Saunders versus Kucinich who is right

[grantcart]

Two of the most progressive legislators and who have led on many progressive fronts in the past are now on different sides of the upcoming HCR. Here are their statements

From Bernie Saunders website:

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=7ebb69c8-f939-48f3-9068-410948a22155

The Obama proposal mirrors a Sanders provision for community health centers in a bill that the Senate approved last Dec. 24. The Senate legislation also invested in training for health care professionals.

The president’s plan, according to Sanders, would double the number of health center sites nationally over the next five years from 7,500 to 15,000 sites. The $11 billion the White House allocated for health centers would increase the number of patients served from 20 million today to about 39 million by 2015. That investment in health centers, Sanders added, would save Medicaid $17 billion that would otherwise be spent on more expensive hospital and emergency room care, according to a George Washington University study.

From firedoglake http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/15/2228258.aspx

With President Obama today campaigning for health reform in Dennis Kucinich's congressional district, Kucinich's office reiterated to First Read that "he is a firm no," according to spokesman Nathan White.

The health bill isn't progressive enough for Kucinich, who voted against even the House-passed bill, which included a public option.

Kucinich wrote an op-ed in Sunday's Cleveland Plain-Dealer, outlining his position. He said, in part:

"President Barack Obama is in northern Ohio on Monday to campaign for his health care plan, and I will be here to welcome him. I have met with the president three times to discuss how we can work together to address the serious deficiencies in our health care system. Even at this late date, I am hopeful that the White House will be able to reinstate key reforms that passed the Education and Labor Committee on which I serve.

Presumably virtually all DUers want not just a public option but evolution to a real single payer system.

Assuming that all negotiations on substance is now finished and you would have to give the final vote that would either pass or defeat the bill which position would you take.

[hlthe2b]

1. Split the baby in half! Everybody wins (and Everybody loses)

:eyes:



I have to be a pragmatist on this and go with Sanders, but I am not calling for Kucinich's head, although if it comes down to his vote and his alone, I'd hope he would reconsider.

[grantcart]

2. well said

[mdmc]

4. well said

I stand with Obama and Sanders but fully admit that this bill will not increase access to medical treatment for the citizens of our country. This bill is set up to show that for profit insurance is a huge failure. Sanders was smart to get some community health care funding in with this corporate giveaway..

[grantcart]

8. lol you must be my twin lol

[mdmc]

16. yesyes

:)

[Deep13]

3. How does one "force" a better bill? nt

[ZombieHorde]

5. The same way one improves the bill tomorrow. nt

[Deep13]

20. Which is what? nt

[ZombieHorde]

49. I was being pessimistic. I don't think either is going to happen. nt

[grantcart]

6. Not to speak for Rep Kucinich but the health care system is under

a situation of collapse.

Presumably it would be better to draw a clearer distinction of what single payer/public option means and run on it in the general election, educating the populace and getting more support.

Presumably with more insurance companies peeling off more marginal customers and rates increasing the burden to hospitals and doctors for non payers would eventually cause the medical establishment to turn en force against the health care industry and demand real reform.

[Cal33]

17. OK. Without the public option this bill will be almost useless.

So, let's concentrate on doing what will benefit the sociopathic corporations the LEAST.
There's no doubt about it. Our nation is sick. Too many sociopaths are holding high
positons - both in government and in private industry. What can be the result but a
sick nation?

[grantcart]

18. The bill will save lives and save money

Have you read the bill?

[Deep13]

22. Uh huh. How does one "force" a better bill? nt

[Marr]

9. How do you improve a bill later if you can't do it when it's got the national spotlight?

[grantcart]

13. the same way all big legislation has evolved

The original Social Security bill was only a fraction of what it is today.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include Voting Rights, now the most important part.

Medicare is a classic example. Once it becomes normative then even Republicans will want to take credit for improving it.

If you look at Canada and other countries virtually all health care took one big step with a minimial national plan and then both conservative and liberal parties claimed it as their own and worked to expand it.

The UK was unique, coming out of the war completely shell shocked it was felt, among all classes that the country should define health care as a basic right and all people should be treated fairly, it was an unusual degree of solidarity that even caught the politicians by surprise.

[Marr]

26. Yes, but those were steps in the right direction, later taken a bit further.

This bill institutionalizes the corrupt industries that are creating the problem. It's a step backward, and actually seems designed to insure that no real change takes place.

[grantcart]

39. Virtually all progressives disagree with you

Senator Sanders, Rockfeller, Feingold, Durbin, Kerry, Levin, Franken and Sherrod Brown all disagree with you.

Gov. Dean now says that voting against this bill is voting for the insurance companies.

Its pretty clear that you are repeating talking points and haven't bothered to actually read the bill.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

43. Well I sure need a raise

The reason that it doesn't seem that you have read it is because you seem unfamiliar with the provisions that empower the OPM with wide powers in controlling plans.

[saltpoint]

52. I'd happily pay to read a post by grantcart.

[Maru Kitteh]

54. Of course you realize it's a rules violation to imply someone is paid.

[grantcart]

58. it didn't bother me and I didn't alert on it.

[kenfrequed]

27. False analogy

Neither Social Security nor Medicare created a system that, at their roots propped up a for profit corporate enterprise with massively overwhelming lobbying power.

Yes, Canada had a minimal Public plan. Not additional support for for-profit insurance through mandates and monies given to insurance companies.

The UK perspective, that healthcare is a right, is hardly unique. Many western European countries believe similarly and have legislated public health systems to one degree or another.

Analogizing this bill with the Civil Rights bill is so insulting that I will not treat with it.

[grantcart]

34. Your condescention noted but actually I got the analogy of the Civil Rights bill

from Representative Clyburn, who as you know, was intimately involved in real civil rights action.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/clyburn-compares-health-care-battle-to-struggle-for-civil-rights-act.php

"The 30-second soundbyte is what's got all this up in the air," agreed Clyburn (D-SC). "Every big social change you go through this. It will take six to eight years before this all settles down."

Their remarks were captured as a Wednesday afternoon conference call about the Democratic National Committee's proposed changes to the presidential 2012 nominating calendar began. The call was open to the press and the public.

Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights fight and longtime participant in state and federal politics, said people forget the difficulties of passing health care.

"The first civil rights bill was very comprehensive," Clyburn said. "In order for the filibuster to be broken we had to drop off the Voting Rights ."

He said there was big disagreement between Congressional leadership and Martin Luther King Jr.

" Johnson was very clear, it was not going to get done if they kept voting rights in," he said.

Clyburn did not explicitly draw the link between health care and civil rights, but he's been saying lately he was not confident the public option would survive a final health care bill.

Clyburn has been making this point for months, this from an article last December but I heard reiterate the point last week.

It is obvious that you haven't read the bill or the mark up.

The Senate bill requires that a non profit be included in all state markets and gives OPM power over MLR, Profit, Premiums and conditions of service. For that reason Senator Saunders, Rockfeller, Feingold, Durbin, Kerry, Levin, Franken and Sherrod Brown are all for it:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/256

Because of those changes and the overall impact of the bill all of those leading voices on health care reform are urging for a yes vote.

Most notably Dr. Dean now has reversed his point of view and is saying that those that are opposing the bill are those that are most helping the health industry.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/howard_dean_double_take_on_hea.html

Tex
Smack in the middle of it is this quote from former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.). "We deserve a vote," he said. "This is a vote about one thing -- are you for the insurance companies or for the American people?"

You can delude yourself all you want but opposition to this bill, according to civil rights leaders, every single progressive Senator and leaders like Dr. Dean all say that you are siding with the insurance company.

You can now return to your uninformed condescending world.

[kenfrequed]

46. Feh

In what way is corporate welfare analagous to healthcare reform outside of some absured talking point. Rather than quoting talking points and speeches lets make reasoned arguments.

How is establishing a corporate welfare system the same as the civil rights movement.

[grantcart]

60. The bill will save lives and save money

It also will establish the principle that the Federal Government has the authority to control the health industry.

It will further create a constituency that will use the service and it is always the case that the more people that use the service the more legislative support it gets.

Your premise that it is corporate welfare is not consistent with the facts, and it is ignorant of the vast power the OPM will have to control plans in the state exchanges. Sanders, Dean and every progressive Democratic Senator disagrees with you.

As for the analogy with the Civil Rights Act take it up with Clyborn, obviously you consider yourself a higher authority than he is.

[kenfrequed]

74. Nonsense

You are conflating the cooperation of progressives with a bill that they have been forced to accept politically with full and willful desire for this idiotic pile as the solution.

You do not seem to understand how a private-public enterprise gets entirely out of cotnrol. If you want a comparison look to the military industrial complex, look at those prisons that have become privatized.

Actually for a perfect preview of how screwed up this will become over time look at the Bush solution to Senior drug problems with Medicare part D. That is the model the insurance lobby wanted all along and they were able to play congress like a fiddle to get it.

The paid the Republicans to say No to everything (even a bill that they probably would normally have supported) and they paid a lot of blue dogs and centrists to knock any substantive Cost controlling reform right off the damned table.

That aspect of the bill, and it is a very tiny one, does not address the real problem of healthcare for the majority of the country. Insurance companies will continue to maximize profits and access to actual healthcare will diminish. The difference is that the government will now subsidize the profits of BCBS to provide nothing with money that could have actually gone to a public plan that would have garaunteed coverage for more people.

Holding out that tiny provision that allows for a miniscule amount of money to go to a private healthcare plan that is managed or negotiated by the OPM is insulting and pitiful. Do you honestly believe that future appointees from opposition parties will negotiate for the miniscule number of people it covers in good faith?

What was needed was an actual public plan. Something like Social Security or Medicare. Something no conservative would dare assault directly and that, once instituted, the American people would shout down any attempts to destroy it.

Rather than hide behind Clyborn, which you have done again, defend that analogy logically or abandon it as the pitifully wretched talking point that it is.

[grantcart]

81. Your simply ignorant of the facts, unless you consider 26 million miniscule

The CBO estimated that the exchanges would have over 23 million members, hardly "miniscule".

Tex

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=446

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the legislation, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. Approximately 26 million people would purchase their own coverage through the new insurance exchanges . .

. . .
The proposal would call on OPM to contract for two national or multi-state health insurance plans—one of which would have to be nonprofit— that would be offered through the insurance exchanges.

Originally you said that the analogy on the Civil Rights Act was beneath you and now you want to have it spoon fed to you. The analogy comes from the Civil Rights community and is self explanatory.

Now you name one huge increase of federal authority that was done in a single step rather than an initial begining with signicant increases down the line ala EPA, Social Security, Medicare and every other major federal initiative.


I have had about a dozen technical discussions like this with true blue opponents of the bill and every time they fail to demonstrate a working knowledge of what is in the bill. The continue to say things like only a miniscule (false) number will be included, OPM will have limited authority (false) and that people will have to buy from for profit insurance companies (false).

You can continue to make uninformed but principled stands or you can start listening to progressives like Sanders that actually do thier home work and know what they are talking about.

[kenfrequed]

89. Question time Mr. Bold print

Other than the aforementioned legislator, how many members of the 'civil rights community' back this bill?

Why are you refusing to enter a logical comparative debate to that analogy?

How many people will be covered by this specific portion of the bill (and I mean the OPM managed portion, not everyone that is purchasing their insurance through exchanges)?

How much money has been allocated for this non-profit?

Do you think that opponents (republicans) appointed to the OPM might choose to modify this plan negatively?


Are you aware that some HMO's are technically considered 'not for profit'?

[Deep13]

21. Don't change the subject.

I asked how one "forces" an improved bill. It wasn't a rhetorical question.

[Marr]

25. I actually meant to respond to the other person.

My mistake.

[anigbrowl]

61. Existing legislation gets amended and refined all the time

It's not like the 10 commandments or something that's supposed to come down from the mountain and endure for all time. Probably 80% of all legislative change is piecemeal.

[laughingliberal]

57. How did the Blue Dogs 'force' a worse bill? nt

[Deep13]

63. Collaborating with the enemy. Still no answer to my question. nt

[laughingliberal]

77. It's interesting to me that every time a Blue Dog made a demand to make this bill worse

the Senate soiled themselves scrambling to accommodate them to get their vote but we can't get a change to this bill that 70% of the public wanted when a progressive takes a stand on it.

It worked amazingly well for the DINO's

[Deep13]

79. No argument here. nt

[Marr]

7. 'SO WHAT if the house is on fire? You can repaint it once you're inside!'

C'mon! You said you wanted a new house, right?!

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. And you can only repaint it with DLC-approved paint.

Which is about 85% gasoline.

[gateley]

10. I'm going with Sanders, only because I have no faith that we would

get any further on any other bill in the near future. We've been waiting what, 50 years? I think it MIGHT get the momentum going.

AND -- What about Grayson's resolution? That's what I'm really hoping for.

[JanusAscending]

15. ME TOO !!

but my greatest motivation for wanting this to pass is to shove all the money that the Ins. Industry has shelled out to fight any health care reform, up their asses!! Just for spite!! There must be something good in there for us if they will go to the extremes they have to keep it from passing!:bounce: :nuke:

[Hansel]

41. +1

[ProSense]

12. "Defeat the bill and force a better bill."

Yeah, people who don't believe the bill can be fixed support an effort to "force a better bill"?

I think the kill the bill advocates only care that the bill is killed. They don't give a shit that health care will not be on the agenda for several years to come.

[grantcart]

14. Well in order to get a fair reading of what DU feels its probably a good

strategy to provide the two opposing points of view in the best possible light and let people decide.

I think that the final result will be instructive on where DU stands on the final vote.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. I choose to trust Saunders...

His record as a liberal progressive is real. He has suppurated and voted for legislation that improves peoples lives in a good progressive manner, even if the bill was not ideal. He stands by his record and his principals.

Kucinich, not so much. He talks big, but has no real record of accomplishment of improving anything to stand on. He has principals but no record.

[Andy823]

23. One problem I see.

If the bill is defeated, the republicans will do the same thing they did last year, stall until they go on another break where they will rally the morons in the tea party groups to do the same thing they did last summer, go crazy and get on TV, have town halls where they can shout down anyone who isn't against the plan, and then come November many democrats will be so pissed off that congress and the president did nothing to get reform, they wills stay home and the republicans could very well take over as the majority in congress, and then NOTHING will ever get done and president Obama will have a hard time come 2012. As long as republicans are in control of on branch, or both nothing will ever happen.

We need to get something passed so we can work at making it better. I am not in love with the current bill at all, but killing it will kill any chance of getting some kind of reform done for years to come, maybe decades. Sorry, but I agree with Sanders, pass it and start working on making it better!

[bobbolink]

24. This kind of confrontation isn't at all helpful.

Both of them have legitimate points, and may I remind you---THEY ARE FRIENDS.

Trying to cause more dissention isn't helpful.

Remember, Reasonable People Can Disagree.

[grantcart]

35. I couldn't disagree more

Both positions were put forth in a positive and respective matter.

The issue goes to the core of what strategy do you think would be more effective.

Putting the two opinions forward in a respectful juxtaposition gives people a chance to voice their opinion without denegrating either approach.

Based on the number of threads praising Representative Kucinich I think most people assumed that the vast majority of DUers supported his more confrontational approach.

I am guessing that the poll will show otherwise.

[bobbolink]

36. I wouldn't expect you to actually see the sadness of this.

If you were truly interested in a "respectful" thread, you would have at least given a third option... that BOTH have made some good points, and that reasonable people can disagree.

I'm guessing you were hoping for some blood.

[grantcart]

38. The premise of the question is that no more negotiation is possible

and that the vote would be decisive, in those circumstances do you really think that it is better for the bill to be defeated.

I'll keep my sadness for my wife who has to clean homes after we lost our house and all of our assets because of a medical bankruptcy taht would have been prevented by this bill and my brother who has on the verge of a medical catastrophy and is one of many that will qualify and get medical treatment with this bill, although in his case it may be too little too late.

If you want to feel pity for self indulgent politicians who can't get beyond the polemics and the personal ego then go ahead, I'll save if for the real victims.

Lets have a roll call

Senator Sanders, Rockfeller, Feingold, Durbin, Kerry, Levin, Franken and Sherrod Brown all for it, Senator Kennedy would have voted for it and now Dr. Dean says that we should pass it.

But it doesn't meet the lofty standards of Representative Kucinich.

Now that's sad.

[bobbolink]

40. Since in your toughness you don't have room to CARE (not pity) people in *my* position,

then don't hang out the guilt flag.

"If you want to feel pity for self indulgent politicians who can't get beyond the polemics and the personal ego"

Yup, you wanted blood.

You have, first, made an assumption about me which I went to great lengths to avoid, and second, you are now painting me as an enemy.

Which brings us right back to my original words... this is not constructive.

So, go ahead and beat up a homeless person who was calling for a bit of peace.

That's what a real man would do.

[grantcart]

45. Actually I have no problem going down that road if you want to, I actually

spent 7 years in refugee camps and assisted 440,000 homeless people get to their new homes, done at considerable personal cost.

Nothing in my replies was directed to you, personally or otherwise. My sadness is reserved for folks that are suffering and not politicians who are engaged in symbolic gestures.

It is a legitimate issue and most people, even at DU, are voting that we are at the point of taking action and not engaging in symbolic actions for some future action that could be decades away.

The fact that no one else has objected to the format of the poll leads me to believe that I presented it in an objective fashion and DK supporters can vote for him and feel that their point of view was presented honestly. This is a political discussion board and the poll is a way for gauging opinion on an issue that has been discussed extensively.

The fact that you are able to engage in political discussions despite your overwhelming personal situation demonstrates a remarkable spirit and for that I not only salute you but will say that you inspire even me if, in this case, we disagree.

Good luck.

[kenfrequed]

75. Divide and conquer

That is the goal of this post.

[Unvanguard]

28. The socialist, not the grandstander. n/t

[Deep13]

29. +1

[O is 44]

37. Right on, could not have said it better myself. n/t

[gleaner]

30. I'm with Kucinich ...

This bill is thrashed. I don't think anything can make it livable. I would like to see it killed and then start over again with something that is helpful to the people and not the insurance companies. The fact of the desperation to pass the bill should tell us that it is no good even if nothing else does, and there is plenty that does. I stand with Kucinich and I admire him for taking a stand.

If this were passed there would be no impetus for it to be changed later and our experience in the veracity of Obama and his administration has not been reassuring.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. I kicked in with Bernie.

Others above have already expressed my sentiments.

[Dappleganger]

32. I'm going to side with Bernie just about every time...

because he knows how to actually get things DONE.

[grantcart]

33. for the record I had a roommate in college whose name was Saunders

and I always transpose Bernie's last name.

Kudos to all who noticed the mistake but refrained from an easy tag.

[MineralMan]

44. I'll listen to Bernie before Dennis every time.

Every time.

In fact, I'm getting more and more pissed off at Kucinich by the day.

[Jennicut]

47. Bernie's approach is better. And he is a fellow New Englander.

So of course I will pick his idea over DK's. :)

[Doremus]

48. Bernie Sanders.

It's late and it took me a minute to figure out who you were talking about.

[557188]

50. A "socialist" for mandated CORPORATE health care?? lol

Yeah Bernie...keep trying to save yourself.

Kucinich is right.

[Maru Kitteh]

51. I'm with BERNIE!

[Forkboy]

53. Prog fight!!!!!!!

Hey, that's what you wanted, isn't it? Be honest now....

[grantcart]

59. lol no the fight has been going on I just wanted a sense of where

DU stood on it because based simply on "The Greatest Threads" it appeared that DU overwhelmingly supported DK, and I thought that the results would be closer to what is showing.

I tried to present the two positions in an honest way and upthread tried to present DK argument in more detail and in a fair way.

If DU isn't pulling DK's way and it is way more DK friendly than the rest of the Democratic Party I think that the honest conclusion would have to be that he is marginalizing his position.

If it comes down to it passing by just a couple of votes and DK changes his position sans public option I think it would be interesting to take the temperature again and see what people think at that point.

[ecstatic]

55. Saunders is the real thing. DK has run for president twice

He doesn't think things through. I hate to bring this up again but I will continue to ask why DK wanted Ron paul as his running mate. Ron Paul is a racist bigot who is against the government being involved in health care and education. Had DK been successful, we would have a right wing republican VP who would be next in line to become president in 2016. So that means Kucinich is either extremely stupid, extremely short sighted, or just plain full of shit. I'm gonna go with a mixture of all three.

I have nothing but respect for people I have sincere disagreements with. But DK is not sincere. All it takes is a small amount of reading to understand that.

[anigbrowl]

62. I am so with you

I volunteered to help DKs 2004 campaign. I've met him. The experience convinced me not to support his 2008 campaign. I think his heart is in the right place but I really have little confidence in his judgment. Plus, it's real easy to be pure and promise the moon, sun and stars when the chance of your being called on to deliver them is effectively zero.

[saltpoint]

56. We aren't always able to hear Sanders on Thom Hartmann's program

on Fridays but in the times we do we think the two of them put together as good a discussion on the issues as can be had.

It's just a fine program by two outstanding souls, IMO.

If I were hiring someone to solve problems I'd hire Sanders before Kucinich.

[Major Hogwash]

64. Dinner's on the table, but Dennis won't sit down to eat, because there's no dessert.

He'd rather starve and bitch about there not being any dessert.

It's "all or nothing" with him, and that ain't the way politicking works in Washington, D.C.!!

[Lorien]

71. There's no dinner either, just a big fat check for the unserved food. nt

[mmonk]

65. It is not an issue of right and wrong between them, rather it is a right or wrong

between forces that resist changing an unworkable system that will fail and those that want to correct it. With Sanders, you have someone that wants the system changed and has decided to take what he can get. In Kucinich, you have someone that wants the system changed and decided that sense those that have created the problems in the first will remain in charge and so will not take what he can get if there isn't a structural change. This is different from those that want to make sure those in charge remain in charge for the campaign cash they provide or so they won't have to stand against that money and those that have always recieved the largess of those in charge and spend their time in office representing their interests, even when those interests conflict with the public good.

[NightWatcher]

66. why should we believe they'd start FIXING it tomorrow?

If they dint have 60, or whatever magic number is required for passage of the public option, how are we to believe they'd get 60 for any of the FIXES?

Oh wait, I'm not supposed to be actually thinking about health care for people, this is about politics at this point and we've GOT to LOOK like winners.

Most of the items in the current bill would not take effect until after Obama is out of his second term if he is lucky enough to get one, giving the repukes who will run on repealing Obamacare plenty of opportunity to defeat the Dems and repeal it. (Unlike the Dems who say they will repeal things, the Repukes will do it on Inauguration Day when they take over.

This is not about health care but about playing political games that make us look like winners. We've wasted a year and a shitload of political capital on this and it will be a millstone around our necks in 2010 and 2012.

[mmonk]

68. My take as well. If I thought this would lead to further change, I would

support it. But what it looks like to me is a political dog and pony show that promises something in the future while costs go up and more people are shed. The opportunity was now to correct it, not to leave it to the good graces of those elected some other day. And it isn't worth waiting for if it doesn't change the structural problems that make the system unstainable and unjust.

[deacon]

67. This is a tough question and a great poll question, btw - I lean with saunders

my hearts not all it in though. The question that hits me in the head is if the PO doesn't happen - who is really to blame? Though on the surface it may be easy to answer - if the PO doesn't happen there will be evaluation of why it didn't.

[freddie mertz]

69. Who is "Senator Saunders"?

Since he apparently does not exist, I will vote for Dennis.

[grantcart]

82. lol mea culpa in reply 33

[Lorien]

70. If history is any indicator the bill will NEVER see a single improvement if passed

what they vote for is what we'll get.

[suzie]

72. Because that's what happened with FDR and LBJ. SS and Medicare were passed and never changed.

[mmonk]

73. FDR didn't put the corporations in charge.

[kenfrequed]

76. Uhm no

False analogy.

Social Security and Medicare were strictly public plans. They did not use or create a private structure that would continually try to maximize profits and would allow for lobbying to drain the money out of it. I am getting very tired of this foolish talking point.

You want to compare it to something compare it to the military industrial complex or the for-profit prison industry.

With social security and medicare all that was required to improve it was allocation of more funding and broadening the rules.

With an army of well paid insurance lobbyists that is never going to happen with this bill.

[grantcart]

83. SS and Medicare were small fractions of what they are today when they

initially passed.

Every major increase in federal activism has started small and increased in authority, SS, Medicare, EPA and so on.

[mzmolly]

78. Sanders. No doubt about it.

:hi:

[Mudoria]

80. Bernie of course

[Toasterlad]

84. I Am.

[quiller4]

85. I voted with Saunders although the word is circulating that

Kucinich will announce his grudging support for the bill at his press conference tomorrow.

[grantcart]

87. In which case Kucinich will be supporting the Sanders position

I wonder what the Kucinich supporters will think then?

[Major Hogwash]

88. They must have served damned good snacks on Air Force One.

Dennis likes them chocolate chip mint cookies that have the swirls on top.

[kenfrequed]

91. We will think...

That the Issue is still important and We will still feel as though we have been let down.

See that is the difference between the progressives and the centrists. For us it is about issues and policy and for most centrists it seems to be more about personality and appearance.

Yes Kucinich is a good representative, maybe someday he will be a great representative. Yes, we defend him when he falls under BS attacks by blue dogs who are accusing him (without irony apparantly) of collaborating with the republicans. But it is the issues that are of concern.

Yes, I also defend Bernie Sanders as well and for similar reasons. But seriously this thread was divide and conquer trash.

[Ikonoklast]

86. Bernie by a country mile.

Not even close.

[berni_mccoy]

90. As Berni, I stand with Bernie.