"Finding Common Ground Between Public Option Advocates and Single Payer Advocates"
Ian Welsh asks a good question:
A Question for Single Payer Advocates
Are you willing to fight for a public option which could eventually lead to single payer or a comprehensive system like the French one? If not, why not?
That's a hypothetical, since the original public option as conceived by Hacker is not on offer [see here]; I don't regard HCAN's principals as meaningful, since they they could turn out in legislation to mean anything or nothing.
The true comparison is between HR676 and S703, and HR3200 watered down to whatever the Senate will pass.
Now, if a public option advocate wants to outline a plausible path from point A (9 million covered) to point B (130 million covered) -- and put some skin in the game by whipping for it and continually posting on it -- I'd be glad to listen, but so far I've seen nothing at all like that.
In simpler language: If the "public option" advocates want to back up their claim that public option would evolve into single payer -- or, heck, Germany -- then show me!
I'm still willing to listen, although bloggers that everybody hates and nobody reads* don't expect answers.
But OpenLeft is a perfectly respectable blog that's read by a lot of people.
So the failure to respond to Ian's post by our "public option" "progressives" is rather curious.
Or not. I suppose I'm forced to draw my own conclusions...
NOTE * Irony! Plenty of people read Corrente. It's just that they don't want to help pay the server costs by actually linking to us. "Progressives"....