McDonald backs single-payer health insurance

Say what? (0.00 / 0)

"If Germant plays it cool, and doesn't endorse single-payer health care ... "

Then Tyler Germant would be a hack.  I'm tired of candidates who won't take a principled stand.

I applaud McDonald's announcement.  There are a lot of folks in Missoula who are waiting to see who the real progressive is in the Demo primary (and the best one to challenge Rehberg in the general).

---

by: pete talbot @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 21:58:29 PM CDT

There are reasons not to favor single-payer... (0.00 / 0)

...that have nothing to do with "hackdom."

Single-payer may not even be the best way to go in the present economy/political climate.  

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:59:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Way to lead ... (1.33 / 3)

Good Democrat ... Good Democrat. Here's a bone.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 13:48:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you know... (0.00 / 0)

...besides being at times painfully simplistic, you can be very rude.

Tell me, Mr. T, exactly how would you implement single-payer health care? I'd like to see details on the plan, its funding, and your strategy for pushing it through Congress.

Frankly, at this point, you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, which only turns people off. So, by my count, you're actually moving backwards. Bravo!

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:14:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll admit to being painful ... (4.00 / 1)

But not simplistic. Rude? Yeah - I do have a problem with Democrats who don't know how to fight for what they want. I say so. I'm painfully rude.

Let's be frank: With people like you and Matt in charge, we're not going to get single payer. You don't want it, you haven't fought for it. With people like Max in leadership, we're not even going to get a public plan. He's not on our side.

So why do you demand from me how I would achieve single payer, as if you and I even wanted the same thing? I have been very clear from the beginning - you only get what you fight for. Your unwillingness to fight for what you want is killing us. And look at "Dimone" below, who isn't even willing to say in public what he wants for fear of a Republican response. My kingdom for a set of Democratic balls.

You do not fight for what you want by starting out offering to compromise. It's weak. Strong people take advantage of weak people, and they will take advantage of you. You must fight for the things you want. You started out by giving up. That's disgraceful.

Compromise comes at the end of negotiations, not the beginning.

Rude, indeed. How about being impenetrable?

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:09:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Compromise needn't come at all. (0.00 / 0)

If you knew the first thing about negotiation, you'd understand that.  It needn't come at the end, it needn't come at the beginning.  It isn't necessary at all, except to you.

Mark, I haven't the time or energy to look up your various wailings, but you held single payer up as a bargaining chip.  You defended it vociferously, as a bargaining chip.  You support it ... as a bargaining chip.  And here, you have the gall to admonish Jay:

I have been very clear from the beginning - you only get what you fight for.

...

You do not fight for what you want by starting out offering to compromise. It's weak. Strong people take advantage of weak people, and they will take advantage of you. You must fight for the things you want. (I) (corrected for accuracy - W) started out by giving up. That's disgraceful.

You are getting sadly hypocritical in your zeal to indict others.  And that's the most painfully rude thing of all.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:31:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There you go again ... (4.00 / 1)

You first have to know your enemy. You obviously don't.  

Your professional understanding of the negotiation process just befuddle me! I am such a rube! Why could I not see! Yes - of course! You start by giving up!" You play nice! That way, the politicians will give you the things you want. Because you were nice!

At least you didn't logic101 me this time.

Baucus dropped the ball, and had to step aside. We who 'get' him exposed him for (most) to see. He had a simple plan - he was going to subsidize the insurance industry and use the IRS to force us to buy their crappy products. If only we would work with him!!!

So Obama has stepped in, but if Rahm Emanuel is to be believed, Obama too is screwing with us. He told Senators that a public option was not important to Obama, who now says that he is also unwilling to use reconciliation. That means that he is consciously opting not to use the power he possesses. I'm not skilled at negotiation like you are, but that smells to me like a huge sellout is in the works.

But I dunno Wulfy - I'm just a rube. I want you to negotiate for me. Start by reading this..  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 19:22:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mark, I never called you a rube (0.00 / 0)

But you are being willfully stupid:

Your professional understanding of the negotiation process just befuddle me! I am such a rube! Why could I not see! Yes - of course! You start by giving up!" You play nice! That way, the politicians will give you the things you want. Because you were nice!

Me?  An advocate of playing nice?  What fucking planet do you live on, and how did you get to Earth from so many light years away?  You are the one who has advocated an untenable position as a bargaining tool, not me.  If politicians are going to screw us over, then that's what's going to happen.  But it won't have jack shit to do with anything I've written.  You, on the other hand, are a poster child for the opposition.  Well done sir!  (Golf Clap)

---

by: Wulfgar @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 19:35:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There you go again... (0.00 / 0)

BTW, I'm not Baucus. And if you think I'm 100% behind his efforts on this issue, you haven't read this blog.

Saying we "need to fight" is a cute phrase that achieves...nothing. You don't even know what you mean by "fight." Say mean things on a blog? It's also the underpants gnome method of getting health care reform. "Fight" + ??? = single-payer health care!

You want me to support your ideas? Show me a plan. Show me a means to your end. Show me your infrastructure, the volunteers you have to knock on doors. Show me the list of Congress critturs who'll support you. Show me your legions of people begging for single-payer health care. Make some sense. Give me a practical blueprint to success. If your way is better, I'm all ears.

Meanwhile I could really use a public health insurance option that's portable and affordable and that doesn't discriminate against pre-existing conditions or based on age or gender.

BTW, I'm thrilled McDonald has come out in support of single-payer health care.  

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:51:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am doing all one person can do ... (4.00 / 1)

I have joined the various groups fighting for single payer, and contributed $$$. I have written to both Tester and Baucus (but not Rehberg, as that would be a bigger waste of time than Baucus.) People like me all over the country are calling our representatives and writing letters to the editor. I write stuff on my blog, but frankly, blogs don't matter much. I get that. I do this because I like doing it.

But - and I saw this in the 90's - Democrats presume that because Democrats are in power, good things will follow. That's not how American politics works - we have two business parties financed by the same people. One is unreachable, and should be ignored. But the other can he held to a higher standard, if only because we can hammer them with their own words.

That's how that works. Democrats have to say certain things to get elected. Power understands that and lets them run on, but expects that they will behave themselves once elected. Our job is to undermine them, castigate them, expose them. Only then will they behave in a way we like.

There are good Democrats, by the way. Maybe a hundred total in both houses. I'm not blind to that.

But you seem blind to the fact that politics is about hurting people in office - if you can't hurt them, they won't listen to you. You want to cooperate, to compromise and be reasonable. You will, in the end, have your hat handed you.

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:54:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mark, (4.00 / 1)

Your effort 'round these parts doesn't appear to be applied to hurting people in office as much as hurting your hosts.  Blogs don't matter much, so why put so very much effort into being a dick at this one?

---

by: Wulfgar @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:59:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You don't read so good ... (4.00 / 1)

And don't you ever - ever! castigate me for being a dick. Do you think I don't know who is lecturing me? You're Wulfgar, a cat that scratches and draws blood when cornered, breaking out in Tourettes when it gets tough. Please.

This is a Democratic blog - it says so on the banner. Democrats are the problem, and so I come here and say things like "Democrats are the problem". I suppose, if I were anyone else, I'd just go and complain about Denny Rehberg, like that does any good. But my preference is deal directly with the problem.

And since Democrats profess high ideals, Democrats have to tolerate me. (Actually, I'm a non-person - pretty cool - no?)

Me no banned yet anyway. Democrats need to be hoisted by their own petards. That's the only way to deal with them.

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 19:30:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Told You (4.00 / 1)

And don't you ever - ever! castigate me for being a dick.

I don't follow your orders.  Get used to it.

This is a Democratic blog - it says so on the banner. Democrats are the problem, and so I come here and say things like "Democrats are the problem". I suppose, if I were anyone else, I'd just go and complain about Denny Rehberg, like that does any good. But my preference is deal directly with the problem.

What a coward.  You aren't attacking Democrats here specifically.  You're attacking the bloggers, because they identify with Democrats.  Instead of persuading, you behave as a good Naderite.  You attack friendlies because you haven't the balls to actually go after enemies.  Attacking enemies is pointless, right?  But pissing on friendlies makes you feel so powerful, because all they want is to agree with you.  But no, you want worship.  That makes it personal, and establishes you as a dick.  

And since Democrats profess high ideals, Democrats have to tolerate me.

How many examples of wingnuts doing the same shit do I need to post before you recognize your own inclusion in their clan?  You make a pathetic and weak argument for hypocrisy and use it to mask your own cowardice.

In case you haven't noticed, we're tired of your self-promoting shit, Mark.  You have no high ground on which to stake your righteousness.  You don't know more than others; you just assume that you do.  You don't believe more than others, you're just more whacked out about your beliefs.

Be careful now, them black helicopters will be coming for you any day ...  

---

by: Wulfgar @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 19:56:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying Tyler is a hack ... (0.00 / 0)

But McDonald took a strong, principled stand on an extremely important issue.  The ball is now in Tyler's court.  I'm waiting for his response.

And Jay, I see you're following the Max Baucus thought process: single payer, bad; Republican/health care industry equivocating, good.    

---

by: pete talbot @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 14:18:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

??? (0.00 / 0)

Where did I say single-payer was bad?

I'm saying it ain't going to happen. Remember, most of the other single-payer efforts occurred in the context of WWII, when economies were restructuring themselves. To propose a massive restructuring of the health-care industry without a clear mandate -- yes, polls show support for single-payer, but not by huge margins, and in the absence of any organized media campaign by the insurance industry against the idea -- and with only a handful of Congressional reps. favoring it?

Good luck.

Maybe directing my energy for a robust public option (which is still possible) instead of single-payer health care is selfish. Having that option a year ago might have made the difference between staying in Montana and leaving.

So, yeah, I find all of you "progressives" out there getting all condescending because I advocate for a health care reform package that could actually help me and my family to be somewhat of an old act.

I like the perspective that single-payer advocates bring. I like the idea of single-payer health care. I love hearing reasoned arguments for it, and truly value practical activists fighting for it. (If nothing else, it bolsters our position for getting a good public option.) Certainly single-payer advocates have had the right to full and equal access to this blog to espouse their ideas.

But when you all start questioning my motives? Please. Fuck off.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:31:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*sshat (1.33 / 3)

You're not even going to get your "robust public option" because you led with your chin, and followed Max.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:11:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the deal (4.00 / 1)

Single payer advocates are getting painted as non-realistic, naive and out-of-the-loop.  They're supposed to roll over when Baucus or Ezra Klein or some other beltway wonk discredits single payer.

"It ain't gonna happen," they say, "So just shut up."

Folks are making the single payer crowd out to be the scapegoats for blocking reform instead of the real villains: right-wingers, the health care industry and the industry's benefactors.

You see, I don't think single payer has a chance of passing congress, either.  That doesn't mean I'm going to stop advocating for it.  If we don't keep the pressure on, it will never pass.

Trust me, Jay, I could use some health reform in my own life, too.  An honest public option bill would do wonders.

And I'll applaud any candidate or office holder who has the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for single payer.  I'll heap scorn on those who waffle on the issue.

Perhaps my "you're following the Max Baucus thought process" line was a low blow.  Sorry.  But your "Fuck off" was a little harsh, too.    

---

by: pete talbot @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:29:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes, it was low... (0.00 / 0)

But frankly I'm a little tired as being painted as some tool of Baucus. Mark T apparently thinks I engineered Baucus' approach to health care (I didn't), and that I applaud the way the Senator has handled it, politically (I don't).

I don't recall ever saying that single-payer health advocates were naive -- the activists out there working for it have done wonders of injecting their opinions into the discussion despite the opposition from folks like Baucus. And their work -- not mine -- has actually made a robust public option more likely.

Personally -- and I thought this was obvious -- I'm writing about this session, this health care reform package, and the politics of health care reform.

One way to get single-payer on the table is to elect candidates who support single-payer health care. And now that McDonald came out supporting it, we have the opportunity to turn this election into a mandate on health care reform.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:26:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was Obama who said .. (4.00 / 1)

That he believed in single payer, and that the way to get it was to elect a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. He was allowed that leeway, and apparently did not mean a word of it.

Do you see the problem? It's not the health care companies. We could ditch them in a heartbeat if we had an opposition party. But come time for reform, and Democrats turn up in bed with health care companies. Democrats are the problem.

We had a chance to put a good man in office a few years back - a true progressive, a fighter, a clever and smart man and a good organizer. His name was Steve Kelly. What did the Montana Democrats do? Ditched him. Some of us have memories. That was not cool. Democrats are the problem.

You do not make nicey with people who do things like that. You treat them as the opponents they are and fight them.

At least you have the decency to admit that the single payer people are making life easier for the public option people. You do see that, I'll grant you.

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 19:40:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No question (4.00 / 1)

single payer is the way to go...if indeed you are serious about reforming health care by making it universal, comprehensive and cost effective...which by the way, when you think about it, is a very conservative idea...

One area I think any candidate should explore when promoting single payer is the impact on state budgets, and impacts for business...single payer would of course eliminate the need for "workman comp" insurance...a potentially large savings for business and state governments.

It has been estimated that a single payer plan would save over $400 billion in administrative costs...I am assuming that is over a 10 year period...thus, right there, you have half the money needed to fund single payer over a 10 year period...if you include savings from no longer needing a workman comp program, where are we?  What would be the tax needed to cover a single payer plan?  

Lastly, in every other industrial country with single payer, private insurance companies still exist, and do business covering procedures not covered by the single payer system...however, in several of these countries all private insurance companies must be...by law..not for profit.

---

by: big sage @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 07:59:05 AM CDT

Conservative perhaps; (0.00 / 0)

but not reactionary.

---

by: jed @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 10:29:21 AM CDT

Scared after the primary (1.00 / 1)

I support single payer, but I hate to see Dennis McDonald sign his post primary death wish by endorsing what the GOP will call "socialized medicine."

I was worried when the republicans attacked McDonald for being a San Fransisco attorney, and coming to Montana to buy a ranch and run for congress. I know he wants to support single payer to gain the votes of progressive democrats, and I can understand that. But he's created another vulnerability for the right wingers to attack after the primary, and that scares me.

I like both McDonald and Gernant, I like single payer, but what I really want is someone who can take Rehberg without being a walking target for attacks.

---

by: V. Dimone @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 11:57:09 AM CDT

Do you have anybody in particular in mind? (0.00 / 0)

And upon what issues would you have him/her campaign?

---

by: jed @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 13:59:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honestly ... (0.00 / 0)

You can't be so timid and expect to win anything. Fear of speaking out for what you believe in guarantees that you will never get what you want.

Put it this way: If you don't speak up about what you want, and win, once elected you have no popular base to support you, so you therefore have no means to go after what you want. You end up being just another Democrat.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 14:15:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Concern trolling? (0.00 / 0)

This is like the definition of slime. I like both Tyler and Dennis but this "I like what he's doing but zOMG he'll come under attack" stuff is nuts.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 15:36:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In all honesty, Matt (0.00 / 0)

but zOMG he'll come under attack" stuff is nuts.

That's what lead a lot of people away from Morrison to Tester.  I know Tester was the better candidate, and I believe that you did as well.  But Morrison had baggage, personal baggage, that could have swayed the election.

If fairness, this is different.  This ain't personal, it's policy.  There will be people who are gun shy of wingnut attack.  It's to be expected (and describes at least a third of the Senate.)  As you well know, the task at hand is to educate about the policy and the politics, such that the personal gets buried.  Dennis (Rehburg) and his minions are going to play dirty, regardless.  Instilling confidence in position is a win-win, and deriding fear ... isn't.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:18:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's still a difference (0.00 / 0)

and the "aw shucks, I like what yer saying but I'm just afeared of my own opinions because everybody disagrees with me" stuff is a sign of either an utter pansy, a political illiterate, or a concern troll. Usually the last of those three options.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 13:33:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One thing is becoming awfully obvious: (0.00 / 0)

The big tent is getting way to small to contain the
various exclusivities of The New Democrats.

---

by: jed @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:47:26 PM CDT

big tent v small tent (0.00 / 0)

I know what you're implying, but it seems its the "purists" who are kicking us out of the tent.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:30:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would you stop with the "purist" stuff? (4.00 / 1)

Next you'll be saying don't let the perfect prevent the good, and then you'll say we get 80% of what we want from conservative Democrats.

We are not "purists" - we are merely experienced people who have seen Democrats in action. When we cooperate with Democrats, we don't get 80%, we don't get 50%. We get screwed.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 19:45:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

please... (0.00 / 0)

People here have espoused good, logical reasons for thinking single-payer isn't the best solution for health care reform. Instead of arguing policy, a number of folks -- you prime among them -- accuse them of insidious secret agendas rather than assuming there are different viewpoints on the issue. Someone dare say public/private reform is the way to go, watch out! They're a tool of big business! Of a corrupt Senator! Of the Illuminati! A Reagan Democrat! A bourgeois middle-class yokel!

Anything less than single-payer advocacy is viewed as something impure, unnatural, or corrupt.

And you claim you're not a ideological purist.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 20:23:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not even close ... Single payer is just a weapon (4.00 / 1)

The most convincing argument made was first put forth by Atul Gawande - not the most recent article on costs, but one a long time ago in New Yorker that basically said that we should build on what we have. He described how the British and French systems came about, builidng on what existed at that time. I have no problem with that.

Canada's system is better than ours - their political system - as public opinion often affects public policy, so they were able to make important changes. They also have public financing of campaigns, so insurance companies could not legally bribe candidates. That's how single payer came about up there.

None of that is possible here.

What I want is this: Private insurance works OK in the workplace. Employers tend to hire healthy people, so that the "cherry-picking" is already done before the insurers get there. That's why it works. It's crazy expensive, but people don't get turned down for coverage or have it rescinded when they get sick. So fine, keep that system.

Private insurance does not work outside the workplace. Insurance companies cherry pick, deny claims, rescind policies when people get sick in an expensive manner. Outside the work place, people should be able to turn to government for coverage.

Private insurance should not be subsidized - where it is not profitable, let government provide the insurance. Subsidizing insurance companies creates a new entitlement, and once done, will not be undone in our lifetimes.

What I am fighting is a massive sellout by Democrats, like in the Clinton era, where they lead you guys along on a leash, keep you from organizing against them, and then screw you. You don't like what I am doing, you call me names and suggest that I'm conspiratorial. If you do not understand that forces with common interests ally and work together, I cannot save you from yourself.

I am anything but a single payer purist. I am a practical person who sees the enemy - the Democrats, and the extreme danger we are in, with rank and file Democrats being led down the garden path, ala Clinton.

Have your fun. But I understand politics. I understand Democrats. You don't. You, and all of the Democrats who think that we merely need elect them for good things to follow are putting us all in grave danger.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 21:50:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is one of the most well reasoned and (0.00 / 0)

passionate posts I've read in awhile.  Certainly in Montana, but also on the national blogs that I read more regularly than this one, this is a great example of Gramsci's "pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will".

I invite you to read my blog posts at montanamaven.com.  I wrote one called "Democrats can't get it up" based on reading William Greider's book "Come Home America". I'm also going to post on Matt Taibbi's piece and Chris Hedges.  They are leading the way in straight talk.  PR and Freud have permeated our schools and left us with a lot of flabby thought.  Hedges' piece on propaganda is essential reading.

---

by: Feral Cat @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:55:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

er... (0.00 / 0)

That was the best comment I've read from you about health care -- except for the last paragraph.

Apparently what our disagreement boils down to is that Matt and I aren't being mean enough on this blog to Baucus, et al, to suit your tastes.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:05:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh screw being mean! (0.00 / 0)

You have to separate from them. If you travel with them, they will screw you. The result will be far worse than what we have now, which is bad enough.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:39:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We've been settling for third- or fourth-rate since 1968, jaybird. (4.00 / 1)

And For six years we had reactionary shit jammed down our throats by victorious Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists.  Now for the first time since 1965 we have a chance to change from being corporate shills to human-centered--and we decide to make Bernie Madoff into a scapegoat and give the rest of the corporatists another crack at gutting the nation?
Where is the winning in that?

---

by: jed @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 21:51:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I haven't seen (4.00 / 1)

any "good, logical reasons" for thinking single payer is not the way to go posted here....by the way, just suggesting that opponents of single payer use "good, logical reasons" implies that proponents use something other than logic...

Anything less that a single payer system will NOT solve the problem...anything less than single payer will not be comprehensive..(covering all conditions, even previous conditions) will not be universal (everyone covered) nor will it be cost effective (drive down the costs that are killing all but the wealthy).

We have single payer roads...we have single payer police and fire protection, we have single payer schools....

Yes...Baucus, Obama, Conrad, etc...are the tools of big business...

I for one will not give another dime to Baucus, nor will I work for his reelection...and I don't think I'm the only one that is sick and tired of the Democrats running around promising change, taking our money and our labor to get elected, and then ignoring us and behaving like corporate republicans...

If Obama and Baucus drop the ball on health care I think there will be a huge backlash...and personally, I think they need to hear this right now, loud and clear, get with the drill, or go find something else to do, because reelection will not be in their future...

---

by: big sage @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 21:53:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huge backlash and it won't be pretty (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Feral Cat @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:57:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

beg to differ... (0.00 / 0)

...with this statement: "by the way, suggesting that opponents of single payer use 'good logical reasons' implies that proponents use something other than logic..."

Doesn't follow. There are good, logical reasons for single-payer. There are good, logical reasons for public/private solution. (See Mark T's comment, above.)

I think it's fair to say our health care industry is a big clusterf*ck, and no one really can say with any definite authority what the outcomes of pursuing different policies will be.

BTW, and splitting hairs here, for schools and roads, at least, we have public/private model...and you could argue the same for police/fire protection if you consider security and body guards as private police protection.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:25:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We need to discuss the choice of David Kendall to (0.00 / 0)

explain the various health care plans in congress in the Health Care Forums sponsored by Forward Montana and other orgs on Monday night.  Here's an article on why in the heck the Third Way has any place in left politics. And why in the world we give these people a prominent seat at this table. If seated at all, they should be seen but not heard.
http://www.alternet.org/health...

Chris Hedges also writes about the repudiation of "fair and balanced" which is the latest incarnation of Walter Lippman's "objectivity and balanced" that brought us PR and spin. This discussion here is being repeated everywhere.  We are at a crossroads.  Which side are you on?  Sorry, but in the dead center is just that...dead.
http://www.alternet.org/story/...

---

by: Feral Cat @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:59:18 AM CDT

In the context of health care reform... (0.00 / 0)

...I have no idea where your "center" lies. I mean, those espousing socialized medicine would argue single-payer advocates are the "center." Now it seems people who want a public/private plan are the "center," but the notion of a robust public health insurance option would have been considered "far left" two years ago.

IMHO, we should be less hung up on placing ourselves in some sort of ideological hierarchy and be more concerned about hammering out workable and realistic policy...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:01:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Read the Chris Hedges piece. It's about passion. (0.00 / 0)

and the optimism of the will.  My reference to the " dead center" had "dead" as the operative word.      

---

by: Feral Cat @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 13:48:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

David Kendall is a local with a lot of insight to what is happening in Washington (0.00 / 0)

He's also a great human being. I don't agree with a lot of Third Way's reports. I also love working with people with whom I disagree and I certainly don't have a problem working with people whose employers hold opinions I don't support.

We're witnessing the conservative movement embrace the "constantly smaller tent." It strikes me as sad, unhealthy, and counter-productive. I don't want to go down that path.

By all means, criticize what David said. He's got a thick skin, a good sense of humor, and an ability to correct himself. I'm sure he'd be happy to discuss reform with anyone. But, please, don't make a cartoon character out of him.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 13:36:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]