I think it's great he is standing up for what he believes. However he also needs to let us know how he plans to get a HCR bill passed that he likes - single payer or a robust public option between now and the mid-terms. Because after the mid-terms there are probably going to be even fewer Dems including maybe even him to get it done.

He lays out a strong HC plan and a strong battle plan to get it done I'll support it all the way. Short of that he is once again just being a progressive wet dream.

Well we disagree. Dennis is the one in opposition not the President. My point is if Dennis has a better plan and a way to get it done I'd like to see it.

Jeezus, Foxie! Did you forget how to google?

Of course Kucinich has a better plan! It's HR 676, United States National Health Care Act, and instead of some kind of shit-bag of trillion-dollar give-aways to the insurance industry, it's very simple:

Medicare For All.

The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare and Taiwan's Bureau of National Health Insurance. All medically-necessary medical care decided between doctor and patient would be paid for automatically and directly by the Government of the United States, ending the need for private insurance for such care, and probably recasting private insurance companies as supplemental coverage, to be used when non-essential care is sought.

The national system would be paid for through taxes, which would replace insurance premiums. Advocates of single-payer healthcare, such as economist Paul Krugman, have argued that by eliminating insurance company administrative overhead, healthcare costs would be reduced sufficiently to cover the uninsured.

Along with Kucinich, this bill has 92 other co-sponsors in the House.

Hmmm. I guess that makes TPM a corporate whore too! (Or at the very least, an administration whore.)

'Cause there's sure a lot of scape-goating and smearing going on right here in River City! (I'm assuming that calling Dennis the "Ralph Nader of health care reform" is a not compliment.)

not to mention:

leadership needs 23 more House Dems to get to the magic number of 216. Where will they come from?

They’ll have to come from this pool of former No votes who haven’t declared definitively that they’re still a No:

Jason Altmire, Bart Gordon, Glenn Nye, Brian Baird, John Tanner, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, John Adler, Mike McMahon, Scott Murphy, Travis Childers, Harry Teague, Lincoln Davis, Heath Shuler, John Barrow, Jim Marshall, Tim Holden, Charlie Melancon, Jim Matheson, Ben Chandler.

It gets trickier. If any more former Yes votes switch to No, or if any of the so-called Stupak dozen make good on their threat to vote No, those will also have to be made up from the above pool.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/two-more-house-dems-move-away-from-health-bill/#comments

yet, TPM and others use the opportunity to tear down a liberal.

It is still the job of the President and the leadership to lead. Kucinich has demonstrated for years his own leadership on single payer but what is needed is to see someof the heavy hitters come off the fence and that is unlikely.

Once Obama declared for President he cut a deal with the insurance interests and renounced his historical support for single payer which is what he should have been fighting for from day one--even if he didn't think we could get it. Fighting for single payer and gettting a strong public option at least makes some sense. Conceding fromt eh git go made no sense.

Great post. Thanks

I agree wholeheartedly, L. To me, it's completely obvious that TPM is practically a direct mouthpiece for the administration (to the extent of writing stories straight from "press releases" rather than from original reporting), but to most people who read this site, it's not at all apparent. It wasn't apparent to them during the primaries, either.

After 8 years of relentless Bush propaganda (lead-up to the Iraq war in the NYT or WaPo anyone?), I would have hoped people could detect propaganda and manipulation even when it comes from alleged liberals. But that hasn't happened. I mean, except for Republicans, who can pick up on the Dem talking points very easily.

It would be interesting if they started covering who is pushing that meme instead of simply repeating it.

What would be even more interesting is if TPM bravely started covering real reform, period.

But the only people who have attempted to do so are lowly Cafe dwellers.

I agree with your point here, Oleeb. It kind of pissed me off when I started reading diatribes against Kucinich.

It's been really interesting to see the politics of health care reform get completely in the way of health care reform--like a total eclipse.

WHAT A FRICKIN MESS!!!!

Great article!

Not to worry. Jonathan Taplin says everything is fine because Obama is getting into campaign mode again.

Yay!

http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/i%20got%20this.jpg

If you haven't already, you should do a separate post highlighting that link. IMHO

The reason why there is a stink over Kucinich's refusal to support the reform effort is because Lynne Woolsey, head of the Progressive Caucus supports it. That puts him at odds with his own leadership. What is the point of a caucus if it can't provide a voting bloc one way or the other?

As far as HR 676 being the best plan: it isn't. The end result is the best, which is Medicare for All. But the simple act of putting Medicare for All into law does not in fact provide the best plan. The lack of a cogent plan creates this kind of scenario:

1. Private businesses control X amount of market and employ Y number of employees.

2. ???????

3. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!!

HR 676 would create a vaccum in the economic structure and offers no roadmap on how to achieve the end result. That is disastrous. That is, in fact, an abominably shitty plan that any leader in their right mind would avoid like a dark ages leper colony.

In fact, it is the same kind of "progressive thought" that goes into the military industrial complex. Simply cut the defense budget and redistribute... I could see the guy who peddles SHAM WOW trying to sell a plan like that. But swords to plowshares is not that easy. A cursory look at defense austerity measures throughout history shows that a military that has not been suitably engaged in other fruitful activity will turn on their former masters. Think Praetorian Guard. Think brownshirts.

This is why I state over and over again that even though you may have the best intention and the best answer does not mean you have the best solution. Ever.

And this is the wall we are up against. Progressives want their leader to do the hard work. Progressives only want the solution to equal their desired outcome. There is almost no discussion on any kind of roadmap or blueprint as to how the desired outcome could occur.

Oddly enough, the Senate bill provides part of the roadmap that could lead to universal health care. That is the expansion of Medicaid and the free clinics. So much of our focus has been on the mandates and subsidies being a green light for insurers to stick it to us that we ignore the fact that this bill provides support to those who need it urgently. People who weren't helped before will be helped by this bill.

I will put it this way: the GOP we have today is due to a ground-based community level plan that involved those who held the ideology which today waxes dominant licking envelopes, captaining precincts and taking over the party machinery from within. That was the Goldwater model. The left still operates on the McGovern model of electing leaders that don't have their hands on the levers of power. McGovern was destroyed by the union bosses who feared losing the power that had been promised them by establishment (CENTRIST) candidates like Muskie and Humphrey. When Daley lost a power bid to Jesse Jackson at the convention, McGovern's fate was sealed. I do believe (too bad all of the post-election is based on trivial details) that Obama had to make a deal with the Clinton machine in order to solidify a power base. This doesn't mean that Obama was a super-progressive--he's not. But it does provide us with an insight into how politics operates in this nation.

I am quite tired of a certain faction of the left beating the rest of the left and center with a stick made of their ideals. For the most part, their ideals are the left's ideals. Attacking us with them and accusing those of us who are more incremental, pragmatic or (fuck it) knowledgeable with our politics as obots are sellouts has quite a bit to do with the rift.

And the reason we don't see the Obamacrats in Washington bitch slapping the Blue Dogs? Because the Obamacrats in Washington ARE Blue Dogs and they wanted them to water down the legislation. This little game played by corporate Democrats that they can never come through on their campaign promises if even vaguely progressive has gotten old, tired and some of us recognize it for what it is.

Bitch slapping someone is what bullies do to humiliate and put someone in their place and they never do it to somebody who would even think of slapping them back. Most of the progressives have rolled over for the bullshit and taken their bitch slapping like the submissive players they allow themselves to be considered when they refuse to back up their public statements of support for progressive and liberal aims. What they oughtta do is get behind Kucinich and demand a real public option available to all Americans who want it. But they won't because they are scared and submissive.

In politicis as on the playground, once you get rolled, you can count on getting rolled again unless and until you fight back and mean it. That's what the bully boy Republicans do to the weakling Democrats like Obama, etc... year after year and that's what the bully boy corporate Democrats do to the progressives.

Time after time after time the conservadems have done this to progressive mostly because they don't stand up to them and fight back. Instead, they surrender before any fight occurs in order to make sure their hair doesn't get messed up or some other equally important reason. But this time one progressive isn't willing to be submissive in the face of such treatment and instead stands his ground on healthcare. Thus,realizing they can't bitch slap this guy into submission, the bullies immediately fall back on anonymous name calling, defamtion, character assassination, scapegoating. But those tactics are the tactics of bullies who have lost the fight.

Unlike Obama and the other fraidy cat Democrats who don't believe in anything enough to fight for it, Kucinich is able to hold his head high and stand his ground because he knows he's right on this and that they are wrong and he won't go along with them and be wrong too. It really is that simple.

As MLK once said:

"It's always the right time to do the right thing."

Well, thanks for letting us know that progressive capitulation has been saving us from a fascist coup all these years. Who knew?

But I prefer to see it this way - Democrats are the Vichycrats and we on the left are the Resistence. Now, if we can only persuade the Canadians to liberate us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv0smG7ptcM

Dennis reminds me of Thomas Paine - Tom Paine, whose message scared the hell out of the people who benefited from his message.

I actually think that the right kind of health insurance reform would have forced a non profit model for the industry.

Much like what Germany and Switzerland accomplished when they didn't try to impose a pure government solution as the essential first step.

We focused too early on the wrong fulcrum.

I only dispute your use of the word "we". We weren't all invited to the closed doors meetings that predetermined the alternative we'd be allowed to choose.

No argument from me. That was certainly the wrong pronoun. What I meant to say was that each side staked out its territory and that was the paradigm we started from.

Never once did we consider the whole system and what it might take to make it more equitable. From day one it was Medicare-for-All versus Status Quo. I think that missed our actual opportunities by a mile.

I admire Dennis in a lot of ways and supported him in the primaries because of his authentic voice and unshakable moral stances. I took his support of Obama when he dropped out as a sublime recognition of our current state of affairs in America.

I would have loved to see a more analytical process that combined the best of traditional conservative economics combined with a traditionally liberal approach of lifting all boats on a rising tide.

Apply both to our current health care system and something resembling innovation might have emerged.

I agree with you there but I don't know if that can happen within the party alone. We need more than one point of leverage as the right knew when they coopted the churches. But what makes me mad is to read folks Theda who dump on the unions when all they wanted was to preserve their union benefits in the reform bill. The establishment party seems to be thrilled that they don't have to actually support labor any more. They don't want constituents. They want lobbyists paying them off. You need a coalition more stable than "we hate Bush". The coalition of "we don't have the votes" just doesn't do it for me or most Americans.

As my dear old Dad used to say "You have to stand for something" and he might have added that you have to stand with someone.

...the GOP we have today is due to a ground-based community level plan...

And forget about right-wing corporate media controlling political discussion in the USA, except for a minute minority who read political blogs.

Forget that editorial pages run the gamut from extreme anti-tax anti-government right-wing radicals to what would be centrists in any other Western country.

You think universal healthcare is a leftist fantasy?

It already happened in...

England, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal..

Norway, New Zealand, Belgium, Kuwait...

Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Finland...

Slovenia, Denmark, Australia, Ireland...

Cyprus, South Korea, Switzerland, and Israel...

Austria, Japan, Greece, and Singapore.

But in the United States, Honduras, and Niger...

It's a leftist fantasy.

Kucinich would be a centrist in any other developed country!

But in the Land of the Brain-Washed and Home of the Wage-Slaves...

Kucinich is marginalized as a left-wing wing-nut, for advocating policies that every other developed country already adopted 50 years ago!

I don't think it is a leftist fantasy, Ruta.

I think it can very well be a leftist reality.

But how does this nation, with its particular situation, reach the ultimately positive goal of universal health care?

It is the roadmap from where we are to where we need to be that is missing.

We spend so much time joking about 11-dimensional chess when that is actually what is missing: a long-term plan to achieve our ideals that involves most or all of the pieces.

I think perhaps our social preoccupation with television celebrity has sapped us of strategic vision.

This is from today's NYT. All those that will fall ill subsequent to Obama's plan going down in flames (indeed, that already have, including one friend of mine), will owe all of you a debt of gratitude. Many unfortunately won't be able to enjoy that great progressive corporate free world you have coming, as they will be crushed under the steel toed boot of the current system. Very noble though, those 'principles' of yours.

Americans who respond “but I like my insurance” when contemplating the proposed health care reform bill should recognize that their present employer-provided insurance will almost certainly not be there for them in the event of a long-term serious illness.

Most employer policies require that those covered be able to work. If an accident, stroke, cancer treatment or other long-term event keeps the employee from showing up at work, even for such a relatively short period of time as 60 or 90 days (90 days in the case of my employer-provided policy), the coverage is terminated, and the employee placed on long-term disability and left with Cobra. If the employee cannot pay Cobra, or Cobra runs out — that’s it. No insurance for either the employee or his or her family.

I learned this hard truth when one of my co-workers learned she had late-term colon cancer. She has insurance right now, six months later, only because my employer is subsidizing her Cobra payments.

Americans are living in a fantasy world when they think, “I’m working; I have insurance; I’m safe.” You are safe only because you are well. Those medical bankruptcies filed by people “who thought they had insurance” are not being filed by individuals who exceeded policy maximums, or were fired or laid off after becoming ill. They are being filed by people who incurred no hardship other than one — they got sick.

Rita C. Tobin
Chappaqua, N.Y., March 7, 2010

Single payer is definitely the way to go. But how CAN we get there?
I am "not in favor of the President's half assed, watered down, highly unpopular "health insurance" reform plan" either. But what I am in favor of is fundamentally changeling how health care is regarded by Americans. The plan we have on the table now will establish health care as a defacto RIGHT.
And once health care as a right is established, there will be no going back. If we pass this the debate will no longer be about if we should have universal care or not but how to do it the best way. When the debate turns to how to do it best single payer will win out...eventually.

If this Bill falls short by one vote I will blame Dennis Kucinich and any other libs who stand on narrow principle for the failure of my allies and my leaders to pass a bill.
I will blame Dennis Kucinich for passing on making universal healthcare a right.
I will blame Dennis Kucinich for leaving 45 million people with out insurance.

We all know that we live in a time where Washington is owned by big business. There is every reason to try and challenge and break (peacefully) this inside the beltway / corporatist establishment.(public Campaign financing would be a big help) But for now, against this establishment, this is best we can do.
It is far better than nothing. It changes the terrain of the battle field in our favor. We will have moved the "Overton Window"- http://www.correntewire.com/the_overton_window_illustrated - to the left.

"There is a place for everyone and anyone along the Left side of the rope, as long as we're all pulling in the same general direction." a

The very idea that progressives are supposed to be the ones holding up reform,makes me puke. Dennis is doing the right thing. That people are going to die without this reform is not the fault of any progressive, it is most certainly the fault of a for profit health care system. Period! Plus, progressives can build confidence in themselves and their movement by killing this bill now and demanding a new one with progressive meat and potatoes in it. The problem is the democratic party isn't progressive, it is the other wing of the fascist party that our current elected officials represent. Republicans and Conservatives are just open about the agenda.

Now, more than ever progressives need to stand up and fight even with the possibility of loosing. Because its also about dignity and respect. Common folks won't believe you are fighting for their interest if you don't actually stand up a take a few punches. So fight even when you don't have the votes because its shows what you stand for!!!

I think nothing would be great for one reason, when the current system implodes due to greed. Then maybe more people will be ready to listen to what progressives have to say on the subject. Currently people aren't suffering enough to see the light.

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. That is all I hear from you. The ONLY candidate that wanted single payer was elf ears himself. The same person that voted NO to the House bill with a MANDATE and a PUBLIC OPTION that could had DEVELOPED INTO A SINGLE PAYER.

You know, if I had told people like you that Bush was scrapping Medicare D doughnut hole and giving out health care subsidies attached with a ton of regulations, you would have loved him.

Guess what? It takes more than complaining for a bill that has, as far as passing is concerned, NO SUPPORT.

It will be seen as the healthcare equivalent for the American people of NAFTA which the left warned would be a disaster for American workers and it has been. The same hollow arguments were made about passing NAFTA now and we'll go back and fix the provisions that open the door to gutting our industrial base and driving American wages even further down.

I don't call everyone corporate whores. I am simply referring to those Democrats on the Hill and in the White House who whore themselves to the corporations. That isn't everyone. It's the corporate Democrats who are not really Democrats at all, but opportunists who believe in Republican philosophy but who claim to want to represent the interests of the people.

It's very difficult to get there when your leader campaigns on substantial and dramatic change in how our government operates and then instantly changes into the most staunch defender of the status quo and the rich and powerful the moment he is elected.

We simply must insist as citizens that our elected leaders no longer ignore the needs of the people and vote against Democrats who won't support the people's interests.

I agree with you, Zipperupus, about the difficulty of re-employing people who now work for health-insurance companies, if the USA went over to single-payer, but it's still just a problem, like so many others connected with Obama's shit-bag of a bill.

They transmogrify their schemes to pay for Obamacare every other day, but taxing "Cadillac" health insurance deserves a special place in the Stupidity Hall of Fame.

What happens after you slap a 40% surcharge on those things, and...

They disappear!

"Cash me out, Charlie! I don't want that plan at the over-the-top price that pays for Obamacare!"

Then what?

And it isn't like there aren't a million ways to diddle the definitions so that the same "Cadillac" treatment still accrues to top management, but divided and shuffled and mystificated until you couldn't squeeze enough taxes out of it to buy a bandaid.

Meanwhile, a significant number of jobs in the insurance industry still have to be done with single-payer, and...

Surprise! Medicare already employs a sizable bureaucracy, which would be magnified, to say the least, with Medicare For All.

Good point Zeno!

To ask that people who are adversely affected by this bill not to fight for their health and economic well being is bullshit.

Hey Nutter. You are wasting your time. Oleeb is a hater and so is his friend Rutabaga (o/k/a the Veggie).

Run along little lemming. Dear leader calls!

The most progressive legislative issue since the Great Society? What are you smokin? That's pure fiction!

Kucinich isn't just another pol. That's horseshit.

Yes, and it appears that the GOP is fighting the hardest against it. What does that tell you?

Nicely said.

I challenge you to list one thing that he isn't moving forward on that he promised during the campaign.

We get it. Your candidate didn't win, but the election is over and Obama has been as consistent and focused as any president in my lifetime.

I am not saying I agree with everything the man has done, but to claim he isn't trying to change the way Washington operate is inaccurate.

It's just a job that might take longer than a year.

Lousgirl84:
I learned by observation during the primaries that anyone who uses the term "hater" as an all-encompassing pejorative label, as you do, is almost certainly someone who is at least guilty of projection.

Your comment here troubles me, Zeno.

I see nothing great in doing nothing, nothing compelling in cheering on more suffering so that a greedy system will collapse and people see the light.

If that were to happen, we might experience an overflowing of grace during our darkest hour. But I wouldn't wish for it.

Instead, I'm praying something can be done, however incremental, in the event that this bill dies.

That's an active passionate prayer, my friend. I'll post a blog about it if I can find time.

Why exactly are we so certain the all the thousands of employees in the health insurance industry will be unemployed after a conversion to expanded Medicare/Single Payer?

Why not move them right over to government employ, in exactly the same positions they held within the insurance industry?

Working for the government, with its excellent retirement plans, would be a step up. As it would be a karmic absolution for the all the little pencil pushing rubber stampers whose sole function has been to say "no" to claims. These people can atone by spending their days approving claims made by doctors, hospitals, labs, etc. on behalf of the people -- or those still alive -- they turned down, over and over again.

your bill is short 23 votes. I only see one concerted attack.

I refuted the original contention that Obama hasn't delivered the change in tone and tenor he campaigned on. Perhaps you need to be reminded what the term strawman really means.

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-carney110102.asp

I just wanted to drop this in to remind those who adore Kucinich that he is also a Roman Catholic pro-lifer Congressman who may very well be doing the same dance as Stupak but with a slightly different cadence.

That's an absurd hypothetical. If our leader would lead the dynamics instantly change and chances of getting the votes in both houses of Congress change dramatically. Medicare was put forward more than once before being passed. The idiotic idea that you can only try once in a generation is proposterous.

If Obama chose not be the wimp he is and tackle the problem head on he would have all the progressives, at minimum, strongly behind the bill and the people (a strong majority of whom support Medicare for All) would have something to rally around and fight for as well. As it is, his policy of appeasing corporate interests first has failed to generate anything beyond grudging support from anyone and almost all the members of Congress who are supporting the current bill are doing so while holding their noses because they know the bill stinks at best.

I challenge you to stick to your promise and leave TPM for good!

I do believe he changed his position on abortion some time ago and it is not relevant in this policy discussion because that isn't at all his concern. His concerns are straightforward and strictly about the policy itself. He is opposed to the direction Obama has taken this bill. Plain and simple. He has always said so. His current position is not new. But the conservadems, etc... are furious that he will not flip flop on this as so many of them have. I also think, quite frankly, that Kucinich is not personally very popular at all among his colleagues and the rest of the Washington crowd so they are especially quick to pounce on him for those petty personal reasons though that is completely unfair and beside the point.

This is your argument? Seriously?

Well, I grew up in Dennis's district in Cleveland. Dennis was mayor of my city. So I happen to know a lot about him. What would you like to hear? We go way back.

Okay, let's call it a day. Nobody leaves till they help clean up the mess.

Here's the perfect example of the absurdity and hypocrisy of the attacks on Kucinich. There's a story on WhoRunsGov that states the following:

"First up: Dem Rep Jim Marshall, a prominent Blue Dog who voted No last time but was believed to be open to backing the Senate bill, is now a definite No, his spokesperson confirms."

Where are the cacophony of voices attaking and condemning Marshall as a Quisling collaborator with the Republicans? Where are the accusations that he's being a Ralph Nader? This Georgia faux Democrat's opposition to the bill draws no such fire and Marshall will not be made a scapegoat despite his support for the Obama plan is far more crucial than Kucinich's.

Say again?

There's nothing hypothetical about it. You think Kucinich's approach is the right one. You think Kucinich's bill is best. You think Kucinich's reforms are the reforms the American people need and want. For the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to concede all of those points. You still haven't addressed mine:

In order for Kucinich's bill to become law, it must pass both the House and the Senate. This is not hypothetical. It's not K Street CW (though I had a cup of coffee on K Street). It's not sophisticated, Inside-The-Beltway punditry (though I am coming to you live from Washington, DC). It's not sophomoric analysis. It's not analysis at all. It's a simple fact. I haven't even asked you to address why this right and true and virtuous piece of legislation, with 92 wise solons serving as co-sponsors, hasn't been passed by the House. I'm not asking you to make a list of the 217 Representatives who would support such a bill were it to come to a vote. I'm not trying to ask you something that is unfair or outside the realm of your knowledge, experience, expertise, or time. I'm just asking you to ground your assertion in the political reality that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, and yes, Dennis Kucinich face: Name 51 Senators who would support such a bill should it be brought to a vote.

Surely you don't think that, if such a bill were passed by both legislative bodies, President Obama would veto it. Of course he would sign it. I'm within walking distance of the White House and I've got a clean security status. I'll walk a box of pens down myself. It's a lovely day. So let's stipulate, you and I, that this final hurdle would be easily surmountable... And let's also stipulate that the right and honorable Representative Kucinich has the votes in the House (I don't think either of us believes that he's close, but this is a minor footnote). Name 51 Senators who would support this bill.

I hope you don't believe me uncharitable in pressing my assertion, but until you address what I'm asking here, I stand by it: You have to have the votes. For the sake of shedding more light on what you're thinking here, I'll spot you 40 Senators. Various sources have reported that 40 Democrats have indicated their willingness to support the inclusion of the public option in a reconciliation measure. I know this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but I don't want you to think I'm an unfair guy... So let's also stipulate that each of those 40 senators would also back Kucinich's bill. That leaves you with 60 remaining senators from which to find 11 votes.

You're the Whip, Oleeb... Everything rests with the Senate. I've taken the filibuster off the table. And you've got 40 Democrats in hand. Representative Kucinich's brave and worthy leadership has helped shepherd his bill through the House. I've got a box of pens on my desk right now. I'll start walking to the West Entrance as soon as you tell me which eleven of the sixty remaining Senators are going to vote for this bill. It's 4:30 right now. I can be there by 5:15... If you get to it, this is tonight's top story, in primetime, on all the national news broadcasts. But you've gotta have the votes...