Comments on: The Kucinich Vote Is Principled

By: MikeNolan

MikeNolan — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:41:01 +0000

Teddy Roosevelt was the first to push for universal health care. This is a first step towards that goal. To suggest we should wait another 100 years before taking this step is absurd.

32 million will benefit from this reform bill. Principle means recognizing when compromise is the right thing to do.

Hats off to Dennis K.

By: Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:19:51 +0000

To say one more thing, this is the problem. There might be an argument against the bill — if there was any chance in the foreseeable future that the 60th — hell, even the 50th — most liberal vote in the Senate would ever consider voting for a system that would eliminate private insurance. Since there isn’t, the argument that the bill doesn’t improve the status quo pretty much crumbles.

The brutal truth is that given American political institutions, expanding coverage requires buying off private interests.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:17:30 +0000

I actually meant Lemieux.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:17:02 +0000

The Nelson language is a step backward, no matter that it isn’t Stupak.

The corporate control is enhanced and enlarged by the current bill, that is, yes, made worse than the status quo. This is clearly stated by Jon Walker. It will be much harder to move away from for-profit healthcare because of this bill.

But there have been millions of words exchanged on this bill over the last year, and I am no longer interested in arguing each point in excruciating detail.

I have lost.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:23:16 +0000

“Decent Left” has a very specific meaning, and Kuchinich isn’t it.

By: Left_Wing_Fox

Left_Wing_Fox — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:17:50 +0000

Again, I read through your link. That’s not “Worse” It’s “More of the same bad”.

The Stupak amendment is absent from the current bill, so it’s not eroding abortion rights as stated. The issues with corporate control and expensive medication are current issues that are not made better by the bill, not issues that don’t exist now, and are ADDED by the bill.

That’s “Not Good enough” not “Worse than what we have” with the Stupak amendment gone.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:05:42 +0000

“Pragmatism is a principle.”

Yes, liberalism presumes that the purpose of dicourse, individual and collective, is to reach a consensus and produce a policy or product. So much so that any withdrawal from the process is considered with the the framework of liberalism to be “heightening the contradictions”, in other words, merely another maneuver.

It does lead to, well, much worse than absurdity in my opinion, that an individual must, if not support or accept, at least not illiberally oppose a court decision or legislation that clearly offends her individual conscience.

When I argue against liberalism as a fetishized process that values itself over outcomes this HCR bill is an example of what I oppose. “Something must be passed”.

That depends on what the “something” is. And by just saying no to a bad outcome of a democratic (like the Iraq invasion) I am not necessarily trying to make for a better invasion or stopping the invasion. I don’t always need a “political” or liberal purpose.

I can simply say no.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:39:17 +0000

"(given they don’t even try to argue that this bill is worse than the status quo)" They have done so every day for almost a year. Jane Hamsher did so in the article I linked above, and here is another. Why do you say such things? Does More Harm Than Good yesterday

By: Alan in SF

Alan in SF — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:01:41 +0000

In all fairness, I think “heighten the contradictions” hasn’t played a significant role in progressive discomfort with the health care bill; more like “locking in the worst features of the most expensive, inefficient health care delivery system in the world, making it more complex than ever, and rewarding the bad actors.” Paying off the protection racket gang, as Jon Chait put it, rather than ridding ourselves of them. Not saying this means we shouldn’t pass the bill.