Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader: A Discussion on Healthcare, Politics and Reform
Don't know if this was posted before.
The complete text of the transcript (both Kucinich and Nader interviewed and debating on Amy Goodman's show) is on the above link, but too long to post here.
It seems Kucinich and other liberals/progressives compromised in supporting this bill which they felt was a necessary step, even though they also opposed omissions and problems with it. It seems the debate boils down to whether it is justified to compromise either Constitutional or constituent values in order to get a symbolic bill passed that does not achieve what people would have agreed to.
I don't agree with passing it to legitimize anyone's political image or Presidency
(against the Code of Ethics for Government Service, where no "private promise" is binding)
If there were problems with Constitutional issues, or representing the people equally or instead of corporate insurance interests, those should have been resolved in advance.
But both sides seem to blame the other for not being willing to focus on corrections that should and could have been made. I heard just as many liberal/progressive/Democrats blame Republican/conservatives for refusing to cooperate at all (similar to how pro-choice will refuse any measure that infringes at all on choice, and is not open to negotiating protections that threaten pro-choice). And the Democrat side was clearly urged to vote for the bill even if it had flaws, and for the wrong reasons such as to "save Obama's Presidency" which is not a Constitutional consideration of whether a bill is legit or not.
I also noted that too many of the same people who objected to Bush overstepping Constitutional bounds with his legislation pushed through Congress, don't object to the overstepping of Constitutional authority here. So it seems the forgiveness or enforcement is "selective" depending on if you support the "agenda" of which President -- again, not a consideration of whether a bill is Constitutional, which should be independent of politics.
Very disappointed that I can't find people consistent on both points.
People who excused one case, accuse in the other case; and vice versa!
Seems to me if both sides/parties stuck to "what is Constitutional" and worked out corrections that met those standards, we wouldn't "take turns" violating the public interest and trust, which amounts to political rape. It seems as long as your side is doing the raping you feel safe; but when the shoe is on the other foot, then you issue a public outcry.
Very hypocritical; even the critics only seem to criticize how it affects their agenda and don't equally criticize similar Constitutional breaches when it affects others, only them.
One side criticizes that the bill is too socialistic with control of the private insurance under the feds; while the other criticizes it as too capitalistic where it defeated the whole purpose by letting the private companies run amok without adequate guarantee or check.
How can this bill be expected to "lead" to better reforms if people don't even agree where the problems are that need to be fixed and how? So it seems dangerously disastrous to pass a faulty bill that can only be fixed if people agree how to do it; in the meantime, as critics on both sides point out, it dangerously sets up bad precedents and policies.
How is that better than not passing it at all until these problems were fixed in advance?
(P.S. Even one of my independent friends who agrees the IRS is unconstitutional and should be removed from the equation, believes the bill needed to be passed to set up the emergency high risk pool. Why couldn't that be set up without the other garbage? And why can't it be funded voluntarily, by people who choose to support a public option, instead of imposing on dissenters without check against pre-existing conditions caused by unhealthy behavior, abuse or crime that should be paid for by restitution for those responsible for costs?)
Don't know if this was posted before.
The complete text of the transcript (both Kucinich and Nader interviewed and debating on Amy Goodman's show) is on the above link, but too long to post here.
It seems Kucinich and other liberals/progressives compromised in supporting this bill which they felt was a necessary step, even though they also opposed omissions and problems with it. It seems the debate boils down to whether it is justified to compromise either Constitutional or constituent values in order to get a symbolic bill passed that does not achieve what people would have agreed to.
I don't agree with passing it to legitimize anyone's political image or Presidency
(against the Code of Ethics for Government Service, where no "private promise" is binding)
If there were problems with Constitutional issues, or representing the people equally or instead of corporate insurance interests, those should have been resolved in advance.
But both sides seem to blame the other for not being willing to focus on corrections that should and could have been made. I heard just as many liberal/progressive/Democrats blame Republican/conservatives for refusing to cooperate at all (similar to how pro-choice will refuse any measure that infringes at all on choice, and is not open to negotiating protections that threaten pro-choice). And the Democrat side was clearly urged to vote for the bill even if it had flaws, and for the wrong reasons such as to "save Obama's Presidency" which is not a Constitutional consideration of whether a bill is legit or not.
I also noted that too many of the same people who objected to Bush overstepping Constitutional bounds with his legislation pushed through Congress, don't object to the overstepping of Constitutional authority here. So it seems the forgiveness or enforcement is "selective" depending on if you support the "agenda" of which President -- again, not a consideration of whether a bill is Constitutional, which should be independent of politics.
Very disappointed that I can't find people consistent on both points.
People who excused one case, accuse in the other case; and vice versa!
Seems to me if both sides/parties stuck to "what is Constitutional" and worked out corrections that met those standards, we wouldn't "take turns" violating the public interest and trust, which amounts to political rape. It seems as long as your side is doing the raping you feel safe; but when the shoe is on the other foot, then you issue a public outcry.
Very hypocritical; even the critics only seem to criticize how it affects their agenda and don't equally criticize similar Constitutional breaches when it affects others, only them.
One side criticizes that the bill is too socialistic with control of the private insurance under the feds; while the other criticizes it as too capitalistic where it defeated the whole purpose by letting the private companies run amok without adequate guarantee or check.
How can this bill be expected to "lead" to better reforms if people don't even agree where the problems are that need to be fixed and how? So it seems dangerously disastrous to pass a faulty bill that can only be fixed if people agree how to do it; in the meantime, as critics on both sides point out, it dangerously sets up bad precedents and policies.
How is that better than not passing it at all until these problems were fixed in advance?
(P.S. Even one of my independent friends who agrees the IRS is unconstitutional and should be removed from the equation, believes the bill needed to be passed to set up the emergency high risk pool. Why couldn't that be set up without the other garbage? And why can't it be funded voluntarily, by people who choose to support a public option, instead of imposing on dissenters without check against pre-existing conditions caused by unhealthy behavior, abuse or crime that should be paid for by restitution for those responsible for costs?)
Last edited:
