About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Health Care Reform: It's go time.
Author: Raine    Date: 03/11/2010 13:29:43

Dennis Kucinich is a good guy and he DOES look out for people. He's a fighter. I will never take that away from him.

But here is my personal bottom line: he is voting against HCR, and when history is written, his *no* vote will not come with a disclaimer. A nay is a nay vote. This goes for any Democrat who votes against this bill, but for Mr Kucinich in particular.

Bill Clinton said the following, and I think it applies to far more than the primaries:

"Folks, go ahead and fall in love, be for somebody, but when the primaries are over, let's fall in line."


It's time for people to fall in line. This is politics, and politics is about the art of compromise. I consider myself a progressive, but that makes me part of a big bowl of other political ideologies (some good, some not so good), but it's what makes this country diverse. When he casts that vote, he will be left casting a vote no different from the Republicans.

Mr. Kucinich has stated that he will vote no because this bill has no Public Option. In November he voted no on a house bill that HAD the Public Option. He still says he will vote no even tho part of his single payer desire is IN the Senate bill:
In a meeting at the White House on Thursday, President Obama directly addressed the congressman's concerns by pointing out that the Senate bill does, in fact, include single-payer language. His reference (which Kucinich wrote down on paper) is a provision in the bill that Sen. Bernie Sander (I-VT) introduced, which would allow states to use federal money to set up a single payer system years down the road.

On Monday, Sanders told the Huffington Post that he had talked to Kucinich about the topic - albeit "a while back."

"He was coming from a slightly different angle on this," Sanders said. "But we did talk to Dennis and I've talked to [Rep.] Anthony Weiner and other" single-payer advocates.

The time to fight for a more progressive bill is about over. I myself fought hard for a progressive bill. Many of you have too. We have a glimmer of hope regarding the Public Option, but in the end, it all comes down to a yes or no vote from our representatives.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. Letting the Bill die will help no one that is not considered the upper class. Even they too will feel the economic strains of doing nothing. I mean that when I say NO ONE.
Even those families that enjoy generous insurance now are likely to see the cost of those benefits escalate. The typical price of family coverage now runs about $13,000 a year, but premiums are expected to nearly double, to $24,000, by 2020, according to the Commonwealth Fund. That equals nearly a quarter of the projected median family income in 2020.
.....
There will be a cost in lives, too. Mr. Pollack’s organization estimates that as many as 275,000 people will die prematurely over the next 10 years because they do not have insurance. Even people with insurance will find their coverage providing much less protection from financial catastrophe than it does now. Individuals will pay significantly more in deductibles and co-payments, for example. “More and more families will experience huge debts and bankruptcies,” Mr. Pollack said.

Federal and state governments will also feel the squeeze. Medicare, the federal program for the elderly, is already the subject of much hand-wringing as its spending balloons. Medicaid, a joint program of the federal government and the states, is already struggling as states try to balance budgets hit hard by the economic downturn. Many states may be forced to cut benefits sharply as well as reduce financing for community health centers and state hospitals that serve the poor.

I cannot stress this enough: Doing nothing will be worse than this bill getting passed. I wish Dennis would see that. HE, along with thousands of others, fought the good fight, but WE have to deal with the reality of things now.

So -- we need a yes vote from him. His principles are admirable, but those principles aren't going to help the many, many people who will suffer or die if we don't get health care reform passed into law.

His principles won't change the very basic fact that a majority of people are asking for the what Dennis has. While he stands on principles he should offer the things he has.

He has good health care -- too many Americans do not.

&
Raine

Bonus Click: It's not just Dennis, see if your representative is on the NO list, and call them. Today.


 

24 comments (Latest Comment: 03/12/2010 00:40:18 by Mondobubba)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 14:54:36
Oh sarah ee tu? (at 3:30 in)







Also, it seems she was a lot more coherent back then.

Comment by BobR on 03/11/2010 14:58:59
I think the Primary -vs- General election analogy is particularly apt. The commitee meetings and amendment votes are where you try to get the things into the bill you want. This final vote is like the general, where you have to go with what you've got.



A no vote on the bill is like not voting for Obama because you supported Hillary, and letting McCain win the election because your "principals" are more important than doing what's best.

Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 15:33:54
Kucinich voted against not only the public option, but also:



The Climate Change bill

Physician Payment Reform

PayGo

Obama's Budget

Consumer Protection Act

the Reprimand of Joe Wilson.









Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2010 15:38:46
Morning, folks.



I see Richard Neal (D-MA) on the undecided list. He's not mine; he represents the MA 2nd (Central/Western Mass.) Otherwise, the rest of the Reps seem to be in line in this Commonwealth.



I would have to agree with Mr. Clinton....I actually called Senator Kerry's office and asked him to vote no; I disagree with the mandate without a public option. (He didn't.) But at the end of the day, the old proverb about the greatest journey beginning with a single step may be more appropriate.



We all want a ton of things, but if this FIRST STEP doesn't get passed, it's all for naught.









Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2010 15:44:06
I've just looked up 'snorkeling'. Oh, dear....



What was Rep Massa's position on DADT, I wonder?





Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 15:58:46
Quote by TriSec:

I've just looked up 'snorkeling'. Oh, dear....



What was Rep Massa's position on DADT, I wonder?



he wants it repealed.



Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 15:59:37
Quote by TriSec:

Morning, folks.



I see Richard Neal (D-MA) on the undecided list. He's not mine; he represents the MA 2nd (Central/Western Mass.) Otherwise, the rest of the Reps seem to be in line in this Commonwealth.



I would have to agree with Mr. Clinton....I actually called Senator Kerry's office and asked him to vote no; I disagree with the mandate without a public option. (He didn't.) But at the end of the day, the old proverb about the greatest journey beginning with a single step may be more appropriate.



We all want a ton of things, but if this FIRST STEP doesn't get passed, it's all for naught.





Comment by livingonli on 03/11/2010 16:44:04
I must admit that I am still not happy with this bill either. The bad still outweighs the good and it won't be until 2014 that the ban on kicking off pre-existing conditions kicks in. Without the public option this looks more like a federal version of Mass Care forcing everyone to buy insurance with nothing to keep costs from further rising so it wil be still be up to the states to block things like the 40-75% rate increases being proposed. It feels more like we should have started from single payer with the public option as the compromise position.

Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2010 17:06:45
Well, remember Livin....this is what is killing hospitals in Massachusetts.



The Romney Care mandate didn't provide us with much of a low-cost option. So when people can't afford insurance in this state, they simply do without. In Massachusetts, it's illegal to turn away a patient in need if they present at the hospital, so the extremely sick are still being seen.



Before Romney Care, there was the free-care pool that everyone paid into. It provided some reimbursements for the uninsured. Romney did away with that, on the theory that everyone would be mandated to buy coverage, so now the hospitals simply eat the cost.





Comment by livingonli on 03/11/2010 17:21:26
I've heard that polls say a lot of people still support Mass Care, but I wonder if the fact that it lines the pockets of the insurance companies while making it more difficult for the poor and working class to find decent medical insurance might make it less popular than polls would suggest especially if they are still footing the bills for emergency care for those who can't afford insurance.

Comment by livingonli on 03/11/2010 17:23:00
Anyone hear Thom Hartmann debating Tancredo. I might listen at 3 but then again it might cause me to vomit.

Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 17:48:35
Are people aware of the subsidies regarding the mandate? if you cannot pay, you can get a hardship clause.



Then there is this:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Blog_Gruber_Senate_Bill.jpg




And this:


Public Programs in Health Insurance Reform



Chris Bowers has a useful post pointing out that even though there’s no public option per se in the health insurance reform bill, supporters of public sector health insurance and public sector health care did win important gains, including an expansion of Medicaid to cover 15 million more people than current law and massive new investments in community health centers.



And from Bowers’ longer list of ways progressive strengthened health reform legislation I would especially point to the inclusion of the rule that exchange plans maintain an 85 percent medical loss ratio. This could have been bumped even higher, but the CBO said that if it was bumped higher they would start scoring it differently. In the particular context of this bill, that was a major impediment. But I actually don’t think it’ll be a significant barrier if some future congress wants to consider a 90 or 95 percent medical loss ratio, which would in effect turn all the exchange plans into public options of a sort.
So No, the bad does not outweigh the good.



Not at all.

Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 17:51:12
Besides if it such a bad bill -- why are the Insurance fighting so damn hard?

Comment by BobR on 03/11/2010 18:35:01
Quote by livingonli:

I must admit that I am still not happy with this bill either. The bad still outweighs the good and it won't be until 2014 that the ban on kicking off pre-existing conditions kicks in. Without the public option this looks more like a federal version of Mass Care forcing everyone to buy insurance with nothing to keep costs from further rising so it wil be still be up to the states to block things like the 40-75% rate increases being proposed. It feels more like we should have started from single payer with the public option as the compromise position.


shoulda woulda coulda...



This is the bill we have now. Some tweaks might be possible under reconciliation, but not much.



I look at it as a decent first step. Once this passes, then uprades will be much easier

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2010 18:44:36
Quote by BobR:

Quote by livingonli:

I must admit that I am still not happy with this bill either. The bad still outweighs the good and it won't be until 2014 that the ban on kicking off pre-existing conditions kicks in. Without the public option this looks more like a federal version of Mass Care forcing everyone to buy insurance with nothing to keep costs from further rising so it wil be still be up to the states to block things like the 40-75% rate increases being proposed. It feels more like we should have started from single payer with the public option as the compromise position.


shoulda woulda coulda...



This is the bill we have now. Some tweaks might be possible under reconciliation, but not much.



I look at it as a decent first step. Once this passes, then uprades will be much easier




I agree Bob. Social Security was perfect out of the box, neither was Medicare. I wouldn't use the word "upgrade" myself. Tweek, tune, refine, yes. Upgrade, no (Insert Vista joke here).

Comment by BobR on 03/11/2010 18:45:02
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2010 18:48:57
Quote by BobR:

Where's the tour schedule???




Right here, Bob



June 8, Constitution Hall, Washington DC.

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2010 18:53:12
The Coco tickets are not cheap.

Comment by BobR on 03/11/2010 18:56:39
Quote by Mondobubba:

The Coco tickets are not cheap.


For DC, I see that they are 40, 60, & 90

Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 19:11:21
Quote by Mondobubba:

I agree Bob. Social Security wasn't perfect out of the box, neither was Medicare. I wouldn't use the word "upgrade" myself. Tweek, tune, refine, yes. Upgrade, no (Insert Vista joke here).




YES.







Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 19:17:55
I just heard a caller on Ed Shultz say that he heard Barack Obama campaign for the Single Option and that he is disillusioned now.



Keerist -- if people can't get that Single payer and Public option are 2 very different animals, I throw my hands up.



I am tired.



PASS THE DAMN BILL!!!!

Comment by Raine on 03/11/2010 19:27:35
Breaking:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid formally notified Republicans on Thursday that he will attempt to pass the final changes to a healthcare overhaul through the budget process of reconciliation.



The process, used in the past by Republicans, requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, bypassing the need for 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles.



"We plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times," Reid said in his letter. "Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process."


Comment by livingonli on 03/11/2010 21:38:34
Quote by BobR:

Quote by Mondobubba:

The Coco tickets are not cheap.


For DC, I see that they are 40, 60, & 90


And there are still many concerts that cost way more than that.



Here, it's June 1st and 2nd at Radio City Music Hall.

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/12/2010 00:40:18
Quote by BobR:

Quote by Mondobubba:

The Coco tickets are not cheap.


For DC, I see that they are 40, 60, & 90






There are some that run $250.00