Villagers Want Progressives To Push For Senate Health Bill

It takes some chutzpah for a Village blogger like Jon Cohn to insist that progressives clamor for the Senate health bill. Cohn writes:

I should probably reiterate what I've said before. Nobody--not the president and not the members of Congress--are going to move if progressives don't push for [the health bill]. That's where the real shove has to start.

Progressives have been marginalized and insulted throughout the process. Many, if not most, do not care for the Senate health bill. And now one of the people who did the marginalizing and insulting (one of the big proponents of the bill killing excise tax), insists progressives have to fight for the Senate health bill? Amazing.

More importantly, it is not going to happen. Unless someone is offering up a public option (which is not on the table of course), forget about progressives whipping for the passage of the Senate health bill. The Senate health bill is Jon Gruber's and Max Baucus' and Barack Obama's and the Villagers' baby. It is on them. You can't spend a year ridiculing, ignoring, and insulting progressives and then expect them to rally to YOUR cause.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Night Open Thread | GOP Health Insurance Voucher Plan Is Like The Excise Tax >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    John Cohn (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:22:04 AM EST
    better not hold his breath. I'm not that invested in a "win" for Obama. I wonder if HE can say the same thing?

    Cohn Fired Up? (none / 0) (#47)
    by norris morris on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:51:27 PM EST
    Amounts to his telling us Obama has finally become re energized. Yes!

    And he also quips that Obama hasn't done enugh yet to get Pelosi and Reid to move yet, etc.

    And believe it, he says you know Obama hasn't been pushy with the congress because he doesn't want to appear a bully.  Er.

    Did this guy ever hear of the Bully Pulpit and its benefits?

    But no matter what, he tells us we better let congress know what progressives want and push  the congress, as like it or not-  you know, we have no place else to go.

    This guy is nuts.


    I hear it every day, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    you have 'no place else to go.'

    That's the phrase that's worn more than a little bit thin.

    Where will all those thousands of enthusiastic volunteers come from in the next couple of  elections?

    I believe the Senate bill will harm not help Democratic Party prospects, that and the failure to move heaven and earth to increase employment.

    Could they have screwed their own rank and file constituency any more.  The excise tax won't win any union friends (Brown/Coakley anyone)and people who don't have and need health care insurance won't be happy about being forced to shell out for what may be nothing more than junk insurance.

    Insult your most ardent activists and screw your rank and file voting base.  Brilliant.

    And the answer ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    ... is to create some place to go, right?

    #1 If these times are like, say 1980 (John Anderson runs as an independent) then there's no place to go that can be created.

    #2 If these times are more like, say, the 1850s, then we might have better luck.

    I'm betting on whatever's behind door #2.


    Bloomberg (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 05:54:48 PM EST
    He is the only viable alternative in 2012.(Although I'm up for Howard Dean...I doubt he can get enough money or organization together..because he would be a real threat to corporate intersts...as was Hillary).  He has all the money he needs.  He's progressive on social issues.  And he gets things done.  I don't live in NYC (my daughter does) but I believe he has the will to get things accomplished. And he just hired Hillary's communication guy, Wolfson.  But I agree....we need a place to go...because right now, I think Obama may set the Democratic party back years.  His whole attitude is best understood in his preening about  bi partisanship.....There is no fight in this man.  He seems to think that since he has 50% approval, it's not his problem that the Senate is stymied.  It's very weird.  He seems utterly out of his depth in terms of wielding power and getting things done.  And he clearly is not intent on changing his MO.  All of this was apparent before the election.  Obama was bought and paid for by very powerful interests....did anyone hear him extolling the virtues of "clean coal," a non existent oxymoron?

    And biofuels too (none / 0) (#26)
    by observed on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:03:46 PM EST
    Go ADM!

    I understand that (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 01:29:42 AM EST
    ADM has a block of Obama stock.

    I hear that too (none / 0) (#38)
    by dainla on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    Everywhere I go.  Online, people I know.  Obama and company should know I've already gone.  I will support liberal candidates in primaries and general elections if they win but I will no longer vote for Democrats who are not liberal.

    There's no point.

    And I certainly won't fight for their crap legislation.

    They should have included us in their hideous process.  They didn't.  You reap what you sow.


    Where else can you go? (none / 0) (#43)
    by norris morris on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    I can go on to doing the right thing. Which is to object to a fraud of a bill that insults progressives  and deludes us into thinking that there is anything fair or worthwhile about this ragged piece of so called legislation.

    It insults and frustrates me further to think that Democrat heavies  can try to dictate  fear and psychological intimidation for the achievment and affirmation of a  lousy bill because I as a Democrat or progrssive Independent have no other choice.

    I have other choices. First there's my conscience and common sense that tells me this bill is BS.

    Then there's the matter of intellectual coersion which is repulsive.

     And as a woman I strenuously object to both House and Senate bills that discriminate against women and make end runs on RoevWade. That these cowardly Democrats would use my rights to determine how and what I do with my body for their political gain is revolting. And politically it's a loser.

    The next choice that I  have is to actively enter women's groups that fight for freedom of choice and equal protection and donate money to them instead of those who are eroding my rights and want me to...say Thank You.

     I believe many Democrats have become clueless in their desperation, and the power vacum left by Obama is painfully apparent as they flail about asking me to vote against my interests, and use ham handed coersive tactics.

    Their policies,behavior,and attitudes have not varied very much from the Republicans.

    Unless someone starts using the bully pulpit and doing some leading I'll continue to think of my next moves.


    The villagers' demands are totally (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by esmense on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:51:34 AM EST
    illogical -- and based in their conviction that Republicans are the "true" majority (Democrats hold the majority by fluke, progressives are outside "the mainstream").

    Why do progressives have to push to pass the conservatives' bill? If, as the villagers contantly asserts, the bill genuinely reflects political reality -- what is politically "possible" -- why can't it pass without progressives? (And, I might add, without progressives betraying the people they represent?)
    If conservative Democrats and their constituents represent majority opinion on the issue, where is their majority?

    Apparently, the villagers see that majority as being on the other side of the aisle. But, what if that side of the aisle doesn't want to have anything to do with the bill? Or, with publicly supported expanded coverage to the uninsured? Or, with greater assurances of coverage for the already insured? Cost savings? More affordable options for small business and the uninsured self-employed?

    Why, it's progressives' job to step in and vote in their place for a bill the village is sure they and their constituents WOULD support if it wasn't tactically in their best interest to oppose it.

    The reality is this; if conservative Senate Democrats actually want those things (expanded, more affordable and more reliable coverage, cost savings, etc), they are going to have to make their deals with, and compromise with, the only people who actually share those goals; the progressives.

    They can't just demand that progressives support measures they don't believe in and that don't represent the best interests of their constituents simply because conservative Democrats' fellow conservatives on the other side of the aisle refuse to.

    And yet, that is exactly what they are insisting on.

    You nailed it (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    They can't just demand that progressives support measures they don't believe in and that don't represent the best interests of their constituents simply because conservative Democrats' fellow conservatives on the other side of the aisle refuse to.

    To Cohn: Live by the conservadems and hopeful compromises with the right, die by them. You are on your own.


    Second that (none / 0) (#22)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 05:57:48 PM EST
    Our interests are progressives' interests (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Lora on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    Progressives have been marginalized and insulted throughout the process.

    As have all of us --- all of us who depend on health insurance and who might well become bankrupt without it, and who might possibly become bankrupt even with it.

    Or dead.

    Marganalized and Patronized (none / 0) (#44)
    by norris morris on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:41:11 PM EST
    As a woman I've been asked to forget about the rights I have under the constitution, RoevWade,  equal protection,& freedom of choice and privacy.

    Who are these jokers that call themselves Democrats?  What kind of a party runs on without leadership,policy, or strategy & that protects the most conservative among them just like  the GOP's fondest dreams for women?

    The Democratic majority in both House and Senate [almost] still whines about Republican obstruction?  Duh. This is a political given. But without a cohesive political policy movement there has been nothing to strategize and no help from Obama to lead the way. Or fight.

    So a party with the majority is in disarray. Their bad behavior along with Obama no behavior has brought them to this.  And while we've been marganalized and patronized we are supposed to vote their miserable bill into law because we have no other options?

    The arrogance and ignorance is mind boggling.


    IMO the people who drove the (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Senate bill should push for passage.

    I'm one of those "imbecile liberals" who the Democratic party has stated over and over again is not really part of the Democratic base. The Democratic Party has chosen not to listen to my requests on issues that I support. Why should I waste my time contacting Congress on a bill that I do not support?

    The Senate bill was written by the industries,  the conservative Dems and Republicans. Let them and their supporters push for passage.    

    Ok, I'll push for it (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by goldberry on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    I'm a liberal, not a progressive though.  So, the bill is going to have to eliminate any stupid restrictions on abortion coverage, eliminate the excise tax, boost taxes on Americans making $250K/year, regulate insurance companies, set limits on prices for doctor's visits and procedures, set limits on what hospitals can charge, promote competition between insurance companies, fix the FDA, and fix the pharmaceutical industry (that should be a whole effort all on its own).
    Then, I'll support it enthusiastically.  If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?  
    Get to it and rewrite the bills and I'll bug my congresscritters.  No fix, no calls.

    Something tells me the Villagers, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 03:53:55 PM EST
    having delivered up their best stuff (man, how pitiful is that?) in an attempt to Win One For Obama, by cheering on an opaque and craven process and then pushing the Piece O'Cr@p bill that came out of the process, are now beginning to realize that it didn't work - we saw through it (how ironic is it that?) - and they are now feeling a cold breeze nipping at their exposed a$$es.

    Let's all pause for a moment to consider that image...yeah, I kind of enjoy it, too!

    If this were a case of Senate legislation reaching via a different process the same goals that liberals and single-payer supporters were advocating for, I would say that it was time to suck it up and support the legislation, but that's not what has happened.

    Sorry, Villagers; you're just going to have to deal with being exposed for having led the cheers for legislation that was never, ever designed to help the people who needed and deserved the help.

    Time for the Villagers to suck it up; wonder what the over/under is on when that will happen?

    The Villagers (none / 0) (#19)
    by Zorba on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    are so concerned with their "Inside the Beltway" access, and their firm beliefs that they are the recipients of the "Divinely Revealed Wisdom" (as well as the interpreters of same for the rest of us, who are obviously not endowed with their amazing powers) that they will never be able to come to the realization that what they have been hyping is a whole load of moon-dust.  Or, as we would say up here on the mountain- pasture puckey.  They don't get it, and they will never get it.  

    It's not idealogy, it's the wimp factor (none / 0) (#31)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    These village bloggers are bought and paid for by someone....Just as the progressives and academic/liberal elite were by and large suckered by the brilliant marketing campaign/presidential campaign (plus dirty tricks)and aided by the corporate media, the leaders thought these gullible liberals/progressives could be suckered on the wimp/limp policies as well. They'd support this Senate health bill because they had no choice.  I guess they thought the backlash was manageable.  Mass. should have been a wake up call.  Actually, Virginia and New Jersey should have been wake up calls.   The problem is that the wimp narrative crosses all lines party or otherwise, and is more damaging across the board.  Progressives cannot now align themselves with wimp policies and wimp process.  They should take a hard line with the Democratic leadership and Obama, and the Villagers and call them out on a constant basis.  Like Franken started to.    

    Sprinkling Moon Dust (none / 0) (#45)
    by norris morris on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    Twinkle twinkle little star.

    The galaxy that the Senate belongs to as they sprinkle the moon dust mentioned by a previous blogger here is  far away on the dark side of the cosmos.

    They actually want me to vote against my interests.  

    They tell me that I have no choice except to join them in their Black Hole.

    But on Earth I still have choices.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#3)
    by kempis on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:51:08 AM EST

    And single payer advocates... (none / 0) (#7)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    ... were marginalized and insulted by everybody, from Obama on down to the "progressive" access bloggers.

    Funny, the workings of karma. At least if they'd been advocating for good policy, we'd have done necessary education for the next round. As of now, we got nuthin. But ponies, of course. Always the ponies!

    Everybody is a bit of hyperbole (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    lambert. There are plenty of progressives and liberals who are quite supportive of single payer advocates even if they didn't entirely agree with the concept. I certainly felt more closely aligned with your position then the Senate Dems although I would today still support a public option that encompasses at the very minimum 10% of the population.

    Stop insulting Lambert (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#16)
    by goldberry on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    You're being facetious, right?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#25)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    What insult?

    It was a tongue in cheek comment (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:25:21 PM EST
    You also should understand that support should work both ways Lambert. You can't expect to chastise those that supported a public option for supporting that option in the ways that you often have and then be surprised that they aren't going out of their way to be your biggest cheerleader.

    I understand some of your criticism towards the public option was that it was not well defined(and I would agree by the way) That would have been far more succint then calling people names for supporting a public option or acting like you are happy that they were cut out of the debate(because Nancy Pelosi took the option you wanted off the table from the get go).

    My biggest complaint was that the public option and single payer didn't work well together even though their goals were pretty tandem. It should have been acknowledged by public option people that Medicare has been successful in negotiating cost and that it is a popular program and it should have been acknowledged by single payer that even though it appeared that public option folk seemed to be trying to reinvent the wheel that if a government plan that covered a large enough portion to cover a similar percentile to Medicare then who cares if its name isn't officially Medicare.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#39)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 07:21:08 PM EST
    Single payer delivers better health care outcomes at half  the per capita cost. The French, for example, had per capita costs of $3601, vs. out $7290, and live two years longer -- and that's after the smoking, the wine, and the butter.

    If somebody more powerful and savvy than I am wants to take the credit for advocating and implementing a policy that's so clearly superior, and will save a lot of lives and a lot of money, then have at it, say I! I'm not proud.

    So, I'm not asking anybody to be my cheerleader. Why one earth would you imagine I was?

    And to be clear, I could care less if any blogger insults me, or thinks they do. I do care when the President does, and when the press, the Dems, and the high traffic bloggers suppress the policy option.

    * * *

    When you say "public option," what do you mean? The original Hacker Medicare-style idea with 130 million enrollees, or the one that finally emerged from the House, with 10 million? The concept has seemed elastic, to say the least...


    What I mean (none / 0) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:41:15 PM EST
    I want a plan that covers at least 10% of the population and I want it to be federally controlled. I do not want it limited to the poor. Why 10%? That is the percentage that Medicare has and it seems to allow them to be able to negotiate prices. Why federal? Medicaid is a mess in some states and great in others. I want federal standards that ensure that the people in Florida have the same quality of care as the people in Vermont. Why do I want something not means tested? I want something that is going to survive a Republican majority. I want something as difficult to uncreate as Social Security. I want something that people don't call "welfare" and that has no stigma attached to it. I don't want another political football for the Democrats and Republicans to be able to demagogue and punt like minimum wage or SCHIP.

    How do I want to pay for it? I want to tax the wealthiest among us. The top 5% own over 50% of the wealth in this country. The bottom 80% own 15% and if you look at financial(instead of overall which includes property) wealth the numbers are worse. I think the people at the top making over 300 times what the average American makes can afford to finance the health of Americans.

    Hope this clarifies things for you.


    The difference, as I see it, between (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    the single-payer proponents and the public option proponents, was that the PO was never much more than a tag line/catch phrase/bumper sticker; the vast majority of people who were flinging that term around couldn't tell you what it meant - but believed the "public" part of it made it worth supporting.  How can you claim their aims were in tandem when one element - the PO element - had no shape or form or definition?

    Single-payer, on the other hand, is not just an idea - it's very real; not only can we point to Medicare in this country, but we can look at most of the industrialized nations and see single-payer at work, successfully.

    It's my belief that if the public option folks had spent some time defining what it was they wanted from such a thing, instead of just whipping the phrase and using it to raise money and drive traffic, they would have had a head-thumping "V-8" moment when it finally dawned on them that the best public option was single payer.

    If lambert and others did not throw their lot in with the public option/FDL-driven folks, it might have been because they didn't want to give up on something real for something that wasn't.  Or that they didn't want to settle for something amorphous when there was something concrete already in existence.

    I can't blame the single payer people for not trusting the public option campaign, and I do fault the public option people for falling prey to a marketing campaign that had as much substance as cotton candy.


    First off (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:13:56 PM EST
    Not everyone who supported a public option had some "pie in the sky" vision of what that plan would look like. Furthermore, while Medicare is a very popular plan I think it would have been quite difficult to prove it was sustainable particularly when we are looking at it going bust(and yes I understand the concept of pooling risk however we are not talking about me, we're talking about what I believe the average American will weigh during a debate on the practicality of a Medicare for All plan).

    Furthermore a single payer system would have meant uprooting people from plans they already
    had. Also not particularly popular by the way. Most people that are fortunate enough to have insurance are quite happy with their plans. Telling them they were not going to be allowed to choose t keep them in my opinion would be a strategic mistake particularly when it would probably be n the best interest of a financial budget to phase something like single payer in.

    As you can see I actually put thought into my plans and your commentary that "if people like myself had spent more time defining what it meant instead of whipping around the phrase" isn't the least bit accurate.

    Furthermore, feel free to feel superior for your support for a single payer plan but know that while you are arguing for purity that Medicare for All at this point is just as "real" as a public option. Unfortunately that means people like my sister will continue to get the short end of the stick on health care and I see the single payer folks with their own apportionment of blame on that because they felt it was more important to "lord over" the superiority of their position then actually shape a public option.


    It maybe quite true that some people (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    had quite a defined vision what a public option should look like, but the problem is that that definition seemed to have been on "mute" as far as both the A-list blogs and the mainstream media were concerned.

    As for the "going bust" meme on Medicare, that strikes me as verging on GOP-style talking points, and does not take into consideration the effect of expanding the program to include a younger, healthier pool.

    Uprooting people from insurance plans they like seems like a small problem once you tell them they are likely to have better coverage for less cost under a single-payer plan; I don't know of anyone who would fight to continue to pay more for the opportunity to stick with a plan that would only continue to get more expensive, and would look to reduce coverage or increase cost-sharing in order to "contain" costs.

    As for your "feel free to feel superior" comment - are you kidding me?  Is believing that single-payer is, in fact, superior something I should feel bad about?  Given that I am paying almost $9,000/yr for my health insurance, this is not an academic exercise for me - it's an economic one.  And I fail to see how advocating for a better plan is hurting people like your sister - or my daughter, for that matter, who at the age of 26 has to be insured by the state's high risk plan because she had endometriosis, and is on medication for anxiety disorder.  I want them to have the same coverage as everyone else - coverage similar to that enjoyed by people who live in other industrialized nations.

    It can be done, and I am tired of people just assuming it's too hard to do it here when we know that it isn't.  Ask someone who's turning 65 how hard it is to enroll in Medicare, and how much resistance there is to it, and then let's chat again.

    This isn't about purity and it certainly isn't about "lording it over" anyone; the A-list blogs did a huge disservice to the whole process by almost immediately giving up on the idea of single-payer - maybe if they hadn't, if the voices could have been louder, we wouldn't be looking at a craptastic piece of legislation that is being touted as "the best we could do."

    I won't accept that, and neither should you.


    I don't have to ask (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    My mother will be 65 in 4 years. She's already had 2 strokes and a heart attack and has COPD. We are already looking at what will need to be done to take care of her. I have a neighbor who last year when diagnosed with diabetes I helped to navigate the system for part D(her insulin alone was $300) My sister is supposed to be on Medicaid(surprise though when she found out she had kidney stones she also found out that she got tossed off the rolls).
    Furthermore, I and my husband are both veteransand my field was hospital corpsman/pharmacy technician(so yes we are well aware of bureaucratic red tape)

    The idea that I live in some bubble and have no idea of what a federal health care system entails simply isn't true. In fact, I've had some sort of experience with just about every single form of a federal health care system(Tricare, VA, Medicaid through sis and a neighbor, Medicare through neighbor and looking into what will need to be done if mom were to have to retire for medical reasons). I have also had dealing with private insurance both through this employer and my husbands previous employer and through talking with neighbors. I think I have a decent grasp of it too.

    As for an apology, I don't expect anyone to apologize for their opinions. At the same time I don't expect people to belittle my own simply because they don't agree with them(and in your case I did not see this as belittling I saw it as dialogue.) However, I have been reading about the ridiculousness of anyone who supports a (and Lambert ought to consider trademarking this)[a|the][strong|robust|triggered]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan] for months. I recognize Lambert is passionate in his belief and I respect him for it. My criticism is not meant to be mean. My criticism is meant to make him aware that how he and the movement he seeks to move forward are better served without the hyperbole. There are plenty in the liberal/progressive blogosphere that have felt single payer advocates should have been allowed their chance to present the facts and debate the merits of their plan. It does him and the movement no good to (some of which like myself felt that a defined and robust public option would be a better route)to put their fingers in their ears and insist that anyone advocating for anything less than single payer wasn't serious about reform.


    Feh (none / 0) (#23)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    1. Obama on the "little single payer advocates";

    2. White House censorship;

    3. Adminstration exclusion from policy;

    4. High-traffic blogger derision.

    As far as "plenty of progressives and liberals": No doubt. Not that "supportive" translated into, say, actual coverage on the high traffic blogs....

    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:37:39 PM EST
    I admire what you have done on health care but how is what they did any different then you making statements like this on your own site.

    "Once you accept the "public option" frame, it's "goodnight, nurse!" for real health-insurance reform."

    You marginalized them as much as they marginalized you.
    If you want dialogue or support the best way to get access to it is not to go out the gate criticizing someone who may not have the exact same vision as you do.

    There are strong arguments for a single payer system. There were also equally strong arguments for a well defined public option that covered a good portion of the population. The problem wasn't in my opinion the actual public option as much as it was that no one ever put parameters into place defining what an acceptable public otion would look like. Likewise the public option people were foolish to reject out of hand a very popular prograqm that actually had success in negotiating costs and should have fought to get you that seat at the table.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#41)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    "You marginalized them as much as they marginalized you"

    What an... interesting example of historical revisionism!

    1. Our low traffic C list blog started posting on single payer pretty much daily in summer 2008, and we've kept up that pace pretty much since then.

    2. Our low traffic C list blog also covered the slow collapse of [a|the] [strong|robust|triggered]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan] regularly. Tendentiously, to be sure, but we covered it.

    3. Meanwhile, front page (that is, blog owner-determined) coverage of single payer at high traffic A list blogs has been virtually nil from that day to this. FDL even went so far as to give an HCAN's staffer a "silo," where he proceeded to write a "Health Care News" column that regularly suppressed single payer coverage.

    So, you are free to equate one C list blog that covered both sides of health care policy with all A list blogs who covered one side. Nobody's stopping you. Forgive me if I find your revisionism less than persuasive.

    It's not revisionism at all (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    I actually picked one of your kinder moments my friend. I have pretty thick skin so it didn't bother me a bit that you ridiculed me for believing in a robust public option(and yes I knew exactly how robust I wanted it to be acceptable for me to support it thank you very much) however I can see how being abrasive and ridiculing someone because you disagree with them would cut off dialogue and not sway people one whit.

    "Gee, if William Lloyd Garrison ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by lambert on Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    ... hadn't been so darn abrasive..."

    Oh, forget it. Censorship breeds abrasion. Can I get a link to where you supported that single payer advocates get a set at the table, since President Obama was all for that?  Otherwise... The mirror is over there, my friend.


    Also... (none / 0) (#58)
    by lambert on Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    ... it's not a question of what you -- one individual -- advocated as "robust."

    It's a question of what the entire so-called "public option" crowd wanted, which was an ever-shifting and ill-defined target, entirely deserving of ridicule. It's not surprising that there are HCAN members who feel betrayed by their leadership.


    Just because Bowers insulted you (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    does not mean everyone did.

    I certainly didn't.


    No, you didn't (none / 0) (#24)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 05:59:08 PM EST
    Didn't say you did!

    You've seen (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 01:37:27 AM EST
    your pony?

    I haven't seen my pony.


    I'm still waiting for my pony! (none / 0) (#56)
    by allimom99 on Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    And (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 12:34:21 PM EST
    And conversely, I think the Village should push for single payer....

    They should have from (none / 0) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 12:39:40 PM EST
    the get go at the minimum supported single payers having a seat at the table. Instead their peculiar strategy appears to be to whine incessantly that even though they threw single payer and public option advocates out of the process and declared their wants unimportant and negotiable that we should be advocating for them. Color me unimpressed.

    The senate bill (none / 0) (#20)
    by Watermark on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    is not passing without a reconcilliation sidecar.

    villagers must reveal their conflicts of interest (none / 0) (#27)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    Shouldn't we be pushing for transparency with regard to the blogosphere?  The Villagers have an agenda...Shouldn't we start insisting that village bloggers reveal all sources of income?  Maybe then we could discern why they write what they write. Because clearly they have an agenda. Many are propagandists.  So how do we uncover the conflicts and even the playing field? Maybe that is where we should start... with accountability.  BTD is one of the few who tries to keep them accountable.  The Villagers need to be accountable and need to be revealed for the shills that they often are.

    I don't think that's relevant. (none / 0) (#29)
    by observed on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    In my opinion, once journalists start making lots of money, they become more likely to become pro status quo.
    Also, when they have no personal stake in issues such as HCR, they get too lazy to find the truth and just take whatever is handed them.

    Scotty Reston is definitely resting in peace, looking down at today's crop of journalists and village bloggers and media talking heads.


    Compare them with BTD: (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:11:27 PM EST
    BTD is rich as Croesus, but because his income doesn't depend on blogging, he says whatever he wants.
    People self-censor just by seeing the buttered side of their colleagues' bread.

    Journalists are not what they are (none / 0) (#33)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:35:29 PM EST
    In fact, they have the degrees from the good schools but journalism is not what they are practicing.  Isn't it strange that we never have all the facts?  Isn't it strange that few have gone into the legislation in depth? Instead, we have repeated to us over and over the talking points.  I come here because BTD plays it straight, and actually analyzes policy in a logical manner.   But since intellectual honesty was lacking in the primaries from these people, why should we be surprised when the same tactics are employed for policy?  Transparency is important. And what we read is hardly journalism.  Especially in these recessionary times, few people will stick to their principles if their salary depends on towing the line.

    Well, I doubt there is straight (none / 0) (#34)
    by observed on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:36:42 PM EST
    up quid pro quo. I think it's more a matter of logrolling.

    Did anyone see Lanny Davis (none / 0) (#36)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:47:00 PM EST
    being questioned by Jane Hamsher some time back on Rachel?  He was for the Senate bill...on TV...to support the Democrats....but when questioned by Jane as to his being a lobbyist for the drug companies, he couldn't deny it. He worked for a law firm that represented several major drug companies and lobbyed congress. However, when any of these talking heads go on TV, they never have to disclose the truth about who they work for and why.  So shouldn't we question why the Democrats have Lanny Davis speaking for them on health policy?  What does that say about this administration?  About the media?  I bet they limit Jane on TV time because on this one show, she demolished Lanny.

    Right, but he's not a blogger. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by observed on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:54:17 PM EST
    I don't think Ezra is on the take, or Matt.
    They just have figured out the value of being an insider.

    guesses and wishes are worth what?See DailyHowler (none / 0) (#40)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    The bottom line is that we don't have all of the facts about them, do we?  They were participants in the primaries....so were they intellectually honest then?  Ezra at least is more of a journalist. Again, I highly recommend DailyHowler.com    Friday's column was right on point.  Highly worth the read.  Plus it mentions Ezra. More importantly, it demonstrates with facts how the Villagers and MSM are making up narratives that will lead to the defeat of Democrats.  And there is no push back by progressive Dems.  Because the media is controlled and because many "progressives" writing are shills.
    And why isn't the White House concerned about pushing back?  Just like Obama's comment about the Democrats in Congress answering to the voters about health care, even though it was he who engineered the Baucus fiasco.  Obama could care less that Democrats lose in 2010.  Isn't that strange?  Isn't the narrative he is pushing counterproductive?

    Villager Money Management (none / 0) (#46)
    by norris morris on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:20:09 PM EST
    It would be nice to know who these people really are. Where and how they make their money?

    They are the equivalent of blogger trolls.

    They apply pressure and propoganda. Who is paying them and where do they belong in the political spectrum?

    I say Space.


    How about (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 01:42:43 AM EST
    transparency regarding broadcast and print Villagers and elected officials and party bigshots whose family members are also lobbyists.

    By comparison the bloggers are of little concern.


    dailyhowler.com (none / 0) (#28)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 06:05:58 PM EST
    does a good job of it but I don't see many bloggers citing him lately.