Health Care Reform Passes House

It's ironic that the only Republican... (0.00 / 0)

...to vote for the final bill was the one (Cong. Cao of Louisiana) who already has mortal lame duck status.

---

by: Randall Sherman @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 00:07:55 AM CST

as expected... (0.00 / 0)

kucinich voted no.  this serves as another example of why leaders who wanted to pass health care reform legislation this year had to negotiate with conservative members of congress to get to 218.  kucinich was a no on every single proposal (whip count) i saw this year...

"We have a lot of kids on the ground acting like adults and we have a lot of adults in this room acting like kids," President Obama told his advisors about all the infighting

---

by: bored now @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:33:34 AM CST

could you explain how DK supporting the bill (0.00 / 0)

would have made it better?

How many votes could DK provide? What concession could his block have gotten?

How is the final bill different than what House leadership wanted? Than the Obama administration wanted?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:41:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

kucinich's argument that voting for this bill... (0.00 / 0)

would make him a hypocrite implies that anyone (new) who supports single-payer would thus be a hypocrite.  he's given republican challengers the perfect frame, and thus kills any chance that single-payer had while he is in congress.

kucinich won't compromise his principles.  but he can't ask others to compromise their's, either.

the fact is that the leadership scratched for votes until the very last minute.  i got a call at ~8:30 last night from someone trying to figure out how to keep lipinski in the fold.

kucinich made passing health care reform harder than it had to be.  his unwillingness to support reform gave moderate and conservative dems greater negotiating power.  and bill foster -- who's support of this bill was questioned here -- has proven to be a stronger supporter of health care reform than dennis kucinich.  we need to acknowledge all of that...

"We have a lot of kids on the ground acting like adults and we have a lot of adults in this room acting like kids," President Obama told his advisors about all the infighting

---

by: bored now @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:31:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I like Foster (0.00 / 0)

He seems to be a sharp guy.

He's appropriately loyal to the Dems and appropriately independent.

Kucinich is more of a show boat than a working boat. He's never accomplished much in Congress.

I don't think Republicans can get mileage from quoting Kucinich. He's not established his credibility with anyone but a narrow part of the progressive movement. The people who believe in Kucinich aren't vulnerable to being peeled away by the GOP.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:20:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree that Kucinich's absolutist approach (0.00 / 0)

does not sit well with me either. One has to wonder if his vote and been 218 would he have still voted "no"? I mean isn't he a purist on abortion as well? And there he voted against Stupak rather than a purist anti-abortion position. I suppose there are spins he makes with himself on an issue like abortion. He did that when he was running for president.

Still I suppose, even had he voted "yes" as 218, his purism leading up to it was un-helpful as you've noted.

-----

As for Foster, I am to blame for giving him a local bad rap when I should have know better. I had forgotten and earlier speaking out for the public option that should have stood for an intermediate lack of apparent support. Does that sentence make sense?

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:50:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kucinich's position on abortion (0.00 / 0)

change prior to his first run for President, when he made a case for why his mind had changed on that issue ... so voting against Stupak is now consistent for him.  People are allowed to listen to arguments and change their minds on issues.  

---

by: maven @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 13:41:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On the other hand (4.00 / 1)

If there had more more of the progressive community willing to challenge a bad bill, then maybe leadership would have had to negotiate with them instead of caving in to a lot of demands that made the final bill much weaker than it needed to be.  Honestly, there's a lot in this bill that's just terrible, and I'm not sure that it gives them the position of strength HCR needed to go into conference with the Senate.  The Senate will vote on a much worse version, as far as anyone can tell, so its quite possible that the final bill that comes out of conference will be a counter-productive mess.  

If I were in Congress, I might have voted against it because of Stupak alone -- women are already second-class citizens when it comes to health care, and what a great way to reduce them to third-class citizens.  Bah.  

---

by: maven @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 13:45:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Differences (0.00 / 0)

How is the final bill different than what House leadership wanted? Than the Obama administration wanted?

One glaringly obvious point is that the public option is this bill does not tie physician pay rates to those for Medicare. The House leadership clearly and explicitly wanted that. And I think Obama wanted that as well, although he has not taken a public stand on what sort of public option he would prefer.

Granted, it's not clear that Kuchinich's support would have put that option over the top. Did he weaken the enthusissm of othres who might have supported that "robust" option? Did he provide cover for those who opposed it for other reasons? I don't know. But it's clear he was deliberately unhelpful.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

---

by: wathomasson @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:44:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good for Kucinich (4.00 / 2)

This bill needs to go to the dumpster.

---

by: curmudgeon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 16:37:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]