Beyond the Public Option

Speaking of universal care…

Deaths in Iraq under Obama’s unilateral surrender to Al Queda continue to explode, may soon reach total loss of life of former Saturday Night Live cast members.

http://twitter.com/HULAgate

More genius news:

Rationing of piggier flu vaccine en route, another swift notch in hemp belt for worst White House in last 100 days of worst White House in last 200 years.

Stupid “left-wing” and “liberal Democrat” people.
.
We get KT-all the wise ones think everyone who supports some public option is so sadly out of touch.
.
“Take what you get and shut up we have “moderates” to win over.”
.
You’ve made that point, repeatedly. As has every host at Swampland.

And finally…

Michael Moore’s swollen bone sack accidentally tethered to Bay of Pigs boat dock, both members of Cuban navy mistake walking heart attack for lost Russian tanker.

Karen – I’m curious about your take on the argument I hear increasingly that there “aren’t enough doctors and nurses to take care of everybody” so we can’t have universal coverage. (Dick Morris was shilling this message for the Rep candidate for governor in Massachusetts yesterday). Aside from the inhumanity of it, isn’t it just plain wrong?

Also, I thought for awhile the High Sheriffs must have tucked the QH troll back under the bridge. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to do that again.

But Paul – haven’t most of the “left wing” left a very few people out there on their own defending the public option? At the least we have not appeared en masse at town hall meetings supporting the reps and senators who need to vote for the public option.

It seems to me that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have gotten accustomed to their new roles. The Democrats are still out there criticizing the administration, and the Republicans behave as if they’re shell-shocked that anyone has the impunity to try to enact legislation that they don’t approve of because, of course, they run the country.

kathy: that is a very important question, and a real problem (as it has proven to be in massachusetts), but not an argument against reform. a long-term answer is to change the incentives, so that more docs are encouraged to go into primary care. short-term solutions include empowering trained professionals like nurse-practictioners to take on more of the stuff that is traditionally done by primary care docs.

Are you saying that the argument has proved to be a problem, or that indeed there is a problem finding enough primary care physicians in Massachusetts?

Is one of the issues in Massachusetts the compensation for physicians under this plan, so that they have an incentive to go elsewhere? That would play out differently if the whole country was getting coverage.

If this is true, it seems the Democrats have to push the idea that the opposition would rather their fellow citizens fail to get care rather than pay for it.

That is, there’s a difference between the questions Who is going to pay for coverage for the uninsured, and Are we going to see that the uninsured get medical care.

Maybe its bipartisanship and not the public option that is dead.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bipartisanship/rahm-emanuel-okay-bipartisanship-is-dead/

What happened to paragraph breaks??? I had them at 5, but not at 5.2

Even though the “line” has been drawn, Obama is still flip-flopping. Depending on the prevailing winds, the Obama Healthcare boat zig-zags through the troubled waters. One minute, “the Public Option is a required component of Healthcare reform”. The next minute, “it is just a little sliver of the whole pie”.
.
His Administration seems to flip or flop depending on how loud one or the other side screams. Very scary stuff, I suppose we can be glad it is not Iran ready to test launch a nuclear missle.
.
Forever the Community Organizing Politician. Do whatever it takes to get re-elected. I really do not see why anyone should be surprised by this Administration or this President. He is and was when elected, completely inexperienced. This is Jimmy Carter 2009. Jimmy was a complete failure as a President, Obama is and will be no different.
.
History simply continues to repeat itself.

Perlstein’s column doesn’t address covering the uninsured. Seems like a pretty glaring omission to me, and the main issue that the public option is supposed to address.

The main reason the President always cites for a public plan is to introduce more competition into the system and to keep the insurance companies “honest.” There are other ways of expanding coverage in the various bills, including big expansions of medicaid and subsidies to help people purchase private coverage on the “exchanges” that would be established under the bill.

KT:
.
Thanks for providing such a clear example of how Conventional Wisdom operates in the Beltway.

Sorry, but I am not seeing any solid suggestions of “more effective ways of introducing real competition into the health care market” in the article. He proposes the “co-op” process, for which there is no compelling evidance of practicality. The rest of what he suggests seems marginal, at best.

It appears to me that Pearlstein is simply caving in to what has become the “conventional wisdom du juor.”

I think the President needs to come out and, taking what has been learned so far, come out clearly on a specific plan – and how it should be paid for.
.
Obama’s been slipping a bit lately, and if he doesn’t do this simple thing, it will hurt.
.
In the meantime, what’s left of HCR is such a sham that I will content myself with the pleasure of diving in, chawing off a wingnut arm or leg or two, and disappearing with it into the depths, as there is nothing really constructive is to be gained from the current HCR debate!

Steven Pearlstein will host a Web discussion today at 11 a.m. at washingtonpost.com. He can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com.

Obama’s the new and improved lib loon windmill, and Ted Kennedy’s the old reliable wind.

Just not in their own back yards.

Thanks for the response, KT. You’re correct that the President cites the public option as a way of generating competition, but don’t you think that talking point is about trying to sell the plan as much as anything (to the extent that he really is trying to sell it—the jury is till out on that). But nice job of making Pearlstein’s argument for him!

What I don’t hear people talking about is how anachronistic employer-based insurance is as a means of health care delivery. This is not the 50s where you get out of high school and get a full time job at a factory and work there until you retire. People change jobs several times in the course of their lives, work part time, work two part time jobs (or three) and either they don’t have healthcare, or the healthcare doesn’t travel with them. I guess this is what the exchanges are supposed to cover, but it would be nice to hear someone talk about what the real issue is.

Speaking of lib censorship (NOT)…

FLASHBACK TO DOPE, SHAME: BRAVE AL FRANKEN CRACKS WISE ON CNN, CBS ABOUT EXECUTIONS OF BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE, LIBBY:

http://tiny.cc/Kd0mR

When does Quantico send the Ruby Ridge relics to Lez Moonbeam’s condo in Cuber Cuber Cuber?

After they re-locate Squeaky Fromme perhaps?

I hear Sirhan Sirhan just asked John Kerry for a job at the Provincetown Wendy’s.

Oh well.

CARTER LITE HAPPENS.

Agree re employer-sponsored insurance, which is why the Wyden plan makes sense to a lot of health care wonks. Employer-provided insurance is a historical accident that we are living with a half-century later.

Kathy, it seems like genuine liberal Democrats are lost because they are not ready to go out protesting against a still-popular President they just helped elect but they don’t want to actually fight for his policies against Glenn Beck and his followers, since they don’t like the policies or believe they’ll work.
.
I wonder if the WH just thought the base would fall in line or if they knew their policies would attract committed opposition but only tepid support. Either way, it seems like a tactical error. The people who hate health care reform will hate it regardless of the details. But the potential supporters actually care about this stuff.

I for one believe in the wonder of Obamacare.

I believe it will offer the same stellar level of efficiency, cost controls, quality, customer service, and fairness as the post office, VA, IRS, TSA, DMV, FBI, CIA, ACORN, MLB, NBA, and Medicrap.

You know.

All those unpopular government union deals dissed by Obama in 2008 before being loved by Obama in 2009.

Some change, that one.

Move On indeed.

lets see now…
_
Karen, who gets her talking points from the health care parasites via the White House (you think its a coincidence that Obama flogs the same “examples” like Mayo and Kaiser that KT is also pointing to?) points to a WaPo flack who gets his talking points from health care parasites via the white house…
_
Its the usual Broderific beltway BS being promoted by Tumulty here — that support for a “public option” is simply “partisan” and an “ideological litmus test”. No real thought is required by Karen, once she decides to write off the public option as some kind of “liberal ideological” bugbear…
_
Here’s the key graf in Pearlstein’s parasite approved diatribe…
_

But there’s no particular evidence that a government-run insurance plan will be any more successful than what we currently get from big private insurers — unless, of course, the government-run plan is so big or so powerful that it can dictate prices to providers, as Medicare now does. Proposing that, however, would immediately unite doctors, hospitals and drug companies in opposing reform.

_
Pearlstein (and Karen) gives away the fact that he’s simply shilling for the parasites here — he admits that a strong public option would be effective in reducing costs — but discounts it because his beltway parasite friends would oppose it.
_
KT is complicit in this bait and switch farce organized by the parasites. Remember, the “public option” was the alternative to single payer — it was single payer that was too “ideologically extreme” to get passed. Now, KT is flogging the idea that the public option — an idea that was advanced in order to avoid “ideological warfare”, is somehow an extreme position.
_
Shame on you, Karen.

Please KT, we’ve been spammed by the Hula/QH/Obamish troll for several days; It’s annoying for the ‘quiet’ readers to scroll past the nonsense, it doesn’t do anything to further the conversation, and it lowers the quality of this blog. Please notify the High Sheriff(s) to do something, please?

I’m starting to long for something on the Borgen project…

I think any brave leader that sneaks Newport smokes and drinks up with tenured racists deserves our undivided attention.

As he’s frog marched to Leavenworth with Holder, Rahm, Blago, Burris, and the rest of the Chicago thugs.

LET’S ROLAIDS.

One day into office, Obama’s polling numbers were sky-high. Today however “lower than Bush’s at this same time into his Presidency”.
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
.
This pretty much sums up where Obama is at the moment.

There is no overriding legal reason to think that Obama will handle health scare any worse than he’s handled bailouts, bogus stimulus, ACORN Sacramento, IG firings, lib loon DOD hirings, gay marriage, FISA, campaign finance, and PayPal Gaza.

I mean, he’s that good.

SZ, what looks like conventional wisdom is also the product of reporting. This story in the Post is interesting, as it pretty well sums up what I have been hearing from White House officials with regard to their views on the public option. As I noted earlier, this has been a consistent view all along. They–including the President himself–have never had the kind of commitment to it that liberals seemed to believe they had. That is why I had argued in this space for many months that the use of the term “public option” is meaningless without the details of what that would look like:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803655_pf.html

Yes, please keep ignoring me, and the rest of the MOB.

We’re just crazy white clueless Klansmen cleaning our ear wax that hire and fire nobody that pays taxes or buys stuff, never mind the polls and the plunging markets.

Dow 5000 here we come!

PS: I almost forgot to mention Nazi.

Kathy a lot of the grass roots supporters are people that had not helped in an election before.

I cannot blame them from wanting to attend meetings that might turn violent. The pictures in Arizona tells all.

I think any brave leader that sneaks Newport smokes and drinks up with tenured racists deserves our undivided attention.
_
can’t we get QH/HG banned for racist commentary. Obama didn’t/doesn’t smoke newports — his brand of choice was always Marlboro Red. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2855994&page=1 ) But “newports” are identified as a “ghetto” brand, and that’s what QH’s message is intended to convey.

I’ve think you’ve hit on something that bugs me the most, plukasiak. No one has actually made a strong argument against the public option. The GOP just yells about killing granny and sends people out brandishing firearms, and according to the Pearlsteins of the world, we are all supposed give up on a valid idea with nary a whimper. Pearlstein should be castigating Republicans for their fundamental dishonesty instead of chortling about Dems “playing into the GOPs hands.” But that definitely doesn’t fit the parasite-approved script (a nice turn of phrase btw).

Its almost as if KT didn’t obsessively cover the Presidential campaign for the two years prior to this one. I mean after all, health care reform was the number one domestic issue throughout the very long “nominating” season, and Obama came out with a health care reform plan that included a strong public option as an essential component for keeping costs down.
_
Oh, who am I kidding. “Health care” was an issue, and ‘political’ reporters don’t cover issues….

pluk: i not only cover that issue, i moderated an entire candidate forum on it. i have also written about how obama has changed his positions. obama has switched on other aspects of health care reform as well, including the individual mandate. you can read my interview with him to see his answer to why he did that, as well as my questions about such key issues as the level of subisidies. or you can continue to attack me. whatever suits you.

Karen, do all states have the same medicaid program?
Do some states cover more than others? Will some states decide to not do this?

KT — why are you talking to Rahm Emmanuel on your vacation.
_
First we get the post about Rahm’s brother and “conservatives” who defend him. Next we get a post that comes right out of Rahm’s “make back room deals with the health care parasites, while feeding stories to access-driven beltway media types that betray the health care reform” shop.,..
_
I mean, do you have to make it that obvious that Rahm is functioning as your editor by juxtaposing these two blog posts during your vacation?

“I think the President needs to come out and, taking what has been learned so far, come out clearly on a specific plan – and how it should be paid for.”

WHY, again, do MY kids have to pay for YOUR cigarette smoke, Mr. President? Their pain, and your lack of self-control?

Let’s cut through the CRAP, shall we?

There is no well care large enough to account for the excesses of slackers, whores, fraudsters, and the rest of the Ashley Biden elite that are already running the medical money into the stratosphere.

So we’re going to add everyone else that won’t take care of themselves at a gasic level to the pile too?

GIMME A FRIGGIN BREAK, LEFTWITS.

I am 100% sure that Obama means well, with good intentions.

Where has that put us before, and now?

Last season the steaming ridicule of Medicrap and the VA was simply ozzing off every DNC yap as though it was their stock in trade.

Today?

These wonders of government inefficiency are supposed to be models for American renewal.

The fallacy that goes unspoken is tha the GOP lacks viable plans or ideas, which is as reliable as an NBC news broadcast on pickup truck safety (not so much).

We can cover far more people, at far lower cost, in a much faster time, by offering businesses and individuals TAX INCENTIVES to include health insurnace in the private markets as part of their normal everyday financials, with proof of purchase.

No purchase? No tax benefits.

This is indeed a clean, simple, accountable way to Move On from zilch to something that will provide the greatest and fastest bang for the taxpayer buck.

Beyond that, Obama’s stimulus has been a sick JOKE, with towns seeing no net getting fresh $300 Your DNC Taxes At Work road signs and that’s it to date. Debt is not stimulus, debt is debt. And laying asphalt is not progressive, it is a way to employ illegal aliens and bribe unions.

I fail to find any of the Chicago organizer’s myriad and changing models for change very hopeful — and I’m clearly not alone in my basement with the marionettes on that one.

PS: I myself once smoked Newports, before I grew up big and strong. Darm tasty, after chicken and grits.

Caro: States have very different medicaid programs — and texas has one of the stingiest. one thing this bill would do is, for the first time, define medicaid as a program where eligibility is defined by income. a lot of people don’t’ understand that is not the case now. you have to be poor, but also fall into another category: elderly, disabled, pregnant, child. that gives the states a lot of leeway to exclude people. of course, the governors are really upset about this, because making a lot more people automatically eligible put a huge new unfunded mandate on them.

KT — when you write stuff like “They–including the President himself–have never had the kind of commitment to it that liberals seemed to believe they had” you are simply transmitting a big fat LIE for the White House that is designed to make it look as if “liberals” are at fault here.
_
Obama was FULLY COMMITTED to his “public option” during the campaign — including the general election campaign. He didn’t equivocate when McCain attacked Obama’s “public option” — he backed it up.
_
So this idea that “liberals” somehow imagined Obama’s commitment is a LIE — its one that its very important for Rahm and his buddies to perpetuate, and one that you are obviously eager to disseminate — but OBAMA WAS COMMITTED TO A PUBLIC OPTION THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN. So please stop LYING about it, and suggesting that he never was….

i would eagerly talk to rahm any time he wants to, though he has not been in contact with me for weeks. just like i’m spending my vacation talking to … you.

Guests of http://www.HULAgate.org stay at the beautiful Obama Oahu YMCA on the far north left corner of Biff Ayers Way and Solo Alinsky Prospect.

Kathy…first off, there have been lots of “liberals” at these town meetings — its just that they didn’t come to disrupt and shout, and when you have 20-30% of people in a meeting there solely to disrupt it, unless the other side is thoroughly organized to fight the disruptions, the meeting will turn into chaos.
_
that being said, there is a good reason why there is not much enthusiasm from liberals for Obama’s health care reform — it not the kind of significant single payer reform that makes sense and can energize liberals, but an ill-defined, pre-compromised series of proposals that are dependent upon shape-shifting concepts like “exchanges” and “public option”. How do you get behind something that isn’t even defined, let alone understandable?
_
Add to that the sense of betrayal felt by liberals with stuff like Obama shutting out single payer advocates from the discussion while making backroom deals with Billy Tauzin and the PhRMA parasites, and its tough to “rally” support for whatever it is Obama wants people to support.

The public option barely came up during the primary campaign. Most of the debate then was over the individual mandate — an issue where Obama has since switched his position.

Dear KT, you’re not very good at this:
va·ca·tion
Function: noun
1 : a respite or a time of respite from something : intermission
2 a : a scheduled period during which activity (as of a court or school) is suspended b : a period of exemption from work granted to an employee
3 : a period spent away from home or business in travel or recreation

Sorry about asking you to help with hula/QH/obamish spamming – I thought you were back from vacation (refer to the definition above.)

I’m thinking I’ll just try and get QH to write in Farsi…

I know that calling people ‘parasites’ makes everything seem perfectly OK, but I still can’t understand why it isn’t obvious that if you propose cutting off someone’s source of income that they’d not only do everything in their power to fight it but would be absolutly justified in doing so.
.
There’s no one on the planet who actually believes they earn more money than what they’re worth. It’s just not part of being human.

And most of the debate in the general involved Obama’s attacks on McCain’s plan to tax benefits — an idea that Obama himself has at least flirted with since.
.
I’m not saying he wasn’t FOR a public option. He’s still FOR a public option. But he’s not committed to it, and he is not willing to sink the bill over it.

I just don’t think whether the White House is committed to it or ever was is the issue here. Obama has spoken eloquently in favor of the public option and the progressives who put the energy and effort into getting him elected are very committed to it. Now those same progressives are flexing their political muscle to push Obama back toward the public option. It is just part of the political process. It’s not playing into Republicans hands. There is no way to get Republicans on board with ANY healthcare reform bill, so cut them out now and get the best bill you can get. And if Blue Dog Senators want to filibuster their own party, by all means. But make them stand in the well of the Senate to do it. None of this cozy behind closed doors crap.

But the public option is not exclusively supported by Liberals. The latest NBC poll had it at 43% (pretty amazing since there are so few prominent supporters and such a venemous campaign against it), and the % of self-identied Liberals is far less.
.
Personally I find it strange, almost inexplicable, that the Democrats giving up on the public option are not seriously addressing the concerns of the public option supporters and are instead demonizing them as irrational ideologues. They are being incredibly condescending to the people they need to show up at the town halls. People support the public option for two very pragmatic reasons: cost and flexibility. As Michelle Bachmann said, ”It would offer equal or better benefits than any plan – but cheaper.”
.
p-luk, maybe you just haven’t noticed this but KT is actually implying that Obama lied in the campaign. Or rather, her reporting makes it very easy to draw that conclusion and difficult to draw any other.

Thank you Karen for responding.
I would much prefer the federal government to handle health care. They have proven they can with Medicare.

Actually, mm, I say give hula all the space he wants. Heck, give him his own column somewhere. Give him a teevee show like Glenn Beck.
.
The more he talks, the more people realize how shallow and selfish their ideology is. There’s a reason why conservatives and the GOP continue to lose popularity, even with barely competent competition from the left.
.
When Beck, O’Rielly, Limbaugh, Palin, et al. are your leaders, you know you’ve bottom out.

Is anyone saying otherwise? I mean, isn’t that why there had to be a Civil War, to use an extreme example?
.
The health insurance companies are parasites threatening the overall health of the economy they are part of. They can be expected to fight any efforts to reform this situation. These two statements are not contradictory.

The public option barely came up during the primary campaign. Most of the debate then was over the individual mandate — an issue where Obama has since switched his position.
_
Karen, the public option did come up during the General Election campaign — as you well know. McCain criticized it, and Obama defended it.
_
and while the public option was not controversial during the campaign because all the Democrats agreed that a very strong one was needed, it was a vital part of the health care debate. If you listened to Obama’s statements during the primaries, it was the “government plan” that was crucial to reducing costs, and the “government plan” that would provide such low cost coverage that a “mandate” wasn’t necessary….

rose, I think there’s a substantial portion of the left against the public option because it doesn’t go far enough. The fact that single payer was never on the table, certainly didn’t help win the support of progressives, too. Its hard to accept a compromise when your preference was never under consideration.

If you listened to Obama’s statements during the primaries, it was the “government plan” that was crucial to reducing costs, and the “government plan” that would provide such low cost coverage that a “mandate” wasn’t necessary….
.
Good point.

Much of the savings that the ‘public option’ is suppose to represent is the ability of the governmenjt to dictate to doctors how much compensation they can expect for a given procedure.
.
It’s not just insurers who stand to lose.

KT: What exactly are the long term incentives? Only n the make believe world of liberal blogoshere can you increase the number of doctors and nurses or nurse-practitioners in an environment whereby cost cuts will mean lower incomes to health care professionals. It is economically irrational to think that by forcing private HC insurers out of business will provide enough dollars to cover those costs, insuring 40+ million new subscribers and still allow innovation in HC treatments.

Ezra Klein provides added perspective on why Pearlstein is jumping the gun:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/against_giving_up_on_the_publi.html#more

p-luk, maybe you just haven’t noticed this but KT is actually implying that Obama lied in the campaign. Or rather, her reporting makes it very easy to draw that conclusion and difficult to draw any other.
_
Then Karen should report that Obama lied during the campaign — and not give us the kind of crap where she tells us that the belief that liberals had that Obama was committed to a public option was a product of the liberals imagination.
_
It wasn’t. Obama made it clear that he was committed to a public option during the campaign — and if Karen wants to say that “liberals were fooled by Obama’s lies” that’s fine. But she should not pretend that Obama wasn’t committing himself to a public option, and that liberals were hallucinating if they think he did.

The Pearlstein article points out that much of the Price gouging that takes place in the Health Care industry is a result of near monopoly markets. I beleive him.

I just heard a pretty revealing statement by Bob Beckel. He argued the Democratic party is so large they are having trouble convincing the moderates about the public option.

Maybe that the real nut jobs here are not the people arguing at Town Halls but the Barney Franks on the other side of the podium?

its perfectly obvious that when you threaten to throw someone off the gravy train, that they are going to resist.
_
but that’s true not just of parasites, but of everyone. “Parasite” is used because its an accurate description of the health insurance industry in its entirely — as well as large parts of the health care delivery (where the drive for profits and ‘status’ lead to enormous waste) and drug (where the drive for profits lead to enormous waste) industries.
_

I had the same reaction. My other thought was that Pearlstein blithely proposes a number of solutions requiring Congressional action, evidently under an assumption that Republicans (or democrats similarly on the take) are more likely to support more specific mechanisms to deprive their deep-pocket enablers. In fact, I suspect it would be the reverse – the for-profit interests, who aren’t likely to embrace more direct assaults on their finances, would more easily hold sway over a congressional majority on any issue lacking the visibility of broad reform.

Canadian and British doctors are doing very well. Plus they typically spend less on medical school.
.
But sure, I thought it would be smart to base any health care plan on high physician incomes – maybe even higher or more secure salaries – because it’s no problem to pay for it and it would divide doctors and insurers. Americans don’t spend more on health care because American doctors are paid well, since doctor’s income is a tiny proportion of overall health care expenditures.
.
And where would you draw the line at being justified to fight for your parasitic income? I’m sure my Southern slave plantation owners example crosses that line. Just curious…

you shouldn’t, because while there are some states that have near-monopolies for insurance, most states (and the most populous states) don’t have monopolies.
_
here’s a simple test you can take… http://www.einsurance.com will provide you wil information on individual health insurance policies. Most states have at least three insurers to pick from (and even more insurers offer “group” coverage.)
_
its not a lack of “competition” that is the problem, its the lack of a truly competitive alternative that is cheaper than what UCH/Wellpoint/Aetna offers that is the problem. And only a strong public option can provide that alternative if we aren’t going to do the smart thing, and adopt single payer.

KT:

If Obama is not trying to steer toward socialism in what economic sytem does the GOVERNMENT increase competition.

And is there a funnier line than the government keeping private business honest (Review Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae). Just exactly who keeps the government honest? The Press said ADIOS to that concept years ago.

To quote Bob Novak: Love your country and distrust your government

And where would you draw the line
.
The only line I’m drawing is the one that scuttles reform altogether. I just don’t think the public option has as much mojo as people are giving it credit for and I do think that incremental improvement is possible.

mmchampion

And what accounts for the lowest rating of Congress and the plummeting ratings of Obama- incompetence or stupidity?

The libs here should have thier own columns as well. It is a continual display of arrogant, superior attitudes while name calling anyone who disagree. Lib politicians can’t publicly argue their true agenda because the vast majority when discovered rise up.

And that shows the selfish and stupidity of your own way

I live in a market that has only one Hospital, two insurers and lousy coverage. I also have a supplimental policy just to pay to fly me the H3ll out of here if I ever really get sick.
.
My experience suggests that the lack of meaningful competition is indeed a big problem.

According to Rep. Anthony Weiner, the CBO will be reporting out its scoring of HR 676 after the August break. It could put the “public option” in a whole new light, causing Americans to forget about the town hall screamers. How would you feel about a simple plan for public buy-in to Medicare (with a sliding scale of premium subsidies based on income) in place of the confused and confusing mess that has been proposed for a public option?
.
Personally, I could see it being structured so as to 1) help fill the revenue hole projected for Medicare around 2019, 2) provide better coverage with lower premiums for low- and middle-income Americans than they have now under private plans and 3) save doctors and patients money by reducing paperwork costs — all at the same time.

I believe I earn more money than I’m worth. I have not informed my employers of this belief.
.
What I don’t understand is why no one seems to be making the jiu jitsu argument in response to the conservative lament that a true government-managed health plan will be such a bargain that it will drive the private insurers out of business. The response is, of course, Hallelujah! If Uncle can do it cheaper and better than the for-profit companies, bring it on. And if Uncle can’t do that, no one will sign up and the public option will fade away of its own high cost and inefficency.
.
Of course, there will be disruption if the public flees the private sector for the government plan, but there’s always some disruption in getting from here to there. No bill that creates a desirable public option will make it so desirable, in comparison to private insurance, that 300 million Americans will make the switch overnight. If the likes of Blue Cross and Aetna go the way of the makers of mechanical calculators and tube radios, who in the long run will miss them?

If there is a problem, it’s not just that too few Demos have the guts to create a public option that will in time take over the field. Hell, it’s beginning to appear that too few Demos have the guts for any public option at all.
.
Yawanna know what’s really sick? The American polity is sick. And no one seems to have a health plan to cure it.

Pearlstein argues that the public plan has become a “a political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don’t want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market.

Bullsh!t. Both Pearlstein and Drum state points in favor of providing a alternative to private insurance – which is what we are talking about when we say ‘public option’…in order to a) allow for coverage of those who can’t get insurance through work at affordable rates (or can’t get it through work at all) and b) bolster competition in the market.

This is not a ‘litmus test imposed by the left’, it’s a good idea that’s worth implementing in addition to the patchwork set of industry regulations that are being proposed…regulations that might be eviscerated in other Congressional sessions, selectively enforced in future administrations, have loopholes to be exploited, etc…Regs aren’t permanent or perfect, and don’t always get better over time.

The point that seems to be eluding everyone is just that: setting up a public option allows for a more permanent reform of the healthcare system…

When Republicans are attacking the compromise of a compromise, it’s worth wondering whether their opposition is based on a dislike of particular provisions or a desire to doom the whole bill. I’d say the evidence increasingly favors the latter.
.
Mr Klein(Ezra) has a talent for understatement. While I’ve been vocal about not scuttling reform over the public plan, I do think it’s important that we not pretend that the Republican’s have anything to offer other than land-mines.

Michael Grunwald has a viewpoint on Time.com that reminds us that the CBO was impressed with the House Public plan.

The only proposal that really impressed the CBO was the so-called public option, which would pressure private insurers to cut costs to compete with government coverage, but is now on the chopping block thanks to political pressure from Republicans and centrist Democrats.

ttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1917325,00.html

Oh Please please do come out with the plan and how it will REALLY be paid for. That will put an end to the nonsense once and for all. The box he will be placed in by his statements on deficit neutral and no tax increases will leave no room for his teleprompter.

And to assume you have contributed anything constructive to this debate is a vast overstatement

Karen, I think the reason the public option didn’t come up much during the campaign is that we libs were still deluding ourselves that single-payer could happen.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

well,
_
1) since most people live in markets with more than one hospital, not only is your experience decidedly atypical and thus not reliable in terms of determining baselines and metrics for health care reform
_
2) health care reform isn’t going solve your problem, because its not going to increase the number of hospitals in your market. It doesn’t matter how many insurance companies compete in your market (which is all that Obama really seems to care about), its that one hospital that is going to determine the quality of your health care.

Now the libs are falling back to form: Waxman is requesting(?) info on compensation, financials etc. Can’t win the debate on merits go to character assassination

Somebody should tell Waxman being short bald stupid and angry is not much of a way to go through life.

Only for a winger is examination of the facts deemed “character assassination.”

As Wendell Potter said to Bill Moyers:

Well, there’s a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it’s called a medical loss ratio. And it’s unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it’s a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry’s been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early ’90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they’ll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I’ve seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street’s expectations with this medical loss ratio.

For example, if one company’s medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that’s ridiculous. And it’s horrible.

And that’s why having profit-making entities in charge of paying for health care is immoral.

Why don’t we have a government run legal system. Isn’t legal representation actually a “legal” right defined by our constitution. Force all the lawyers into a pool so that poor folks accused of a crime has access to the best legal help instead of just out of school wet behind the ears public defenders. Bending that legal cost curve would help more poor folks That’s the same argument being applied to help so it should be transferable easily

See how may libs jump onto that bandwagon

I wonder what line it is Pearlstein thinks the Republicans, who appear to be opposed to any reform, won’t cross over. Perhaps he doesn’t have time to consider that, given his obsession with dirty liberals?

And only a left nut job refers to anything by Bill Moyer. Send that tape to Iraq. It is worse than waterboarding.

Why weren’t these “facts” brought up before now? It would seem if you are making a reasonable argument that is where you would start. But since you have a President that hasn’t run as much as a PTA meeting or a lemonade stand, reason has left town.

I proposed to Paul above to apply the same application of a public option putting all lawyers in a pool and have the government determine their pay. Seems multi-million legal lottery payoffs does not bother the left.

And this actually makes more sense since unlike health care, legal representation is is a right. Why should the poor not have the same access to competent legal advice as the rich?

“This story in the Post is interesting, as it pretty well sums up what I have been hearing from White House officials with regard to their views on the public option.”
.
Well, there’s a shocker. Along with Mr. “required reading”, they’re doing their jobs conveying the Beltway/Wall Street establishment propaganda, aren’t they? Pearlstein’s column is a load of manure, his reasons why the public option can’t help control costs are mostly made up out of whole cloth and are at odds with the experience of every country that has one. Here’s what Drum really has to say about it:

“Personally, I still think that backstop is pretty important. New rules never work perfectly, regulatory capture is always right around the corner, and a public option would provide competitive pressure that would keep costs lower.”
.
All I really need to know is that the corporate insurance lobby, “conservatives” and “centrists” in the corporate media have all lined up to decide we shouldn’t have it – and the lefty liberals are all wrong again (as if) – to know it’s probably exactly what we should do.
.
It really is idiotic to try to tell us that, one one hand, it won’t have a great effect as a policy matter but, on the other hand, it’s a deal-breaker.

Pearlstein is long on allegations and short on facts. He says only Medicare inidicates that public plans are more efficient than private plans. But, in fact. most of the developed world has a variety of public plans, all of which have better outcomes (some MUCH better), even on such non-lifestyle related measures as deaths per 1000 treatable illnesses.

All of these spend less per-capita than the US. Some spend a LOT less.

It really is as simple as that. However, the US is unable to solve any problem on its empirical merits, and the media, as a whole, is unbelieveably lazy. So is the electorate.

So assume health care reform –at best –will come out as a camel –e.g. a horse designed by a committee.

And the winger is clearly ignorant of former CIGNA VP for Communications Wendell Potter, or chooses to pretend so, screaming about Bill Moyers as a distraction.

Fortunately, Potter has made it his business to tell the truth about his former employers in the health insurance business to anyone who cares to listen, and it’s that foul truth, also given in testimony to the Senate commerce committee, that Waxman intends to document.

Paul Dirks, a lack of competition worsens the health care crisis, but it’s not responsible for the crisis.
.
The dividing line here is between people who think that the American health care system’s unique reliance on private competition and health care providers is responsible for the unique costs of American health care, and those who think that doubling down on the status quo will work. And yes, hoping that more private compeition will fix things is doubling down on the status quo.
.
But let’s accept for the sake of argument that Pearlstein and you may be right, that more private competition and co-ops and regulation may improve things. It’s still a totally unproven model and any rational person has to admit that if it doesn’t work – which is very possible – that will be a huge defeat for progressivism and the Democratic party. There are huge risks to implementing a failed plan, and there is a real possibility that any health care plan that passes will actually make things worse. Insisting on such a high risk approach for essentially ideological reasons – a general faith in private competition – is reckless.
.
freeinpa, if the legal system were putting the American economy at a significant competitive disadvantage and there were numerous other proven models that worked better, then sure it would make sense to reform it.

Interesting take from Noam Scheiber:

Around the conference table at TNR, we’ve been saying for weeks that what Obama really needed was a group of equally vocal, equally zealous critics on the left, pulling the debate’s center of gravity in the other direction. And, wouldn’t you know, that’s exactly what’s happened over the last 48 hours. We’ve now got a pole on the left to match the intensity of the pole on the right. (Don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting a moral equivalence between the two. As far as I’m concerned, the critics on the left are basically right and the critics on the right are either insane or deeply cynical.) From a sheer tactical perspective, I think the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress have dramatically improved their position.

H/T dday
.
Basically, we’re all being played.

I specifically remember Obama stating several times throughout the campaign that he believed “everyone should have the same quality health care coverage provided by the government that senator McCain and I both enjoy.” I took that to mean a public option.

[...] Karen Tumulty at Swampland: Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein has become an imporant voice in the health care debate, with President Obama at one point declaring him “required reading” in the White House. In today’s column, Pearlstein argues that the public plan has become a “a political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don’t want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market. It is the Maginot Line of health-care policy, and just like those stubborn French generals, liberal Democrats have vowed to defend it even if it means losing the war.” [...]

Kt: when you next decide to take a few minutes off your vacation and post here you might want to call the Senior White House adviser who is leaking to the papers. He/she needs to have the courage to speak on the record. You and your colleagues should ask yourselves: why do you give such people cover in order for them to attack members who support the public option, and who are in the same party as those in the WH?

By the way Chucky T, Ed CNN, Jake the Tapper and a host of thers are also acting as conduits for these sleazy tactics. Is access everything?

You mean this “senior advisor”:

“I don’t understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo,” said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We’ve gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don’t understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform.”

.
You really can’t beat the answer from DemFromCT over at kos:

“That’s understandable. We are so hard to reach. We never meet in one place, like, say, Pittsburgh or Chicago. It’s never polled. Media never asks us. And we never write about the topic. How could they possibly be expected to know?”

.
I have to ask our hosts in the noooze business: does it ever get old being punked by the powerful?

Thanks ShWong: to the point.

The problem is that most Amercans don’t want a public option. The agonizing over this issue is a distraction from focusing on unemployment. If it isn’t brought under control, say goodbye to Democratic control of both houses.

Government controlled health care means substandard health care. Yes, medicare and medicaid are “decent” care, but only because the private sector and for profit sector still exists. Let me know when you find people running to Canada to get better care. They simply aren’t. Canadians come here when their government plan cuts them off some advanced treatment. You can’t argue otherwise.

Thank you for correcting us on this vital subject.

Let me know when you find people running to Canada to get better care.
.
Odd. People go to Canada all the time in search of cheaper meds…..

Here’s what Drum really has to say about it:
_
Do you really think that Karen reads Mother Jones blogs?
_
she cited Drum because she got an email from the white house (or Karen Ignagni) that made the claim that Drum was “making the same point” — just like the reference to Pearlstein is probably from a white house (or AHIP) source.
_
basically, Karen is helping the White House/PhRMA/AHA/AHIP in their effort to “gaslight” liberals into believing that they simply “imagined” that Obama was committed to a public option…
_
What Karen is doing is “classic” — its a variation on the “I’ve always said” routine — but Karen has never actually written the words “The White House said that they are not committed to the Public Option.” To anyone who knows how to parse the statements that were made, it was obvious that “liberals” were being played — but Karen never told us that.
_
That’s why Sibelius’s statement was so meaningful — Obama may have signalled that the public option wasn’t at the top of his list of priorities (“just a sliver”) but Sibelius made it clear that the public option didn’t even have to be a sliver.

wow, just wow, pluk. (34.1) hate to spoil your elaborate conspiracy theories, but i first saw a reference to it on david corn’s twitter feed, which i follow (you can look it up):

http://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/3404232054

but, i DO read kevin drum.

Pluk is an Obama-hater so he tends to go to the overly complex (and somewhat paranoid). Applying Occam’s Razor and the fact that I believe you are sincere leads me to consider the possibility that you’re being played by The White House just like the rest of us.
.
But I really want to know what you think about this question: does Obama believe he’ll get any Republican votes on any reform bill?

Let me know when you find people running to Canada to get better care.
.
Geez, just Google “Medical Tourism” and learn about all the places people are running to…Just an example..didja know:

Surgery in Thailand and Latin America can cost a quarter of its U.S. price, and JCI-accredited Wockhardt Hospitals offer open heart surgery in India for $8,500, compared to around $100,000 in the U.S. and $28,000 in the UK.

So, consider yourself notified…

Nice: KT read David Corn’s twitter , who channels Kevin Drum, with a nice pat on the back. And each encouraging us to read the other. Anything of substance in these tweets? Or is just another fad? What does the Public Option mean? How it will work,?Who will qualify?How much it will cost? Where can one find a reasonable body of work that can be studied/analyzed/read? How does this translate into draft legislation?

Is there some place one can find this information written in plain English?

Any ideas pluk?

KT, you’d better be blogging from the plane or in the car or something, or else you’re gonna have a bunch of Swampcritters that are gonna give you even MORE flak for spending time with us instead of vacationing!

To answer your question Shep: Obama is at heart a consensus builder. That’s what community organizers do, they get a consensus in the community and make that consensus happen. Being a junior Senator, he didn’t have much chance to see exactly how obstructionist the Republicans would be when they were out of power. He is really negotiating with the other party when the other party is clearly showing bad faith. I don’t think it’s in his nature to give up on that consensus building, but it has to occur to him at some point that he needs to cut the dead weight and move on. When? Undetermined at this point.

KT, you know there is no one harder on you and your health care coverage than me. Pluk is an a$$ and feel free to ignore him. It’s funny how he tries to use what you write to tell you he can read between the lines and unearth your intention and assess your credibility on the issue. However, ignores the fact that it is just as easy for everyone to detect from his comments that his agenda has little to do with health care reform, pluk’s agenda is discrediting Obama! Period!
.
I wrote weeks ago, prior to this brouhaha, that it was madness for progressives to trash health reform legislation over whether or not a public option is included. The only people who would advocate against a bill that contained 80 percent of what we want are people who already have health insurance coverage. Any one whose paying cash out of their pockets for health care because they are discriminated against by pre-existing conditions or priced out of the private market because they are self employed or work for a small business are holding on for dear life and hoping and praying they don’t end up in the hospital.
.
Clearly, for Anthony Weiner, going up against Mayor Bloomberg didn’t get him the national attention he desires, and after slapping down morning Joe he’s progressives favored son. But the bottom ,line is that Anthony Weiner has coverage and can afford to pay what ever a private market might charge. I suspect so does Jane Hamsher and if she doesn’t she living on borrowed time. Thank God Bill Maher set Rachel straight on this idiocy last night. History proves that change does indeed happen incrementally because our system was designed to work that way. Like it or not blame Jefferson not Obama. Medicare didn’t start off as good as it is now, neither did Social Security, SCHIP, the VA or tri-care. If you think additional change won’t necessary any way has no sense of history with legislation. It took Obama before the feds would figure out that using the previous years income to assess current need was stupid, so don’t hand me that all or nothing crap.
.
Perhaps when people see clear evidence of something the government creates that’s working they will develop more trust. Remember we have 30 years of indoctrination “that government is bad and only military use by the government should be trusted” to overcome. In time we will be able to do more, but don’t let people who have coverage kill it for everyone who doesn’t.

Agree w/Shep. B/C P-luk tosses out terms like shill, implying KT’s part of the cabal, doesn’t negate the underlying reality (and I’m among those who believe she is genuine). However, linking to this same Pearlstein is not encouraging.
~
And kudos to Scheiber for this: “Don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting a moral equivalence between the two. As far as I’m concerned, the critics on the left are basically right and the critics on the right are either insane or deeply cynical.”
~
Imagine if that were acknowledged by MSM. As opposed to their nonsense mantra–the happy medium between two extremes is always best. Actually, imagine if this were acknowledged by some self-described “liberal democrats” who view progressive disenchantment with Obama as heresy.

Obama has always said, every single time he mentioned health care reform, that he wanted to bend the cost curve and increase competition and from his perspective he thought the public option would be the best way to achieve that goal, but he never said a public option was the goal. He always said that if the Congress came up with another way to achieve those goals he would listen. Now, all of a sudden he says if someone presents him another way to get it done he would listen now he has changed his mind? This sounds an awful like the sound and fury that was generated when the claim was Obama changed his mind over troop withdrawal, the same thing the right did over Iraq and the media followed even though Jon Stewart famously put a reel together of everything the President said and nothing changed he didn’t deviate once but the media narrative is he got stronger because the right said he did. And I think it is happening again. Can you say media creation!

BTW, “this same Pearlstein” is a link to GG’s torching of the prick.

“pluk’s agenda is discrediting Obama! Period!”

As your agenda is validating his every breath, period. Can you bring yourself to voice a single criticism of anything he’s said or done, just once? Just so we can be sure you didn’t actually manufacture the tire-swing?

You’re like my dad (for Bill Clinton) or one of my best mates (for W.) I had to virtually threaten them into admitting the smallest of grievances against their vaunted heroes. If you’re that invested in a politician all reason is clouded.

It’s unfortunate that P-luk feels the need to personalize his attacks (against either KT or Obama)–alienating vs. persuading–but he’s still a valuable progressive voice.

I wrote weeks ago, prior to this brouhaha, that it was madness for progressives to trash health reform legislation over whether or not a public option is included.
.
Dee, that only makes sense if you believe that the health reform legislation will work without a public option. Because as I mentioned earlier, there will be serious consequences if this doesn’t work.
.
It’s fine if you are confident that co-ops, etc. will work well enough. But the reality is that many progressives do not share your confidence, for perfectly valid reasons. You may disagree with them, but calling them ‘mad’ suggests you don’t know how to make a solid counter-argument and are instead relying on transparent GOP-style demonizations of the left.

Ed Shultz is an a$$. He is just as big of a demagogue as any one on the right. And just because I mostly agree with his position doesn’t change that. I don’t like bullies who think he’s the only one that’s right. Ed Shultz claims to speaking for those without health insurance, then admits it’s really all about people who have it and want to pay less.
.
He’s acting as if 1993 never happened and that the American people and Democrats in particular don’t have a history of shooting themselves in the foot. Killing this reform in its entirety would end all those other little pesky things progressive claim to care about including gays in the military, climate change legislation etc. Because if they kill this they kill Obama’s entire agenda, just like it killed Clinton’s in 1993. Moreover, I don’t like it when anyone claims to speak for the American people. As if when you don’t agree you should hand in your citizenship at the door! I don’t like it when the right wing does it and I don’t like it any better when the left does it, especially when it is said by someone who is shortsighted and politically motivated rather than considering the impact on very real people.
.
I remember making a comment when Daschle was eliminated and here in the swamp progressives jumped for joy. Now I just heard Chuck Todd confirm my theory that the administration lost control of the Senate when they lost Daschle. The Senate is one of those ego driven little cafeteria tables t hat only like other members of the clique to join their discussion. so now we hear that Daschle is working for the industry, Well he’s got to work somewhere and his only experience and skill set is politics, I don’t see Howard Dean going home either. In fact, no one actually does. Once they come to Dc and get involved in the game of politics, they don’t ever go home again.
.
I sure wish that Daschle’s formidable skills were working for us.

Thanks for the Greenwald link. Pearlstein is such an… idiot. (I was trying to think of something more polite but failed.) Honestly, he seems remarkably dumb and thin-skinned.
.
How do these people get jobs? In such a competitive industry? I know really smart people who are not doing well in this economy, and Pearlstein becomes required reading in the WH?

Rose–
.
I am all for having a public option, but you know what as one of the 50 million without insurance, if the bill passes without a public option but with everything else that’s been agreed upon, I would be able to get insurance period. And there are twelve million people in my exact predicament that would be eligible to get insurance coverage one day after the bill is signed. Now progressives are advocating that we ignore me and 12 million others who would be helped immediately as well as the historical evidence left by the medicare, social security and VA experience, that once you lay the foundation, making improvements becomes a lot easier. And what are we supposed to get back in return. The satisfaction that we didn’t settle for 12 million plus more every year as improvements are made, so we can end up with nothing at all, a tee shirt that says we didn’t give up the fight and a return of Republicans to power like we did in 1993. Yeah that will work.
.
Like I always say who needs to consult history when stupid is the preferred default position.

By the way Rose, there is huge a difference between calling a policy or a position madness and calling an individual mad. I’m sorry that you don’t already know the difference, but you really should learn. When I insult an individual I am rarely subtle about it and when I attack a policy I am usually clear.
.
Second and more importantly, it is progressives that are saying that health care reform must be their way or no way at all. Since that is not how our political system works, I’ll leave the demagoguery and demonetization to others. As much as we hate the GOP and its tactics, some are advocating to act just like them. How many people do you know who are prevented from getting coverage because of a condition is advocating their way or nothing at all?
.
Now if you want to march on Washington to change minds this year, I’m all for it, let’s do it I’ll join you, let’s go. But if you ask me to wait another eight years in the hopes that you can gain enough power to have it all, when without coverage I could be dead, I have to say no thank you. I’d prefer to get less now and have a foundation on which to build and in eight years we will have exactly what you want.

Markos said if we hold our ground progressives will stop being kicked around. Frankly, I don’t want to sacrifice my life or the lives of 12 million others just so they can increase the political power of the the 30 something set. Progressives are not the only ones that elected Obama, not the only one that made calls, knocked on door and are not the only ones responsible for getting this president in office. But some progressives act like he’s supposed to be only their president.
.
Now for the record, I don’t mind you challenging my arguments, but don’t do it by trying to imply that my argument is invalid simply because it doesn’t agree with yours.

Dee, first, the combination of mandates and a lack of a public option is problematic in practice. Second, if people with health insurance are not significantly helped by health care reform it will become unpopular and vulnerable to cutbacks. Like welfare vs. Social Security. And it would be the example that critics of any further progressive reforms would cite. It could actually make things worse.
.
Is helping 12 million people better than nothing? Sure, and I don’t know any progressive who argues otherwise. But the people who feel that the public option is essential do not think that’s the question.
.
Your logic is fine. But it’s based on assumptions that people who are committed to the public option do not share. If you want to counter their arguments you have to answer their criticisms of your assumptions. Otherwise you’re like someone in 2002 saying, ‘But Saddam Hussein can send biological weapon warheads to London. How can you possibly be against the invasion?’

I’m just going to spell that last sentence out because I may not have been perfectly clear: I am not comparing your position on the public option with supporting the Iraq invasion. I was just citing that as an example of sound logic based on assumptions that the critics of the war did not share. Thus that sound logic had absolutely no affect on those of us who opposed the war, because we didn’t buy the assumptions.

Jcapan–
.
First, I’ve never made any secret of my support for Obama. But at least i always present a reasonable argument for that support, unlike pluk who simply says “Obama bad” no matter what issue is under discussion. From the outset his bent has been as a puma type Hillary supporter and that’s okay but that makes his perspective less credible for me. Now if you want to discount what I say because I support Obama you are well within you’re right to draw that conclusion. However, I don’t ask you to support Obama because he’s not Hillary, I always provide a separate and independent rationale for that support that you can also judge.
.
Now you, never seem to oppose me based on any real arguments. So far you seem to resent that I’m not a progressive, I don’t mince my words, I fail to defer to the guys on the site, and i reject Rose’s tendency to be unmeritoriously condescending. But that’s basically an attack on style not substance. In fact if I remember correctly, it began when I defended myself against an attack by rose over a media criticism which has got be nearly 85 percent of what my comments address.
.
As for my criticism of Obama, well I just did so the other day on a thread with James from LA. I faulted Obama for allowing his administration to divest itself from so many of the outside consultants, the professional communication strategists that surrounded him during the campaign and as as a result he has handicapped himself in the health care reform debate. A debate that should not be in the position it is now. He chose to imbue Republicans with the same motivations as the rest of humanity and that was an indulgence in his own ego that we couldn’t afford to make. But I guess you must have been on vacation.

Feel for the poor people of Point Roberts, Washington, who by a strange twist of politics are officially in the US but their health care is included under the Canada Health Act. American citizens all on a single-payer system, it’s a cryin’ shame I tell ya!

I remember making a comment when Daschle was eliminated and here in the swamp progressives jumped for joy. Now I just heard Chuck Todd confirm my theory that the administration lost control of the Senate when they lost Daschle.
.
Now, I grant that you’re the expert on cable news, but I’ve got a pretty low opinion of Chuck Todd. Is this one of the things that he’s good for?
.
As for Daschle, I’m skeptical that he would ever be “working for us,” what with the piles of money delivered daily to his doorstep.
.
After all, Baucus, Rahm and Obama are all supposed to be working for us too.
.
(And in an effort to appease your wrath, I agree that some form of health care reform needs to be passed, with or without the public option.)

Rose —
.
While I clearly don’t need you to spell out the purpose of using an analogy, I’m going to ignore it anyway because I think it was not particularly effective in helping you make your point.
.
Of course, that’s primarily because I don’t think your point has a great deal of validity. At best the Social Security vs Welfare example relies on a specious argument. No one is going to view access to health insurance by 12 million additional Americans who are required to purchase that insurance as the equivalent of adding to welfare. You do remember me saying that these 12 million would not be subsidized, they can afford to buy it, but are kept out of the private market through industry practices that are discriminatory.
.
Second, the assertion that this wouldn’t help those with insurance begs the question, how would a public option provide immediate benefit to those with insurance? We already know that most people who have insurance receive it through their employer, and while that is not likely to change any time soon, every version of the public option now under consideration prevents those currently insured by their employers from dropping coverage for at least three years. If there is one thing the government knows how to do is to remove incentives for corporate America to drop coverage just as they did with schip.
.
Now, it’s in the sections of the bill that have nothing at all to do with the public option where benefits to those already insured lie. It is the reason Obama tried to down play the importance of the public option at the town hall so that people with insurance could begin to focus on whats in the bill for them.
.
Perhaps, you are unaware that the largest portion of people who are filing for bankruptcy are doing so because of medial bills and the largest portion of them are those with insurance. The same regulation that provide access to insurance for 12 million new Americans who can pay for it themselves, also prevents these insurance companies from dropping Americans when they get sick, prevents them from refusing to pay for coverage when they find information that was not previously disclosed no matter how innocuous it might have seemed at them time, it would prohibit them from a myriad of other purging tactics they employ, leaving thousands of Americans in the lerch when they are hit with an expensive illness like cancer because they’ve reached life time caps within the first year.
.
So I think there will be a lot in there that protects those with insurance. The public option may help to lower cost in the long run and I would advocate that we continue to fight for it over time. But so will price caps and I don’t see anyone arguing for that. The public option is for those without insurance who need subsidies not for those who already have it, so please explain again why we are better off with nothing? Please if you can tell me what assumptions I have wrong I would welcome it?

Well Todd did leave out the part where I blamed the media for derailing Daschle. In the end I think history will tell us that GOP operatives duped the media into derailing Daschle so that they could handicap Obama’s efforts in the looming health care debate. So you can continue to have a low opinion of Todd, because hes still not giving you all of the facts.
.
I get Daschle is a paid operative, but he would have been our paid operative and knowing where all of the bodies are buried with the blue dogs, which he was very much one of, would help with the Baucuses and the Conrads. Let’s face it, everyone always new the problem was going to be in the Senate, just as it was in 1993. In politics, the sausage making might be disgusting but at least you can spell all of the ingredients.

Rose–
.
Actually Pearlstein is quite thoughtful whether or not you agree with him. Greenwald is a good writer but he is not an expert in everything except his own opinion. Perhaps you should consider expanding your flow of information. The chief problem ruining this country and what is different about our society from any other time in history, is this propensity for creating two completely different sets of facts. Never before we have been forced to agree to disagree on empirical evidence. Now, granted this is mainly the result of the right limiting their constituents information base to that which can be found on Fox news, conservative talk radio and the WSJ and NY Post. And now they are twice as likely to live in an alternate universe. While I wouldn’t accuse any progressive outlet of using similar propaganda tactics, clearly limiting your sources of information at minimum leads to group think and that is never good.

Dee, unfortunately I don’t have time to reply in depth now, but thanks for spelling out/justifying your assumptions more! I will point out that I clarified my Iraq biological weapons example not because I thought you can’t understand an analogy – remember, you think my intellect is weak; I don’t feel the same way about you – but rather because I thought it might be unclear. Not just for you, but for anyone else reading.
.
The real question is whether health care reform that doesn’t seriously address costs or many of the problems of the insured, but does help millions of people, will lead to more progressive reforms in the future or a backlash. It’s a legitimate question with no clear answer. What is clear is that there is something rotten about a political system which refuses to reflect public support for a public option. (Even now polls are about split on this, and that’s after a vicious campaign against the public option that has received very little opposition by major politicians or the media.)

The chief problem ruining this country and what is different about our society from any other time in history, is this propensity for creating two completely different sets of facts.
.
Dee, did you read Greenwald’s post on Pearlstein? That’s exactly Pearlstein’s problem: he is flip-flopping on empirical facts. About himself. Seriously, it’s quite extreme.
.
Plus, let’s not be too dramatic. Empirical facts have been and will continue to be debated. Slavery, imperialism, the rise of fascism – all the subjects of debates where people disagreed about empirical facts.

Thanks for the response Dee.

“Obama is at heart a consensus builder. That’s what community organizers do, they get a consensus in the community and make that consensus happen. Being a junior Senator, he didn’t have much chance to see exactly how obstructionist the Republicans would be when they were out of power.”
.
So no “conservative” thinks a Republican will vote for a bill and no liberal thinks a Republican will vote for a bill (we’ll leave out independents since they only seem to know which way the wind is blowing) but Barack Obama still thinks a Republican might vote for a bill. Sorry, even I know no Republican will vote for any bill (and I’ve never been a US Senator, not even a junior one) and community organizing doesn’t automatically make someone a political idiot (and unlikely one could be elected president, at least one with a (D) next to the name Barack Hussein Obama). I don’t think Obama is a Jedi, I just don’t think he’s a fool. I also think he’s making a monkey out of a lot of other people who don’t get why he’s pretending to be a fool for bi-partisanship.

I don’t think he’s a fool either Shep. I think he’s gotta at least pretend to keep reaching out even after he runs out of bloody stumps because that’s the game he said he’d play. You and I can make educated guesses about what’s going to happen here Shep, and odds are we’re on the same page. No Republican will vote for this thing. Period. But Obama STILL has to be the bigger man and at least try to get them to the table. I hate to bring race into this, but Obama can’t ever be seen as too partisan or angry pretty much ever. Do I think he goes into the White House gym and punches things? I’d even place a bet on that happening (beer or ale of your choice). It really is pretty much kabuki now, but with the recent Republican statements now he can at least express disappointment and not sound disingenuous. It sucks, but that’s the way the melanin goes in the good ol’ USA in 2009.

I think there are similar tactical considerations for the left. Unless the Left gets really mad about losing the public option and watering down health care reform in general, they don’t have leverage. Regardless of what the Left thinks about the merits of the current proposals vs. the status quo, it would be stupid to just accept that framing, quietly accept the WH stance on the public option, and hope Obama’s intentions are good and his tactics solid.
.
I do find it strange sometimes how people can simultaneously believe that Obama is playing an amazing game of chess and urge the Left to not play their part in that game.

“I think he’s gotta at least pretend to keep reaching out even after he runs out of bloody stumps because that’s the game he said he’d play.”
.
That is the only game in town.

On “Morning Joe”, MSNBC, of Aug 19, 2009:
“Question: Do you believe that this (HC) bill would set up death panels?
Steele(Chairman GOP): “It may or it may not. We don’t know.”

So, Mr. Steele, a citizen of the USA and the chairman of a major political party in USA, has not read the HC bill – which he talks often about and which is said to be one of the major bills to come around for a while.
And there he is, seeking to influence the peoples’ response to the bill.

Shouldn’t the good citizen Mr. Steele have found the time and interest to read the bill that is being debated in town halls all over the land and on which he comments?

Many irate, functionally-illiterate American couch-potatoes do state that they have read the bill. Then, should we expect Mr. Steele to have read it too – at least so that he can understand the source of the concern of – and offer expert guidance to – the members of his party?

In this matter, Mr. Steele provides no guidance. He has not read the bill and he confesses not to know what is in it. And he is quite free with his opinions on it.

There are some things we, the people, do not take lightly in our republic. Sedition for one. Treason for another. And there are those values and virtues that were dear to our forefathers and are dear to us.

Mr. Steele and Mrs. Palin demonstrate bad citizenship.

Our nationhood did not materialize easily: Many patriots died – so that we can stand tall and said, “We, the people”.
It is incumbent upon every citizen to be vigilant against those who may villify our republic or tarnish its good name or make us doubt what it is that is wholesome about our nation, our civilization, our participatory democracy and we, the people.
Our nation is not about ‘death panels’.

Did our valiant patriots die so as to set up death panels in our republic? Should we acquiesce to anyone besmirking our people and our country – to the core of who we are?

If a concerned citizen of our nation does not know what is in our bills, shouldn’t (s)he finds out?
And if he suspects that ‘death panels’ are to be set up, isn’t it incumbent upon him/her, as a good citizen in our free and open society, to find out – as a matter of urgency?
Has Steele or Palin done that?

Should we understand that if ‘death panels’ were in fact set up, then Mr. Steele would be as smug about it – with a devil-may-care, bemused expression on his face? Is he doing all he would do under such circumstances?

How much does he care about contributing to the effort to build a better future for our country – if he does not care to read and understand our bills?

Patriotism, obstructionism or criminal mischief?

Is it Mr Steele’s position that our elected members of Congress can and would set up death panels?
Is it then his position that a majority of Americans (who knowingly elected them) do support – or they are not unduly bothered by – the death panels?
Do Mr. Steele and Mrs Palin propose that most of our congressmen are Nazis, perhaps in sleeper cells, and those who elected them are Nazi sympathizers?

Or should we understand that the masses in USA are naive and quite unaware of the nefarious/evil intentions of those they elect?

How do ‘death panels’ mesh in with “liberty and pursuit of happiness” for ALL?

Perhaps according to Mr. Steele and Mrs. Palin, our elected officials pose a clear and present danger to the republic as we know it.
In which case, there are mechanisms in place to encourage Mr. Steele and Mrs. Palin to come forward and shed light on the nature of the threat.