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

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

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

He needs a time out and a nap.

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'.

so that keeps things in perspective.

Rah! Rah! Go team Go!1!

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..

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

Markos is a fraud

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

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

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

OPA!

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.

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

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/la...

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??

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_sto...

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' ~

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

Very disappointing.

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

Kucinich votes Democratic about 90% of the time.

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?

Not those in need of health care.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

There is no reform here.

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

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.

bill, first.

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).

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

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.

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

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/0... /

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/ouelle...

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

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-he...
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."

noam.levey@latimes.com

We are not even close to the Netherlands model in regards to profit margin for our Insurance Companies.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fu...
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.

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."

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.ph...

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.

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

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).

That's a crock.

Welcome.

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.

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.

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?

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/c...

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.

I disagree with your negative assertions, regardless.

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...

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-blu...

will apply to mass reform. I do not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

get fucked by the democrats that sell them out!

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

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/ope... /

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!

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_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.

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?

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

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

viewers and examined the legislation in greater depth.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Yeah, so do I.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.