iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Kucinich Becomes Target Of Health Care Whip Campaign

First Posted: 05/08/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:45 PM ET

Kucinich

With the real possibility that a handful of lawmakers -- or even a single vote -- in the House of Representatives could end up deciding the fate of health care reform, advocates are suddenly targeting the chamber's most progressive holdout.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio.) has firmly staked out his opposition to health care reform's passage, citing the timidity of the legislative language and, specifically, the unwillingness of lawmakers to seriously consider a single payer system.

For months, leadership had assumed his position was unalterable. But with an "all hands on deck" whip operation now in progress, Kucinich is getting a burst of attention.

In a meeting at the White House on Thursday, President Obama directly addressed the congressman's concerns by pointing out that the Senate bill does, in fact, include single-payer language. His reference (which Kucinich wrote down on paper) is a provision in the bill that Sen. Bernie Sander (I-VT) introduced, which would allow states to use federal money to set up a single payer system years down the road.

On Monday, Sanders told the Huffington Post that he had talked to Kucinich about the topic - albeit "a while back."

"He was coming from a slightly different angle on this," Sanders said. "But we did talk to Dennis and I've talked to [Rep.] Anthony Weiner and other" single-payer advocates.

Sanders said his provision is a significant step towards making the bill more to Kucinich's liking, but he didn't sound optimistic that either his personal lobbying or his legislative language would persuade Kucinich in the end. "Dennis looks at the world the way he looks at the world," Sanders said.

Under Sanders's proposal, states would have the option of using the federal funding they receive for health care services (including the new subsidies in the bill) on policies for providing universal care. There are certain restrictions. For starters, a state could only use 90 percent of the federal funds it received, and it could only spend that money on a universal system starting in 2017 - both stipulations of the Congressional Budget Office. Sanders is still working on a reconciliation fix to move the start date forward three years (perhaps by allowing blocs of states to start before others) in addition to increasing the funding threshold. But the goal, he stressed, remains providing a foundation for single-payer to grow in practice and popularity.

"One state is finally going to do it, they are going to do it well, and it will catch on," he said.

Kucinich didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The congressman has previously insisted that the law allowing insurance companies to sue states that adopt single-payer systems must be changed. And on this front, Sanders admits, his provision has a "weakness."

Still, in the days ahead the pitch will be made to the congressman and other skeptical progressives that this bill is far from conservative. On Sunday, Chris Bower at OpenLeft put out a nine-point list of concessions that liberal lawmakers were able to secure from the party's more centrist members. Sanders, likewise, pointed to the money going to prevention and wellness initiatives, as well as the expansion of coverage through community health care centers, as uniquely important progressive achievements.

"Look, I'm not here to tell you this is a great bill," the senator said. "What I will tell you is we fought very hard for some things that don't get a lot of attention but are very important."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
With the real possibility that a handful of lawmakers -- or even a single vote -- in the House of Representatives could end up deciding the fate of health care reform, advocates are suddenly targeting...
With the real possibility that a handful of lawmakers -- or even a single vote -- in the House of Representatives could end up deciding the fate of health care reform, advocates are suddenly targeting...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,140
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (35 total)
02:23 AM on 03/11/2010
As Dennis has said--as Obama himself repeatedly says--the insurance companies are the problem. Their practices are offensive, but their biggest problem is they can't negotiate effectively with providers. Nothing in Obama's health plan addresses that. You've got to get some alternative to private insurance into the marketplace for reform to succeed. There are a number of ways to do it, including a robust public option, Medicare buy-in, or something more complex. I support Dennis for refusing to vote for bogus reform. It is not a first step. It's a foundation of sand--a waste of time and money.
01:52 AM on 03/10/2010
I think "timidity" is the operational word here. That has been the administration's and the senate's approach through all of this. What developed was a bill that is a morass of back-door outs for insurers and states, but none for the public. When the public option became a thorn for them, they again timidly tried to put it in as some sort of optional experiment that is down on paper but stacking the deck so nobody tries it, again leaving the back doors wide open. It's trite at this point to mention that had they just wrote a bill for the public option, and funded it properly, they could have passed it without trouble had they the courage to ram it down the objector's throats. Then you pass separate legislation for other areas that need addressing. Instead, they went at it bass-ackwards and tried to do too much; and even then, they really didn't do anything. If this bill is considered a foundation, the building needs to be condemned.
12:41 AM on 03/10/2010
There are two things that really seem way off base to me about this to me: 1) That Kucinich's "principled" stance is a laudable virtue in this instance and 2) the more general idea that being "principled" and "sticking to your guns" has anything to do with public policy.

Screw "principles" - the real question is whether or not this bill will improve health care for Americans in some measurable way. Sticking to one's principles by holding out for something that WOULDN'T get the votes needed for it to pass doesn't exactly seem virtuous, especially when it comes at the cost of getting rid of an effort that will make some positive difference.

Politicians shouldn't be "principled" - they should be driven by what makes good public policy in light of the facts, resources, and political will available.
07:57 PM on 03/09/2010
This isn't about Kucinich and his "principles". It's about him NOT being a pun(k). This bill stin(k)s from top to bottom.
And who wrote it anyway? That's all we need, anonymous authors writing our laws.
07:36 PM on 03/09/2010
I hope Kucinich runs in 2012. Obama's OK but why settle. At least it will make for some good debates.
06:44 PM on 03/09/2010
This is typical Democratic party - Kucinich is the bad guy, because he's not a corporate schill like the rest of the party. Joe Lieberman got to eliminate the public option almost single handedly, why shouldn't Kucinich take the same stand and single-handedly stand up for the Public Option. You got stupak, who is trying to outlaw abortion, but Kucinich is the bad guy in the party.
07:38 PM on 03/09/2010
Dems just can't pass up a good scapegoat. If they want Kucinich to be the new Nadar I say bring it on.
01:49 PM on 03/10/2010
Indeed - and Markos of Daily Kos said exactly that (comparing Dennis to 'Nader who lost the 2000 election for Gore' - paraphrase). I just about puked: with 'progressive' friends like Kos, who needs enemies?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LemonMeringue
Happy Birthday, Steve Jobs - Feb. 24th
05:38 PM on 03/09/2010
He is right.
03:34 PM on 03/09/2010
Kucinich is a liberal with principles. You lefties should listen to him more often. Passing the horrible Senate bill will doom the Democratic party for the next 2 or 3 election cycles, and the bill is so hated it will probably get repealed. How does that help your cause?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Eris23
Justice is in indefinite detention.
03:47 PM on 03/09/2010
"Kucinich is a liberal with principles. You lefties should listen to him more often."

I'm not sure you could make a better post to show how out of touch you are. LOL! :)
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
naturesway
05:40 PM on 03/09/2010
You are absolutely spot on.

Kucinich is a man of principle and one of the few honest politicians.
Go Dennis, stick to your guns.
03:25 PM on 03/09/2010
Kucinich is awesome. He is a true progressive. All of you posers out there need to stop pretending that Obama is a progressive. You are sellouts to the big corporations. Anyone turning against Kucinich is not a progressive. Progressives should not compromise on a bill that will strengthen insurance companies. It's that simple. Wake up!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SageBeguile
Keep Moving Forward!
01:47 PM on 03/09/2010
Until we as a people consider good healthcare a RIGHT not a privilege, just as we view education a right not privilege, will there be Change you can believe in.

Our mindset as a people MUST change. I'm for single payer but the US is not ready for it...look at the reaction to healthcare reform in general.

We are an "All or Nothing at All" kinda people....No president or congress can change that fact!

This Bill is a start, the best start in decades. .

I agree with the POTUS...when is it the RIght Time??

EVERY social change has been a fight and struggle, but at the end of day...it's worth it.

The Repugs had a change and HC wasn't on their agenda....

And it's NOT on their agenda now.

Think of where we would be with McCain/Palin running things and the Party of NO....they would be jobs and everything just peachy.... you think???? HA!


I'll take Obama/Biden ANY day!!!
02:16 PM on 03/09/2010
The reaction to health care reform in general? A significant majority of Americans still want real reform. Don't confuse the public's distaste for this terrible bill as a dislike for health care reform, in general.

How do we ever get a functional system if we build the foundation on requiring everyone to buy insurance from for-profit corporations that make money by denying us care? How do we control costs by giving insurance companies a percentage off the top? Remember cost-plus contracts used by Bush with Haliburton? Same thing where higher costs lead to higher profits.

We need a solid foundation for the future of our health care system, not yet another corporate handout.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Billar
Fighting The Lies From The Right
01:33 PM on 03/09/2010
Dennis what a small and ugly man you are.
03:20 PM on 03/09/2010
What an ignorant comment that is.

Grow up dude.
11:42 AM on 03/09/2010
Kucinich is taking a stand against our country being sold out to the insurance companies.

The insurance companies would have mandated customers for insurance that the CBO estimates would average $15,200 in 2016. The insurance companies can then charge three times as much based on age {2701.a.1.A} and up to twice as much based on "wellness" or lack thereof {2705.j.3.A}. So you better hope you never get sick and can't qualify for that "wellness" discount, and good luck somehow handling paying 6 times as much if you happen to be both sick and old.

The insurance companies that would have mandated customers still have stockholders to answer to, so you can be sure they're going to still want to delay and deny needed care whenever it can be done. And they obviously will not want to keep costs down if they get a percentage of the overall costs. The incentives are similar to those cost-plus contracts Bush loved giving Haliburton where higher costs allow higher profits. And they'll have the advantage in future lobbying by saying we should keep the individual mandate, no longer having to make the hard sell of actually implementing it where it never existed before.

And what prevents Republicans in the future from eliminating the "expensive" subsidies, and anti-capitalist profit limits, and all the other good stuff, while keeping the individual mandate?

Think about that before you say we need to pass this bill as a political victory.
11:46 AM on 03/09/2010
so it is time to kill the bill
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenDedalus82
03:39 PM on 03/09/2010
Thanks for the tea bagger perspective.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
henrypapillon
Put a Psychiatrist in every NRA meeting.
12:35 PM on 03/09/2010
As my mother used to say, "He'd cut off his nose to spite his face."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:36 AM on 03/09/2010
What a diversionary campaign Obama is conducting. The health insurers and drug pushers of Big Pharma WANT the Senate Bill to pass. They drafted it for the most part. Nothing in the Senate Bill would stop them from raising rates identically to how they are raising rates now. Does anyone think the health insurers and drug pushers would have raised rates this dramatically at this critical moment in passing the Bill if they didn't want to give Obama a means of making it appear the Bill is hostile to the health insurers and drug pushers? They all know that banging the health insurers and drug pushers is popular right now, so they want to whip up the public with a phony campaign featuring Obama smacking the health insurers as the health insurers loudly raising rates.



The other crock is the "sidecar" bill. Once the House passes the identical Senate Bill, Obama signs it and the Senate need not pass the "sidecar" (which doesn't fix much anyway). The "sidecar" is just a public show to confuse the public and give so-called "progressive" House members an excuse to vote for the trillion dollar giveaway that makes things worse for everyone.



The corruption is transparent. And Kucinich points it out directly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
uglicoyote
Progressive humanist
10:34 AM on 03/09/2010
I admire anyone who stands on principles. They are few and far between in Washington.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MelanieMatthias
I am President Obama's biggest fan!
11:04 AM on 03/09/2010
Well good for him and his principals, but his principals mean nothing. Who is he working for? He is not supposed to be there saying how he feels about things, He is to say how WE feel about things. He is our Rep. It is not his call. It is our call. He needs to remember who he is working for.
He is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
11:13 AM on 03/09/2010
No, he is letting the perfect be the enemy of the terrible. He is rejecting the process that Washington so often uses to present us a choice of the lesser of two evils. We need more people to do that, not less.
10:33 AM on 03/09/2010
After watching his interview on the Chris Mathews show last night, I don't believe he will change his vote on this bill. If he does, then it will be interesting to watch him try to do the DC 'two-step' to cover his tracks.

Yes I do watch the liberal media just so I can get both sides of an issue. It wouldn't hurt anyone out there to check out the conservative media once in awhile to get the other side of the issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MelanieMatthias
I am President Obama's biggest fan!
10:51 AM on 03/09/2010
Why watch lies? There is nothing but lies and distortions from the right. I have better things to do with my time than watch liars.
11:12 AM on 03/09/2010
I have to say MSNBC is less honest in reporting the news than Fox. Both are absolutely terrible places to learn the facts, but MSNBC has truly gone off the deep end. MSNBC is where Ed Shultz said he would break the law to defeat Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Come on, even Fox isn't stupid enough to flatly tell people they should break election laws.

My recommendation: read things online, and check the sources of anything you hear that shocks you. If there's no source for the claim, it's a lie. If the source is a partisan group, it's a lie.