Huffington Post columnist condemns Markos Moulitsas' "stupidity" and "hubris"

[angelicwoman]

Ian Welsh, Huffington Post:

Let me get this straight, Kos wants to primary one of the most reliable and principled progressives in Congress (perhaps the most principled one) because Kucinich doesn't want to vote for a bill which will force Americans to buy crappy health insurance from private companies?

...


Be very clear, if "progressives" like Kos want to primary Kucinich, many other progressives will defend him and fight for him. So, instead of picking up new seats, we'll be wasting time and money fighting over a seat already held by a progressive.

Those who want to go after Kucinich are acting as Obama and Rahm's heavies. Acting as enforcers for a President who believes in indefinite detention without trial, who has expanded the war in Afghanistan, gutted civil rights and who wants to force every American to buy health insurance from private companies.

It's time for Kos's 15 minutes to end. The man's stupidity, hubris and willingness to be used by a president who is objectively a conservative means he is now doing more damage to the left than good.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-welsh/kos-calls-for-progressive_b_494078.html

[freddie mertz]

1. Markos got a little "overexcited" I think.

Time for him to take a little "time out".

:rofl:

[Donnachaidh]

11. his ego got puffed up because he's done a bit more TV

He needs a time out and a nap. :rofl:

[freddie mertz]

16. Go to your room, Markos!

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

85. But Jane Hamsher is a pillar of integrity, right?

[DeSwiss]

100. Right.

[Donnachaidh]

174. compared to Markos with his nose stuck up the DLC's collective ass?

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

195. Depends on your standards, kos seems to think so as she is

an old friend of his. While he scrubbed all the liberal blogs from his blogroll, including Democraticunderground, he still has FDL listed proudly among the few he 'approves of'.

[JerseygirlCT]

109. Just what I was thinking... nt

[LakeSamish706]

2. Good for Ian Welsh and that pretty much sums it up. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

3. I think Kos is cool and I like Kos for what he did, yay Kos! n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

101. But you also think Liam Gallagher can sing

so that keeps things in perspective. :evilgrin:

[girl gone mad]

104. Can I get a K! Can I get an O!

Rah! Rah! Go team Go!1!

:crazy:

[flyarm]

173. I guess you like that little Reagan Republican eh???????

the little twirp who campaigned for Republican Henry Hyde..you like eh??????

what a great Libertarian CIA guy..you like eh??????

The very guy who was the first to attack Obama and this Insurance reform bill eh??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_2iTcqaEQU

Dailykos Markos Moulitsas on Health Care Keith Olbermann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc7INKnBC-k

this is the guy you cheer?? the fraud who was the first to attack this bill..who is now attacking a democrat ..a liberal democrat who has never been anything but a democrat..you cheer on a Reagan Republican who is a self professed Libertarian..

doesn't say much about you does it..

[onehandle]

4. I think all of this is being blown out of proportion.

Markos and Dennis are both good people and will be fighting the good fight long after the Internets calm down.

[gateley]

33. +1

[flyarm]

179. I think it is past time little twerp Markos gets his ass exposed! for the Fraud he is! eom

[G_j]

5. wasting time and money fighting over a seat already held by a progressive

Markos is a fraud

[Berry Cool]

6. Tell me, what was the point of writing a column against primarying a guy who can't be primaried?

To me, THAT seems like the biggest waste of time.

[laughingliberal]

23. Yeah. Basic journalism would dictate you know if it's even possible before you suggest a primary

challenge. The whole notion was idiocy to begin with but this was just the stupid icing on the cake.

[NJmaverick]

7. and when do we post another blogger who then calls out Ian Welsh's "stupidity" and "hubris"

this article is meaningless unless you think right and wrong is best determined by the number of bloggers for or against an issue.

[MrScorpio]

8. A Greek War

OPA!

[NJmaverick]

9. Pretty much

[bettyellen]

123. let's put Windex on it!

[optimator]

10. at least Kos is brave enough to state his beliefs

unlike most Democrats.
I disagree with Kos, but thank him for not being a coward.
Politics needs more people who have SPECIFIC ideas and aren't afraid that someone might disagree.

[EFerrari]

20. Let's hope he doesn't run for Congress!

[laughingliberal]

24. ROFL!! Great response! nt

[Swamp Rat]

27. Markos "Little Prick" Moulitsas 2012

:D

[EFerrari]

28. LOL!

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

29. ROFL!! nt

[flyarm]

175. good one Swamp!! but it might be a better picture if is was a big smelly turd!! lol..eom

[ooglymoogly]

188. Hey Swamp Rat, good post; Haven't seen you around much lately. nt

Looks like frog is waiting for a kiss that will never come.

[flyarm]

178. which "beliefs " are those? When he was a Reagan Republican? or when he worked to get R-Henry Hyde

elected? You know Hyde.. the guy who had his own affairs and then attacked a Democratic president named Clinton.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/173202.stm

Yeah Markos championed HYDE and worked to get him elected!!

Or when he worked for the CIA still and started his web site?

Or when he self professed to be a libertarian and refused to allow anyone to post anything about 9/11 on his web site..and refused to allow any democrats posting anything about the corrupt voting machines?? Just which of his beliefs do you think he is bravest about?

Or how about when he WAS AGAINST the Senate bill ..and went on TV to say so!!

the little twerp who campaigned for Republican Henry Hyde..



The very guy who was one of the first to attack Obama and this Insurance reform bill eh??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_2iTcqaEQU

Dailykos Markos Moulitsas on Health Care Keith Olbermann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc7INKnBC-k


you call this MTFer brave???????..doesn't say much about you does it? or maybe you need a little democratic party history lesson??

[ooglymoogly]

184. Suuumack! +1

[ooglymoogly]

181. Is that a portrait of Gen. Custer in your post? nt

[sabrina 1]

213. Which beliefs? Kos changes his mind about issues so often

no one knows what his OWN beliefs are.

For example, he just said that Kucinich should be primaried (a sign of his ignorance of how politics workd since the deadline for such a primary was last month btw) for not supporting this bill.

So when did he change his mind? Here's what HE had to say about the same bill in Dec. 2009:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35553

Remove mandate, or kill this bill Hotlist
by kos

My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. It'd be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt. Don't expect Lieberman and his ilk to care. They're in it for their industry pals.

Too bad he isn't a man of conviction because if he were, he would, like Kucinich with whom he agreed in that piece, still be standing up for those principles.

Kucinich is a man of conviction. No amount of money will buy him.

But that's not the kind of man kos is. This is just one issue where he blatantly flip-flopped on an issue or a candidate. He has become sort of a joke in the blogosphere as a matter of fact, because of his constant flip-flops.

My own theory is he takes a postition that is against the interests of the Party so that he can later get 'donations' from them to change that position, because they don't realize how few people bother to read his rantings.

His friend who actually founded DK with him, was convicted of fraud for pretending to be someone he was not on blogs. That friend also used run a horoscope blog, before the two of them latched onto politics, which was about the time Kos 'became a liberal' ~ :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. And the filing deadline is passed so no one can primary Kucinich anyway

proving Markos failed to do his homework before opening his mouth.

Very disappointing.

[EFerrari]

31. Dennis has primary challengers all the time.

Maybe Markos should have just called Kooch's momma a name. He wouldn't look so idiotic now.

[Pirate Smile]

13. "one of the most reliable" progressives?Yeah, he is a reliable vote added to Republican's "no" votes

[Flaneur]

14. That's horseshit and you know it.

Kucinich votes Democratic about 90% of the time.

[Pirate Smile]

19. No, it's not. On a lot of important votes, he votes no along with the Republicans.

[EFerrari]

30. And that would be the Faux News totalization of his votes. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

152. Is it a full moon?

I find this untrue. Kucinich has held out his original position on Medicare for All, and tried to adjust this to supporting the public option was the compromise.

All the others walked off the reservation, save DK. How the hell does that make him voting along with Rethuglicans on important votes?

[laughingliberal]

25. +1000 nt

[mzmolly]

35. Exactly. Who is he reliable for?

Not those in need of health care.

[Raineyb]

36. The hell he isn't! He's reliable for those who want a health CARE reform

rather than this health insurance "reform" which is a big old giveaway to the insurance companies who are the problem with health care in this country in the first place.

If you're serious about fixing things you don't fix things by forcing people to deal with the entity that causes the problems in the first place.

[mzmolly]

40. He's voting with Republicans AGAINST reform. Against subsidies for the poor/middle class,

against denying sick people and their children health care due to pre-existing conditions, against the expansion of medicaid, against the creation of 10,000 community clinics and so on.

There is a "give away" that Dennis never mentions. It's the giveaway via subsidies and community clinics for those who can't afford health care coverage.

This bill is a damn good start and Kucinich is greatly mistaken to oppose it. I hope he loses his seat, if he does.

[Raineyb]

47. THis bill isn't reform it literally puts people at the mercy of an industry that makes its

money denying care.

Damn good start my ass. A GOOD start would be a bill with an actual public option. That being an option anyone can buy into not some subset of a subset while forcing people to spend money they don't have on insurance with co-pays and deductibles they can't afford. Insurance that you can't use is no insurance at all.

This isn't a good start. And they won't fix it anyway so it's not even a start. It's forcing people to buy a defective product from a private industry and using the IRS to enforce the relationship. The insurance companies are loving it as are their toadies in power.

[mzmolly]

55. An industry that will be forced to change via regulation if the

bill passes. Yet another reason Kuchinch should come to his senses.

[Raineyb]

58. There is NOTHING in this bill that will force the insurance companies to change

The loopholes are so big you can fit 20 million uninsured in it.

There is no reform here.

[mzmolly]

67. What about 50 million? Is that better than 20? Again, the 20 million

are not covered because they either choose not to be, or are residents of another country.

[unapatriciated]

66. California tried that in the early 90's

The Fair Claims Practice Act did more for the insurance industry than the policy holder. It left many loopholes that the insurance industry used to their advantage.
They also passed very strong legislation on pre-existing conditions, again the insurance industry found ways to deny coverage with constant delays and reviews.
I spent ten years fighting them and used these laws. I still had to sell my home and because of the many delays in his medical care my son was unnecessarily crippled and pushed onto medical.
The problem with regulating is there is little or no penalty for denying or reviewing claims. Also you still need to pay for care while going through the process of 'reviews'. "Legal" reviews of claims were the main reasons many families go bankrupt because of medical cost even tho they have health insurance.

Show me in this legislation (in regards to regulations) where there is substantial penalties for delaying medical treatment in the review process.
The only thing the insurance industry is forced to do is provide the care they previously denied. They know this and play the waiting game with delays and reviews. This is a game that many critically and chronically ill do not have time for.

[mzmolly]

68. You show me how NO bill is better than the pending

bill, first.

[unapatriciated]

80. I never said no bill is better, just pointing out that this one doesn't address real reform.

I did not attack you. just asked an honest question (in case I missed something in the Senate Bill) regarding regulations and penalties.
You gave me my answer with your response, sadly none.
I had great hopes that we would truly get HCR. I don't wish the heartache on a another family that mine endured for more than ten years at the hands of the insurance industry.

I was also trying to point out that what the Senate Bill is now offering is basically the same thing California did in the early 90's. Mandates are the only real difference.
Regulating with no real penalties does not solve the problem nor does it give access to health care for those who need it most (been there done that).

[mzmolly]

91. It certainly is.

There are penalties. If companies don't comply or behave reasonably. They will not be allowed to partake in the pool, for starters.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/fiv...

Republicans complained that there are more than 200 pages of regulation alone. We'll have oversight, and with it we can make needed changes. To say "this bill doesn't do everything, to perfection immediately so I wont support it" is insane IMO.

If I offended you previously, you have my apologies.

Peace :hi:

[unapatriciated]

94. I'm not asking for perfection just better than what California already did in the early 90's

and more of a penalty than not being able to partake in the pool for wrongfully denying or delaying care that causes disability, death or financial hardship.
I have read the bill and there are no such penalties nor can you sue an insurance company for mal-practice.

[mzmolly]

95. I don't buy the comparison to California.

I think that what we're doing is closer to the Netherlands.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/05/healthy_examples_plenty_of_countries_get_healthcare_right/

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/ouellet.aspx

You're telling me you've read all 2600 pages of legislation?

[unapatriciated]

97. most of it in regards to penalties for delaying care.

because of my experience with Insurance and the catastrophic, chronic illness of my son from 1991-2005.
Yes there is a ton of regulations but no clear penalties except not being able to participate in the pool.
I have some of the same concerns expressed in this article.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/18/nation/la-na-health-assess18-2009dec18?pg=2
Like any regulatory framework, however, this one has holes.

Provisions in the Senate bill that authorize companies to sell nationwide health plans may allow insurers to skirt existing state regulations that require them to cover many medical procedures. And the legislation would ban insurance companies from placing "unreasonable" limits on the annual benefits they pay -- a vague standard that patient groups fear could effectively allow the kind of caps that now leave some consumers with gargantuan medical bills, even if they have insurance.

Other consumer advocates worry that there are insufficient consumer protections against high premiums, even though millions of Americans for the first time would be required to buy medical insurance.

Although the bill mandates that state and federal regulators review rate increases, it is unclear how the regulators would evaluate what insurers want to charge and how aggressively they would restrain the industry.

"The public option was really the best check on the industry," said Jerry Flanagan, patient advocate for California-based Consumer Watchdog. "Though it was small, there was an implicit threat to the industry that it could be expanded. . . . And, unlike regulation, it allowed people to vote with their feet and go somewhere else if they didn't like what insurers were doing."

Consumer Watchdog, the American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups have been working with Democrats on Capitol Hill to close some loopholes and tighten the regulations before the Senate passes a final bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is expected to include some regulatory tightening in a package of healthcare bill changes that he plans to unveil this weekend.


But Reid is unlikely to have a complete solution for the challenge that has confronted regulators since Progressive reformers pushed the government a century ago to require that meatpackers divulge what they were stuffing into their sausages.

Regulators are in a perpetual race to stay one step ahead of the industry they oversee. And if the president signs a healthcare bill next year, lawmakers, insurance companies, patient groups and consumer advocates will probably be debating insurance regulation for years to come.

"All of us will have a lot of work to do after the legislation passes," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an influential Washington-based consumer group.

"We'll have to monitor what is happening state by state. To the extent that insurance companies fail to adhere to rules, we're going to have to get that fixed. . . . But Rome wasn't built in a day."

[e-mail]

We are not even close to the Netherlands model in regards to profit margin for our Insurance Companies.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jan/The-Swiss-and-Dutch-Health-Insurance-Systems--Universal-Coverage-and-Regulated-Competitive-Insurance.aspx
Since 2006, premium competition in the Netherlands has been vigorous, with carriers accepting initial losses under the new system to build market share. Both Dutch and Swiss insurance systems operate with relatively low overhead costs by U.S. standards: administrative and profit-margins account for about 5 percent of premiums.

We have a lot more work to do on this bill before we can claim it is even close to what the Netherlands offer.

[mzmolly]

111. IF the worst case scenario happens at least we'll have a mechanism

in place to deal with it. As of now we have no recourse.

And we are moving closer to the Netherlands model. Pending reform allows for a 15% profit margin. In the Netherlands, they have a 10% margin. We're approaching this kind of system, and it appears to be working well for the Dutch.

I agree with the closing statement in the first article you posted: "We'll have to monitor what is happening state by state. To the extent that insurance companies fail to adhere to rules, we're going to have to get that fixed. . . . But Rome wasn't built in a day."

[truedelphi]

164. Thank you for being a voice of reason, and common sense.

I think our only hope is that the industry is right now so de-regulated that some ambitious little mom and pop could set themselves up as an insurer, charge folks $ 1 a year, and thus help out everyone who doesn't want to have to pay big bucks from the criminal Insurers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7891168&mesg_id=7897133

[puebloknot]

166. I'm setting up my own company to compete with you. See your link! nt

[girl gone mad]

106. When will you suckers ever learn?

The bill was written by lobbyists. Regulatory capture has already happened. There will be no forced change, except every last dime that that is forced out of the pockets of middle class Americans to buy more corporate jets for the insurance executives.

[mzmolly]

114. Talk about suckers.

The industry and it's Republican Party affiliate, is fighting this reform for a reason.

[Matt Shapiro]

65. You and the original poster are totally right.

This is a bad bill for all the reasons you state. That doesn't mean there aren't a couple of good parts -- like expansion of Medicaid and the community clinics. These should indeed be separate bills that every Dem would hopefully support.

Unfortunately the bill as a whole does more harm than good, and some of the things that are touted as good are not real. The delayed prohibition of denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, for example. Even when it goes into effect, what will it cost? If you're in your fifties, the premium could be three times as much. But regardless of your age there is no actual premium control(only "incentives"). And even if you make the premium somehow, that doesn't mean the insurance you get will actually give you the care you need. The most important way that insurance companies effectively kill people in their never ending search for increased profits is by denying specific procedures which, in many cases, are the only way to save a person's life. They are experts at doing this, and the bill will not stop this practice.

Not only does the bill not stop the horrendous denials, but it actually subsidizes these killer companies to the tune of $70 billion. It is a corporate bill, pure and simple!

Kucinich deserves our praise for being the only member of Congress to stand against this (for the right reasons).

[mzmolly]

69. More harm than good?

That's a crock.

Welcome.

[unapatriciated]

83. It's not a crock

I tried to explain to you how they do it and you ignore it. The poster you responded to is correct. I spent ten years fighting reviews and denials of specific procedures or medications my son's doctors prescribed. My Insurance Company didn't deny based on pre-existing (illegal in California) but on protocol of the procedure or medication. This allowed them to delay treatment within the perimeter of the law.

[mzmolly]

86. And you'll spend more time fighting if we don't get

reform. FYI ~ I never suggested that insurance companies don't presently abuse customers. I suggested that if we pass reform, they'll be less able to do so.

[unapatriciated]

92. What you fail to grasp is I spent 10 years fighting and California had already enacted

the same type of reform (less mandates) that is in the Senate Bill.
FYI I gave real life testimony on how they continued to abuse customers after reform legislation was passed in California.
All we are getting with the Senate Bill is the same reform (with mandates on a federal level) that California passed in the early 90's.
Again without penalties regulation will have little or no effect on those with chronic or pre-existing conditions. You mean we can't do better than what California did over 20 years ago?

[mzmolly]

96. California is not the basis of the plan we're enacting. In fact, this is what California will gain.

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/california.html

[unapatriciated]

98. I will say it again it is basically the same except for mandates.

and without regulations that have tough penalties many will suffer at the hands of the insurance industry.

Most of the changes that offer any type of protection are not implemented until 2013 or 2014 about two years after the mandates. Giving the Insurance Industry time to circumvent them much like they did in California.

[mzmolly]

107. You can say it as many times as you like.

I disagree with your negative assertions, regardless.

[unapatriciated]

128. not negative just real life experience.

I would like to see strong regulations now instead of trying to fix it later.
California passed strong laws in the early 90's. The Insurance Companies did not adhere to those laws and many such as myself complained. It wasn't until 2008 that state took action regarding complaints.

http://www.hmohelp.ca.gov/aboutTheDMHC/itn/state_review_ins_pol.pdf

It wasn't until 2009 that they settled out of court. Unfortunately many like myself did not share in the settlement because of the long period(1991-2005 was my timeframe) before they actually addressed the problem.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-bluecross11

[mzmolly]

131. Again you assume the worst case scenario(s)

will apply to mass reform. I do not.

[unapatriciated]

145. with good reason, I have endured worst case scenario(s)

when there is reform without strict regulations and penalties there will be a high percentage of abuse. I gave my own testimonial and links regarding the many abuses in California after major reforms. You refuse to even address this and hope for the best.

[mzmolly]

149. You keep asserting that we've got no regulation

in the bill which again is false. I've indicated to you that we will not keep companies in the pool who abuse customers for starters. I've pointed out that an article that you posted, indicates we'll have a mechanism in place to address such abuses. The article went on to note that this is a beginning.

[flyarm]

191. Dennis signed a letter along with 77 members of congress to not vote for a bill without a robust P.O

so because 77 others are now backtracking and fucking their constituants..Dennis is voting with Republicans? what freaking world do you come from????????

You must be getting desperate..or they are squeezing you ..and holding back your pay?


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis interview From Amy Goodman’s and Juan Gonzalez’s interview with Dennis Kucinich at Democracynow.org:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/11/rep_dennis_kucini...

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/34720



REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know, I brought the issue of single-payer healthcare before three separate meetings of the Democratic Platform Committee. I brought it into two presidential campaigns to raise the bar about what’s possible. Now I made a compromise when I backed the public option and voted for it in committee. I also had an amendment passed that would protect the rights of states to proceed with a single-payer approach at a state level. Each step along the way, I’ve shown a willingness to try to work with the White House so that we can have meaningful healthcare reform. I signed a letter, along with seventy-seven other members of Congress, saying that I would not vote for the bill unless it had a robust public option. At this point, I’m the only one left standing who has kept that pledge.


I think that we have to ask ourselves why we would have a circumstance where, you know, a week or two before a vote would come, that it would be said that this is going to come down to a single member of Congress, who stands for healthcare for all, Medicare for all, who stands for a public option, who stands to protect right of states, to pursue it, and yet, we should sweep all that aside in favor of a bill that gives the insurance companies a lock on health insurance in America, privatizes the health insurance—$70 billion-a-year subsidy to the insurance industry.

I mean, I have a responsibility to take a stand here on behalf of those who want a public option. There’s about thirty-four members of the Senate, at least, who have signed on to saying they support a public option. If I were to just concede right now and say, “Well, you know, whatever you want. All this pressure’s building. Just forget about it,” actually weakens every last-minute bit of negotiations that would try to improve the bill. So I think that it’s really critical to take this stand, because without it, there’s no real control over premiums. Without it, we have nothing in the bill except the privatization of our healthcare system.

[mzmolly]

196. Yes, he's voting with republicans.

Fighting up front for a public option was necessary. But we didn't get it, so we have to deal with that and move on with what we can accomplish. Principle doesn't mean anything if you don't apply it to bettering the lives of Americans.

[flyarm]

200. the fuck he is..he is voting for democrats! Democrats that give a flying fuck that their kids don't

get fucked by the democrats that sell them out!

[mzmolly]

201. Sounds good doesn't it?

"sell them out" ... too bad it's meaningless.

[flyarm]

205. is it..my vote was stolen as a lifelong democrat by the bastards who are selling us all out!

James Roosevelt, who was chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that decided to dock Michigan and Florida half of their delegates and award 4 of the delegates Clinton won in Michigan to Obama, as well as all of the uncommitted delegates, is the CEO of a health insurance company – Tufts Healthcare. Okay? Got that? The guy who made sure that Obama had the necessary to delegates to win the nomination – even to the point of assigning delegates another candidate won to him arbitrarily – is the CEO of a health insurance firm.
And what Roosevelt wants in a health insurance reform, is a reform that relies entirely upon private insurers. He does not want a public option. He wants a plan like Massachusetts has: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/09/healthcare_lets_build_on_what_we_know/

[flyarm]

176. and Markos was a Reagan republican who worked at electing Republican Henry Hyde!!

I can safely say..Dennis has never been a Republican like Markos has!

Markos has also always been a self professed Libertarian..not a progressive...nor liberal!

Markos is a fraud!

[flyarm]

177. and Markos was a Reagan republican who worked at electing Republican Henry Hyde!!

I can safely say..Dennis has never been a Republican like Markos has!

Markos has also always been a self professed Libertarian..not a progressive...nor liberal!

Markos is a fraud, a liar and a hypocrite! of the worst kind!!!
Markos..when he was against the reform bill..not very long ago..

Dailykos Markos Moulitsas on Health Care Keith Olbermann

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc7INKnBC-k

Markos came out against the Senate bill along with Howard Dean and said it was not worth passing becuase it was a sellout to the insurance lobby and he would fight it. In fact he thinks Democrats in congress should also fight against it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_2iTcqaEQU

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis interview From Amy Goodman’s and Juan Gonzalez’s interview with Dennis Kucinich at Democracynow.org:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/11/rep_dennis_kucinich_takes_on_democratic

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/34720



REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know, I brought the issue of single-payer healthcare before three separate meetings of the Democratic Platform Committee. I brought it into two presidential campaigns to raise the bar about what’s possible. Now I made a compromise when I backed the public option and voted for it in committee. I also had an amendment passed that would protect the rights of states to proceed with a single-payer approach at a state level. Each step along the way, I’ve shown a willingness to try to work with the White House so that we can have meaningful healthcare reform. I signed a letter, along with seventy-seven other members of Congress, saying that I would not vote for the bill unless it had a robust public option. At this point, I’m the only one left standing who has kept that pledge.

I think that we have to ask ourselves why we would have a circumstance where, you know, a week or two before a vote would come, that it would be said that this is going to come down to a single member of Congress, who stands for healthcare for all, Medicare for all, who stands for a public option, who stands to protect right of states, to pursue it, and yet, we should sweep all that aside in favor of a bill that gives the insurance companies a lock on health insurance in America, privatizes the health insurance—$70 billion-a-year subsidy to the insurance industry.

I mean, I have a responsibility to take a stand here on behalf of those who want a public option. There’s about thirty-four members of the Senate, at least, who have signed on to saying they support a public option. If I were to just concede right now and say, “Well, you know, whatever you want. All this pressure’s building. Just forget about it,” actually weakens every last-minute bit of negotiations that would try to improve the bill. So I think that it’s really critical to take this stand, because without it, there’s no real control over premiums. Without it, we have nothing in the bill except the privatization of our healthcare system.

[SandWalker1984]

15. Add Ed Schultz to the sell out list -- he's now backing the Senate bill.

When it comes down to the finish line, we find out who is real and who the sell outs to big business are.

Ed Schultz has now, in my opinion, joined the 2nd list. He's on the radio today saying it's time to be team players. It's time to get behind Obama and support the Democrats. It's time for Dennis K to back down (even though he championed Dennis for months for standing firm for a robust public option). He's dragging out people who have lost family members who died because they couldn't afford health care because they couldn't afford health INSURANCE. What makes Ed think those people could afford the care they needed if they have insurance under the Senate bill? High deductibles will be common. So will low co-pays. You still cannot get diagnostic tests if the insurance corporations decide they are not necessary under the Senate bill. If you don't have cash in the US, you don't get quality health care, unless, of course, you are very poor and qualify for Medicaid. Period. That won't change under the Senate bill. The Senate bill will MANDATE HEATH INSURANCE CORPORATION PROFITS. THAT is the main goal of the bill. Another industry bailout. People are now understanding this -- that's why they are against the Senate bill.

Ed's doing a total turn around. My question is WHY? Why NOW? Hey Ed, how many pieces of silver did they promise you?

[Bullet1987]

22. It's not surprising Shultz has made as about face

I'm actually expecting all media "liberals" to do so. They're only as progressive as the higher ups allow them to be.

[laughingliberal]

26. With the impending merger of NBC and Comcast, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more centrist

positions from our liberal media if they are allowed to exist at all.

[mzmolly]

45. Oh C'mon. He changed his mind because he listened to his

viewers and examined the legislation in greater depth.

[The River]

17. The Huffing-stuff Post

isn't worth the pixels it's printed on.
Welsh just sounds jealous.

[berni_mccoy]

18. OH NOES! Internet Blogger Criticizes Internet Blogger for Critizing! This is HUGH!!1!

[Spazito]

21. LOL, my thoughts exactly...

Huff and Puff doesn't have 'columnists', they have bloggers who opinionate/bloviate/etc.

[arthritisR_US]

32. I agree with Ian and am glad he said waht he has! n/t

[mzmolly]

34. "Team Kos"

checkin in. :hi: Progressive is as progressive does, and voting with Republicans is on health care is anything but.

[trumad]

37. I with you on that...

[mzmolly]

44. Like my new avatar?

;) :hi:

[trumad]

64. Yes I do...

I was stunned yesterday to learn that Dennis has only had 3 successful bills in congress since he started in 1996. And they all are pretty meaningless bills.

I think the dude is a Grand stander....period.

[mzmolly]

70. It certainly seems that way.

:(

[sabrina 1]

192. Then you would be stunned to learn that that is a pretty average

record for a member of Congress. The lie was meant to stun people, but it was a lie by omission.

Here's an example of someone who's been in Congress a lot longer than Kucinich eg.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400211

John Conyers has sponsored 290 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 232 haven't made it out of committee and 13 were successfully enacted. Conyers has co-sponsored 3,639 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Conyers and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

One of my favorite and imo, very effective Congressmembers who like Kucinich has a great voting record on all the right issues:

Marcy Kaptur has sponsored 174 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 163 haven't made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted. Kaptur has co-sponsored 3,415 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Kaptur and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

And another, Barney Frank after 23 years, who is considered a very effective and powerful member of Congress:

Barney Frank has sponsored 380 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 317 haven't made it out of committee and 12 were successfully enacted. Frank has co-sponsored 5,324 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Frank and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

I could go on and you will see that the vast majority of members of Congress average record, is not much different to Kucinich's.

That is not how you judge a member of Congress' overall record, btw. You were deceived and it was deliberate. A nice rightwing tactic by Kos. But seeing as it came from Kos, whose OWN record I am familiar with, I knew it was necessary to do some research before accepting anything he says about liberal members of Congress. He is well known to despise liberals, although he gets on TV by pretending to speak for them. He does not speak for me or anyone else I know.

Another example of why kos is not a reliable source, a flip flopper who can always be depended on to change his mind, and attack liberals. This was Kos in Dec. agreeing with Kucinich, in fact going way further than Kucinich has gone:


Remove mandate or kill this bill

Remove mandate, or kill this bill
by kos

My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. It'd be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt

Since I don't look to this blogger for insight on political issues, nothing he says stuns me. However when he goes on TV and spouts this kind of garbage, it is always a good idea to do a little research.

[Raineyb]

39. Team Kos can go to hell. I prefer someone who has principles. n/t

[mzmolly]

43. Principles like wanting to cover millions of people who don't have health care?

Yeah, so do I.

[Raineyb]

50. No you don't. You want a win just to have a win. Meanwhile 20 million people will STILL

be without access to health insurance, people will be forced to buy insurance that they can't afford to actually use and thus still not have access to health care, meaning the people without health care still won't have health care. But I guess you think they're expendable so long as you can crow about doing something about health care. Unfortunately for you a good number of people aren't fooled by this POS bill and know it doesn't do all that much. And should this pass it will literally be the end of the Democratic party because when people realize they're paying for insurance that they can't use they will blame the Democrats for passing this shit in the first place. That's some win. Selling those principles will really have paid off.

Meanwhile standing up for a real reform package that actually covers everyone is not only the right thing to do but politically best for the party if one is inclined to consider the party's well being in the long run (as opposed to your short term "win") in one's consideration as to what should be passed.

[mzmolly]

53. A WIN

for those without health care coverage, yes. Again, the 20 million will have it when they need it. The numbers are due to the assumption that some will choose to pay the small penalty vs. pay for insurance.

This bill is "real reform" you don't get to pretend otherwise and neither does Kucinich.

[Raineyb]

54. A WIN for the INSURANCE companies who will love having customers who have no choice

but to put up with their fuckery because they're obligated to buy insurance from them.

The numbers are based on over 50 million not having insurance now and this piss poor excuse for a bill only covering 30 million of them.

[mzmolly]

62. It's called a WIN WIN.

Again, the 20 million can buy in when they need it.

I have a hard time understanding the logic that it's better to leave 50 million without insurance, vs. 20 million. Care to expand on that brand of brilliance?

[Raineyb]

71. With what money? People don't go uninsured for the hell of it. THey do so because

THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. And THIS doesn't change that. That it leaves out 20 million right there should be a big friggin' hint that this bill isn't going to do what it should.

And the point was SUPPOSED to be to reform health CARE. As in get care for everybody. Forcing people to buy insurance doesn't guarantee that they actually get access to care. What part of that don't you understand? Or do you think that just having the card is going to magically get someone to a doctor when they need it?

That's not a win win.

Right now the only entity that's winning is the insurance companies that just locked in new customers; customers who won't even have the option to tell the companies to go to hell when the companies abuse them.

[mzmolly]

73. Which is why the bill contains subsidies. And again,

when people have a need, they'll be able to buy in. Some will protest and not buy in, others are from other countries, thus the 20 million figure.

Again I ask how is not doing anything is better than insuring 30 million people who don't have coverage?

[Raineyb]

79. Not everyone gets the subsidies and if they STILL can't afford it what are you telling them?

That they're just out of luck?

At least with the status quo someone could save up money and pay for a doctor's visit assuming they have the extra money to spare. With this bill any extra money they may have had (if they had any) is going into the insurance companies pockets. That doesn't benefit the individual at all.

[mzmolly]

89. Everyone who makes under 85K

(family of four) qualifies for subsidies. A person also has access to a hardship waiver if need be. So, they can still save money if they prefer to do so, as you suggest.

[Raineyb]

99. Nice way to mislead. Mention 85K then hide the qualifier that it's for a family of four

Single people making as little as 30,000 a year would get a subsidy that doesn't even pay half. I used my own data and for my area the insurance would cost $3,835 with a subsidy of $1,178 only where I live rent is over 12000 a year where the hell would I come up with an extra 222 dollars a bloody month?

I'd end up having to go without and paying a penalty and not having anything.

But I'm single so I guess I don't have anything to live for right? My life isn't worthy.

I bloody well don't think this is all that great for me. And if it's not good for me there are millions like me. Fuck that noise this bill is garbage.

[mzmolly]

117. Or it would cost nearly $1200 MORE without reform.

Feel free to continue to dismiss the fact that you would be getting $100 a month toward a plan, if you choose to buy insurance. Also keep in mind there will be options available that are not in the figures you note. And, the latest legislation has greater subsidies for people in your income bracket vs. NONE, which is what the status quo offers you.

[Raineyb]

143. Either way it's still unaffordable. So basically this bill doesn't change anything. Which is

exactly the point I've been making just in case you didn't notice.

[mzmolly]

153. Then do what Klein suggested.

Pay the 2% for what amounts to catastrophic coverage. I noted previously that you may qualify for a better deal though, as the calculator I posted is limited to a couple scenarios.

Peace, I'm out. :hi:

[Raineyb]

168. Are you daft?

I need comprehensive coverage that I can afford to use. This bill does not do that. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to get that. And your suggesting a catastrophic package that won't cover regular visits? THAT is exactly what is wrong with this POS plan in the first place.

But you seem to think that insurance that one can't use is better than no insurance at all. Insurance you can't use IS no insurance.

Until you get that you will continued to be suckered by TPTB who will hand out crumbs and try to convince you it's cake.

[mzmolly]

182. You're suggesting that a 1200 annual subsidy for coverage

is worse than the status quo which = ZERO subsidy and no consumer protections? You prefer not having insurance companies cover children and adults with preexisting conditions? And, you're calling me daft? You can afford coverage without reform but not after a subsidy? Fascinating...

Is there anything you disagree with your hero about?

[Raineyb]

197. You have no fucking idea who my "heroes" are. Unlike so many in this country I don't

throw that word around. I never use it and I damn sure don't need YOU trying to put that word in my mouth.

What I do appreciate is someone who will stand up for principle. Which is a damn rarity these days considering the number of people who apparently will sell their mothers down the river in order to put a W in the column for the party. I have ALWAYS considered principle over party. My concern is will the bad outweigh the good. As I can't see anything that would actually guarantee people get care in this bill (because having an insurance card doesn't guarantee actually getting care) the preexisting conditions clauses don't go away for 4 years and there's nothing to say that the insurance companies can't jack up the rates to make the plan so unaffordable that the plan isn't purchased (see we offered you a plan but you wouldn't buy it) and that bullshit fraud loophole guarantees that recessions will still take place, but the insurance companies will just call it fraud.) And because I can't see that the good will outweigh the bad I don't think this bill should pass as it is. It's about doing the most GOOD. Not about giving the party something to brag about. That would be the difference between us.

And an 1100 subsidy doesn't do any good if you don't have the other 2500 dollars to shell does it? THAT is the point. Subsidies only work of you have the money to make up the difference. Besides which those plans only pay about 70%. Where the hell would one get the remaining 30% if one doesn't have the money to pay for the plan in the first place?

One should always plan for the worse and expect the best. But you absolutely refuse to consider the worse and expect the rest of us to do so. Sorry, I'm a realist. I don't make my plans that way.

[mzmolly]

199. I'll await

your answer.

[Raineyb]

203. If you refuse to read it you'll be waiting a damn long time. n/t

[mzmolly]

208. What issue do you disagree with your hero Kucinich on?

I didn't see your answer, so I'll pose the question again.

[Raineyb]

221. What part of he's not my hero do you not understand?

If you can't fucking read there's no point in continuing with you. Reading comprehension is your friend.

[mzmolly]

222. When you can supply an example,

I'll be inclined to believe your "he's not my hero" claim.

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

219. It's the truth and you don't know it because

you haven't bothered to look into that which you critique.

[stranger81]

59. It is intellectually dishonest, pure and simple, to suggest DK is not interested in covering

millions of uninsured people. Pure dishonest bullshit.

DK simply prefers a plan that will actually DO THAT, as opposed to simply enacting a mandate.

The reason why we have so many uninsured in this country is not because we don't have a law requiring people to get insurance. And until we start dealing with reality, this bill has no chance of solving the problem it claims to solve.

[mzmolly]

63. You know what's dishonest? Suggesting that it's worse to leave 20 million without insurance than 50

million.

[stranger81]

72. And nobody's doing that either. If you really think this problem will be solved with a mandate

instead of legitimate reform, it will only be a matter of time before you get to eat your own self-righteous words.

[mzmolly]

75. This is legitimate reform.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/consumer-protections

THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:

* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
* Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
* Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
* Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults
* Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
* Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

[stranger81]

77. Let's take these talking points in turn:

* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions -- While insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions any longer, they'll certainly be able to discriminate against those who have them by charging exorbitant premiums for those patients. Nothing in the bill works to prevent that.
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. -- Insurance companies will NOT be prohibited from continuing to price people out of the market because of their medical history, even if they have to technically "accept" such customers.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays -- There is absolutely no mechanism in the bill to achieve this. This is pure pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill -- but no price controls, either.
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill -- again, no price controls
* No Gender Discrimination -- except for removing health care coverage women currently enjoy? Like reproductive care?
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage -- or on your premiums!!!


This is a list of talking points describing what the bill hopes to achieve, not any of its actual provisions.

What the bill doesn't include:

(1) meaningful subsidies for the uninsured who will suddenly be legally required to pay for a "service" they couldn't afford yesterday and can't afford now;

(2) any public alternative to the rapacious, privately run insurance system we have now;

(3) any limits on what those with preexisting conditions can be charged in premiums;

(4) any limits on what those without preexisting conditions can be charged as premiums;

(5) coverage for women's reproductive services that we currently enjoy now.

I know others can add to this list.

[mzmolly]

84. You can add all you want to your highly inaccurate list.

Doing so only proves you haven't studied the issue.

(1) meaningful subsidies are included in both versions of reform: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

(2) public alternatives like community health care clinics and the expansion of medicaid are in the bill(s) along with the expansion of state governed experimental programs.

(3) cost controls are a large part of the legislation
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/five_cost_controls_in_the_sena.html

(4) limits on what those without preexisting conditions can be charged are part of new legislation. Cost increases must be justified and profits will be limited.

(5) coverage for reproductive services that we currently have, will remain the same

[stranger81]

103. While none of your points are accurate, let me just pick on the lowest hanging fruit for now -- #5.

You may have heard of a gentleman by the name of Bart Stupak? With an amendment, perhaps? One he insists must be part of the bill for it to pass?

Now what part of stripping abortion coverage from currently existing health insurance plans comports with keeping coverage for women's reproductive health services the same?

If any of you people spent half the energy you're spending vilifying Kucinich on opposing people like Stupak, the current health insurance bill would probably already have passed.

But you know where your real target is. Somewhere to your left, of course. And that place, because of how far to the right you're already standing, occupies quite a lot of territory.

[mzmolly]

116. You may have heard that we are ditching Stupak?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/house-dems-will-forge-ahe_n_495720.html

[stranger81]

125. Might have "heard" that, but even your link says it ain't true yet:

First sentence of second paragraph: "Officials have not reached any formal decision, the aide cautioned."

If you really think Stupak's amendment won't be part of the bill, you should be directing your fire at the dozen or so Dems who will vote against the bill on that basis, not on Kucinich as the lone holdout from the left.

Unless your problem is just with the left in general, which I'm much more inclined to believe.

[mzmolly]

135. This thread is about

Kucinich. I take issue with any no vote from those who call themselves progressive.

[girl gone mad]

110. I thought the annual caps were put back into the Senate bill..

These must be old talking points. :shrug:

[mzmolly]

119. Nope, brand new

talking points.

[girl gone mad]

108. Nonsense.

You're quoting a press release.

Pre-existing conditions will continue to be denied, either through fraud provisions, labeling treatments "experimental", forcing policy holders to take on extreme co-pays and deductibles or any of a number of alternative avoidance schemes. Insurance companies will not be forced to cover everyone with a pre-existing condition. If insurers were required to provide adequate coverage to all customers with PEC, too many people would simply choose to avoid premiums and pay the much smaller fine until they were diagnosed with an illness. This would put the insurers out of business, and the lobbyists who wrote this bill aren't about to let that happen.

There are still thousands of loopholes which will keep people with pre-existing conditions from getting treatment. The biggest selling point for this junk bill is the most hollow of all.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

136. Bull

crap.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

146. Ha, they say "put the insurance companies out of business" as if that's

a bad thing.

[Ignis]

87. +1

Lots of that 'round here as of late. It's pretty disgusting.

[LostInAnomie]

48. Agreed

Kos is twice the progressive and twice as effective and Dk the Grand-stander.

[mzmolly]

57. I called DK's office today.

I told them that he should change his mind and vote yea on this legislation or many progressives will actively support an opponent in the primary. :hi:

[stranger81]

74. No progressive is going to abandon DK. Folks like you who hide under the mantle of "progressivism"

never supported him to begin with.

[mzmolly]

76. I supported him for a time. He was a consideration for me in 04

when he ran for President. He lost my respect because he does not appreciate progress. He's an idealist who is more interested in scoring political points and being "right" than helping his constituents.

[stranger81]

78. If you suddenly lost respect for DK b/c he's not enough of an incrementalist,

then you never knew what he stood for in the first place.

[mzmolly]

81. HE doesn't know what he stands

for.

[stranger81]

82. His position has been consistent the entire time.

Again, I suggest you're the one with the comprehension problem, not Kucinich.

[mzmolly]

90. He voted against a public option

before he said he was for it. Sorry, I disagree.

[stranger81]

105. You've got nothing besides recycled GWB sound bytes?

Maybe you should go swift-boating somewhere else, buddy.

[mzmolly]

124. lol

I'm stating what his record is. I'm sorry if that's troubling.

Cheers

:hi:

[stranger81]

126. What's troubling is you parroting Bush to attack one of the only real Democrats we have left.

But I'll bet you've got a lot of Bush quotes you enjoy using.

[mzmolly]

130. Yes, Bush railed on Kucinich for being for voting against the public

option and health care reform. :eyes:

[stranger81]

132. fyi, eye rolls are a little misplaced when combined with an utter lack of reading comprehension.

My reference was to your parroting of the Swift Boat anthem against John Kerry, not to the particular substance you used that terrible language to describe.

Snark only works when you're right, honey.

[mzmolly]

138. So any critique of Kucinich =

swift-boating, "honey"?

[stranger81]

134. Honestly, why are you so bent out of shape about DK, but not about any of the conservadems

who are most certainly voting against this bill? Including Stupak? And especially when DK's objective is to increase coverage even more, while Stupak & co's objective is to restrict coverage that already exists?

I will be utterly astonished if you can offer even one principled reason why. And no, "I hate principles" and "I hate integrity" don't count.

[mzmolly]

137. This thread is about Kucinich and KOS's suggestion we replace him.

Quite simply, he's the topic of discussion.

[Raineyb]

144. Apparently only Conservadems are allowed to object to things in this bill.

Progressives objecting to things and wanting to improve them are the enemy.

That's the way they're acting and it makes no damn sense unless of course you don't actually give a damn about REAL reform and just want to push through any bill just to say you passed one. Looks like that's what the DLC brown nosers are looking for.

[mzmolly]

154. Nope. I think they should be primaried

as well.

[Ignis]

88. Your nose is growing. (nt)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. His positions are the same as they were in 2004

But there are those on DU who are willing to change their positions, even reverse them, if "the team" asks them to.

[mzmolly]

155. We weren't pursuing Obama care in

2004.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

161. No, but DK was advocating for single payer back then

He hasn't changed.

[mzmolly]

163. But he can vote for reform and continue to advocate

for single payer. Grayson and Weiner are two excellent examples.

[Raineyb]

169. This is NOT reform. And if it doesn't go far enough why in the hell in good conscious should he

vote for it?

THAT is why the Democratic party pisses people off. They make promises, offer up a half-assed (at best) solution then expect people to forget about principle to vote for it. Then wonder why people get disgusted and stay home come election time.

[mzmolly]

183. Yes because not going "far enough" according to Kucinich, is better than not going anywhere.

:sarcasm:

[Raineyb]

198. This bill DOESN'T go anywhere. There are loopholes large enough to stuff

the people who will still be uninsured into.

[mzmolly]

202. Got a link?

I'd be interested in learning more about these so called loopholes.

[Raineyb]

206. READ THE BILL

They're right there where you can see it if you take the time to read and comprehend.

[mzmolly]

207. Which of the 2600 pages (200 plus pages of regulation)

do you take issue with?

[Generator]

133. Progress?

Are you shitting me, ms molly?

But I have to laugh-progress? Is that what you call what Obama and the Democratic congress we have has brought?

You live in an alternate dimension. One where Guantanamo is actually closed, the United States doesn't torture and we have withdrawn form Afghanistan and Iraq. One where our president has fought hard for health care for all-whatever you call it-public option, medicare, whatever. He barely lifted a finger.

Progress smells like the status quo. Buckets of it.

And you dare to call someone full of shit when you can't really refute anything they say.

If any one was honest about this hcr bill they would AT LEAST be able to say thet do not know what the real outcomes will possibly be if it's passed. It's impossible to know. But the wise money is on not trusting insurance companies.

[mzmolly]

139. This thread is about health care reform

Generator. And, I never claimed to trust insurance companies. Quite the contrary, thus the need to pass the bill.

[unapatriciated]

150. make up your mind which is it

This thread is about health care reform
Posted by mzmolly

Generator. And, I never claimed to trust insurance companies. Quite the contrary, thus the need to pass the bill.
mzmolly (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-11-10 09:14 PM

Response to Reply #134
137. This thread is about Kucinich and KOS's suggestion we replace him.

Quite simply, he's the topic of discussion.

Is it about HRC or DK?

[mzmolly]

156. DK as it relates to

health care reform, obviously. :eyes:

[unapatriciated]

158. but not health care reform as it relates to mistakes already made

in regards to regulations without penalties:banghead:

[mzmolly]

159. True, as the scenario you note

does not apply in this case.

[unapatriciated]

141. "But the wise money is on not trusting insurance"

I have tried to point that out to her up thread by and have given up.
California trusted the insurance industry and caused much pain to many.

[mzmolly]

142. And, I've tried to point out that we need the pending regulation/reform because I don't

trust insurance companies.

[unapatriciated]

148. If you believe that call your congress critters and ask for strong penalties

against abuse of policy holders be implemented in this bill. Regulations without penalties are useless. I have given you links that support my position on this issue yet you refuse to understand and dismiss it as negativity.

[mzmolly]

151. I've addressed your point in a couple ways.

1. We can drop companies that abuse customers which would be a penalty in the form of financial loss.
2. There are 200 plus pages of regulation in the bill which address issues like the one you raise.

In spite of the attempt to regulate, I'm certain we'll have issues that need to be addressed on an ongoing basis. This legislation places us in a position to do that.

Peace :hi:

[unapatriciated]

157. They address them but do not implement penalties.

"1. We can drop companies that abuse customers which would be a penalty in the form of financial loss."
There is nothing in this bill that will force these companies out (only to comply after they abused) nor is their regulations forcing them to repay customers for their losses due to denied claims.
I gave you links and how long it took for California to do this and you ignore them.
Why do you insist on a bill that seems to want to close the barn door after the horse has escaped.
Why can't we learn from California's mistakes so that we do not force hardship on others?

[mzmolly]

160. What section of the bill

supports your claims?

[girl gone mad]

113. You wasted your time.

It's too late for a primary opponent to challenge him.

Dozens of my relatives have been calling his office to tell him to stand firm against this bill. My uncle's access to health care is at stake.

[mzmolly]

121. How would your uncle be negatively impacted

by health care reform?

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. Kos has ALWAYS been stupid and arrogant

It took this long for some folks to realize that?

[joeybee12]

51. Can I recommend your post?

Absolutely...I got over that self-important twit a long time ago.

[JNelson6563]

41. lol, the irony, it hurts.

HuffPo taking issue with hubris and stupidity?? rofl

Julie

[upi402]

42. k/r n/t

[tallahasseedem]

46. Ian Welsh?

Just a glance at his background tells me all I need to know.

Ian Welsh has been blogging since 2004. He was the Managing Editor of FireDogLake and the Agonist. His work has also appeared at Huffington Post, Alternet, and Truthout, as well as the now defunct Blogging of the President (BOPNews). In Canada his work has appeared in Pogge.ca and BlogsCanada. He is a social media strategy consultant and currently lives in Toronto.


Me thinks he's a bit jealous of Kos.

[LostInAnomie]

49. *ding ding ding*

Some nobody FDLer trying to hitch his star to a blogger that people actually listen to.

[sabrina 1]

204. FDL and Daily Kos are associated.

Wake up, there is a whole history behind these pretend 'liberal' blogs. Kos and Hamsher have been long-time associates. Both belonged to a list called the Townhouse list at a time when he was pretending to be 'just a blogger' and 'just one of the guys' meantime he and his friends, like Hamsher were controlling the message on blogs that a lot of people thought were for free discussion. They don't fool a lot of people anymore, but apparently there are some who are still assuming these people are just ordinary bloggers.

[glitch]

52. Kos is a progressive?

Great, another term is made meaningless.

[Raineyb]

56. Kos is a progressive like Drudge is a reporter. n/t

[stranger81]

60. +1 [n/t]

[glitch]

61. Excellent comparison with Drudge, another instant internet success (with big league backers). nt

[troubledamerican]

165. + 1

[SemiCharmedQuark]

93. What is Ian Welsh's idea of "reliable"? A reliable vote?

I disagree with Kos, but Kucinich is certainly not a reliable vote for the Dem caucus. He can be relied on to advance the progressive side of things though.

[Raineyb]

102. That's reliable enough for me. God only knows we can't depend on the Democratic

party to advance the progressive side of things.

[npk]

112. So now Obama is objectively a conservative

Though I disagree with Markos call to primary Kucinich...

The man's stupidity, hubris and willingness to be used by a president who is objectively a conservative means he is now doing more damage to the left than good.

I have trouble rationalizing that statement.

edit: typo

[girl gone mad]

118. I think it's a valid assessment of his governing thus far.

Essentially, his leadership has resulted in a continuation of the status quo, which means Bush's policies and agenda. From war to economic bailouts and financial reform to education to torture policies to social issues, he has landed on the conservative end of the spectrum.

[npk]

127. I think the president has been somewhat tepid in his actions

However, I would not say he has favored a conservative leadership. I consider the democratic/republican congress to be spineless and pathetic with about 90 % of the blame. I would credit President Obama with the other 10 %.

[HuckleB]

115. Who's mixing drinks tonight?

[WillyT]

122. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Raine]

129. He "jumped the shark"

he's lost all credabiliy, I'm done with him. x(

[unkachuck]

140. K&R....n/t

[inna]

162. LOL, funny how Ian Welsh was defined as a "Huffington post columnist" here -

- talk about mischaracterization. :shrug:

Having said that, I'm a fan of Ian's. :D :7

[DisgustedInMN]

167. Dennis Kucinich has three things...

.. zero Republican and many Democratic Congresscritters lack...

A spine, a solid commitment to We the People, and the INTEGRITY not to be bought out.

Barack Obama isn't fit to shine his shoes.

[ooglymoogly]

187. Nor is Markos Moulitsas. nt

[sabrina 1]

194. Agreed. Kucinich has taken vicious criticism from the right

when he had the courage to expose the Bush administration back when it was not cool to do. And he is attacked by the pretende 'left'. You can always tell who is from the Rightwing of the Democratic Party by their negative talking points (which are always the same) about Kucinich. DLCers hate him, even more than the right who at least expected a Dem to act like a Dem. The DLC hates him because they are working hard to turn the Dem. Party into Republican Lite and Dennis keeps reminding people what a real Democrat looks like. They, including Kos, would like real Democrats to become obsolete and have said so.

[lebkuchen]

170. If some sort of health care doesn't get passed, the dems are toast anyway

probably taking Kucinich down with several others.

From Europe or Australia, one has to sit and laugh at the shenanigans Americans have to tolerate from their government just to get one iota of the health benefits that much of the rest of the world has already enjoyed for decades. It is so pathetic.

[saltpoint]

171. Kos is high-profile. Welsh is marginal. Note the alignment of

loyalties.

[sabrina 1]

193. Kos is not 'high profile' nor is he a liberal, as he passes himself

off to be when it suits him. But he has made it clear, one of the few things he has made clear, that he hates and despises liberals and has banned from his site some of the best liberal voices in the blogosphere, which has now become something of a badge of honor.

Not a single person in real life that I know has ever heard of him. He doesn't make much of an impression on TV either, even after watching him on a show where he let John Fund of all people, wipe the floor with him, some friends who watched the show with me, couldn't remember him at all, other than the fact he allowed a known rightwing hack to get the best of him and was someone who claimed to be a liberal.

[saltpoint]

209. For those badges of honor to shine they have to catch the light.

I don't see any over in the far margins at all, though, while Kos is doing splendidly.

[sabrina 1]

211. They have caught the light, you just haven't been paying attention.

He is despised by the majority of people on the left. And some of the most trustworty voices on the left, including btw, Obama himself, basically ignore him. Check out what Obama had to say when O'Reilly asked him about Daily Kos. He posted two diaries there and then never came back. Like thousands of other people.

People whose words are worth something can now be read elsewhere. He's lucky if his website has 5,000 readers total. He's doing well financially but refuses to say where his money came from. As I said, you are apparently very mis-informed about that blog and its history, or you support his attempts to silence Democratic voices, failed of course, most of them have long ago left him behind.

[saltpoint]

212. Kucinich has caught no light. He has no illuminated, or even

discernible, national following. Had there been a discernible national following he would have gotten more votes than he did get, and he tried twice.

Point being, Welsh rises to Kucinich's defense but Welsh is also marginal. There's always going to be a dust-up between competing blogs. At one point in Ohio's history there were two automobiles. They had a collision.

Welsh doesn't seem to have generated any ferocity, even among those who agree with him. And in agreeing with him, they reinforce their marginality.

[sabrina 1]

214. Kucinich is a respected politician except by Republicans of course

since he caught plenty of light speaking out, when everyone else in the Dem. Party were too scared to do so, against Bush's policies.

Sharing the Republican view of Kucinich, even when he opposed Bush and his war crimes, were people like Kos who despises liberals. If it was worth the time, I would waste some posting a few of kos' better moments when he attacked women, people who wanted the Bush administration held accountable and those who wanted a thorough investigation into 9/11 and the stolen elections.

He is a former Republican, or so he says, how former is the question. He was in awe of Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde for whom he worked. He was a Repub before he was a Libertarian and a Democrat after he was a Libertarian. Or did I get that backwards? To be honest, HE doesn't seem to know what he is, or what WE should know about what he is.

He was against gays too, before he was for them. He was for a PO, before he was against it and, he was for Libertarians before he was against them. He was against abortion before he was for it, or whatever his position is now. And definitely against women's issues, until he nearly lost his blog and decided it was better to pretend he was for them.

He is untrustworthy on issues, as can be seen by his latest outburst against a man whose shoes he is not fit to shine. The outburst is amusing on so many levels, as have most of his previous outbursts been.

It is amusing because it demonstrates so much of what people who have been paying attention, know about him. I aware that not many people even know who he is or care what he has to say, but the miniscule % of the population who do, get a lot of entertainment out of watching his antics.

Take eg, his laughable claim that HE will primary Kucinich. For a supposed political expert to make that statement was beyond funny. The date for a primary against DK passed weeks ago! He likes to appear to be all macho, but only when he doesn't have to prove it! But it is vintage kos, blowing off steam with no substance at all.

Then, his reason for a primary challenge to Kucinich? Hillarious to read this from someone who just weeks ago AGREED with everything Kucinich said about this bill:

Here is an example, just one of many, of the dis-ingenuousness of this 'blogger':

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/15/814776/-Remove-mandate,-or-kill-this-bill

Remove mandate, or kill this bill
by kos

My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. It'd be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt. Don't expect Lieberman and his ilk to care. They're in it for their industry pals.

Lol, Kucinich could not have said it better. But there's more:

The insurance industry began 2009 fearing genuine reform that would force them to become responsible corporate citizens, and they are exiting it on the cusp of a dramatic government-sanctioned windfall. It pays to be an industry that's too big to fail.

'A Windfall for the insurance companies' lol, kos channeling Kucinich, just weeks ago.

How funny is that considering his latest diatribe? :rofl:

But this is typical kos, not a once in a lifetime flip flop. And no one should be surprised if he flip flops back again, depending on what happens next.

This is very hard on his supporters, the few that he has left, because they go to bat for him only to have him, time and time again, turn around and take the position of their opponents.

He is good for entertainment purposes, just watching the blow-ups each time he does this is better than reality TV.

But to take him seriously as a Democrat? Or a political pundit which he aspires to be? He has been wrong so many times, the only way anyone would take him seriously would be if they were betting on him losing.

Support him if you wish, allow someone like this with no convictions to smear a man whose word can be counted on, and who is respected even by those who disagree with him, but don't be surprised if you find him on the other side of an issue you thought he agreed with you on without any explanation at all and if you ask him about it, expect to be ignored.

[saltpoint]

216. Sabrina, the issue is Kucinich more and bloggers less, because

Kucinich has failed to deliver on his earnest principles. He is in fact ineffective. You argue that he is a good man. I don't dispute that and praise him often on this site. But that's not the issue at hand. Kucinich cannot build coalitions. He cannot do it. He can't pass legislation. He can't build voting blocks in the lower chamber. He is not able to defend those his heart wants to uplift and protect. He's been in the Congress long enough to accomplish more than three bills, but that's all he's managed.

Good man. Lousy politician.

[sabrina 1]

217. Saltpoint, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again, on the effectiveness

of Kucinich as a member of Congress. You are repeating the talking point being disseminated by people like kos. It was because it came from kos whose pronouncements I know from observing him for a while, need to be researched before giving them any serious consideration, that I took the trouble to see how much truth there was to that claim.

What I found was that Kucinich's record regarding the sponsoring of bills is as good as and in some cases, better than other members of Congress. In fact, it is pretty average.

For example, the claim is that he sponsored x number of bills, a majority of which didn't get out of committee and only three of which were passed into legislation. Singling out that record, while true, but omitting the rest of the facts, is called a 'lie by omission'.

I looked at the record of several other members of Congress, many of them with over 20 years in Congress, compared to Kucinich's 15, ten of which were when Congress was controlled by Republicans. What I found was that his record is typical in this area.

Here are a few examples starting with Barney Frank, considered to be a very effective member of Congress with 23 years as a member:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400211

Barney Frank has sponsored 380 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 317 haven't made it out of committee and 12 were successfully enacted. Frank has co-sponsored 5,324 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Frank and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)


Or John Kerry, also a member for 23 years and also considered to be very effective:

John Kerry has sponsored 485 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 399 haven't made it out of committee and 13 were successfully enacted. Kerry has co-sponsored 2,711 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Kerry and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

Marcy Kaptur, a favorite among Liberal Democrats, never accused of being 'ineffective' to my knowledge:

Marcy Kaptur has sponsored 174 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 163 haven't made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted. Kaptur has co-sponsored 3,415 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Kaptur and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

I will leave it there, you are free to do some more research if you wish at the link above.

What I did notice was that the more Conservative Dems, other than people like Ted Kennedy, tend to get more bills enacted than the liberal democrats.

But my beef is this kind of dis-ingenuous attack on a man who you agree is a decent man and someone who, eg, has a 100% rating from the biggest labor union btw, rather than say what it is he is wrong about on the HCR Bill.

I think the reason people like kos use these rightwing tactics, (they did study Rove btw) is because they KNOW Kucinich is right on the issue of HC and do not want to reveal their own lack of convictions. It is easier to attack someone, who btw, MUST be effective or they wouldn't bother, than to get into the issues where they would be revealed for what they are, career political operatives, most of whom do not have to worry about HC, so they don't really care about the people.

As for why Liberals like Kucinich don't get the support they need often, it is because we do not have many real Democrats in the party right now. That does not mean he is wrong, it means he is one of the few who actually did not sell out. It's a shame to see him being attacked by insincere political operatives such as kos who flip flop depending on how it benefits their own interests.

But more shameful is how easily people will desert a real Democrat, and then complain that the party doesn't represent them anymore.

Kucinich represent me on the issues. I cannot think of an issue he has been wrong about in the past number of years. Like him, I think through my position on issues, and absent some new facts, I do not flip flop for political purposes.

He is right about the Healthcare Bill and no one should ask a man to vote against his conscience. We have far too many in Congress who have no conscience at all, that we find one we should not only support him, but try to find more like him so that he CAN be more effective in looking out for our interests. The majority in DC could care less about us, but Kucinich does and I will continue to try to debunk the lies that are told about him as much as I can.

As for kos, he is nothing. Just another blowhard opportunist who rode the internet wave at a time when people were desperate over the state of this country and cashed in on it, by pretending for a while that he was something he is not.

Sorry not to be able to agree with you, I prefer it when there is agreement, but like Kucinich, I cannot pretend or set aside facts, just for the sake of agreement ~ no hard feelings I hope :-)

Edited to include link ~

[saltpoint]

218. We're cool, Sabrina. Folks can see things differently. Usually we are

likely eye to eye.

I would welcome a thread on Dennis Kucinich's EXCELLENT version of "Sixteen Tons." I savagely attack anyone who says he can't sing generally and that song particularly.

[sabrina 1]

220. Lol, I didn't know Dennis could sing too!

But, before I agree with your assessment of his musical talents, I would have to hear him for myself ~

Anyhow, thanks for the civil discussion, I'm sure we do agree on most other issues ~

Edited to add, I just located Dennis' rendition of '16 Tons'. While I think his overall rendition was not the worst I ever heard, I have to disagree with you once again on Dennis. He was off-key on several of the notes which was jarring, at least to my ear. I would suggest to him that he never consider a career as a singer. So, once again I'm afraid, DK is not a topic we are likely to find agreement on ~ :-)

[saltpoint]

223. -- --

:toast:

[flyarm]

172. MARKOS is a FRAUD! HE IS NO DEMOCRAT! how dare that little weasle say anything about a lifelong dem

loyal Liberal Democrat like Dennis Kucinich!!


Markos is a self professed Libertarian....he is no progressive..SO STOP CALLING HIM SO!!.when these LIBERTARIANS could not take over the republican party and got no respect from the republicans they decided to move on over and take over the democratic party!

Fuck Markos..he was a Reagan Republican..well documented. READ THAT AGAIN..HE WAS A REAGAN REPUBLICAN..A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN!

Fuck Markos..he worked to elect Republican Henry Hyde..AND DO READ THAT AGAIN!!

Fuck Markos..he started his web site while still working for the CIA..who honestly thinks this little fucker just started a web site all on his own ..with no backing?..from someone ..or some entity..perhaps the CIA?

Fuck Markos ..he was very vocally pissing on the Senate bill before most others were..don't believe me..see this:
Dailykos Markos Moulitsas on Health Care Keith Olbermann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc7INKnBC-k


AND DO WATCH THIS AS WELL..MARKOS ON MSNBC...MR LITTLE MARKOS THE HYPOCRITE!!

WHAT DO PROGRESSIVES WANT IF NO PUBLIC OPTION IS INCLUDED

watch Markos on this! I dare you!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_2iTcqaEQU



IT IS PAST TIME WE SHUT THOS LITTLE FUCKER DOWN..WHO THE FUCK IS THIS LITTLE fucker REPUBLICAN/libertarian calling out our democratic congressman ..

Dennis has not ever been a republican..he has never been a libertarian..he has always been a loyal liberal democrat..so who the fuck is Markos????????and who have we allowed him a voice at the table????????????



Markos is a fucker who never from day one of his web site allowed any discussion of 9/11..ever..he never allowed any discussion of Election voting machine fraud...ever.

I have always believed he is a front for the new world order..or some nefarious group of the shadow government..you do not have to think or believe that..but do some research on this fucker before you go along with his bullshit!

He has alot of fucking nerve to take on Dennis Kucinich..

And any democrat..real democrat... that pisses on Kucinich..because of the words of that little piece of shit Markos..they aren't a real democrat.. in my book!

[femrap]

180. Kos is an ex-republican.....

he can't stand the likes of Kucinich. Kos is ex-military. He likes to play with guns. I think he's part of the problem and possibly a mole.

[flyarm]

190. or a CIA shadow gov guy? eom

[earth mom]

185. Markos has proved himself to be nothing more than a rethuglican tool.

:puke:

[ooglymoogly]

186. Markos Moulitsas; Colors shown...exposed...fraud; Now

where is that dustbin of history.

[Bluenorthwest]

189. Kos was a full tilt Republican, Henry Hyde's go to guy

A huge Reagan promoter. I have never trusted him, because he is in essence a Republican. So I really enjoyed watching him blow his ego wad on Countdown, refusing questions, giving non responses that would make Palin blush, speaking double time like a teen aged girl on Red Bull, lasing out, doing what he cut his teeth doing, attacking liberals.


Edited for spelling. Sticky keyboard.

[Major Hogwash]

215. Break out the torches and pitchforks!!

Or at least the toothpicks and a flashlight!