Dennis Kucinich on "MSNBC - Hardball with Chris Matthews"

[CharlesZFG]

Health care reform failed, because the Insurance "mafia" has both the top Dems and Repubs on their payroll. They didn't want to compete with a government, non-profit health option, so they paid their bribes, oh, I'm sorry, their "campaign contributions," and ensured that no public option would ever see the light of day. And then, to add insult to injury, they got their pocket politicians to include an insurance mandate under the guise of providing health insurance for all.

[andyx1205]

American private insurance costs $500-$1000 a month?

Thank God I'm Canadian! There's no way I could survive by paying that much in America. We've got our faults by I prefer Canadian-style single-payer over America's current system (and our life expectancy is miles higher than America's too even though we're heavier smokers according to reports).

I'd say the best system isn't Canada's though (better than America still) but rather the Netherlands dual-system, which is very effective.

[csrocker101]

@andyx1205

If you're employer doesn't subsidize your health insurance than you can easily find yourself paying that sometimes even more. Thankfully my employer provides me health insurance but I still have to pay $300 a month out of pocket on top of what my employer pays.

[waterflaws]

Thank you Dennis Kucinich! There aren't enough of you. The USA used to be a Social Democracy. Now, I don't know what it is - oligarchy, corporatocracy, Christo-Facscist? What the hell!?

Gee, Chris; Do you think Dennis is a Progressive? How many more times could you have said "progressive" in that segment!?

[maskedphrogg]

Dennis, Dennis, how can government "pay the bills?"

Government is not an institution that creates. All that government spends was reaped from the backs of those that are creative and generate the value and wealth that government spends.

Think back to your days in Cleveland. Am I wrong in thinking that you protected those that created good and valuable services and commodities from those that would take for their own benefit w/o regard for those from whom they stole?

[caFexpo00]

We should strive to create an environment where everyone competes on a fair playing field. A government run by and for the people sounds like a good way to do it to me.

Expanding medicare is one way to make the playing field more fair.

[maskedphrogg]

You can't have it both ways.

Either the field of play is fair and you reap what you sow or regardless of what you sow Big Buddy government will take from others to provide for you.

How is that fair?

Charity works, but only when the clubs and guns are dropped and people are enabled to share amongst themselves with those they wish to. Charity at the end of a club is coercion.

[VeohBlows]

Dude, haven't you heard of the police, fire department, department of transportation? Healthcare is out for America, but the drug war is on?

Single payer is designed to use the extra 33% that is wasted on profits and advertising. Instead funnel it back into healthcare and dental care covering more people, but leaving out the crew that collects millions a month called CEO's. Whats wrong with that? Why should evil Corporate people profit from America's weakest?

[maskedphrogg]

I see you have difficulty separating local issues and local funding from DC intervention that imposes processes that ensure inefficiency of local public service operations. Police and Fire Dept are local entities that are predominantly funded by local residents. Some localities are more successful than others. Why do you insist these decisions everywhere are better made by those unconnected to the success of those organizations? Your vision inevitably ensures more crime and more damaging fires.

[VeohBlows]

The public option, is to be state based, I really want to call you a name here but I won't.

[maskedphrogg]

Then why not allow physicians to practice in States other than their State of residence?

Better yet, allow health insurance to sell across State lines. You are suggesting the Feds provide a solution for problems they created in the first place. Reform with results would entail removing federally mandated and enforced restrictions on the provision of care.

Removing those restrictions and the regional monopolies they protect is change we could all live and prosper under.

[VeohBlows]

I am talking about Hr.676. Allowing Physicians to practice in all 50 states would require a federal agency to over see their practice, rather than a state agency.

Sure allowing private health insurance to sell across state line is a great Idea I agree. Kucinich is what a Republican used to be 50 years ago.

The Fed created the problems by PRIVATISING the federal Reserve, and giving Corporations human rights

The right wing logic you are following is flawed and constantly contradicts it self.

[maskedphrogg]

Do you read what you submit prior to submitting it VeohBlows?

I suggest removing Federal restrictions and you counter w/add more Federal oversight. Federal oversight is the cause of the problems we discuss.

How odd that you suggest "right wing logic" flaws my argument. That self same logic and argument wholeheartedly supports HR 1207 and the eventual dissolution of the Fed Res Bank.

[VeohBlows]

You think doctors shouldn't have over sight? Obviously you haven't needed major medical attention. No actually if you allow doctors to practice 50 state wide, who will protect the people from malicious doctors? State agency's do that now, your a silly young kid posing as an old stupid man, no?

Hr.1207 is Libertarian, dude, that idea has been circulating the internet Liberals for quite a long time before any of you anti-healthcare goons came out. Republicans used to be liberals. Turn off BECK!

[maskedphrogg]

Are you purposely obtuse or did you have to practice.

Who will protect the public from malicious doctors? The feds do it now, how will your program change that?

HR 1207 is a Libertarian idea. Well no kidding! I've identified with the L party for more than a decade for holding such common ground with them.

Looking for goons? Look no further the SEIU and Acorn. What does Jeff Beck have to do with this debate?

Oh, sorry, crybaby Glenn Beck. Try again. Look to Jefferson in the 1700's

[VeohBlows]

You are for a free private market place, because great agencys like the private federal reserve has done such a great job?

Privatize energy we get raped, privatize federal reserve we get raped, keep healthcare private so we don't get raped?

It is the lack of Federal and state regulations, that is screwing us, their focus is to protect the private industries not the people. Now, that is the problem with the fed, you are not helping anything, by repeating your Glenn Beck Douche baggery.

[maskedphrogg]

Why do you continue to confuse "private" with government enforced corruption? There is no lack of Federal regulation in any of the industries you cite. And time and time again we find it is the regulation that is the source of all the corruption and malfeasance.

You might find that a little education goes a long way. You would be better armed in debate if you had a clue to things you rant about.

[VeohBlows]

The fed is private with lax regulations after Bush, exactly why the economy crashed.I am well versed in the political facts of the day and past 10 years. The crap you are saying is just asking for a fight with no substance to any of your claims, in-fact the opposite of all you have said is truth.

So you think the Federal government forced all those CEO's to rob America blind? And when do you think the fed forced the private industries 2006 on? When did the fed remove the anti-monopoly regs?

[maskedphrogg]

The Fed is regulated?

Since when?

How exactly does one regulate the body that provides one's allowance w/o risking cutting off that allowance?

You're quite good at misquoting and misinterpretation. Is there any profit in that? Seems like a good move personally. Staying abreast of current events and speaking knowledgeably is taxing my stamina.

[VeohBlows]

"You might find that a little education goes a long way. You would be better armed in debate if you had a clue to things you rant about."

Right wing Glenn beck douche baggery.

What does that prove?, that all you have said is right all I have said is wrong, it only proves you are the uneducated one. Seriously man stop pushing the removal of federal regulations that is what crashed our economy, now please STFU.

[maskedphrogg]

Ahhhh,,,

We see your true colours now.

When in doubt twist and shout and seal securely your opponents mouth.

I'm not sorry for allowing you to put yourself in a corner. All I ask for is honesty. Would be nice if you would stay on topic, but I don't demand it.

I will however return to my original question.

How can government pay for anything? Government, in the US, does not create value. It transfers wealth. Nothing more, nothing less. How can redistribution of wealth be fair to all?

[waterflaws]

But then YOU are advocating for a bigger federal government to make sure all the states play by the same rules. We already HAVE a problem with laws that are neutered because of variations in state laws that can't be enforced.

A "Middle Class" has never been a "fair" proposition to The Rich. The Rich like monarchies, totalitarian regimes, fascism, and the like (regardless of what they are called). The-Very-Rich should be taxed and regulated out of existence.

[waterflaws]

BTW, I WOULD favor allowing insurance companies to sell across State lines as long as the laws were standardized (bigger federal government). There comes a point where "niche" and "botique" state laws necessitate centralized, standardized laws for ALL citizens.

[maskedphrogg]

I thought you didn't like centralized power. I certainly don't. Reread your own post(s) prior. You are promoting a contradiction in both logic and form.

I don't follow your logic flow. In one post that I don't know who was replied to you rail against a "bigger federal government" and then follow with a post in reply to mine that requests just such a "bigger federal government."

Which viewpoint do you support? Larger more powerful centralized government or limited government with explicit duties?

[waterflaws]

No, mynah bird, YOU re-read my posts! I NEVER said I was against a Big Federal Government, especially when we have Big Corporations that rival its power and influence. The Right only champions "State's Rights" when it is convenient, never consistently.

[maskedphrogg]

Wanted to see you state it explicitly.

Thank You.

It's difficult to debate those who swap sides.

So if "the Right" isn't consistent then back those who do support your beliefs. Rights aren't rights if they are subject to whim. We're in agreement so far.

How does your big central government fit in?

History shows us strong federal government stepping all over State and personal rights. The power to give all is the power to take anything. I prefer to make my own choices, why won't you let me?

[waterflaws]

Left to make your own choices, you will make ones that hurt me and others.

History has shown us that big central government has given us ALL things like civil rights, medicare and social security for the elderly, an interstate highway system, etc. On the other hand, asshole Righties always forget to mention the biggest and most expensive item, THE MILITARY COMPLEX. I believe you value CAPITALISM above all.

BTW, are you from England or Australia? Your spelling doesn't seem "American".

[maskedphrogg]

You have no evidence to believe or proclaim that choices I make will of necessity cause harm to others.

History is full of examples of powerful central government causing harm to it's citizens in an effort to increase it's influence and collect wealth for it's practitioners. In a fairly predictable manner overwhelming authority will kick-off revolutions by those it oppresses. 13 colonies on the NA continent give a practical guide to such revolution.

Louisville, KY is in US, does that qualify?