Yeah, Pravda's Ceci, but anyhow:
Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."
Funny, I thought "public option" was a plan, not a proxy for a plan!
Well, actually I never did think it was a plan. I've always thought it was a vague collection of bullet points that will end up meaning nothing while giving the Dems the cover they need to sell us all out to the insurance companies for another 15 years or so, while allowing its advocates to declare victory. Wev.
UPDATE Green responds:
Connolly then asked me why progressives were picking a political fight on the public option, as opposed to another issue. I guess the fact that it's the #1 domestic issue of the day -- one that affects millions of American families -- wasn't explanation enough.
I figured she was looking for a quote summarizing the political stakes, so I though for a moment and said, "The public option has become a proxy for the question of whether Democrats will stand on principle and represent their constituents."
I was quite proud of that answer. It summarizes what a lot of people are feeling -- the public option is the "line in the sand" issue for Democrats, something Chris has written about here on OpenLeft several times.
Like I said, "Pravda
's Ceci, but anyhow"...
1. By saying, "It's the #1 domestic issue of the day" Green implies that public option ("it") is the #1 domestic issue, when that's clearly not so.
2. It's absurd that Green feels option is a "line in the sand", since nobody can define what public option is, other than a set of vague talking points. Public option may be a "line in the sand," but the sand is shifting sand, and the line can be blown away by the wind at any time.
3. There are plenty of other people who feel that single payer is the line in the sand but again, Green, as a career liberal, doesn't see fit to mention them.
But I'm glad that Green is proud of his answer!
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
sad
just plain sad.
it gets worse
check out this quote from Andy Stern:
Baucus? Baucus???? The Senator who wouldn't even attend his own listening tour??????
Be reasonable, DCB
Can a process get more patient and open than arresting those who attempt to bring the most economically sensible and ethical plan into the discussion. I think not!
reasonable
there is something in what you say ;)
What's the deal with Andy Stein?
He doesn't support single-payer, even though, IIRC, the SEIU member ship does. What is his problem?
good question
membership passed a resolution for Medicare for All at the SEIU national convention, but Stern won't have any part of it. I hope the SEIU membership will dump Stern, but that is their perogative.
Sucking up to the powerful can distort one's view and also block
nuch that's going on around the suckee.
"Public option" is a Rorschach blot
Here's what Mark Thoma sees in it.
And I have often liked what Thoma writes... but that post made me shudder, literally.
My own union is having NO discussion of health care, and that is notable because I can recall a very vigorous discussion around the Clinton plan, and my bringing up at that time a concern that if people were forced to buy health insurance but unable to use it because of the cost of deductables and copays, we would not be better off. [A concern I have about the current plans being floated, even moreso.]
Now - crickets.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!