"Kucinich's entire approach has repeatedly been proven false."

[ProSense]

A RECORD OF POST-PASSAGE PROGRESS....

<...>

Now, the president really has told progressive lawmakers that Congress can return to the public option later, and incorporate the idea into this reform framework. The notion that improvements like the public option are gone forever if they don't pass immediately is foolish.

But just as importantly, it's a belief that's belied by history. Kucinich's entire approach has repeatedly been proven false.

When Medicaid passed, for example, it did very little for low-income adults, which is now seen as the point of the program. There were no doubt progressive advocates who, at the time of its passage, feared that it wasn't ambitious enough, and that if they didn't get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn't happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect.

<...>

Even the Civil Rights Act, in order to secure passage, needed to drop its voting rights provision. It wasn't there up front, but it happened soon after.

<...>

But the programs passed, and once they were in place, they improved, expanded, and became integral to the American experience. It took years and perseverance, but progress happened after the initial programs became law. We now consider their policy achievements bedrocks of American society.

<...>

Fighting for more is virtuous, voting against the bill, specifically being willing to kill it, is ridiculous.

[NJmaverick]

1. Plus Dennis is quoting the works of professors that support the bill

as a reason to oppose it. He really has gone off the deep end over this very important bill that is going to save lives and make our nation better.

[Bruce Boyle]

64. From the Peak of Democratic principle you will never see the "deep end"

COMMENT

Private Health insurance is NOT the solution. It is the problem.

40 Million Uninsured Americans need a Universal Single Payer Insurance and Health Care Plan --an American, yes, and social insurance program.

What is being offered by the Democrats is NOT “REFORM.” Instead, they are drumming up more costumers for the private Insurance corporations and for a system that has already failed.

Let’s not be one-sided: The Democrats in Congress and the White House have been a grand success when it comes to funneling taxpayer money into the banks, lining the pockets of corrupt bankers, fattening the military machine for senseless and perpetual wars, and providing larges for multiple rounds of “Bankster Bonuses.” All of this while millions of families are facing eviction from their homes and while these bankers grab their bonus and go on exotic vacations. These bonuses have been extracted from our nation’s public revenue and provided as a gift by corrupt politicians, by elected “mis-representatives,” by members in Congress, by folks in the White House and in the Courts – by “political leaders” who are paid-off (bribed) by insurance and banking lobbyist, by a system bagged by weapons-makers and licensed drug-pushers.

But, so far, during this current Great Depression, government money (our money) has NOT been returned. Obama’s Policy --like Bush before him-- is NOT based on sharing, money is NOT given directly to America's working people: Public Revenue has NOT made its appearance on Main Street; it is NOT handed out to impoverished Americans; it is not given to people facing eviction or hospitalization if they happen to be uninsured or have lost their job. All the TARP and all the stimulus Bailout funds have been squandered, they have been given or are being given -as a no-strings attached - GIFT to America's wealthiest individuals and to the richest corporate powers and to the largest monopoly entities.

The current policies will leave future generations of American with ever growing and unregulated premiums, with expanding and intensified economic inequality, and with generations of future debt and illness. And as our taxpayer money is funneled through Congress and through the Obama lobby, it will be wasted on their lame “Health Care” charade. We can all see what is coming our way. In the end, it will only help China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Israel who purchase our treasury notes and control the US currency through the Federal Reserve (which is neither “Federal” nor a “Reserve”). And , dear reader, you will be expected to eat the nuclear waste from the new Nuclear Power plants that Obama plans to give to the state of Georgia ( paid for, again, by the American taxpayers rather than covered with loans from private banks and investors.) All of this spending amounts to waste on top of waste with radioactive results. The Congress and the White House, the Democrats and Republicans, are playing Americans in their belief that we are a nation of suckers. The economic policies of the Federal Government and monopoly private sector are immoral, inhuman, and disgusting.

Dennis, keep fighting for real health care and real insurance reform. Don't give up, don't give in to the schemes of those who profiteer off sickness, don't give in to doomed “non-solutions” and false choices currently before the Congress. Don't be one of those compromised, lame, weak Democrats or Republicans that work day and night for the exclusive benefit the Plunder Elite or that seek to strengthen the plutocracy while destroying this country. Go Dennis!

Bruce Boyle

[HarveyDarkey]

96. Nicely said

and welcome to DU

[mzmolly]

103. Private Health insurance is a solution for Dennis Kucinich

who enjoys it at the expense of tax payers.

Welcome! :hi:

[mzmolly]

102. It's a shame to see a good progressive

miss the mark on such important legislation isn't it? :(

[chaska]

2. This bill is bullshit. DK is right.

[napi21]

3. Very well put. Those are exactly y thoughts, but I'm not

nearly as capable with words as you are.

[AllentownJake]

4. 4 other democrats said they aren't voting for the awful bill today

Why not a post on them.

Seriously, leave Dennis alone if Barack can't kick the field goal.

LACES OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[laughingliberal]

78. +1 nt

[Better Today]

5. Then take the individual mandate out, I'm fine with either/or but they way

it is now, isn't acceptable.

[Fumesucker]

6. Just eat this shit sandwich now..

We'll get some mayo and mustard for it later..

NAFTA hasn't been fixed, the Patriot Act just got renewed, DADT is still in effect, Obama voted for FISA and telecom immunity which passed.

They're pissing on us without even having the grace of calling it rain.

[zeemike]

8. you are right.

And now the DNCers want to blame it on DK....he just don't understand how the game is played....when he really does and the DLCers are afraid of losing the stealth of it.

[EFerrari]

11. They should all be called SHAFTA, these faux reforms. n/t

[laughingliberal]

79. SHAFTA! That describes it perfectly! nt

[ProSense]

13. The "shit sandwich"

will expand Medicaid for millions, reduce premiums for millions, end rescission, cut into insurers profit, cut into the insurance companies' profits, give people more choice, including a non-profit plan, and allow states to establish their own single payer plan with funding from the federal government.

[Fumesucker]

34. Just because the shit sandwich isn't seasoned with cyanide and ground glass..

Doesn't mean it's not a shit sandwich..

[laughingliberal]

80. Never satisfied!

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

90. I take it back:

Tell Kucinich to give up his "shit sandwich" or share it with others.

[Kalun D]

101. ChickenSh*t sandwich

"will expand Medicaid for millions,"

shortly followed by cuts in medicare coverage

"reduce premiums for millions,"

increase premiums for millions more

"end rescission"

increasing costs and deficit and debt will increase recession. Any DLC'r who says anything different is cooking the books, Authur Anderson/Enron style.

""cut into insurers profit""

by mandating everyone purchase insurance? Just like when they said premiums would go down when they mandated car insurance, profits will only go up. Why in the hell would the insurance companies be supporting the bill otherwise?

"give people more choice,"

by forcing everyone to buy insurance? You've got funny reasoning.

"including a non-profit plan,"

big big lie, getting bigger all the time

""and allow states to establish their own single payer plan with funding from the federal government.""

easy way to commit suicide, hold your breath until this happens.

[flvegan]

14. Now THAT was well said.

To even imply that this sham of a congress (or likely the next...or the next) will improve this at any point is for the feeble minded.

[Lorien]

47. Exactly. nt

[G_j]

59. +1000

[L0oniX]

89. Golden showers abound.

[slipslidingaway]

7. There is a big difference between the prior bills listed and this HC bill...

the previous bills mentioned in the OP added rights and benefits for more people.

The current HC bill starts with a mandate that Everyone buy a product from private companies under penalty of law.

IMO that is a big difference.

[EFerrari]

9. Personal attacks are pathetic.

[ProSense]

10. Agree. Where is the personal attack?

Are you suggesting that criticizing Kucinich for his willingness to kill the bill is a personal attack?

[EFerrari]

15. "Fighting for more is virtuous, voting against the bill, specifically being willing to kill it,

is ridiculous."

And, of course, here:

"Are you suggesting that criticizing Kucinich for his willingness to kill the bill is a personal attack?"

No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm asserting that. Can you distinguish between the individual and his policy positions?

[ProSense]

17. Despite your thin skin, that is a criticism, not a personal attack. n/t

[EFerrari]

18. Despite my thin skin? LOL, more personal attacking.

You seem to be unable to distinguish personal attacks from valid criticism that reasoning people would attend to. That's too bad.

[ProSense]

19. "Can you distinguish between the individual and his policy positions?"

Was that a criticism or a personal attack?

[EFerrari]

22. That was clearly a question that didn't characterize you in any way.

[tkmorris]

12. A repost, and a poor argument to boot.

All of the examples listed involve legislation being expanded upon later. How exactly do you expand upon mandated insurance for everyone? A Public Option requires moving in a different direction entirely.

[scarletwoman]

31. +1,000! Excellent point!

When something is going in the wrong direction, there's no "improving" to be done, there's only stopping it and turning it around.

sw

[BlooInBloo]

16. You're being unfair to Kucinich's massive record of legislative achievement....

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/10/kos_kucinich

"In fact, according to the Web site GovTrack, of the 97 bills Kucinich has sponsored since taking office in 1997, only three have become law. Ninety-three didn't even make it out of committee.

The three that were enacted are, in chronological order from first to last: A bill "to make available to the Ukranian Museum and Archives the USIA television program 'Window on America,'" a bill "to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio as the 'John P. Gallagher Post Office Building" and a bill "proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.""



I mean, come on. Those post offices don't name themselves! Why do you hate America????

[LostInAnomie]

51. LOL! +1

Exactly. Without him the Ukranian Museum and Archives would be much the poorer for not having "Window on America".

[scarletwoman]

20. You know what really bugs me? Fallacious arguments like this:

When Medicaid passed, for example, it did very little for low-income adults, which is now seen as the point of the program. There were no doubt progressive advocates who, at the time of its passage, feared that it wasn't ambitious enough, and that if they didn't get improvements in the bill up front, they wouldn't happen. With the benefit of hindsight, we know those fears were incorrect. (my bold)

So what does the above really say? It says that the writer pulled a supposition out of his ass and paraded it as though were a real analogy. If he has some historical evidence that (a)there were "progressive advocates" wavering about supporting the passage of the Medicaid bill, and (b)these "progressive advocates" "feared that it wasn't ambitious enough", then let him name names and tell the actual story.

Instead, he rolls out a hypothetical situation with hypothetical protagonists, and then says, "See? My made-up situation with my made-up people and their made-up motivations are PROOF that I'm correct!"

It's a dishonest, bullshit argument.

I don't take issue with Steve Benen's pointing out that the bills he names in the article were, in fact, improved after their passage by later legislative actions.

So, why isn't he satisfied with simply making that case, which is easily and amply supported with empirical evidence? Why isn't that enough? Why veer off into fallacy and hypotheticals? So he can attack Kucinich? Is he that petty?

sw

[ProSense]

23. Nothing has changed:

those on the left argue that it did not go far enough, and that in order to be truly effective, the Roosevelt Administration should have engaged in a far more comprehensive program of direct federal aid to the poor and unemployed.

[scarletwoman]

25. So? How were they wrong? Or is your argument that the New Deal was completely perfect?

That it could never be improved upon?

[ProSense]

32. Are you saying they should have voted against the New Deal, casting the vote to kill it

because it needed improvement?

[scarletwoman]

43. What is it with this love of fallacious argument from the HCR bill supporters?

What in the hell does the fact that there were critics of the New Deal -- which PASSED -- have to do with THIS situation?

The article you linked to in your other post just says there were critics on the left -- it doesn't say whether these criticisms were made before or after the New Deal passed. In fact, it doesn't even say whether these critics were in the legislature.

In other words, you have no actual empirical support for your argument.

Show me the documentation of any Congresspersons making a leftist argument against voting for the New Deal legislation -- which was 15 different bills, btw -- and THEN you might have a valid analogy to make.

[Edweird]

21. Being what the bill is, and the absolute lack of credibility those involved now have,

killing it is the only rational option.

[ProSense]

24. Yes,

everyone who supports passing the bill, Dean, Weiner, Sanders, Grayson and hundreds of other Democrats, lack credibility because Kucinich grandstands.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

27. Well you know what they say

Kucinich is the only *real* Democrat in Congress, everybody else is sellouts and lack credibility :sarcasm:

[Edweird]

28. I was referring to the party leadership and administration, not the rank and file.

[goclark]

30. Dean and Grayson support it ~ and no Dennis?

interesting.

[MineralMan]

29. Yah, that's exactly what the Republicans keep saying.

[Edweird]

33. Good luck with that train of thought.

[MineralMan]

35. Luck. I don't need any luck. The Republicans want to "kill the bill."

They say it over and over again. Kucinich wants to "kill the bill." Where did I get something wrong in that statement? Please be specific.

[Edweird]

50. If you are having trouble understanding the difference in positions held,

I don't know if I can dumb it down enough to communicate with you effectively. But, I'm willing to give it a shot.

The republicans are interested in seeing their party succeed. Their actions are in their own interest.

Those of us on the Left that oppose this bill do so because it isn't 'reform'. It is the opposite of what we agreed on. It is a giveaway to the insurance companies and a big shaft to the rest of us.

As long as there is no public option, I fully support Kucinich voting against this RW piece of crap.

[MineralMan]

56. The result of both approaches is identical. The bill is killed.

Do you actually suppose it will be replaced by something you will like? Really? When?

Sorry, but, no, thanks. If you want to wait another 8-12 years for any health care (insurance) reform, then go ahead and support Kucinich and his obstructionism. Knock yourself out.

Some folks can't wait for your ideal program to get enacted. They'll be dead by then.

[MineralMan]

26. Thank you. Very well done.

You're absolutely right. Every important measure that has affected millions of lives positively has occurred in an incremental way. That will not change, simply because we would prefer an instant solution. We just don't do things that way in this country. Our political system won't allow it.

[stray cat]

36. Why hasn't Kucinich passed a health care bill?

[MineralMan]

48. Kucinich almost never passes a bill he has introduced.

Almost never. Says something, I think.

[LostInAnomie]

52. DK isn't much for passing legislation.

He's more of a fan of begging for attention, running for president, and only being relevant when he's threatening to vote with Republicans.

[Ikonoklast]

37. Sen. Bernie Sanders will vote 'Aye'.

That's all I need to know about this bill.

Dennis can go grandstand all he wants, if it makes him feel better about himself, more power to him.

The rest of us live in the real world, where real people are hurting, and idealism won't change that.

[EFerrari]

38. Yes, let's bash the few congress critters that are willing to take a stand

against the corporations. LOL -- let's whip them real good.

That'll show them.

[ProSense]

39. They're taking a stand "against the corporations" by retaining the status quo for years to come?

"That'll show them."

[EFerrari]

45. Right. Let's mandate the purchase of a corrupt product

by a ruthless industry that has no problem offing people to maintain their bottom line.

Now it's your turn.

[ProSense]

55. They're taking a stand "against the corporations" by retaining the status quo for years to come?

Your turn.

[EFerrari]

58. Conspiring with the insurance industry is not bucking the status quo.

Expanding the influence of the insurance industry, enshrining the insurance industry is not bucking the status quo, is it?

[backwoodsbob]

84. but passing this means we shove the *status quo*

down everyone's throats.

THAT is the problem

[Ikonoklast]

46. This bill may save my child's life.

Uninsurable, with a chronic condition.

Got any skin in the game?


But you stand with Dennis and pat yourself on the back, mmmk?

[EFerrari]

53. I have all of my skin in this game, thanks

Talk about being out of touch with reality.

I've had no health insurance for the last 15 years and I'm 53. This bill will mandate me to buy a policy I won't be able to afford or to use. It's a sweet little shell game.

I do stand with Dennis no matter how he votes because he has never LIED TO ME. But you, I may leave some empathy to because it's obvious that you need some. :)

[ProSense]

65. "I do stand with Dennis no matter how he votes because he has never LIED TO ME."

When Kucinich promised to push for a floor vote on single payer, did you believe him?

When he decided against it because it didn't have the votes, was that because he previously lied?

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

[EFerrari]

68. I'm sorry, ProSense, but your cherry picking, totalizing of Dk's votes

is embarrassing. As has been pointed out to you many times.

[Individualist]

40. Unrec

[Lorien]

42. +1. The anti Progressive propaganda from this one is obvious and pathetic.

[asdjrocky]

41. Unrec.

[apocalypsehow]

44. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[Bobbie Jo]

49. Rec

:kick:

[LostInAnomie]

54. Rec.

DK is not one to respect.

[upi402]

57. DLCers like you who attack the few real Democrats

ARE the problem. Worse than actual Republicans who have the decency to stay and ruin the country in their own damn party. Kucinich has been right -all down the line. Corporatism appeasers like you have been wrong, all down the line. I'll go against my original thoughts and support Kucinich's decision now. Thanks for cementing that for me OP.

[karynnj]

62. So, DLC means that you think Kucinich's message does not work?

Nothing that Prosense has ever posted marks her as a "DLCer" Not to mention, the ONLY place one seems to hear of the DLC is places like DU from the people against it.

[Individualist]

77. If you think DU is the only place one hears of DLC, you're seriously uninformed.

[L0oniX]

92. ...and rotting in my ignore dugeon.

[karynnj]

100. It is the only place that gives them the mythical power you do

The fact is their hayday was back in the 1990s - Obama was never a member of the DLC.

[upi402]

82. "the ONLY place one seems to hear of the DLC is places like DU"

:rofl: Y'all spend too much time talking to each other. Anyway, good luck if you get what you ask for;

A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html

............................................

found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-americans-support-public-insurance-option.php

...................................................

EVEN SCOTT BROWN VOTERS WANT THE PUBLIC OPTION, WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

* 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
* 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults

[karynnj]

99. Prosense and I have both posted in favor of the public option

None of those statistics surprise me. In terms of the current plan, it is the result of an enormous disinformation campaign.

[upi402]

60. "65% of respondents want a public health care option"

A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html

If you get your way, your charade of a democracy will put the worst of the corporatists in power. We need to push back against corporatism, not cooperate with it. Now I'm certain of it.

[upi402]

66. Even Scott Brown voters want a public option. 82% of his voters were Obama voters

and 86% of them stayed home.
http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults

If this Health Insurance Give-away bill passes, the "Democrats" will hand power to the main corporatist party. Don't you see what will happen? It's so clear. We have no party and this will cement it all. We will be battling unlimited corporate money now. The "Democrats" will betray their base and we will split from them. If they do not stand up and do what we want, it's all over. And that's what they are intentionally doing.

Kucinich tried to tell us what time it was on Iraq. He's doing the same now.

[Greyhound]

61. Again with The Big Lie Campaign.

This bill has nothing in common with MedicAid, MediCare, or Civil Rights.

Each of these creations instituted government programs through law to accomplish specific goals that were modified many times over time, but the institutions and laws were and remain governmental, with all that goes with it, including the underlying mandate.

This bill as discussed does no such thing. It mandates participation in a private, for-profit industry that has no obligation to provide any service beyond generating profits. It perpetuates an entire profit driven, and completely unnecessary, industry through a permanent, non-governmental, tax on every citizen.

Without some avenue of escape, such as a public option, this would make the outrages of the _shrub administration look like good times.

[anonymous171]

63. Yep. Remember how much the original NAFTA agreement sucked?

It only became better after our politicians went back and amended it. Oh wait...

[upi402]

67. True, they will never amend it. This is it. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

69. Kucinich is only a small part of the problem. His disease has spread...

amongst many of the alleged "progressives" who are now doing whatever they can do ensure no bill will be passed. Between the purists of the left, who cannot abide by an imperfect bill (imperfect by their own definition), and the right, which cannot abide by any bill at all, it's amazing we have come even this far.

The primary objection from the left seems to be the inclusion of insurance companies in the deal. None seem to be actively fighting to get insurance companies out of the Medicare they so adore, but that's just a small detail. Being forced to buy a policy seems to be the source of most of the outrage, even though the premiums are to be regulated and subsidized. No one objecting to being forced to buy a Blue Cross policy seems to object to paying Medicare premiums, so one wonders just what they think they know will be the difference.

[upi402]

71. they can still jack up rates, and we are FORCED to pay now

wtf

they will never amend or improve it

[laughingliberal]

81. "none of them seem to be actively fighting to get insurance companies out of ...Medicare"

I think ending the subsidy for Medicare Advantage was an excellent first step. As it is not true things must be 'perfect' before I will support a bill, I thought this was a great first step in that direction. Now an acceptable public option and I'm good.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

95. Oh no, Kucinich is being criticized

Blasphemy!

[spoony]

97. Apparently you couldn't take it reflected back at you.

Who'da guessed a Pro would have such thin skin.

[ProSense]

98. Ah,

cheap psychology.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Edweird]

72. Zero.

[swilton]

73. I believe Dennis over what this President

promises to do at some future date - he's had numerous opportunities to strengthen this bill and make it better for the public and he has thwarted every initiative not made in favor of the insurance ceos.

[upi402]

74. Big Ed was a Republican when I was marching in the streets

and you are agreeing with Big Ed - who I still think is great, but WRONG. Big Ed is a newbie to this fight against corporatism. If Clinton-Democrats win, and we get NAFTA redus, the main corporatist party will win. Period. The activists will keep their cash and take a break. I will.

[ProSense]

76. And Kucinich was pro-life before 2004 so there is that. n/t

[laughingliberal]

83. nanny nanny boo boo? Is that your position? nt

[ProSense]

85. It's obviously yours. n/t

[laughingliberal]

87. Oh, I misunderstood. Your position is "I am rubber and you are glue..." nt

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

86. Techinique Obvious: distraction

Look at the panic criticism of Kucinich is creating. BTW, nice picture.

[laughingliberal]

88. You gotta admit the humor value of these posts is priceless! nt

[tkmorris]

91. It's called widespread disagreement, not panic

If there be panic, I believe it exists in the hearts of those Dems who see this bill as nothing more than an avenue to political victory, and have forgotten the purpose it is supposed to serve.

[ProSense]

93. No, it's panic. n/t