Republicans only. Compromises were also to give Blue Dogs enough cover to vote for the damn thing.
If Obama loses this fight, it will be his Waterloo. If he wins reform, even this modest reform — he’ll have a lot more political capital to get things done.
Yes, there are many issues with the bill. But, politically history shows us that we get in something moderately progressive now and fix it over time. Social Security didn’t cover as many people as it does now. Medicare was tweak several times before we got it right.
Throwing all of HRC out and trying to create a Utopian bill is foolishness used by lefty activist types to raise street cred amongst the Netroots. Its throwing fairly good Dem leaders under the GOP bus for the sake of a good press conference.
So, unless DK and other lefty critics like Nader have a plan to rope in the Blue Dogs into a more progressive bill and get that bill rammed through before August (i.e. the start of the mid-term general election season) then sit down and shut up.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:15 am
“…then sit down and shut up.”
Cappadonna, I am, and have been for a while now, on board with the health care bill proposals from Dems in Congress and the broad strokes advocated by Pres. Obama (I believe I made that clear in my previous post….). My disagreement is throwing Dennis Kucinich – a progressive who has done a hell of a lot more for working Americans than virtually every Congressman who is not in a leadership position – under the bus ala Joe Lieberman fashion. The Joe Lieberman whose opposition was based on his cozy relationship with the Connecticut based insurance companies, rather than moral principle. It was bad enough that this blog bashed the lobby-less Kucinich for his initial opposition to the Senate and House health reform bills, but when he finally comes around and makes what I believe is the right decision, he is ironically singled out for additional abuse for making the sensible choice (the guy just can’t win!). That is my problem with this whole discussion, not the health care proposals themselves.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:29 am
David –
As a CT native, I guarantee that I’ve got no love for Lieberman. And that man would sell out everyone short of his wife for Big Pharma, the Insurance Industry, Venture Capitalists and Defense Contracts (the Frightful Four in Connecticut economy)
But I guess its the Project Manager side of me — I expect to see results and plan of implementation. Strategy and action are the difference between a million dollar contract and pink slip in IT consulting.
The problem with many Netroots and hardcore lefties, IMHO, is that they have great analysis but no real plan to get things done. Dennis Kuicinich, Ralph Nader, Glenn Ford over Black Agenda Report and Naomi Klein are like a great comp sci prof who could never translate his ideas into tangible software projects. Sure he write mind blowing theories. But until he has a prototype — he’s selling vapor wear and that’s a death nell in my industry.
Now, if said Comp Sci Prof/crappy consultant were to get in the way of other PMs and analysts in getting a project done — he’s taking food out their mouths as well as his own. Hence, my issue with DK and many lefties who are sitting on their thumbs. They’re not only screwing over Obama, they’re screwing over themselves.
I give DK credit for making a rational choice, our issue is “Dude, you knew what was right all along, why all the fronting?”
March 18th, 2010 at 11:37 am
reg: Now that the CBO has evaluated the final HCR bill
And, you call me a liar? Why, even Pelosi said that they would have to pass the bill to see what’s in it. First, they don’t read their bills before passing them. Now, they say that they will have to pass them to understand them. They’re not close to final wording on the bill.
The CBO can only evaluate what’s been given to it – lies, false projections, and all, including double counting. I knew that reg swallowed big ones, but this is incredible.
Links found on current Drudge Report:
Democrats Touting ‘Unofficial’ CBO Score…
10-YEAR, $1 TRILLION PLAN..
.
*’This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal’…
and…Pelosi floor whip ‘NO’ on health vote; Says procedural move will hurt Congress…
March 18th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Obama postpones Asia trip to focus on health care
In other words, they don’t have the votes.
March 18th, 2010 at 11:48 am
At the risk of again having our host post under my name I think that the above piece by Marc is pure spin.
From his last missive on Kucinich where DK was witholding support for the bill because it did not contain a public option, Marc wrote:
“I have always been skeptical of Kucinich not because he is too far left. But because he is too far detached from effective politics”
That prompted me to immediatly reply that DK appeared on Jon Weiner (KPFK) hinting that he would hold out for a public option as long as possible and then support the bill. That was hard evidence of EFFECTIVE politics and not DETACHMENT.
I will note here that our host claims leftist bona-fides (indeed in his salad days he had earned the claim) but has drifted into neo-liberalism and rightward as a corporate Democrat IMHO since then.
Nowhere is this more evident that in this healthcare debate where the party apparatchicks are more interested in passing ANYTHING for political cover instead of substantive healthcare reform.
Kucinich risks retaliation by the Party if he doesn’t cave, but we the people are constrained by these risks.
http://www.singlepayer.org.
This is where I strongly differ from many on this blog. All confessed that the bill does not contain the elements of meaningful reform and seem content with defining their arguments in terms of defeating republicans than improving the substance of the bill.
Here is where the party apparatchicks (including Cooper) have worked to gut real reform: Kucinich was the last holdout of 77 in Congress who demaded a public option and/or a opt into Medicare. The decision was taken Day One of the debate to excluse single-payer and negotiate away the public option.
Realpolitic was defined as not being able to assuage Blue-Dogs who are less that the 77 progressives while the administration feigned trying to accomplish bipartisanship with Republicans.
We all know that there was to be NO republican support. So did the President and his party. We all know that there was going to be no public option as well. It was not in the interest of the Party nor there corporate sponsors.
It could have gone down much differently without Republican OR BLUE DOG support. But the Party is not about the people.
Here too, the legislative victory will be savored at the cost of meaningful reform.
Hoping DK will bolt. The hypocrites disguised as political realists are not interested in populism or reform outside of the free market.
(BTW: Democracy Now today did the hour with Kucinich & Nader. According to DK, Obama told him that his Presidency rides on the outcome of the legislation. It got heated. Excellent. Worth checking the podcast)
March 18th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Sorry; I posted wrong link above:
Try this:
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/join.html
March 18th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Just as I don’t begrudge anyone else, no matter how corny or inept, the right share the spotlight in my line of work, I don’t begrudge Dennis for making the most of his little piece in this drama.
Irritating? Yes. He’s divisive to his own party and confuses people who don’t pay attention to detail, just as Nader does. He’s right but wrong in his attraction to a conceptual which is rigid. I wish that there were more Obamas in congress who could keep their egos in check, take the propaganda lies in stride then win on substance as Obama has just done.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“As soon as I get to a real computer I am banning you from the site.”
This, from Marc who was ranting a few days ago about Chavez saying he was CONSIDERING internet control of the small opposition mvmt in Venezuela.
I guess Marc’s concept of freedom of speech doesn’t apply to his own little fiefdom.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Edwetters is evidently incapable of seeing the difference between a government and someone’s personal project.
And the amount of restraint Marc shows is actually pretty remarkable in my non-sucking up opinion.
Charmer just comes on here almost every day and delivers a screed about Marc, Hitchens and Clinton. He’s pathologically obsessed.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Marc’s very own ‘Ed McMahon’ speaks out!
You are incorrect sir! One of the benefits of having one’s own blog is that one gets to fulminate over whatever issues one chooses to. I waas merely offering a suggestion.
As for your second comment to Marc, it’s his site and he can choose who he bans or doesn’t ban. If someone routinely enters your house to defecate on your floor, do you honestly believe that you are obliged to allow them more floor space?
I’ve banned people from my site for insulting me or otherwise offending. If Third Charmer wants to insult Marc, he’s free to do so, which is precisely why I suggested he get his own blog.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Pablo says, All confessed that the bill does not contain the elements of meaningful reform
That’s a stretch. This is meaningful reform. It doesn’t go as far as many of us would like, but don’t kid yourself, man; this is a watershed event. Flawed? Yes. Room for improvement? Yes.
I challenged you a couple of days ago to tell us exactly what you would have us do now to proceed to your liking. you responded with yet another high-timbre litany of what’s been done wrong, but that’s simply not responsive.
Cappadonna makes an analogy about the industry we both work in, and it’s a good one. What is your alternative plan, and how do you expect to deliver it?
You can call level cheap insults like apparatchik, but I’m still waiting for your plan. Until I see your suggestions I’ll send an insult back your way: mindless utopian who’s happy to see 48,000 people die per year because the bills not pure enough.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Pablo also says, It could have gone down much differently without Republican OR BLUE DOG support.
What? How does that math work? Jesus Christ. We’re barely going to pass this compromised bill, and you think that there are enough votes to go without the (fucking annoying) conservative Dems? Please explain that to me.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Woody – you’re a liar. Serial.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
DK “a progressive who has done a hell of a lot more for working Americans than virtually every Congressman who is not in a leadership position”
David – I wish that were true, but he’s never passed a piece of meaningful legislation in his entire congressional career.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
3rd Charm – “hope you like my next alias”
That’s gonna be a tough one to figue out.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
pablo: “All confessed that the bill does not contain the elements of meaningful reform”
Not true. Either in terms of this blog or the bill.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I think that after I ban these couple of yo-yo’s, I will also be lifting all terms limits, allowing myself to blog as long as I wish. Also thinking about imposing a rule that all blogs within 100 miles will be forced to repeat each one of my postings. Considering as well a weekly 5 hour live blog, entitled “Halo, Senor Cooper!).
By the way, do they make a cyber version of Lysol?
March 18th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I’m being banned?!
Sorry if I offended or is this blog reserved only for centrist comments.
To Dan-O:
At the inception of the bill debate, had the administration forgot about Bi-Partisanship and sought an alliance with the progressive wing of the Party instead of the corporate wing, the holdout yesterday would be a Blue Dog who would cave to the same pressure applied to DK.
In so doing the bill could retain the public option and an opt-in to Medicare.
I allege that the veneer of seeking bipartisan support was a political ruse in order to distance the populist wing of the Party in favor of the bread and butter Corporate wing which has been in the ascendency since Clinton.
——————————
That’s my POV. I have been respectful in all of my posts though I am not in sync with the majority here; as I am to the left. Woody on the other hand will be here forever. Telling as to the disposition of our host and more so for the few here who take issue with me .
I am being banned… and for what?
Did I embarass because I asked that whomever posted at 2:40 AM using my name be dealt with?
There is a huge difference between the tone of myself and charmer
————————————
Reg:
DK does the DEMs a huge favor. He keeps many progressives from bolting to a third party…. IMHO
March 18th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
For those who have HBO:
Watch Afghan Star.
Incredible.
Will be available ‘on demand’ starting tomorrow. Meanwhile you can catch it your time 9pm tonight.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
“At the risk of again having our host post under my name I think that the above piece by Marc is pure spin.”
Are you saying this was not you at 11:48AM Pablo?
March 18th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
No, Jim, 11:48 am today is mine. It was this one (the very first post in the CHAVEZ Piece which appeared last weekend)
———————————–
Pablo Says:
March 15th, 2010 at 2:45 am
The Chavez apologist in me can’t help but consider that Chavez would feel differently about the Net if his political base’s streetside pundits blogged.
—————————————
I wrote twice further down that thread asking that it be retracted and the miscreant exposed.
But I am 99% sure who the culprit was from the syntax and the time of the post… vis a vis the time the Chavez story was published on this blog.
It’s still there.
My views may not be popular here but they are respectful and sincere. If I am to be banned for so stating them, then so be it.
I am registered Green, read NYRB, LRB, TLS, ISR, NATION. I feel strongly that the US should be a social democracy like a Norway. So ‘watermelon green’ is an apt label.
I have been castigated by our host because I think Green Zone the movie is indulgent in light of the horror comitted in Iraq in our name.
I was labeled by our host as “I know your type..” when I pointed out that Chavez’s internet monitoring and threatened repression was not unique in the region and thus the criticism is ideologically selective.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Pablo,
I respect your view. Your diagnosis may be correct. But this is yet again talk about the deficiencies of the past. You seem to regard this bill as too compromised to support. OK. So my question remains. And for the third time. What would you have us do now? What would satisfy you? What is a way to a better bill?
March 18th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I am asking this in earnest by the way. If this bill is too weak to support, I think it becomes your burden to tell us what the workable alternative is. From where I’m sitting I don’t see one. But I am happy to be schooled.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
DAN:
I think DK did the right thing!!! I think his holding out until the last second was also the right thing!!!!
I think that the Center of the PARTY is wrong to casitgate DK (as is our host IMHO) because the elements that DK was fighting for represent me (and maybe you too). That DK is pressured to cave-in doesn’t mean that we must cave in.
But DK is always an object of scorn on this blog and the Blue Dogs are not.
Also (IMHO) if this bill only offered two aspirin and a bandaid it would still engender the same pressure, the same tactics, and be hailed as a great acheivement BECAUSE as DK said on Democracy Now: For the Obama Administration the issue has become an existential arguement. The President told him so on AF-1.
IMHO, the Party let the people down by pandering to its right. Rereading the blog entries here on this issue over these past few months, it seems obvious (again IMHO) that the corporate wing of the Party never had any intention of incorporating a public option and those who advocated a single-payer from WITHIN the Party were labeled as moonbats or worse.
So it is not the bill, Dan, it’s the Party. I am glad I left some ten years ago and I doubt I’ll be back. I regret my vote for Obama. He stated that HC is a fundamental right during his campaign. But it is still a privilege.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Dan O, the burden is on you to prove the criticisms of the bill wrong.
There have been many specific issues raised as to why the bill could be a disaster.
If you think the bill is worth risking the forecasted negatives please tell us –who disagree– how you rationalize a bill that forces people to buy crap insurance with no regulatory reforms in place and at rates that are exorbitant.
I think the conversation should be about just how the bill will operate. What is understood about just EXACTLY what the bill will do, cost and cover.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Pablo. OK fine. Still haven’t answered the question I’m interested in. Should we support this bill? If no, then what?
You’re still criticizing the Dems for their behavior up to now. I grant you the party is 45% fuck show, and there are other ways this might have gone. But it didn’t. So now what? I want one person who thinks this bill should not go through to tell us what to do.
Come on! It’s not a trick question. Please, just one. What now?
Anna, you’ve had a bunch of people on here call bullshit on your vaunted killer criticisms and your answer is to tell people to use Google because you’ve gotten too tired to hit ctrl-v.
How does a trillion dollars in deficit reduction look as a good start? The expansion of coverage by several million people? The first step in what *may* prove to be a move to wider public insurance coverage down the road? You see a looming disaster–for which you have no proof. I see an extremely modest bill, that is a start. A bill that saves money. A bill that saves lives, and a bill that is the proverbial camel’s nose.
The reason no one has answered my “what now?” question is because they’re too god damned ashamed to admit that punting leaves us with nothing, and kills people.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:41 am
Dan O, the burden is on you to prove the criticisms of the bill wrong.
Horseshit. Anna needs to take a Logic 101 course and learn what argumentum aad ignorantium means.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:50 am
let me dumb this down for you, Anna: in order for us to prove your criticisms wrong, you have to first prove them – and that is a task you have failed to accomplish.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:13 am
Let me dumb it down for you, boys:
Detailed critiques of the bill have been leveled by many people. Those of you caught in the web of your ideological fantasies consistently refuse to address those criticisms.
None of you seems willing to deal with just how you think the bill will cover anyone and at what cost and what penalty if one cannot afford the mandated coverage and one doesn’t meet the subsidy requirements. Thats just for starters. Deal with exactly how coverage is to be meted out. Stop name calling me and deal with the issue you think you have a better handle on– than me.
This is not about a little is better than nothing because the little seems to have far reaching bad consequences that will eclipse the little good.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:36 am
More glittering generalities and zero specifics. Typical.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:47 am
Randy, on several occasions I posted the criticisms. You still refuse to address the issue of buying crap insurance being mandated with penalties if you don’t or can’t and don’t meet subsidy requirements.
Get real.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:32 am
I don’t like this bill, nor any one offered by the Democrats. On the other hand, if I absolutely had to choose between one of the three-single payer, public option, or sans neither-then I would choose a plan that included a public option. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but I would feel that would be the least objectionable of the three.
I think when all is said and done, the only people that are going to be happy about this bill are those who can make a claim that they can’t afford to pay for any kind of insurance, and so will be covered directly by the government.
Without a public option, that will be a very easy claim to make, by a very great many people. You can count on that.
This turd of a bill is going to face all kinds of court challenges, and as a matter of fact, as many as thirty seven states, or more, are preparing state legislation as we speak. If enough states get on board against this thing, it might lead to a constitutional amendment, eventually somewhere down the road-or a constitutional crisis, take your pick.
I never thought I would ever say this about Dennis Kucinich, but he is right. Well, he was right. Even a single payer system would be better than this turd-blossom of a bill.
As an aside to Marc, you should download the Intense Debate commenting system from WordPress. It’s easy to block or ban objectionable commenters by way of IP number, or hold their comments in a queue until you decide whether to allow their remarks. Overall, its just a cool comment system for a lot of different reasons.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Anna, you posed some vague opinions, but precious little else.
You still refuse to address the issue of buying crap insurance being mandated with penalties if you don’t or can’t and don’t meet subsidy requirements.
You haven’t proven that would happen, so there’s nothing for me to address.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:15 am
mmm hmmmm.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:16 am
the mmm hmmmm was meant to follow Patrick Kelly, not Randy.
Randy…pull your head out.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Dan;
We should not support this bill. We should work to get the Middlemen (insurance) out of the equation. We should demand single-payer as an expression of Healthcare being a fundamental right incorporated under the equal protection clause.
Passing this bill does not acheive those aims.
That said, it is politically necessary for the DEMs to pass this bill. There is another bill which IS most worthy of popular support; that is the ability for anyone to opt-in to Medicare.
I’ll dig some info on this bill and post it.
Real reform comes thru making the insurance system with its structural problems (denials, exclusions, limits, etc) inherent in a for-profit enterprise. In the Healthcare arena it should be people over profits.
So far the DEMs agree in principle with their friends in the party of torture that system is one of privilege which enshrines profit over people.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Can we please stop about the Public Option and Single Payer wet-dream please. We have had it since 1960 for those over 64, and it has been an unmitigated disaster.
Why? Because there was no means-testing requirement. Rich old farts to this day, even with a 34 Trillion dollar deficit in Medicare alone, still get it for pretty much free.
The current HCR has very little to do with ‘reform’ and everything to do with letting the bleeding out of the national body to continue in order to march forward and socialist ideology built on personal ‘entitlements’ and ‘rights’ instead of personal ‘behaviors’ and ‘responsibilities’.
How many times do we have to repeat ‘if it’s for free, I’ll take three’ before we understand we live in a world of reality, and it is not nor will it ever be a utopia. Human nature, regardless of how much you wish it away, is self-centered.
From Anna’s comments, it seem clear should could afford to pay something for her on health, but doesn’t think she should have to. It is a ‘right’ she should have not too. But what she doesn’t want to address, as well as most others on the left who want to make this unrealistic claim, is than would require removing some else’s right not to be forced to pay for some-else as well as their own.
Our Constitution disallows this infringement on others rights. Out Constitutional ‘rights’ are negative rights. They are specific about what the government cannot do to, take from you, infinge on your personal liberty.
If you prefer a different Constitution, change ours, or better yet easier and more realistic, move to another country where governments do allow less personal liberty.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:27 am
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/18/dennis_kucinich_and_ralph_nader_a
March 19th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Jim R: get your head out…you have completely twisted my POV on the issue.
I have stated many times I think ones healthcare contribution should be deducted from ones paycheck– as it was when I lived in England.
Because you are an idiot who has never been beyond the corner of your street you have no idea of comparison. Your idiotic chauvinism for something you know nothing about is pathetic.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Randy…pull your head out.
If bombast and verbal flatulence equaled sagacious comments, you’d be the smartest commenter on the internet.
Fortunately, most of us see past this.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Pablo:
Appreciate the answer.
I think you’re talking about Grayson’s Medicare bill. It’s a good idea, although the 4 page bill to buy in at cost, while brief, may sell the needed oversight and additional administration required a bit short. It’s not clear, despite seventy odd supporters in the House that this could pass. Maybe it could–we just don’t know right now. In addition, nothing excludes us from adding this provision after the current bill passes.
In the end though, you’re willing to punt this bill in the hopes that we get single payer. I think you’re being politically naive about this being able to happen in one shot, and in the meantime, you take the morally dubious position of condemning several million people to have no health care coverage.
I don’t want to let the scumbag insurance companies profit from this. But I’m not willing to sacrifice the poor for my ideology.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:19 am
It’s going to be interesting to see how health care is improved when we have anywhere from thirty to forty percent less doctors than we do today. That’s what the New England Journal of Medicine says will be the likely result of this bill. That’s just from doctors retiring from the practice. They don’t even broach the subject of how many less students will enter medical school as a result. If their right, I guess this will validate Ayn Rand’s theories, quite handsomely.
On the other hand, the Democrats can always propose a Department Of Medicine and train new doctors and foster a whole new concept of the practice of medicine based on community service.
Hell, over time, Democrats might do for the practice of medicine what they have done for education. Now ain’t that a cheery thought?
March 19th, 2010 at 10:42 am
In the end though, you’re willing to punt this bill in the hopes that we get single payer. I think you’re being politically naive about this being able to happen in one shot, and in the meantime, you take the morally dubious position of condemning several million people to have no health care coverage.
———————————————–
Thanks a lot, Dan…..
The naivety comes from those who think the Party works in their interest.
No way, No how, would the DEMs ever allow a single payer.
Groups within the Party like Progressive-Democrats should either bolt or drop the progressive pretense.
Now, my turn.
Dan, do you think that Obama’s gestures toward bipartisanship sincere or were they a political cover to appease the corporate wing and silence his true base?
March 19th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Good point, Patrick, about all the Boomer doctors (who also benefited from more access to student loans and tuition aid) who will be retiring. Plus the problem with being able to afford medical school at all now; Boomer’s kids and grandchildren facing higher tuition fees–less access to student loans and less of a transfer of wealth between generations.
A few years ago an old friend who is a successful and dedicated dentist said its really difficult for those coming out of dental school now to even be able to afford to set up a practice.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Maybe Cuba will see a boon in medical school tuition income with American students being able to get a quality education for less money and thus bring income into the country; would help buy needed medical equipment that has been kept at bay with American embargo. Oh what adorable irony.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Or maybe Cuba will just us doctors like they are doing to the rest of the undeveloped world…
March 19th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Pablo,
Re: Obama and bipartisanship.
I do think he was genuine to the extent that I can speculate with any value. I base that on the tone he took during the entire campaign. This wasn’t a theme that suddenly appeared from nowhere, but rather something he’s spoken about since I first heard of him.
Now, in practice this has proven to be immediately useless, since the Republicans have no interest in compromise, and any noise they make in that direction is completely phony and done in totally bad faith.
Still the QA session he did at their forum and the White House meeting on HCR served as excellent reminders of how obstructionist the Republicans really are.
At this point, the bi-partisan tap dance is an exceptionally useful rhetoric device for shaming the Republicans, but I think Obama would be a fool to think any Republican is ever really going to take him up on it.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Well, the AMA is on board.
Those doctors must really despise themselves!
March 19th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Danwrites:
At this point, the bi-partisan tap dance is an exceptionally useful rhetoric device for shaming the Republicans, but I think Obama would be a fool to think any Republican is ever really going to take him up on it.
———————————————–
Exactly!
If Obama is to be tarred as a marxist anyway, why such cockamamie bill?
Turn back the clock to the beginning of the HC debate.
1) Forget bipartisanship
2) Forget the Blue Dogs
The country would be in the same place today except a truly progressive bill would be bon the verge of being enacted…
March 19th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Jim writes:
“Can we please stop about the Public Option and Single Payer wet-dream please. We have had it since 1960 for those over 64, and it has been an unmitigated disaster”
————————————————
Then when you get older and are losing your hair, pls don’t take it!
Give up your cottage on the Isle of Wright if it’s not too dear.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
This is why America is land of the Philistines:
Compare this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031703497.html
to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/23/afghanistan.realitytv
March 19th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
and these people don’t have healthcare, but their souls are still in tact.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Note the Wa Po’s reductive, derisive tone. Its like a plague that infects everything ‘here’…that devours anything of value. Like the theme of this particular blog and similar attacking DK because he gives a shit.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
In contradiction to Anna’s shrill predictions, here’s Krugman on the bill: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19krugman.html
This is an actual argument, with a few numbers behind it, and a philosophical understanding of the problem.
What you got?
March 19th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
There’s this…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/reid-promises-separate-pu_n_506272.html
March 19th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
“That’s what the New England Journal of Medicine says will be the likely result of this bill.”
Not true. You got rolled…
March 19th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Every entering slot in U.S. medical schools has multiple applicants. Vet school is even harder to get into. If the chance of having an income of merely two hundred thousand or so deters students from applying to med school, perhaps that will also deter some future rapacious financial behavior in the medical profession. Meanwhile, Britain, France, and Germany continue to turn out doctors by the thousands, in spite of the fact that they don’t look forward to half million dollar incomes. Japanese, Italian, and Canadian health care continues to be excellent.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
PS: It wouldn’t be that hard to increase the number of doctors we produce. It would be equally useful to increase the number of nurses produced by American schools.
There is a fairly low cost approach to dealing with the inverted incentives created by high tuition at medical schools. The federal government could contribute a sum of $100,000 each year to medical schools and nursing schools for each student enrolled, up to, say, 100,000 students. The price is ten billion dollars per year — not a tiny sum, but tiny compared to the overall costs of health care, insurance, disability etc. In other words, this modest investment would probably pay for itself several times over, because it would allow for the production of primary care doctors. If we want to be a little manipulative, we can link loan forgiveness to things like rural practice, internal medicine training, and away from cosmetic surgery.
That’s also the way that Britain and France produce a lot of great doctors. They also start their students in the MD track a little earlier, since students don’t need to do the BS degree as a precursor to the MD.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Re med school applications: good to know there is still enough dough to go…
Dig this from MM:
My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain …a letter from Michael Moore
Friday, March 19th, 2010
Friends,
I live in Michigan, in one of the 31 counties represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by none other than Mr. Bart Stupak, a Democrat. You’ve probably never heard of him. He’s a pretty quiet guy, a former Michigan State Police trooper who boldly decided to run some 18 years ago as a Democrat in a rural part of Michigan that votes almost exclusively for Republicans (yes, I know — what am I doing here? I’ll save that story for a future letter).
His voting record is pretty conservative for a Democrat, but he’s had a few shining moments. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, he voted for some gun control, a not-too-popular position to take here in northern Michigan. The NRA came after him with all they had in 2000.
But the good people of this area knew Bart’s story and understood: He’s been touched personally by gun violence. In a terrible tragedy, his teenage son, depressed and confused from the medication he’d been prescribed, killed himself with the family’s .38 revolver. Despite the NRA’s best efforts, Bart was returned to Congress by an overwhelming margin.
Yet, here we are, just days before a weak, simple-minded, but now ultimately necessary health care bill has a chance of making it through Congress — and Bart Stupak is threatening to derail it because he wants to make sure that no woman WHO BUYS HER OWN INSURANCE with HER OWN MONEY is able to have a medically-insured abortion. We’re not talkin’ about federally-funded abortions — those were stupidly outlawed long ago. Bart Stupak doesn’t like that the Democrats’ bill doesn’t prohibit private insurance programs, set up for those whose employers don’t provide it, from providing abortion coverage if they get any federal funding — even to an individual woman paying without any government help. That’s it.
A group representing most of America’s 59,000 Catholic nuns has written to Congress and said that Obama’s health care plan should be passed. Stupak, instead, has chosen to diss the nuns. Last night he went on TV and dug his heels in — he said he intended to stop this health care bill and he didn’t care what anyone had to say.
Now, it would be easy for some to just pass this attitude off on his Catholicism — he believes what he believes and you have to respect him for that, even if you don’t agree with him. But it’s not that simple. It turns out that Stupak has been living in a subsidized room in the “C Street House,” run by the infamous right-wing Christian cult “The Family.” It was in this former convent that GOP Rep. Chip Pickering (according to his former wife) carried on the affair that ended his marriage. It’s where South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford sought refuge as his marriage fell apart thanks to HIS affair. And then there’s C Street roommate Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who cheated on his wife with the wife of one of his top staffers. (The Justice Department is currently investigating whether Ensign committed a felony while paying off his aide to keep him quiet.)
C Street is where power, money, sex and religion meet. So am I led to believe that Bart Stupak lives in a brothel and belongs to a cult? He says he was just renting a room there. But that just doesn’t ring true. Something stinks to the high heavens here, and Stupak sees no irony in taking his holier-than-thou position while living in a house that should be dubbed “Hypocrites’ Hideaway.”
If Stupak were truly pro-life then he’d vote for this bill. Right now, a mother in the U.S. has a TEN times greater chance of dying in childbirth than a mother does in Ireland. If you really wanted to reduce abortions, you’d have to ask yourself this question: Why does godless France, where abortion is nearly free (it’s covered by their universal health insurance), have 20% fewer abortions per capita than we do? What’s even more amazing about that statistic is that you can’t even get an abortion in America in 87% of our counties because there isn’t one single doctor in those counties who will perform one! 87%!! The Right has scared them all to death — literally — out of performing an otherwise legal, safe procedure. So, you can say women have “choice” in this country, but the reality is the “choice” doesn’t exist in the majority of the nation. “Right to Life” has essentially won this battle. (My personal position: I don’t get to have a position — I don’t have a uterus. If a Senate that was 90% female told me I couldn’t have a vasectomy or made it a crime to leave the toilet seat up, I guess I might object.)
What is “life”? An egg is life, a sperm is life. Those sperm aren’t running on a battery pack. They are living creatures, as is a fertilized egg. But they’re not “human beings.” A human being is something that can exist outside the womb of a mother. If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, then I respectfully ask you to go down to the DMV today and have them change your birthday on your driver’s license to 9 months older than what you’ve been telling everybody.
So back to my question. Why do we have an abortion rate 20% higher than France’s (and more than twice as high as Germany’s), especially considering most doctors here won’t perform them? The answer is ANY country that has universal health care, where contraception is free, where child care is free or inexpensive, where there is less poverty because people don’t become bankrupt over medical bills — those societies are simply going to have fewer unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
And there the mask gets pulled off the Bart Stupaks and the “Christians.” If the statistics show that countries with government-provided universal health care and nearly-free abortions are, in fact, the countries with the fewest abortions, then why on earth wouldn’t the Right be the first in line to support universal health care?!!
Because it isn’t about “universal health care.” It’s about controlling women, period. It’s about sticking your nose in other people’s business. It’s about pushing your religious beliefs on everyone else because voices in your head tell you your Jesus is The One — even though YOUR Jesus never said one single solitary word in any of the four gospels of the Bible about abortion or fertilized eggs being human. You’ve just gone and made it up about “life beginning at conception.” Jesus NEVER said that. The little voice in your head said that, the same little voice that wants your grubby paws on women’s uteruses. You need help. Please get some help and leave the rest of us alone, Mr. Stupak and friends.
After all, isn’t it enough that women can’t get an abortion in any of the 31 Michigan counties you represent in Congress? There is not one single abortion provider here in the north of the state, according to Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan. Hey, Bart — you’ve already won! Women’s rights have been stamped out in your entire Congressional district! Woo hoo!
So why don’t you leave the rest of the country alone, step out of the way, and let them have the minimal health coverage this bill will give them? You wouldn’t really crush the sick and infirm because of your own personal agenda, would you? What would Jesus do?
In the meantime, Bart, my neighbors and I are going to make sure a real Democrat runs against you in August’s primary here. One of our religious beliefs in these parts is to never impose our religious beliefs on others.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
March 19th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
So this is what’s happened to you Anna.
You do realize Michael is a very wealthy capitalist that has NO history of sharing it with you…or anyone else.
Bet your a dupe for Jesse, Al, et al as well.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Back to than human nature thingy.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
The only difference between a greedy capitalist and a groveling communist is how well they did trying to make it on their own.
Then you have the hybrids. Capitalist that make it own their own leeching off both.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:58 am
Jim R: (-x-)
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
So much for “He Might As Well Be John Boehner”. As always, Marc’s own inconsistencies are invisible to him.