• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kucinich willing to cast the vote that kills health reform

Wrong again. They understood it just fine. They just do not want to take sole responsibility for owning a catastrophic piece of legislation. After the pointless bailouts they lost some historic elections and are now a little gunshy about showing their true faces.

Think about it. They way some of you guys talk democrats have an opportunity to take sole credit for the greatest bill since sliced bread....

Who would not want the credit if that is even partway true?

The fact is they have filth on their clothes right now and are trying to get opposition parties to dance with them so they can say they are not the only dirty ones.

Wait, so what you're saying is the Democrats knew the Republicans wouldn't vote for the bill, but gave into them repeatedly anyway because they didn't want sole responsibility for a disastrous bill.

But also that Democrats think it's the greatest thing ever and WOULD want sole credit.

I'm confused.

HR3200, the original bill with a public option, was decent. It wouldn't fix all of our problems, but it wouldn't cause many either. The latest one, I believe, just isn't going to accomplish its goals. Worse, it will probably make things harder for families in certain income bands.

But then again, I'm against this bill because it's too far to the right, not too far to the left. So take that as you will.

edit: And if this bill truly is "catastrophic," as you think it will be, it will be the noose that the Democratic Party hangs itself with regardless of the number of Republican votes. Do you really think two or three GOP votes is going to make people think this was a Republican bill that screwed things up? This is Obama's legacy, for good or for bad.
 
Last edited:
Yes it was pretty stupid of them. I don't think they understood at the time that the Republicans will literally vote against anything the Democrats put up right now. If a Democratic Senator floated a bill that repeals every federal gun ban in existence, you'd still end up with a party-line "NO" vote from Team Red.
When will people get it through their head that it did not make two-hoots-in-hell worth of difference what the Republicans did. The Democrats had the votes to pass anything they wanted. The Republicans could not stop them. It is really pretty simple.... for anyone with more than half a brain.

Of course, the kool-aide drinkers have to try to blame someone other than Prez Doofus and the Congressional Demos since they put them in office. :stooges

.
 
I don't like Kucinch, but I hope his is the killing vote. Obama can't do anything to him.
 
The best possible thing that could happen to this bill is to put a bullet in its head. Doing something that screws things up worse than they are already screwed up is always worse than doing nothing.
 
When will people get it through their head that it did not make two-hoots-in-hell worth of difference what the Republicans did. The Democrats had the votes to pass anything they wanted. The Republicans could not stop them. It is really pretty simple.... for anyone with more than half a brain.

Of course, the kool-aide drinkers have to try to blame someone other than Prez Doofus and the Congressional Demos since they put them in office. :stooges

.

Good gawd, we agree on something! You're right... the Dems are as spinless as jellyfish. They should have just gone ahead with their original plan and not care one iota of what the Republicans had to say.
 
I would love to see a President Kucinich.:2wave:

I love the guy's politics but I think his inability to compromise would make him a terrible president. One of the most important jobs a president can do is be a mediator. It is not a job that is fit for ideologues like Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Kucinich, or Alan Grayson (who is also an awesome legislator).
 
Last edited:
I think that's funny since the guy had a lackluster career as an executive.

**cough**cough**Dubya**cough**cough**

Some have the Midas touch, while Dubya had the **** brown poo-poo touch.
 
I love the guy's politics but I think his inability to compromise would make him a terrible president. One of the most important jobs a president can do is be a mediator. It is not a job that is fit for ideologues like Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Kucinich, or Alan Grayson (who is also an awesome legislator).

I agree. But I would say that he's too extreme left. Damn shame, though, as I said before, he's about as ethical as it gets. He's one of the few who is actually a public servant and not a self servant.
 
I agree. But I would say that he's too extreme left. Damn shame, though, as I said before, he's about as ethical as it gets. He's one of the few who is actually a public servant and not a self servant.

I go back and forth on it. Largely I admire what he tries to do because there is only one of him. If we had 30 people in the senate or a good number in the hoiuse like Kucinich, than I would want more political balance (more guys with his or Ron Paul's ethics would be another matter). As it currently is though, I like the diversity he represents.
 
Last edited:
The best possible thing that could happen to this bill is to put a bullet in its head. Doing something that screws things up worse than they are already screwed up is always worse than doing nothing.
The Bill has some things desperately needed and if this Bill doesn't pass nothing will get done and doing nothing is destroying our economy, bankrupting families and killing millions.
 
The Bill has some things desperately needed and if this Bill doesn't pass nothing will get done and doing nothing is destroying our economy, bankrupting families and killing millions.

Killing millions? MILLIONS? Give me a f'ing break. Talk about hyperbole. Proof, please?
 
Killing millions? MILLIONS? Give me a f'ing break. Talk about hyperbole. Proof, please?
What's a little hyperbole among friends? :mrgreen:

How many die per year due to lack of insurance? When was UHC first proposed? Do the math.
 
What's a little hyperbole among friends? :mrgreen:

How many die per year due to lack of insurance? When was UHC first proposed? Do the math.

45,000.* It weren't 20 years ago, dear heart.







*But that number is disputed by many.
 
45,000.* It weren't 20 years ago, dear heart.







*But that number is disputed by many.

It may be disputed and UHC was put forth by FDR, which was a little more than 20 years ago. ;)
 
It may be disputed and UHC was put forth by FDR, which was a little more than 20 years ago. ;)

Wow, you really ARE playing hard and fast with the truth. Which, I suppose, is fine, as long as the truth enjoys it like that.
 
Wow, you really ARE playing hard and fast with the truth. Which, I suppose, is fine, as long as the truth enjoys it like that.
I agreed that it was hyperbole and you kept pushing so... you get what you ask for. :rofl
 
What's a little hyperbole among friends? :mrgreen:

How many die per year due to lack of insurance? When was UHC first proposed? Do the math.

Wamp wamp.

Myth Diagnosis - Magazine - The Atlantic

The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it. Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured.

Read the whole article. The bulk of the studies claiming these huge numbers of deaths from a lack of insurance are significantly flawed.
 
**cough**cough**Dubya**cough**cough**

Some have the Midas touch, while Dubya had the **** brown poo-poo touch.
Come talk to me when Baby Kucci becomes the President. :2wave:
 
Wamp wamp.

Myth Diagnosis - Magazine - The Atlantic



Read the whole article. The bulk of the studies claiming these huge numbers of deaths from a lack of insurance are significantly flawed.

Whimper whimper

Why am I not surprised that you, a rightwinger, found a republican journalist who seeks to undermine an argument used by democrats for health insurance reform. I guess here"liberal" use of words like - maybe, perhaps, possibility... she does a decent job of injecting suspicion and of course picks an chooses which studies and which parts to use to question a premise. Of course she stops short of declaring the premise to be untrue, but that's not her goal, right? Her goal is simply to cast doubt so that people like you can use it as fact.
 
Whimper whimper

Why am I not surprised that you, a rightwinger, found a republican journalist who seeks to undermine an argument used by democrats for health insurance reform. I guess here"liberal" use of words like - maybe, perhaps, possibility... she does a decent job of injecting suspicion and of course picks an chooses which studies and which parts to use to question a premise. Of course she stops short of declaring the premise to be untrue, but that's not her goal, right? Her goal is simply to cast doubt so that people like you can use it as fact.

Her "liberal" use of those words is to indicate the fact that the science is not settled on this. See, rather than finding something that sounds good and asserting that it's the incontrovertible truth to the exclusion of everything else, most reasonable people look at situations like this with an open mind.

My conclusion is not that a lack of health insurance causes no excess deaths, although the most comprehensive study to date seems to indicate that. Nor is my conclusion that a lack of health insurance causes 10k/20k/45k excess deaths a year like some other studies claim. My conclusion is that it's unsettled, but there is strong evidence that the number is somewhat lower than traditionally thought. Regardless of all of that, it's indisputable that it's drastically lower than your bull**** "millions" figure.

If you want to make such broad pronouncements about a topic, try reading the article first.
 
Back
Top Bottom