Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kucinich voted against the House bill that included the public option

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:34 PM
Original message
Kucinich voted against the House bill that included the public option
What was his excuse?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oops. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Oops, did you just realize that he voted no back in November. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. He didn't have "an excuse". He had a reason.
He supports Medicare for everyone. What do you not understand?

But, of course, you already know this, but are only trying to stir up trouble.

You really hate Dennis that much, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why do you care? You and others like you have described Dennis as being a 'zero'
Why get bent so out of shape over his measly one vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. He's the lone crusader and the hell with everyone else.
Edited on Mon Mar-08-10 10:42 PM by Cha
His crusade is dennis kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Are you projecting again!
I do care about the IRS being unleashed to force people to buy a lousy and expensive product from a for-profit health insurance company. Dennis said tonight that insurance companies make profit by denying health coverage. Ain't that the truth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Wow, crickets responding to your questions
I guess that's what happens when you hit the nail on the head, IG. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. "Dennis said tonight that insurance companies make profit by denying health coverage."
So he's going to help them by voting against a bill that bans them from doing so?


Kucinich's logic is flawed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Doesn't matter..he's their mouthpiece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
29. That assertion was complete and utter bullshit, and you know it! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Its sucked less, but it still sucked.
And you know it, and he was right to do it. If he was 'wrong', his constituents will replace him (and you are not one of them)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's simple really. He's not a team player and he doesn't work well with others.
Edited on Mon Mar-08-10 10:50 PM by w4rma
That said, if he will vote for a bill with a Public Option (this time) like the original House Bill then I support his holdout against this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. We know you love Kucinich and could easily find his reasons for
Edited on Mon Mar-08-10 11:18 PM by slipslidingaway
voting against the House bill.

For months he said there was no control on premiums and people would be obligated to buy insurance from private companies.

Remember the Obama/Biden HC plan said that every citizen would be able to choose between a public and private plan, but we know that part of the plan was compromised.

In the last few weeks the administration has used the premium increase to try and push this bill through Congress.

Honestly, did it take them a year to wake up?







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. It's the height of irony and hypocrisy
for people to praise Kucinich for voting against a public option, and then turn around and criticize Obama not that the bill doesn't include on.

Actually, it ludicrous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Makes perfect sense to the single payer constituency (or anyone else, for that matter)
Look at it as a gradient- single payer being the most effective solution, followed by public option/private insurance, followed by unpopular, unaccountable mandate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Did you miss every time he mentioned premiums? And where has the WH
been on this issue all year long - absent!

Also remember your mocking his prediction in September that the final Senate bill will not have a public option and the House will be pressured to pass the Senate bill.

He as crazy to make such predictions back then - but it is where we are now.

All the while the administration turned a blind eye to premium increases.

At least you no longer bring up his SCHIP vote - we're making progress!

:evilgrin:







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. This will be no different from Kucinich's last vote on the health care bill.
He will vote no, and progress on health care reform will continue without him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Why ignore the fact that the administration Suddenly Realized the
Edited on Tue Mar-09-10 12:03 AM by slipslidingaway
bills being promoted did Nothing to stop premium increases.

Gosh ... everyone seemed to wake up in the last few weeks, what else is lurking that they missed???

The Iraq War continued without him, the Financial Services Modernization Act continued without him, the new FISA bill continues without him, the Patriot Act continues without him, China Trade (MFN) continues without him and the infrastructure bill he introduced every year for the last decade has been ignored by most of the Dems.

There are many votes where he stood in opposition to the majority of the Dems, that does not mean he was wrong in the long run.

Use Medicare money to fund subsidies to the private insurance companies just as the boomers enter retirement - great plan.

:sarcasm:









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Crickets, crickets, crickets once again. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angelicwoman Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. A public option so weak that it did not lower costs relative to the Senate bill
Edited on Mon Mar-08-10 11:23 PM by angelicwoman
According to the CBO.

That public option?

By the way, Kucinich explained why he voted no: http://kucinich.house.gov/NEWS/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995

I'm surprised that you have not read his explanation. In fact, I believe you may have read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. Kucinich suffers from shortmans syndrome. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. He voted against healthcare for kids...nothing surprises me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Wow! and you just ignore the facts to smear a man that stood up for
children who had been dropped in the 90's and post the same BS a few minutes later. I just posted this to you this evening, but you continue with the bashing.

Guess you do not care about the hundreds of thousands of children who were waiting for Years for their access to health care to be restored. Year after year they were promised, but there was always an excuse.

Imagine if this were your child :(


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=211737&mesg_id=212510

After three posts to the same poster on Kucinich's S-Chip vote the poster dropped the issue.

In the end Kucinich was finally able to achieve health care for children who had been dropped in the 1990's, too many people wanted the quick and not so comprehensive fix.

Kucinich held out for all children who had been denied.

And this poster never replied to one of my posts, but at least they dropped that talking point which was used to smear Kucinich.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5938303&mesg_id=5943354

First of all Bush had already threatened to veto the SCHIP bill... then when language was removed from the bill which would cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women, Kucinich voted NO.

Many had been waiting since 1996, see links below, Congress finally included (2009) those who had been excluded.

Kucinich was on the right side of history, it just others awhile to catch up.

"...Kucinich voted for the original House-passed version of the bill because it contained language to grant health coverage for legal immigrant children. However, in today’s bill, this language was omitted..."

"In the previous SCHIP vote, the Democrats left out up to 600,000
children of immigrants, so I voted against the bill..."







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. Ugh...Koochie is too much for me. Where are the people saying Rahm needed to twist his arm?!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. Single payer or bust!
Bust is 99% more likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denimgirly Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. If i recall the Public Option was a very weak, watered-down version
I would have still voted for it but K is either strong PO or Single Payer.. I respect his vote even if i would have voted Yey
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Yes it was significantly watered down :( ...
welcome to DU.

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
26. Kucinich: Why I Voted NO
And almost everytime he has spoken about this bill he mentions the fact that there was a mandate to buy a product Without any protections for people against increased premiums.

Finally the administration also noticed that there are no protections for premiums and has taken that up as a cause the last few weeks, before that they were absent on this subject.

:shrug:

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.”



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
28. Kick for the Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative of the People!
:kick:

:D

Dennis, :yourock: !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC