In the long run, we're all dead... (4.00 / 2)

Or possibly the shorter run. 10-15 years for a second bite at the apple, eh? Thanks....  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:06:11 AM CDT

Single payer in 15 years is an excitng possiblity. (4.00 / 1)

 I am fairly sure that insults and foot stomping wont do much to help it along.  Here is a thumb sketch of the way it was introduced in Canada.

1947  -  Saskatchewan initiates provincial universal public hospital insurance plan, January 1.

1948  -  National Health Grants Program, federal; provides grants to provinces and territories to support health - related initiatives, including hospital construction, public health, professional training, provincial surveys and public health research.

1949  -  British Columbia creates limited provincial hospital insurance plan.

Newfoundland joins Canada, has a cottage hospital insurance plan.

1950  -  Alberta creates limited provincial hospital insurance plan, July 1.

1957  -  Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, federal, proclaimed (Royal Assent) May 1; provides 50/50 cost sharing for provincial and territorial hospital insurance plans, in force July 1, 1958.

1958  -  Manitoba, Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia create hospital insurance plans with federal cost sharing, July 1.

Saskatchewan hospital insurance plan brought in under federal cost sharing, July 1.

1959  - Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia create hospital insurance plans with federal cost sharing, January 1.

 Prince Edward Island creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, October 1.

1960  - Northwest Territories creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, April 1.

Yukon creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, July 1.

1961  -  Québec creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, January 1.

Federal government creates Royal Commission on Health Services to study need for health insurance and health services; appoint Emmet M. Hall as Chair.

1962  - Saskatchewan creates medical insurance plan for physicians' services, July 1; doctors in province strike for 23 days.

1964  - Royal Commission on Health Services, federal, reports; recommends national health care program.

1965  - British Columbia creates provincial medical plan.

1966  -  Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), federal, introduced; provides cost - sharing for social services, including health care not covered under hospital plans, for those in need, Royal Assent July, effective April 1.

Medical Care Act, federal, proclaimed (Royal Assent), December 19; provides 50/50 cost sharing for provincial/territorial medical insurance plans, in force July 1, 1968.

 

 It isn't a directly comparable set of steps. But you may just note that it started in 1947, didn't really get going till the fifties, and wasn't really completed till 1966.   That's 19 years by my count.

Second while there a few countries with fairly complete single payer systems, and they are the cream of the crop, agreed, most guarantee affordable care, and various methods to achieve it. Germany for example taxes you, or forces you to pay about 10% of your income to private companies(this is memory, the details could be different). France's system though comprehensive and affordable, is not single payer.

Also, California has twice passed Single Payer, only to have it twice vetoed by the delightful Republican Actor Governor that they like to elect.  

America, because it has dedicated people working their asses off, will get to Single Payer.



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:30:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps, more "exciting" (4.00 / 1)

From here:

In 1995, after a planning effort of about half a decade, the Republic of China (Taiwan) replaced a previous patchwork of separate social health insurance funds with one single-payer, national health insurance scheme...

I agree-Canada's situation is not comparable-but one reason could be that, at the time of the first step, there weren't any national health care systems with any sort of track record to learn from, which is what Taiwan's planners did.

Canada's incremental, province-by-province approach to implementing a single-payer system shows only that it can be and has been done that way. I see no reason to use that timeline for comparison as opposed to that of some other place, like Taiwan.

---

by: jeffweinberg @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:50:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But you dont examine the situation on the ground, either in Taiwan (0.00 / 0)

or in The United States. There was general agreement in Taiwan, and the patwork was already doing some of the goals attributed to the general clean up.

Do not get me wrong, if the House and Senate vote in 32 days to extend Medicare to all Americans, I would celebrate and sob in joy.

There is a great deal of very nasty opposiiton here, spreading lies, bribing, lobbying and who knows what else (they have hired a group to pretend to be demonstrators to disrupt all Democratic Party House Members constituency meetings for the press to cover, so as to pretend that there is not just money opposed, but popular opposition)

If you think the Blue dogs and republicans will vote for single payer when you ask them to, could give them a call? Could you call the 80% of the House of Reps that didnt sign to co-sponsor the sing;le payer bill? We only need 51%, but 85 isn't 20%, so we still need another 31% about 132 votes. (Check my math) In the senate, we have fewer than 10 votes I think for Single Payer.

I think we have a bill that will rip the Nixon model of healthcare to shreds and make the American people understand they have a right to a system that serves everyone. Its a first step, and itl;l cover 98% last time I checked. Yes a first stepo is a crime, but it is apparently necessary.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 18:05:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Snail's pace back when people had the greater luxury of time. (0.00 / 0)

We haven't even got a year, let alone ten or fifteen.  Baby steps from the edge won't solve problems that demand immediate attention; they only allow for being driven right over the edge when, not if, the GOP returns to power.  It's you naysayers and baby-steppers who are holding the left back.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 19:09:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A few points (4.00 / 3)

- You don't address the argument that a strong push for single-payer would have turned a strong PO into the compromise position. As it stands, the PO has been weakened and might not be included at all in the final bill. In other words, the argument goes, the best way to pass a strong PO was to fight for single-payer. I'm not sure I agree, but you should at least contend with the argument.

- A sad reality is that a lot of the people in the netroots fighting for a PO would not have agitated for single-payer because Obama doesn't support it.

- I suppose you're right that

Over the past several years, the long-term campaign on which the American left has spent most of its political energy has been to remove Republicans from elected power.

And I guess that's the reason our efforts have too often felt reactive and soulless.  

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:18:47 AM CDT

He does (4.00 / 1)

You don't address the argument that a strong push for single-payer would have turned a strong PO into the compromise position.

This is exactly what he said...because the 57 members of the CPC WANTED single payer, they turned a strong PO into the compromise position.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:22:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And that's not a "pre-compromise".... (4.00 / 2)

Oh-k-a-a-y...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:26:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, it's not (0.00 / 0)

if it was a pre compromise, they never would have introduced HR 676.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:30:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a compromise (4.00 / 2)

in the heads of hearts of progressives but not in the view of our opponents, or the media, or reality. Yeah, a pre-compromise.

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:33:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No its legislators who know what the -fuck- heck they are doing. (0.00 / 0)

Because wanting isnt doing, because wishing isnt making, because building soemthing is different from drawing soemthing.

If you want a different kind of house than is noramally built in hurricane country,m you cant jst say build it like this, you have to ask people that built homes on the Florida keys, and not had their buildings make into life threatening kindling moving at 200 miles an hour across the streets impaling children.

So when these people, the 84 people who cosponsored the single payer bill say this is how to build a house in a hurricane, I listen. Not just for my safety, but for everyone's safety.

And me calling the architect "a self ass-hole- hat who just has a big ego, and small heart and should fuck off and build my house" before she goes, will not help at all.

At all.

Capice?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:37:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But right now (4.00 / 3)

a strong PO isn't the compromise position. (In fact, a strong PO barely exists anymore.) It's the "far left" position likely to be chopped off in conference, before Congress people are strong-armed into voting for a bill without it.

Maybe the supporters of the PO in Congress support single-payer but they weren't fighting for it. Nor were we. Imagine, the thinking goes, if single-payer supporters in and outside Congress had demanded single-payer; then insurance companies and Max Baucus might've seen a PO as a victory.

Of course this was a pre-compromise.  

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:32:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They have said they will not accept, and will defeat a weak PO (4.00 / 1)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:38:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know what they've said (0.00 / 0)

I'm telling you that when a bill emerges from conference without a PO, many will end up voting for it.  

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:26:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When "progresssives" saw that that they were getting nowhere... (0.00 / 0)

... but that instead an uproar was starting, they took water and washed their hands in front of the crowd (cf. Matthew 27:24).

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:27:46 AM CDT

And speaking of uproar... (4.00 / 1)

See here. Somehow, I don't think people are going to be willing to wait another ten years for "progressives" to get their shit together -- I can only pray to The God(ess)(e)(s) Of My Choice, If Any, that this energy doesn't get leveraged by a right wing populist movement, because I don't think think the hopey-changey scam is going to work twice.

Say, maybe we could build a Web 2.0 widget and do some polling for 2010 with these people? Maybe some fundraising?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:34:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh thanks so much. How do I add tiedowns to joists without (0.00 / 0)

breaking the structural integity, and do I add the vapor barrier before or after the interlock?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:40:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think this comment (0.00 / 0)

must be responding to a comment on some other thread.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:24:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hmm (1) (4.00 / 3)

I agree with the bulk of your analysis.  I especially agree with large portions of the strategy, though I think that this statement is a bit unfair:

Contrary to some assertions, the starting point for this group was single-payer. By March 30th, forty-four members of the Block were co-sponsors of HR 676, the Improved Medicare for All Act, which was introduced on January 26th. It was only on April 2nd, long after most of those 44 had become co-sponsors of HR 676, that the Progressive Block first declared a strong public option as its line in the sand. So, the line was drawn after the health care fight had already started, and after the Block itself started with single-payer.

The line in the sand is their position in the debate- they voted for hundreds of other things that had no chance of passing, but to say they are single payer advocates in practice, in the short term, in this debate, is false.  They are people who may or may not support single payer in principle (and you make a good case they do), but they are not people who were willing to go to the mat for it in this fight, let alone threaten their political careers for it.  Whether that would be a good idea or not, I think it is not fair to say that more than a handful of people in Congress (probably aroudn the same number as opposed entry in World War II) have substantively supported Single Payer Healthcare in this debate.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:53:57 AM CDT

hmmm (2) (4.00 / 3)

That is a minor quibble though compared to what is a more pertinent point - what will the structure and the details of the plan that emerges mean in terms of eventually moving towards universal single payer healthcare.  For those progressives who are willing to support universal single payer healthcare in principle but not at this particular moment with these particular politics in this particular debate, it is important to show how the plan that is emerging and the debate during which it is conducted are leading to that.  Otherwise, the quarter loaf - half a loaf (depending on your vantage point) that is coming is worse than nothing.  

I'll give you an example of a political figure who has supported a policy he substantively opposes in favor of structurally limiting its extension: Nixon proposed indexing cost of living allowances for social security to, inflation, I believe.  This was done so that there couldn't be continued votes on cost of living increases which were always going to pass - thereby removing it as a political issue.  So he conceded the increases, but he tried to move the space more towards what would emerge.

What has been missing from many progressive commetnaries taht support universal single payer health care in theory but not in practice has been a detailed analysis of exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it in a way that would lead to single payer health care.  It is not enough to say - there will be another debate in 15 years and then I will supoprt universal single payer health care.  That is definitely possible - but what are the small steps that are being taken now in THIS debate in THIS legislation that are going to make it so?  Obviously public option vs. co-op is one (though if you read some literature on the forming of social security, a quasi governmental agency might be better than something that is part of the government - it's a question to consider).  Anyway, my point is that we have to talk about those issues if we're going to advocate a "look, it wasn't going to happen now" stance, because we have to show how we're doing what we can to make it happen not in some distant future, but in a tangible future - by donig tangible things that ARE possible, even though they may seem minimal to people asking for more radical change.  This is very different from the Clinton approach to pragmatism which was basically to concede in the name of pragmatism.

Granted, the tone of the debate has been too strident and many of the people who hold a more immediate rather than long-term demand for universal single payer health care have not taken enough care to speak civilly, much like, conversely, partisan democratic progressives don't regarding the third party issue, in my opinion.  That is a separate but relevant issue for this debate as well.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:54:15 AM CDT

hnmmm (3) (4.00 / 3)

On a final note, please do account for the fact that 'progressives' and 'netroots activists' are not one and the same.  There have been many many many many people doing many kinsd of progressive and radical and party politics and social justice activism for the past 15 years - both on health care and on a variety of other issues.  Some of their small steps may have had effects, some of them may not have - but they still present you with the bulk of the people you are going to be working with in coming years, and it is not a good idea to alienate them/us by assuming that 'the movement' consists of bloggers and MoveOn, and ignoring, say, the Domestic Workers organisation that got a wage bill through New York state (or city - I can't remember) or the enormous amount of work that labor unions have done or the LGBT people of color and working class people that have tried to broaden the social jsutice agenda for the LGBT movement beyond simply marriage to include things like heatlh care.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:54:28 AM CDT

hmmmm (4) (4.00 / 2)

p.s. good post.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:55:17 AM CDT

I've heard it mentioned before (4.00 / 4)

That progressives need to build institutions, that we need to replicate the success of the post-Goldwater conservative movement in institution-building, etc.

However, while a few progressive groups are courageously working toward this goal, it seems that most are still focused on the next election.  We're never going to accomplish all that we want that way.

Consider: If we had many top politicians, a 24-hour news network, thousands of pundits, and the like advocating for single payer since 1994, wouldn't it have been on the table now?  If we had had that since 1964, wouldn't it have been possible in 1994?

You say progressive groups were focused on kicking out Republicans.  That's definitely true.  But I see no reason why we coudln't multitask, and try to get rid of Republicans along with telling Americans what single payer is, convincing them of its merits, etc.  In fact, success in the latter can even help out the former.

I dunno, maybe I'm the one that's impatient.  I realize lots of people are working on movement building, and maybe the results of what's going on now will only be seen ten years from now.  I hope so, at least.

---

by: DavidN @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:58:06 AM CDT

in principle, i agree with this post, but (0.00 / 0)

the problem with the notion that we could have had a 24 hour news network and 'thousands' of pundits is that these networks are owned by massive, profit maximizing, corporations.  leftists don't have the financial clout to own one of these networks, even though there are thousands of people who, if put on television regularly, would advocate for things like single payer (starting with probably 80% of college and university professors).  a slightly more progressive than it currently is msnbc is probably the best we could have managed, but the reason msnbc (and maddow in particular) exists at all is because lots of progressives will watch cable news as long as it at least partially represents our views.  in other words, we are 'powerful' as consumers only.  

of course, we have been building institutions since the mid 90s -- they are blogs and listservs.  its just that, as chris pointed out, most folks at these sites were mostly concerned with ending republican rule.  and, as you point out, that was short-sighted.  

i agree with single payer advocates that the left should have been organizing for single payer, including on the blogs, starting november 2008 (the moment when we ended republican rule).  instead, we were arguing about whether obama was progressive (honestly, that is what most of us were doing, most of the time, myself included).  i don't recall ever hearing any of the pro-single payer folks around here interrupting one of these arguments and saying: 'hey, how about we all agree to disagree on obama, and spend our time organizing for single payer.'  so yeah, most everyone dropped the ball here.            

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:52:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some dropped the ball, some didn't (4.00 / 1)

I don't think it's in the power of  "the pro-single payer folks around here" to "interrupt the argument," as seabrook says. The flow of argument on any given blog is in the hands of the blog owners, not the commenters, and if the blog owners had wanted to shape the discourse that way, it would have happened. For whatever reason, and I think that needs to be determined, and probably not here, that didn't happen.

Corrente started posting on single payer May 2008, often several times a day, with lots of links, and lots of posts on health care issues, and we kept up that pace for the last year. Granted, we're a C list blog, but if somebody with a big megaphone or a front-pager had started amplifying the policy message, I think it's hard to deny that we -- both as a party and as people who need health care -- would be in a better position today. The blogosphere did much the same thing on Iraq in 2003 to shape the discourse, so there is some precedent for success.

To be concrete about the opportunity costs, if those with big megaphones had actively (and frequently) shaped the discourse by keeping single payer on their own tables, it would not have been so easy for the Obama administration to take single payer off the table, and exclude and censor the "little single payer advocates" (along with our famously free press, of course). Terrain more favorable in the discourse, and a few more sponsors for HR676 and heck, co-sponsors for S703, might have made what we are about to receive better, if other forms of online activism are any precedent. Oh well.

As matters turned out, "progressives" accepted conventional wisdom of what was "politically possible", with the results that are becoming slowly evident -- essentially public option as another form of welfare (means test + subsidy = welfare). That's not exactly a glorious success, and when "progressives" take the view that it's going to take another 10 or 15 years for another bite at the apple, that -- and alas -- confirms me in the view that I've been quite right to put the so-called quotes round "progressives" all along. Well done, all.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:55:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks for the link to your blog -- i will check it out. (4.00 / 2)

i agree with you that the front pagers bear responsibility for this, but anyone is free to make whatever comment they want.  on this site, i think commenters drive discussion more than on most sites (which is one reason i like the site).  

now, your last paragraph is unnecessary.  just because someone has a particular view of how the future is likely to unfold doesn't mean they aren't A) invested in major social change and B) ready to put a lot of effort into seeing it happen.  were leftists in the late 20s and 30s who saw resistance to fascism as their most important task somehow mistaken, because they had a less than rosy view of what was likely in the near future?  of course, that didn't stop them from organizing for social democratic or revolutionary change.  but they made alliances with 'bourgeois' parties that they otherwise would not have made.  and, as it turns out, they were pretty clear sighted about the dangers of fascism.

saying that single payer isn't likely for 10 or 15 years is possibly off base.  and certainly someone like chris bowers has a certain (highly limited) power to put something on the agenda for the left, so his view can be construed as a comment on what he is planning on promoting, and when.  but just because he sees the future in a not-so-rosy way doesn't mean he isn't committed, and doesn't mean he won't be an important ally for single payer if and when it becomes more of a mass movement with real prospects of success.  

personally, i think what is needed is a general strike for single payer.  short of that, i agree with chris that it is not on the agenda, no matter how many blog posts are written about it.  corporate interests do absolutely exert massive influence on our government.  the only way to soften them up, and to make the government cut into their profit margins in a meaningful way, is to cause significant disruptions in the economy.  its how the left did it in the 30s and 40s.      

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:23:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, the last paragraph WAS necessary (0.00 / 0)

... if only because, without it, your 3rd and 4th paragraphs would not have been brought into being ;-)

Also, when conducting a post mortem, it's necessary to "name it and claim it," right?

So, if you like, get an account over at our place, and start posting insightful stuff there. Because we're evolving more toward what you're talking about...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:06:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, what are you waiting for? (0.00 / 0)

There is a blog site, which I'd love to upgrade with scoop software at some point, whereupon you can translate all that passion and righteous indignation into action.  The link is in my signature.  It seems to me that most blogs that are nominally called progressive are content merely to complain about the problems we face.  Dare suggest ways for actually doing something about them, and we get nothing but hostility and contempt masquerading as civil discourse.  The naysayers and baby-steppers then wonder why they are treated with such scorn by those of us who refuse to sell out.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 19:31:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not impatience I see, it's strategic thinking (4.00 / 3)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically critiquing the overall thrust of the "movement." I use scare quotes because I still don't really see a movement, per se. I see a large collection of smaller groups, mostly working on different levels, different issues and with different goals. They're like-minded, but not sufficiently linked up to form a cohesive front on the big battles.

Chris somewhat gets to the nub, saying:

The reason we aren't even close on single payer is not because MoveOn didn't send out emails pushing HR 676 in 2009, but because the vast majority of the political energy of the American left and center-left has been focused on more moderate targets since at least 2003. No amount of agitating in 2009 could have changed directions quickly enough to sway Congress, or to compensate for a President who was never going to push for single-payer.

This strikes me as spot-on.

Too many American progressives have decided to settle for incrementalist approaches without the backstop of a larger strategic paradigm. Others have decided on an all-or-nothing approach. Put the two together and a strategic framework arises.

But unless all these various, often disparate groups can come together and agree on a larger strategic plan on the really big issues, all we're left with is trying to whip bills that have already been pre-negotiated to death or legislatively sabotaged in the name of buy-partisanship. It's a case of too little, too late.

One thing is certain: the current method of making change isn't working very well.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:31:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like Emma Glodman who would not join any revolution that would not let her dance. (0.00 / 1)

I refuse to join any movement that does not spend all its time insulting and belittling  all other members of the movement.

See that's what builds movements, sarcasm.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:44:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ouch (4.00 / 3)

But it certainly wasn't my intent to either insult or be sarcastic.

It's hardly insulting to anyone to point out that, to a large degree, the movement is generally stuck in a reactive position. That's not anyone's fault in particular and it's hardly insulting to say so. We're not sufficiently organized and focused as a larger group... sufficient to go on the offensive and stay there as much as possible. Healthcare does represent the opportunity to change that, methinks, and it may very well.

We have good communications tech, lots of people, talent, intelligence and so on. We are collectively somewhat hobbled against the right, because we don't have rigid top-down management, oodles of corporate funding, or a massive media empire to support us. That is as it should be, methinks. Except the media thing is a bugger.

All I'm saying is I hope we'll start to see more long-term thinking and more coordination at times. Like with healthcare. It's the mother of all wedge issues and it represents a huge opportunity going forward to get more people on board.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:24:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"hobbled" or different (0.00 / 0)

Yep:

the media thing is a bugger.

And, alas, my takeaway from the health care reform fail is that electorally-focused blogs can't solve the media thing, because content is going to be sacrificed to the "political possibility" of the moment. It's bad enough to have to decode two Pravdas and Izvestias, let alone as many as there are left political viewpoints.

Maybe this is a plea for a return to a long-vanished media age of "objectivity" that really wasn't. OTOH, it takes a lot of money and time to maintain a structure of lies. So I think all we can afford is the truth (granted, the quest for truth is asympotic). So that means that the media thing can't be the same as the electoral thing.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:34:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right. As the old saw goes... (4.00 / 1)

... It takes a moment to tell the truth, but a lifetime to tell a lie.

Right now the righties can't even keep their lies straight, much less coherent and the polling on healthcare says it simply isn't working. That's something to seize upon and expand on.

I also tend to think the media thing is not the same as the electoral thing. Look, the CPC is up to 83 members, while the Blue Dogs are down to about 53. It's taken years of hard work to make that trend. So it's not like we don't have strengths to build on. We do.

The real solution to all this, especially the media thing, lies in the grassroots. In this sense, blogs are terrific in that they offer something of a support system that only existed locally before. The media can be dealt with. Indeed, they're so ideologically rigid they're digging they're own graves.

After this last election, I think a fair number of people went back to sleep. That's understandable, given how utterly painful the previous 8 years were... 30 years, if you're like me at all.

But that's changing and people are waking up. Just look at the Right Direction/Wrong Direction numbers in the polls. Those aren't ideologically loaded questions, so that's a pretty good indicator of attitudes.

Where people are unhappy, they offer opportunities. The righties know that, which is why their demagoguery is approaching Krystallnacht proportions. But I think it will scare more people than recruit, by a long shot, as long as people can see more positive positions coming from elsewhere.

At least our ideas are positive, good natured and reasonably civilized.

In the end, I still think all politics are local. It also happens this is where the real strength of the grassroots lies... in person to person communications. We've put some people in office, including a certain Barack Obama, expecting them to save us from the people that (it turns out) actually own them.

That illusion is being destroyed every single day now.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:05:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree wholeheartedly... (4.00 / 1)

... which is why my reactions to cheerleading are perhaps more savage than they need to be.

To content:

I think it's critical that the "media thing" be separated from the "electoral thing" and even from the "movement thing". For example, we can't have a situation like when the Times didn't publish Risen's article on warrantless wiretapping until after Bush was elected even when one of "us" gets hurt. It's like trying to ride a bicycle after having blinded ourselves, if that metaphor means anything. Leading directly to the issue of a revenue model for "the media thing" other than digital sharecropping.

Agree with you and seabrook on the local (the ground). But how to build that locality without having that social capital creamed off by the next "electoral thing" isn't at all clear.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:48:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Simple: Networking (4.00 / 1)

Back when I was organizing, we always had to deal with hostile or indifferent media. That's normal. The whole point of grassroots organizing is to do an end run or flanking maneuver around that crap. By empowering people personally, you can take the wind out of the mediot's sails, so to speak. That's also the only good way to make your rich, right-wing opponent's money worth a great deal less. It levels the playing field in a big way when it's done well.

Per the electoral thing, the whole point of organizing is to gain power. That means putting better people in office and showing the door to those who oppose our agenda. So don't diss the electoral thing. Just think of it in better terms. In a democracy, elections matter. A lot. If they don't, then we don't live in one.

Lastly, try to be understanding of some cheerleading. When it's the kind of mindless sycophancy we see at dKos all too often, fine, diss it if you must. But that too will abate, driven by events well outside our control--this much is very predictable at this point. There's little to no point in making enemies of your friends. It just makes you look like a buzzkill.

Grassroots work is local work. But we can network now in ways that weren't possible when I worked in politics, thanks to the innertoobz. As for maintaining independence, which seabrook alluded to, that is totally doable. If we aim to protect and grow the progressive polity and don't waste our resources on people who aren't a part of that, then that can be done.

In the end, politics is about gaining power to enact an agenda. We need more progressives in congress. We need to boot a bunch of Blue Dogs. We can't do that outside the electoral thing. But we need to own it, rather than be coopted by a corrupt party leadership. I think that's your whole point, right?

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 19:13:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I cannot actually find the post that was responding too (0.00 / 0)

Be sure that it was not at your post.

Accept my button dysfunctional apologies. I assume I hit your reply button by error.

You points, are foured now that I read them

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:43:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Eh, it happens (0.00 / 0)

No big woop.

And thank you.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:45:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That... (4.00 / 1)

... and baseless smears, of course.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:27:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is there something the "progressive" blogosphere can do or is doing... (4.00 / 1)

... that is different or better than serving as a Triple-A league for Democratic Party strategists?

Serious question, actually.

Given this post, it's not clear to me that there is.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:37:42 AM CDT

yes -- you know how the blogs (esp. dkos) were instrumental in (4.00 / 3)

getting folks excited about campaigning for obama this summer?  what if that same energy and ingenuity were devoted to organizing left social movement activity that was independent of the democratic party?  it would be hard to make this happen on dkos, since it is so insistent on its status as a 'democratic' blog (though meteor blades has more lefty impulses, and could probably be convinced to let this kind of organizing persist), but other blogs like open left, and ones we haven't heard of, could step up.  it is quite helpful, if one is involved in direct community organizing, to be able to read about how other people are carrying out the same tasks, to see inspiring photographs, etc.  there is no reason why this form couldn't be used with more radical content.    

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:57:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by this summer, i mean last summer. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:57:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

But I think the venue is an open question. Or, more likely, closed.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you mean independent thought, yes. (4.00 / 2)

If by independent you mean third party, this is highly dubious at this time. If progressives can't even agree as to what the ultimate goal is on healthcare, how does one build a party (with all the resources that entails) on that basis?

I would suggest the initial problem is even more fundamental. We have a seemingly vast ocean of independent progressive groups that spend as much time differing with each other (which is unproductive) or working at odds with each other (directly or indirectly). There is a great deal of wasted effort there.

A hundred years ago, Progressives had their own conventions, in which issues were discussed, strategy made and a broad message of unity (after much negotiation among delegates, some of it quite heated) delivered to the folks at home. This produced electoral success, until the establishment finally figured out how to put us down again. But the progressives still existed, after folding alternatively into the Dem and Rep parties (Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive president after all).

Right now, the "movement" looks rather like little groups of people all standing on their own hilltops, singing to their own tune. This is fine, of course, as long as none of them are really interested in real electoral success and the power that flows from that.

Chris is right to push the Progressive Bloc(k) notion. It's already there, it just needs building up. I would call that the path of least resistance.

The conservatives have their own conventions outside of the RNC, GOPAC for instance. The fundies, libertarian and other groups have theirs as well. As crazy as these people are, they manage to generate more cohesiveness that way.

We should be doing the same thing. Perhaps building on Netroots Nation into a broader Progressive Convention. Something like that. Maybe something else.

My point is that progressive infrastructure is too disparate to be a reliable foil against the forces of reaction. We're not really a movement yet and that needs to change somehow.

(woops, I've rambled a bit)

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's dead, Jim (0.00 / 0)

The lack of agreement is, I think, a symptom of deeper issues. There are times when you think "If it was going to happen, it would already have happened." That's how I feel about the netroots and issues like single payer. (Issues about finance are even worse). If you look at stories like this, you can see the ferment taking place. I don't think the netroots can take advantage of that ferment. I only pray that a right wing demagogue does not. I had hoped that the Democrats would erect a policy bulwark that would prevent a right wing palliative to all the pain, but their policy failure on health care (and every time you hear somebody say, "Single payer is the best policy, but..." you're hearing FAIL) makes that unlikely. And that's before we even get to unemployment, housing, and all the finance-driven FAIL. (Those of us who, like me, watched the bailout unfold are a great deal more skeptical of the Dems ability to deliver anything more than bailouts to the existing owners of financial flows than those who were still focused on the horse race in 2008). It's dead, Jim...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:09:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

great. yes. the left lacks institutional or mass power today. (0.00 / 0)

what are you going to do about it (and how can i help), other than showing up and cutting people down on a blog?  

your post basically proves why much of your griping is off base -- you say the dems can't deliver anything meaningful, and then chastise those of us who say the dems aren't going to deliver single payer in the near future short of a mass movement that currently doesn't exist.  so which is it?  because we can't magically change the composition of congress.  we can only make them afraid (as chris has repeatedly pointed out over the last few days).  

and to answer david's likely follow-up:  yes, the left should have been pushing for single payer to ensure the compromise was a bit better.  i agree wholeheartedly on this point.    

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:31:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

1. People often identify themselves with their arguments. If you think I'm "cutting you down" here, please explain why.

2. Some of us on the left WERE pushing for single payer. The question is why the message didn't take in the left as a whole.

So, having lost, my takeaway:

3. The platform was insufficient (blogging), the terrain was one where the battle can't be won (electoral, specifically Democratic politics), and that the netroots would have gone with the issue had it been in their interest to do so, and it wasn't.* So, we need a different platform, a different terrain, and different troops. Other than that ;-)

NOTE That also goes for the role of the banks, housing, unemployment... All of that.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:59:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

all fair points, though 'different troops' aren't going to (0.00 / 0)

magically appear.  and that is probably my main point in taking issue with some of your rhetoric.  over the past few weeks, you have been, on occasion, insulting the very people who will be fighting with you if and when a mass movement for single payer materializes.  and it isn't just the arguments of others that you are criticizing; you regularly make it personal.  

i don't agree with your point about the 'progressive netroots' and their interests.  we all personally have an interest in single payer.  and only a few blogging 'superstars' (markos, for instance) might actually have something to lose were an independent movement for single payer to materialize, and take over real estate in the blogosphere.  

just to step back from the immediate discussion for a moment: the 'debate' between single payer and public option is quite curious, in that almost all people involved in the debate (including obama, oddly enough) seem to think that single payer would be a better system.  some might think that it wouldn't be good for the country to move quickly to single payer (i'm not one of them), so there are some actual substantive disagreements, but relatively few.  AND, the majority of the country apparently agrees that single payer would be better, even before much agitation on its behalf.  so, it seems, the discussion (moving forward) can take place almost entirely at the level of strategy -- how do we exert enough pressure to make it happen?  that is actually a great position to be in... hopefully, we can take advantage of that in the coming months and years.      

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:31:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank heavens I'm not the only one who gets the double post thing... (4.00 / 1)

On the personal, possibly. I'm an old-school blogger, and snark is my working tool -- and the only way to develop edged weapons is to sharpen them. So, to those who I cut with the edges, I apologize without reservation. (That is, I might add, quite different from calling someone an "asshole" or lying about them.)

In my own context, I'm getting rid of it. In this context -- a context, ye gods, where single payer has been covered regularly only recently, and in getting it in 10 to 15 years is an "exciting possibility" -- I'm not convinced that "fighting" on my side is a real possibility. If it were going to happen, it would have already happened. And as Atrios says, the only way to get the attention of politicians (if you don't have money) is to inflict pain. Bowers agrees. So, when I see politicians, I inflict pain. But the pain needs to be brought on the ground where it matters. This context is a distraction.

In fact, you couldn't give a more clear indication of the problem. You write:

almost all people involved in the debate (including obama, oddly enough) seem to think that single payer would be a better system.

So, if we can't get that done -- and if the administration censors it AND the progressive blogosphere (considered as front-pagers) can't bring themselves to push for it, what does that say? That's not a problem I caused by offending somebody's amour propre, no?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:48:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i certainly agree with your final rhetorical question :-) (0.00 / 0)

i would say, in answer to your question of why are we in the position we are: corporate interests control congress to such a degree that, the only way congress will do something like single payer, is if we mobilize on a mass scale in a way that frightens washington and wall street.  it is conceivable that the remaining months during which healthcare reform is being debated could be a period when this kind of organizing started taking off, but even that seems rather unlikely.  hence the somewhat longer-term focus.  

also, i appreciate what you've said about the personal stuff.  i've had my moments too...    

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:03:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well... (4.00 / 1)

.... -- and I'm not being tendentious, here -- I can't imagine anybody mobilizing for "public option." Who the heck mobilizes for an option? Medicare for All, maybe. Not for this. Now, who knows, maybe great things may happen during the recess. I certainly intend to do some visiting and calling.

So, provisionally, my take is that useful as the whip tools and all that are in the abstract, public option's lack of appeal and clarity -- together with the bait and switch tactics (130 million vs. 9 million) used to propagate it -- has sucked up any oxygen that might have been available for any such mobilization. Again, a problem of confusing electoral politics with politics.

* * *

On the sharp edges: Not my fault that pain is the only way to deal with electoral politicians! Policy analysis sure doesn't, as it were, cut it.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:19:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

all fair points, though 'different troops' aren't going to (0.00 / 0)

magically appear.  and that is probably my main point in taking issue with some of your rhetoric.  over the past few weeks, you have been, on occasion, insulting the very people who will be fighting with you if and when a mass movement for single payer materializes.  and it isn't just the arguments of others that you are criticizing; you regularly make it personal.  

i don't agree with your point about the 'progressive netroots' and their interests.  we all personally have an interest in single payer.  and only a few blogging 'superstars' (markos, for instance) might actually have something to lose were an independent movement for single payer to materialize, and take over real estate in the blogosphere.  

just to step back from the immediate discussion for a moment: the 'debate' between single payer and public option is quite curious, in that almost all people involved in the debate (including obama, oddly enough) seem to think that single payer would be a better system.  some might think that it wouldn't be good for the country to move quickly to single payer (i'm not one of them), so there are some actual substantive disagreements, but relatively few.  AND, the majority of the country apparently agrees that single payer would be better, even before much agitation on its behalf.  so, it seems, the discussion (moving forward) can take place almost entirely at the level of strategy -- how do we exert enough pressure to make it happen?  that is actually a great position to be in... hopefully, we can take advantage of that in the coming months and years.      

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:31:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sorry. (4.00 / 1)

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:32:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not as bad as you think (4.00 / 1)

It's not that all the Dems are a problem. It's leadership, it's the Blue Dogs and certain people who have all the appearances of being corrupt or just not very bright.

That Politico piece, well it strikes me as partisan hyperbole. But that's just me. Given that they are a GOP outfit, founded by GOoPers, I don't take them very seriously. The righties are failing and they know it, so their tactics are becoming more desperate. It may very well get worse before it gets better, but I don't see how these people can really sustain this kind of crap.

The American left always has been vastly more diverse than the right. It represents problems, as well as opportunities for growth. It's true the fissures run deep, but there have been times, usually very troubled ones, in which those fissures close enough to get some good work done. The New Deal, child labor laws, the minimum wage and so on.

So it's not hopeless. It's just kind of a steep learning curve.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:33:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, it's Politico (4.00 / 1)

I'm thinking more of the doctors who got themselves arrested in Baucus's hearing room on behalf of single payer* -- not the teabaggers.

NOTE Who got, I would say, better coverate in the mainstream press than on the progressive blogs.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:52:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that: (0.00 / 0)

NOTE Who got, I would say, better coverate in the mainstream press than on the progressive blogs.

is a totally fair point, and is more than a bit troubling....  

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 16:32:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, if you wonder why... (4.00 / 1)

... I tend to get a little bit cranky, you can multiply that one incident with the Obama administration's censorship and exclusion, the media's lack of coverage, and finally lectures from A listers on not understanding the process (links for all on request). Sometimes those that a process marginalizes understand it quite well.

Snarl.

Just saying. What I'm picturing is an architecture where party, movement, and media are separated powers. (The conservatives had a good run with a polar architecture just like that, starting in about 1975. Only in the decay of conservatism, of which one might see Rovian-ism as the final bursting pustule, were the powers unified, and each ceased to function as a result.) So it's more than a little "troubling" as you say to see the "netroots" start out with an architecture adopted from the period of conservative senesence (before the mania set in).

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:08:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't think we need a third party. we just need independent organizing (4.00 / 3)

a la the anti-war movement on the eve of the iraq war.  that kind of movement is basically indifferent to party politics, while nevertheless assuming that it is more likely the democrats will ultimately come to bear our agenda than the republicans.  but the larger point is that, unless the movement actually disrupts (or threatens to disrupt) corporate earnings, it is unlikely to get anywhere in the near future, third party or not.  

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:41:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

in other words, this would likely be a movement that thought a lot (4.00 / 3)

more about how to radicalize and unite organized (and fruitfully unorganized) labor in a way that could lead to mass actions (like a general strike).  party politics would take a back seat.    

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:44:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep. Agreed. (4.00 / 2)

The movement can move the party, as well and even strengthen it more along our lines eventually. But I do think its more important to strengthen our own bloc than the party proper.

Events alone are going to radicalize people. The crushing decline in our standard of living will do it. The continued wars will grind a lot of people down. The financial crisis and resulting bailout of criminal bankers is doing it too.

If we can manage to offer people answers, we'll get a lot of them. The numbers on healthcare prove that. They're already with us on this issue and most of them don't even know it.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:41:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But always have a backup. (0.00 / 0)

Third parties, historically, have reshaped ideological trends in politics.  In 1860, Abraham Lincoln galvanized a movement to help form the Republican Party from the ashes of the Whigs.  In 1912, the progressive Party helped shift the ideological makeup of the Democrats to the left.  And in 1992, H. Ross Perot's candidacy galvanized the business wing of the GOP to merge its efforts with the religious fanatics wing.

Without these third party efforts, the establishment political parties would not have seen radical changes in their ideological makeup, and history would be very different.  We can run all the primaries we can muster against recalcitrant Democrats, but if those fail, we MUST have third party challenges ready to pick up where primaries leave off.  otherwise, if we continue to compromise and throw our support to Democrats without making them earn that support, the party will go on taking us for granted knowing it need never fear a mass departure of the base.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 20:08:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

+1000 (0.00 / 0)

Couldn't agree more.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:50:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hence my own efforts to help lead the charge to craft a platform. (0.00 / 0)

See my last couple of entries.  Progressives need a general platform we can organize a third party around.  If we can't do that, third parties won't have a leg to stand on.  It's time to stop making excuses for why we can't go with a third or even a fourth political party, and start building.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 19:38:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Comprehensiveness and transitioning strategies (4.00 / 3)

I think we broadly agree on single-payer as the best solution, but there are several distinct versions, some of which may be easier to reach than others.

For all that France is often described as the "best health-care system in the world", they are not completely single-payer in the sense that Canada is.  As I understand it, France has a single-payer system that covers all preventive, emergency, and cost-effective (read: QALY-supported) care, with a private system to cover any desired treatments that are not QALY-supported.  In Canada, any treatments that are not supported can be purchased out of pocket in the US or overseas, but there is not a private market or private insurance for such care.

Do we want France's system or Canada's system?  This is relevant because transitioning to a French-style system could be done in a series of discrete steps.  First, enact a Children Are Our Future act that covers preventive care for everyone under 18.  Next, extend this to everyone else, because preventive care is cost-effective.  Add emergency care, because we end up giving it for free anyway.  Then pay for all QALY-supported generics.  Then QALY-supported brand name drugs, and finally QALY-supported surgical interventions, leaving the private insurance market to cover the rest.  These are small enough steps that most could be done via reconciliation, and no single step would incite nearly as much resistance as omnibus "HEALTH CARE REFORM".  

This distinction doesn't seem to receive enough attention, so I'm interested in hearing more from others, particularly the "single-payer now" advocates.  Thoughts?

---

by: kme @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:45:13 AM CDT

Either is fine with me... (4.00 / 1)

As both models seem to work. I guess I lean more toward the Canadian-British model as those two are more "pure single-payer". But if HR 3200 passes with the public option, we may be better off refashioning and strengthening the public option and the insurance market in coming years to ultimately make it more like the French public-private hybrid system.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:05:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, in 10 or 15 years... (4.00 / 1)

We may have this discussion again, right?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:10:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We are going to have this discussion every month, every year (0.00 / 0)

every decade, until the end of time.

Respectfully I hope.

Canada discusses its health system at elections, between elections and during elections. Just because it is loved doesnt mean it cant be improved (a  lot) and doesnt mean that conservatives use tricks to water it down and attack it.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:48:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

These ideas need not be mutually exclusive (4.00 / 1)

In strategic terms, let's say we all agree a National Health System is what we want ultimately. We're at Point A now, looking to end up at Point D. That would be a long-term strategic plan.

So what if we have to get the Public Option (Point B) which then leads us to Single-Payer (Point C), which thusly leads us to the ultimate goal?

The only real argument we should be having is 1) How do we best implement the PO so that it leads towards SP, and 2) How do we mobilize people around all these ideas simultaneously? Because if we want to do real outreach and gain support, it's a good idea if you can honestly tell people, "If you really think about these priorities, you'll realize our ideas are the best and we want your support. Your children and grandchildren will thank you for it. Please join us."

If progressives can't even broadly agree on the strategic objectives, then no amount of tactical discussion will help our agenda very much. All we're left with is a disparate set of tactics. We can't build much of anything on that, IMO.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:11:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are many ways to disagree about implemetation that (4.00 / 1)

still allow lost of forward movement. The stages that germany has gotten to for exampl;e, or France. If we agree to the Right to Affordable Qualioty Healthcare, and its the democracies responsibility to provide it, through private systemns or not, then tinkering to save money, ensure access, improve quality, reduce wait times -- are what happens after you come back from the doctor.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:51:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would simply make it "Right To Healthcare", which I think most human beings agree with. (0.00 / 0)

But I agree with your opening remark completely. There will always be disagreements, but we have to be able to get past that when it really matters.

Momentum matters a lot. We can still argue details along the way :^)

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:21:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quality is needed, as even in Canada there are soem that try toi imply (0.00 / 0)

that it out system should just cover emergency room coverage, and there have been court cases trying to "prove' That it doesn't mean everything you need.

The Affordable is added because, and if we were all rational caring human beings trying to treat each other as we would like to be treated it wouldnt be needed, because they say its available its quality, now go earn 1.3 million dollars and you can have it. It is also added so that people working on the minimum wage still get quality care. Yes even heart transplants.

I was in the in the operating room of a 9 month old baby born in a northern reservation who mother was told, make yourself ready, your daughter is going to die. But she was flown 700 miles in Helicopter Ambulance to Winnipeg, who agreed the baby needed a new heart, and arranged for her, them, to be flown to Toronto, where she waited about a month for a donor.

She was pink for the first time in her life about half an hour after being taken off the bypass machine.

Quality and Affordable, because some would deny it.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:56:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I couldn't agree more. (4.00 / 1)

I'm just saying that it's important to get people to think healthcare as a right, not just a bennie. Anything that pushes that idea forward, I'm in favor of.

When something becomes a right, not a privilege, the public mindset changes into one of ownership. In the US, that baby you write of so well would be allowed to perish, simply because it's "too expensive," or so that's how the excuse goes. It's bullshit. In this country, some people matter more than others. That's the whole problem.

Rich babies parents don't worry about "affordability." They just get it done, as it were.

So I agree with you, but I'm looking at it from another angle. Affordability is just a way of stratifying the patient population into economic groups, which I disagree with. If it's a right, it doesn't matter. It gets done anyway.

Will Nancy Pelosi's grandchild ever have to be concerned about affordability? Nope. And that's the way it should work for everyone in a civilized society.

Lastly, this is a line of thought almost every human being can relate to on one level or another. The poorest baby deserves the same chance of survival as the richest baby. So on and so forth....


When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 19:30:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I used to think... (4.00 / 1)

That settling on a "strong public option" would be good enough for now. In fact, I still hope the final HR 3200 will include just that and be worthy of our support. I guess I've just become more concerned lately after seeing the Blue Dogs & the Baucus Caucus allow the Republicans to shift the DC debate further to the right. The public option is supposed to be the compromise, but now all the "compromise" we hear about is a knee-capped & weakened public option or a mock "co-op" that's nothing but a ruse set up to work in the sick care industry's favor.

Sometimes I do wonder if we were too quick to abandon full advocacy of HR 676. Let's face it, we still won't have fully universal coverage and we'll still have major cost issues even with HR 3200. Single-payer is the real solution, and it sucks that Democratic leadership won't even allow the real solution on the table.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:01:54 PM CDT

Chris is right that the progressive block didn't pre-compromise (4.00 / 3)

but the rest of Democrats did, including the white house.

That's life. We have a lot of Democrats who are "moderate" because they're afraid of their shadow, because they're ideologically center-right, or because they're in the pockets of lobbyists.

No sense on looking backwards and wishing for something else. We didn't even have congress 3 years ago. This is the reality we live in.

Single-payer is a slow game. Public option is on the field right now. If we lose the Public Option, it's likely that we'll never get single payer in this country, because health care reform will be killed dead.

---

by: danthrax @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:09:21 PM CDT

Agreed, mostly. (0.00 / 0)

Progressives actually did pre-compromise in tabling single-payer for now, but they haven't compromised any in demanding a strong public option. However, Dem leaders do seem to be waffling at times. We need not look further than the Waxman-Blue Dog "compromise" in the House Energy & Commerce Committee to see why we need to turn up the heat.

This is probably why I still favor improving HR 3200 over abandoning it... For now. If it dies this year, we may have to wait many more years for another chance at health care. However if it's severely weakened to the point of irrelevancy (no public option, no employer mandate, no real help to afford coverage), then it does deserve to die and I won't lift a finger for it.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:22:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's not blame the progressives for this one (4.00 / 1)

The single-payer bill, as Chris rightly points out, has 83 co-sponsors. That's not exactly chicken feed, but it's also not enough to get it passed. The real problem, as everyone recognizes is Leadership and just how totally corrupt they are.

We have to  walk before we can run. A solid plan would look past the immediate situation and use the present to build towards the next phase. Climbing Mount Everest is still done one step at a time... but not without a solid strategy!

So think of the current situation as a Rally Point on a longer route to the ultimate goal.

Healthcare is the Mother of All Wedge Issues. 72% want a public option, including 50% of Republicans. Roughly 60% want Single-Payer. We already have public opinion on this and even that can be expanded on this, the single most important domestic issue we have. This is an opportunity to do massive damage to the right.

I would submit that a sustained, coordinated, massive campaign can do a lot of damage to the corporatist agenda and all that entails.

If we can't get a rather good bill out of congress, let's kill it and make them start all over. Depriving them the opportunity to falsely claim "Victory!" and move on would deprive them of much needed political capital and would give us some breathing space in which to organize.

The only real failure in this situation would be if we let them pull a bait and switch and manage to put this issue to bed for many years to come. If that happens, we lose all credibility as a so-called "movement."


When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:46:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not blaming progressives. (4.00 / 2)

Take a look at the first paragraph of my above comment again:

Progressives actually did pre-compromise in tabling single-payer for now, but they haven't compromised any in demanding a strong public option. However, Dem leaders do seem to be waffling at times. We need not look further than the Waxman-Blue Dog "compromise" in the House Energy & Commerce Committee to see why we need to turn up the heat.

It isn't the Progressive Caucus that's to blame here. Rather, Democratic leadership can't agree on one set of standards and stick to them. Nancy Pelosi's the one giving us the fewest problems, as she's clearly laid out what's acceptable and what isn't. However, Harry Reid waited until this week to finally say what he will deem acceptable in the Senate. Henry Waxman's already caving on a strong public option in the House Energy Committee, while Max Baucus won't include any public option in the Senate Finance Committee. Oh, and add to all of this madness President Obama's rather vague set of standards that we don't even know if he really will fight for.

What we just need is for the House & Senate progressives to hold the line on the strong public option and prevent the passage of a Blue Dog-Baucus bill that wouldn't do anything to help people get health care.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:50:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Couldn't agree more (4.00 / 1)

Yes, note to self: reading comprehension is FUNdamental.

If the CPC puts the kibosh on a bad bill, I would tally that as a "win" for us. Even just a handful of Senate liberals could do it as well, as the Thugs sure as heck aren't voting for it.


When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:14:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A bad bill is worse than no bill. (0.00 / 0)

Exactly.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:09:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why? (4.00 / 1)

On the 15-year cycle bit of conventional wisdom, "past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Indeed, the proposition is contradictory. Since one of the arguments that "progressives" make is that the legislation will be incrementally improved by pressure how on earth is the pressure to be applied except by asking for the best solution NOW NOW NOW?

Of course, to add to the bitter irony, the "grass roots" expected to apply the pressure are exactly the people who those same "progressives" threw under the bus to get their compromise passed: Those who need care, can't get it now, and won't get it then. Well done, all.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:15:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if by 'all,' you include yourself, then i agree with the sentiment. (4.00 / 1)

if you don't, you come across as a rather sanctimonious person.    

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:35:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's irony (4.00 / 1)

My mistake was the classic one of assuming that good policy arguments would win the day, if only they were out there. My second mistake was to assume this classic mistake would not apply in a "progressive" context; I was wrong in that.

In retrospect, I should have abandoned horse race coverage completely in May 2008. But at the time it seemed far more important now than it does then, and I don't know if anyone else did something similiar.

NOTE Too bad about the descent to the personal with "sanctimonious." I liked your other posts, so can we avoid that?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:41:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

as long as you avoid the "well done, all," i'll avoid (4.00 / 1)

saying how that kind of rhetoric makes you sound.

if it was a joke, it didn't come across that way.  

in re: the substance:

honestly, i don't think it much matters what is written on a blog if it isn't linked to more concrete, on the ground organizing.  that is why i mentioned the organizing for obama, because, as 'reformist' as that was, it was pretty impressive in terms of how many people were involved, how passionate they were, how many new people they were meeting daily, the feelings of solidarity they developed, etc.  the blogs helped enable this organizing, but not really insofar as they wrote about the campaign.  instead, they served as places where people could share their experiences and encourage others to participate. (i worked for a month in my hometown during this time, so that experience is what i'm basing this statement on).  

the same thing could happen with a more radical agenda.  and while all social movements need people publicizing its aims, that is only a small part of what is needed.  

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:52:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, maybe (4.00 / 1)

I agree about on the ground, totally -- and about the online experience as a "place" where people come together. What I now question is whether the online "place" is a place where everybody who would need to be part of this hypothetical movement can gather. Quite simply, not everybody has Internet access, and more importantly, not everybody is literate in this form of discourse.

The issue, I think, is that I don't see how "the same thing" could happen with a more radical agenda. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I saw message discipline in OFA as being pretty high -- and if things worked from the bottom up, then (going by anecdote, here) the single payer advocates who infiltrated the house parties would have had greater impact. Any top down organization is liable to decapitation, so I think a more "rhizomic" structure, that can keep reproducing itself horizontally, is more likely to survive assault. Which is why POLICY is so important -- that's the DNA in the rhizomes, if you will. To translate this to the 30s analogy of sit-down strikes: Where would we sit down? Answer that, and we have our answer...

NOTE Irony is often an online fail. I've been using "Well done, all" on my own site for years, so it comes naturally.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:20:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

great points and questions... (0.00 / 0)

yes, not everyone has internet access.  but in this country, a whole lot of people do, in one form or another (i'd love to see stats).... and the point isn't that the internet is crucial for everyone to have, just that blogs can foster and aid on the ground organizing in ways that are pretty exciting.  so can email; so can phones; so can word of mouth.... it's not the be all and end all, of course, but i don't think it needs to be abandoned just because not everyone has access.

in terms of the obama campaign analogy -- i was referring to the campaign itself, not the post-campaign OFA (i realize my dates were a bit screwy...).  but your point holds for the campaign -- it was top down.  and the movements we are talking about couldn't be, at least not to that degree.  personally, i might be in the minority, but i wouldn't mind a bit more organizational 'hierarchy' as long as it had democratic mechanisms, and as long as the leaders were broadly representative of the population.  having technological and strategic coordination can be really helpful.  and canvassing/phone calling can be a great way to spread a message and get people involved in a campaign.

in terms of where to sit down: i would say that the strikes shouldn't be sit down strikes, but rather general strikes linked to mass, non-violent, mobilizations, as well as health-related direct services.  imagine if some nurses and doctors, instead of going to their jobs, worked in mobile, free, health clinics set up at the site of mass mobilizations.  among other virtues, it would make it rather hard for the media et al to demonize the organizers.    

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:44:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Alternative workplaces" (4.00 / 1)

Let me generalize.

Not a strike, but productive work elsewhere.

That's fucking brilliant. Like the VA thing, but taking the day off to do it LOCALLY.

And it doesn't have to apply to only doctors and nurses, though. Could be anyone... Well, in the supply chain -- all supply chains being vulnerable.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:56:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

absolutely. nt. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:05:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Needs to be... (0.00 / 0)

... a "politician-free zone" I would argue. It's always great framing to be above politics (see distinctions elsewhere on this thread on electoral politics vs. politics). Here's a post that might interest you.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:33:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

good point about "above electoral politics..." (0.00 / 0)

it's funny, i was listening to some msnbc show  a few days ago, and someone made the point that healthcare was not about democrats versus republicans, but about people versus, um, maybe it was the insurance industry... i can't remember.  anyway, i kinda perked up at that framing, even though i'm certainly not 'above partisanship'...  

so yeah, i would second that tactical idea.

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 16:36:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it's strategic (0.00 / 0)

Electoral, movement, media are separate functions (separated powers, if you will) and mixing them is toxic.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 16:54:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

You? You chide others for sinking to the personal?

I spewed, I have to go clean up.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:53:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hi, Mr. Hope Officer! (0.00 / 0)

Apologized for "asshole" yet?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:08:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just to clarify (4.00 / 1)

This:

Too bad about the descent to the personal with "sanctimonious." I liked your other posts, so can we avoid that?

Is not chiding. If I want to chide, I know how.

I wanted to have the discussion, because I thought it would be useful. In fact, it was -- not being mixed up with material intended to make elected officials "admired," and so forth. It would have been "too bad" to have missed it!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:14:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you 18 years old or are your Rip Van Winkle? (0.00 / 0)

The Democratic party hasn't made a unified stand on anything with regards to broad social or economic justice since Civil Rights and the Great Society in the Sixties, and you really think today's leaders of the party in Congress and the White House will just suddenly make an about face and rush to single-payer with open arms?  You are delusional.  

I am as distraught as the next progressive that we have so far to go before we can ever start to get the country headed in the right direction, but who is going to lead that charge?  There are a tiny percentage of House members who are in our court (I am not sure the whole Progressive Caucus supports everything I do) and an even smaller percentage in the Senate.  I can't think of the last Democratic presidential primary candidate that was truly liberal/progressive and showed enough charisma to even have a shot at the nomination.

I think 15 years is a pipe dream for single payer and applaud Chris for his optimism.  I sometimes honestly think the defeatist's approach (losing in 2008 and watching the economy utterly collapse) might have been the only shortcut/corrective to a more progressive 'tomorrow', but with that goes the greater risk that 'tomorrow' may never come.  

---

by: Ricky @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:27:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

or that it will be a tomorrow where fascists, draped in (0.00 / 0)

the flag and holding the cross, will have power, the borders will be militarized, dissent will be repressed by the FBI, etc, etc. i'm very very skeptical of the 'heighten the contradictions' tactic, to say the least.  

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:49:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Problem Was Obama! (4.00 / 1)

He's committed to passing health care reform in 2009. Well, there's nothing wrong with that, except that there's been no preparation for the public to back it.

When you see people get up and argue "I don't want socialized government medicine messing with my Medicare!" you realize there's a LOT of educating the public to do.

If Obama really wanted a serious health care bill that would be a strong PO he should have been campaigning for it full time and having MULTIPLE national TV addresses to Congress and the nation.

He should have spelled out in advance what he expected in a health care bill and sold it to the American people. He should have said "I will veto any bill that doesn't contain some version of these ten points!"

And then he should have been lobbying individual Democrats to get on board and putting maximum pressure on the waiverers.

He should have stated day 1 that "I demand an up or down vote on health care!" and then arm-wrestled ALL Democrats into breaking a filibuster.

He could allow Bacus and the other senate Ass-hats to vote against the bill when it comes to a final vote, but at least allow a vote by demanding they stick to the party line on a cloture vote.

He could have made that a major issue. And instead of shooting himself in the foot blathering about a "bi-partisan bill" while Republicans are flat out trying to destroy it and him, he should have said strongly in the beginning --

"I don't care if health-care passes with Joe Biden casting the deciding vote. I care if the bill will solve America's health care problems and that the America PEOPLE will believe that it makes their lives better after it passes. It has to work to reduce costs and make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. That's the real criteria. And I don't care a fig whether the insurance lobby likes it or not. Their profits cannot take precedence over the health of the American people!"

Can you imagine the difference if he'd started out with THAT speech and then had ten bullet points that any bill MUST have for him to sign it?

That's the way Bush used to handle legislation -- he'd make demands and then defy Congress not to pass his legislation, and then accuse them of being "pro-terrorist" if they even waivered. Then he'd beat up Democrats for not complying with his demands swiftly enough!

Obama's given the Republicans the idea that he's not tough and that they can get away with rolling him and blocking his initiatives and he's not going to call them out on it and use the bully pulpit to make their lives miserable over it.

---

by: Cugel @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:10:43 PM CDT

Obama himself admits this (4.00 / 1)

I've seen Obama himself recently say as much.  He talked about health care quite a lot during the campaign and thought the country was in agreement the system needed to be fixed, even if the exact solution was debatable.  

When you see people get up and argue "I don't want socialized government medicine messing with my Medicare!" you realize there's a LOT of educating the public to do.

Scary stuff, yet this is completely accurate.

Obama is stepping it up a bit.  My hope is August becomes almost pure campaign mode for health care reform.  Usually Obama steps up when his back is too the wall -- lets hope he comes through.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:52:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me see... (0.00 / 0)

This is August 2009?

And Obama was elected in 2008?

I'd say the education is starting just a bit late, wouldn't you?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:17:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Submitted too fast (0.00 / 0)

For this:

And Obama was elected in 2008?

Read this:

And Obama was nominated in August 2009?

Sorry...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:18:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is "make or break" for his administration (0.00 / 0)

and he's just stepping up now?

I'm not putting all the blame on Obama, but he does have one of the better bully pulpits around. He could have been out in front of the RW noise machine and the Corporatist media campaigns, but he chose otherwise.

You say he's good when his back is against the wall. That's great, but by my estimation, there is no good reason why Obama had to get in such a position. He could have been working to put the insurance and pharma lobbies' collective backs against the wall, no?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:35:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

just out of curiousity: how? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:53:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Press conferences, public appearances, and the like (0.00 / 0)

True, Obama has been doing these events. Like HOP says, its really more about his tome and attitude than anything else.

Instead of using his bully pulpit to explain why its so important to be "bipartisan" and negotiate with people (like the Republicans) that aren't negotiating in good faith, he could have been trying to educate the populace as to how healthcare is already being "rationed" and the real costs of the status quo. But, now he enters the fray AFTER the frames have been set by the M$M and the oligarchs.

If you meant "how" should he get the corporate backs up against the wall - then he could have started by designing a plan without their input, and forcing them to negotiate to gain back what they wanted to keep.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:37:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

agreed with the last paragraph.... (0.00 / 0)

in terms of the PR stuff, i think he mostly has been doing what you advocate...  

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:51:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If all Obama is gonna offer is "the PR stuff" (0.00 / 0)

then I should like him to be a vocal as possible. He's too quiet for my tastes.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:14:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a PR problem, though (0.00 / 0)

In other words, I'm not seeing a great set of policy proposals that bad PR isn't explaining clearly.

I'm seeing lack of substance throughout. For example, does anybody have an enrollee estimate for the latest iteration of public option yet? Link welcomed.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:22:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah, i agree here. (4.00 / 1)

it isn't a PR problem.  that was basically my point.  i think it is very important that we be clear-sighted in our criticisms of the administration, and the HC reform process more generally.  the problem isn't obama's PR.  he is probably the best 'salesperson' we could have elected.  the problem is with the product, among other things (which mostly boil down to corporate power).  the solution to this problem is not to try and elect a better salesperson next time.  it is to create the conditions wherein whoever is in power is forced to pass social democratic reforms like single payer.  

 

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 18:55:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And if the 2008 election didn't do that... (0.00 / 0)

... then it's important to ask why. It's very doubtful that a electoral focus is going to yield a clear view on that question, however -- at least from people tasked with producing electoral outcomes. Yes? No? (See architecture comments elsewhere.)

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 19:41:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

he wqsnt being lazy, he made a different dission than you about the methodology of going forward. (4.00 / 1)

More than half of republicans think Obama was born outside the country. More than half.

I think you are right about the tone he could have been using, and the style of leadership and the educational teaching he could have been doing, but he's been busy "doing too much."

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:56:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This may damage him, but it won't break him (4.00 / 2)

You're right, he has the best Bully Pulpit on the planet. He could have easily walked to the front of the parade of public opinion and even called that leadership! But no, twas not to be.

He decided to ignore public opinion out of deference to his corporate benefactors and look what it got him. He seems more concerned with his post-Presidential paychecks than anything else at this time.

But even this won't break him. He'll still be reelected in 2012, albeit on much lower turnout. Still, it's amazing to me that the guy who won by a near-record margin on record turnout can still manage to blow it all up in the first six months just because people aren't interested in stupid excuses anymore.

After 8 years of Bush and all the damage he wrought, he should have known better.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:05:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama never really had a clear idea about this issue (0.00 / 0)

He knew people wanted healthcare reform, as he read the polls like everyone else. But he seems to have rather blithely assumed he could put any craptacular garbage up and have people swallow it whole.

Now he realizes it's a bit more complicated than that. Fact is, he listened to the party corporatists and once again they've misjudged basic reality. He even misunderestimated the crassness of the Medical-Industrial Complex.

He figured they would bend because he was doing them a favor. Heh.

What Obama is doing now is most likely too little too late. Even he seems to recognize that. Odds are congress passes a piece of crap, or the progressives kill it and make everyone start over.

At this point, I favor the latter. Perhaps Obama can look at his failure to do the right thing as one of his "teachable moments."  

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:56:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

nice post (4.00 / 2)

---

by: tremayne @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:53:22 PM CDT

Interesting data point... (0.00 / 0)

... that you think so.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:22:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh, no. (4.00 / 1)

Mr. Bowers, you're reading the situation all wrong.  Yes, single-payer had a number of proponents in Congress, but no one in a position to move H.R. 676 even bothered trying to push it through.  Instead, the first thing Democrats did was compromise, with the usual result that the other side saw no reason to give so much as a millimeter.  Had they made efforts to push single-payer from the start, and brought out the public option as the compromise after any failures, we would not be in such a weak position, having to start all over if the current weak bill fails as it should.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 19:05:50 PM CDT

specious argument (0.00 / 0)

There are 86 co-sponsors of HR 676 (counting Conyers), 84 of whom are full voting members in the House. That leaves the bill 134 short of the 218 needed for passage (when all seats are filled and everyone is voting.) There is simply no way that MoveOn and the blogosphere could have generated enough activism to swing 134 more votes.

last i checked, there were only 8 sponsors of hr 3200. how ya gonna swing 210 more votes if you can't do 134?

but yeah, the constant stream of defeatism coming from all outlets, print and pixel alike, was a factor in a lot of people's decisions on who and what to support.

I don't have any regrets over the focus of American progressive activism from 2003-2008. Given the direction we were moving, such a rearguard campaign with more moderate targets remains easily justifiable. I also don't have any regrets about the actions of progressives in the health care fight. The Progressive Block is the best strategy that could be implemented for the short-term once it was clear single-payer wasn't going anywhere.

understandable. political changes are mostly an incremental accretion of baby steps. they're also occasionally, very occasionally, punctuated by seismic shifts. important to always stay open to the possibility of those. and like earthquakes, you might not get much warning ahead of time.

Still, this is the last time that I intend to campaign for a partial solution on health care.

cool! come join us.

---

by: hipparchia @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 22:12:02 PM CDT