This is more to preserve the link for me,

Some revealing paragraphs:

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it’s better than what we have now?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No. Actually, it’s not, because it locks us into a for-profit system that the government subsidizes.

That takes care of the B0bots argument.

On the public option:

Keep something in mind. When Mr. Hacker first came out with his proposal for a public option, it was going to cover 129 million Americans. That really would compete in an exchange with private insurance. But that’s been whittled down to, depending on who you talk to, covering six to 11 million people. So only a fraction of Americans will have access to the public option, which means that there’s not effective competition with the insurance companies to drive down rates.

and a possible solution

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see, Congressman Kucinich, a way to get from where you’re talking about from here?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Yes, if we are able to get back in the bill a provision that says states will be shielded from legal attack by insurance companies if those states go with their own single-payer plan. I mean, states should have the right to do that. You have ten states which are actively involved in single-payer movements.

and why he voted no

I felt that my vote was the only way that I could make a statement about how this is not a state of affairs which is celebrating Democratic principles, Democratic economic philosophy, or the hopes of people to have real healthcare instead of having real health—instead of being forced to pay for insurance.

a bit on Obama

And the administration, obviously, was terrified that anything could be identified as being adverse to the insurance companies, which is why they took privatization, they took single payer off the table immediately, they knocked down the robust public option.

Nothing new on Stupak, which apparently was known since July but nobody cared.

Except for this hopeful piece of news:

at least 41 House Dems are writing directly to Pelosi, telling her that they will not vote for anything “that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

I am hoping this is about an upcoming vote – after the reconciliation with the senate bill, rather than a failed attempt at rebellion before Saturday’s vote.