Kucinich says "yea," Jane Hamsher still screaming "nay."
So, health care reform seems a little closer to passage now, thanks in part to the switch to yes by liberal Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (as ably reported by Heather Michon). Kucinich said today:
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.
For this, we must thank... not progressives?
I remain baffled by the Kill the Bill campaign being spearheaded by FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher. Ezra Klein ably took down her 10 reasons to kill it back in December, but that kind of logic doesn't really seem to work on FDL. Instead, Hamsher is angry with Dennis Kucinch for reversing his position on the health care bill. I'd like to hear her, or anyone from FireDogLake, explain how passing the current bill is unfair to the 8,400 people in Kucinich's district that will be extended coverage despite pre-existing conditions, or to the 30,500 people who currently don't have health care but will be eligible for it. Maybe she could also explain the unfairness to the 163,000 families and 14,000 small businesses who will receive government assistance to pay for health care.
Or, you know, she could focus on making people afraid of government health care. That seems excellent and progressive. Congrats, you have Patrick Ruffini on your side.
I was reminded today that FDL was behind a poll that probably pushed Arkansas's Vic Snyder into retirement by showing that voting for health care would make him more likely to lose. The poll asked questions that made it sound like everyone will end up paying money out of pocket for health insurance or be fined at least 2 percent of their income if they don't participate.
That's push polling, and it's also misleading. Yes, if you don't get health insurance, you might have to pay up to 2.5 percent of your income as a penalty -- however, the bill promises hardship and religious waivers, and it's going to offer government subsidies for those making three times the national poverty guideline.
Vic Snyder has probably been a mismatch in his Arkansas district for a while, having voting against the Iraq war and the Federal Marriage Amendment. He recently pushed for the Treasury Department to "give banks more authority to restructure existing loans for farmers." You don't get much more progressive than fighting for farm reform.
Yet Snyder's potential yes-vote on Health Care made him an enemy of FireDogLake. Clearly, this was someone that needed to be encouraged to retire, not someone who should have earned the respect and support of liberals and perhaps some pledges to his campaign.
Or he could retire, handing his seat to a scandal-plagued Republican. That sounds good for the country.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
I don't.
I'm saddened that he gave in. But I don't blame him for not wanting to be the posterboy of killing healthcare.
My out-of-pocket costs for meds alone is in the neighborhood of $130,000 per year. If an insurance company refuses to insure me based on my pre-existing condition then they pay a fine of $100 per day in accordance with the new bill. That equates to roughly $36,000 per year in fines which saves them almost $100,000 by refusing me coverage. Their plus column would tally even higher with every hospital stay I experience.
What does this bill do about rescission, one of the most lucrative practices of the insurance sector? And the attempts to tie this in with Medicaid don't mean a lot when greater numbers of health practitioners are refusing Medicaid patients.
I'm just very, very skeptical of this and Kucinich's about face seems directed more at keeping a Republican from the White House in 2012 than most anything else. Ironically, Romney looks to be the Repub shaping up best for that run right now and he brought a similar version of this healthcare plan to Massachusetts during governorship.
Romney... I think he's run pretty far away from that position since then, hasn't he? Republicans even deny that Masscare is anything like this bill, hoping to shield him.
While I hold out little hope for this bill reducing costs, and while it will surely INCREASE profits for health insurers, and while it is fraught with danger because if it fails to achieve most of its promises, which sad to say is likely, it will end as far as I can see into the future any chance of real reform -- despite all that, I can only ask Jane. FDL and unlikely ally the FCR (Frozen Chosen Republicans) what's the alternative? The status quo? The status quo is a delusion of so-called conservative who do not understand the simplest facts of life -- one of them being, nothing remains the same.
Without reform things WILL change, and not for the better. So unwelcome as this change may be -- and for me it certainly is unwelcome -- it is by far the lesser of evils. And that is the same sad conclusion Kucinich came to -- the same conclusion any thoughtful person must reluctantly come to.
To Jane and her kind I can only say, et tu?
I take it you ride the bus, then? E-freakin-nuff already with this "unconstitutional" business every time people don't like something.
I take it you ride the bus, then? E-freakin-nuff already with this "unconstitutional" business every time people don't like something.
RickyB
March 17, 2010 05:54
Maybe you should try reading the Constitution. Then come back and explain it all to us.
The car insurance rebuttal is the most lame thing I've ever heard.
You are not required to buy car insurance. You are not even, in most states, required to buy car insurance to drive a car. In a lot of states you can prove that you have the financial means to cover costs in the event of an wreck. You can post cash, you can buy a bond, you can put up your Soros size financial statement. However, most people just buy insurance or they don't drive. I don't have car insurance.
On the other hand, if you draw a breath, you have to buy health insurance. No way around it unless you have religious beliefs against it. Wait, didn't they just put a child's parent's in jail because he died because they prayed for him instead of taking him to the doctor? Let's think about that one.
Your car insurance/health insurance comparison holds as much water as a colander.
But sure, the car insurance comparison has some holes. I still say amen to RickyB's comment that there's been enough of the unconstitutional argument. Health Care Reform isn't unconstitutional anymore than Medicare is.
This bill does nothing to reform the monopoly insurance companies, the out billions of surplus the non-profit hospitals are making (4.3 billion last year) and the over charging of non insured patients.
My wife and I take care of ourselves and pay for our medical out of pocket which comes to less than 3,000 per year. If I am forced to pay 18,000 plus the out of pocket that means money for retirement will be gone. For what so the insurance companies and hospitals can reap billions more from the tax payer.
Being self employed already means I pay about 15% for SS, add the forced insurance cost and I will officially be working for the government because they will take the majority of my earnings.
This bill is a step forward like the war in Iraq is a step forward for world peace.
For the 85 percent of the country already covered by health-care insurance, it doesn't force "you" to do anything at all. People on Medicare are not going to be paying money to private insurance. People with employer-based care will not see their situation change.
For the nearly 50 million Americans caught in the ranks of the uninsured, here's the deal: The bill expands Medicaid, a public program, to cover about 20 million of, uh, "you." Private insurance gets nothing. If you make more than 133 percent of the poverty line, but less than 400 percent, there's a huge system of new subsidies to help you afford private coverage. There are also new regulations on insurers forcing them to spend between 80 percent and 85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care, barring them from rejecting you or charging you higher premiums due to preexisting conditions, ensuring they can't place any annual caps on insurance benefits, and more.
I can't see how this would be worse than having to pay out of pocket in case of a catastrophe.
Thank you for the effort.
rated. favorited.
Or maybe since I will be forced to pay 9.5 percent of my income to a corrupt insurance and hospital industry with little or no benefit I will screw the low fat diet and exercise and hope to have a major medical bill just to fuck them.
Of course the idea of actual reforming the insurance industry or the hospital industry is out of the question because they already have their deals with the Government, just like the military contractors, banks and oil companies.
Think about it if the AMA, hospital association, and insurance companies support this bill do you really think it has the best interest of the average American at heart?
Sadly, the bill will not be fixed, which means that a very different type of fix is in.
This bill...
• Institutionalizes the de facto overthrow of Roe v. Wade via prohibitions on use of healthcare insurance for elective abortions.
• Does nothing to cut healthcare costs, and so will provide a handy target for Republicans playing on people's fears about budget deficits while we wait four years for the positive aspect to cut in.
• Permits the insurance companies to raise premiums to make up for virtually any reason they can concoct and pass muster before what will inevitably become a captive federal overseer.
• Kills any chance for fundamental, serious reform because the healthcare industries, obeying the Supreme Court's new dictate on corporate political giving, from now on will be able to elect a Congress totally to their liking -- which Congress will bend the new law so that it is useless.
• Will be seen as the swan song of the Democratic Party in Congress and probably the Presidency.
The ragging on Jane Hamsher is entirely too nasty, kind of giddy and kind of cruel.
Let's face it, what this article and the comments that follow it demonstrate is that sellouts on the healthcare issue, having won through realpolitik, and Democrats who never exercised a muscle for healthcare reform (though they yammered a lot) now want to demean those who would call them out for their weakness. That's real calumny. No wonder the Party is in tatters.
I'm so curious about both Kucinich and Howard Dean - who were exhorting against this bill - and who are now both "for" it.
And yes, we've lost a statesman of integrity in Vic Snyder. Anybody with ability is running away from D.C.
I understand that due to Private American Interests there won´t be anything like all Europeans enjoy but that´s beside the point.... The point is that thousands of uneligible for one reason or another people now get insurance... and I wish them luck with the favor....
From the GripeVine.... & Donah..//