Dennis Kucinich runs for the hills

[deaniac83]

From my blog (I have video and links if you click on the link below and go to my blog):

In his State of the Union address to Congress on Wednesday night, President Obama urged Democrats not to run for the hills. And of course, our darling Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) runs for the hills. Appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show yesterday, Kucinich presented the idea that Congress should hit the pause button on health care, seeming to say that Congress can only tackle jobs or health care, but not both simultaneously....


Let's start with what Kucinich starts with.

"In my own personal opinion, Ed, the Senate bill is a non starter."

Well, thank you very much for your concern about the Senate bill, Dennis. If the Congressional record is correct, the bill that the House passed was also a non-starter for you. You voted against it.

"We should pay attention to what happened in Massachusetts, take a deep breath, take a step back, create millions of jobs, regain the confidence of the American people, and then come back with a bill that the President apparently asked for last night, which is Medicare for All. And I think that we need to take this step back, though. If we go forward into the breach here, we're risking further loss of confidence of the American people."

So the lesson from Massachusetts is to "take a step back." Not to redouble our efforts, not to push through our agenda so people can see who is on their side, but to "take a step back." Never mind that Dennis thinks MA was a referendum on the health care bill (supposedly, the MA voters hated the Senate bill so much, they made sure that the House has to pass that bill to get any reform at all). Never mind that the small business tax credits immediately available through the Senate health care bill will help those workers get health insurance. Has Congressman Kucinich forgotten that health care costs are one of the factors that squeeze small business and keep them from creating new jobs? Never even mind that according to Speaker Pelosi, the health care bill will create 4 million jobs. A lot of that, I reckon, would be due to the massive expansion of the Community Health Centers ($10 billion worth) thanks to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Congressman Kucinich has this bizarre notion that if Congress is to work on jobs, it cannot also pass a health care bill. And that's not true. Congress can, and must, walk and chew gum at the same time.

You know what will lose us more confidence of the American people, Congressman? If we give up when the going gets tough, that will tell the American people that the Democrats don't have the guts to govern. If we give up on health care after coming so close because MA elected a Republican, that will tell the American people we don't deserve to govern. Never mind the loss of confidence of the American people. If we back down or turn our attention elsewhere, indeed, we will have proven that we are too cowardly to stand our ground.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/01/dennis-kucinich-runs-for-hills.html

[Milo_Bloom]

1. Dennis is right.

We can get a decent health care bill, instead of the Health Insurance Recovery Act of 2010 if we begin with the foundation of the economy.. JOBS.

[instantkarma]

3. He was so successful with his presidential campaigns

You know, I generally like him, but these days he comes off more and more like a republican in that if he doesn't get everything 100 percent the way he wants it, he votes against it. Bernie Sanders, the one actual Socialist in the room, recognizes that giving up on health care right now would be a big mistake and Mr Kucinich pouts and complains.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Love the unrelated attacks...

Because his presidential campaign didn't go well, we can dismiss everything else he says.

He's right because we don't have a health care bill worth passing. We have a piece of garbage that saves 0 lives and only servers to create a dangerous precedent of government mandated you do business with a private entity.

[Eric Condon]

55. I know, great logic, right?

Bush's presidential campaigns were successful, so I guess he must've been right about everything all along!

[WeDidIt]

105. Yes, Bush's campaigns were successful

and he was actually capable of implementing his policies.

Kucinich chooses to push for 100% purity on policies that will never ever be implemented.

Bush was more successful than Kucinich ever will be.

See how that works?

If Kucinich was willing to compromise, he might actually get some of what he wants.

Nobody gets ALL of what they want. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. He was unwilling to compromise on that. It didn't work out so well for him.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

163. You always out do yourself

Bush>Kucinich

Now I remember why I put you on ignore in the first place, my only question is why did I take you off.

[Orsino]

234. Kucinich pushes for eighty percent purity...

...would be happy to get sixty, would settle for twenty, and gets zero.

And we lose out.

[treestar]

197. It is still important to win though

The question is: could Kucinich have beaten McCain?

[sabrina 1]

21. You know the reason why real Democrats cannot elected

to the WH I'm sure. He would have to compromise a lot of his beliefs and accept millions of dollars from the Corporations who influence our government.

Frankly I trust those who refuse to sell out to Corporate American and are willing to lose, more than those who play the game. Iow, considering how our government is bought and paid for by Corporate interests, it is a tribute to people like Dennis Kucinich that he until there is reform in this country, he will not make it.

[instantkarma]

30. I like Dennis

I just think playing the game to lose isn't the way to get change. However, I can also appreciate a commitment to futility when one's heart is in the right place.

[sabrina 1]

33. He doesn't play the game to lose. He runs to force the

other corporate-owned candidates to engage in discussions of issues they would rather avoid as their coporate masters would prefer they do. And if Dennis and others like him did not run, we would never hear any discussion of what is most important to the American people. We would hear talk of war and 'terror' and military spending to 'keep us safe'. There is no other way to break into that conversation, so that's why Dennis does it and I'm glad he does.

He is right about most of the issues and he is a thorn in the sides of those who have sold out and imho, we need many more like him so he isn't always the one to say what's not popular with partisan Democrats.

[Robb]

63. No, he absolutely plays to lose.

It's rather the point.

If he were actually given the keys, he'd have to serve up everything he promises.

Dennis does a lot of good, don't mistake my meaning.

[sabrina 1]

89. If he were to win, he would be a very excellent president.

If the country were not as backward as it is of course. If George Bush could occupy the WH for eight years I have no doubt that Kucinich is capable of not only being president but of doing an excellent job of standing up for the issues that the people generally elect Democrats to take care of, something that is not happening right now.

[suzie]

142. You have to get along with other people, lots of other people to be president.

Dennis Kucinich cannot do that. He would be a terrible president because of this seemingly congenital disability.

Standing up for issues is one of those phrases that sounds really good. But what Kucinich does is really easy--he gets nothing whatsoever done and is still applauded for it by his adoring fans.

Governing, however, isn't like that--you actually have to deal with other people--a skill Kucinich lacks.

Sometimes voters are completely correct--and on Kucinich they are. Even the average person can recognize the individual who just doesn't play well with others, because every average voter has dealt with that kind of personality in their own lives.

Which is why Kucinich will never get more than the teensiest portion of votes.

[sabrina 1]

152. You're repeating talking points, which aren't worth

much as we've seen them all before. What Dennis does is to rile up the DLCers and expose them for what they are. This OP is a perfect example. It's been posted all over the place it seems, not receiving a very good reception anywhere because Kucinich is extremely popular with progressives and Independents.

He couldn't be more right about this bill. It won't pass now so Democrats need to start understanding that when they listen to the Rahm Emanuels in the party, they lose. They need to listen to Kucinich as he speaks for the people.

The Party Line just doesn't cut it when he's around. He really does scare the party loyalists though because they know he is effective.

[suzie]

156. Despite the protestations of the Kooch Claque here on DU, Kucinich does not

speak for anyone but a microscopic slice of the electorate. Dennis is popular with Independents--what a joke!

The term for Dennis Kucinich is not scary, but "silly".

No one fears you when the best you can be labeled is "silly", no matter what the committed group of Kucinich adorers think.

[sabrina 1]

157. Lol, you prove my point. If he was not effective and popular

you all would just ignore him, wouldn't you? No one calls him 'silly' except those who are afraid of him.

You've used up nearly all the talking points now ~ but still have not refuted a single word he says. Bad tactic!

I asked a question ~ 'on what issues do you disagree with him about'? Those who are frightened of Kucinich never answer that question, and the reasons are obvious.

[suzie]

158. Kucinich is never on the national new for his accomplishments--which are

more miniscule than his slice of the electorate. He gets on solely for his Talking Points.

Seems beyond "silly" to accuse others of using "talking points" when speaking of Kucinich and his complete and total lack of anything resembling accomplishment.

[sabrina 1]

162. You still haven't answered my question ~

And you still haven't refuted a single word he said ~

It's always the same with Kucinich haters, they cannot answer that question or refute what he says, and always predictably resort to changing the subject with the usual babbling and boring talking points ~

I'll try again ~ on what issues do you disagree with Kucinich about?

[suzie]

167. It's silly to talk about disagreeing with Talking Points.

Legislation--that's reasonable to disagree with.

The endless panorama of Dennis Kucinich railing against most everything? Not so much.

[sabrina 1]

169. So you support Bush's illegal wars and torture

Detentions without trial. Continued wars for profit and no consequences for war criminals. You support also, spying on the American people, escalation of the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan and Yemen.

Secret armies, like Blackwater, bailing out of corrupt Wall St. bankers ~ you do not oppose any of those 'talking points'. Wow! No wonder you don't like Dennis.

[suzie]

182. You continue to confuse uttering talking points with doing something.

I don't support talking. End of discussion.

[sabrina 1]

188. So, you're Running for the Hills' also, like Deaniac the author

of this deceptive OP. No answer. Exactly as I expected.

Everytime I ask Kucinich haters what issues they disagree with him about, I get the same response. I keep hoping that they can explain their irrational hatred for a Democratic Congressman who speaks out about Democratic principles, but prevarication is always the response. But that in itself is answer.

Noted. Responses from two Kucinich haters: 'Go shove it' and 'End of discussion' ~ :rofl:

As I told Deaniac when he too ran for the hills, 'if you can't take the heat, don't slime a Democratic Congressman on a Democratic forum'.

[suzie]

219. Since Kucinich has mostly made his reputation by sliming other Democrats, your

command to Deaniac seems a little misplaced.

And many of us have had the experience of trying to discuss issues with Kucinich cultists. The end result is the same as the series of responses that you have provided here.

If you disagree on any terms with the prevailing Kooch cult fantasy that "Dennis is the only one in Congress...", your views will be dismissed as those of a "hater". Any evidence about Kucinich's voting record, willingness to run on a ticket with KKKers, will be dismissed with the same kinds of derogatory statements.

The response from Kucinich adorers is always the same. "You are at fault for your lack of adoration of the one, the only Dennis Kucinich."

[riverdale]

225. Sabrina, you are cracking me up

because the person or people you are arguing with are on ignore! Of course, there's no need to hear what they are saying. We've heard it all 1,000 times, and it's the reason the Democratic party is screwing things up by going conservative.

[Raineyb]

221. You're using the mainstream media as your barometer of whether or not someone is worth

listening to?

There is really no respectful way to point out how asinine that is.

[dionysus]

233. bing

[dionysus]

246. no one isd afraid of him. he's a joke. do you REALLY beleive he's got some kind of massive base?

he couldn't get elected dog catcher outside of his district!
:rofl:

[QC]

224. You sound very, very familiar. n/t

[G_j]

247. that is just slanderous

he is an incredibly intelligent, focused and disciplined public servant.

"silly" is another version of "loony", both terms are intellectually dishonest memes.

[dionysus]

245. sabrina, in reality, most voters don't even know who he IS. no one cares about him. he's impotent.

:shrug:

[pokercat999]

173. A bit naive, you don't have to get along with anyone. You just

have to make them do what YOU want them to, love you or hate you, matters not....only results matter.

I could care less if everyone in the world hated Obama, if he had the balls to get us "Medicare for all" I would like him even more than I do now. The only thing I don't like about Obama is his judgment in people, and his policies thus far. I'm still hoping for change....maybe he'll quit.

[Yurovsky]

201. Exactly. LBJ didn't want to be loved...

he wanted to be feared, and he was. Until he screwed the pooch with Vietnam, he was on his way to an extraordinary Presidency.

Obama has a chance to do both - be extraordinary and NOT screw the pooch (by getting us out of Bush's wars). Playing footsie with republicants, blue dawgs, & DINOs shouldn't be on the agenda. The reason for the defeats in VA, NJ, & MA were due to the base being apathetic, not some teabagger revolution (as corporate media would lead you to believe - gee, guess who's buttering their bread????).

I like hearing the President say he'll fight. It's what America needs.

[pokercat999]

217. If he actually wanted change. At this point I believe Obama

is getting the policies he really wants. The change he wanted was lifetime SS protection for HIS family, lifetime healthcare for HIS family, a lifetime pension for HIM, all the perks for a President and former President that come with sticking out the easiest job in the freaking world for a very lucrative four year contract. But he hasn't kept his part of the contract up. Like an underwater homeowner, he has defaulted on the mortgage is is now renting down the street at half the cost. The empty house sits and rots from neglect while the neighbors wonder weather they should do the same thing.The one problem in this case is, WE are the bank, we made the stupid loan to the mortgagee who was unqualified. They may have had the income but we should have realized the market was failing and we needed a bigger downpayment.

Fight? Just another empty promise like "Change".

[Yurovsky]

227. Wow, and I thought I was disappointed w/ BHO so far...

I still hold out hope, but you're 100% correct about the perks and lifetime $ that come with the job, or for any member of Congress for that matter. I wouldn't mind so much if so many of them WEREN'T ALREADY FILTHY RICH WHEN THEY WERE ELECTED. Seriously, it's hard to get elected county commissioner w/o a thick wallet, let alone Federal office.

I'd like to see a movement to bring pensions & benefits of elected officials more in line with those of ordinary public sector workers. Fat chance, I know, I know...

[treestar]

199. How would he stand up to Congress where Obama has not?

I'm always amazed at this "courage" thing. Nothing would get passed at all. But the President would have "courage."

Or do you think he'd be better at the "arm twisting" that so many think is possible?

[dionysus]

244. more token "no" votes on everything? look, he has no power, no influence, he gets to say things to

excite uber liberals, without having the responsibility to deliver on any of his talk. he's worthless.

[Larry Ogg]

168. If the founding fathers thought like you we would still be a British colony.

Remember the words of Patrick Henry when he gave a speech before Congress; the one that ended with "Give me liberty or give me death." There was also plenty of congressmen back then that were saying things to the affect of let's compromise; fortunately the number of congressmen who were willing to fight for what was right, outnumbered those who were willing to compromise and a Nation was born. Right now that same Nation is in deep peril because those who are willing to compromise with the conservative fascist predators who financed their campaigns, outnumber those who are willing to fight for what is right. So maybe the "commitment to futility" is an authoritarian character trait ingrained in those who blindly follow leaders who are quick to compromise with the wholesale sell off and destruction of our country and middle class. Unfortunately the day will come when the corporate masters hold all the cards and they will say, compromising is not an option.

[treestar]

198. I don't know if you can prove that

Obama raised $$ from ordinary people on the internets.

Kucinich and others did not have a good system in place to do that.

Had he shone above the rest of the Dems, big business would have offered him money the same, and he would have had to take it, or get beat by McDope.

But no politician has to do anything because of those donations. All the donations get them is media attention.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. So what say you of Kerry, he who could not beat Cheney?

And Al Gore was a sitting VP, who failed to gain victory. I guess that Joe Biden is in over his head as well, he ran a few non winning campaigns. Why is he VP if he can not be successful as a Presidential candidate. Explain. Biden, Kerry and Gore. Ran and lost, how many time between them?

[instantkarma]

40. Here's 'splainin

Biden is VP (and won with Obama). Gore was VP (and won the vote 9 years ago). Kerry got about 48 percent in the general. Kucinich got something like 2 percent in the primaries.

[deaniac83]

203. Don't forget the Kucinich-Edwards deal in 2004

Do we all remember that in the 2004 primaries, Kucinich made a deal with John Edwards - who then fervently supported the war in Iraq - during the Iowa caucuses to have his supporters go to Edwards if he didn't have enough votes for a delegate (and vice versa)?

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

So much for principle.

[karynnj]

61. All won a hell of lot more votes than Kucinich in their attempts to be President

and had there been enough voting machines in Ohio, he would have won in spite of a biased media that condoned a provably false smear campaign - and in spite of a weak VP nominee that the party pushed on him, who was more concerned about his own image.

Gore won, the Supreme Court chose Bush.

As to Biden, give me a person selected as VP AFTER he won a Presidential race.

Actually Biden won 7 races (6 for Senate and 1 for VP and lost 2 Presidential nomination races)

Gore won 2? House races and 2 Senate races and 2 VP races - and won a Presidential race.

Kerry won 6 races (1 lt Gov, 5 Senate ) and should have won if it were fair in Ohio the Presidency. He lost a race in 1972 thanks to Nixon's goons.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. See, the point is not all of those things

Just stupid to invoke not winning a Presidential race as reason for not listening to a Congress member. Or a VP, a Sec of State. Or A great Senator, or Al Gore. Jerry Brown, a real favorite of mine, a wonderful Attorney General in CA, and a serial failure for President. We should mock Brown, because he lost? He ran, he wanted to win, and he lost. So he's discredited. Right?
The late Senator Kennedy, now there was a man who really ran a crazed assault at the office and failed. Failed. Ran against a sitting President, and lost. Should he have been somehow a lesser voice for having failed to win the big one? They called him the discredited failed candidate of the Senate, no that was the Lion of the Senate, actually.
I'm just saying, it is a stinking meme, a lousy line, and crap like this is why we wind up with such second rate candidates.

[instantkarma]

72. Yeah! Let's mock Brown!

And are you implying that Gore, Brown and Kennedy were second-rate candidates?

[WinkyDink]

242. It's called "standing by one's principles". Your use of "pouts" is puerile itself.

[CreekDog]

Congressional support for health care is at its highest right now

and it ain't going up.

and that's who any reform is going to need to come from.

they don't have the stomach for months more of this so giving up now will leave people with insurance extra screwed with no prospect of improving things.

[deaniac83]

7. They don't need to do months more

The House simply needs to pass the Senate bill as is, and then have a reconciliation bill follow it up. Mind you, I have been against holding the Senate bill hostage to a reconciliation bill, even though I think both should happen. I believe that regardless of the reconciliation bill, the House needs to pass the Senate bill - which is better than the status quo - so the president can sign it.

[Milo_Bloom]

16. How is it better than the status quo?

It offers no real protections and creates the dangerous precedent that government can force you, under penalty of law, to do business with a private company.

[deaniac83]

27. Here's how

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2009/12/can-you-live-with-killing-bill.html .

It offers plenty of real protections and the mandate is rather weak (you aren't subject to it if your portion of the premiums isn't less than 8% of your income). As for a 'dangerous precedent,' do tell us what one does when the government gives them food stamps. Are there government stores to buy this food from or are the recipients "forced" to buy the food from private businesses?

[Milo_Bloom]

36. The link contains the debunked / flawed argument

The old, "45,000 people die from lack of health insurance".. simply isn't true.. they die from lack of HEALTH CARE and there is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA health CARE in this bill.

It gets worse from there...

Let me get the rest of this strait.. a "weak mandate" only requires you to to buy insurance if it is less than 8% of your income??? Really?? Seriously???

Where this completely falls apart is right here..."they are going to have to offer products in that reasonable price range, or people will be able to opt out, and there is no force of law or fines holding them captive. If insurance companies want a captive audience, they will have to provide coverage within that affordable range. Remember also that insurance companies are not allowed to charge one more based on income. That means that if they want a family making $75,000 (who get no subsidies) to be subject to the mandate, they have to provide coverage with all the required medical services covered for $6,000 a year or less for every family"

First, you do realize that the "required medical services covered" are complete crap, right? It's the minimum requirements for HSA coverage, which is complete garbage and pretty much useless. So, insurance companies can offer a useless, crap plan for 6K a year, with lots of out of pocket costs and cosumers spend money for nothing. SECOND, most people in this scenario will be getting subsidies, so the government winds up paying for this crap coverage.


I could go on and tear that link to shreds AGAIN.. but why bother, it's been done enough already.

As for the silly little food thing.. the government doesn't force you to buy food from ANYONE. Period. There is no mandate to buy food from a private company. You can grow it, hunt it, trade for it, however you want to get food is up to you. If you CHOOSE to buy it from a private company, that is YOUR CHOICE.

[sabrina 1]

170. Thanks for doing the work of once again debunking

the misinformation regarding this bill. I doubt you'll get a response as this is someone who 'Runs for the Hills' when he loses an argument. As for the food analogy, it's as bad as the 'auto insurance' analogy. There just is no defense for this disaster of a bill.

[deaniac83]

183. they die due to not getting health care because they don't

have insurance. And the senate bill does plenty to deliver health care through coverage. It's not that complicated. If you want to call the Harvard study a lie, feel free. It only dampens whatever credibility you had.

[sabrina 1]

110. Your food stamp analogy fails. I'm surprised you don't see why.

When we give food stamps to the poor we don't force them to pay protection money to a private food manufacturer or have the IRS after them. We do this because it's the right thing to do, although this new idea of forcing people to pay for products from private business they don't want and can't afford or end up in jail, is likely to catch on. Why NOT, and I'm sure if this administration were to propose it, YOU would try to defend it, make the poor pay some well connected food manufacturer who poured millions into getting the Congress they wanted, in order to have the right to get food?

Defending the indefensible. It's a shame and it won't work, as the Mass election demonstrated. Now we have a chance to get SOMETHING for the people or Democrats will lost their majority in November. It's up to them.

[slinkerwink]

138. This is the same deaniac83 who lied about Obama never having campaigned

for the public option on Dailykos.

[sabrina 1]

151. Thanks, happy to say I don't know him/her very well

as it's clear to me this is someone who expects the world to agree with their 'facts' and doesn't seem capable of engaging in a discussion with people who have a different opinion, losing control easily and resorting to snideness then complaining when the favor is returned, and finally picking up their ball, stamping their tiny feet, and crying 'I don't want to talk to you anymore.' Makes you wonder what they are doing on a discussion board. Lol!

Too many party loyalists around. They become blinded by loyalty and get in the way of progress. .

[deaniac83]

193. Do you know that your darling pal slinkerwink thinks Kucinich is irrelevant?

Check this out:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/1/29/12271/1146/358#c358

Kucinich shook Bush's hand so he shouldn't be listened to. That's from slinkerwink, not me. :)

[slinkerwink]

236. you're the one who lied about Obama not campaigning on the public option

You have no credibility whatsoever in my book.

[deaniac83]

185. Oh please, save it.

Mentioning it in two speeches out of hundreds does not make it 'campaigned on.' But since you brought it up, people here are free to read it and judge for themselves,

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2009/12/fact-check-obama-didnt-campaign-on.html

See the last paragraph with respect to this alleged "lying."

But since you are rehashing history, slinkerwink, let me point out that this is the same slinkerwink who was on the payroll of Jane Hamsher - the same Jane Hamsher who went on Fox News to try to kill health care reform and made an alliance with Grover Norquist.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/07/17/your-donations-now-paying-nyceve-and-slinkerwink/

[sabrina 1]

191. Omg, a Democrat going on Fox News!! That never happened

before!! Oh wait, yes it did. So many Democrats have appeared on Fox. In fact, Obama was on Fox, and airc, when asked about Daily Kos, he distanced himself from that blog. But then, he had already done that as he didn't want to be associated with them. Airc Obama defenders at that time believed that it was great that he went on Fox, the same people who trashed J.Hamsher too, because, they told us, Fox's audience needs to hear from Democrats.

Too funny .... you've got to keep your purity positions straight, otherwise people might think you're just so partisan you have no credibility at all.

[deaniac83]

195. Umm, sigh. The problem with Jane is that

Jane is a hypocrite. She called for Democrats not to go on Fox and then did it herself. Here you go:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1501

Hamsher: Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

--

Do you ever do any of your own research or do you just babble stuff out for the hell of it?

[sabrina 1]

205. I'm well aware of her position on Fox. She changed her mind.

She's a blogger and whether a blogger changes her mind about going on Fox or not, is pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things. Using a blogger to distract from far more important issues, doesn't interest me very much.

I don't have a lot of time, so I have priorities. I worry about important things, like politicians who have the power to make decisions about the lives of millions of Americans.

When a politician changes his/her mind about things that will affect the lives of millions, like Mandated Insurance eg and when people choose that candidate because that is a very important issue for them, THAT is something I pay attention to.

When a politician says that he does not believe in mandated insurance because there would have to be an enforcement mechanism and forcing people to pay for something they cannot afford would be wrong' (paraphrasing Candidate Obama) I believe him. When he changes his mind as soon as he gets to the WH, I want to know why. And just saying 'my thinking has evolved' is not good enough.

If Jane Hamsher ever runs for office, then talk to me about her and I'll take the time to do research on her. For now, what any blogger does or doesn't do, unless they are claiming to speak for me, doesn't interest me.

Look, you clearly believe that you are right and the rest of us who don't agree with you are wrong. I'm sure your intentions are good and you really do think that passing this bill will help people. I admire people who fight for what they believe in. But I disagree with you on this issue.

I am against the Republican policies of mandated insurance and of punishing people who are already struggling to survive. I agreed with Candidate Obama about that. I am against for-profit Healthcare and do not wish to be forced to support it. It is a civil right and to force people to pay for something they completely oppose, is simply wrong. It would be like not speaking out against any other violation of people's rights.

It is immoral to risk placing the lives of Americans in the hands of corrupt people who have already allowed hundreds of thousands of Americans to die for profit, that is just insane.

To start removing these corrupt and useless and way too costly middlemen from the healthcare system required a choice. I would have settled for a PO as a start to move forward and catch up with the rest of the civilized world and recognize the issue of people's health as what it is, a civil right.

And I intend to do all I can to fight for that no matter how long it takes. But we had a chance to start when we helped the Democrats gain a majority and they blew it, for whatever reason. And that is why so many people are angry. When something is wrong it's wrong. And don't bother with the 'purity' nonsense, it has zero effect on me. You are entitled to your opinion. But if you want to influence others, attacking Democrats is not the way to do it. I appreciate your links, but I found nothing that would change my mind.

[deaniac83]

207. LOL!

So Jane Hamsher is allowed to change her mind about going on a Republican propaganda channel and helping out their ratings, but President Obama isn't allowed to change his mind about a part of a policy issue (individual mandates). LOL. Riiiight. Thanks for playin'.

[sabrina 1]

210. ???

Do you really not see the difference between a blogger and a POTUS? :rofl:

Oh, god, that was funny ~ Jane Hamsher went on FOX!! Send in the Marines! It's WORSE than a POTUS escalating war, or trying to push a very unpopular give-away to Private Insurance!

Hey, don't thank me for playing with you, I always enjoyed playing with DLCers and rightwingers . It's been a while since I entertained myself on rightwing boards where the IQ level was so low, after a while I felt sorry for them. It was cruel, actually so I got bored and left them to their talking points. I don't know why but you remind me of a pouting two-year-old. So did they, actually.

Well, I have to run. It's party time!

Try not to obsess too much over Jane Hamsher. It's bad for your health ~ :hi:

[deaniac83]

212. Oh I see the difference

one is a hack in it for herself, the other is the President of the United States who actually cares about people.

As for your laughable assertion that I'm a DLC'er or rightwinger, that is what ideologues say when they cannot win the argument. Rest assured I do not long for your affection. You have nothing, and you know it yourself. It was Dennis Kucinich who made a deal with the then-darling of the DLC John Edwards in 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

Oh hang on a second, I wanna try something. :rofl:

Oh hey look I made a smily thing on the Internets! I'm so smart and important now! LMAO.

[inna]

226. you're being absolutely ridiculous.

:thumbsdown:

[deaniac83]

184. "The poor have the option to go hungry" defense. Lol.

Point is, food stamp is taxpayer money, and recipients have to spend it at private businesses.

No, I don't have a problem with the individual mandate - it's quite reasonable and you are exempt from it if you have to spend more than 8% of your income on health insurance. That's fact. The government forces you to spend money at private businesses all the time. If you had a public option and you had a copay for hospital stay on that public option - the copay, coming out of your pocket, is going where exactly, do you think? The private hospital. Duh.

[Milo_Bloom]

15. Why isn't it going up?

The problem most have is SPENDING. If you address the JOBS issue, revenue increases, thus, SPENDING becomes less of a burden.

In short, if you could present a balanced budget that had health care as a part of it, you would have most for it.

Create the jobs.. reduce unemployment, embolden the middle class, thereby increasing tax revenue and the support for REAL HEALTH CARE legislation will happen.

That's why Dennis is right, but don't worry, the idiots won't listen and will push a useless bill through, lose the house and senate and likely executive branch as well and conclude that Americans want democrats to act MORE LIKE republicans.

[slay]

10. Agreed - Dennis is right.

He'll do the right thing over towing the party line - which is what makes him great. Dennis is 100% right IMO. That may frustrate DLC or moderate Dems, but I admire him for it. We need MORE people like DK, not less.

[instantkarma]

46. That's not what Mr. Wilson said!

Mr. Wilson says he's a menace!

[slay]

50. lol

:)

[damonm]

35. Dennis is wrong.

Like the guy, but he's 100% wrong here.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Got any proof of that or kneejerk reaction.

Care to respond to the concept that health care legislation becomes more affordable and possible when we are not in defecit spending?

[damonm]

42. My opinion - don't need to prove it to you or anybody else.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. Good opinions are based on facts.

[damonm]

74. Mine is - but you're not entitled to them, especially when you come across as you did.

[Milo_Bloom]

86. So... you have no facts. Thanks for the info.

[Teaser]

100. childish debate tactic.

you acted like a jerk. why should anyone want to talk to you further?

[NorthCarolina]

52. +1

[grantcart]

58. And what will you say to the people, and my family is one of them,

that is facing bankruptcy and the inability to get preventative health care needed now to prevent serious health problems.

The Senate bill gives the OPM the power to control coverage, price, AND PROFIT, of plans as well as controlling the MLR.

You have to excuse me but my family has to pay for Dennis Kucinich's triage.

So fuck you Dennis Kucinich.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. Lots of false statements in here.

Nothing in the senate bill will make preventative health care more affordable. With the out of pocket allowed in the senate bill, it is nothing better than the status quo.. only it forces people to buy the broken product currently being offered.

The senate also gives no REAL POWER to control coverage, PROFIT or price.

Even with the subsidies being offer, if your family can't afford coverage now, you won't be able to afford the out of pocket costs associated with the subsidized plans.

In short, NOTHING CHANGES for your family.

[grantcart]

75. absolutely not true and I have documented it many many times

Its obvious that you haven't read the bill.


All of your points are clearly disproved here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/256

quoting the specific point that completely devistates your point:

Over the last week there has been a lot of discussion about the MLR and how advantageous it is to regulate private companies gross margin.

There is no question that the easiest way to do this is simply to have them compete with public options.

Many people have noted that increasing the gross margin does not necessarily lead to either price or cost controls. The question that was hanging in the air is what role is OPM going to have in setting the plans for the exchanges.

IT is good news that OPM's role is broader and stronger than expected. They will have complete control over all aspects of plans in the exchange for small groups and individuals. Every state will have a state exchange and they must include multi state plans approved by OPM.



Here is the text from the manager's ammendment



(q) Part IV of subtitle D of title I of this Act is
19 amended by adding at the end the following:
20 ‘‘SEC. 1334. MULTI-STATE PLANS.
21 ‘‘(a) OVERSIGHT BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
22 MANAGEMENT.—
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.— The Director of the Office
24 of Personnel Management (referred to in this section
25 as the ‘Director’) shall enter into contracts with

snip

7 (at) least 2 multi-State qualified health plans through
8 each Exchange in each State. Such plans shall pro9
vide individual, or in the case of small employers,
10 group coverage.
11 ‘‘(2) TERMS.—Each contract entered into
12 under paragraph (1) shall be for a uniform term of
13 at least 1 year, but may be made automatically re
14 newable from term to term in the absence of notice
15 of termination by either party. In entering into such
16 contracts, the Director shall ensure that health bene
17 fits coverage is provided in accordance with the
18 types of coverage provided for under section
19 2701(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Public Health Service Act.
20 ‘‘(3) NON-PROFIT ENTITIES.—In entering into
21 contracts under paragraph (1), the Director shall
22 ensure that at least one contract is entered into with
23 a non-profit entity.
24 ‘‘(4) ADMINISTRATION.—The Director shall im25
plement this subsection in a manner similar to the
56
BAI09R08 S.L.C.
1 manner in which the Director implements the con
2 tracting provisions with respect to carriers under the
3 Federal employees health benefit program under
4 chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, including
5 (through negotiating with each multi-state plan)—
6 ‘‘(A) a medical loss ratio;
7 ‘‘(B) a profit margin;
8 ‘‘(C) the premiums to be charged; and
9 ‘‘(D) such other terms and conditions of
10 coverage as are in the interests of enrollees in
11 such plans.
12 ‘‘(5) AUTHORITY TO PROTECT CONSUMERS.—
13 The Director may prohibit the offering of any multi-
14 State health plan that does not meet the terms and
15 conditions defined by the Director with respect to
16 the elements described in subparagraphs (A)



This means that it will be the OPM who will be the gatekeeper for the multi state plans. OPM is well experienced in performing this as it performs this function for all federal and postal employees.

I am a certified expert on federal benefits and lecture on federal employees benefits.

I know how good the OPM is and how good their health exchange is.

If your interested in finding out how good the OPM is you can go here and pretend your a federal employee and see how the exchange works for you.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/search/plansearch.aspx

So here is the bottom line Milo_Bloom.

Your point has been proved 100% wrong with the exact language of the bill itself.

What will you do. Will you admit your error? Will you publicly admit that you didn't what you were talking about when you urged people to defeat the Senate bill?

And what do you want me to tell my wife who has lost her house and others in our family that are facing long term health problems that are going to significantly shorten their potential longevity.

Every single Senator, including Bernie Sanders, has voted for this bill and wants it passed. Its really pathetic that ill informed posters rely more on emotional screeds than actually reading the bill and taking time to understanding what was actually voted on.


By the way the above material has been posted here over a dozen times.


edited to add missing link

[Milo_Bloom]

84. Debunked this BS many times now.

The links are in my journal.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Milo_Bloom]

129. It was in there last week.

An entire post dedicated to language from the bill and direct links to the pdf of the senate bill.

I guess it sucks that I was actually RIGHT about Obama, eh?

I'll try to find the post for you are some point.

Take heart in the fact that the Senate bill not pass, so you are being saved from yourself and your own ingnorance.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[deaniac83]

117. Thank you!

Most people on these boards whining about the Senate bill don't really know much about the Senate bill.

[deaniac83]

115. Bernie Sanders must be lying then

When he says that the Senate bill will revolutionize primary health care.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=7CA79194-5B20-481F-9478-8114E77C6EA2

Btw, the Senate bill also *eliminates* copays for preventive health care, making it not just affordable but free after your premiums.

[Milo_Bloom]

130. Bernie Sanders is still a politician.

Sorry to hit you with the truth.

[grantcart]

134. So is Dennis Kucinich sorry to spray you with his bullshit

[deaniac83]

187. +1 Ding ding ding!

[cyclezealot]

66. Dennis is doubly Right.

Particularly if there is no public option.. The bill is useless..

[AnOhioan]

2. Yeah..pass a bill, even though it stinks, just to say ....

"Look at us!!! See?? We're leading!!"

Good plan

:eyes:

[deaniac83]

4. Right, which is why Dennis voted against

the *HOUSE* bill. Uh huh. Nice try.

[AnOhioan]

5. Ummm, the house bill stank too

I was happy to see his no vote.

[instantkarma]

6. Are you happy to see more people die

so long as your belief system remains undisturbed? What a beautiful mind you must have...

[AnOhioan]

8. Nice try at the lame insult

next time try something original

[instantkarma]

26. Thank you!

okay, maybe next time

[sabrina 1]

11. Explain how the Senate Bill wills prevent people from dying?

It doesn't even force Private Ins to stop turning down people who are sick for nearly five years. And it's mandate that the poor buy a product they can't afford and end up buying the shittiest product to avoid the IRS coming after them. That shitty product will come with as high as 40% deductibles. Which means that on top of not going to the doctor when they need to, those poor people will be forced to pay protection money they do not have, to the corrupt Private Ins. Industry. So, how does this keep people from dying?

Has any of that changed since the SOTU address?

[deaniac83]

18. How the Senate bill prevents people from dying

I did a (completely sourced for my facts) post on my blog about that in December:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2009/12/can-you-live-with-killing-bill.html

Also, not five years. The pre-existing condition stuff for everyone goes into effect in 2014 under the Senate bill. For children, immediately.

[sabrina 1]

32. I will read your post, but I too have researched this

and there is no way the poor can afford to pay the co-pays that will be required of them. Maybe you don't anyone who will be affected by this, but I do, a lot of people.

As for having to wait, if you're sick, for four years before you can receive medical care? That is ludicrous. When people are dying we generally consider that to be an emergency.

This waiting to please Private Ins is criminal. How many will die in the meantime and why is this acceptable especially to progressives? 44,000 people die each year for lack of access to proper medical care. NOT for lack of insurance. Many have coverage but their co-pays are unaffordable to them. We do not need Insurance Reform we need healthcare reform.

No one dies in France or Ireland or Britain for lack of access to healthcare, not even foreigners. Because in those countries, lives come before Corporate needs.

A separate law addressing this criminally negligent homicide by the same corrupt industry that we will now all be forced to support, should have been passed long ago. It involves the security, national security of AMerican citizens who are dying in great numbers, deaths which are preventable in many cases. It is an outrage NOT to address this crime separately from any Health Care bill.

Would we accept allowing terrorists to kill Americans until it's convenient for some corporation or another to make sure they don't lose any money?

Our healthcare system is terrorism. And if you've been around someone who desperately needed care and couldn't afford it, I think you would agree. I know at least one person who was killed by this health care system. Even his doctor later blamed his death on it.

Any politician who does not see this as urgent, as Dennis Kucinich does, loses all my respect.

[deaniac83]

41. Um. I will be affected.

I don't care to elaborate, since I don't want to go into my personal health history or status.

I would rather have the exchanges open immediately, but even the House bill wouldn't do that. And opening them in 2014 is better than opening them never.

Co-pays and out of pockets are capped at 10% of your income. And they are GONE for preventive care.

Dennis Kucinich obviously does not see this as urgent. We are not going to get single payer this go-round, and I will not accept the status quo as an alternative. Evidently, Dennis will.

Anyway, thanks for making the promise that you will read my article. I hope you do.

[instantkarma]

48. Me too.

I'm poor and haven't had insurance for about 18 years.

[rhett o rick]

90. I will not accept the status quo either. But I hate the "something better than nothing"

argument. Let me give a bad analogy. A man is eating at an outside diner. He has way more food than he can eat. A starving child comes up to him and begs for something to eat. The man give the child a half piece of bread and says, "Be grateful you tramp, something is better than nothing." Then the man is shocked when the child throws the bread back in his face.

[deaniac83]

104. That is indeed a bad analogy. n/t

[sabrina 1]

94. IIf you are in a position where you can wait four years, then I'm truly

glad as no one should die for lack of healthcare. But not everyone can wait that long, literally tens of thousands of people need care right now or they will die.

It IS an emergency. There is absolutely no reason why this issue should even be attached to a Healthcare bill. It is a separate issue. These crooked Insurance Companies should NEVER have entrusted with the lives of Americans the very minute they refused to turn down the first sick person in need of care.

And if we are not able to get a Medicare for All program going, which could start right away, it is only because politicians know that people like you, and I mean no offense, are willing to believe it cannot be done and to defend not doing it.

When the American people stand up as they did in Mass. we will start seeing some action. But as long as we, along with the heartless politicians in DC, simply dismiss the horrendous crime of allowing so many Americans to die, they WILL keep dying and neither of these tow bills will change that. Do you know what even 10% in co-pays would mean to a working class person if they should become very ill? That is happening RIGHT NOW. People cannot pay tens of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket just like that.

We will get what we fight for and sadly too many Democrats care more about the person occupying the WH and how he is viewed, depending on which party they are loyal to, than they do about ordinary Americans.

Not one single person should die because of a lack of access to healthcare. Neither of the two bills currently in play, will stop that from happening and that is just not acceptable at all.

I'd love to see an argument like yours against fighting for what Dennis Kucinich suggests in Britain or France, Canada or in any other civilized country. This kind of compromising and giving up is simply not even a possibility where the government understands who they work for and the reason they don't understand that here, is because we have allowed them to get away with it.

[deaniac83]

103. And your argument is that the status quo

will give people health care right now? If we can't have the exchanges open before 4 years from now, we shouldn't open them at all? Is that really your argument? Because your plan, single payer, is not going to pass now, or within 4 years at the federal level.

By the way, people are immediately helped in this bill, just to mention a few ways:
+ It immediately sets up a pool for high risk people so they can get health care or at least emergency care without going bankrupt.
+ It outlaws pre-existing conditions for children right away.
+ Bernie Sanders' Community Health Centers start getting built right away - which is especially great for the poor and uninsured.
+ Small business tax credits to get their employees covered go into effect immediately.

So yes, we will have to wait 4 years for the exchanges to open, but a lot of things do happen right away. You are presenting a false choice: single payer now or status quo indefinitely. That is not a choice I can accept.

[sabrina 1]

106. What 'exchanges?

You mean the 'marketplace' where we get to choose between one corrupt private insurance co. and another? Where is the choice?

As to your first point, we have that already. People can get emergency help. That is not a gift as you would have people believe.

It does NOT outlaw discrimination against adults who are sick for another four years. That is simply not acceptable. Unless you don't care about adults dying of course.

Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He saw what was going on when Blue Dogs and DLCers threw a hissy fit to get rid of anything that benefitted the people and how the Democrats bent over backwards, shamefully, to give or more correctly, take away anything that gave the people a choice. So, he decided to take advantage of the frenzy to cater to anyone who held a card they could negotiate with and do SOMETHING for the people. Too bad Democrats didn't follow his example.

And you forgot to mention the tax on healthcare premiums, an absolute sell-out and an attack on the Middle Class and workers in general. Shameful to think that is coming from a Democratic administration.

As for your last point, you must be reading someone else's posts. I have admitted that with so many people, such as yourself, refusing to stand up and fight to rid this country of the immoral system of for-profit healthcare, thanks you all, it IS unlikely. But with more and more people understanding what is going on, a bail-out of yet another failed system the chances increase. That anyone is willing to accept people being turned down for healthcare for even a day, let alone four years, is simply shameful.

[deaniac83]

111. You would rather have it never outlawed

the discrimination against sick people, that is. Got it. Yes, the exchanges are where you get to shop. Duh.

Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, but he is a progressive - an effective progressive. He doesn't think the status quo is tolerable as an alternative to the senate bill. I am sure you disagree. But I'm with him on this one.

The tax on high-end health care premiums, in my judgment, are a good idea. I have explained it several ways to Sunday, if you care to read, with a great body of additional resources and research:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/search/label/excise%20tax

Read from the bottom post up since the order is reverse-chronological.

There is no bailout of anyone here. That's just blatantly false.

[sabrina 1]

118. Yes, Sanders IS a progressive

and it's sad that the real Progressives in Congress have been bullied and silenced by the DLCers. I did hear Anthony Weiner speak out the other day when he said that Obama did not fight for what he campaigned on. The Mass election seems to have ended the possibility of that awful Senate bill passing so now Democrats in Congress are freer to go ahead and keep fighting to get SOMETHING for the people.

No one thinks the status quo is tolerable. I think I said that over 44,000 Americans have died each year as a result of our for-profit healthcare system. I agree with Sanders and Kucinich who is very close to Sanders on the issues. What people don't want, is a worse system, like Romneycare, which is failing miserably in Mass. Another reason why so many people in that state oppose the current bills. They've seen it in action. Premiums have gone up each year, fines have doubled and tens of thousands are still without healthcare. We can see from Romneycare a small example of what would happen if this bill were to pass.

You can try to defend the taxes on premiums all you want, but it won't change the fact that they are what they are. Not to mention a betrayal of the working class and a HUGE weapon in the hands of Republicans next November.



Did you agree with McCain and disagree with Obama when Obama slammed McCain (I can link you to the video of that debate if you like) for even thinking about such a policy? I supported Obama on that. I'd like to hear his reasoning on his complete flip-flop now

[deaniac83]

119. Yeah that's it

Sanders was just bullied. He didn't actually believe the Senate bill was worth passing, he cast a disingenuous, conscience-less vote because he was bullied. Riiight. 'Nuff said.

The excise tax in the Senate bill is nothing like what McCain was proposing. Read up.

[sabrina 1]

121. I feel the need to explain something to you since you are new here.

I refrained from commenting on your 'tactic' of attempting to twist what you are reading into what you would like others to think you are reading. It's old, lame and way over-used to be effective. Watching people telling others what they think, especially those who have no problem speaking for themselves, or attempting to tell them they said something they didn't, always amuses me.

What it says to me is that they cannot support their argument. They are attempting to defend something out of loyalty to a party or an individual. They have, iow, lost their footing and resort to blatantly twisting words that are there for others to read. It's amusing because people CAN read so I have never understood what it is meant to accomplish. Lol, nice try.

Back to reality. Sanders was NOT bullied. Democrats, progressive democrats were bullied which is of course what I said. Sanders does NOT like the bill at all, he has said so. He IS however practical and made it clear that the only way Democrats could get his vote was to give the PEOPLE something. THey needed his vote, so he got what he wanted. Which is exactly what I said already. I hope you actually DO get it this time.

'Read up'? Very authoritarian of you. Lol, I don't take orders from people on the internet, or in fact, from anyone. I have however 'read up' and it IS what McCain, at least according to Obama back then, was 'thinking'.

Since you didn't answer my question I'm assuming you supported whatever Obama supported during the campaign and you will support anything this administration proposes even if it's different, such as 'no mandates' eg, from what they proposed during the campaign. Which you are free to do, and the rest of us will keep holding their feet to the fire until they understand who they are working for.

[deaniac83]

123. Oh shove that patronizing

I may be new here, but I'm not new to politics, or online discussions. So take that patronizing where it came from and shove it.

I talked about Sanders and you replied with how progressives were bullied. What is one to understand from it? Sanders did not think the bill was great, but still worth passing, as indicated by his, umm, VOTE.

You can keep saying this is what McCain proposed until you are blue in the face, but it will still be a lie. You either don't know much about the Cadillac tax, or you are willfully ignoring the facts. Either way, I have had about enough of your circular arguments. Have a nice day.

[sabrina 1]

128. I replied that Sanders was a progressive in agreement with you

My comment about other progressives was clearly about Democrats which Sanders is NOT if you were following the conversation.

Of course you've had enough. You have lost your cool. You make losts of snide little remarks and the complain when someone responds. What, do you expect people to fall down and agree with every word you say? Good luck with that.

So, you set the tone of this discussion. You come here and atack a good Democrat and cannot handle that others do not agree with you.

I have no problem with your 'opinion', nor did I feel the need to make snide remarks to make my point. But I do respond to people as I find them. Although I have to say, I've never been reduced to the immature level of telling someone to 'shove it'. About what I'd expect from one of my kindergarten students ~

[sabrina 1]

171. Mmm, looks like Deaniac

"Ran For The Hills" ~ :rofl:

Here's some more 'patronizing' advice. If you can't take the heat, avoid posting flamebait against a Democratic Congressman on a Democratic board.

[deaniac83]

189. More like I happen to have a life

Oh, I can take the heat. Hahaha, flamebait? It wasn't a bait. If it was, it seems you took it. Feel smart yet?

Why is it that you think I can't attack a Democratic Congressman on a Democratic board but you can attack a Democratic president and the Democratic leadership of Congress on a Democratic board?

Irony!

[sabrina 1]

206. There's a difference between critizing a politician on his policies

and attacking a politician personally. The Kucinich attackers are all the same and easily refuted. Whenever I take 'bait' it's usually for entertainment purposes. If you ever find a post of mine where I personally attacked any Democratic President, let me know.

You did tell me 'to shove' :eyes: and that the conversation was over, so forgive me if I understood that to mean you could not defend your deceptive OP. Which I didn't blame you for btw, as it is pretty impossible to defend.

[deaniac83]

208. Strawman

I didn't attack Kucinich personally. That's ridiculous. Anyone who reads it on my blog can tell that. I attacked Kucinich's judgment. He is, after all, the same guy who made the judgment in 2004 to make a deal to combine his caucus goers in 2004 with that of John Edwards - who was then the one of the most fervent supporter of the Iraq war on the Democratic side that year, and whose health care plan in 2004 consisted of expanding coverage for children and a patient's bill of rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

My OP defends itself. I don't really care for your opinion on that.

[eridani]

148. High risk pool insurnace is a shitty, worthless product forced on people

--like me who are considered to be disposable human garbage. People with pre-existing conditions usually have ongoing medical expenses which will NOT be covered by catastrophic insurance.

[instantkarma]

24. Ano Hioan was referring to the house bill.

Mr. Kucinich voted no on the house bill.

[sabrina 1]

34. I agreed with Kucinich's vote on the House Bill

It was a terrible bill. It only looks slightly better since the Senate Bill is even worse. But he was right to do so and I hope more will join him until we get a real healthcare bill.

[instantkarma]

45. So we disagree

goo goo g'joob

[Milo_Bloom]

17. The Health Insurance Recovery Act of 2010 saves 0 lives.

[rhett o rick]

88. What a terrible thing to say. You honestly think any of us wants more people to die?

If not, why would you make that accusation? We may disagree on how to save lives but that's all. You assume that the final bill from this mess will save lives. Without single payer, without a government run public option, without the repeal on the anti-trust exemtion, the preditory insurance industry will continue as they have.

[sabrina 1]

131. Exactly, but don't expect the party loyalists to care. So long

as they 'win', that's all that matters.

[eridani]

147. The only thing that will change is that they will die poorer n/t

[Cha]

101. dennis is a regressive grandstander..

thanks for this OP, deaniac. Why dennis is so pure he needs to run for the hills.

[rhett o rick]

159. and you say you are liberal, yet you attack Kucinich. Who do you support? nt

[sabrina 1]

9. He's absolutely right. Did someone change the Senate Bill

since the SOTU address? Dennis never runs for the hills, he stands up for what is right.

That bill IS a non-starter, everyone hates it.

So, what's wrong with having Congress members stand up for the people again?

Go Dennis and I hope Obama starts listening to the people who elected him. Giving a good speech doesn't change the Senate Bill or the opinions of those who opposed it for all the right reasons. Did you think it would? Some of us are not so easily distracted from the busines of the American People.

[sabrina 1]

13. Oh, and I unrec'd this post because the title is a distortion

of the facts. I don't unrec often, except in cases where there is deception in the title and/or the OP itself.

[deaniac83]

19. The title IS fact

you just don't like that it's a fact.

[sabrina 1]

29. Your title is a distortion. If you can't see why that is, that is not my

problem. Dennis, unlike Obama, has not changed his mind and swung to the right on what is best for the American people in terms of healthcare. Iow, he has stood his ground while Obama ran for the Corporate and Republican hills trying desperately to please them. Today he showed signs of understanding that he can never please them. He acknowledged that his bill was a bill that they should love. I think they do, they just pretend publicly that they don't.

If you want to just feel good after listening to a speech by someone who flip-flopped on his promises and stated positions on healthcare by calling someone who stands his ground, that's your problem. The rest of us will continue to fight for what Obama promised in the campaign, but forgot about as soon as we elected him.

[Bobbie Jo]

231. Oh, and...I rec'ed it back.

As did more than a few others.

Spot on, and welcome to DU! :kick:

[rhett o rick]

14. I resent you calling those that think the Senate bill is too little, cowards.

That isnt a way to unite our party. I assume you want to unite our party and not disrupt it.

Although I may not agree with Kucinich, he has a good point. In MA the Dems were so disgusted with the crappy HCR, THEY VOTED REPUBLICAN. The way to avoid that is to pass a good bill. Or at least indicate you want a good bill. MA will happen again and again until the Dems starting acting like they want a good bill.

By the way, what do you want?

[deaniac83]

22. I called the intent of putting

health care on the back seat cowardly. I stand by that. Kucinich particularly talked about the MA election and how that big scary thing should put health care on the back burner. That's the fact.

What I want with respect to health care now is pretty clear from the end of my blog post that I linked. Let me know if you read it and find something unclear about it.

[rhett o rick]

85. You attack Kucinich, who is a fellow Democrat. nt

[zulchzulu]

25. The Massachusetts race was decided on how bad Coakley was as a candidate

It's utter bullshit that people were voting for Brown because of the current HCR in DC. Coakley was a creepy dumb shit who blew a 30% point lead because she sucked... almost as badly as Kucinich is a Presidential candidate.

[rhett o rick]

83. So the polls are wrong and you are right? So you dont like Coakley. Was she to liberal for you?

Why did the national Democratic Party allow such a candidate? Pres Obama didnt pay much attention to the very important race until the token last min attempt after is was too late. Dems voted for a republican because they were disappointed in the "change" they voted for.

[sabrina 1]

96. Over 80% of those who voted for Brown opposed the HC Bill and why

wouldn't they? It was written by Private Insurance for Private Insurance and people are not stupid. Nor are they all posting on internet boards.

Of that number many were Independents and Democrats. This bill has to go, the people hate it. I don't know why you are trying fruitlessly to defend it.

[eridani]

149. Dorgan quit the Senate because of this shitty bill

That has nothing to do with MA>

[Phx_Dem]

20. Self-delete

[zulchzulu]

23. Why another thinks Kucinich has any credibility is beyond me...

I know in fact that the guy is a self-serving prick (based on first-hand stories about people who worked on his Presidential campaigns) and he hasn't done jackshit.

He's all talk. He can't get anything passed. He can't get more than 1% of the vote in national races.

I agree with him on a lot of issues, but then again, usually my Senator (Russ Feingold) says the same things AND HE GETS STUFF DONE.

Acquiring a taste for Kucinich's antics is akin to mixing dog food with your tabouli and eating it on a piece of pig's foot soaked in turpentine. Some people like it...

[AnOhioan]

65. Really...you know for a fact?

Sorry if your "stories" don't impress me. See...I knew several ppl who worked on his first Presidential campaign. How you ask? Easy..I was one of them. Dennis can be alot of things but a "self-serving prick" is not one of them.

It would help your credibility if you actually had some knowledge of what you rant about.

What the Party needs is more elected officials who remember why they were elected. The current state of the Party is that they are woefully short of such people.

Unfortunately the Party is chock full of centrists who make a mad dash to the right at every bump, and then they scratch their heads and wonder why they lose elections to the likes of Bush.

[jenmito]

28. K&R. He's a KillTheBiller who's using any excuse to not pass it. He's in bed with the

teabaggers on this. Congrats, Kucinich. :eyes:

[Bluenorthwest]

38. I like Dennis

I don't like blog plugs. I just don't. I also don't like those who make the choice to self promote using negative messages about Democrats. In fact, self promotion via denigration of others is never an indication of excellence. I offer to you that just before this screed, I read a transcript of the President's address to the Republican House retreat. Same guys who stank eyed him for 70 minutes of SOTU moments ago. He was, as he always is, genial, filled with praise, and very slow to cast blame. The man praised Eric Cantor by name. Then I come here, and what is supposed to be 'pro Obama' is a hyperbolic and negative hit piece on a Democratic member of the House. One must assume that Obama would not take a similar approach, and because of that such an approach is not in fact pro Obama in any way. I'd say it is the opposite of Obama. I'll also say that as annoying as I often find his constant quest for bi partisan agreement, I find this intra-Party mudslinging to be far worse than annoying, and seeing the two side by side today, I am just a bit more prone to see the wisdom in Obama's insistence on a more civil dialog, even if I myself could not look at Cantor and lay on the grease, perhaps Obama is right to do so. Because one thing I know, is that your approach is very much not right.
So there you go.

[deaniac83]

43. Oh that's rich

No one spreads more negative message about Democrats than Kucinich. At least not on the left side of the dial.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. What's rich is your arrogant assumption that I would not

say the same thing to Dennis. That was me, speaking to you. About what you wrote, and what I thought of it. What Representative Kucinich says is another matter entirely, not the one at hand. What I said, you simply ignored.
Your post had one main objective, which was the promotion of your blog. Fair enough. The Kucinich elements, those were merely your device at hand, a tool to incite reaction, and hopefully visits to the blog.

I compared what you wrote to what the President did today, and how he did it. I found excellence in the President's approach, something I do not always find. The contrast between his words and yours was stark, and I liked his better. That is worth repeating.
What my post was, was a bad review of your OP. Nothing more.

[sabrina 1]

107. Kucinich IS a Democrat, He is one of the few left

He rightly calls out those pretend Democrats who have taken over the party. Interesting that you support those who refuse to represent the American people over a real democrat. My party right or wrong has done nothing to improve the Democratic Party over the past number of years. But Democrats like Kucinich have certainly contributed to opening people's eyes by telling the truth about what they've been up to.

I hope to work to make it possible for more Democrats like Kucinich to replace those Republican/lites who belong in the Republican Party.

[deaniac83]

116. I'm sorry, but no one died

and gave you the right to decide who is and isn't a 'Real Democrat.' There is a process for all us to decide who we want to represent the entire Democratic party every 4 years. Last time that happened, Democrats picked Barack Obama.

[sabrina 1]

127. I'm sorry but there you go again, using those ancient, internet

tactics as if they might have some effect. 'No one died and gave you the right'!! Funny! I can't count the number of times I've seen that phrase on internet boards. I prefer original thinkers, who use their own words to make their case, I have to say.

Democrats voted to give the Democratic Party a majority hoping that that would bring much needed change to DC. If they end the wars and produce a real Healthcare Bill, not an Insurance Reform Bill, people will feel they voted for the right party.

What you and other party loyalists fail to understand is that there are millions of people who are not particularly concerned about which party gives them what they want. And operatives on internet boards have little influence over that reality as most of them do not participate in online political forums.

The only way to keep a Democratic majority therefore, is NOT by wasting time slamming people on internet boards. Blogs have little if any influence over the process. The only way is for Democrats to do what they promised. If they fail to do that, they will lose and you can pound your keyboard all day if you want to, and you can amuse yourself by insulting or attempting to undermine strangers you meet online, and it will have not one bit of influence over what happens in November. Nor most likely on the strangers you meet online.

That is why, those of us who are not afraid to face reality, and who do not want a Republican Majority, will continue to try to get Democrats to work for the people, not the corporations. Those of you who are willing to lead them astray, by supporting every bad policy they vote for, will ensure a Republican Majority and you are who I will personally blame if that happens. And out of fear that you might decide to repeat your 'who died' line again, no, no one died and gave me permission to express an opinion, they didn't need to! : -)

[Dr.Phool]

178. And like you're not trying to say who is a real Democrat.

And as far as I could see, there were 8 candidates running for the Dem nomination, but the corporate shills only zero'ed in on two of their own. Nobody else existed.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Saint Kooch has been exposed

What a hypocritical fraud.

He's just an annoying self-serving gadfly. For him, it's all about Saint Kooch and nothing else matters.

K&R

[deaniac83]

44. You're right

I can't stand his holier than thou attitude.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. And I can't stand the "I don't care if it's a good bill or not--pass it or

Obama will look weak" crowd.

Obama lost me when he 1) held closed-door meetings with the insurance industry, and 2) didn't draw a line in the sand on the public option.

Newsflash folks--He already looks weak for those reasons.

[deaniac83]

53. I can care less about what will make Obama

"look weak." I do care about getting something done, and the Senate bill is light years ahead of the status quo. Yes it does good things: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2009/12/can-you-live-with-killing-bill.html.

The public option was a good idea, and it would have been great if we got it. But not getting it is not an excuse for doing nothing.

[sabrina 1]

132. What you can't stand is how he exposes the DLCers for what they

are and that his views are supported by a majority of the American people. I never trust so-called Democrats who attempt to slime someone like Kucinich. Congratulations, you probably just proved Dennis to be correct. Anyone who believes that it's okay to let people die for four years so that the corrupt Private Ins. doesn't lose any money, deserves to be ignored.

Go Dennis! Keep telling the truth. Someone has to.

[Strawman]

47. He is not running. He's standing right where he stood before.

I think the Senate bill is better than nothing but I respect Dennis' principled opposition more than I do some Blue Dog changing their tune solely based up reelection concerns and political cowardice. Dennis has always wanted single payer or as he calls it Medicare-for-All. I think that's being too stubborn, not being a chickenshit.

Your post is intellectually dishonest flamebait.

[slay]

51. +1 -- And lest anyone not be aware - this is from some guy's BLOG

you're right - the title is flamebait. Dennis has the same position now as he had all along. this whole post seems very troll-ish to me.

[deaniac83]

54. Yes it's from my blog

but what, did I doctor the video that's on there? Everything that I present as a fact is independently sourced. Is it illegal or against DU rules to post a partial article here if you are also posting it on your blog?

[slay]

77. Ah ok - no, not against any rules

and i'm all for freedom of speech - i just find the post title to be misleading. i'm a huge howard dean fan too. i just don't care for your title - i've never seen DK run from anything.

[Fire1]

57. Oh! You're NEW!! lol!!! n/t

[deaniac83]

68. Lol! Yup!

I'm new here. Not to politics though.

[Fire1]

73. You'll learn quickly about this board. n/t

[sabrina 1]

97. Are you the same 'deaniac' who posts on DK by any chance?

Just asking as that would explain a lot and help cut through the garbage.

[deaniac83]

109. Yes, I am the same deaniac83

Although there might be another deaniacXY with XY being different numbers than 83. Glad you have your explanations now.

[sabrina 1]

112. Thank you, it does explain a lot ~ n/t

[slinkerwink]

59. Hiya, deaniac83. Nice to see you here on DU

spreading your posts from Dailykos. You didn't get a good reception over there, and you're not getting one here either too.

[deaniac83]

67. Nice to see you too

Thanks for your courtesy.

My posts are my posts, by the way - Daily Kos doesn't own them, and neither do you.

[slinkerwink]

80. Oh my. Getting a little pissy about the reception? Heh.

[deaniac83]

98. You should know about getting pissy.

[slinkerwink]

146. Yep, still nothing there.

[Sebastian Doyle]

81. Good to see that I'm not the only ACTUAL "Deaniac"

who can see through fraud83's act. Looks more like rahmiac83 to me.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

113. Hit a little close to the target eh? The only thing I see Koochie do is blog and bloviate.

He takes a position that he know is so unrealistic that it doesn't even need any effort to move because it's already DOA. Anyone remember the Dept. of Peace? Until Saint Dennis stands behind something that can actually be implemented I won't give him or his followers the attention they so crave.

[slinkerwink]

139. deaniac83 likes to attack progressives. It's his shtick over at Dkos.

[QC]

102. Hating progressives has gotten very popular around her, slinkerwink,

so I expect that he will get a warm reception.

This is not the same DU that you and I joined years ago. It's all "bipartisan" and "pragmatic" now.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

114. Bullshit. What's hated around here is people who do nothing but criticize and complain.

What's hated around here are people who stand on their moral high ground shouting down to those who are willing to take some progress on issues that are critical to them at the expense of purity. The elf epitomizes what's hated around here.

Good liberals like Feingold, Weiner and Saunders all have critized Obama or whatever, but they have also found a way to still support the bills in front of them. Koochie, not so much.

I don't see many threads around here that scold Feingold, Saunders or Weiner. You see them about Dennis for exactly the reasons I listed above.

[sabrina 1]

153. Weiner has just recently sdaid that he is disappointed that

Obama did not fight for real Health Care reform. After the Mass. election which was a condemnation of the HC Bill, as over 80% of those who voted for Brown, hate the bill, Democrats like Weiner felt free to say what they really think of the whole Health Care debacle. Sanders has said it is not a good bill. Kucinich represents the views of the majority of the American people on this bill.

[slinkerwink]

137. I see that. A few people from Dkos have made their way

back to infiltrate DU with their talking points.

[LoZoccolo]

143. Weren't you a part of a group of feminist Kossacks that seceded and formed your own blog?

If so, haven't you pretty much said with your actions that someone's reception at Daily Kos isn't worth much?

[slinkerwink]

145. Nope. Was never a PUMA. Nice try though.

[LoZoccolo]

150. I'm talking about the Woman Kossacks blog and the "pie wars" in 2005. n/t

[slinkerwink]

166. Never left Dkos and never will.

[LoZoccolo]

172. My mistake, but you still protested your treatment there.

My main point is that you yourself do not always place credibility in how one is recieved at Daily Kos. I would agree with that as well, but you shouldn't then criticize an idea for not being popular there.

[slinkerwink]

177. A majority of women protested the pie ad wars there, some left, and the rest

still stayed. It's really funny that you went and brought up that from years ago. You do not know who this diarist is---I do, and he's one that has consistently lied, and twisted news reports to defend the President at all times.

[IndianaGreen]

64. SinglePayer, Medicare for all, is the only viable and just solution to health care

The for-profit health insurance industry provides no value whatsoever to the delivery of health care.

[MadBadger]

69. ...

:popcorn:

[swilton]

71. Dennis is Right

The Senate and House health bills are trash - Massachusetts was a wake-up call on how to lose independent voters

[slipslidingaway]

76. Kucinich: Why I Voted NO

An answer to your question as posted on your blog and at the DK site, his statement was not hard to find, if you were really interested.

:evilgrin:


"...I see. So remind us again why you voted against the House bill ..."



http://kucinich.house.gov/NEWS/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995

Washington, Nov 7, 2009 -

"After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:


“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.


“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.


“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.


“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.


“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.


“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy -- in which most Americans live -- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.


“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.


“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”

[slay]

78. Thanks for posting Dennis in his own words. Hard to refute that.

I've never seen Dennis run from anything in his life. Not even when the FBI told him to carry a gun cause the mafia had targeted him.

[slipslidingaway]

82. So those who challenge the insurance companies are the people who are running...

(for the hills) ... go figure.

You're welcome :)

[grantcart]

135. Well Bernie Sanders did a pretty effective job refuting it.

[slay]

141. I respect Bernie alot. Please link

to where he refutes what DK is saying if you have the time.

[truedelphi]

229. So far there are no links!

I follow Bernie and I don't remember him refuting Dennis. I do remember Bernie getting some concessions in terms of his voting for the HCR bill. (A rather nice quid pro quo.) And they were rather nice concessions also - over one hundred million bucks for Health Care Clinics to be set up in many regions of the County.

Since Kucinich did not get any concessions, and since the bill would pass anyway, I think he was entitled to vote against it as a form of porotest!

[deaniac83]

99. In other words

"I will pick up my ball and go home if you don't play it my way, and vote for the status quo instead." (I consider a NO vote on the House bill a vote for the status quo). Thanks, Dennis.

[slipslidingaway]

125. First paragraph, did you read this ...

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care..."


Repeat ...

"We have been led to believe..."


Shutting down discussion of other systems is not best for the health care of the people or the health of our nation...IMHO.

It does not have to be this plan or nothing at all and P. Obama has a perfect opening with the recent Supreme Court ruling and his comment about how the insurance companies will be able to contribute more money in pursuit of their cause (their bottom line).

The Republicans would not have been able to pass a bill which mandates that people buy insurance, from companies who skim profits off the top.

[sabrina 1]

154. Projection on your part? Lol!

Didn't you just pick up your ball when you could no longer defend your position and told me you go 'go shove it'? :rofl:

Dennis never picks up his ball and runs, that's why DLCers fear him. He just keeps on telling the truth.

[Enthusiast]

79. How do the American people poll?

The HCR bill is unpopular, very unpopular.

Now, if the HCR bill was modified to include a strong public option it would again become very popular, according to the polls.

The entire issue is dependent on what kind of HCR bill we have available. It appears that Dennis is correct in being opposed to a bill that doesn't have a public option. He is merely doing the will of the people.

[slipslidingaway]

87. The majority of the people favor a national HC system, financed through taxes...

Dennis is running with the majority of the people.

During 2008 the PO idea was sold to the people as being like Medicare and being politically feasible. Kucinich did not run away from what he thought was the best solution to our HC problem and for the economy.

[hayu_lol]

91. Dennis 'Do-Nothing' lives in a box...

the box has a lid and a crank on the side. Turn the crank and a very old children's tune plays: Pop Goes The Dennis.

He pops up...says something...does nothing...is squeezed back into his box until the crank is turned again.

Words are worth nothing. It is actions, and Dennis being short, is short of action on any of his pronouncements. Hence, Dennis Do Nothing.

[slipslidingaway]

95. Iraq was such a disaster, if only people had listened instead of trying to ...

squeeze him back in the box.

Almost every one of those senators voted to continue the war funding, imagine if they had a spine.

[sabrina 1]

108. Very revealing post by you.

Now that you've wasted space with a meaningless post, how about telling us on what issues you disagree with this Democrat on?

Are you supporter of forever war eg?

Do you agree with allowing torturers and war criminals off for their crimes?

Are you in favor of spending trillions of dollars on war, while claiming we cannot afford a decent health care system?

Exactly what is it you disagree with him about, or are you just afraid of people who tell the truth?

[depakid]

92. Yep- let's not listen to feedback at all, but keep on doing the same stupid shit

that's caused the Democrats to lose over and over and over.

That's the ticket!

[ncteechur]

120. Who is Dennis Kucinich?? Oh yeah, he's that rep with no skin in the game.

[JamesA1102]

122. Kucinich lost me when he went on FOX News last week.

And stood there agreeing with O'Reilly.

[deaniac83]

124. He did? I did not know this.

But can't say I'm surprised. Kucinich stands for Kucinich now, I guess.

[slipslidingaway]

126. There are no other words ...

this is just bullshit!

"...But can't say I'm surprised. Kucinich stands for Kucinich now, I guess."

[sabrina 1]

164. OMG, he went on Fox!!

Lol, I love the hypocrisy of the Kucinich haters. I remember so well when Obama went on the Bill O'Reilly Show, the same people, now feigning outrage over Kucinich doing it, were defending it claiming that 'politicians should go on Fox and let them hear from Democrats once in a while!

Obama on Fox = Good!

Kucinich on Fox = Bad ~ :rofl:

Not to mention the fact that WHEN Obama was on Fox during the campaign, he was AGAINST what is in this HC Bill and in agreement with Kucinich.

Party politics, causes people to throw logic out the window.

[Cha]

223. Agreeing with o'reilly about what?

[Arkana]

136. If Kooch ever found himself in the big chair,

he'd find out pretty quickly that it's nowhere NEAR as easy as he tries to make it sound.

[LoZoccolo]

144. That would be hilarious if all of a sudden he won.

"Oh shoot, I've actually got to do all this stuff I never thought I'd have to."

[treestar]

200. Word, and that applies to legions of DUers who think they know better

how to handle things! With their vague suggestions of "arm twisting" or somehow forcing Congress to bend to the President's will.

[dflprincess]

140. Kucinich is standing his ground and not caving into the DLC or the Blue Dogs

and not selling us out to the insurance companies. How is that "running for the hills"?

[ProgressOnTheMove]

155. Yes, I like Dennis but our options are small and if we don't act they will be closed shut forever...

We have to take this chance and run while we can.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

165. The options are "shut" ONLY if the Dems CHOOSE to not reintroduce the issue

That's another lame DLC excuse, to be added to the list of

"We had to vote for the Republican initiative because it was going to pass anyway."

"We don't have a majority in Congress, so we can't block anything."

"We don't have the White House, so we can't do anything."

"We don't have a veto-proof majority, so we can't do anything."

"Yes, we have the White House and both Houses of Congress, and we're hogtied because the Republicans are threatening to filibuster."

Somehow the Republicans managed to get things done under these and worse conditions.

Scrap this convoluted mess of a bill and start over with something that can be summarized for the public in five bullet points or less. (Read up on the health care systems of other countries

[rhett o rick]

160. Just another attack the left post. nt

[IndianaGreen]

161. by one of the appeasers that support the gutting of public option

OP probably has stocks in health industry.

[freddie mertz]

175. Certainly not any kind of "deaniac" either.

I know a lot about Deaniacs. I am one one myself.

And this is not the OP of a Deaniac.

[slinkerwink]

237. no, he definitely tows whatever's he's told to think by the WH

[freddie mertz]

174. Divisive poop. Dennis has taken the high road on this.

You may not agree with him, but he has been consistent and clear about his positions on this issue.

My question: What sort of "deaniac' posts this sort of divisive, leftie-bashing crap?

Not a true one, in my book.

[Sebastian Doyle]

176. Like I said, he's more like a "rahmiac"

The true Deaniacs aren't buying this shit.

[rhett o rick]

179. agree. nt

[Dr.Phool]

180. A fake Deaniac.

Just about everyone I know, who was involved in Deans campaign, loves Kucinich.

[QC]

181. Sometimes handles are used for protective coloration.

I think this might be such a case.

[deaniac83]

186. I am not really concerned about your book.

Divisive? The scorched earth, my-way-or-highway path Kucinich is following on health care (and about everything else) is divisive. He's disingenuous when he refers to 3 specific flaws of the Senate bill in his judgment (people being forced to buy from the private market i.e. no public option, leaving the anti-trust exemptions in, and the excise tax), when the reality is that none of these were a problem in the House bill, and he still voted against it. He blames the Senate when he did nothing to help in the House.

Yeah, I have been a Deaniac for a long time. I interned for the Dean campaign in New Hampshire (if you care to and you have a way to, you can check the Keene, NH campaign office records). I was a DFA Netroots Scholar in the 2009 Netroots Nation. I have held (and hold now) leadership positions at the local DFA group. I don't have a 'feeling' about Kucinich, I don't personally know him. But politically, while I generally agree with him matters of principle, he's a self-serving ideologue. He hounded and attacked Dean during the primaries in a lot of the same ways that establishment Democrats did. So spare me the 'you're not a true Deaniac' psychobabble.

[Dr.Phool]

192. Kucinich co-authored, along with Conyers, a much better bill.

It's called HR 676, and Howard Dean supported it.

It's not like either of these 2 pieces of shit that emerged from both the House and Senate. It's real, true healthcare reform.

And, I don't have a feeling about Kucinich either. I know him personally. I supported him during his first campaign for City Council in Cleveland. I helped beat back the corporate recall campaign against him as mayor. Although I live in Florida now, I can still see him in Washington, or whenever he's in town. He's one of the few honest good guys that actually looks out for working people.

[deaniac83]

194. Yes, it's a much better bill

I don't disagree with that. But it's a much better bill that will never pass - not in the current climate. That's why I called him a self serving ideologue - he authors perfectionist legislation and then refuses to vote for legislation that moves beyond the status quo. By the way, Conyers voted FOR the House bill.

[freddie mertz]

215. There is currently no single plan to resolve the HCR bills.

That is the current situation.

Kucinich has been more consistent than almost anyone in this process: He called it a stinker and has been pretty much vindicated.

Dean pretty much agrees.

Neither one of them are being self-serving.

The real question, then, is THIS: who exactly are YOU serving here, by posting this bull-crap?

[freddie mertz]

214. Very hard to believe.

From what I've been reading, you have a long history of left-bashing on other boards.

Deanac thou art not.

[deaniac83]

216. LMAO.

Left bashing? You have got to be kidding. I am not fond of ideologues - it has nothing to do with left. Kucinich is an ideologue. Dean was a pragmatic governor. Oh how fast people forget. Kucinich himself went after Dean for being not left enough in his opinion. Howard Dean actually praised the Blue Dogs at his forum at last year's Netroots Nation. People beat up on Dean all the time for being too centrist - which I and most Deaniacs saw as being pragmatic.

Since you have been reading, let me give you something else to read. Dennis Kucinich, this Undisputed Leader of the Real Left (TM), made a deal in the 2004 to have his caucus goes combine with those of John Edwards in Iowa in case either didn't have enough for a delegate. You know, the 2004 version of John Edwards - the one that proudly went around supporting the war in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

[freddie mertz]

218. Kucinich is not an idealogue.

And the example from 2004 that you mention shows that.

[LWolf]

190. That statement is full of shit.

If Obama were willing to champion a good health care system, DK would certainly be right there fighting for it. As he has been since before Obama hit the Senate, let alone the WH.

Obama was disingenuous at best when he said that if there were better plans out there he'd like to see them. He doesn't support anything better.

Pushing the current disaster of a bill through is the wrong thing to do; the wrong thing to fight for.

If Obama wants Democrats to fight, they've got to have something worth fighting for.

Health care is worth it.

Insurance "reform" that benefits insurance companies is not.

[mother earth]

196. Interesting that a "deaniac" would have a problem with REAL

reform. Either you are FOS, or you are not a "deaniac", actually both. Dean wants the real thing. I daresay you do not, otherwise you wouldn't be throwing crap at one of the few brave souls that speaks out for what's right. No decent progressive would throw crap at Dean, Kucinich or Sanders. You sir, are no progressive!

Dennis is, of course, right. We want real reform, not pseudo reform that places us in yet another corporate win-win.

[deaniac83]

204. First of all

You don't know what you're talking about. Dean supported the final passage of the Senate bill:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73485--howard-dean-cites-gop-opposition-as-reason-to-pass-senate-bill

Dean certainly never said he wants to put health care on the back burner because of what happened in MA, which is what Kucnich's massage is.

Second of all, are we supposed to trust the same Kucinich who, in 2004, made a deal with who was then the biggest Democratic defender of the Iraq war, John Edwards, for the Iowa caucuses? Spare me.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

[sabrina 1]

209. Dean did not agree with the bill and spoke out strongly

against it. So strongly that the WH had the nerve to 'admonish' him while giving a pass to teabaggers. He went along, like many others in the end, only because he is a Democrat. Now, people like Weiner who also out of loyalt to the party, went along, are speaking their minds realizing what a lucky escape they had that they did not have to put their names on that bill.

[deaniac83]

211. Rivisionist history

No, Dean spoke out against an earlier incarnation of the Senate bill, which was then updated to address several concerns he had, and he supported the bill that was voted on. Not because it was the greatest bill, we all know it wasn't, but because it was something worth passing, and something better than the status quo. Here is the full Rachel Maddow interview:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34553032

He does not believe it's reform, and rather an expansion of the current system, but he changed his mind for two reasons (according to Dean himself):

+ First, the bill was improved - tightened up cost control, money for community health centers, increased doctor reimbursements etc, and it sends it to conference
+ Second, "if the Republicans hate it, there must be some good in it."

Rachel asked him what his bottom line will be afterwords, and Dean conceded that the public option was not likely, and still didn't call for killing the legislation altogether. He said that the bill gives us a head start against the health insurance companies. Bottom line is that he wasn't particularly happy with the Senate bill, but did think it should pass rather than be killed. No, he didn't go along just because he's a Democrat.

You know, it occurs to me that you keep challenging and belittling my arguments and that of others, but you have not come up with any sources to back up your own argument in this thread. Not one.

[slinkerwink]

238. It's revisionist history, not rivisionist. Get your spelling right.

[onpatrol98]

202. + It outlaws pre-existing conditions for children right away.

I guess part of my issues is...why an eventual 1000 bill with things to kick in eventually. There are some things they can pass tomorrow.

Why can't politicians fix this one now? No debate. Send up a bill...They can give themselves pay raises (republicans and democrats) even as senior citizens get none, but, it takes 1000 - 2000 pages to help the rest of us.

[sabrina 1]

222. They were able to defund ACORN overnight.

Letting people die for lack of access to health care is a crime. That should be dealt with separately from any health care bill. All they have to do is pass a law that forbids Insurance Cos. from refusing to cover sick people (how ridiculous is that, this is supposedly their business) and it should be treated as criminally negligent homicide.

If Private Ins wants to insert itself into our health care system, they should be required to cover sick people. It's just unbelievable that they have gotten away with this for so long.

We keep hearing about 'terrorists' and 'national security' which means, protecting the lives of American citizens. Yet, since 9/11 the health care system in the US has contributed to the deaths of nearly half a million people.

Iow, Americans are in more danger of dying for lack of health care than they are from terrorism. If we spent the money for the WOT on treating sick people, the threat to American lives would be reduced by a huge %.

I just wish they'd stop lying. They don't care about Americans, the WOT is just another criminal enterprise to enrich the security business.

And so-called progressives support a bill that will allow American adults to die for the next four years. And they are just thrilled with the crumbs their party has thrown at them. No wonder they get away with all the corruption, when people actually thank them for letting people die.

[jeanpalmer]

213. Wow, let's take these one at a time.

"Redoubling our efforts" does not = entrenching a bad private insurance system. Obama says the reason we can't go to single payer is because it would be too disruptive, that if we were starting from scratch single payer might be a good idea, but not from where we are. If we further entrench the private insurance system, how do we create the possibility of ever getting a good system? Seems like we further lock ourselves into a bad system.

Sure, the tax credits will help people get private health insurance. But at what cost? At an exorbitant cost. With the taxpayer subsidizing the exorbitant cost.

The thing that squeezes small businesses from creating jobs is the bad economy. And the bad economy has resulted to a large extent from Pelosi and her pals incentivizing the shipping of 5 million jobs overseas, reducing overall demand. Entrenching a costly private insurance-based health care system will do little to foster the creation of jobs.

Community Health Centers are a minor component of the health care bill. A drop in the bucket. $10 billion out of a $900 billion bill.

Kucinich is not saying Congress cannot work on health care and jobs at the same time. What he's saying is it would be folly to pass a bad healthcare bill while ignoring the jobs issue. He's right on.

What will cause the people to lose confidence is to pass this crazy Senate "health care" bill.

"what will lose us more confidence of the American people" is spending 6 months on a fatally flawed health care bill while ignoring the jobs issue. What was cowardly was the inability to consider real health care reform and instead come up with this monstrosity. Passing flawed health care legislation does not build confidence. It's simply a politicl solution for people who believe "we must do something, even if it's bad."

Kucinich is correct.

[watercolors]

220. yES, hwe should run for the hill and stay there!!

nt

[tabasco]

228. Self-important little twit.

I've grown tired of his self-righteousness.

[inthebrain]

230. This just stands as more evidence that the Dems are nothing more than a moderate right party

and has no need of the left.

I thank the people posting here for finally allowing their true colors to show.

[dionysus]

232. why, because he's a do-nothing grandstander with a horrible toupe?

he can say whatever he wants because he has no responsibility to back any of it up. which is good for him because he can't.

he can say good things without ever having to produce a result, and a tiny slice of internet political junkies think he's the pope. in reality he's just a backbencher from ohio...
:shrug:

[LWolf]

235. Dennis Kucinich is the best Democrat in Washington. nt

[vaberella]

239. Hardly. But that's whatever. n/t

[LWolf]

243. Hardly another Democrat in Washington worth a shit, it's true. nt

[davidpdx]

240. OMG you defiled Kucinich?

The Kuchinichcrats will have your ass now. LOL

:sarcasm:

[Blue-Jay]

241. I stopped reading at "From my blog".

If I wanted to read your blog, I'd read it.