Kucinich is taking a stand on behalf of those who want a public option

[LoZoccolo]

while the rest of the Democrats are taking a stand for people who need health care.

[NewEngland4Obama]

1. Well said!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. I was wondering when you'd show up. Everyone else is here already.

:rofl:

[Edweird]

23. 3rd shift?

[LakeSamish706]

3. Kucinich is taking a stand for what other elected Democrats should be taking a stand on.

I seem to recall that POTUS stated that he would not sign a bill with no public option.

[girl gone mad]

4. Democrats are only taking a stand for a select group of people who need health care.

Many others will be hurt by this bill.

[flvegan]

5. Who are these "Democrats" you speak of?

Democrats don't kowtow to the corporate puppetmasters.

Oh, wait...that's what they do NOW.

Score one for Oasis!!

[LoZoccolo]

7. The ones helping those who need their health care as soon as possible.

Many people need assistance urgently. The ones who have bad teeth from their addiction to crystal methamphetamines, which they acquired during the stress of war in faraway places. The ones emaciated and nearly starved to death from anorexia encouraged by their rogue aggressive personal trainers. The ones attacked by pit bulls and other breeds of dogs that people have no business keeping in a residential area. These are the people who need our help now.

[flvegan]

15. Is that seriously the best you've got?

A vague personal attack X2?

Laughable. *pinches cheeks* Run off and play, little boy.

[Kalun D]

6. Kucinich is taking a stand on behalf of those who want a public option

While the rest of the corp-a-dems led by the ObamaRahma flim-flam-sham are taking a stand for the fascist greed-pig corporations.

[TomCADem]

8. Um, Kucinich Voted Against The House Bill That Contained The Public Option

Just to be accurate. Kucinich supports single payer.

[t0dd]

10. He voted against that bill because it was a very weak public option

that would have only been available to a small percentage of the population. Yes, he is an adamant single payer advocate, but he would have settled for a robust public option based on existing Medicare rates.

He also voted against it because states would have been barred from pursuing their own single payer solutions.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Sez him. The rest of the Progressive Caucus disagrees.

[anonymous171]

9. The Democrats are taking a stand for people who want to sell health care to you

[Juche]

11. +1

He is standing up for a public option, which means nothing will get passed and we will be stuck with the status quo. Rescissions, bankruptcies, unobtainable primary care, higher deficits, a society that still considers health care a luxury and not an entitlement.

Kucinich is indirectly supporting the status quo, which really makes me lose respect for him. I really hoped he had more sense than that.

This bill isn't perfect, but I'd rather see it passed then see if Grayson's medicare buy in can be passed separately.

What is wrong with incrementalism? Pass the bill, then work on single payer on the state level and a federal medicare buy in. Why is that so bad?

[LoZoccolo]

12. The worst part is if nothing passes, you might as well wait forty years for the next one.

Every health care bill until then will get dismissed with "we've tried this twice already".

[Juche]

13. We've tried this about 6 times

Obama tried it, Clinton tried it, Nixon tried it, I think LBJ tried it, Truman tried it & FDR tried it.

If you think rescissions and denials are bad now, wait another 10 years of the status quo (which is what Kucinich is calling for if he doesn't get single payer. Single payer or the status quo). At least this bill attempts to regulate them.

[ShamelessHussy]

14. he is taking a stand against what private ins has given us, DEATH PANELS & BANKRUPTCY

he is taking a stand for real CHOICE v.s. the rigged and corrupt system we currently have.
and I stand with him and the many others (FYI: it's not just him) who are, and I stand with them.

:bounce:

[Juche]

16. He is indirectly supporting death panels and bankruptcy

Kucinich is saying the US has 3 choices


Single payer
A deeply flawed public/private system (the status quo)
A deeply flawed public/private system that is more regulated, subsidized and designed to help consumers (this bill)


Of those Kucinich prefers option 1, and if he can't get it he prefers option 2.

Kucinich is saying if we do not get single payer, he is happy keeping the status quo which is full of the same brutality Kucinich has railed against for years. At least this bill attempts to regulate those abuses.


If you were starving, came to Kucinich's house asking for help and Kucinich wanted to feed you lobster, but all he had in his house to offer you was pasta, he would close the door and leave you to starve rather than give you pasta.

Why does the perfect have to be the enemy of the good? Why does it have to be this bill or single payer (this bill expands medicare, public financing of primary care, closes the medicare donut hole, etc)? Why can't we pass this bill then work on single payer on the state or a medicare buy in on the federal level?

For all the talk about the public option, nobody is mentioning all the people who will get public health care under this bill. The new medicaid enrollees, the people given public primary care due to Sander's bill, people on medicare who lose the donut hole.

This bill will dramatically expand public health care plans.

[ShamelessHussy]

17. he is against the status quo, and forcing people into it, so I don't know how you figure

and he isn't the only one.

most in our gov are in favor of bailing out for PROFIT, PRIVATE companies, as recent history shows, so I am not sure what movie you have been watching but it certainly isn't the one that the rest of us have been watching, and being personally, negatively impacted by, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[Juche]

22. What happens if the bill doesn't pass?

People are still forced en mass into private, for profit health insurance companies anyway. The only difference is they are more weakly regulated, have more power to deny/abuse their clients and there is not an expansion of public programs like medicaid, medicare part D or community health clinics.

This bill expands public health care while somewhat regulating private health industries. It will add 31 million to private plans, and I can understand the moral objections to that, but what is wrong with just going with a non-profit health insurance company?

The public sector isn't perfect anyway. In Maine they had a public plan and its cost increased dramatically along with private plans. Not only that, but some health practitioners I know who use medicare are frustrated with the coverage that plan offers. Public plans are better, but they are not perfect. And the idea that we should abandon reform since we can't get a public plan makes no sense to me.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Cleita]

19. Well, it's a fools errand because you won't get health care just

health insurance that isn't going to do you much good. You need the public option to compete with the insurance. Otherwise they will keep doing what they do with denials of coverage for technicalities, raising their premiums until they are unaffordable and making the deductibles so huge, insurance coverage is never reached.

[mzmolly]

20. Hear hear!

:hi:

[upi402]

24. insurance company care, more like

nice try though

DLC go away, not welcome in our party.