Why would Kucinich oppose Sanders' state single payer provision?

[ProSense]

A provision that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) inserted into the Senate bill that allows states to use federal money to set up a single-payer system would seem to satisfy some of Kucinich's concerns. But the congressman relayed to the Huffington Post that he didn't find the language strong enough because it doesn't prevent insurance companies from suing the state for setting up a universal care system.

link

Details:

A state single payer amendment was proposed by Senator Sanders. It is more detailed than the Kucinich amendment because it would cover matters beyond the jurisdiction of the House Education and Labor Committee. These include: Dedicated funding for planning and implementation grants; Specific allocations of funds from existing federal health programs, and waivers to permit coordination with those programs; Quality assurance and health professional training programs associated with other federal programs.

link

The provision includes federal funding, something Kucinich's amendment doesn't.

Why would he want to kill a bill that includes this provision?

[mr715]

1. I can guess.

Can you?

Something about being a fucking hypocrite.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. And a moron.

Probably didn't even realize the provision was in there and then had to back-fill an excuse.

[HughMoran]

27. Oh, no you di-int!

[The Magistrate]

2. The Objection Cited, Ma'am, Does Seem A Bit Of A Stretch....

[AnOhioan]

3. Maybe because of the fact, that despite Bernie's provision...

the bill is still a bail out to the insurance industry and codifies the hold they have over us and our elected representatives?

But none of that matters as long as you can bash Kucinich.

[ProSense]

4. So with Kucinich's version it's OK to pass, but with Sanders' it's not? n/t

[AnOhioan]

6. No..with this bill, any version would not be OK to pass

Dennis is opposed to the bill as a whole, regardless of whose single payer provision might or might not be in it, and rightfully so. But you knew that already.

[ProSense]

7. "Dennis is opposed to the bill as a whole, regardless of whose single payer provision"

Wrong

[AnOhioan]

8. Nice try

Yes, He does support a strong and viable public option, but that is not in this bill is it?

And an argument could be made that a public option is not the same as allowing states to form their own single payer plans.


Pass a public option alone or a single payer bill alone and Dennis would be leading the charge.

[ProSense]

10. "Yes, He does support a strong and viable public option, but that is not in this bill is it? " What?

The post linked to has nothing to do with a public option, which was in the House bill that he voted against.

[AnOhioan]

13. I was saying it is not in the Senate bill

But, truth be told, a strong and viable public option was not in the House bill either. A watered down PO was, hardly worth the paper it was printed on.


"Evidently, Kucinich supports the public option" I was responding to your own words.

[ProSense]

14. And I was talking about state single payer. n/t

[AnOhioan]

16. You brought up the PO

Regardless of state single payer or a federal po....Dennis would vote yes if the bill before him was good for the American people. He will vote no if it is not.

[ncteechur]

11. Dennis Kucinich will vote against any progress if it isn't HIS progress.

[suzie]

31. +500

[Forkboy]

34. And that seperates him from 90% of all other politicians how?

[DavidDvorkin]

38. The 90% aren't idolized on DU.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ikonoklast]

5. It's not *perfect*.

In Dennis' world there are things that are either *perfect*, or *shit*.

So, if it's not *perfect*, it must be *shit*.


Dennis is a loon who would rather an entire house burn down than save half of it, then declare the house wasn't a very nice one to begin with.

[ncteechur]

9. I'll take a Bernie Sanders over a Dennis Kucinich any day and twice on Sunday.

[girl gone mad]

12. Until Bernie makes a principled stand against another of Obama's corporatist interests..

then you'd gladly toss him under the bus, too.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. +1,000,000

Sanders should be the real DU hero - a progressive who knows how to actually get the most done he possibly can. It's why he's a Senator and not running fruitless presidential campaigns.

[Bobbie Jo]

29. +1,000,001

Sanders is the real deal. :thumbsup:

[eridani]

15. Change the date from 2017 to right now, and the objections disappear n/t

[harun]

26. +1

[zulchzulu]

18. Kucinich's knees are in great shape because he jerks them so much

Dennis couldn't lick Bernie's Birkenstocks.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

19. E

go. :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

20. A few reasons - listed in the article below ...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/08/how-to-get-a-state-single-payer-opt-out-as-part-of-reconciliation/

"...Delayed Until 2017

The first problem is the date of implementation. States can’t apply for the waiver until 2017, which is completely ridiculous. There is no reason for the delay, and it would make state innovation very difficult to implement. It would first require states to go through all the work of setting up the new system of exchanges for 2014, only to turn around and try to replace it with another new system three years later.

The other big problem with the date is that 2017 would be right after Obama left office (assuming that he served two terms). Since it is very rare for one party to hold the presidency for three straight terms, it will likely be a Republican in the White House in 2017. Assume their HHS secretary would not be open to granting the waiver for a state-based single payer system, it would likely not be until 2020 or 2024 that this provision could be used for creating state single payer, and that assumes a supportive Democratic president is elected. This is completely unacceptable.


...Getting Around ERISA

The other major impediment is the scope of the waiver, which I interpret to mean it can’t be used for a waiver of ERISA. From the Senate bill (with Secretary defined as Secretary of HHS and Treasury):


...Conclusion

The Senate bill spends a large amount of money on a very inefficient way of expanding coverage. With modest modifications, the state waiver provision could allow individual states to use that money to pursue single payer systems, a move that would potentially save the states and the federal government a large amount of money. Despite what Obama is telling Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the current state waiver provision can’t do that.

A better state waiver redesign would not just allow for state-based single payer, but other systems like a German-style all-payer system, a Hawaii-style strict employer mandate system, a Singapore-style system of HSAs combined with catastrophic insurance, etc..."

[ProSense]

21. Completely lame.

Kucinich's amendment doesn't provide funding. It will take time for states to pass legislation, set up and transition to single payer. The national plan isn't fully operational until 2014. The Sanders plan allows federal coordination so ERISA isn't likely to be an issue.

Kucinich is waiting for perfect and making lame excuses.

[slipslidingaway]

22. I'm certainly no expert on the potential legal challenges to the

language in the bill, which is not even finalized yet, or at least not available for the public to see.

I do know that the insurance companies will vigorously fight any state SP bills that they believe could erode their profits and feel that every effort should be made to have language in the bill which makes this as easy as possible.

There is no reason to trade the Kucinich language for the Sanders language, combine the two and make it best for the people, unless those who currently hold power really do want a loophole for insurance companies to use.


Here is what Pelosi said about the Kucinich state SP amendment being stripped from the final bill...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html

"An amendment to allow states to pursue single-payer health care without incurring insurance-industry lawsuits was stripped from the House bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, adding that it would break President Obama's commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it..."


More food for thought...

http://www.correntewire.com/kip_sullivan_stopping_health_care_bailout

"...If the final bill contains both the bailout and Section 1332 of the Senate bill, there will be no doubt on this issue: Section 1332 lays out explicit criteria that states have to meet if they want to implement a single-payer system or any other system that diverges substantially from the bailout provisions. Section 1332, entitled “Waiver for state innovation,” makes it crystal clear that the authors of the bill intend to preempt state legislation that diverges from the bailout provisions unless the state jumps through several hoops and, having jumped through the hoops, gets the blessing of whoever happens to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services at the time the state submits its application for a waiver.

But even if a provision like Section 1332 doesn’t make it into the final bill, I would bet a lot of money that federal courts will find that state single-payer legislation is preempted by the bailout provisions. I would make that bet in part because the bailout provisions are so comprehensive (they don’t leave a lot of room for states to operate on the margins), and because both the House and the Senate refused to vote single-payer legislation to the floor, and both houses explicitly rejected pro-single-payer amendments to their “reform” bills. These actions will make it easy for judges to find that Congress was well aware of the single-payer alternative, that Congress saw the single-payer solution as quite different from the multiple-payer “solution” contained in the Democrats’ legislation, and that Congress rejected the single-payer approach..."

[slipslidingaway]

30. crickets again n/t

[HughMoran]

23. Need you ask?

OK, my answer, because he didn't write it.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

28. He hasn't achieved a thing in congress. That's an incontrovertible fact.

Other than, perhaps, on his treasured anti-choice issues, he's the most useless congressman either side of the aisle and the reason for that is because he likes the niche he's carved for himself as a utopian outrage troll. He can prey on his naive followers who are oblivious to the fact that beyond his grandstanding he's done nothing. It's very, very easy to spew delusions of perfection when you will never have to face the consequence of them. Kucinich is the 'progressive' Marshall Applewhite of American politics and you'll never even get the snake oil he's selling, let alone perceptable action.

[Forkboy]

36. What was your last DU name?

[vaberella]

32. He needs to be primaried. n/t

[Forkboy]

33. Too late...your fantasies will have to wait until next time.

[vaberella]

37. It's not a fantasy. I'm also fully aware of when elections are held.

This hopefully will be remembered, but the left is forever suffering from amnesia so I'm not holding my breath.

[ProSense]

39. Last July, Kucinich claimed the bill was stronger and would hold insurance companies accountable

Details here.

[WI_DEM]

40. because it would take attention away from him.