Video: Dennis Kucinich's Big Sellout

Originally posted by sos37
You didn't seem to mind that Obama renewed the Patriot Act or that he was all for collecting DNA samples from people upon arrest even though you trumpet advocacy for personal freedoms.

I did mind on BOTH subjects and I said so here on ATS.

YOU agreed with Obama on the DNA sampling! I was against it! What's the matter with you? Can't remember what you posted? I said I was against it and sited the 14th amendment. Our posts are there for everyone to see...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by sos37
It's a rare occasion when I side with Obama, and this is one of those times. I'm all for DNA sampling upon incarceration.

Pathetic attempt at baiting!

Originally posted by Sestias
But if it's defeated, there will probably be no change at all in the nation's health care system for at least twenty years.

I completely agree. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a step, and if we don't take it, we'll never get anything done with health care.

[edit on 3/17/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I completely agree. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a step, and if we don't take it, we'll never get anything done with health care.

But at what cost?? The logic thinking that taking a bad plan is better than nothing at all is faulty. Instead of a certain group of people getting screwed, the net wides and scoops up even more citizens to be given the shaft.

If medicare sucked, then they should have fixed it, not try to force Obamacare on everyone.

Originally posted by jerico65
The logic thinking that taking a bad plan is better than nothing at all is faulty. Instead of a certain group of people getting screwed, the net wides and scoops up even more citizens to be given the shaft.

I have a wife who has been denied any form of coverage for 5 years now. We have been eager and willing to buy a plan.

She had one test that came up "abnormal"...her doctor wrote the insurance company explaining it was nothing more than a urinary tract infection and it was not a cancer indicator as they seemed to believe.

The insurance company didn't care. Blacklisted....whose hands is our medical care in again?

Since then I have paid for an appendectomy out of pocket. 60k. Not to mention a couple of pregnancies/births, countless doctors visits etc.

I am eager to just be eligable to as you put it "get the shaft"...Get it?

If you don't see our healthcare system in a state of crisis, you aren't talking to enough people.

Originally posted by jerico65
But at what cost??

The cost is that there will be a lot more to do to tweak health care into what it needs to be. But that wouldn't happen at all without this bill. If this bill fails, health care will go on the back burner and simmer for 20 years or more, while the millions of people without insurance would go on without it.

The logic thinking that taking a bad plan is better than nothing at all is faulty.

I didn't say it was a bad plan. It's just not perfect. An imperfect plan is better than no plan at all. I think that's pretty darn logical. There's a lot of good in this plan.

reply to post by maybereal11


Forcing people to buy into the insurance industry at gun point is not the right way to guarantee you will have adequate coverage at a fair price. There are avenues that can be taken that are Constitutional that would help you and your family, ways of doing things that don't cost a trillion more dollars. Not wanting an unconstitutional, expensive bill does not equal not wanting health reform. Perhaps the GOP could care less about health reform, and I certainly don't believe the DNC wants health reform either. I do. But I want health reform that is constitutional, legitimate, and actually helps everyone without an encroaching government presence.

I just wish for once that both sides of this damned debate would take the time to look at it from the perspective of the Supreme Law of the Land and not arbitrary political arguments or a sense of entitlement.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The cost is that there will be a lot more to do to tweak health care into what it needs to be. But that wouldn't happen at all without this bill. If this bill fails, health care will go on the back burner and simmer for 20 years or more, while the millions of people without insurance would go on without it.

I don't think so. A lot of people don't want Obamacare, but they want something. If it even looked like it would be going to the back burner, a lot of Representatives will be filing claims with their own healthcare!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I didn't say it was a bad plan. It's just not perfect. An imperfect plan is better than no plan at all. I think that's pretty darn logical. There's a lot of good in this plan.

I didn't mean you. What I was thinking of was a post a while back by someone that said, "You know, Obama might screw everything up, but at least he had good intentions." He didn't reply when I asked him if he knew what the road to hell was paved with.

Originally posted by projectvxn
There are avenues that can be taken that are Constitutional

The idea that this bill is unconstitutional is a matter of interpretation of the Constitution (as are many issues).

"Either state or federal government may require either individuals or employers to pay for health insurance. States have inherent power to promote health and provide for the general welfare. The federal government has authority under its power to regulate interstate commerce... These major points of constitutional law appear to be firmly established and are not likely to change based on the near-term composition of the Court."
...
The document's very first sentence says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," followed by a later sentence saying Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Source

No one else thinks that Dennis looks sick?
To me, he looks pale and jaundiced.
I looked up a video from earlier this week, and he was rosy and pink.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The necessary and proper clause does not have any prior precedence to mandate the purchase of a private product, nor does the commerce clause, as commerce is a term that defines overall economic activity, not specific products or companies. This is why the insurance industry is regulated at the state level. Now if you wanna make insurance compete across state lines then you have one block knocked off, but you still can't mandate the purchase of the product, all government can really do, by all tradition, is make it more available by removing roadblocks.

A mandate to purchase insurance would open the doors to a mandate to purchase anything they want you to. I guarantee this will make it to the supreme court and if they have any shred of decency left they will strike this garbage down so we can begin to work on a legal, ethical, and Constitutional piece of legislation.

The constitution indeed does make health reform possible at the federal level, but there is a limit to how far they can go and we need to work within that framework. The damn thing is 2000 pages long, it is debatable whether these people even read it, we still don't really know what else is in there and whether it conforms to Constitutional Law.

Congress has a duty to use the Supreme LAW as a guide to whatever legislation they put together. This includes using case law, and procedural tradition to make sure what they do is the right thing. Otherwise the Oath we all say they should take seriously becomes moot instead of the CONTRACT it implies.

We already have the Patriot Act, the bailouts, and massive fraud at all levels of government. Let's not put our health squarely in their hands.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by projectvxn
We already have the Patriot Act, the bailouts, and massive fraud at all levels of government. Let's not put our health squarely in their hands.

Exactly. The government screwed up medicare; do people think that they won't screw this up???

says more about the political landscape than it does about Kuccinich.

He's a good man I can say that
this turn of events is dissapointing

remember when his brother died?

I hope he didn't get any threats to change decision@!

S&F!

Come on folks, FLAG THIS!

I can't believe this. The week started well with a little progress on the 911 commission report inquiry but face-planted with Kucinich's drastic u-turn.

Sure, America's current health care system is discrepant but why on earth would ye want to replace it with an equally discrepant system.

Change isn't necessarily progress.

Collect your thirty pieces of silver at the door, Kucinich!

reply to post by maybereal11

I have a wife who has been denied any form of coverage for 5 years now. We have been eager and willing to buy a plan.

She had one test that came up "abnormal"...her doctor wrote the insurance company explaining it was nothing more than a urinary tract infection and it was not a cancer indicator as they seemed to believe.

The insurance company didn't care. Blacklisted....whose hands is our medical care in again?

I feel for your wife, you, and others in the same situation. Pre-exisiting condition denial. But it can be fixed by one well-written law; it doesn't require draining $500 billion from Medicare, or prison sentences for those who choose not to carry insurance. Nor does it mean we have to combine a takeover of the student loan program with health care reform.

See what I mean? This 2K + page catastrophe will destroy us financially. We all want reform, but we want it done right.

Kucinich wasn't threatened. He's doing what he's doing in hopes that in the future he can get the real reform he wants....and what he has ran with in his presidential campaigns.

This bill is a turd....yes....but maybe it is what is necessary to actually fix the situation to bring about REAL reform.

And NO...it's not the end of the world if this passes...although many of you are acting like it.

Republicans are getting a win by voting no. They know the insurance companies are going to profit from this and they can scream no all day to look like they are against it as this bill is going to pass. I really think it will. In fact, I want it to....but not because I am for the bill.

That's why they are quiet about it...and that's why they will never overturn it if they get control of the house,senate, white house.

I'm looking FORWARD TO HEARING REPUBLICANS RIP INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LET'S SEE IT!!!!

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by kozmo

 

I think that is a bit harsh. Why turn against him over one issue when you have supported him on so many others?



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

There is only one issue, the survival of our country. Healthcare and cap and trade are our coffin nails. Not just the country's.

reply to post by m khan

cap and trade are our coffin nails

'
Cap and trade won't happen...luckily...but we definitely need to become energy independent.

Originally posted by David9176
Kucinich wasn't threatened. He's doing what he's doing in hopes that in the future he can get the real reform he wants....and what he has ran with in his presidential campaigns.

Did Kucinich back down from his stand on 911 when his brother died? This is more than cushy job deals and extra bonanza for a state. Our government isn't above breaking legs or murder. Kucinich wouldn't sell out for money. Did they threaten his family. Obama wouldn't threaten to throw him from the plane, but we are dealing with Nazis here. Anything is possible. Kucinich had time to look at the legislation, he changed him mind after being pressured. What happened? He's not going to "commit suicide" because they need his vote. Does anybody wonder why we need the protection of the Constitution against big government.

Originally posted by mishigas
We all want reform, but we want it done right.

Forgiving me for cherry picking your post, but this sums up the GOP stance and I think it is egregiously false.

Not everyone wants reform. Decades of obstruction and effective lobbying have proved that to us.

Could this bill have been better? Oh hell yes. How? Through honest debate. That is how our political system is supposed to work. Instead of honest debate and critique we recieved a propaganda campaign.

The Democrats certainly could have written a better bill...and the GOP could have debated and vetted the bill on it's actual content and merits instead of touting posters of the President with a Hitler mustache and screaming about death panels.

This bill will need fixing, but the whole "let's start over" argument???

No one believes that...most of all the GOP politicians who are saying it.

I will make a few predictions..

If this bill fails ....the insurance and pharmaceutical industrustries will feel so emboldened that they will make the recent insanely inflated prices look like child's play...

They are obligated to show as much profit as possible and will do just that without any mechanisms to regulate them.

and then the GOP will beg them to go easy for fear of being blamed and losing elections.

The insurance and pharmaceutical industries will not care about the GOP's prospects in elections. They only care about profit and loss and they know the GOP will be cornered. They can't come back and call for similiar reform without the Democrats hammering them on hypocritical grounds.

Washington will be rendered mostly impotent in the healthcare industry.

The Democrats will gain more power absent reform and will pass further bills that should have been crafted with less special interests and favors. But they won't touch healthcar reform again after seeing what happened to this effort.

The Financial industry will fill the lobbyist funding void of the post-healthcare reform debate having seen how effective money was in ending healthcare reform. They have money to spend now post taxpayer bailout. Congress will be looking to for new ways to finance their campaigns absent the healthcare debate.

So next up will be LESS financial regulation than we had pre-crash. Which of course sets the stage for a near term second crash.




[edit on 18-3-2010 by maybereal11]