Susie Madrak, an otherwise good liberal, as far as I know:
One of the things I’ve learned from my many years in journalism (and yes, even my short stint in politics) is that when legislation is first proposed, people throw a bunch of crap on the wall and duke it out over the details. You know why they say it’s like watching sausage being made? Because it’s stomach-churning.
Several other bloggers (Lambert, Avedon, Bruce Dixon) have linked to this [Kip Sullivan's essay on the public option] tonight. They’re taking the article in good faith and assume it’s accurate in its conclusions (that the public option has been gutted and the idea of “reform” amounts to a bait and switch), and I just don’t believe that.
The author doesn’t even seem to understand how legislation is made. It’s kind of like judging the way a room will look by painting a stripe on the wall: It’s not the whole picture.
[...]
So really, the sky isn’t falling. I would tell you if I thought it was. I mean, I’m not exactly known as Obama’s biggest booster, am I?
We should be warding off the attacks from the insurance companies and the Blue Dogs instead. Yes, I still think single payer is the best solution - but I’m not going to try to poison this bill to prove a point.
The next best thing is a structural change that really makes people understand and support the concept that health care can and should be accessible to everyone. This bill will do that, and we can improve from there.
[...]
Remember: Social Security only covered about half of the people when it first passed. It took almost 10 years to get there, but you couldn’t take it away now. The voters would be furious.
Yes, let's do look at the whole picture.
Social Security was just one of the New Deal reforms, and we got the New Deal because people who were homeless and starving agreed to go away quietly and die while the oligarchs decided their fate.
Not.
And although it's somewhat tangential, a word [or several] to the wise for the incrementalists among us can be found here. If you think it doesn't apply to you, you probably didn't read enough.
- hipparchia's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Uh, yeah...
"Remember: Social Security only covered about half of the people when it first passed. It took almost 10 years to get there, but you couldn’t take it away now. The voters would be furious."
Except social security was SOCIAL INSURANCE. Not a scheme to force people to by private retirement security. Good Gawd, could these people just look at what's happening in Massachusetts where the entire idea was hatched? They are gutting the safety net.
Medicare for All is Civil Rights
On the MA system
There's a good diary here.
People should know what they're supporting if they support this crap.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
Thanks for the pitch.
I hope people read it. I feel like I'm just pissing in the wind.
Medicare for All is Civil Rights
social insurance, bingo
lots of supporters of the public option, when confronted with the reality that it won't set in for years, and even then will only be available to a very few, will talk about how we're getting the structure in place first, and building on it later. which i would probably grit my teeth and go along with [albeit very grudgingly] if they were indeed talking about setting up social insurance.
unfortunately, they seem to have nary a clue about what is and what is not social insurance, or even that such a concept exists.
Thanks for this
I wanted to write a comment on her post, but I just couldn't figure out what to say. I usually like her writing. Well, except for her taste for astrology. But this was just so... wrong-headed. I didn't know where to start.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
and i,
i didn't know where to stop. good thing my lunch hour ended.