The Pom Pom Brigade

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:17:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The embarrassing display from the Pom Pom Brigade (the Village blogs) continues. Here is Matt Yglesias disingenuously citing PUBLIC OPINION to support his drive to drop the public option:

[A]n interesting item from the NYT points out that this popularity masks something of an underlying indifference: ["]Two weeks ago, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked respondents the main reason they either supported or opposed the health care bills. Among supporters, only 2 percent cited the public option. Among opponents, only 3 percent did so. [...]

[. . .] I think this is a pretty rare instance of the broad public actually being closer to the mark than political activists. [. . .] At this point, the most important question determining the quality of the health insurance options that will be available to Americans in the future probably has to do with the design and implementation of insurance exchanges.

More. . .

What Yglesias fails to tell us is what precisely the public thinks about these all important exchanges. There is a reason for this - the public has never heard of the exchanges. I think it is fine to think the exchanges are the "most important question." I disagree. But it is truly embarrassing disingenuity to claim the public is with you on this when in fact they have never even heard of the exchanges. The Pom Pom Brigade is embarrassing itself with its behavior. David Brooks appears to be their North Star now.

Speaking for me only

< Against The Excise Tax | Village Catnip >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

The Pom Pom Brigade | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yglesias seriously underestimates Congress (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MO Blue on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 11:32:36 AM EST

They are most likely to not only eliminate the public ouption but also adopt the Senate's state by state exchanges with this result.

Do it the Senate's way and residents of many states are going to end up with pretty lousy insurance, with the regulatory bodies mostly run by insurance companies.

How can the public tell what they (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Anne on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 12:43:42 PM EST

think about the exchanges when they don't know what they are, how they will work and whether or if they are eligible? It's about as nonsensical as all the "whipping" for "the" public option before anyone even knew what that meant.

Yglesias is, like most of the PPB, obsessed with insurance, not care - still convinced, I guess, that the answer to all of our health care woes is making sure we all have our very own, bright and shiny policy. He's still, like so many of his fellow cheerleaders, working overtime to avoid seeing that insurance has been the barrier to affordable health care, and the driver of costs, and is not now and will not be in the-future-as-Yglesias-sees-it, the vehicle by which affordable care is delivered to those who need it.

My biggest fear, after seeing just how badly the Congress has managed the issue, is that the end result of this so-called reform effort will be a disaster, the proportions of which will threaten whatever existing, and workable, systems currently exist.

Well (none / 0) (#1)
by lilburro on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:31:10 AM EST

this is the guy that wrote "Who Needs a Public Option?," the headline of which is: "Even without it, health care would be the greatest piece of liberal legislation in years."

If somebody wants to be a slave to the insurance industry, be my guest (unless that is, you are a Congresscritter). The only progressive thing I see about the bill though is the establishment of the public option. It is the only true guarantee of some government protection in the healthcare market.

And anyway, Yglesias' statistics still suggest people want the public option. You are right BTD - nobody talks about the exchanges, except the Village bloggers who are convinced they will work so well. Even though Ezra blogged a while ago about some discouraging studies of the success of the exchange.

: Oops - addition (none / 0) (#2)
by lilburro on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:32:58 AM EST

and another hypocrisy is that these bloggers push for the exchanges, although they will be as Ezra says in the link above, "very limited"...gasp!...just like THE PUBLIC OPTION. The primary reason Village bloggers don't care about the public option is that it will be "very limited." So what is the deal here? Obviously both camps believe in the "nose under the tent" theory. It's just that one camp is conservative and market-oriented, and the other is actually progressive.

Ich auch! (none / 0) (#3)
by Doc Rock on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 11:20:53 AM EST

. . . y yo tambien!

Mucho billing for "creative class" ... (none / 0) (#6)
by lambert on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 03:16:00 PM EST

... consultants, designing those exchanges, fer sure. Along with the "wellness incentives," and so forth. This quote is great:

At this point, the most important question determining the quality of the health insurance options that will be available to Americans in the future probably has to do with the design and implementation of insurance exchanges.

Meaning: We have no proof at all that our solution works. But not to worry! We're going to make guinea pigs out of the American people!