Dennis Kucinich Now Supports Health Care Bill

[Wolf Larson]

I want to know what RevLefters think about this - it means most of the Democrat constituents will now support the bill because besides Kucinich the MSNBC "liberal" crowd is also supporting the bill now. At one point the so called left Democrats were really the only thing stopping this bill. I want to know what you generally think of the heath care bill(s) - how it will effect you, who stands to gain the most and how you feel about Obama and the Democrats in general. I also want to know if you think it important to oppose or support this health care bill.
Thanks.

[berlitz23]

Well I am not a vehement supporter of the bill by all means, by I wouldn't want to deny 30 million americans health care insurance.

[RadioRaheem84]

If the public option is stil available that I suppose it would be OK. But I doubt they're going to keep it on.

[KurtFF8]

I suppose I'd have the same stance as most US Leftists: support the public option if it's there, if not: then what's to support in the bill?

Obviously the bill is crap, with or without the PO.

I think the Left collectively scratched its head when the Democrats and the Obama administration started with asking for a public option instead of Single-Payer.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The bill is a major letdown, but I understand part of Kucinichs feelings I think.

If some form of this bill does not pass, then Obama will ahve suffered a major defeat, which will hinder the democrats in other plans they have but were put on the wayside due to healthcare.

Increasing unemployment benefits, infrastructure jobs, increasing welfare, raising taxes on the wealthy, social security reform, medicare reform, all these things are goals the progressive caucus of democrats want to achieve (of which Kucinich is a member), but may never come about if Obama is dealt a blow like this now.

The democrats haven't made any bold moves, but a GOP controlled house is a shitty (rather, shittier) proposition for any working, or out of work, person in this country.

[The Douche]

Honestly, I have quite a bit of discomfort because of this bill, I'm pretty sure I am gonna come out just above the "you make enough" line, so I am going to be forced to buy private health insurance, but I do not feel I make that kind of money, it certainly means a change in the way I live my life right now.

Most people don't even know what is in the bill, they just think either "Obama supports it, so I do to" or "Obama supports it, so I oppose it".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As far as i'm concerned, the bill is horrific. I guess it will obviously be an improvement in that hopefully the 40million or so people who are currently not covered at all will have some healthcare protection. However, it will not alleviate the poverty problem, as it will not be a free at the point of access, universal healthcare system.

As much as Britain is generally a disgracefully right wing, reactionary little island, I am infinitely glad that I can pop into my doctor, at no cost at all, and either get an injection or whatever or just have a chat about what is wrong with me, rather than having to pay/fill in forms etc. Although, having said that, i'm dismayed at the spirallign costs of prescriptions and injections in this country - i'm having to fork out (well, combined family effort here!) over £200 for a course of Rabies and Hep B injections. Ugh.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think we should at least partake in the political outcomes that come about. Granted, Obama is far better than that cowboy dip shit, George Bush. If this bill brings millions more health care, then I'm not going to be one-sided about it & choose to not support it just because it isn't single-payer. Dennis made a good decision I think.

I also noticed Obama taking a stand against Fox news. Now if only he could do this for single-payer & every other promise he made. :thumbup1:

[¿Que?]

Call me cynical, but I kind of feel manipulated. I was angry that there was no single payer and felt vindicated that there was a vocal opposition from the left personified by Mr. Kucinich and which the news was actually paying attention to. Then he makes this about face, and, quite frankly, my feeling is that it was all planned from the get go.

I really don't know how to explain it, but it feels like a ploy to bring in the far left.

[Sendo]

I'm scared by this. Last I checked the lowest threshold for economic dependence would still pay 20% (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) of its income to health insurance.

Student loans, private insurance, insane taxes that go to the Pentagon...I'm wondering if it's going to be possible to live in America at all now. I'm not exaggerating. I might have to return to South Korea for several years if things don't improve. I'd love to be a part of the fight, but I've got student loans that my parents backed up with their names (and hence their collateral).

Wouldn't that be something, an economic refugee American emigrant. Jesus.

[The Douche]

Does anybody know what the limit is where you "make to much" to qualify for the government health care?

Why is there apathy toward the bill on here as if it is "better than nothing". Unless I am confused, it is a actually worse than nothing.

Does the current bill not say that government healthcare is only available for people making under a certain amount a year, and that everybody else will legally be required to purchase private healthcare at their expense, under penalty of a fine?

That is a regression!

[ZeroNowhere]

Kucinich: I am sorry, Mr. Obama, but I am taking a principled opposition to this bill.
Obama: Principles? In a Democrat? This silliness must be ended at once!
Kucinich: I love Big Brother.
Media: UFO joke.

[jake williams]

By now the bill just makes things worse. It's basically a multi-trillion (with a T) subsidy to the health insurance industry. The bulk of it is going to come from working class people who can't really afford it, but won't be able to get the subsidies anyway. That's not to mention that as taxes on business and the wealthy decrease, "public" subsidies are also increasingly at the expense of the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

It will force people who don't qualify for the government option to purchase private insurance. This is bad. This means it will pretty much be illegal to go to the hospital emergency room without insurance. This provides an automatic subsidy to the health insurance industry.

But the bill also had a lot of reforms to the health insurance industry that are quite good, although most likely the insurance industry will put the burden on already existing customers.

The government option is a good thing but it's not anywhere near the level of efficiency that would've been provided to the American health care system that a universal health care plan would've.

So if the proposed bill has a public option than it will be good for the millions living below the poverty line, bad for those stuck in between and will do nothing to those at the top (not involved in the insurance racket). You will be forced to buy insurance but it will be 'reformed' insurance which will be more beneficial than anything you can buy as of today. Of course, we all know, the insurance companies will find other ways around these new reforms and will probably burden their already existing customers and further piss off the right.

The bill is mixed bag due to the several compromises made with the insurance companies. Mostly bad but with some layers of 'good' in it. Then again it's "liberal good".

[¿Que?]

The government option is a good thing but it's not anywhere near the level of efficiency that would've been provided to the American health care system that a universal health care plan would've.
The current plan is intended to provide universal coverage or near universal coverage. The term "universal" simply means everyone is covered. It does not say anything as to how those people get covered. Theoretically, you could have universal coverage in a completely private system...

...But I have a feeling you already know this, and I am stepping into a trap of which I am not informed enough to get out. We'll see.

[RadioRaheem84]

The current plan is intended to provide universal coverage or near universal coverage. The term "universal" simply means everyone is covered. It does not say anything as to how those people get covered. Theoretically, you could have universal coverage in a completely private system...

...But I have a feeling you already know this, and I am stepping into a trap of which I am not informed enough to get out. We'll see.

Depends on your definition of universal coverage. The public option merely helps out those people who cannot afford health care and I believe that will be based on income. I don't know that the cut off is but I am assuming that if your salary is below the poverty line you will qualify for the public option, if not then you will be 'forced' to purchase from the reformed insurance plans provided in the private sector. So it's a cheap and shoddy way for the administration to provide everyone with health care.

It's such an American way to provide universal health care. Nearly everything we have that has benefited the working class in the US has been some bastardized form of Social Democracy that has benefited industry the most and people the least. From Financial Aid for College to Welfare to now this, it's always served as a leeway for private business to gain the upper hand on any social democratic reform.

[Across The Street]

Obama has backed down on nearly everything he said he would reform in his campaign. Nothing but disappointment here.

agustin: "Theoretically, you could have universal coverage in a completely private system"

^one of the main reasons this bill should be opposed

[Red Commissar]

If the public option is stil available that I suppose it would be OK. But I doubt they're going to keep it on.

Public option was cut out awhile a go. At the moment this bill is only going to "regulate" the private insurers, probably through some form of subsidization. Ultimately though it's still in the hands of private businesses. I would say this is somewhat similar to what we have in Japan.

The last attempt at trying to get a single-payer system in was when Bernie Sanders tried to write a proposal for one in during the debate in the Senate. The Republicans read the entirety of his proposal to filibuster and avoid a vote, and the Dems tossed it out to try and get over that.

Kucinich's choice back the bill is mainly him acting out of pragmaticism. Like Abe said he is a Democrat after all and he's worried about the prospect of no bill passing and them getting beat by the Republicans come November as a result.

[Wolf Larson]

The reality is none of us should support this bill, in fact, it goes against EVERYTHING we [should]stand for. Obama has said many times the reason they wrote this bill [they being the insurance/pharma corporations in collusion with government] was to take the so called burden of paying for healthcare off of the government in so reducing the deficit. Obama plans to cut over 600 billion from Medicare/Medicaid while forcing everyone to buy private insurance and they are saying this will save the government trillions over the next 15 years while making trillions for the private sector. At who's expense? Ours- the working class. Too many people n the left have apologized for this bill which stands in stark contrast to what we stand for.

Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Reid and Al From formulated the framework for this legislation years ago with the insurance corporations to provide so called universal heath care. It's nothing but universal robbery. Mitt Romney did the same in Massachusetts. This in no way will lead to a single payer system. The lawyers and legal annalists working for the health care industry who helped write this bill are NOT going t write legislation that will put the insurance/pharma companies out of business. Essentially two entities stand to gain most. The federal government saves money by privatizing health care and the insurance/pharma companies make trillions by having captive customers. Al this bill amounts to is a structural adjustment and anyone in our political community who supports this bill or is quiet about it's passing is doing our movement a great disservice. Don't be so naive and or sycophantic. Obama is a fraud. This is no incremental pathway to single payer. This is a structural adjustment meant to save the government from the burden of paying for health care and meant to save employers from the burden of paying for workers health care all while placing the financial burden on workers. We should be in the streets opposing this but the FOX news hyperbolic partisan game has churned out a bunch of confused people on the right in so making the left want to stay loyal to Obama/democrats. This is just another area where we on the left drop the ball and apologize for capitalists using the state to privatize profit and socialize cost. We need to fully separate ourselves from the Democrat/Republican tomfoolery. This bill is nothing but a structural adjustment.

[Wolf Larson]

The bill is a major letdown, but I understand part of Kucinichs feelings I think.

If some form of this bill does not pass, then Obama will ahve suffered a major defeat, which will hinder the democrats in other plans they have but were put on the wayside due to healthcare.

Increasing unemployment benefits, infrastructure jobs, increasing welfare, raising taxes on the wealthy, social security reform, medicare reform, all these things are goals the progressive caucus of democrats want to achieve (of which Kucinich is a member), but may never come about if Obama is dealt a blow like this now.

The democrats haven't made any bold moves, but a GOP controlled house is a shitty (rather, shittier) proposition for any working, or out of work, person in this country.

This is the blase' attitude that makes us irrelevant. We should be organized in the streets fighting to kill this bill. Who cares about Obama's credibility. Fuck his credibility. He's a fraud, a Keynesian corporate capitalist. Too many of us either don't understand whats going on, apologize for democrat corporate/capitalist policies or simply don't actually believe in socialist principles. Democrats don't matter. Obama's reputation or presidency doesn't matter to us. Don't you understand what this bill is? Too many people on the left actually believe the Glen Beck nonsense and think this bill is a transitional step to single payer. It's not. It's the privatization of health care. Are you a socialist? Do you know what privatization is? Universal health care, to Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Reid and the rest of the DLC slime, means everyone is forced to buy private insurance. Kucinich was threatened by Rahm Emanuel the same way Rahm threatened liberal democrats to vote for the Iraq war in 2004. By getting Kucinich's vote now all of the latte liberal sycophants are going to support the bill.

Look at what happened when Rahm Emanuel rigged a pro Iraq war congress: http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10242006.html ^ Do you understand ^ They're rigging a pro corporate capitalist health bill/the privatization of health care and we're next to silent about it- why? Honestly? Because Obama is the first black president. I can think of no other reason why we've let him single handedly marginalize the overall anti war movement, the anti globalization movement, the anti corporate movement....every last bit of momentum we had going while Bush was in has dissipated because of the sycophantic support for Obama and his capitalist state/administration who in reality are NO DIFFERENT THAN THE BUSH REGIME.

Liberal Democrats in the house are being threatened by the corporate Democratic Leadership Council while their constituents [which unfortunately include some of us] are being party line sycophants. The legislators are being told to vote for the bill or the DLC will fund the campaigns of new corporate DLC democrats just like they did to get the vote for the Iraq war in 2004 well after we all knew the war was bullshit. The bill will in fact tax union workers health benefits- they simply put the tax off for a few years. The bill will in fact take the financial burden off of employers [capitalists] and the [their] government while putting it squarely on workers shoulders. Obama has said over and over and over his main reason for doing this is to save the government from bankruptcy. To cut medicare/medicaid. This is the privatization of heathcare. It's happening with our higher education, health care, the losses on Wall St. Everything is being put on workers shoulders and WE are being passive about whats going on. We're going through a structural adjustment and the left cant even see it out of some lame loyalty to Obama and confusion born out of the hyperbolic MsM partisan game. Why would communists/socialist/anarchists be passive in the face of the privatization of healthcare? Why are we being passive? Can anyone tell me? I already know it's because too many of us are apologists for Obama/democrats. There are too many so called revolutionaries who are in reality liberals. This is why we're impotent. Too much apologetic collusion with liberal capitalists. I'm going to be furious if this bill passes and I'm going to blame it on the idiotic ignorant and sycophantic left. We should be in the streets right now. This is pathetic. We are pathetic. Impotent. Lacking true principles. The MsM propaganda story line even perverts communists/socialists/anarchists perception of reality. This is the biggest move towards privatization we've seen in our lifetime.

[Crusade]

I can't wait to be forced to buy health insurance from a private company. It's like taxes except it's being used to make a heartless corporation wealthy instead of democratically elected government's institution for the common good. Good stuff. :thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

So what is the final proposal that Obama and Co. cooked up? Has the public option totally been eliminated? I thought there was a rally the other day in favor of its revival in the final proposal.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Untill people accept the fact that every single one in DC are bought and paid for political prostitutes, no matter what party is in office, demo's, greens, libertarian etc, capitalism doesn't work. you can't reform it, it is a system that doesn't value human rights. your value is based on how much cash you have in your pocket. if you have no cash, you have no value. no money, no food. no money, no utilities. no money, no shelter. no money, no health care. you pay to live.

[RadioRaheem84]

your value is based on how much cash you have in your pocket

What I don't understand is that when we say that this is the current situation in which we live, capitalists and conservatives deny it!

But when Rush Limbaugh says "that there are no real rights except what you gain in the marketplace", then it's the truth.

[anticap]

I can't wait to be forced to buy health insurance from a private company. It's like taxes except it's being used to make a heartless corporation wealthy instead of democratically elected government's institution for the common good. Good stuff. :thumbup1:

I hear ya. I believe this will mark the first time that it becomes impossible to (legally) earn a living without participating in (and thus being complicit in the perpetuation of) the capitalist system. Currently it can be done, albeit with great inconvenience. Obama, the alleged "progressive" (which, if it means anything, must at least mean an advocate of the eventual replacement of capitalism with something better, even if one is too timid to call it "socialism"), will slam the door on that. Rather than cry, I choose to smile wryly. :glare:

P.S. The U$ is in no way democratic.

[anticap]

your value is based on how much cash you have in your pocket
What I don't understand is that when we say that this is the current situation in which we live, capitalists and conservatives deny it!

In my experience they're more likely to agree completely and wonder why anyone would consider it a bad thing. After all, according to their worldview, the number of exchangeable tokens you possess is directly proportional to your benefit to society (those who deny the existence of "society" will of course use some other word to mean the same thing). It stands to reason, therefore, that those with more tokens are entitled to the accompanying benefits; and, perhaps more importantly, those without access to those benefits are themselves of no benefit (clearly). Thus, tokens become the means by which we are to measure a person (rich implies good; poor implies bad).

[Revy]

No, do not support the public obfuscation. The reality is this is all a joke. It's a scam so that we believe they're doing something for all of us instead of twiddling their thumbs. I don't even remember hearing the phrase "public option" before Obama. Back then what was on everyone's lips that was progressive was universal healthcare. Progressives took the bait.

[Communist]

No, do not support the public obfuscation. The reality is this is all a joke. It's a scam so that we believe they're doing something for all of us instead of twiddling their thumbs

Couldn't have said it better.
That's really the truth of it, summed up in three quick sentences.
What is this crap. And some people still, STILL think there's a glimmer of working-class hope for this administration?? Better than Bush, someone said. Better than Clinton too? How's about...Reagan, Polk, Carter? Still better! Please. It's way past that hour.

.

[Communist]

.
Health Care is a Civil Right (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion/32-war/1265-health-care-is-a-civil-right)

by Dennis Kucinich
March 17, 2010

Each generation has had to take up the question of how to
provide for the health of the people of our nation. And each
generation has grappled with difficult questions of how to
meet the needs of our people. I believe health care is a
civil right. Each time as a nation we have reached to expand
our basic rights, we have witnessed a slow and painful
unfolding of a democratic pageant of striving, of
resistance, of breakthroughs, of opposition, of unrelenting
efforts and of eventual triumph.

I have spent my life struggling for the rights of working
class people and for health care. I grew up understanding
firsthand what it meant for families who did not get access
to needed care. I lived in 21 different places by the time I
was 17, including in a couple of cars. I understand the
connection between poverty and poor health care, the deeper
meaning of what Native Americans have called "hole in the
body, hole in the spirit." I struggled with Crohn's disease
much of my adult life, to discover sixteen years ago a near-
cure in alternative medicine and following a plant-based
diet. I have learned with difficulty the benefits of taking
charge personally of my own health care. On those few
occasions when I have needed it, I have had access to the
best allopathic practitioners. As a result I have received
the blessings of vitality and high energy. Health and health
care is personal for each one of us. As a former surgical
technician I know that there are many people who dedicate
their lives to helping others improve theirs. I also know
their struggles with an insufficient health care system.

There are some who believe that health care is a privilege
based on ability to pay. This is the model President Obama
is dealing with, attempting to open up health care to
another 30 million people, within the context of the for-
profit insurance system. There are others who believe that
health care is a basic right and ought to be provided
through a not-for-profit plan. This is what I have
tirelessly advocated.

I have carried the banner of national health care in two
presidential campaigns, in party platform meetings, and as
co-author of HR676, Medicare for All. I have worked to
expand the health care debate beyond the current for-profit
system, to include a public option and an amendment to free
the states to pursue single payer. The first version of the
health care bill, while badly flawed, contained provisions
which I believed made the bill worth supporting in
committee. The provisions were taken out of the bill after
it passed committee.

I joined with the Progressive Caucus saying that I would not
support the bill unless it had a strong public option and
unless it protected the right of people to pursue single
payer at a state level. It did not. I kept my pledge and
voted against the bill. I have continued to oppose it while
trying to get the provisions back into the bill. Some have
speculated I may be in a position of casting the deciding
vote. The President's visit to my district on Monday
underscored the urgency of this moment.

I have taken this fight farther than many in Congress cared
to carry it because I know what my constituents experience
on a daily basis. Come to my district in Cleveland and you
will understand.

The people of Ohio's 10th district have been hard hit by an
economy where wealth has accelerated upwards through plant
closings, massive unemployment, small business failings,
lack of access to credit, foreclosures and the high cost of
health care and limited access to care. I take my
responsibilities to the people of my district personally.
The focus of my district office is constituent service,
which more often than not involves social work to help
people survive economic perils. It also involves intervening
with insurance companies.

In the past week it has become clear that the vote on the
final health care bill will be very close. I take this vote
with the utmost seriousness. I am quite aware of the
historic fight that has lasted the better part of the last
century to bring America in line with other modern
democracies in providing single payer health care. I have
seen the political pressure and the financial pressure being
asserted to prevent a minimal recognition of this right,
even within the context of a system dominated by private
insurance companies.

I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would
like to see it, but the bill as it is. My criticisms of the
legislation have been well reported. I do not retract them.
I incorporate them in this statement. They still stand as
legitimate and cautionary. I still have doubts about the
bill. I do not think it is a first step toward anything I
have supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to
support, even as I continue efforts until the last minute to
modify the bill.

However after careful discussions with the President Obama,
Speaker Pelosi, Elizabeth my wife and close friends, I have
decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. If my
vote is to be counted, let it now count for passage of the
bill, hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health
care reform. We must include coverage for those excluded
from this bill. We must free the states. We must have
control over private insurance companies and the cost their
very existence imposes on American families. We must strive
to provide a significant place for alternative and
complementary medicine, religious health science practice,
and the personal responsibility aspects of health care which
include diet, nutrition, and exercise.

The health care debate has been severely hampered by fear,
myths, and by hyper-partisanship. The President clearly does
not advocate socialism or a government takeover of health
care. The fear that this legislation has engendered has deep
roots, not in foreign ideology but in a lack of confidence,
a timidity, mistrust and fear which post 911 America has
been unable to shake.

This fear has so infected our politics, our economics and
our international relations that as a nation we are losing
sight of the expanded vision, the electrifying potential we
caught a glimpse of with the election of Barack Obama. The
transformational potential of his presidency, and of
ourselves, can still be courageously summoned in ways that
will reconnect America to our hopes for expanded
opportunities for jobs, housing, education, peace, and yes,
health care.

I want to thank those who have supported me personally and
politically as I have struggled with this decision. I ask
for your continued support in our ongoing efforts to bring
about meaningful change. As this bill passes I will renew my
efforts to help those state organizations which are aimed at
stirring a single payer movement which eliminates the
predatory role of private insurers who make money not
providing health care. I have taken a detour through
supporting this bill, but I know the destination I will
continue to lead, for as long as it takes, whatever it takes
to an America where health care will be firmly established
as a civil right.

Thank you.
Dennis

Dennis Kucinich

Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee
PO Box 110475
Cleveland, OH 44111
216-252-9000


.

[Physicist]

The bill is a major letdown, but I understand part of Kucinichs feelings I think.

If some form of this bill does not pass, then Obama will ahve suffered a major defeat, which will hinder the democrats in other plans they have but were put on the wayside due to healthcare.

Increasing unemployment benefits, infrastructure jobs, increasing welfare, raising taxes on the wealthy, social security reform, medicare reform, all these things are goals the progressive caucus of democrats want to achieve (of which Kucinich is a member), but may never come about if Obama is dealt a blow like this now.

The democrats haven't made any bold moves, but a GOP controlled house is a shitty (rather, shittier) proposition for any working, or out of work, person in this country.

Perhaps you're right about his motives, but a bill that will force people to buy private insurance is utterly ridiculous and especially in the US may well be unenforceable.

[Sendo]

I cn understand Kucinich's strategy, and I know it must be beyond stressful to him and no matter which way he goes he puts his career on the line, possibly his life.

I trust him, though. I know it sounds strange, but I diligently follow his statements, and I do trust his judgment here. What's done is done, and neither a "yes" or "no" vote can say what this statement (above) says.

I just hope he knows what he's doing and he can get further legislation down the road. Like once all this passes and everyone moans about the high costs, he can pitch a simple public option.

Maybe I sound like a cynical liberal, but perhaps trying to stick public option in a bundle is impossible. But I support the fight 100% even if it fails. This all speaks to how undemocratic the USA is. I'm all for states' autonomy, but national policy should be determined by the nation, and state policy by state.

The Republicans have insanely disproportionate power in Congress. Unlike liberals, I'm not thinking of "feasability" as an abstract, nor out of a lack of faith in the masses, but out of despair with the federal government.

So really what we have is small states fucking up national policy while the nation keeps states too bankrupt to do anything themselves. Wonderful.

I'd like to see the so-called progressive states flex their muscles and have a public option buy-in. It won't cost a damn thing. Just give me a NY buy-in plan with flat rates, whatever, just make it not-for-profit.

Competition is bad for bureaucracy. ALL insurance is bureaucratic. Might as well have not-for-profit bureaucracy. Do we want to have competition in electricity? I don't care who gives me electricity, just make it cheap.

[Communist]

.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/reid-promises-separate-pu_n_506272.html)Reid Promises Separate Public
Option Vote in Next Few Months (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/reid-promises-separate-pu_n_506272.html)

by Sam Stein
03-19-10

Hoping to assuage progressive Democrats who remain
disappointed with the content of the health care reform
bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
committed on Friday to holding a separate vote on a
public option in the coming months.

In a letter to two of his more progressive colleagues
in the Senate -- Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Bernie
Sanders of Vermont -- the Nevada Democrat implicitly
apologized for his inability to get a government-run
insurance plan into the final piece of health care
legislation and promised to keep working to get the
policy into law.

As you know, I am a strong supporter of a public
option, and I included the HELP Committee's public
option in the bill I brought to the senate floor last
year. I was disappointed when it became clear that we
did not have the votes to keep it.

Nevertheless, like you, I remain committed to pursuing
the public option. While I believe that the legislation
we are considering does much to provide affordable
coverage to millions of Americans and curb insurance
company abuses, I also believe that the public option
would provide additional competition to make insurance
even more affordable. As we have discussed, I will work
to ensure that we are able to vote on the public option
in the coming months.

The letter is a clear sign that Reid's commitment to
the public option throughout the health care debate has
been as much personal as political. The Nevada
Democrat, on several occasions, tried to corral the 60
votes needed to pass variations of the public plan --
but to no avail. His willingness to give the policy a
separate hearing appears to be a thank you of sorts to
the caucus's more progressive members for not jumping
ship.

UPDATE: It also achieved a practical objective for the
Majority Leader. Later on Friday, Sen. Bernie Sander's
announced that he would drop his efforts to include a
public option as a amendment to the health care
reconciliation package -- forgoing a potentially tricky
vote for the party.

"Given the very delicate situation at this time and the
challenge facing Speaker Pelosi as she rounds up votes,
Bernie and other senators have concluded that offering
a public option amendment now could undermine the
entire process," said Sanders spokesman Will Wiquist.

The search now is for a vehicle outside health care
reform to get a public plan into law. The same
institutional hurdles that killed the provision in the
previous go-rounds -- mainly that there aren't 60
supportive senators to break a filibuster -- remain.
But aides on the Hill are already looking to future
reconciliation vehicles to which they can attach the
public plan, which would, in turn, allow for it to pass
via an up-or-down vote.

.

[anticap]

I'm sure progressives will forgive Kucinich now that he has humbled himself (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/18/dennis_kucinich_and_ralph_nader_a) before Ralph Nader on Democracy Now!. :lol:

[Red Commissar]

So what is the final proposal that Obama and Co. cooked up? Has the public option totally been eliminated? I thought there was a rally the other day in favor of its revival in the final proposal.

As it stands, it only seeks to "regulate" the industry and to bring costs under control. In the end though it'll still be a private industry.

When this mess began almost a year ago, there was a move to try and get a public option in that would "compete" with private companies. This is what got the right-wing pundits and tea baggers riled up, because they accused this of being an attempted takeover of the private industry by using a public one to muscle the other ones out. Obama and Co. got on the defensive and said this won't be a nationalized healthcare system, that they were providing an option for people who could not other wise afford a private policy, etc. There were self-styled "fiscal conservative" blue-dog Democrats trying to act like they gave a damn about budgetary concerns... yet not the same about when they continuously voted for defense spending.

The Democratic leadership eventually they caved into this right-wing surge and removed the public option. Obama assured people this wouldn't be like Europe in one speech.

When the bill was going through the Senate they had removed it all-together. There were senators like Bernie Sanders (He's an independent from Vermont. He describes himself as "socialist" but lauds the Scandinavian system, so he's more of a social democrat) who had proposals for a single-payer system. The Republicans used said proposals to filibuster like I mentioned earlier.

There are still holdouts in the Dem. Party like Kuchinich was, but the Democratic leadership is desperate to get their bill passed at the moment because for party concerns, they're worried being defeated here would set them up for problems in November.

You can see from CommunistUSA's article above mine with Reid trying to placate progressives in the Democratic party that they'll get a public option eventually, because there are plenty of people who wanted it (The SEIU has held rallies in favor of it), but were drowned out by the media clout of the tea baggers.

If I can remember, a term that Obama was throwing around a lot was something about an "Insurance Exchange", which tells enough of what it'll be. They're just going to try and "regulate" the system.

[Wolf Larson]

.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/reid-promises-separate-pu_n_506272.html)reid promises separate public
option vote in next few months (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/reid-promises-separate-pu_n_506272.html)

by sam stein
03-19-10

hoping to assuage progressive democrats who remain
disappointed with the content of the health care reform
bill, senate majority leader harry reid (d-nev.)
committed on friday to holding a separate vote on a
public option in the coming months.

In a letter to two of his more progressive colleagues
in the senate -- jeff merkley of oregon and bernie
sanders of vermont -- the nevada democrat implicitly
apologized for his inability to get a government-run
insurance plan into the final piece of health care
legislation and promised to keep working to get the
policy into law.

As you know, i am a strong supporter of a public
option, and i included the help committee's public
option in the bill i brought to the senate floor last
year. I was disappointed when it became clear that we
did not have the votes to keep it.

Nevertheless, like you, i remain committed to pursuing
the public option. While i believe that the legislation
we are considering does much to provide affordable
coverage to millions of americans and curb insurance
company abuses, i also believe that the public option
would provide additional competition to make insurance
even more affordable. As we have discussed, i will work
to ensure that we are able to vote on the public option
in the coming months.

The letter is a clear sign that reid's commitment to
the public option throughout the health care debate has
been as much personal as political. The nevada
democrat, on several occasions, tried to corral the 60
votes needed to pass variations of the public plan --
but to no avail. His willingness to give the policy a
separate hearing appears to be a thank you of sorts to
the caucus's more progressive members for not jumping
ship.

Update: It also achieved a practical objective for the
majority leader. Later on friday, sen. Bernie sander's
announced that he would drop his efforts to include a
public option as a amendment to the health care
reconciliation package -- forgoing a potentially tricky
vote for the party.

"given the very delicate situation at this time and the
challenge facing speaker pelosi as she rounds up votes,
bernie and other senators have concluded that offering
a public option amendment now could undermine the
entire process," said sanders spokesman will wiquist.

The search now is for a vehicle outside health care
reform to get a public plan into law. The same
institutional hurdles that killed the provision in the
previous go-rounds -- mainly that there aren't 60
supportive senators to break a filibuster -- remain.
But aides on the hill are already looking to future
reconciliation vehicles to which they can attach the
public plan, which would, in turn, allow for it to pass
via an up-or-down vote.

.

^ bullshit ^ ;)

[Wolf Larson]

As it stands, it only seeks to "regulate" the industry and to bring costs under control. In the end though it'll still be a private industry.

When this mess began almost a year ago, there was a move to try and get a public option in that would "compete" with private companies. This is what got the right-wing pundits and tea baggers riled up, because they accused this of being an attempted takeover of the private industry by using a public one to muscle the other ones out. Obama and Co. got on the defensive and said this won't be a nationalized healthcare system, that they were providing an option for people who could not other wise afford a private policy, etc. There were self-styled "fiscal conservative" blue-dog Democrats trying to act like they gave a damn about budgetary concerns... yet not the same about when they continuously voted for defense spending.

The Democratic leadership eventually they caved into this right-wing surge and removed the public option. Obama assured people this wouldn't be like Europe in one speech.

When the bill was going through the Senate they had removed it all-together. There were senators like Bernie Sanders (He's an independent from Vermont. He describes himself as "socialist" but lauds the Scandinavian system, so he's more of a social democrat) who had proposals for a single-payer system. The Republicans used said proposals to filibuster like I mentioned earlier.

There are still holdouts in the Dem. Party like Kuchinich was, but the Democratic leadership is desperate to get their bill passed at the moment because for party concerns, they're worried being defeated here would set them up for problems in November.

You can see from CommunistUSA's article above mine with Reid trying to placate progressives in the Democratic party that they'll get a public option eventually, because there are plenty of people who wanted it (The SEIU has held rallies in favor of it), but were drowned out by the media clout of the tea baggers.

If I can remember, a term that Obama was throwing around a lot was something about an "Insurance Exchange", which tells enough of what it'll be. They're just going to try and "regulate" the system.

No. Obama NEVER intended to push for single payer and NEVER intended to push for a public option. No no and no. You should read Obama's chief of staff's book entitled The Plan; Big Ideas For America written in 2006. When I have time I'll explain, with sources and admittedly a small amount of conjecture, what Obama has always intended to do.

Who controls Obama?

http://www.dlc.org/

Who controls the DLC?

It started years before Obama took the presidency:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html http://www.blackcommentator.com/45/45_dixon.html This was back in the early 2000's when he was running for not state but federal legislature. The "Black Contaminator" caught him in his bullshit act and called him on it. Obama is nothing but a spokesman for the DLC. That's the only reason he was able to rise to power. He's an empty shell and for any one of us to hold back out of some lame loyalty to this man is absurd. If he were a black conservative would you? No. Well guess what, he's a black conservative. It's great that our lame ass broken excuse for a democracy put a man of color in power but it's my suspicion it happened to accomplish exactly what happened. To silence the left. To placate the left with a false prophet. A pied piper to lull us back to sleep after the 8 years of Bush which set the stage for revolutionary conditions. Obama was/is a Trojan horse. Will the lesson be learned? Will we be fooled into silence again in the future? Probably.

[Wolf Larson]

What I really want to know, and what confirms by paranoia surrounding the socialist left being completely in bed with liberals is this simple question. Why did we not organize en mass against this corporate capitalist mandate coercing us to participate in capitalism? Why? I think it's beyond pathetic that we just sat by and watched this manifest. Project censored has a couple interesting points: http://dailycensored.com/2010/03/19/do-you-want-to-stop-the-health-insurance-mandate/

[Comrade B]

The bill isn't really creating anything worse... but I have a bit of fear that it will kill a lot of hopes for real health care reform

[Wolf Larson]

The bill isn't really creating anything worse... but I have a bit of fear that it will kill a lot of hopes for real health care reform

How the hell do you figure the bill isn't creating anything worse?!#*!

[Red Commissar]

No. Obama NEVER intended to push for single payer and NEVER intended to push for a public option. No no and no. You should read Obama's chief of staff's book entitled The Plan; Big Ideas For America written in 2006. When I have time I'll explain, with sources and admittedly a small amount of conjecture, what Obama has always intended to do.

I think it is redundant to do that, Obama by nature of being a Democrat is already a capitalist.

However in the earliest form of the bill they had a public option provision. I didn't say he was pushing for a single-payer system. He never was at any point. The only time I've mentioned the single-payer initiative was referring to more progressive politicians like Sanders who wanted to see a true single-payer system instead of Obama's idea of having a public insurer competing with private ones. Before the bill began to change in the fall at least.

The main problem I see with the bad condition of this bill is that an American might still attribute it to being "socialist".

[Comrade B]

How the hell do you figure the bill isn't creating anything worse?!#*!
Most people prefer to be poor over being dead. I am already forced to buy into capitalism to get food, to get power, water, housing, clothes. We live in a capitalist country, we can at least force the capitalists to give us the services they try to cheat us out of.

[The Douche]

Most people prefer to be poor over being dead. I am already forced to buy into capitalism to get food, to get power, water, housing, clothes. We live in a capitalist country, we can at least force the capitalists to give us the services they try to cheat us out of.

We're not forcing the capitalists to do anything, the state is forcing us to give money to the capitalists.

[Red Commissar]

Most people prefer to be poor over being dead. I am already forced to buy into capitalism to get food, to get power, water, housing, clothes. We live in a capitalist country, we can at least force the capitalists to give us the services they try to cheat us out of.

But who is benefiting in the end?

At this stage in the process it's like the provision many states have that require people to have auto insurance in order to get a driver's licence.

This bill may have been remotely good if it still had a public option for the poor to get into, but the present form of the bill only stipulates that they will regulate insurance costs, but I'm not sure what good that will do.

And when the ugly matters of this bill go into play, what will tea baggers blame it on? Socialism. This is really all playing in their favor. Not only will capitalists benefit from this, they can pass the blame off to socialists...

[Wolf Larson]

I think it is redundant to do that, Obama by nature of being a Democrat is already a capitalist.

However in the earliest form of the bill they had a public option provision. I didn't say he was pushing for a single-payer system. He never was at any point. The only time I've mentioned the single-payer initiative was referring to more progressive politicians like Sanders who wanted to see a true single-payer system instead of Obama's idea of having a public insurer competing with private ones. Before the bill began to change in the fall at least.

The main problem I see with the bad condition of this bill is that an American might still attribute it to being "socialist".
Exactly. Capitalists have used their state to pass a right wing corporate bill and have blamed it on the left wing so now the backlash will bring the political spectrum further to the right. They know what they're doing. Don't for one minute think they haven't employed psychology to manipulate the crowd via subversive propaganda. It started back with Gustave Le Bon or Edward Bernays melding him with his uncle Freud and I'm sure they've left Bernays/Freud behind for a more modern approach at crowd/social control. Both the left and right have fallen for propaganda. I'm very disappointed that the left fell for this or has been passive. We need to get MSNBC off the air, not just FOX news. I watched the propaganda manifest over the last few months as one liberal talking head would whisper a meaningless criticism of the bill and in the next sentence rip right wing opposition to the bill apart and say the bill needs to be passed. I think liberals are more dangerous than conservatives. The liberal talking heads manufacture more consent for our system than any Glen Beck propagandist. In fact, they're both part of the same disinformation structure.

[CartCollector]

The main problem I see with the bad condition of this bill is that an American might still attribute it to being "socialist".
Any time the US government spends or gives one cent to anyone it's "socialist." Except for when it's punishing or killing people. Then "big government" is just wonderful.