Around here at the Razor, Dennis Kucinich is something of an icon. In terms of Democratic Congressmen, he’s one of the few reliably progressive voices, and always a man to stand up for principle over party and in the face of severe backlash. His NO vote on HR 3962 is a case in point, causing somewhat of a backlash.
“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.
…
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.
Ever agreed with someone’s rationale but not their actions?
As far as I’m concerned, the decision of voting for or against a given bill should come down to two questions: 1) Can we realistically pass a better bill; 2) is doing nothing an option? In this case the answers are, currently, no and no. Look at the facts. With a fairly weak public option 39 Dems still voted no, and it only passed by five. Put out a bill that really sticks it to the insurance companies and it’s going to be a disaster.
Unfortunately, this is a case of “the best we could hope for”, but not “what we wanted”. We’re on the road to reform, but we’re not there yet. So I appreciate your integrity Denny, but this one might have been worth a yes vote.
Truly, I think this might be a wait and see situation. I ranted in my old blog that this bill was a gift to the insurance industry, and I'm still afraid it might be. Without a public option, people WILL just be forced to buy private insurance. Let's be realistic — the insurance companies aren't going to lower rates. If anything they'll raise them because this bill will supposedly put a stop to their practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and dropping people who become ill. A lot will depend on whether the push to end the insurance anti-trust exemption really has any teeth.
I still do wonder if it might have been better to go for the plan that would have truly done some good, and let the Republicans be the bad guys who killed healthcare reform, rather than passing some half-assed version that the public probably isn't going to be real happy with and blame the Democrats for. Time will tell.
I'm glad the bill passed, but I'm delighted Kucinich voted no: What would he have accomplished by voting for it?
I suppose the litmus test would be what his vote would have been had the margin been such that he could have killed it if he wanted.
I'm guessing he knew bill would pass and used the opportunity to publicize his concerns about dangers of strengthening private insurance companies and Wall Street at the expense of the greater good. Still, it would be fascinating to know what he'd have done in your scenario….
[...] His NO vote on HR 3962 is a case in point, causing somewhat of a backlash. So let’s let him defend it. “But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of …Continued [...]