Dick of the Week: Dennis Kucinich

Leaning No: Will Kucinich Become
The Ralph Nader Of Health Care Reform?

[TPM link] But one of the House's leading progressives says he's unlikely to be swayed. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) voted against the House health care bill. And his office confirmed to me today that he remains opposed to the Senate bill.

Last week, there were some signs that Kucinich might be persuadable. At a White House meeting Thursday, President Obama apprised Kucinich of a measure in the Senate health care bill--authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)--that allow individual states to create single payer systems several years down the line. Kucinich was said to be interested in the provision.

Apparently not interested enough.

[...] But there is some chance, however small, that Kucinich will cast the deciding vote. And for the time being, he's saying he'd rather be the Ralph Nader of reform, instead of its kingmaker.

Patron Saint of the Firebaggers. Assholes on the left insisting on purity from the party are as bad as the extreme wingers on the GOP side.

It's this or nothing, Dennis, you prick. Shut the fuck up, vote "Yes" and work to improve things. But then, I suppose Nadering the bill now will help burnish your creds with the idiots who support your next Quixotic Presidential run.

Cage Match

This is pretty good...

Just An Excuse

Ygelsias—How Close Were We Really?:

[emphasis added] Now that’s not to deny that they were, in fact, close. In fact we’re still close and the door is still very open, logistically, to moving forward with essentially the deal that folks were working toward pre-Coakley. But I think the speed with which Coakley’s loss was seized upon as a reason not to walk through that door underscores how fundamentally uncomfortable with the framework so many people were. Say Coakley had turned back the tide and beaten Brown 51-49. Couldn’t some members have looked at that and said that Coakley’s very weak showing in the true-blue Bay State showed the unpopularity and infeasibility of Provision X and thrown a wrench in the works? It feels to me that a lot of members were looking for an excuse not to do it, and now they’ve seized upon one. But the underlying impulse to seek excuses and shift blame was long there.

This. Which is why I thought Coakley being a mortally wounded candidate at the finish line made the victory or loss not exactly irrelevant, but in the case of HCR, almost a wash. There were already far too many politicians—particularly in the House—who were ready to jump ship on the legislation. They would have pointed to a Coakley one-point WIN and learned the exact same fear-driven and incorrect lesson—the public doesn't want health care reform, the left is overreaching, and it's time to move to the right.

Had she won, Congress would only be hearing from the teabaggers and firebaggers that want to kill the package. The media would still be pronouncing the same Democrats are doomed, public rejection meme. The weak members would still be running to the hills. Those still centrally involved in the process would continue to weaken and erode the reforms and still end up with an unlikely-to-pass package out of a long, drawn-out and politically damaging conference process.

I look at the landscape now and absolutely believe that Coakley's loss might be the only thing that saves the reform and the Democrats from themselves.

What Happens Now

I had a big post breaking down the potential ramifications of the Senate race in Massachusetts for either result almost ready to go when I had to put it down for a couple hours. Now the results are in and you might think that was all wasted.

Wrong.

Most of my conclusions ended up in the same place whether Coakley or Brown won.

In my desperate attempt to find a silver lining in what seemed likely, I ended up comfortable with the feeling that Coakley losing might actually be a good thing. No. I'm not going all FDL and becoming a "kill the bill" fanatic—I want the bill passed, and I'm starting to think the Republican upset might help that process.

Here are the things I think were an inevitable result of this election, no matter who won:

1. Bragging Rights -- The GOP declares the election a referendum on the Democrats at large and Obama in particular. The GOP smells blood in the water and is emboldened in their obstructionism and nihilism and ratchet up the rhetoric. Brown winning also makes their framing an easier sell, but even a narrow Coakley win would have been treated the same way.

2. "This is excellent news for John McCain." -- The media follows the GOP on No. 1. Since Brown pulled it out, they have a collective weeks-long orgasm. That is the result they wanted. It sets up the narrative for the year and the midterms, and makes their lives easy. These underdog and rebellion stories write themselves. But make no mistake: even a Coakley win would've been framed as a loss and a rejection of Obama, because it wasn't a blowout.

3. Massive Diaper Change -- Blue Dog and conservative Democrats shit their pants and run for the fucking hills on EVERYTHING. Funny how that works: A Republican loses? Then they weren't conservative enough, the party hunkers down and moves to the right. A Democrat loses? They weren't conservative enough, the Democrats abandon everything and run to the right like a goddamn bear is chasing them. This effect holds simply because it was close. Doesn't matter who won.

So what does all of that tell you? If Coakley had won 51-49 none of that would have changed. The only difference now is 59 Democrats instead of 60.

And. That. Shouldn't. Fucking. Matter.

This isn't the Republican party. The "60-vote super-majority" never was a given, and never would be. You don't think Evan Bayh isn't drooling at the chance to be the new Joe Lieberman? He just passed his first audition tonight by being the first Dem in front of a camera, scolding the party for drifting too far left.

--

For the sake of Argument, let's pretend for a moment Coakley had won:

The first order of business is Health Care Reform. Coakley's win sends the process right back into the quagmire of gutlessness and stupidity that has taken a a year to get us to this point—which is: still without a pasable bill. So, the existing Senate and House bills would go to conference, and there's no guarantee that what emerged would be as good as either current bill or that it would pass. In general, the longer it takes, the less likely it would pass, but in this climate, do you think after watching the bloodbath in Massachusetts the fence-sitters in the party are going to man-up or dither? The intra-party finger-pointing and second-guessing would be paralyzing in a conference.

And it would only get worse from there. Enough candy-asses are going to run to the right after a race this close, that 60 might be unattainable on any given legislation.

But, since Coakley lost, the mirage of a super-majority is exposed and the pursuit of 60 more futile, it might actually change both the tactics and the strategy from the Democrats. On HCR, the only way to pass the package now is to avoid the conference committee by eliminating the need to combine two bills.

Send the Senate bill as-is to the House, promise House progressives their concerns (mostly budgetary) will be handled in 50+1 reconciliation and have Pelosi gather 218 votes. It then goes straight to Obama's pen.

Failure to pass health care reform is not acceptable and the current scenario actually makes the process of enacting the legislation easier. Yes, it's a ballsier move, but by skipping the conference, the Senate vote has already happened—it negates Brown's 41st vote, or Lieberman's eventual stab in the back, etc.

If Reid, Pelosi and Obama are unable or unwilling to go that route and prevail, then I honestly believe they would not have gotten it done with Coakley's vote either.

Glimmer of Hope? Or, Massive Tease?

Read this post by Ezra Klein (who in my opinion has this HCR shit down better than just about anyone) and explain to me why the Senate can't pass something now that meets President Lieberman's vendetta-based objections, and have Obama sign it into law. The day after that happens, they start the reconciliation process and take a Public Option and shove it right down the collective throat of Lieberman, Ben Fucking Nelson, President Snowe and every other "Centrist" asshole that's made this process a nightmare.

Did I forget to mention the GOP? No. They are irrelevant.

--

The only way for Reid and even Obama to regain standing with me after this fiasco is if that is the endgame. If not, then I find it impossible to believe any of them had serious intentions about real reform.

No excuses.

House Rules (well, not quite)

It appears the House has passed its version of the health care bill in a close 220-215 vote.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

There are no details in this early article about specifics, such as the subsidies, and while it appears to include a public option, it also looks like it will not have any cost-controls so it's not really good for much except as a backstop to serve as an insurer of last resort rather than a robust insurer of first choice. Also, there is no mention of stopping of recision.

Unfortunately, to give cover to a contingent of asshole Reps, there was an amendment included regarding abortion.

As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.

But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.

Of course, this was necessary because preventing the rampant abuse of abortion as a recreational activity by the newly insured is something the government SHOULD be used for rather than simply interfering in people's lives by allowing to have medical care without bankruptcy, thus forcing them to become socialists.

Nevertheless, there are good things in there: the ban on denying coverage or pricing based on pre-existing conditions, and the removal of anti-trust exemptions.

It'll now be up to the Senate to pass their bill, and hopefully when merging the two bills in conference, they'll actually address some of the major flaws.

UPDATE: Here's a bitter taste along with this medicine: More members of Congress want to restrict a woman's rights (240) than grant her medical coverage (220). My Congressman, Rep. Heath Shuler (D) was one of them.

Hey, Heath. If you have no intention of supporting the bill in the end, you can kindly shut the fuck up about exactly what's in it.

Nelson Award: Douglas Holtz-Eakin

McCain Campaign health care advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin is finding out first-hand how shitty the current health insurance system is.

If history had taken a different course, Doug Holtz-Eakin would be inside the McCain White House driving the Republican president's domestic agenda, including health-care reform. But now, one year after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost the presidential election, the man who was by McCain's side as the campaign's top health-care guru remains unemployed -- and his COBRA health coverage is running out.

Irony of ironies, it gets worse. Holtz-Eakin, who is about to start shopping for insurance on the individual market, is 51. And he has one of those pesky "preexisting conditions" that insurance companies often cite in denying coverage.

[...] Holtz-Eakin said he's been paying about $1,000 a month to extend the private health insurance he received on McCain's campaign through the government's COBRA program, but that will expire in a few months. This is the first time in his life he has not had employer-provided health coverage. "I worry about where I go next in the way many Americans do," he said.

Like "many Americans," Doug? Fuck you. Most of them aren't coming off six-figure campaign gigs, and sitting around while having enough major political and financial connections to get a job whenever you get off your ass and pick up the phone.

Oh, and those "tax-credits to pay for insurance" plan that you and your candidate were pushing last year? Not sure they'd do shit to help an unemployed economist...

The False Sense of Urgency of Now

While the political world is all abuzz with health care reform bullshit... whether there'll be public option or not, etc... one thing that isn't getting nearly enough attention is this:

None of these plans take effect for three years.

THREE. FUCKING. YEARS.

That nugget'll be buried deep in whatever article you're reading, but for all the bullshit happening on or around the dance floor on this issue, none of it really makes a fucking difference for the people getting fucked by their insurance now. Or next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after that.

The Democrats could pass the greatest single-payer plan on Earth, and since they are so fucking stupid and cowardly they will let TWO elections cycles go by before anyone benefits from it, and they are rewarded for delivering it. They could, alternatively, pass the worst piece of shit corporate giveaway possible, knowing they can run for their House seat twice before having to face hte pissed off voters they sold out.

At this point I'm not sure I give a shit what plan comes out what Committee of Congress and what Obama ends up signing. No matter how good it is (and I'm not saying it will be good at all) we have to wait three goddamn years to get it.

Screw Baucus, Reid, and all the corporate whores on the Hill. And screw Obama too. This whole thing is a gigantic fucking tease.

Late Night Buffet

Over the week I started a half dozen posts or saved links about stuff I thought I'd get to later, but it never happened. It's not actually going to happen now either—it's too late and I'm tired—but I'll toss 'em out there in snack size...

MASSACHUSETTS CHANGING THE LAW TO APPOINT A SENATOR
At first glance, I thought this was horseshit, and that the Dems should lie in the bed they constructed when the wanted to deny then-Gov. Romney the same power if Kerry became President. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that these lawmakers are ostensibly working towards the desires of the electorate—who deserve full representation, and the representation they want. If the legislature were acting against the popular will, they would be punished in the next election.

The fact that Kennedy's life's work might hang in the balance—and that his opponents quite probably stalled the vote hoping he would die before getting to cast it, was all I needed to cross over. That Massachusetts would be shorted his vote between now and January is too cruel an irony.

The new law is better than the old one anyway.

--

TEXAS IS ANOTHER PLANET
That the Governor of a state could so blatantly and obviously obstruct justice and cover his ass for the execution of an innocent man—and probably be rewarded for it by voters is fucking absurd or insane. Or both.

--

THE FALL OF ROMAN
Roman Polanski deserves worse punishment than he is ever going to get, and the fucking clueless, insular assholes in Hollywood defending him and calling for his release need to get a fucking clue. Exhibit A: Whoopi Goldberg, with perhaps the stupidest legal opinion of all time, "It wasn't RAPE rape."

Yes, it sure as hell was.

--

CRASH TEST DUMMIES
This is pretty cool. GM did a crash test pitting a 2010 Malibu against a 1959 Bel Aire. The results are pretty crazy. I was just thinking about the safety of big old cars on the way to work the other day... [via Jalopnik]

--

THE ICE IN HELL IS SAFE FOR SKATING
I registered as a commenter at Little Green Footballs. The current right-wing meltdown has Charles Johnson undergoing an enlightenment eerily reminiscent of John Cole, circa-Terri Schiavo. That was must-see tv, and this may be as well.

• LINKS:
The Moustache of Understanding has an ominous column about the direction of right-wing hysteria.

• President Obama hates your Blackberry.

• The Stupid Police Work of the Week Award: Vermillion County, Indiana

• Middleville, Michigan wants a piece of that award too...

Howard Dean on Health Care Reform: Daily Pulse Video Exclusive from Lindsay Beyerstein on Vimeo.

Too bad that guy's such a raving lunatic.

It might be the politically savvy move by Obama, but I think it just plain sucks that a guy like Dean has to be cut completely out of the discussion on health care simply because a small brain-dead portion of the country—even within his own party—regard him as too polarizing or controversial. I can only hope that people are actually listening to him on the down-low as they move this thing forward.

The Right Medicine?

Noted communists and terrorist-enabling fasci-libs MoveOn.org has a new video on health care reform. It might just be entertaining enough to get some good info across to people.

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Nostrodennis

Dennis Kucinich has a diary up at Kos, where he predicts what he thinks will happen with health care reform...

1. House will make a big deal about keeping/putting a public option in HR3200 because it competes with insurance companies and will keep insurance rates low.

2. The White House will refer to the President's speech last week where he spoke favorably of the public option.

3. The Senate will kill the competitive public option in favor of non-competitive "co-ops". Senate leaders like Kent Conrad have said the votes to pass a public option were never there in the Senate.

4. The bill will come to a House-Senate Conference Committee without the public option.

5. House Democrats will be told to support the conference report on the legislation to support the President.

6. The bill will pass, not with a "public option" but with a private mandate requiring 30 million uninsured to buy private health insurance (if one doesn't already have it). If you are broke, you may get a subsidy. If you are not broke, you will get a fine if you do not purchase insurance.

This legislative sausage will be celebrated as a new breakthrough and will be packaged as health insurance reform. However, the bill may require a Surgeon General's warning label: Your Money or Your Life!

The bill that Congress passes may pale in comparison to the bill that millions of Americans will get every month/year for having or not having private health insurance.

It will take four years for the new legislation to go into effect. During that time, we are going to build a constituency of millions in support of real health care, a constituency which will be recognized and a cause which is right and just: Health Care as a Civil Right.

Join our efforts. Sign the petition. Contribute. Insure a democratic future.

Thank you.

Dennis

---
Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10)
U.S. House of Representatives

If I were a betting man, my money'd be on something very close to that.

No Option On the Public Option

A petition in support of a strong public option from ActBlue and BoldProgressives.org—two major Democratic base operations that got Obama and the Democratic majorities elected:

PETITION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: "We worked so hard for real change. President Obama, please demand a strong public health insurance option in your speech to Congress. Letting the insurance companies win would not be change we can believe in."

In the space to add comments, I added this:

All the polling and support for your agenda was made clear last Novmeber. Do not be swayed by a vocal minority, a craven media or the timid among our party. Now is the best chance for the bold action on health care that ALL of this country needs. Reform of the insurance industry will mean nothing without a public option. Bargaining away the public option in search of Republican support that will not materialize is foolish, and selling out to industry is inexcusable.

Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time to deliver the change you promised.

Step The Fuck Up

Bill Moyers calls Obama out. Watch it.

Rep. Henry Waxman Fan Club

Sign me up. As Booman says, "Waxman is a stud-hoss." Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee has put together a website with analysis of every Congressional district in the country and exactly how screwed each community is by the current health care system, and how much reform will help...

The Committee has prepared, for each member, a district-level analysis of the impact of the legislation. This analysis includes information on the impact of the legislation on small businesses, seniors in Medicare, health care providers, and the uninsured. It also includes an estimate of the impacts of the surtax that is used to pay for the legislation.

The results summary for my district:

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina: up to 17,200 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 12,000 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 700 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $120 million in uncompensated care each year; and 134,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. Congressman Heath Shuler represents the district.

It then breaks the numbers down in more detail and gives this: "The surtax would not affect 99.2% of taxpayers in the district."

What He Said...

I've had a best-case scenario collection of health care reform links waiting to morph into a post that tried to be optimistic, but at the end of the day, I pretty much agree with Matt Taibbi [emphasis mine]...

It’s the same with this health care bill. Who among us did not know this would happen? It’s been clear from the start that the Democrats would make a great show of doing something real, then they would fold prematurely, ram through some piece-of-shit bill with some incremental/worthless change in it, and then in the end blame everything on Max Baucus and Bill Nelson, saying, “By golly, we tried our best!”

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, or anyone else. If the Obama administration wanted to pass a real health care bill, they would do what George Bush and Tom DeLay did in the first six-odd years of this decade whenever they wanted to pass some nightmare piece of legislation (ie the Prescription Drug Bill or CAFTA): they would take the recalcitrant legislators blocking their path into a back room at the Capitol, and beat them with rubber hoses until they changed their minds.

The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done. It doesn’t matter that it’s an urgent national calamity, that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse and needs to be fixed very soon, and that, moreover, the only people opposing a real reform bill are a pitifully small number of executives in the insurance industry who stand to lose the chance for a fifth summer house if this thing passes.

It won’t get done, because that’s not the way our government works. Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters. The situation we have here is an angry and desperate population that at long last has voted in a majority that it believes should be able to pass a health care bill. It expects something to be done. The task of the lawmakers on the Hill, at least as they see things, is to create the appearance of having done something. [...] But these Democrats aren’t even pretending to give a shit, not really. I mean, they’re not even willing to give up their vacations

Yeah. Pretty much. These fuckers are worthless.

In My Email...

From Senator Chris Dodd:



Be well, Senator, and thanks for putting a spotlight—and a face—on a big part of the problem. Without a health plan a simple procedure to remove a cancerous growth in the early stages would instead result in the cancer being undiagnosed until far more serious and expensive treatment would be required—if it wasn't too late for that.

Yes, Senator Dodd's procedure will cost money—but less than it would at later stages, and will save his life. If you are currently un-(or under)insured, Republicans would rather you wait until your prostrate cancer is so bad you need to be treated in the emergency room.

That's the real debate.

In My Email...

From one liberal activist source or another...the subject reads: "Is Harry Reid going to screw us on health care?"

The appropriate and immediate response?

a. "When does Harry Reid NOT screw us?"
b. "Does a bear shit in the woods?"
c. "Is the Pope Polish? A Nazi?
d. All of the above.

"Hey, Joe"

Since I can't "help" the cause with any cash—in no small part because I now have to cover my family's health care premiums—so I figured the least I could do is help spread Mr Stranahan's message...

Just wondering...

I was at the counter of a Dunkin Donuts yesterday (NOTE: iced coffee is only 99¢ this month) and I could hear a television over my shoulder...

"Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants assembled...blah...blah..blah..."

"Hmm," I thought. "That HAS to be FOX News."

It was. And then they trotted out some jackass Republican Congressman to decry "the increase of government in your health care" and is that "what Americans want?"

It was nothing I haven't heard a thousand times before, but it dawned on me that this argument loses what little credibility it had as the number of Americans without any health care coverage at all increases..."Government-run health care for me and my family versus nothing at all? Where do I sign up?"

They are going to lose this argument and so many others because the GOP doesn't feel the ground shifting beneath their feet.