I agree with Kucinich. I asked my reps in the house and senate to fight to remove the mandate and get whatever reforms they can without it for right not because they are not fighting to get enough value in return for an insurance mandate.

Hard to argue with DK's logic. I almost never disagree with what he says. That's why I contributed to his Presidential campaign.

But what DK and I and lots of people here at TPM want simply will not happen this time around. Sad, but true. The question is, Will the bill under consideration make things better or worse in the mean time? (And/or will it further defer the time when we can actually get what we want?)

I don't know the answer for sure. But I think this bill is better than nothing. (Certainly it is, politically.) And we don't yet know what the final version will be (though it isn't likely the Senate will make it better).

-- ARG

Kucinich is, as usual, right on this. He is diplomatic in not pointing out what a total sell out of the American people Obama has engineered. The bill that came out of the House is a bad bill. The one that comes out of the Senate will be worse. I hope this "reform" effort fails as it should. Once it does, the progressives in the Democratic Party have to get aggressive in demanding that single payer be considered, debated and voted on. Democrats have been accused of using HCR for the advancement of single payer which isn't true. In fact, there's no lie the Republicans will fail to tell if they think it will help defeat any effort to take the fate of the nation's health out of the hands of the insurance companies. So why the hell not do the right thing and fight for single payer since that's what the other side is accusing us of anyway and is also, quite happily, something a solid majority of Americans favor: Medicare for All.

DK is totally right on, as should be obvious to all, even our clueless President Nero. Rec'd, DK.

I disagree with DK's reasoning in the link. Essentially he wishes the US was a different country. (Tell me about it."You say you want a Revolution")And therefore he won't vote to make things better in the country we have.

I'm sorry I live now and want things to be better for the other people who live now. Choosing the lesser evil means that things are....less evil.

I'd like to think-in fact I do- that if the bill were going down by one vote DK would have swallowed his reservations and come through. But, had that been the case and he didn't I'd have no more interest in his explanations than in those of the Nader voters in 2000.

DK has the right answers. he just lacks the platform for enough people to hear and respond. I would think from Main Street a lot of people would agree with him, but Main Street has no idea these things are being said in Congress. The party leaders and the MSM control the message.

I believe Flavius made a very relevant point a couple of comments up (at this point). The House Democratic leadership needs 218 votes to pass a bill. After counting all the unalterable yeas and nays, they then negotiate with those within their own caucus to reach the magic number. In many cases, they reach agreement with reluctant members that includes a promise to vote yes if necessary, but if enough votes are available without that member's vote, it is understood that the leadership would not object to a no vote.

Although I was not privy to the private discussions obviously, I would be extraordinarily surprised if Kucinich would have let the bill go down to defeat. If his vote had been the only available vote #218, he would have voted yes, and then explained his reservations about the bill in a separate statement.