“Left In Form. Right in Practice.”
Now that was helpful, wasn’t it? Rep. Dennis Kucinich took a knife-edged vote to pass historic health care reform and turned it into a razor-edge win by joining with knuckle-dragging Repubicans and shivering Blue Dogs to vote NO. Dennis has a long and articulate justification for what was, in reality, an asinine vote.
Frankly, I agree with much of his analysis but with none of his conclusions.
The health care bill passed by the House is, indeed, a compromised, incomplete and less than satisfactory piece of legislation that was produced by a compromised, dysfunctional and less than responsive political system. That is for sure. It was also one of three real-world alternatives: the status quo, a Republican substitute that would have been worse than the status quo, or the House Democatic bill which –with all of its flaws– embodies the first, incremental, concrete step TOWARD more health care for more people. The preferred alternative of a single-payer universal coverage scheme was not up for a vote on the House floor and will not be for any time in the short or mid-term future. Period. New paragraph.
If Saturday’s vote on the House floor was a late night parlor game or a student debating society exercise, Kucinich’s position would have been a lot of fun to assume. Unfortunately, it was a vote on the House floor and the lives and futures of real people were at stake.
Will insurance companies benefit from the reform as currently posed? Yes. Will the system of private insurance continue to dominate the market? Yes. Will millions still find proper insurance unattainable or unfair? No doubt.
But the same could be said for the consequences of every union contract that gets bargained out and signed. The workers get a raise (maybe). They get better benefits (or nowadays less of a reduction in same). And without a single exception we can affirm that every time a union contract gets finalized: capitalism is preserved, profitability is guaranteed, exploitation of labor is prolonged, and injustice continues. But at the same time, the lives of unions members and their families are improved to some degree or another. That is what is called the politics of the possible. It’s usually not very pretty. Sometimes it’s downright ugly. But when you’ve fought the fight with enough strength and fortitude to get your enemy to the table and ready to make a deal with you, you’re not very pleased with the one guy on your side who’s ready to torpedo the whole thing because you didn’t get all that you wanted.
As it turned out, with a Democratic president, 60 Democratic senators, a huge Democratic majority in the House, and spurred by a crisis in medical coverage of titanic proportions, getting a watered-down half-assed first step toward some eventual form of universal coverage (perhaps over the next 25 years) was, in itself, barely possible. Damn lamentable by my reckoning but nevertheless true. Kucinich brought us one vote closer to not even achieving that much.
When I was 19 years old and inspired by the wonder of Paris ’68, I put up a poster in my dinky student apartment that read “Demand the Impossible!” That’s still not a bad principle to live by. But the second half of the formula was missing from the poster and from the head of yours truly who had not yet lived long enough to fill in the blank. It should have read: “Always Demand the Impossible and along the way vote for and achieve what is possible.”
November 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Just to note, we don’t really have 60 Democratic Senators. We’ve got 58 Democratic Senators of varying stripes, one terrific self-identified socialist independent who holds the same view of this bill as you do – contra Kucinich’s vanity vote – and one absolutely half-assed, duplicitous, narcissistic GOP-lite independent from Connecticut who is contradicting his own stated position on reform when he ran for re-election in 2006. I didn’t see an alternative to trying to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus, and still don’t see much benefit other than cathartic from kicking him out, but he’s turning in one of the most nauseating performances since… his attempt to put Sarah Palin one heartbeat from the Oval Office last year. This Rule of 60 is driving me nuts. At the very least, if he continues to pull this shit and can’t shamed into allowing a democratic vote, Lieberman should be forced to act out his obstruction and stand on the Senate floor as long as he can reading…oh…maybe the names from a Connecticut phone book of all the people he deceived when he ran as an “independent Democrat” who supported broad health care reform during his last re-election.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Agreed on Lieberman, Reg. He’s symptomatic of the anti-democratic rule of 60 and just about everything else wrong with Congress. Any self respecting party would kick his ass out. When he was quite literally the 51st vote (or the 50th of 99) there was an expedient hold your nose reason for the Dem leadership to retain him as to not lose their majority. But now? WTF difference does it make? His vote on any cloture is no more certain than that of a Collins or a Snowe. He’s the definition of Disgusting AND Sanctimonious.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Wasn’t the Mai 68 slogan, “Be Realistic, Demand the Impossible!”?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
The thing Kucinich apparently doesn’t realize is that his vote is being read by the Beltway Punditocracy with the broad, bogus and banal brushes of David Broder and David Brooks, not some forum at The Nation. He made the push for health care reform by the Dems look weaker, not stronger and gives more fuel to Senate Blue Dogs in their waffling.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Carlito (sic),
Come to think of it, that was indeed the slogan. Nice slogan.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Good grief. Kucinich is running for President in 2012, which is a lot more fun than being an undististinguished and ineffective back-bencher. He’ll be the “pure” choice for socialized medicine and against Obama’s Afghan war.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Marc et al…you are so WRONG.
What is it with you phony liberals? No one slanders and panders more to the right than you with with this type of half cocked reasoning.
His reason was not “asinine”…your “reasoning” (and that is being generous) is.
He has facts behind his point of view and all you have is empty, pathetic rationalizations the type that historically end up on the trash heap.
The horrible realities of this bill have been warned about for the past few weeks by people who actually get it. DK went out of his way to point out that the bill so has the footprints of health insurance lobbyists all over it (as the whistle blower Potter said it did) that the stock market is slobbering all over it.
How fucking obtuse can you be? It has also been stated that this bill will fuck people ROYALLY and premiums will go up etc etc.
This kind of capitulation that then gets supported by liberals like you and those that trash a Nader or Kucinich– people who have put their principles on the line– and created genuine change–are the reason we still are climbing out of the slime in this country.
I have seen this over and over but Ridgeway in the doc on Nader really summed it up on how Democrats (exchange that for liberals and the Gitlins and Altermans and all the other traitors) are the meanest motherfuckers he’s ever met.
Your ridiculing of Kucinich– who by the way was re elected in Ohio after have stood his ground on a huge issue–who had the vision to see where his constituents were going to get fucked by a big utility company and got tossed out of office for his prescience–is the reason change is almost impossible to come by in this imbecile ridden country. Its not the Republicans that you like to whine about its the so called Democrats/Liberals that have systematically done more harm than any ding bat on the Right ever could.
Nice you have healthcare with your job, Marc, and you won’t have to be the one to eat it if and when this disastrous bill ever gets passed.
Like Kucinich once said: the only vote worth making is the courageous one.
How dare you ridicule someone who has principles and then post your little blog about your little Cuban.
God…the HYPOCRISY.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
And accusing Kucinich of being on the ‘Right’ just puts you off the map, Marc.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I suggest you read the details of what this bill– if it passes– and it will get even more watered down in the Senate– will really do. Gutting Medicare is one of its targets.
Get the bloody facts.
Its like you just go deaf and dumb to historical realities and the reality of the stranglehold of the insurance companies and think any piece of shit legislation like thousands of others that pander to corporate lobbyists is going to some how “incrementally” be an improvement when the facts are that it is going to make things WORSE.
November 8th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Marc said 25 years, I’ve been saying 18.
I hope I’m right, but Marc has seen more people’s struggles than I have.
This bill sucks big time, yet that his how left wing change gets accomplished in the US Empire.
Just eat your berries and leafy greens, and see you in 2027.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Yes, Anna, bully for you. You have exposed me as a phony liberal! Hahaha.
Now let’s see if I can two simple direct answers from you on two simple direct questions. If you rant instead, I will cut you off because, after all, I’m among the “meanest people on earth!” (BTW Jim Ridgeway is one of my oldest friends). OK here goes:
1) Do you think it would be better if 3 more progressive Dems had joined with Dennis and killed off the House bill?
2) Do you think in that case a BETTER alternative would be passed in its place?
Limit your answer to 50 words.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:49 am
I’m beginning to think the Anna Churchill persona is just somebody’s idea of an inside joke. Still, I strongly suspect that Pelosi had a few extra votes in her back pocket if she needed them, and gave the nod to a few red district Democrats that they were free to vote No if it was politically expedient. Since Kucinich isn’t from a red district, his self-styled heroic posturing is simply symptomatic of extremist thinking, where the term “extremist” is intended to convey the self-righteous refusal to make compromises. It doesn’t seem all that different in practice from what the wingnuts did in NY 23 and thereby managed to lose a seat that has been safely Republican for 130 years. I can understand how Kucinich would feel after a whole career of speaking truth to corrupt power, but the issue isn’t the beauty of his prose, it’s the vote he cast.
I’m waiting to see how the new system (should it pass) will handle all those part time workers who have been kept at part time in order to keep them ineligible for health benefits. I think that this is the group which badly needs the public option. In addition, equity would involve taxing employers for those uncovered workers, with the revenues going towards their coverage under the public option.
I’m also interested in seeing how insurance companies will handle the limitation on preexisting condition refusals. One possibility is that private insurers will raise the barriers on individual insurance coverage across the board; this may lead to extended litigation, depending on the way the bill is worded in the final edition.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Bob G, you comment is utterly stupid. You keep rationalizing about something you then admit you havent a fucking clue as to its viability– which is precisely why K voted against it.
How you call a guy who is informed airing no more than “heroic posturing” puts you right in there with the other “motherfuckers’ James Ridgeway so eloquently identifies.
Calling him “extremist”????!!!! Because he thinks before he blows hot air like you phony progressives who gleefully nail anyone who even gives a whiff of REAL progressive savvy to the cross.
You and Marc will eat your words if this bill or the watered down version passes.
And I will be there to shove every vowel and consonant down your collective throats.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Marc:
1. YES
2. YES if more people had the balls of a Kucinich and more people like him had their hand on the rudder– which can’t happen because of people like you and Bob G who run to capitulate. Petain had nuthin’ on you. Why not just set up another Vichy government. Oh…wait most of the Dems already have.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Marc Cooper Says:
November 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Yes, Anna, bully for you. You have exposed me as a phony liberal! Hahaha.
Marc: You seem to have a following of Jiminy Crickets that do this for you on a regular basis. I am hardly pointing out something that has frequently been mentioned.
My outrage is based on two things:
1. your ridiculing people like Kucinich
2. your failure to state your case for the passage of a bill based on WHAT THE BILL ACTUALLY WILL DO
Criticism of it has been HARSH…BY PEOPLE WHOSE BUSINESS IT IS TO KNOW
You are just floating the most specious of liberal hot air rationale.
If that bill were to actually do something positive I would be for it.
It has been designed to drain what existing healthcare infrastructure is there and feed the trough of the insurance pigs
It is stunning to me that you haven’t backed up your point of view with the FACTS
November 9th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Anna’s hero: The book “Best and Worst of the Big-City Leaders, 1820–1993, Melvin G. Holli” consultation with a panel of experts named Kucinich to one of the ten worst big-city mayors of all time.
In the ONLY job Dennis every had in his whole life that required him to actually run something something other than his mouth, he stood out.
Take a look at his Wiki bio. The classic career of a loser. He could been a contenta’ against the late night ShamWOW salesman, but that would have required getting a job.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html
A detailed analysis of the bill and why it sucks
Her points echo the ones that were made in warning…
November 9th, 2009 at 9:13 am
yes, Jim, thats why he was re elected after the idiots in his town realized he was right.
No doubt Holli would name anyone who wasn’t an arch conservative a bad mayor
November 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am
He does deserve credit however for having actually won a job in Washington, to separated other people from ‘their’ money, on his on, rather than relying on a rich daddy’s money and name to separate other people from their money.
Money they would have no understanding of its value, because they never had to actually earn any.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Kucinich wasn’t the only no vote on the left. Eric Massa, D from upstate NY also rejected the bill for similar reasons. I’m sure their votes were factored into the counting. I also agree with Marc’s assessment. Its hard to watch some type of reform get this far and then rejecting it due to its lack of purity.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Anna, you and Kucinich write as if you live in a nation in which the purest form of an idea wins. You have not only adopted “Demand the Impossible” as a slogan, you add “And If You Don’t Give It To Me I’ll Hold My Breath Til I Turn Blue.” So people being denied coverage for preexisting conditions continue to go without treatment…you reserve the right to spit upon those who concede points in order to get a bill that takes a significant step toward providing access to health care to working and formerly-working Americans who could not qualify for Medicaid. And I believe that you are wrong if you believe this will increase the rate of growth of premiums. Rather, it provides a framework to begin a coordinated effort to control costs.
The reality is that we have the most progressive House we have had in over 30 years, and the most progressive President we have had in 70 years, and this is the bill that, after a lengthy clash of ideas (and political angling), resulted. I do not know all of its provisions, nor whether the ones I do understand will certainly achieve positive results, but I am absolutely certain that if we do not take positive steps now to improve the delivery in health care in this country, it will be decades before we get another chance. If the House bill or a similar bill does pass, then we can work to improve it in subsequent years.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“Always Demand the Impossible and along the way vote for and achieve what is possible.”
That’s what I said to people who voted for Nader.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
If you’re looking for thoughtful fact-based analysis, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html
November 9th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
b4…i already posted that link. but good to see it again.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Another Dem who voted against the bill, according to the list I read, was Artur Davis. I believe he is from the Atlanta area. He is a bright, progressive guy. Anyone know how he is explaining his vote?
November 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Michael, you are just spewing airy fairy nonsense.
If we actually had a progressive House/Senate/Pres single payer coverage would have been rammed down everyone’s throats.
Other presidents who get shit done ( for good and ill) follow the old Westmoreland or MacArthur dictum that if you grab em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.
Just because Obama is a Democrat and blew a lot of hot air up everyone’s ass does not make him “progressive”. Progressives like Marcy Kaptur ( par example) has come flat out and said he needs to get better advisors and he is too easily influenced by them and as we all SHOULD know his advisors are a pack of corporate rats.
He also NEVER campaigned on universal health care and always pimped for a watered down piece of crap like what is on the table.
Its people like you, Marc etc that should be demanding these so called Dems do their fucking jobs as Democrats. This plague of rationalizing is what will sink us. What people like you do is leave the Kucinichs, Kapturs, Graysons etc etc hanging out to dry. These are the people who have stepped up to the plate and in articulate, reasoned, passionate, detailed terms taken on the big issues. But instead of getting the support they need from supposedly thoughtful ” pro gessss ivvvvs” we get this blog and your type of comments.
Shame on you.
You are just rabbiting about nothing. Total denial of the reality of what a mess of a bill like this is going to do. Are all the critiques of it– given in gruesome detail– just a bunch of assholes breaking wind?
Come back to me with your comments disproving even the analysis of marcia–angell who echoes many of the ugly facts of what this bill really is…
November 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Artur Davis (from Alabama, not Georgia) says he favors the Senate Finance Bill. His criticisms of the bill seem relatively minor. Seems like he must be getting rightward heat from either constituents or lobbyists.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Why Artur Davis voted against the bill:
Congressman Artur Davis votes against House Health Care bill
Posted: Nov 08, 2009 8:04 PM Updated: Nov 08, 2009 8:04 PM
12 News Anywhere
Get breaking news emails
Become a fan on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Get alerts on your computer desktop
Get WSFA.com on you cell phone
Posted by: Mario Hendricks – bio | email
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WSFA) – The Affordable Health Care for America Act, that narrowly passed the House, could hit a wall in the Senate.
All of Alabama’s congressmen, even Democrats, voted against the bill on Capitol Hill.
Seventh Congressional District Congressman Artur Davis released this statement as to why he voted against the bill:
“I am a supporter of health care reform who believes that the House leadership’s approach is not the best we can do. Because we risk a disaster if we get this wrong, I have voted no on the House legislation and continue to root for a final bill that fixes the holes in our health care system and contains soaring costs in both the private and public sectors.
While the Senate Finance Committee bill needs work, there are three reasons it comes closer to achieving the real reform we need. First, the Senate bill tries to roll back some of the aggressive government subsidization of the private health care industry, a trend that has made that industry much too bloated and inefficient. The Senate bill would take the savings and use them to pay for many of the reforms in the package. Second, while there is no ideal way to raise new revenues, the Senate’s proposed excise tax on insurance companies is the best of the imperfect options. It will help rein in the profit spiral in the insurance industry. Finally, while the Senate does not mandate that companies insure their workers, their bill would make companies share with the government the cost of subsidizing any of their workforce that is uninsured. In contrast, the House bill sets a mandate on businesses, but allows larger companies to walk away from it by paying a limited penalty: this will surely drive some companies to drop coverage they already provide.
These are all factors that should make even my more liberal constituents cautious about the virtues of the House bill. By the way, its much discussed public option will actually cost more than most private insurance plans. It is also estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that fewer than 2% of Americans would end up in the public option.”
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
November 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Anna, you haven’t a democratic bone in your body.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
As for Dr. Angell’s opinion, I think many of her suggestions are good. Once a bill is finally passed, we should consider some of them.
I think there are substantial portions of the bill that are aimed to control costs and to monitor the practices of participating doctors.
She seems to me to be contradictory in her assessment of the impact of the plan on young people, and vice-versa. As I have said in prior posts, any plan that does not bring young people into the insurance system is going to fail. The fact that older people will pay more than younger people is simply a reflection of the fact that some underwriting principles still obtain. This would be true, btw, with single-payer as well, unless someone made the decision that young people should pay premiums far disproportionate to their utilization. I think that would be a deal-killer. It’s not hard to explain to 50+ population that insurance is important…not so easy to sell to the 30- crowd.
It is easy to pot-shot this or any other effort at comprehensive reform. A lot of Dr. Angell’s suggestions are not contained in the bill (but one is), but her reforms are in no way excluded by the House bill.
Marc’s initial point is still the critical one: we are better off with this imperfect reform bill than with no reform at all. We have to provide access for the working poor and middle class to health care. We have to re-construct the system from the bottom-up to try to control costs, not just so people can afford care, but so that we can limit the burden on companies, governmental entities and others who provide insurance to their workers.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Lol hey Anna. Your hero Kaptur is anti anortion and is one of the house ding a lungs that insisted upon perhaps the most retrograde aspect of the bill, banning abortion coverage. Of course u will remember that Dennis was also anti abortion his entire career until he became a dem prex candidate and had a um sudden conversion. Btw his advisors include a bevvy of new age quacks including what’s her name who hawks A Course In Miracles. They are all fools.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Btw, Anna, your heroes Alan Grayson and Marcy Kaptur did vote for the bill.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Kaptur voted yes only because it banned abortion. She helped hold it hostage
November 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
marc, I am aware Marcy is a Catholic and anti abortion. To be so obtuse as to throw out all the other work she has done is…pathetic.
All of a sudden “compromise” doesnt suit your agendas.
to not understand that abortion is a trigger issue–and I am pro abortion–but i understand if someone is a Catholic and why they would not support it. I would not throw the baby (ha ha) out with the bath water.
I became aware of Kaptur and her tenacious work on the economic issues– looked her up.
I don’t give a shit if Dennis talks to Donald Duck– when he talks issues he talks straight and far better people than you with far greater intelligence have supported him.
Your rationales for dissing Dennis and Marcy have nothing to do with their intelligence and ability to shift through the shit of the legislation process and vote their conscience.
Now YOU want “perfection”. I judge an elected official by what they are able to articulate in the line of duty. And I havent heard better than Ted who is now dead; Marcy or Dennis and I know there are others who get to grips with the bottom line and aren’t whores.
Kaptur’s anti abortion stance or Dennis’ isnt based on some nut bag fundamentalism. Considering their grasp of all the other issues their objection to abortion as Catholics is something I can understand and understand that OFTEN Catholics are also the most progressive on a lot of other issues.
Stop deflecting the issue with this nonsense and argue the points in the bill.
Read over what the criticisms are then come back and argue your case for it.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
marc try to stick to reality in your criticism of Kucinich.
You admitted his WELL ARTICULATED critique of the bill was sensible. If he is such an idiot how is it he can craft such a reasoned argument.
And you have not dealt with the criticisms of the bill which many have made and have serious reservations about. In fact…virtually all who are genuinely progressive and even if they voted for the bill–which they will live to regret– know its a BAD bill. that is the over riding view of it. That it is SHIT. But like you they think somehow its an “incremental” step rather than a step into a big pile of excrement.
That is the pathetic reasoning that is going to be the wrecking ball of the 21st century.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Look Anna, I know all about Kaptur. I sure as fig hope that her anti woman views dont derive from her personal religious views as a Catholic, for Christ’s sake. I assume they reflect the political realities of her district. Period.
That is the problem with all these folks. And that’s why you are dead wrong. It isn’t about Obama’s advisors or Kucinich’s boldness. It’s about real life political realities, about political consciousness not only of members of congress but about the voters as well.
I dont like Kaptur’s views on abortion. I think they are medieval. I dont eeven respect them. I merely accept them as the political cost of doing business with her.
Now take her contradictions and conflicts and multiply them by 454 and what you get is the current House bill. That, UNFORTUNATELTY, and against my desires was the best that could come of it. If you accept Kaptur’s inconsistencies what makes it so hard for u to understand (not forgive) those of the the greater body politic? It is diseased and we got a diseased bill which is better than no bill.
I personally dont give a flip what Dennis Kucinich does or doesnt do (except when he screws things up) becuase he long ago rendered himself irrelevant and laughable. This bill has to come back from conference and be approved again by The House. I hope he makes no tactical alliance with the most reactionary forces in the country to kill it off. Better as Crosby said he just holds his breath and passes out before voting Nay.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“If we actually had a progressive House/Senate/Pres single payer coverage would have been rammed down everyone’s throats.
“Other presidents who get shit done ( for good and ill) follow the old Westmoreland or MacArthur dictum that if you grab em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.”
I don’t understand that at all, either as “analysis” or as a strategy. Just some weird combination of bluster and wishful thinking…
November 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“I personally dont give a flip what Dennis Kucinich does or doesnt do (except when he screws things up) becuase he long ago rendered himself irrelevant and laughable.”
Posting notes from the “irrelevant” and “laughable” while reading Zizek’s aptly titled “In Defence of Lost Causes”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tscCJznwIsA
November 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Still lovin’ Obama over there, Marc.
What an ineffectual, selfish, big-government coward. Can’t we all just admit that he’s pretty much a failure as a person?
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/09/wow-dude-its-really-not-about
November 9th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Can’t we all just admit that on a thread with a fair number of truly low-octane comments, Drummer’s pretty much sets the standard for “lame” ? What an ineffectual failure – even his “Reason” link sucks beyond my expectations.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Artur Davis plans to run for governor of Alabama next year. I’m guessing that’s why he voted against the bill.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
The entire European Community’s leadership and the Russians showed up in person in Berlin, but Obama was only on the big screen, talking.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Marc…”anti woman” is just a wee bit hyperbolic don’t you think?
If there was single payer–universal coverage but the concession was no federal abortion funding THAT would be a bill worth passing. All of a sudden this issue which is tiny compared to the horror show of not having a proper health care initiative becomes an item you won’t get your teeth out of and you condemn people who otherwise seem to be fearless in attacking some of the most egregious transgressions.
If Kaptur’s only crime is to be anti abortion and the window into her fearless assault on the corruption is even half accurate then you better get on her bandwagon.
And I still don’t see what is irrelevant about Dennis. If you are going to condemn him give examples of his work as a Congressman that is irrelevant…and todays blog doesn’t count given that genuine progressives all think the bill stinks.
Its really hard for me take you seriously, Marc, given your penchant for that prick Ha Ha Ha We Were Right (Mirror UK article chortling over the “fall” of Baghdad) Hitchens. If anyone is irrelevant its him.
I am still waiting for you to address the very serious problems in the bill that are so serious it makes it worthless and dangerous.
Please read the link I posted with the critique that mirrors many of the points that experts feel will make this bill a disaster.
and BTW… I am one of the uninsured. I am self employed. Now you tell me what this piece of shit excuse of a health insurance bill is going to do for me and what will it cost?
Then you think about what will happen to Medicare. Go to where the rubber hits the road, Marc rather than spouting ideology.
In your own words: It is diseased and we got a diseased bill which is better than no bill.
I am speechless that you can make a statement like that and expect that to be a rationale for thinking this is a great historic and worthwhile enterprise to be embraced.
RREAD THE CRITICISMS OF WHAT THE REALITY OF THIS MEANS. WHAT IT WILL MEAN TO ADMINISTER SUCH A MONSTER AND DEAL WITH THE FACT ITS A FEEDING FRENZY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WILL FUCK AND GUT EXISTING PROGRAMS ETC ETC ETC ETC AD NAUSEUM
Fight me with facts, Marc.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Disagree with Marc Cooper on this one.
Obama campaigned on health care being a right and not a privilege. That means that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution should kick in and some version of single payer passed to protect that right.
Civil rights are not things to bargain away.
So either Obama was selling a pocketful of hope during the campaign or should have framed the legislative debate by calling on a new era of civil rights not to be trifled with by Congress.
Dennis Kucinich tried to keep a proviso in the bill allowing for states to have immunity should any try to enact single-payer.
The Dems on the other hand will be trumpeting a victory for passing legislation which after the likes of Joe Leiberman get through with in the Senate will entitle the uninsured to a single aspirin and a swig of water.
Moreover this bill has become emblematic of the failure of government to act in the interest of people over corporate interests.
We don’t have single payer because the guy who promised it didn’t even try.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Marcy Kaptur’s voting record
http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Marcy_Kaptur.htm
And thank you, Ahmed, for the sample of Dennis at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tscCJznwIsA
Yeah, Marc, he is laughable and irrelevant; his assessment of the bill was ditto…
What planet are YOU ON…or more to the point WHAT are you on???
November 9th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Yeah, Marc, Kucinich reallllly irrelevant:
YouTube – Dennis Kucinich Discusses Iraq War Vote and Funding on CNN
Apr 16, 2007 … Dennis Kucinich, the only Democratic presidential candidate who voted against going to War in Iraq and every funding bill since challenges the other Democratic candidates to justify their votes
November 9th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
He votes against the war; against funding it and you call him irrelevant because he also votes against a piece of shit legislation that will betray the need for a genuine, civilized health care mandate.
I am just getting madder by the minute. Your putting a tin foil on his head and accusing him of voting ” Right” puts you in Limbaugh Limbo…and makes YOU irrelevant.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Pablo: Obama never promised single payer. He was always blabbing about some mish mash scheme that pretty much sounds like what we are about to get. It was one of the big sticks Hillary used to beat him over the head with.
He delivered on just about what he promised for ‘health care’. It was known he had sold himself to the insurance lobby.
Thanks for making the points on how bad the bill is.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Anna, take an aspirin. When the bill passes, you can get a doctor to give you the same advice for a $75 office visit, which I will pay for if your income is less than 300% above the poverty level.
No thanks necessary…..as if.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Kucinich got about 2% in the Democratic primary. I would call that irrelevant.
And by the way, Anna, you have a vile discourteous tone. Someone less tolerant than me would tell you to bugger off.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Reg,
Read the comments. Your messiah gets absolutely destroyed.
I guess Reagan was the last politician with a spine.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I used to respect Reason. I guess the economic collapse turned them into teabaggers. Sad.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Jim R. If it’s true that you’ve paid for someone else’s healthcare, you should probably count it as an achievement, rather than a failure, even if it wasn’t entirely voluntary…
November 10th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Jim R,
As a taxpayer, I’ve already paid for your war in Mesopotamia that was based on deceit.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Drummer – Read the comments in Reason Magazine ? Do I also get someone’s finger shoved up my ass as a bonus ? How about an invitation to a public reading of Atlas Shrugged by a bunch of college sophomores ?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:25 am
“We don’t have single payer because the guy who promised it didn’t even try.”
Obama never promised single payer. Never.
As it turns out, I really hate this health care bill but I agree with Marc that it’s a first step to establishing a principal of universal coverage, which is essential. But the issue of making it work effectively will not go away (also its worth noting that Holland and Switzerland don’t have single payer, but they have pretty good, highly regulated universal coverage.)
November 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Yeah, Roper…I mean “Drummer”… Reagan had “spine” all right. The only guy to become President with the “spine” to assert that: “Our military is absolutely incapable of defending this country.”
November 10th, 2009 at 8:55 am
“If it’s true that you’ve paid for someone else’s healthcare, you should probably count it as an achievement, rather than a failure..”
Show me one government social program that has not been a total mismanaged failure, and you will begin to get my interest in another BB. Don’t you think it would be responsible for Washington to show me they can manage this http://tinyurl.com/yjveb9v107 Trillion dollar failure first, before getting my support to another they claim will be different THIS time, but never has in the past? I do.
“I’ve already paid for your war in Mesopotamia” and Western Europe, and Korea, and Eastern Europe, and Panama, and Kuwait, and Grenada, etc, and now Mesopotamia. We’re working now on Afghanistan. Aren’t you at all proud of our freedom loving history Randy??
I’m betting you wouldn’t call FDR’s Lend-Lease plan to save Britain as deceptive. He was a visionary leader doing what was necessary at the time. So did another visionary, GWB. The only difference is your calcified partisanship may be preventing you from seeing similarities.
Our current leader of the hard fought and hard won free world, we are increasingly taking for granted, is still in training. Failure to see the importance of an appearance in Germany as leader of the free world, is not a good sign. God help him to see the similarities….in time.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am
“show me they can manage this…Trillion dollar failure”
is “…107 Trillion dollar failure”
November 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am
One more try. The link is http://tinyurl.com/yjveb9v
The “107″ correction above got added to the end of the link in the original comment.
I know you guys would be highly disappointed to find that link to your social program disasters, didn’t work.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:21 am
So did another visionary, GWB. The only difference is your calcified partisanship may be preventing you from seeing similarities.
A steaming pile of horseshit. England was being threatened by Nazis who subsequently declared war on us. Saddam was a largely defanged tyrant relying solely on bluster and bravado. Bush and his friends in the neocon circle jerk had a hard-on for Saddam and deided to cheat and lie to drum up an unnecessary war to fulfill their goals.
The comparison is effectively an upraised middle finger to those who fought in WWII. Of all the most asinine and tendentious comments you’ve made this ranks as probably the worst. It’s not even worthy of my contempt.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Jim R – defending GWB on his “national security” agenda is a signal you’re brain dead. The Iraq war has been proven the most ill-conceived, worst-orchestrated and most disastrous frauds in American history.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Marc, they nailed jesus to the cross for his ideas– does that make him irrelevant, too?
The examples you are making to make your point that you think Kucinich is irrelevant is ridiculous…he is IN office and from what I gather of his voting history and arguments on the most pressing issues– his ability to articulate all the issues you whine about–how does that make him irrelevant?
Just because Nader lost the election does that make his game changing contributions irrelevant?
Your reductionism is VILE.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Bush won the election…twice. Does that make him RELEVANT?
Not to mention a host of venal, vile, Senators and House of Reps and mayors and governors that get elected– and more than once.
So relevance…in your view is like the happy face icon. anything that gets played over and over because it appeals to the lowest common denominator
November 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am
The notion that GWB is a visionary of the stature of FDR is a bit of stretch, to say the least. Yet I don’t think the Iraq War quite ranks up to the debacle of Vietnam. Not even close.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:45 am
And your threats to me, Marc, because I challenged your point of view only go a very long way in revealing that you dont mind playing host to people who use your blog to post filthy, vile, racist garbage…but you do mind people who challenge your point of view.
And then you have the nerve to keep posting blogs like the one on the Cuba blogger who gets the crap beat out of her for challenging her government.
You are treading on very think ice there, amigo.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:45 am
should be “thin ice”. But I like the mistake better.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:14 am
You’re right Rob in gross terms, but the reason that I would make a distinction and award the Iraq war a bigger SNAFU on a pure policy level is that the Vietnam War was snuck up on us and and expanded incrementally over a decade, not promoted as a singular “necessity” in one swell foop. I guess it’s arguable that the Gulf War was the prelude, but the conclusion to that one – including letting the Shiites get their asses kicked by Saddam while we sat there and let it happen – makes the 2003 invasion rationale seem even more bizarre and bogus IMHO.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Jim – don’t believe everything that Pierre du Pont posts on his website.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Also – Jim R, shouldn’t anyone worthy of the label “fiscal conservative” pass a politically feasible agenda to cut government expenses before they pass massive tax cuts ? Otherwise they’re either frauds or unbelievably stupid. I guess I’m not sure which of those apply to Reagan and the Bushes (maxi and mini), but there’s really no other conclusion that can be drawn. Otherwise they’re practicing some form of “fiscal responsibility” that would get me labeled a deadbeat moron if I tried it. A practical plan for cutting government spending has to precede telling the electorate you’ve got a magic plan to cut their taxes. This is common sense and, whatever else you may say about them, Democrats are the only ones with the balls and/or intelligence to be honest about it. Look to Obama to be the President who, as a liberal Dem, is able to deal successfully with this issue by the end of his terms – despite the shit that was piled on his plate by Bush going out the back door – just like Reagan was able to embrace a Soviet President as his partner and Nixon was able to go to China.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:46 am
This is totally off-topic but if you are into the younger Cooper’s Footnotes to Mad Men – which is totally cool, even briliant IMHO – you’ll also get a kick out of this blog, which has “All The Things Don Draper Said” for every season of the show.
http://www.unlikelywords.com/2009/11/09/everything-don-draper-said-season-3/
November 10th, 2009 at 10:52 am
The Iraq War, the continuation of the first Gulf War, was ‘necessitated’ as facing up to our debt owed to Iraq from the Cold War. We sacked an evil client, IMHO. I’ll leave it there, for now. reg go ahead and take the last word on this.
(Btw, aldaily.com has a great compilation of articles/essays/etc. in re 1989. Just putting that out there.)
November 10th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Opps…here’s the link: http://www.aldaily.com/
November 10th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I think you’re putting a face on it that doesn’t square up with the way the thing was sold. I understand the desire to make it “good” vs. “evil”, because I had some of the same feelings. I resisted when I looked at who was making the arguments and how almost delusioinaly broad-brushed they were in terms of any actual threat to the US or ties to the 9/11 terrorists and how ahistorical and hypocritical they were in terms of our own previous alliances and actions.
That said, I don’t pretend to fully understand why we went in and what was actually the expected outcome by the “strategists.” When I look at craziness like the Heritage Foundation sending interns over to staff the Green Zone, I can’t help but think that spectacular incompetence and self-induced wishful thinking among neo-con ideologues was probably at the core of the decision-making. I also think that BushCo got played by the Iraqi exiles – many of dubious allegiances and backgrounds, like Chalabi – who saw an opening for something they didn’t have a chance in hell of pulling off themselves.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“Kaptur’s anti abortion stance or Dennis’ isnt based on some nut bag fundamentalism. ”
As a practising Catholic, I would say their anti-choice stance most certainly is based on nutbag fundamentalism.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Having listened to the talking heads last night and reading more about the limit on abortion funding in the House health care bill, I’m afraid this has the potential to create a crisis on the progressive side of the ball, and in the Democratic Party in particular. Should this provision be in the final bill, it would have the potential to enrage feminists–and even non-feminist or post-feminist young people–and give them an excuse to abandon the Democratiic Party. This cannot and I believe will not happen. But as for what that means to the health bill, I do not know. It sounds to me like reps like Marcy Kaptur are being used to create a major rift in the Democratic base.
What we are facing is “wedge politics” at its most successful. And the issue came pretty much out of nowhere. A friend of mine was speaking to an Ohio Congresswoman (not named Kaptur) and she said it was the Catholic Church that insisted on inclusion of the provision. As a Catholic in the Mario Cuomo/John Kerry/Father Hesburgh tradition, I believe that choice as a political position is not only moral and consonant with Catholic principles, but it is the only position that respects the Constitution and particularly the separation of church and state implicit in the First Amendment.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“Kucinich got about 2% in the Democratic primary. I would call that irrelevant.”
His constituents who continually send him back office certainly don’t seem to share that view. More so, Kucinich’s positions, articulated in office, whether on the Iraq war or the dismantling of our social safety net have proven to be right on target and prophetic. He delivered an absolute barn burner of a speech condemning the absolutely disgusting drumming down of the Goldstone Report. Yeah, dude’s presidential runs are mostly vanity campaigns but then again it allows him the possibility to voice truths, to a large population, which are often shut out of the debate. Sp he got 2 per cent of the vote. By that logic, compared to the heavy hitters of journalism like Friedman, or media powerhouses like Limbaugh, you, Cooper, are pretty much irrelevant, too. Somehow I dont think you’d like it if we judged your journalistic output through such standards
November 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Michael, that no abortion funding provision has been batted about a lot the past few weeks– its not out of nowhere.
If only SOMETHING would “enrage” someone. Unfortunately I doubt anyone but the few in advocacy groups will bat an eye. Since no one but the foaming mouth brigade has shown any interest in whats in the bill meaning they wanted more exclusions–I doubt the anti abortion provision will raise even an eyebrow.
Progressives will do the usual shuffle (have already done it) with the rationale that is being clapped all down this blog hooting that to eat a shitty bill is better than nothing.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Rob….jeeze. So now you rationalize the war?
He could have been taken out; should have been taken out years earlier, but of course you know all the stories about THAT.
Rob, it is on record that the first troops in were told to secure the fucking oil fields and that this was NOTHING more than a smash and grab action and no one gave a SHIT about the Iraqis and their subjugation…thanks to US/U.S. BTW
November 10th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are far more of a “debacle” because the fall out is global terrorism–its an impossible quagmire and the political problems; logistics…EVERYTHING is going to be a never ending nightmare with threat of conflagrations in Pakistan/Iran/Israel and god only knows where else.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
By going in over there on such phony pretenses and doing it so badly we opened Pandoras Box.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The effect of the anti-abortion provision is still being debated. However, it is the sort of angle-shot the anti-choice people have been executing the past 15 or so years. Since they have been unsuccessful in reversing Roe v Wade, and thus enabling the states to ban abortions, they have settled on a strategy to make abortions unavailable in other ways. They have tried to define “person” as including fetuses. They have utilized violent and non-violent terrorism to force gynecologists to abjure the procedure. Now they are trying to force upon insurers the financial decision that they must exclude abortions from coverage.
Once there is a consensus that this provision will effectively exclude abortion from all policies available to most Americans, I think there will be a very strong reaction among the public. There is a generation out there–almost 2 generations now–that has grown up believing that the right to abortion is in fact a fundamental right arising from the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has restated numerous times. I don’t think they will accept having this right taken away as the cost of achieving health care reform. The challenge is preserving both “rights.”
November 10th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Side show Bob: As to Catholic anti abortion rhetoric…I can take it from a politician if on virtually all other issues they are righteous. One doesnt throw the baby out with the bath water ( ha ha)
Kaptur and Kucinich have far better records than the majority of Dems.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Pablo: Obama never promised single payer. He was always blabbing about some mish mash scheme that pretty much sounds like what we are about to get. It was one of the big sticks Hillary used to beat him over the head with.
He delivered on just about what he promised for ‘health care’. It was known he had sold himself to the insurance lobby.
Thanks for making the points on how bad the bill is.
———————-
Anna:
I heard Obama respond on point that he believed Healthcare to be a fundemental right during the second debate. McCain responded that he thought Healthcare to be a privelege.
Big difference. A fundemental right triggers equal protection under the Constitution. As a fundemental right all americans are to be afforded equal access to health services without regard to one’s ability to pay.
It became obvious that Obama misspoke during the debate as single-payer or Medicare for all were “off the table” in favour of “stake-holder interests”.
While I was swept up in the campaign euphoria that Mr Obama would bring sweeping change I have now sobered to the fact that from the founding of the republic the people are mere collateral beneficiaries to legislation which is driven by stake holders and special interests.
More sobering, I must reluctantly concede to Mr Cooper, is that if anything, Obama is emblematic of being as good as it gets.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Proof that a lot of Far Left fave demagogues are more interested in hearing themselves talk than getting things done. Yes, the bill sucks. But doing nothing looking for the perfect is akin to the old joke about the drowning man who was waiting for a hand of God to come down from Heaven to save him when a lifeboat and helicopter passed him by.
You’re willing to drown for the miraculous and the perfect when the OK will save you right now.
I respect Kuicinich’s position — but this was purist cynicism that is the reason he garners only 2% in Presidential polls.
I’ll say this, it shows how little Obama and Pelosi have any control over their party. If Kuicinich and Lieberman were Republicans and this were the 2001 vote on Invading Iraq, the Bushes would have thrown their asses so far under the bus, they both by stuck between back tires and the brake line.
DK would have been demoted to fetching junior Congressmen coffee to 3 years. And Lieberman would have came in third in the CT Senate race, behind the Green Party candidate (who I know personally).
November 10th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Pablo – this bill with mandates is much more a copy of what Hillary was proposing than Obama. Maybe holding back on enforcing mandates is not politically feasible, but the Dems would have probably been smarter to regulate the insurance companies, establish a robust public option, take some strong measures to control costs and then wait and see. As the bill stands – with Hillary’s mandates at the center – it’s poltically precarious, and possibly suicidal for Dems, if the brakes on insurance companies turn out to be weak, which they may well be.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
As a point of law, the assertion (or establishment) of a right as “fundamental” (and there are precious few that have been recognized by the Supreme Court) does indeed trigger the right to “equal protection” under the laws relating to that right.
This does not mean, however, that health benefits would necessarily have to be provided free or at reduced rates for the poorer among us. Such legislation would certainly be constitutional, but not necessary to comply with the 14th amendment.
For example, a citizen of African descent has a fundamental constitutional right to be accommodated at the Red Roof Inn. He does not have a right, however, to be accommodated if he cannot pay the bill. There would be a number of ramifications if the courts should recognize the right to health care as a fundamental right (since the 14th amendment protects “life, liberty and property”, the right to health care could certainly be deemed implicit in the right to life, as health care, if it does anything, preserves life). I don’t think it would require free or subsidized health care, though.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Further to my most recent post: this Court isn’t about to recognize any “new” fundamental rights. We will be lucky if we survive the next 10 years with the right to freedom from established religion, given the current make-up of the court.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“You’re willing to drown for the miraculous and the perfect when the OK will save you right now.”
There is no “ok” in the bill. Get it?
Its hilarious now everyone is conceding the problems in the bill.
Reg just realized the weakness in the provisions to shtup the insurance companies that is going to prove a liability– par example.
Obama never touted Universal Coverage. Just some weird amalgam to try and give cover to those who couldn’t afford it.
This is the problem relying on an idea that is essentially about a social service than what the civilized countries have which is to create coverage everyone who works pays a deduction for and gets equal care– and if you can afford supplemental cover to see someone privately you can do that.
The crap on the table now is about creating a band aid for those who have no cover even if they work and for those who don’t and need care etc.
Its just STOOPID
To administer this mess will be costly and wasteful. You either get this right or don’t do it.
I can’t wait to be going neh neh neh neh neh neh nah. And then watch the blogs whining about all the problems that will erupt.
God…its like soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo predictable.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Anna, your attitude toward this issue is reprehensible. It is one thing to point out the problems with the various iterations of the legislation. But to write as you do as if it is possible to just start over and do it better next time it to betray a profound disregard for reality. Some people can’t help it…they are just dumb or deluded. But you seem capable of understanding the problem. You are, however, unable to rise above your arrogance.
I don’t like personalizing these posts, but there are others out there who approach this and other issues with a contempt for real people and real life similar to yours.
If we do not get something done to increase Americans’ access to health care and reduce the cost of such care, we will have to answer to history and our descendants.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“Reg just realized the weakness”
I didn’t “just realize” anything – in fact, I thought Obama’s original proposal during the campaign was better and more prudent at the time, even though it was criticized from the left. And I’ve been concerned about the ability of the insurance lobby to turn any actual legislation to their advantage from the outset. But you’ve still got nothin’ except hot air.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
You guys go merrily driveling along as if that 107 trillion pound elephant in the room doesn’t exist.
Blind as bats. Even your radar is broke.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
….and your nation. Nice job.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Sorta reminds me of the treatment for sickness in the 17th century…..bleed the patient. It’s sick.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Michael Crosby Says:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
As a point of law, the assertion (or establishment) of a right as “fundamental” (and there are precious few that have been recognized by the Supreme Court) does indeed trigger the right to “equal protection” under the laws relating to that right.
This does not mean, however, that health benefits would necessarily have to be provided free or at reduced rates for the poorer among us. Such legislation would certainly be constitutional, but not necessary to comply with the 14th amendment.
————
Sorry to quibble: The distinguishing factor in the second debate between McC and Obama is healthcare being seen as a right or a privilige.
There is no ersatz test for healthcare delivery for those who can afford it.
In fact the palaver is based on those who can’t afford healthcare.
To that end, the forty-million without insurance and the countless millions who are under-insured (or are hostages to jobs in order to possess a policy )was the rationale for reform; because Obama stated healthcare is a fundemental right.
Distinguish this from McC who’s view that healthcare is a privilege has prevailed in this “reform” legislation… and distinguishes the USA from joining the rest of civilization.
The maintenence of this majority view will insure that the price for retail healthcare to the uninsured continues to be a predatory weapon against the poor resulting in some 40,000 avoidable deaths per annum based solely on the notion which values profit over people.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Reg:
Why not take the popular Medicare program and gradually roll back the enrollment age until everyone has Medicare?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Sorta reminds me of the treatment for sickness in the 17th century…..bleed the patient. It’s sick.
And your side’s idea is the failed status quo. Wanker.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Cappadonna Says:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Proof that a lot of Far Left fave demagogues are more interested in hearing themselves talk than getting things done. Yes, the bill sucks. But doing nothing looking for the perfect is akin to the old joke about the drowning man who was waiting for a hand of God to come down from Heaven to save him when a lifeboat and helicopter passed him by.
You’re willing to drown for the miraculous and the perfect when the OK will save you right now.
I respect Kuicinich’s position — but this was purist cynicism that is the reason he garners only 2% in Presidential polls”
_________________
That’s about 2% more support for kucinich than the other 434 house members got.
Look, the ‘far left’ is more interested in revolution than healthcare. I suspect you are throwing that it as a marker of your place on the ideo spectrum. Those on the left with skin in the healthcare debate are not marxists. it’s a cheap shot.
The debate here has little to do with the bill itself and more on dashed expectations and broken promises.
Mr Cooper is rationalizing the obvious bad behaviour by team Obama. That is, begin the debate by framing healthcare as a right and stake out a position surrendering as little as possible. Instead team Obama began by saying that single-payer is off the table and that they are not wedded to the idea of a public option.
Cynical me: Those online nickel and dime contributions from us plain folk amounted to about 1/6 of what Wall St gave… and it shows.
Where I do give Obama credit is in raising the issue, period. I feel that a team Clinton would postpone or avoid a headlong debate.
That said, Obama has positioned himself like his democratic predessessor on the center right
November 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Pablo – do it ! I’m sure as hell not stopping you.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Curious, this Anna Churchill thing — I’m beginning to wonder if it’s three or four people, all typing away like those proverbial monkeys with an infinite amount of time. These monkeys, like the ones in the story, can’t spell or write gramatically except by random happenstance, but unlike the proverbial ones, they can spell all those angry epithets.
The point, as Washingtonmonthly.com and others have explained, is to lay down the basic structure to the extent that it can be done right now, and let time and the demands of the populace force the system to evolve into something more European. It may be true that the “public option” as currently written isn’t all that wonderful, but if passed, it is capable of change. Similarly, creating a mandate for universal coverage will create the political pressure for insurance companies to offer decent policies or, absent that, for the evolution of the public option into something pretty close to a true single payer system.
It’s still “the art of the possible.”
I wonder what the monkeys will type next.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Go fuck yourself, Bob. You are the monkey making statements like this:
“Similarly, creating a mandate for universal coverage will create the political pressure for insurance companies to offer decent policies or, absent that, for the evolution of the public option into something pretty close to a true single payer system.”
That proves you have not been reading any of the informed criticism of the bill because exactly what you fantasize is what will NOT happen.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
“And I’ve been concerned about the ability of the insurance lobby to turn any actual legislation to their advantage from the outset. But you’ve still got nothin’ except hot air.”
Reg: this is getting exhausting…THE BILL THAT IS ON THE TABLE WAS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES WRITTEN BY THE INSURANCE LOBBY.
Potter says so as have all informed critics.
How is it I am blowing hot air when all I am doing is emphasizing what those who have actually taken the time to investigate the MEANING of such a bill and how it will play out in real life.
You and Marc and Michael are just blowing ideological hot air and refuse to address the real world implications and ramifications of such a bill– were it to actually pass.
These gasseous pronouncements ( not yours so much) waffling on about we must take this incremental step and then refusing to understand what it will take to implement this big unwieldy mess and address the very alarming problems with the bill is just astonishing.
I have asked umpteen times for this argument to be brought down to reality…like read the critiques and then argue why the points raised that allude to this bill creating a feeding frenzy for the insurance companies that will result in loopholes to deny coverage; premiums rising etc etc.
And because monkeys like Bob G and Michael are challenged I have to say state once again that my position is not to refuse a bill because it doesnt flat out go for universal coverage or single payer or a European model….its that what has been put on the table so far is not a positive step forward.
NONE of us is basing our opinions from reading the 1000 plus pages and interpreting. We are having to rely on those that have.
At least I am. And frankly I will take the word of a Kucinich and Potter among others to those on this forum who can spout no more than ideological clap trap and rationales as a reason to support anything.
I feel like I am in some atavistic time warp of little revolutionaries with stars in their eyes ready to follow Lenin/Disney down the some yellow brick road…”its a step in the right direction”…someday my single payer will come”
November 11th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Do you think others owe you a living Anna?
November 11th, 2009 at 6:34 am
If you can’t help yourself, where is your family?
November 11th, 2009 at 6:36 am
If you have no family, go to your town for help.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:16 am
“Jim R, shouldn’t anyone worthy of the label “fiscal conservative” pass a politically feasible agenda to cut government expenses before they pass massive tax cuts?”
Absolutely reg. It’s a disgrace, but Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. They are irresponsible political hacks looking out for their own interest(job), just like yours.
“Democrats are the only ones with the balls and/or intelligence to be honest about it.”
Shouldn’t “fiscal liberals” show their balls and intelligence by controlling spending in Washington, before they push through another massive social program?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The medical reform is budget neutral – and the alternative of doing nothing or following the half-assed proposals by the GOP spells fiscal disaster as health costs spiral. This reform doesn’t do enough, but it’s a start in controlling costs. That’s why so much of this debate is so fucking dishonest. The GOP wants to cut medicare, but they turn around and attack Obama for “killing Grandma” because the bill manages to cut some of the money from medicare that doesn’t pay for benefits but profits for private insurers. These are bad people. Liars and fools. I think most of these GOP pols are destined to end up in Hell, even assuming a merciful God. Also, I predict Obama will use his two terms to deal with long-term deficit problems. The last President who made some pragmatic efforts to move that forward was Clinton. But the GOP turned around and passed more tax cuts and unfunded entitlements.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Anna C took the bait. Haha. Calls me a monkey (I assume that was meant as an insult). Invites me to do something unprintable to myself, but she prints it. Well, at least she could spell that part correctly.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:04 am
“…someday my single payer will come”
Or you might have to move to Singapore (I believe the latest nation to adopt it)…
In the enlightened state of Kaptur & Kucinich, single payer advocates could not persuade the Ohio Legislature to adopt it as a reform option, nor even get the proposal on the ballot for voters:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Health_Care_for_All_Ohioans_Act_(2008)