Daily Kos

Kucinich Is Only Solution To Healthcare Crisis

Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 05:35:28 PM PDT

H.R. 676 is a bill, co-drafted by Dennis Kucinich, which will enact a true universal health care system for the United States. The bill will create a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare program that provides all U.S. citizens with comprehensive medical coverage, including office visits, hospitalization, emergency care, long term care, prescription drugs, medical equipment, mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, dental and vision care; with no co-pays, deductibles, or denial of coverage.

Moreover, H.R. 676 provides this comprehensive coverage to all citizens by spending $56 Billion less each year than the current for-profit, private insurance system; the private insurance system that leaves 46 million Americans uninsured and 50+ million underinsured; the same system that wastes 31% of every healthcare dollar (roughly $600 billion/yr) on non-healthcare related spending, such as marketing/advertising, an inefficient administration, rating and underwriting clients, denying coverage, and generating corporate profit; the system structured around profit that has undermined quality, affordable coverage, leaving Americans vulnerable to financial ruin in times of need because of excessive co-pays, deductibles, and medication costs.

As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 eliminates the waste by operating with a much more efficient 3% administration cost, utilizing the roughly $600 billion saved each year for actual healthcare and finally guaranteeing the same high quality care for every American. As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 creates a healthcare system structured for the purpose of providing the best care to all in the most economically efficient way, rather than maximizing profit. As a not-for-profit system, H.R. 676 finally presents access to healthcare as a basic human right, rather than just another corporate commodity. And, in his support of H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate considering what will truly strengthen and provide security for all Americans, rather than the healthcare industry. In supporting H.R. 676 Dennis Kucinich is considering:

Crisis: 46 million Americans uninsured and 50+ million underinsured; medically related bankruptcies, up 2,200% since 1981, account for half of all bankruptcies in this country and, yet ¾ of them were insured at the time. H.R. 676 guarantees full coverage for every American.

Quality: Not only does H.R. 676 provide all Americans with unparalleled quality of coverage, including free choice of provider and complete portability, but it finally allows medical decisions to be made only by those that should: medical professionals. H.R. 676 has the support of over 14,000 physicians and nurses associations because it eliminates the business of private insurance and pharmaceutical companies from influencing medical decisions to save money.

Costs: The private system has utterly failed to control costs as premiums have risen three times faster than inflation and pharmaceuticals go through the roof. H.R. 676 will not only spend $56 billion less, but go further in controlling costs by allocating budgets, eliminating profit and finally having the clout to negotiate fair rates with the pharmaceutical companies.

Families: As H.R. 676 is funded through tax dollars, 95% of families will pay less for health care than they do now. Under the current private system, the average family premium is up to $11,000/yr. However, under H.R.676, a family of three making $40,000/yr. will spend roughly 1,900/yr. For comprehensive coverage without any additional costs, such as co-pays,
deductibles or prescription medications.

Businesses: The current private system places a heavy burden on businesses to provide
healthcare for employees, the average employer contributing $2,600 per employee. Under H.R. 676 the average would drop to about $1,600. This financial strain handicaps U.S. businesses competing in the world market.

The for-profit system requires non-healthcare related spending and waste to operate, the whole system designed to create income, not care. In supporting H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who offers a solution for high quality, true universal health care in this country: eliminating the for-profit, private insurance system. In supporting H.R. 676 Dennis Kucinich is able to finally guarantee all Americans the security of affordable and fully comprehensive coverage. And through H.R. 676, Dennis Kucinich is reaching out to all Americans, bringing them together, to face the for-profit, private healthcare system and once again reclaim our responsibility as a great nation.

Tags: Dennis Kucinich, H.R. 676, Health care, single payer health insurance, Universal Health Care (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 150 comments

  •  Dennis Kucinich (0+ / 0-)

       is a joke. An absolute joke. He is a vanity candidate who has no business being on the Presidential stage. -+

    •  Well, he advocates some good policies (12+ / 0-)

      I would not call Representative Kucinich a joke. I question his chances of winning, since he has not demonstrated a capacity to win at a national level. But he does add to the discourse. And many Dems find that, though they do not support his candidacy, they do agree with him on many issues.

      •  If they agree with him they need to vote for him (9+ / 0-)

        his winningor losing is on OUR hands. We may never get a better chance to put a good and principled man in the White House.

        •  That would be helpful (10+ / 0-)

          I never could understand why people here say things like

          "Well, I like everything Kucinich stands for, but I can't vote for him..."

          Why?

          "Because he won't win".

          In other words,

          "I don't vote my conscience, I only vote for who the Teevee tells me to (or the Party, or whoever)".

          No wonder we have crappy pols in this country when it counts the most. We don't listen to our inner selves, our conscience, and our gut instincts. Too often, we get caught up in 'groupthink'.

          On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

          by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:08:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I vote my conscience (0+ / 0-)

               my conscience tells me that Kucinich's flips on positions and in-action on what he claims to be passionate about (the Cheney impeachment) prove that he is not a serious candidate. He's a joke. He wouldn't have any idea what the hell he was doing should he get to the WH.

          •  Kucinich lacks political skills (0+ / 0-)

            He lacks the patience and ability to persuade.

            Americans hate politicians, and love politicians who don't look or act like "politicians". But the fact is that wheeling and dealing is absolutely necessary for success in that area.

            Without the ability to persuade a large, disparate group of people to support your ideas, you won't get anything done. Presidents need to deal with Congress to get their legislative agenda passed. Unless (like Bush) you're willing to rule with an iron fist and ruthlessly punish dissent--which is destructive of the democratic process and makes for terrible policy--you need to be able to compromise and do give-and-take. Kucinich can only take.

            Any idiot can introduce a bill to impeach Cheney. It would take a much more skilled operator than Kucinich to see that bill through the House.
            It would take a much more politically perceptive person than Kucinich to see that there's no chance an impeachment would be sustained in a Senate which is split 51-49 when a two-thirds majority is needed for conviction.

            It would take a much broader-minded person than Kucinich to realize that an acquittal of Bush and/or Cheney in an impeachment trial would be an official vindication of the Bush presidency to the world and to history, and would surely benefit the Republicans politically, just in time for the 2008 elections.

            If you try to pass a bill in direct defiance of the Speaker of the House without having the backing of a large majority, you probably aren't going to win. But Kucinich doesn't give a fuck. He's happy to introduce a resolution that has no chance of passing, then grandstand for the cameras and shout about how he's the only true Democrat.

            Despite his very progressive rhetoric, he's extremely divisive and contentious, and that's why I won't vote for him.

            •  And when the leadership decides not to honor (4+ / 0-)

              their oaths of office by not bringing up impeachment against the current criminal administratin, that's a good thing?

              Don't blame me, I support Dennis! http://kucinich.us

              by rjones2818 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:09:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The leadership wouldn't do that (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                NonnyO

                because their constituents would skin them alive.

                That's why you see all these arguments against impeachment, and against Kucinich. This scares them to death--at least, those with a stake in the current status-quo.

                On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:15:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I never said it was a good thing (0+ / 0-)

                There has never been anyone more richly deserving of impeachment than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but it is simply not possible.

                The GOP is still mindlessly authoritarian and will back its leader to the bitter end. You won't find sixteen Republican senators willing to vote for impeachment. And unless Kucinich has figured out some way of persuading them to vote against Bush and Cheney, any attempts to impeach are doomed to failure. And as I said, such a failure would not serve our cause.

                Perhaps a more politically skilled and perceptive person than Kucinich might have a nonzero chance of pushing through an impeachment bill. But what Kucinich has done is a stunt.

        •  I hardly (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Hannibal, limpidglass

           call someone who flipped on abortion just in time to run for President, "principled."

           I can't call someone who doesn't end his campaign even after another candidate has locked up the requisite # of delegates, a "Principled" person.

           This guy is a camera hound. He's a vanity candidate.

        •  He shouldn't win (0+ / 0-)

          He's never demonstrated any leadership at all. He grandstands on quixotic little adventures, such as the impeachment of Cheney, and this healthcare plan he's put forth in Congress. But what work does he do to get these things done? He doesn't win people over, nor does he appear to have the ability to do so. It's not a matter of his being right or wrong, it's his ability to convince people that he's right that matters.

          Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.

          by Hannibal on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:25:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  wish I could give you three rec's (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        rjones2818, o the umanity

        for being so civil.

        Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal

        by Nulwee on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:25:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm...who in the Dem pack has (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        geph, Tropical Depression

        demonstrated the capacity to win at a national level?

        Don't blame me, I support Dennis! http://kucinich.us

        by rjones2818 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:12:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  the university of southern mississippi (2+ / 1-)

      Recommended by:
      eugene, rjones2818
      Hidden by:
      o the umanity

      is a joke. it only exists as a distribution point for budweiser.

      Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

      by rasbobbo on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 05:55:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you, except. . . (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Angie in WA State, NearlyNormal

      for the fact that on almost all matters of policy he's correct.  Yet he still doesn't get any traction (not from me, either).  I wonder why that is?

      John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

      by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  probably because MSM (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        splashy, NonnyO, phonegery, rjones2818

        and the entrenched "system" in this country continue to try to wave him away.

        On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

        by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:04:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Angie in WA State

          I know what his proposals are, and I still have no interest whatsoever in voting for him.  I don't really know why it is -- although he's right on policy I simply don't think he'd make a very good (or even adequate) chief executive.

          John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

          by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:06:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You should look into that (4+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            rasbobbo, splashy, phonegery, rjones2818

            and figure out why you don't like someone that's "right on policy" enough to vote for them.

            On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

            by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:10:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because. . . (4+ / 0-)

              I'm not voting for chief policy wonk.  I'm voting for President.  And I simply have the feeling, policy aside, that Kucinich would make a shitty President.

              His policies are good, but I have zero expectation that he'd get anything enacted by Congress.  Obviously the Republicans would simply ridicule him and everything he says.  He's already alienated much of the Democratic Party and shows no particular interest in doing the kind of work he'd have to do get "deals" done in Congress -- I suspect he would even disdain the notion of ever doing a deal (for instance, his refusal to vote for S-CHIP).

              He also shows no ability, and frankly little interest, in speaking to the American people in such as way as to make his policies seem desirable to them and rally them around him.  In that regard he's a "my way or the highway guy", not withstanding that his policies may be actually be the right way in many cases.

              No, I think that while his policies are good, a Kucinich Presidency would have the result of setting back efforts to enact those policies -- in some partial form acceptable to the American people -- for decades.

              John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

              by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:16:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your feelings are noted n/t (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                rjones2818

                On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:17:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry. . . (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  rjones2818, o the umanity

                  I didn't mean that to be snide or insulting, if that's the way it came across.

                  John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                  by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:18:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  nah, just (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    rjones2818

                    I dunno, "lofty" was the word that sprung to mind ;)

                    Seriously? I found Bill Clinton to be an irritating good ol' boy, but I still voted for him in '92. You should give Kucinich a chance, at least in the primary.

                    On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                    by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:20:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm leaning for Kucinich, but your (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    rjones2818

                    rant was somewhat persuasive, given the reality of our pathetic political environment.

                    What are your thoughts on Hugo Chavez and the proposed Constitutional Reform?

                    •  I beg your pardon? (0+ / 0-)

                      What are your thoughts on Hugo Chavez and the proposed Constitutional Reform?

                      I go out for two hours to shop, and Hugo Chavez is trying to reform the US Constitution?

                      Just kidding -- I don't generally have strongly held opinions about the internal affairs of other countries, and I probably don't have enough knowledge to speak about Chavez, although I don't intend to let that stop me.

                      I think it's a bad idea for people to change laws (and doubly so for Constitutions) in ways that benefit them.  Therefore, I think that if Chavez wants to change the Constitution to remove term limits, it should only take effect after he's left office (of course, in the absence of term limits I suppose he could run again later on and then ascend to the Presidency-for-Life).

                      On the whole Chavez strikes me as an anti-democratic buffoon, not withstanding that he has instituted some good and popular programs.

                      John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                      by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:44:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, there ya go (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        rjones2818

                        Kucinich is pro-democracy. There's another reason to like him, Larry :)

                        On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                        by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:46:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  From President Lula of Brazil: (3+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        splashy, o the umanity, snackdoodle

                        "People complain about Chávez wanting a third term. Why did nobody complain when (ex British Prime Minister) Margaret Thatcher spent so many years in power?" Lula wondered.

                        "Please, invent anything to criticize Chávez, except for lack of democracy. I have being in office for five years and run twice for president and twice for mayor. As far as I am concerned, during that very period, there have been three referendums, three elections and four plebiscites. Everything but discussion lacks in Venezuela," Lula said.

                        http://english.eluniversal.com/...

                        Don't blame me, I support Dennis! http://kucinich.us

                        by rjones2818 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:47:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Uh. . . (0+ / 0-)

                          Why did nobody complain when (ex British Prime Minister) Margaret Thatcher spent so many years in power?

                          because it's legal for a Prime Minister to continue in office and unconstitutional for the President of Venezuala to do so?

                          John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                          by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:50:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  His point being that many countries (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            o the umanity

                            have more than two term limits, and nobody seems to care about it.

                            Don't blame me, I support Dennis! http://kucinich.us

                            by rjones2818 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:51:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  Personally. . . (0+ / 0-)

                              I don't care about it either.  Have whatever number of terms permitted that you want.  It's the idea of somebody changing the constitution to benefit oneself that bugs me.  Of course, that's up to the Venezualans -- presumably if they think it's a bad idea they'll let the government know (assuming they can find any non-government run media to report on it).

                              John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                              by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:55:09 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                          •  What do you think of FDR? (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            rjones2818

                            He was elected to four terms. While he was president a coup was attempted against him. Then the Constitution was amended to restrict presidents to two terms. Hmm.

                            •  And this has to do with the (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              rjones2818

                              actual topic how, again?

                              On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                              by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:01:31 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  The country will love Dennis so (0+ / 0-)

                                much as President that they'll demand that the Constitutional prohibition on more than two terms be removed!

                                :)

                                Don't blame me, I support Dennis! http://kucinich.us

                                by rjones2818 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:03:05 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                              •  I am confused, as well. . . (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                o the umanity

                                (and probably encouraged the diversion by responding to the original question).

                                I'll also say that mixing arguments in favor of Kucinich with arguments in favor of changing the Venenzualan Constitution to allow Chavez to become President-for-Life is probably not going to aid the Kucinich cause.

                                John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                                by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:08:00 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  maybe that was the whole idea? (0+ / 0-)

                                  more word association games.

                                  That's been happening to Kucinich a lot here lately. The vacuous attacks on his looks have gained no favor and the "He can't get anything else done, and he's stubborn" gains very little.

                                  So now some folks have taken to associating him with R__ P___. And now Chavez.

                                  I seriously hope most people aren't that stupid...

                                  On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                                  by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  Well. . . (0+ / 0-)

                                    to be fair, he appears to have associated himself with Ron Paul.  As well as talking about "balancing energies" in the country.  I tell you, the guy isn't helping himself.  When I say "great positions, ineffective executive" this is the kind of stuff I mean.

                                    As for the commenter making the link to Chavez, you may be right.  Does s/he have a history?

                                    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                                    by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:33:05 PM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                    •  Only in the sense that they're (0+ / 0-)

                                      both talking about the Constitution--really talking about it. The difference is that R__ P___ has -R after his name, and appears to be quite the isolationist. That's not the answer, either. Kucinich wants reforms, clearly, but he doesn't want to shut us off from the rest of the world.

                                      I don't know about a particular commenter's history, and I really don't follow those. I just find that they're popping out of the woodwork lately with the 'word-association' crap. I'm guessing it means that's all they really have left...

                                      On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                                      by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:40:06 PM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

                                      •  Actually. . . (0+ / 0-)

                                        Kucinich answered a hypothetical question at a house party about who he'd choose from among the Republicans as a running mate (if he had to choose a Republican) by saying "Ron Paul".  There's a diary up now, and one of the commenters was apparently at the house party.

                                        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                                        by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:43:53 PM PDT

                                        [ Parent ]

                                        •  If he had to choose a Republican? (0+ / 0-)

                                          Jesus, anyone who has to diary on that, here is reaching pretty deep, aren't they?

                                          See what I mean? There was some knucklehead trolling Kucinich diaries yesterday with some HuffPO link on the same topic. It was disinfo yesterday, and it's probably disinfo today.

                                          On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                                          by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:48:23 PM PDT

                                          [ Parent ]

                                          •  No, there's a (0+ / 0-)

                                            Kucinich supporter who was there (at least -- I think it's a Kuninich supporter -- definitely there, and definitely giving the Kucinich perspective, which is what I reported above).

                                            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                                            by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:50:38 PM PDT

                                            [ Parent ]

                            •  I think. . . (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              limpidglass

                              he was entirely entitled to run for four terms since it was completely legal and constitutional for him to do so at the time, not withstanding that it was against custom.

                              Had it been unconstitutional for him to do so and had he tried to do so anyway, I would consider it a blot on American history.  Were a President of either party to attempt to do so today I would oppose the effort, regardless of my opinion of that President.

                              This, by the way, is more or less what Giuliani tried to do in New York -- extend his term by some months after 9/11.  Terms limits are fairly new in New York City (Giuliani was the first mayor subject to them) and I strongly opposed them when they were on the ballot.  But they were passed, and so of course Giuliani had to go on the date set down in law for the end of his term.

                              This is a pretty simple concept -- politicians must follow the law, and especially the national Constitution.  I'm flabbergasted that anyone would have trouble following my argument -- not withstanding that some people believe that politicians need not follow the law.  I rather thought those people were hanging out at RedState these days, but such differences of opinion are, of course, permitted.

                              John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                              by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:05:40 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

              •  Larry, you need to find out more about Dennis (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                rjones2818

                before you decide he can't do it.

              •  Umm... (3+ / 0-)

                On SCHIP...

                He voted for the original House version.  He voted against the 'compromise' bill which threw legal immigrant kids to the curb.  He then voted for the override.

                Now, unless you support throwing legal immigrant kids to the curb, which I would hope is not the case, perhaps you need to relook at least this point.

                Don't blame me, I support Dennis! http://kucinich.us

                by rjones2818 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:26:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  & the democratic president the republicans (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                splashy, phonegery, rjones2818

                won't ridicule is... who?
                here's the thing, ridiculing dennis kucinich has the same effect as ridiculing his policies. when/if he ever seems to gain some traction, then you will see people taking his platform seriously.

                Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

                by rasbobbo on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:57:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

                  He'll get some traction if people quit ridiculing him (because...what, "all the cool kids do it"?) and read about what he stands for.

                  Not saying Larry was doing that, necessarily, I'm just saying. 99% of the anti-Kucinich stuff you see out here is complete bullshit.  

                  On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

                  by o the umanity on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:04:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's true (0+ / 0-)

                  to some extent.

                  So the question becomes who will they least be able to ridicule.  And, rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that Kucinich is an easy target.  Why that is I don't know exactly but I think it's a combination of several things:

                  1. He doesn't are about being ridiculed and actually takes it as a badge of honor (much the way that I prefer to be less popular at Daily Kos by generally being contrarian).
                  1. He makes no attempt to shade his policies in such a way as they appear less ridiculous, or at least are less readily ridiculed.  Obama exudes gravitas talking about diplomacy with friends and enemies alike, Kucinich sounds like a hippy talking about the Department of Peace.
                  1. I think he just has a completely unfair nerd thing going on.  As a fellow sufferer I don't want to make light of it, but some people just are less convincing than others.

                  John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                  by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:16:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Signs you may be a concern troll: (0+ / 0-)

                Obviously the Republicans would simply ridicule him and everything he says.

                He's already alienated much of the Democratic Party...

                ...shows no particular interest in doing the kind of work he'd have to do get "deals" done in Congress

                and

                No, I think that while his policies are good, a Kucinich Presidency would have the result of setting back efforts to enact those policies -- in some partial form acceptable to the American people -- for decades.

                Could it be that a UFO has deposited Dennis here from the future as a plant to derail the progressive movement and the survival of Earth itself?!!!

            •  PS (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Hannibal, rjones2818, o the umanity

              Thank you for asking me that question, as it gave me the opportunity to clarify my thinking about Kucinich.

              John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

              by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:18:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

            it has nothing to do with the media. He's a damn vanity candidate. That's why he kept running even after Kerry had the requisite delegates. It's why he introduced the resolution to impeach Cheney, only to do nothing with it since then. He's a joke. He's not serious...he does not deserve to taken seriously as a Presidential candidate.

      •  Battered Voter Syndrome (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Halcyon, NonnyO, rjones2818

        Before you all think I am making fun of battered women I am NOT. But there is something to be said for the abuse we have all suffered since 9-11. Fear heaped on more fear, the abuse of power by W, the real possibility of endless war and a Congress that pretends we don't exist.  This whole country has been in a deep funk for months if not years. A lot of us probably no longer have the ability or will for independent action to save ourselves or remove the abusers in DC. There is a good possibility many of us have had our spirits broken. To say nothing of the fact we did try and it only made things worse, the relationship with our leaders became more abusive. It has been extreme and difficult times the last six years, some people just get mad, but many more have just been wrung dry and are on the edge of just giving up.

  •  We all want single payer (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hannibal, bthespoon, snackdoodle

    But many of us would rather get something done to help people now rather than fight an impossible fight while so many Americans continue to suffer.

    Earlier this year, we could only get 55 votes for cloture on a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies.  

    If we can't even force a vote on making a popular public program a bit more public, how are we going to get a vote on making the entire private market public?

    And while I can see an argument that incremental reform would reduce the chances of getting single payer by getting rid of the urgency, I think people will be more receptive to single payer after seeing that universal coverage is actually pretty OK.

  •  Kuc can't disapear the ins companies (0+ / 0-)

    Not over night anyway.  There will have to be a time when there are two systems - one single payer for working age people and one multiple private pay - before the public chooses the least costly public pay.  Buying power and the ability to create more supply of physicians through increasing medical personnel training and education slots are advantages single pay and governments have over the myriad of private sector insurers in paying doctors bills.  Ibncreasing the supply of health care providers will take a little time - but only 5-6 years.  That advantage will accrue to both a single and the myriad of private payers.  But ionnly thge public sector has the clout and the inclination among some politicians to settle big pharmas hash.  Once the public sees the difference in price of a single payer they will clamor for the end of the insurers by opting into the single payer system.  

    "Obama. He's redefining what a politician is... take the best from the past, leave the worst back there and go forward into the future " Bob Dylan

    by SmithsLastWord on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 05:43:01 PM PDT