If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why is HCAN praising Reid for saying "The Bill" will include a "Public Option"?

Valley Girl's picture

In order of appearance:

Seminal Diary at FDL

ACTION: Senator Reid does the American thing, puts a public option in the Senate bill. Support him, by Jason Rosenbaum (aka HCAN employee, aka I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now).

Link included to sign "thank you to Sen Reid".

FDL Action post

Excitement over Public Option in Senate Health Bill Leads to Premature Congratulations, by Jane Hamsher

I know it’s fun to get he pom-poms out, but what exactly is everyone celebrating?

[snip]Health Care for America Now was championing Reid for “standing up” and doing the right thing, collecting more than 20,000 signatures on a thank-you petition to the leader.

[snip]If veal pen orgs enjoy the role of being toadies to the party, I guess everyone needs a hobby. But I question the wisdom of switching tactics and heaping praise on Reid for maybe doing something he gives only the vaguest details about. Perhaps articulating what they expect to see in the final bill such that he deserves praise (for) might be more appropriate for a progressive organization advocating for health care reform.

Maybe it's simply the details of the "opt-out" Jane is asking for:

Reid hasn’t said what this “opt-out” will include

But, I read this as a more general call for details on Reid's "Public Option" that is being celebrated by HCAN and HCAN blogger Jason Rosenbaum here, in a post that includes the full text of Reid's statement. Reid snippet:

As we've gone through this process, I've concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators Baucus and Dodd, that the best way forward is to include a public option with an opt-out provision for states.

Under this concept, states will be able to determine whether the public option works well for them and will have the ability to opt-out.

I believe that a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system. It will protect consumers, keep insurers honest and ensure competition and that's why we intend to include it on the bill that will be submitted to the Senate for consideration.

My reading is that Jane is saying "why should HCAN and others celebrate when the details of Reid's "public option aren't given? We need to know the details"

HCAN has been notoriously resistant to providing "details" as to what a "public option" should comprise, what would make a "public option" worth celebrating.

This is clear once again in the Seminal diary linked above, where Kip Sullivan asks Jason Rosenbaum (HCAN employee) to explain the details of how he envisions a Public Option working. Kip lays out one scenario, and then asks Jason at the end: "Is this the process you envision?"

Jason Rosenbaum responds to Kip Sullivan:
"Sorry Kip, not interested (in discussing details)."

Does this fall into the category of "truer words were never spoken"?

No votes yet


Jeff W's picture
Submitted by Jeff W on

for posting that link to Kip Sullivan's questions and to selise and lambert for nailing Jason on his non-response. (I am so not a Jason Rosenbaum fan.)

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

Jason has refused to answer questions about details. Long history.

Jeff W's picture
Submitted by Jeff W on

was, for about one second, for me, refreshingly disarming in its candor, because it was honest in its own way—he's not interested in responding. (It was a better response than no response at all, from Kip's point of view, I imagine.)

Of course, then I realized, as you just pointed out, that, well, answering questions like that (or, at least, "answering"), is, well, what our Jason is paid to do. It's like some lawyer saying in response to a judge's question, "Sorry, judge, not interested in addressing that one." Incredibly lame. Your response to him and selise's just added the completely satisfying coup de grâce.

Submitted by hipparchia on

he's paid to blog whatever hcan wants him to blog. he was hired for his social media expertise [yes, i'm inferring this from stuff he said way back when, and no, i don't have a link], not his policy or lobbying expertise.

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

Sorry, and I added a lot more verbiage, because a certain friend of mine (not Lambert) read it and didn't understand wtf my point was. Hope I improved it, rather than making it worse!

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

In re: my line

But, I read this as a more general call for details on Reid's "Public Option" that is being celebrated by HCAN and HCAN blogger Jason Rosenbaum

my editor, a certain friend of mine (not Lambert) sez:

I would have said, "Jane is questioning whether HCAN has any principles, any bottom line. She's asking how bad the PO has to get before HCAN stops praising it."

Well, I've already tinkered with my post enough, and I is plum tuckered out.

But, what my "editor friend" said is spot on. Thus, how bad does the PO have to get before HCAN stops praising it? Do they have any principles, any bottom line? (leaving out the $$ connotation of "bottom line").

Jeff W's picture
Submitted by Jeff W on

Isn't it sort of unethical not to disclose a financial interest (e.g. a salary) if you're writing about something directly related to that financial interest?

Don't most ethical issues of this sort boil down to disclosure, candor, etc.?

Am I stating the obvious or can Jason just post without disclosing his relationship with HCAN? I mean, he obviously can, but, in an ethical sense, can he, without committing some ethical breach? (Maybe I have some weird hangup about integrity, I don't know.)

Really, that's why I have such distaste for him, although I happen to dislike his policy positions as well.

Bryan's picture
Submitted by Bryan on

I'm not certain if the recent ruling by the Federal Trade Commission is limited to endorsements/reviews of products by bloggers, or a general requirement to expose commercial ties, but it is considered "good form", if nothing else, to have a statement of any relevant financial interests displayed prominently.