A Rebuttal to Howard Dean: I Am a U.S. Senator, and I Will Vote For This Bill, by Paul Kirk

[jefferson_dem]

Sen. Paul G. Kirk, Jr..U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, Former Chairman of the DNC
Posted: December 19, 2009 04:58 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index .

A Rebuttal to Howard Dean: I Am a U.S. Senator, and I Will Vote For This Bill

Chairman Dean deserves enormous credit for all the good work he did for the Democratic Party. But, his opinion piece begins by saying "If I were a Senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill." He goes on to argue that the bill does not bring "real reform."

Signing his article as a "former chairman of the Democratic National Committee," I am sure, made Howard's comments particularly newsworthy, and I note that he is a guest on one of tomorrow morning's talk shows.

After reading many erroneous statements in the article that led him to his faulty conclusion, as they say in the world of health care--"we better get Howard a second opinion!"

As a former Chairman of the National Democratic Party myself, let me begin where Howard began, but by taking a contrary position. I am a United States Senator, and I will vote for the current health-care bill precisely because it does bring "real reform."

I hope Howard is reading, because I believe with a better understanding of the real reforms this bill does bring to America's health care system, he will join me as a forceful advocate for its enactment.

Let me first explain why I believe this bill is, in fact, the kind of "real reform" that Chairman Dean rightly seeks.

<SNIP>

I am old enough to recall the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Each of those pieces of legislation was incomplete. There was always more to do. But each of those bills was a landmark that began the march of progress toward equality under our laws. And each created an environment in which we could continue to move forward so that our country's laws better fit our national character and the principle of equal justice.

The same is true of this bill. The bill before the Senate is not the bill I would write, and it's not the bill Chairman Dean would write. It is neither perfect, nor is it the final product. But make no mistake. It is real reform, and it will provide enormous benefits to American workers, American seniors, American small businesses and American families.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-paul-g-kirk-jr/a-rebuttal-to-howard-dean_b_398218.html

[Bodhi BloodWave]

1. K&R N/T

[angee_is_mad]

2. Kick

and keep kicking.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Stay strong.

:hi:

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Junior is right!

He is wrong and I have no doubt that time will conclusively prove that Americans have been scammed.

He is dreaming if he thinks this is real reform.

[coti]

5. Yeah, this is the same response we're seeing over and over that doesn't

address the root of Dean's criticism- that this, in fact, is not a "good start" or "foundation" on which to expand. This more deeply entrenches the insurance companies into the Washington culture and only compounds our insurance cost issues.

As Dean said, this signals a commitment to reform insurance through the private insurance industry rather than through programs with no profit incentive.

The "good start" would have been the trade-off that would have happened had the continual compromises not finally killed off any semblance of reform- the trade-off of allowing insurance companies to "dip their beaks" into the treasury, while also starting up or expanding a government insurance program. That was the implicit deal that progressives were on-board with.

Now, the Obama Administration has said, you know what, we're not even going to do that governmental part. We're just going to throw a bunch of money at the insurance companies and maybe put in some weak regulations so that THEY won't "bitch" (as Chris Matthews would put it) too much. Then, we'll call it insurance reform (along with the good Sen. Kirk!), threaten some liberal senators and congresspeople that they'd better toe the line and campaign on that stupid way of doing things in 2010 and 2012.

Unfortunately, Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the DLC have the worst political senses in the party and now we're going to lose big.

[jeanpalmer]

7. Remember, the mandates don 't kick in

until 2013. That will be the day of reckoning. Before 2013, almost nothing happens. There is little political risk for Barack Obama in this bill -- a few people will be disappointed, but they won't be pissed like they might be in 2013 when the mandate catches up with them. By then, Obama will have been re-elected by his calculation. And most senators will have been re-elected for another 6 years by then. Four years is a long time, and changes can be made during that time. The important thing for them now is just to get something passed.

[Clio the Leo]

6. A lot of folks are putting their careers on the line for this....

.... in a world where one major political gaffe can destroy you, there certainly are a lot of folks going out of their way to talk about why they support this bill. If passing it were a risk, the smarter thing to do would be to say nothing and quietly vote for the bill.

That says a lot right there.

[girl gone mad]

8. I thought Kirk promised not to run for re-election?

Even if he does run, his term doesn't expire until 2012, and he is in an extremely safe seat, so he is hardly putting anything on the line.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Snip