I understand factoring political realities when making policy decisions, but this White House seems not to care a whit about what the realities are with respect to the challenges they face.  Why they didn't go for single payer - even as a bare minimum coverage program open to all - is well beyond me given their obsession with the politics of cost.

And Matt, how did we go from here to your new column anyway?

BTD: "In other words, Yglesias demonstrates his sociopathic indifference on health care reform when he insists on better subsidies for health care. ... We can play this game right down to the end when all health care reform ends up being is mandates. How a smart person could not see this is beyond me."

WARNING: Constructive criticism and friendly advice ahead.

"Sociopathic" is an awfully strong word, by which you run the risk of characterizing your differences of opinion with Matt Yglesias in somewhat inappropriate personal terms, thus inviting people to dismiss you as a crank.

Rather, you are making a mistake in assuming that he is indeed, "a smart person", i.e., equating his insufferable pseudo-analytical smugness with some sense of innate intelligence on his part.

And in that regard, you're merely engaging him on his own terms. You're not going to force him to change his tune with your sniper fire, because he'll just turn up his nose and politely ignore you, as those who consider themselves privileged D.C. wankers in the know are wont to do.

If you keep focusing on what the intellectually incestuous circle-jerkers of The Village are saying, you're going to drive yourself beyond mere distraction into the realm of "Yahoo! I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs!"

Far better that you instead make your own case, counselor. Why don't you instead turn your back on these Beltway Bozos, and ignore their cackling for a few days? Bide your time, and compile your own measured thoughts about health care reform in a manner that will instead knock them clean out of their shoes and socks.

Then, come back on your own terms and throw down the gauntlet. Given that the current parameters of the political debate preclude advocating for single-payer (well, for right now, anyway ...), you should state clearly, concisely and in some detail your argument for a public option and health insurance reform, and then keep re-stating it until those members of what the late, great Media Horse (MWO) called the "Cool Kids Club" finally feel compelled to respond to you, rather than perpetually vice versa.

If you can do that, I'd gladly take that argument and walk it right onto their home turf, call them out for the politically voguing posers that they are, and repeatedly post links to your alternative case on their own blogs and websites - and I'm sure a few others here would be willing to do the same.

As you've shown us ad nauseum of late, it's quite easy to turn the self-absorbed assertions of Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Charlie Cook, et al., back on them, and demonstrate that they're guilty of shallow thinking and superficial analysis.

I have every confidence that should you pour your heart and soul into developing your own argument for health care reform, they'd be very hard-pressed to do the same to you, particularly if you were to make your case in the level-headed, calculating and eminently logical manner that I know you're capable of presenting.

And that's how you'd become one of the go-to guys in this online debate, by boldly striding onto the opponents' field of play, confidently staking your claim to the moral and intellectual high ground on this issue, and then provocatively daring all comers to drive you from it.