Evans Politics

Kucinich: Why I Voted NO, OpEdNews, November 9, 2009, by Dennis Kucinich, photo from Wikipedia, quoted verbatim:

Washington D.C. (November 7, 2009) – After voting against H.R. 3962 – Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“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.

“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy — in which most Americans live — the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

“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.

“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”

www.twitter.com/RepKucinich

www.youtube.com/djkucinich

Dennis Kucinich is a congressman from Ohio and a 2008 presidential primary candidate. http://kucinich.us/.

See BREAKING: Obama announces he is against the Stupak amendment!, Daily Kos, November 9, 2009, by DrDemocrat, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Obama himself has weighed into the Stupak amendment debacle. He just gave an interview to ABC News and stated that he is against the language of the Stupak amendment.

See Obama: ‘This is a Health Care Bill, Not an Abortion Bill’, ABC News, November 9, 2009, by JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS, SUNLEN MILLER and DEVIN DWYER.

See Time to Stop Enabling Joe Lieberman, Daily Kos, November 9, 2009, by mrgavel.

See Obama Presses Senate to Pass Its Health Bill, The New York Times, November 8, 2009, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

See If Anything, the Senate’s Task Is Trickier, November 8, 2009, by David M. Herszenhorn, excerpt quoted verbatim:

”Courtesy of the Rules Committee and the way that the House operates, once they took a bill to the floor, they knew that they were going to have the votes,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid. “In the Senate, we are going to have to go through all sorts of contortions.”

But before any amendments can be offered, the bill needs to get on the floor. And before the bill can get on the floor, there needs to be a bill. Mr. Reid continues to work on combining two versions of health care legislation in the Senate, one adopted by the health committee in July, the other adopted by the Finance Committee in October.

As Mr. Reid awaits further cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (due, according to MSNBC sometime around Thursday), it is unclear when the bill will be ready. So far Mr. Reid has described only a few details, like his intention to include a government-run insurance plan, or public option.

Because Mr. Reid needs 60 votes for the bill to proceed, he is already making adjustments intended to win the support of some of his reluctant colleagues. Everyone acknowledges that the horse-trading has just begun.

Here are some of the people, and some of the issues, that stand in Mr. Reid’s way:

Read the full article, here.

See John Tantillo’s Brand Winner… And Loser: Candidate Obama and President Obama, Marketing Doctor.tv, November 2, 2009, by The Marketing Doctor, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Obama the candidate was characterized by Forward Motion. Forward Motion is that elusive quality that attracts people to a personal brand. Forward Motion is embodied by energizing slogans like “Yes, We Can.” Obama the candidate made people forget that passing legislation is hard work and that ideological differences are real, because he promised to bring us all to someplace much better than the present.

Obama the president has lost his Forward Motion. Instead of telling Pelosi and Frank to either join his change wagon or get lost, he has put the Democratic establishment in charge and has decided to play follower instead of leader.

Obama the candidate promised openness and a new way of doing business. He vowed to reduce the power of the lobbyists.

Obama the president follows Obama the candidate’s advice and releases the White House visitor log to underscore his administration’s new “openness.” Unfortunately, the visitor log reveals more than a few visits by lobbyists. This “openness” looks like more of the business-as-usual, influence-peddling variety.

*****

And yet Obama is trapped in the very whirlpool that is Washington, D.C., that he promised to change. It’s near to impossible to change a moribund institution using that very moribund institution. It doesn’t help that Obama the President brought in established old school Democrats and administrators to run his administration, people like Summers and Geithner, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. These are people used to doing business in the old way, people used to “business as usual.” What we’re seeing, except in such fields as science, is not “change we can believe in.” Obama’s own personal conservativism mitigates against real change. He seems constitutionally somewhat compromised when it comes to setting up governmental structures and bringing in people who can bring real change about. He has a much more progressive vision than recent presidents, but his methodology and his personal mindset seem somewhat cautious and willing to “go along.” Still, it’s a very corrupt, and conservative, place he’s set about changing. His heart may be in the right place, but I think things are going to have to get much worse before Washington gets much better. ~ Paul Evans