Health Care, Dennis Kucinich, And Being A Decent Country
Kucinich to Announce His Position on Health Care
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, voted against the House health care bill in November because he prefers a fully government-run, Medicare-for-all approach. He felt the Democrats’ bill simply did not go far enough to eliminate the mostly private, employer-sponsored health insurance system.
But on Monday, President Obama paid a personal visit to a senior citizens’ center in Mr. Kucinich’s district and gave Mr. Kucinich a lift on Air Force One to a health care rally in Strongsville, Ohio. At the rally, someone in the crowd shouted, “Vote yes!”
Mr. Obama turned and asked Mr. Kucinich if he had heard the shout.
Mr. Kucinich has now scheduled a news conference for Wednesday morning at the Capitol to announce how he will vote on the legislation.
The Democrats are working to muster the 216 votes that they need to pass the bill along with a package of revisions in an expedited budget measure. Conventional wisdom suggests that Mr. Kucinich would not draw so much attention to himself simply to say that he remains opposed to the bill.
via Kucinich to Announce His Position on Health Care – Prescriptions Blog – NYTimes.com.
Dennis Kucinich with his wife who keeps him healthy
Tomorrow, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) plans to hold a press conference to discuss his upcoming vote on the Senate health care bill (which must clear the House before the Senate can pass a reconciliation bill). Kucinich had previously voted against the House’s version of the bill from the left, making him the only remaining congressman to do so, after Rep. Eric Massa’s (D-NY) surprising departure.
Kucinich has for weeks been maintaining that he won’t vote for a bill that, essentially, gives away the store to various medical industry players — the pharmaceuticals, the insurers, doctors, and hospital chains. Indeed, Kucinich has long been an advocate of a Medicare-for-all, single payer health care system where the government covers everyone under a low cost, efficient plan that would allow us to have universal health care for less than we’re paying now. Without a network of inefficient private insurers tangling up doctors’ offices with paperwork and gouging consumers for profit, money the system is redirected and people are able to get health care without an insurance company bureaucrat standing in the way. Sounds simple and effective, right?
That’s probably why Congress didn’t choose to go that route (simple and effective seems to not be their thing). Instead, the House passed a bill that would allow for a weak, watered down public plan that’s optional and open to very few citizens, which is one of two reasons Kucinich voted against it. The other reason was because for some bizarre reason, the final version dropped an amendment he had passed in committee that would’ve waived ERISA regulations and allowed for states to pursue their own single payer options. So, given the watering down of the public option plus the dropping of Kucinich’s amendment, the Ohio congressman voted against the House’s bill.
Now, Kucinich has to decide whether he is willing to vote for a bill that’s even less progressive than the House’s version. The Ohio congressman, who is often ignored in the press (unfortunately, because he has some really good ideas and is very smart), has become a topic of hot debate among the blogosphere in particular, with many deriding him as a purist and one blogger even making the juvenile remark that the Kucinich is a “little prick.” The overwhelming consensus among the establishment left crowd seems to be that Kucinich is a radical that will definitely vote against the bill unless it’s single payer — thus he won’t vote for the bill, and a result it won’t pass, and 45,000 Americans will continue to die every year because they don’t have proper health coverage.
I don’t know what Kucinich is going to announce tomorrow, but I can tell you these folks are wrong. They simply don’t know Dennis.
It’s true that Kucinich is an outspoken advocate for single payer, and that he’s often been willing to cast protest votes for what he believed in — and the majority of Americans, by the way, believe in the public option, it’s no fringe left cause — but I’ve never actually seen him make a concerted effort to kill anything that he viewed as having some positive benefits.
For example, while a public option bill was extremely weak to Kucinich, and is admittedly a huge step down from Medicare-for-all, the Congressman voted for it in committee, and even got three amendments passed to the bill. If Kucinich was such an extremist, he certainly wouldn’t have voted for the bill in committee. Secondly, there’s precedent to Kucinich voting for a bill he viewed as too weak after it became clear his vote was needed. During the Bush years, Kucinich first voted against the SCHIP bill because he felt its exclusion of childrens’ health insurance for immigrants at the last second was wrong (it was). When it became clear that Bush’s veto could not be overridden without the votes of as many members of Congress as could be gotten, Dennis voted for it.
I understand why a lot of people are quick to jump on Kucinich and deride him as an extremist. He’s an easy target: he’s short, he has a funny name, he’s often relegated to the fringe of his party (mostly for no good reason other than he’s not a guy who takes orders). But at the same time, throughout his career, while he’s been willing to stand out in front of the rest of the pack and champion causes that many viewed as unlikely to prosper, he’s also never let himself become an impediment to progress.
This bill, truth be told, is the very essence of what passes for “reform” in today’s Washington. It gives away hundreds of billions to barely-regulated private insurers, gives the drug industry a free pass, doesn’t take on doctors or hospital chains, and still leaves our health care system magnificently fragmented and dependent on the profit margin of insurance company shareholders. It’s a far cry from a great bill, or even a good one.
But thanks to magical disappearing votes — didn’t Tom Harkin say we had 55 votes for a public option in December and now we only need 50 via reconciliation? — from that incresingly aggravating body called the Senate and poor leadership from the White House and other professional Democratic organizations, it appears that the bill is all that can be achieved. I’d love for Kucinich’s holding out to make the bill more progressive — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) successfully did this by holding out in the Senate — but I don’t expect it to re-introduce a public option. Yet at the same time, it will relieve the misery of millions of Americans who are going without health care because they don’t have insurance. It will save people’s lives, albeit in a very inefficient, costly, and far from ideal way.
I have no problem with Kucinich or anyone else voting against this bill out of principle and out of standing up for what most Americans want as far as a Medicare-style public option when it allows the bill to pass. If Kucinich wants to cast another protest vote like that, I wish him the best. If I was a member of Congress I’d do the same thing. But if it really comes down to the wire, and Kucinich’s vote is needed to pass the bill, then I think the choice is really nonexistent.
I know for a fact Dennis, in that situation, would vote for the bill. Because Kucinich is not an egotistical maniac as so many in the pajama-clad blogosphere misunderstand him to be. He’s a man who believes in his country, and loves his fellow human beings, because unlike many of his critics, he grew up homeless, sometimes living in the back of a car, dealing with a family without health insurance, knowing the worst of sickness and strife in America. Kucinich does not have it in him to stop tens of millions of Americans from getting health insurance.
So while I think this bill is an atrocious example of how unresponsive Washington has been to what Americans want, I do hope that Dennis will reconsider his position if he is the deciding vote. Because what this bill would declare — other than our government is far too beholden to the very industries it’s supposed to be standing up to while making legislation — is that we aren’t going to let people die anymore because they literally can’t afford to live. It’s a gigantic blow against the idea that we’re on our own, that we aren’t our brother’s keepers, and that we should all pick up copies of Atlas Shrugged and simply look out for ourselves. While this entire health care process doesn’t seem to have created a decent bill that forges a decent health care system, it may have done something very important instead: it will prove that we can be a decent country. And I know that Dennis Kucinich is a decent man.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
There seems to be this perception that this bill, even without a public option or ERISA waiver, is half a loaf — and represents some improvement. BUt I am not so sure. The bill further entrences private insurance and makes it illegal for me not to support private companies that can 1) still deny care (if not insurance) to their customers, 2) raise premiums with littel regulation 3) has no real enforcement (only the House bill has a strong “cop on the beat” as the Senate bill has toothless states enforcing regulations.
It makes it illegal for people not to buy insurance that they cannot afford and will not protect them from financial ruin.
It delays state innovation for years, at which time Republicans may be in charge to eliminate that provision and it s funded by taxing union health benefits.
I am not so sure this is half a -loaf — it may be a step back. Further, it represents the blatant weakness of progressives who lost every battle in the argument and still ended up calling it a victory. I think the passage of this bill is quite possibly an overall negative. The GOP opposition may make it seem like a victory, but unless ERISA and/or a public option were to be included, I can’t see how this helps all that much. The new subsidies will pale in comparison to the fact that the law will require the purchases from middle-to-low incomes — who are hoping that the companies will offer adequate coverage and fair prices.
I agree with most of your points. In many ways it does send us backwards in further entrenching private insurance. Unfortunately our Congress seems to simply be unable to do any better, which is really awful, in my opinion. And then the choice is between this or a lot of my fellow citizens dying. One more point — progressives did win some concessions. Sanders won community health centers that’d serve 25 million more Americans for holding out.
In response to another comment. See in context »well I agree with most of what you said. Sanders did hold out on centers, but should have held out for more, say ERISA.
But I need to address this “Unfortunately our Congress seems to simply be unable to do any better, which is really awful, in my opinion. And then the choice is between this or a lot of my fellow citizens dying.”
I am not sure this bill really prevents that. The fact is, the only real change here is that they cannot deny care for pre-existing conditions. But they can charge more — three times as much. So, for that small segment of the population, some may have lives saved, but others will merely accept tax penalty and still die. Or, get insurance, but then surgeries will be denied. Since this does not offer a competition to private insurance, the premiums will keep going up, as will co-pays and deductibles which will increase the amount of money going toward ever-decreasing insurance. So more people will die of starvation, stress, general poverty.
What we have essentially done is assured that corporations, bound to shareholder profit above the public good (by law) will continue to manage health as a commodity, with no threat of reform in the future since Obama care will not even be implemented for four years in many case. And, with no ERISA, the real hope — that states could pass single-payer and we could control costs by eliminating profits and administrative waste (the solution adopted in various form by every country in the OECD, with success) — is made impossible. The state innovation waiver, does not go into effect for many years. So states cannot opt-out of this plan (without losing all federal funds) so there is little chance of saving the system. And even in four years ERISA is still the law of the land, as the Senate fix assures, so even then single-payer will not be allowed.
We would have been better off simply adding a tax on the rich and adding some new subsidies. and then picking away at the rest in increments, while allowing states to get the ball moving.
I just don’t think this bill will save lives, and in the long run, may hurt more.
I hope I am wrong, but I think corporations and party politics just completely hijacked biggest legislative battle of our time. And the policy we have reflects their interests at the expense of our health. The good things in this bill (IE the subsidies and regulatins) do not equal the bad = the increased power of corporations and the lack of flexibility for states to experiment.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hi. Liked your article, but I disagree with you that simple and efficient is not Congress’s way. Congress fucntions with the efficiency of a fine Swiss watch, perfectly fulfilling all the duties of their job descriptions as fund raisers/ whores. In order to get elected Congress folks must raise funds from big corporate Special Interests like health insurance companies. And they insure continuance of these funds in each re-election campaign, by giving the U.S. the best government that corporate money can buy. As simply and efficiently as possible, they always cater to the wishes of the big corporate Special Interests and ignore the needs of the citizens, as they are directed to do by their Masters. It’s the Golden Rule: He who supplies the gold makes the rules.
My experience since moving to washington and working with these people is that it usually isn’t straight a matter of someone goes into Congress and thinks, “I’m big insurance’s man in congress!” Unfortunately, many of these industries have many ways to influence members of congress, not only giving them money but running ads that distort the truth, threatening them with job loss or capital flight. It’s really sad and shows why we need public financing of campaigns. And also outside institutions like foundations and think tanks need a more people-powered grassroots model.
In response to another comment. See in context »right you are in the above comment. The truth is, even if every member of congress truly believed in using the massive economy of scale of 300 million people, into a quality public system that would save us 25 percent on administrative waste and eliminate profits to shareholders, in favor of more and better care, it would still not happen.
The parties depend on corporate donations. The Supreme Court ruling has further made this so. So, if the Dems or GOP decided to do this, they would lose oodles of campaign dollars and lose power. That is why both parties will not stray too much from status quo; the current system allows them to rotate the seats of power and you can challenge powerful interests to a point — and sometimes politics forces your hand — but if the push too hard, the party loses money and even the country could lose all sorts of capital investment.
The truth is, election reform (and media reform) are probably needed to make any real legislative victories, (for labor, health, military, whatever )possible.
I do think citizens need to start thinking about building up a stronger labor movement, rather than trying to elect progressives; electing progressives does not yield much change, it seems. TIme for general strikes, worker-owned businesses and civil disobedience. The vote is not enough.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kucinich keeps being reelected because he stands for something. Too bad other politicians do not see if they stand up for something and refuse to be bought out the “people” will support them at the voting booth. I like the post and your insight on what is going on inside DC.
RE:Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, voted against the House health care bill in November because he prefers a fully government-run, Medicare-for-all approach
For all except the elites in D.C.
If Kucinish wants fulll run government health care….let him move to Cuba and becomes one of the inmates on the Castros prison island
Say what you want about Cuba but I guarantee that no Cuban goes bankrupt because of a hospital stay…
In response to another comment. See in context »Or let him move to France, the number one ranked health system in the world, according to the WHO. (We rank 37th, one above Cuba); Or he coudl move to any other OECD country, which have better health outcomes.
We spend $7,000 or so per capita on healthcare, and have worse outcomes than other countries, who spend less than $5,000, cover everyone, and live longer.
Yeah, go US!
In response to another comment. See in context »I strongly suspect that by this time tomorrow, Kucinich will not need a defense as I believe he will announce in the morning that he has decided to vote for the bill.
1. that ‘little prick’ (FUCK YOU, kos) has more balls than 99% of the kongresskritters who betrayed the people, got down on their knees in front of rahm, and swallowed this health insurance bailout bill…
2. here is the overarching logic that makes me want to visit washingtoon and throw a necktie party for nearly every gummint official there: they ‘PLEDGED’ not to vote for a bill with the egregious abortion rights exclusions…
they lied, they retreated, they knuckled under…
they ‘PLEDGED’ not to vote for a bill without some sort of public option…
they lied, they rationalized, they didn’t even fucking *try*…
(‘they didn’t even try…’ should be the motto of this health insurance bailout fiasco…)
BUT, the one thing which is neatly sidestepped by nearly everyone -BUT kucinich and a handful of other principled reps- is that the health insurance parasites ARE THE ROOT CAUSE OF MOST OF the problems in our health care industry…
…and this bill ENTRENCHES, EXPANDS, and ENABLES these parasites to CONTROL THE SYSTEM…
the li’l peeps lost, big bidness won, and now WE take it up the ass, AGAIN ! ! !
yeah, what’s not to like…
3. to the koolaid drunks who claim this will be ‘fixed’ after the fact: I DON’T BELIEVE YOU, WHAT of the egregious, anti-constitutional, inhumance policies, laws, and actions of the bush klavern has saint obama rolled back, rescinded, or ‘fixed’ ? ? ?
NOTHING of substance, and EVERY HORROR of the bush reign is being DEFENDED OR EXPANDED under o-rahma and krewe…
he *could* have gotten single-payer, public option, or medicare-for-all without breaking a sweat, IF he was willing to address the true problem and jettison the health insurance parasites…
AND his popularity (among the li’l peeps, not his korporate donors) would be through the fucking roof…
he did not choose that route…
HE chose to be a power elite toady, amoral warmonger, and defender of bushian totalitarinaism…
meh, just another corrupt facilitator of Empire in blackface…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Dennis fought the good fight as long as he could. HR 676, universal health care for all Americans, is dying a slow death in committee while media coverage calls this bill “reform.”
From what I’ve read about it, this bill is not a step forward in any way. Some have claimed it will make health care a “right.” This isn’t the case at all: It will continue to be a privilege, easily afforded by some, while those who can’t will now be legally penalized. It’s just another punishment for being poor.
Big businesses need to wake up and figure out that government-sponsored health care will make them more globally competitive. Unions need to wake up and see that government-sponsored health care will take something off of their crowded plates — it will be something no longer up for negotiating or sacrificing.
I guarantee you two things: (1)If the system is in place, that fired up crowd of unemployed teabaggers will be among the first in line to see a doctor. (2) This issue isn’t going away after the bill passes. I still won’t be able to have my wisdom teeth removed and there are 50 million others just like me (and that pool is growing) who will need to see a doctor and won’t be able to wait four years to qualify for a public option.
Kucinich will be able to say “I told you so.”
Zaid,
I admire your phrasing, “working with these people”, take notes, visit the outside world on a regular basis, consult your family, read Harpers magazine and the first time you look in the mirror and mutter, Oh God, leave.
Also if you happen upon Kucinich, compliment his taste in women and thank him for me and the rest of the nation.
“Yet at the same time, it will relieve the misery of millions of Americans who are going without health care because they don’t have insurance…Kucinich does not have it in him to stop tens of millions of Americans from getting health insurance.”
People don’t suffer and die because they don’t have health insurance, they suffer and die because they don’t have health care. Now, if a sick person actually gets health care while having coverage under a health insurance plan, it is still the health care which saves the person from suffering and death. This fact may sound like an absurd over-simplification of the really very complex issue of health care in the U.S.A. but notwithstanding may prove to be a useful angle from which to analyze health care legislation.
In fact, does HEALTH INSURANCE=HEALTH CARE?
The doctor’s oath, “First do no harm”, keeps circulating through my mind while watching this huge health care debate.
[...] the healthcare effort, I still have a few issues with the bill (a sentiment I share with Taibbi and Zaid Jilani) but ultimately, nobody can deny some of the immediate [...]