That purity list keeps getting shorter and shorter

And we're all the better for it. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) changed his stance on the health care bill today to announce that he will be voting for passage.

Here's a quote from the congressman:

"I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is."

Now, here's a clip:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Funny, but it seems Mr. Kucinich just said almost the exact same thing a lot of supporters of this bill have been saying throughout the year. In other words, we pass it now and work on it later. In other words, a half-a-loaf is better than no loaf at all. In other words, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Yet, the fact that Mr. Kucinich had to even hold a press conference to announce his vote speaks towards a problem within left-of-center politics in my opinion. I am talking about purity tests.

Read more »

"Death Panels" meets "Death Sentence"?

How is Moore's claim of a "Death Sentence" any more constructive than rightwing shouts of "Death Panels"?

There's a reason why I've stopped watching cable news as of late. Hyperbole has long been a habit of the networks and last night was no different. The problem is when such hyperbole leads to misinformation or, even worse, disinformation. And though the hyperbole from the Right has been increasingly destructive and, at times, violent, there is also a good amount of hyperbole from the Left as well.

I give you Mr. Michael Moore and his introduction of two talking-points: "4 years" and "Death Sentence."

Now, the "4 years" talking point actually isn't all that new. It's been around since people learned that some of the major benefits of health care reform won't kick in until 2014 under the Senate bill. Fair enough, I'd like to see the benefits kick in sooner as well. However, what this talking point fails to mention is the fact that there's a list of benefits that begin within the first year of the bill's enactment. Among them:

• Outlawing discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions.
• Coverage of preventative health services.
• Prohibition on rescissions
• and allowing young adults to remain on their parent's insurance plan until the age of 26

So the whole "This bill is useless argument" is unpersuasive when considering some of the immediate benefits. Talk to a parent with kids in college to see if they'd like to cover their son or daughter on their plan until the age of 26. Listen to a parent who's worried that her child will be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I'd think they'd like what's in this bill. They wouldn't dismiss it as better than nothing.

Would I like to see the entire bill kick in immediately? Of course. Am I willing to scrap the entire bill because it doesn't? Absolutely not.

Read more »