Time vs. Ideals -- and the Kucinich vote.

Not all of us know when we will leave this mortal coil. Some of us do. And for quite a few with this knowledge, while the means to help us is there... it is out of our hands.

While many ideals are worth fighting and yes, even dying for... it is a disheartening truth that so many, even here, would choose the perfect over the good when it comes to other people's lives.

We are talking about our families. Our selves. Our brothers and sisters, and cousins and nieces and nephews. We are talking about our fellow Democrats and even Republicans who just don't get it.

When you get down to it, our health and our families are all we really have.

That Kucinich would vote WITH the Republicans AGAINST healthcare reform will only be a principled stand the day he forgoes his own insurance until a Single Payer health system is in place for all Americans. This man has fought hard against war and needless death.

Last night he voted, with Republicans, for the latter.

The biggest flaw lies in the House's failure to produce a robust public option -- that is, one that fully employs the administrative efficiencies and negotiating power of Medicare/Medicaid. A robust plan demonstrates and delivers the advantages of a public system, while bearing the disadvantages of such a system as well. (And there are disadvantages: For example, doctors could disenroll from the plan in large numbers if pricing is too aggressive.)

A robust public plan that's made available to all Americans on "a level playing field" could allow people to compare and contrast the advantages of public vs. private insurance, then make their own decisions. The House plan doesn't do that. As a result, my long-standing fear seems likely to come true. The plan will have low enrollment and little power to negotiate, causing the CBO to state as fact what I've long considered possible: That the public option could become a dumping ground where private plans jettison sicker people, while lacking the efficiencies of scale or negotiating power to get better rates or administer itself more economically.

As a result, says the CBO, a public plan's premiums might be higher than private insurance. While the CBO's word isn't gospel, it's entirely possible that they're underestimating the cost of any "public option" we're likely to see this year. The likeliest political outcome, once the House and Senate bills are combined, is a non-robust "public option" with a state-by-state opt out. The CBO didn't consider the opt-out when it came up with its shocking (to some) estimate.

So how small would the public option plan be in the end? The CBO projects an eventual 6 million enrollees. Compare that to UnitedHealth, which had 32,702,000 members in 2008. Or Wellpoint, with 30,622,000. Or Aetna, with 16,318,000.(1) The public option would barely make it into the list of top 10 US health insurers. And the opt-out provision could cut enrollment by another 20%(2) or more.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/time-to-kill-the-pseudo-p_b_342370.html&cp

He is hiding behind the CBO who says this and that "could" happen to a bill that will continue to change until it is passed. He could have chosen momentum, instead he chose intransigence.

It would have been so easy to sell Medicare as an option for people under 65, but that's why Obama opposed the idea, because he is just another corporate flunky behind his populist facade.

Yeah, they tried that. Clearly, as the vote demonstrated last night, incorrect.

Voters understand Medicare, a single payer system into which they are already paying for.

Remember all those elderly folks that showed up to town halls demanding the Government keep it's hands off their medicare? Sure, some voters understand it. But clearly, not all, nor will they ever choose to. They are just as intrasigent as you.

It was Barack who had to attempt to explain Medicare was a Government program to some folks.

I hear that Obama is thinking about cutting Medicare as well. How wonderful to have such a Rockefeller Republican in the White House.

makes it easy for you to be so obstinate.

You heard what where?

I would think you would have "read" what Obama is refering to in reference to Medicare,
instead of buying the Teabagger's points to throw out here at DU.

Shame on you!

They like spinning things that work for them. This is why I say these guys are mirror images of conservative nutbags.

Don't you people ever read newspapers?

AARP's tacit endorsement of Medicare cuts line its pockets, but shortchanges seniors

ALEXANDRIA, Va. Clearly something must be up with AARP.

Why else would the nation's largest lobbying organization, sworn to protect the interests of senior citizens, watch silently as Congress plans to cut Medicare spending by $400 billion to pay for its health reform legislation? Could it be that the interests of seniors and AARP are not exactly aligned?

Let's follow the money. AARP takes in more than half of its $1.1 billion budget in royalty fees from health insurers and other vendors that market services with the organization's name. Medicare supplementary policies, called "Medigap" plans, make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue.

AARP has an interest in selling more, not fewer, Medigap plans, of course. But there is a competitor on the block.

A growing number of seniors are enrolling in a new form of Medicare coverage Medicare Advantage where they don't need Medigap.

Medicare Advantage was created in 2003 to give seniors the option of joining private plans that are paid up to 12 percent more to provide better health benefits than traditional Medicare.

These private plans compete with each other by offering seniors such services as lower premiums, better drug coverage, dental care and eyeglasses, and more comprehensive coverage for major medical expenses. Nearly 11 million of Medicare's 45-million beneficiaries are in the program.

Congress' health reform bills would cut spending for Medicare Advantage by at least $150 billion. President Obama has singled out Medicare Advantage, saying it is a give-away to private insurance companies. But virtually all of the extra money goes back to seniors in the form of better benefits, so it's seniors who have the most to lose.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-200911050804mctnewsservbc-aarp-con-mct1084nov0,0,7468640.story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8741458


While for you, you can afford to wait for this so unattainable perfection, some of us can't and 90% of this bill is worthwhile and is a massive step for the better. Secondly, can you back up what you heard with some information or are you channeling Foxx, Bachmann, and Palin?!

your so called left keyboard.

Pathetic desperation.

There were plenty of cowardly votes in the House last night but there was only one truly brave one. The unsung hero of the night was Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. Despite enormous pressure to support H.R. 3962, Rep. Kucinich did the right thing and voted 'no'. Unlike the Blue Dog votes against the bill, he did it for all the right reasons.

In a principled and practical statement, Rep. Kucinich said what a growing number of progressives have realized as we've watched real health care reform be compromised again and again.

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

Personally, I supported President Obama in the primaries and the election but do not support him on this corporate giveaway built on broken campaign promises. I voted for the Barack Obama who opposed the individual mandate, who said the negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN and who campaigned against backroom deals with PhARMA.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-4
Kucinich's Brave Health Vote Vs. Obama's Failed Promise | CommonDreams.org

that disagree with my OP. My OP is in response to articles like these. I challenge you to use your own words to express why many of those in my family may not even have insurance in a few years, when they very well could have.

Your precious exchange will cost you more than regular insurance. The copays will still kill you.

but it is far better than nothing, I truly wish you could see that.

to make health care more affordable for your family in the coming years.

The only mechanism that could accomplish that feat is a strong public option with no limits on availability.

Thats not in this bill.

Do you understand the difference between a $5,000 bill and a $500,000 bill? Because for some people, that's what we are talking about. And Kucinich voted for putting that stress on many families.

He had the luxury of being able to vote no on principle, and good for him. His vote didn't make or break it - they didn't need his vote to pass it. So it wasn't brave, it was easy. That's how I see it. Please explain to me what I'm missing here.

his vote would have been catastrophic.

He could have pushed for things that were not included, which he felt represented the people of his district. He may not have been successful, but they would have listened to him. He voted based on the information he had at the time, based on whatever reasoning he had at the time (I'm assuming representing his district was on his mind). You can't really say anything intelligent about what could or would have been. They're unknowable unknowns. You can really only constructively talk about what is, and what can be.

Very disappointing.

His vote did not change the outcome. And had it been needed, he most certainly would have voted differently.

Dennis stands nearly alone in representing an America that should be. A mature and intelligent, and truly compassionate America. One that may never exist.

His vote was a message. Not a true vote like a Republican's. And as such I would never make the comparison.

This is the same man who presented the bill to impeach Cheney. The man whose health care bill was backed by Michael Moore.

I'm ashamed of my country. Even with a decent health care bill that we will now have.

Disappointing logic from this man.

It's about representing your district. It's about including your ideas, and requirements for your constituents in the discourse and using any leverage you have to ensure that your districts interests are considered in equal measure with every other constituency. Beyond that the day-to-day work of politics is about reasoned arguments and trade-offs between participants (politics not policy craft itself).

The vote Dennis cast did not affect the outcome - had it been needed he may have cast a different vote. We cannot say.

The old Cold War logic of the enemy of my enemy is my friend should not apply to Congressional thinking, IMO. We see what kind of friends it got us in the long run.

His constituency is not served by the status quo. Would they (or us all) be better served by single payer? Undoubtedly, but if it doesn't have 218 votes then it is worthless politically.

no one can say. We don't know how he would have voted if the bill would have failed without his vote. We might know what he says he would have done, but that could be bluster.

And discarded as deeply flawed.

If every Democrat were as principled as Dennis Kucinich, the nation would be a healthier, more prosperous place.

like Dennis Kucinich?

until all people have abundant access to high quality health care, regardless of ability to pay, pre-existing conditions, or the nature of the care that they need?

How does that make us healthier?

there would have been a bill worth voting for.

Obviously.

health insurance?


Just curious, because it looks like the two of them act very much in the same vein. Just now, there isn't a real Democratic Party to support those leading the liberal opposition, as there was in Ted's hay day.

If so, please, please go see a doctor, no matter how much it costs.

He called a version of subsidized & mandated insurance "a partnership between the administration and the private health insurance industry. For the private industry, the administration plan offers a windfall of billions of dollars annually. The windfall is not entirely a surplus, since elements of Administration's proposal appear to have originated in the insurance industry itself"

Corporatists have attempted to push this legislation for half a century. America had Ted Kennedy, and a functioning liberal Democratic Party, to thank earlier for stopping it.

Back to my question...in the early 70s, was Kennedy fighting "with Republicans" then, as Kucinich does now according to you?

2009, not 1963....segregation was still nice and steady for the most part under Kennedy too. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the now an Kucinich, in my book voted wrong and against people wiht pre-existing conditions, for the most part women (yeah because women get denied health insurance just for being women---it's a preexisting condition), not to mention he voted against me as an individual who would actually benefit for this bill. Lots of Dems were angered for the most part, bu tthey also realized this bill does a lot of good for a lot of Americans and they voted to help those people. Kucinich wanted that to fall. He sided with the fuckin' REpubs for that. One of them braved the waters and joined our elk.

I agree with the OP.

This bill will help people now. That's the simple truth.

Kucinich has strayed into Nader territory as far as I'm concerned.

Jeeze, maybe at this rate we'll actually get something that really address the root issue in 2075.

If we enable this industry 10 times more, as this bill does, it will use it to harm our families 10 times more. This makes a monster an even bigger monster. The good we're getting will be overshadowed by what we're giving away.

I understand how some feel, OP. I understand that people need help now - I'm one of them. But insurance regulation would've achieved all we're getting, without giving away the last of CHOICE. Mandates mean choice is over. Gone. Finished. Relegated to history. THAT'S what's historic about this, and it won't be fixed anytime soon. Probably not in our lifetimes.