Some people wonder why I am not a fan of Dennis Kucinich and don’t take comfort when I look along the trench and find him fighting by my side or, especially, carrying my banner. Well, he voted against health care reform tonight. He can provide any reasons he wants, but I’d note that the only Democratic women in the entire House to vote against the bill (Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin of South Dakota, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, and Betsy Markey of Colorado), are from very conservative districts. The women of the Democratic caucus swallowed hard when the Stupak-Pitts amendment passed, and they voted to go ahead with reform. So, please don’t try to tell me that the pro-life-’til-the-day-he-decided-to-run-for-president Kucinich voted no because he was standing up for women’s rights. I presume he voted no because this bill isn’t a single-payer bill. But he and Rep. Massa of New York are the only two proponents of single-payer to vote against reform. And Massa is just looking for cover because his district is very conservative. What really happened is that Kucinich wants attention and wants to be holier and purer than everyone else. I’d have to hold my nose to vote this bill, too, but look around, Dennis. You’re all alone. Again.
The bill passed the House with 220 votes (218 votes were required). That leaves us no room to improve the bill in Conference. We got a single Republican vote, from Joseph Cao of New Orleans. Cao was satisfied by the Stupak Amendment, but his vote will disappear if that language is stripped out in Conference. So, we have two votes to spare. Want a stronger public option? Forget it. Any small change to this deal will probably kill the effort to pass this under regular order. I give Pelosi credit for winning, once again, but she just barely made it. She did what she had to do, but it certainly wasn’t pleasant. The combination of her dropping a robust public option pre-Conference and allowing an anti-choice amendment to pass created an extremely bitter brew. The narrowness of the vote undermines the gains we might expect from the jolt of momentum we gain from passing this crappy legislation.
I am really disturbed that allowing the abortion amendment didn’t result in an avalanche of support from so-called moderates. It appears that nearly every southern and border Democrat voted against reform. And this despite the fact that this legislation will disproportionately benefit southerners.
I am happy that the House passed this bill. The alternative was unthinkable, and the insurance reform elements of the bill are rock-solid. I’d only ask for private health insurance to be abolished entirely, but that was obviously never in the cards.
This now moves to the Senate which, ironically, is not as hung up on abortion issues. The big issues in the Senate will be over the financing and whether 60 senators will sign off on cloture for a bill with a public option. The difficulty of passing this bill in the House has surprised me more than anything I’ve seen in Washington since the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I am usually the one counseling progressives about how unrealistic their expectations are considering how conservative the Senate is. Now I learn that the House is just as conservative. There is no way anyone could pass a single-payer system through this Congress, even if we won oodles of new seats. It just won’t happen. It’s not a matter of leadership. Why does the entire South oppose even this lukewarm reform? Look at how far we had to go to get to the point that we could pass something with no support from Republicans and almost no support from Southern Democrats? We just did it, and it’s a minor miracle. A shitty bill passed, and it’s a miracle.
Given the odds, I should be ecstatic. But, I’m not. This just reminds me how pathetically conservative my country is, even with 60 Democratic senators and 258 members of the House.
And then there is Kucinich. He can bite me.
Yeah. Makes you really want to move to Europe, doesn’t it?
Nah — we don’t need no stinkin civilization to pollute our greatness.
This just reminds me how pathetically conservative my country is, even with 60 Democratic senators and 258 members of the House.
The country is not conservative. Not in the way you mean. It’s Congress and doing the bidding of their masters. Herseth-Sandlin will have no excuse if Tim Johnson votes for it. Besides, if you have a “D” besides your name and you can’t even vote for this watered down bill then you’re really not a Democrat, just an asshole opportunist. I’ve stated this a few times and I’d really like to know. I know the Democratic Party is the Big Tent but isn’t there at least a minimum requirement to meet for calling yourself a Democrat? And does Melancon really think he’s gonna beat “Diapers” Vitter by voting No?
You can cite opinion polls to debunk the idea that the people of this country are as conservative as Congress, and you can give me reasons why Congress distorts this ‘true’ reflection of public opinion. But the truth remains. Our Congress is ridiculously conservative and will remain so.
I would say that WASHINGTON is ridiculously conservative and whenever some elected official steps out of line from what The Village sees as the norm, they will be harassed to no end about it through interest groups and the media.
But the truth remains. Our Congress is ridiculously conservative and will remain so.
That was my point!! I think Bowers has put up stuff basically showing that Congress is more conservative than the people they represent(on the whole of course).
That makes the term “conservative” completely meaningless. Unless you think conservative = corrupt absolutely.
Is it possible that it was known that the measure would pass so some of the Democrats in swing districts were given a freebie, so to speak?
As for Kuku, he’s single-payer or nothing, for better or worse.
Then this bill would not pass in a final vote. There are too many progressive Dems who were willing to hold their nose in the hopes that the Stupak stuff will be pulled out in conference. If it is not pulled out, many of them will vote against the final bill. As they should, in my opinion.
At that point it will be the Stupak crew vs. Obama. Will they kill the final bill because their extreme anti-abortion measure is not in it? And if so, who do they really expect to vote for them for reelection?
IMO, they would be fools to vote against the final bill just over lack of abortion coverage, which was pretty much agreed upon in the first place. Where do some people get the idea all of the sudden that Federal money funding people’s insurance policies in the Exchange is going to be allowed to be spent on insurance policies that pay for abortion? I don’t get it. It’s like some people thought they would pull one over on the Hyde Amendment. Just don’t get it.
It doesn’t surprise me to see how close this was — the republicans and the health insurance companies will move heaven and earth to try to torpedo this bill, including creating controversial and divisive amendments and trying to persuade Democrats to be “principled” and not to support the bill. This would be a terrible trap for Democrats to fall into.
YES!
Don’t let the Insurance industry and other special interest groups use the abortion wedge issue kill reform. Think about it.
Somehow, someway, the people of this country have to make their representatives represent them fairly and accurately. Especially, on big ticket items like health care. If we are going to save this democracy of ours and make progress toward a better life for all our citizens, then, we must make our elected representatives accountable to the people.
We must also find some way to get public financing of all campaigns to elected office. Perhaps, we could begin with a dress code for all our congresspeople. Like Nascar drivers, they would have to wear the logos and colors of their chief sponsors. Let the whole world see who owns these champions of capitalism and free enterprise.
To effect the massive reforms we need to make the United States the land of hope and opportunity will require huge amounts of energy. We did it once when it came to winning the battles for minimum pay and maximum hours of work per week; for the abolition of child labor and the creation of the public education movement, for social security and medicare, for the advancement of woman rights and those of sundry minorities including native Americans as well as LBGT folks. Finally, we need to bring back the progressive income tax. The rich have way too much power in this society of ours and too big a choke hold on the national media. Somehow, we must break their power before they sacrifice all of us to their everlasting addiction to money and privilege.
Health reform is a start in this noble endeavor. The bill is not perfect but we can improve it over the years. If we can’t get the whole loaf, then we’ll take a half of loaf, or even a few slices at a time. The key point is we keep struggling and keep moving forwards. This is why Kucinich is such a disappointment. He lacks vision and persistence.
Upon our efforts rests the future prosperity and well being of our descendants. What better motive can we have to keep on fighting?
Thank you. I love you. You say it all so well.
Let’s not get caught up in the traps that are being set to divide us. Let’s pass what we’ve got and let’s do it now. We can keep improving things if we can show some progress and get our people re-elected. Think about it.
That’s a crucially important point. This bill rankles progressives for its timidity and incompleteness, but is still a legitimate huge and historic achievement if it becomes law. It will provide the basis for further consolidation of progressive ideas and activism, as the Republicans well know — it’s the real reason they are trying to desperately to sabotage it. If this effort fails at this late stage, or becomes mere window dressing, we will be turning the country over to the teabaggers because the energy will be gone from our side for at least a generation.
in the way reporting is done, right now Republicans and voices that make simple (but nonsense) talking points are given more air time than anything else. Yet, they are the party out of power with a shrinking percentage of the electorate identifying with them. We live in an environment where instead of separating truth from opinion we are told EVERYTHING is he said/she said and so no one is right. Liars win, and distortions become “true” when there is no push back against them. It is a sickening thing to watch Republicans blanket the airwaves with lies (which is fine, they can say what they want) and see the talking heads nod in agreement instead of question where the FUCK they got their facts from. Until we change that, liars will continue to be louder and the opponents of saving this nation from our own self-inflicted fate will have a thumb on the scale of every battle we fight in Congress.
I really appreciate these blasts of common sense.
There are two assertions I’ve often seen made in the progressive blogosphere for which I’ve been trying to get some explanation.
One is alluded to in your post — that single-payer was going to pass, even though this sorely attenuated reform bill squeaked through by a handful of votes.
The other question: why a bill that amounts to a raid on the Treasury to pay huge bonuses to insurance company CEO’s is being fought tooth and nail, to the tune of scores of millions of dollars of lobbying, by the insurance companies?
I haven’t gotten a good answer to that one yet, either.
The 21 Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment and against the final bill:
All male. None with actual balls.
Shuler is my Rep, and as far as I’m concerned with all these jackasses: if you are going to meddle by supporting the amendment, you need to sack up and vote for the final bill.
Otherwise STFU.
His office will hear from me Monday.
You need to be extra-rough on a guy like Shuler. He’s one of those pretty-boy pro-football player guys who gets WAY too much leeway in reviews of his performance as a congressman. Tell him to switch parties.
Ben Chandler is Frankfort, KY’s Congressman, and John Boccieri is up in Canton, Ohio. Both of those guys are going to be in deep shit.
Chandler especially has made my shitlist.
Wasn’t Chandler the one who was always rumored to be waiting for Bunning to retire to run for Senate?
And Davis expects Democrats to be excited to come out and vote for him as Governor? Talk about a delusional asshat.
This is a challenge to the Black bloghesphere that it is more than the appearance of diversity in the netroots. Artur Davis should be public enemy number one. His vote against HRC was a betrayal to his mostly poor black constituents and by extension poor black people across this country. For what?! A symbolic run for governor!
My challenge to the black bloghesphere is to prove they can do more than just repeat talking points from Kos. The DNC, the White House, Democratic donors, civil rights organizations, the two Reverends et al should be put on notice that not a damn dime or an ounce of support should go to Artur Davis’ campaign. He should pay the price that any white representative would pay if he was representing the same black district and voted against their interests. Not only should funding be withheld, he should be primaried by a white progressive with the full support of the civil rights community and black bloghesphere.
The last time I saw a poll, which was probably about a year ago, Artur Davis was viable as a candidate for governor. I think his campaign will be more than symbolic. My question is why does the South oppose health care reform so strongly? Perhaps, more precisely, why do their politicians fear voting for it so much?
I believe there has been one public poll, and the sampling was specious. With national support I firmly believe Artur Davis run is symbolic but respectable. Without national support, it’s a joke and an after thought before it begins.
NMP,
I was done with him when he came out against the Public Option. Washed my hands of him. you are right, BTW.
think about it – CAO voted for it, and Davis didn’t.
Seems like the question mark is, Will there be any Dems or others hammering mercilessly at his vote against healthcare? Or will he manage to slip under the radar as he no doubt expects? We need organization now to make sure the sun shines bright on every one of these quislings.
I counted 25. Here.
as any member of Congress I’ve ever heard. It was astonishing to watch a health care town hall on C-SPAN that he held earlier this year. Every word he said was against health care reform but his constituents treated him with hostility and suspicion. The 30% in this country that still supported Bush at the end of his term cannot be reasoned with.
They know it. Weak as it is, the Democrats will deliver serious change to the public, break the power of one of the foundations of Puke financing, and establish a massive source of patronage.
This is what progress looks like in this anti-progress political system (set up that way by the ever-lovin’, wealthy “Founding Fathers,” who had just gotten control of their own country away from the King and were damned sure no one would take it away from them). Every step forward, from anti-slavery through women’s suffrage, the struggles of the 1930s, the civil rights struggles, and on and on, has been a painfully slow, baby-step-by-baby-step journey.
Anyone who thought or hoped that this completely screwed-up excuse for a health care system in this country would be set right by one piece of legislation simply doesn’t understand U.S. politics. We’ve got years of work ahead of us before we can say that we have a decent system. It’s incredibly frustrating to contemplate that fact, I realize, but look at the history of the progressive fights I mentioned above. The activists who battled on for years in those trenches had the guts to keep at it, and folks can today, too.
This is just a beginning. Social Security was amended several times to make it what it is today. It is understandable that people want everything right now, but it doesn’t work that way when your legislating. Everyone gives up something they want to let the bill pass. Obama always plays the long game, like it or not. He knows you have to start somewhere and work for improvement. The beginning bill is the hardest part though because it is a drastic change for many.
The prochoice bill was not that big a loss or realistic. My government employee health insurance only covers abortion if the mother’s health or life is threatened. I have never seen insurance that did cover it on-demand.
It was nice to see Cao go with the Dem. district he represents. Kucinich a disappointment.
by nov of 2010 the voting for health insurance reform will be over and it won’t make a difference what passes. one this will be certain. the reps on zanders’ posted list of 21 pieces of garbage will have felt the wreatrh of the voters. i will be astonde, shoced and amazed of at least half of them will be reelected and if i am wrong, the dems will lose their majority in the house. these anti-reps have clearly shown that they do not represent! notice just how many of them represent the confederacy. not the usa!
what the hell is this- the south shall rise again.
I bet to disagree on one important point.
This legislation is not shitty, at all. The abortion amendment is shitty, indeed, but the law is not. As far as I see it is almost perfect.
Not only the regulation mechanism for the private system is rock-solid, subsidies are rock solid.. and mote important, the best public option is not, by far, a public option attached to Medicare rates, but a public option like the one present now in the bill.
I am sure Obama and Pelosi know what Ezra Klein is saying all along, the public option is basically a side-show. The public option in the exchange is not useful NOW, it will be extremely useful six years from now. The point of the public option is not really to control costs, because the real measure of the new costs comes once you have the full universal health-care delivery in place. Indeed, things will start to change a lot in the next six years.
The present problem of Us health care costs are the structure of the deliverance, the power of the drug industry to charge and the rates of doctors, nurses and technician.
This structure of costs will change in six years. And,as Krugman says, what you really need in six years is very flexible tool which can be expanded, adapted, focused and structured so that it can serve as guide to private providers (more than competition) to reduce costs. If drugs become more expensive and doctors less, you focus on market share. If drug companies reduce prices given the universal nature of the new system but doctors (more work same doctor) start charging more , you focus on changing the pay-for-results. If the problem is the procedures, then you may try to fix rates to medicare.
If you do it know, you will, with all certainty, have drug cost explode. If you do not do it now, I will bet drugs will stay under control and bend the curve while doctors payment will increase dramatically.
In other words, it is more important to have a flexible universal public option than a slightly stronger (now) but not flexible public option.
For the same reason opt-in and triggers are not as good as the house version, they do not give enough flexibility. Actually, opt-out is not really an optimal solution, probably slightly better than fixing the public option to medicare rates, but still a pain in the ass providing rigidity to lawmakers six years from now.
So, take out the abortion nonsense, and you have the best bill passed by any house of the US congress in… well since the clean air act and EPA?
A pleasure
You make a convincing case for what seems intuitively correct. Thanks.
I concur with Johnj and Kcurie. As far as Kucinich goes, he’s popular here in Cleveland because he’s good at consttuent services. If you call his office for any reason, his staff will help you out. He’s a loon, but he’s our guy. However, I’ve met noone here who wants him to be President.
Southern Democrats voting for reform:
Bishop
Butterfield
Castor
Clyburn
Connolly
Doggett
Etheridge
Hastings
Jackson-Lee
Johnson
Klein
Lewis
Meek
Miller
Moran
Perriello
Price
Reyes
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Spratt
Thompson
Wasserman-Schultz
Watt
Those are the ones I recognize without looking up the delegation.
Southern Democrat does not equal Southern white male Democrat, first of all.
Notably, the entire Democratic delegation of SC voted for the bill.
In NC, voting against were Kissell, McIntyre, and Shuler; the other five Democrats (Butterfield, Etheridge, Miller, Price, and Watt) voted for the bill. The big disappointment here was Kissell, who acted like he did not understand the legislation and was out of his league. His stated reason for voting against it is that he promised seniors he would not endanger Medicare and the bill cuts $400 billion from Medicare.
In VA, Tom Perriello, whose district used to be Virgil Goode’s (R-VA), voted for the bill.
We know why Cooper and Ross voted against it and it wasn’t because they are Southerners; the industry filled their pockets very well. Cooper is likely to pay a price for this in 2010 if folks in his district can find a strong candidate. The Big Dog has already fundraised for Ross; so Ross is likely not in trouble. Kissell is going to not get netroots support, which had run over $400,000 for his previous two campaigns. Boucher (VA) represents the district that the Grundy health fair providing free dental care was in; his vote was plain immoral. But he is in coal country.
And the following are not in Southern or Border states:
Adler
Altmire
Baird
Boccieri
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kratovil
Markey
Matheson
McMahon
Minnick
Murphy (NY)
Peterson
Teague
…unless you are defining “Southern” and “Border” very broadly.
Wait until the mandate hits in 2013. One year after the election. How convenient. There’s a reason healthcare stocks have been going up. They won. At least so far.
To make Kucinich the whipping boy for the failures of dozens of other Congressmen/women is pretty cheap.
The closeness of the vote does NOT mean there is no room for maneuvering in conference, as you write.
Pelosi almost certainly freed some “centrists” to vote no, aware that their votes were not needed. She probably had a much greater margin of error than we realize.
Seems like kind of a consistency problem here, Boo: you call it a shitty bill, then rail against Kucinich for voting against it. Shouldn’t good representatives vote against shitty bills? I figure he’d have voted for it if it would have made the difference between passing and failing, and that he’ll vote for the final conference report if there is one.
Other than that, you’re being excessively gloomy, I think. This is a big step forward even though it’s a pale ghost of what the rest of the developed world has. But that’s what we pay, what we’ve always paid, for living in the “greatest country, blablabla.” You generally dismiss those who want to change the system at its root. You promote “pragmatic” change that can work within the system we’ve got. Fine, but why be indignant then when the results inevitably conform to a ridiculous political/economic system? It’s something of a miracle that a bill even this tarnished gets this close to passage in a nation as institutionally corrupt as the one we live in. Your country is not “pathetically conservative”. It is pathetically mean-spirited and ignorance-worshipping. Conservativism can evolve and provide a necessary balance. What’s blocking us can only be fought to extinction — or at the least, dulled with anti-psychotics.
As to the abortion part, it was not realistic to expect this country to provide free government-paid abortion on demand. If all the pro-choice people give some money to Planned Parenthood the problem will be worked around — just another manifestation of the sub-optimal solution that seems to make up our nation’s highest aspiration in every sphere but slaughter. I think the House bill does make exceptions for rape, incest, and life-threatening situations. Is that correct? If not, I wonder if there’s anything in the opt-out language that might allow the states to change that?
this bill bars private insurance companies from offering coverage for abortions in the exchanges, unless you can prove it was a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest or that it threatened the life of the mother. So, now if you need a D & C after a miscarriage, you’re going to have to deal with an insurance agent? If you’re uncle gets you pregnant, you have to prove that to AETNA? And the federal government? Fuck that, dude.
I vaguely understood that there was some workaround that would assure that any abortions would be paid out of premium dollars and not subsidy dollars. Did that get dumped — assuming it was ever there?
Other than that, getting a government subsidized abortion due to rape, incest, or life-threat is more than is available now, right? I regret the amendment, but don’t think it’s either surprising or cause for great anguish now. It is a small advance, not a setback.
link
If this is correct the amendment is even worse than I thought. I still don’t get how it makes the situation worse, though: The Hyde atrocity banned government funded abortion already, right? It sounds like current insurance would not be forced to disqualify abortion, so the uninsured now and in the future would be the ones who continue to suffer. So the result is outrageous and disgusting, but seems pretty much the status quo and not a step back. Which doesn’t make it acceptable.
I do have to wonder if the Catholic hierarchy really wanted to just kill reform altogether. They are, after all, deeply involved in medical enterprises themselves. Certainly the congressional reps who voted against reform despite the amendment showed their true colors, so their sponsors come under a cloud as well. Just when I’m almost able to tolerate organized religion reality intervenes and I’m back to ground zero.
It’s a bit worse than the status quo. Right now, if you are self-employed, you go buy health insurance and it covers your reproductive health. If a doctor has to scrape out your uterus, he doesn’t have to explain all the details. Was the baby already dead? Was it terminally ill? Did it have grace genetic defects? Was the mother a consenting partner in the conception? Was a relative the father? None of that shit matters. But now it will. Because any health care plan that wants to be on the exchange will be forced to ask all those questions and document the answers.
And, yes, that “workaround” got dumped. The bishops vetoed it.
I have a devil’s advocate question about Kucinich: if you were Rahm, wouldn’t you want Kucinich’s no vote? If the goal is to make the bill look like the manifestation of mainstream American desire for change, don’t you want to achieve at least the appearance of ignoring the demands of the left?
I know this is all nauseating stuff, the way that the GOP embraces their base while the Dems stiffarm theirs, but OTOH the GOP is at a record ebb in popularity. A certain amount of kabuki to appear centrist is standard operating procedure in American politics.
It’s unthinkable that the house would have passed a bill that denied men with a pre-existing condition coverage.
How is it that they had no problem, with 21 Democrats voting FOR Stupak and against the health care reform bill, in voting to deny 50% of the US population coverage for a pre-existing condition–pregnancy.