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

Too bad career "progressives" and D-enablers censored and suppressed single payer advocacy....

... because it turns out voters like it. Even Ezra Klein understands this:

Newsflash [not to single payer advocates]: Seniors like their single-payer health-care system. And other voters like the prospect of having the protection of a single-payer health-care system when they get older, too.

That, at least, is the main message out of New York's 26th district, where Democrat Kathy Hochul turned a special election in territory Republicans have held since 1960 into a referendum on the Ryan budget -- and won.

Obviously, on strategy, nobody should listen to "savvy" career "progressive" weasels like Hamsher and Bowers (now at Kos) ever again; they got this one completely wrong, and not just morally.

If "progressives" like Hamsher, Bowers, and all the rest of 'em had done the right thing, instead of the funded thing, the entire single payer discourse would be laid out ready for use, exactly as the blogosphere did for war, executive power, and Social Security in 2003-2006. But no. They suppressed single payer and censored its advocates , and so a victory for single payer is a one-liner in Wonkbook and a damp squib at FDL

Ditto tactics. Nobody in NY-26 wants the friggin public option sparkle pony that the career "progressives" flogged so hard; voters aren't nearly as stupid as Hamsher and Bowers think they are: They want the real thing! That being Medicare for All. Oddly, or not, the FDL post doesn't even mention the so-called public option. Hilarity!

Optimistically, the spectacle of "progressives" either jettisoning the public option, seeking to claim it's the same as single payer, or continuing to suppress single payer advocates will be entertaining to watch.

And I'm so pleased to find that "I am their leader; I must follow them" is a quotation from Yes, Minister.

NOTE Oh, and if anybody who still has an account at FDL wants to chip in over there, have at it, say I.

UPDATE FDL's Dayen uses the same frame. (Tellingly, Dayen is just as silent on [a|the] [strong|robust] public [option|plan] as emptywheel is.) Sadly, Defending Medicare, rather than expanding it, is what excites your D shill. Of course, this dovetails neatly with the D strategy of moving to the center, screwing the left, and throwing the former D base under the bus and then driving it over their prostrate bodies. So the Bible says, and it still is true...

UPDATE Nice to see the defenders of Medicare also rush to defend single payer in VT. Oh, wait...

* * *

No votes yet


Submitted by lefttown on

Hamsher, with her cute "Public Option, Please!" (if that wasn't the most sickening slogan ever), is exactly the kind of liberal Chris Hedges writes about in his last column. He writes that the liberal class:

...prefers comfort and privilege to justice, truth and confrontation. Its guiding ideological stance is determined by what is most expedient to the careers of its members.

Don't worry, though. Jane is fighting the fight. She's dreamed up a cute little project, whereas those FDL members who pay her can rate the candidates in 2012. Talk about an exercise in futility. It's another bright, shiny object bought to you by the leaders of the self-described "activist" website (motto: "Why Talk About the Patriot Act When We Can Talk About the Tea Party?")

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

Nobody in NY-26 wants the friggin public option sparkle pony that the career "progressives" flogged so hard; voters aren't nearly as stupid as Hamsher and Bowers think they are: They want the real thing! That being Medicare for All.

I don't see how you can draw this conclusion from the NY-26 results. Kathy Hochul's defense of Medicare seemed rather timid, and I never got the feeling she was in favor of single payer. It's clear that many seniors like their single payer plan, but projecting that into the general public favoring single payer over the option to choose Medicare over private insurance strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

beowulf's picture
Submitted by beowulf on

Seniors! The GOP won the House back last year in large part by rallying seniors angry that Obama cut $500 billion out of Medicare. Seniors went evenly split by party in 2006 midterms and were +21 GOP in 2010 midterms Medicare was their red hot issue (retirees don't generally worry about the job market).

Everybody already pays Medicare taxes and expects to receive it when they retire, its a very popular program. Universal Medicare would have been far more popular than "universal healthcare".

Here's a 'grand bargain' that fits on a bumper sticker. "replace Obamacare with Medicare".

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

were far from the only demographic that opposed Obamacare. Short of the 18-26 male demographic there wasn't much in Obamacare for anyone. So I think your argument is a bit disingenuous. As it stands if the Republicans succeed in making Medicaid into a state by state block grant program the whole thing goes kaplooey.

Frankly though, if the whole point of the finger pointing is to "shame" people or "ridicule" them then this whole entire sparkle pony thing should be quite successful. Personally, I'd be focusing on the weakest part of an argument for single payer Medicare, which is sustainability. It doesn't matter if the program is popular if it runs in the red before you can get a national plan implemented.

Someone needs to run numbers on how much is being spent on health care RIGHT NOW and point out that the injection of some of that money would save the popular program and solve the whole entire uninsured paradigm.

We desperately need a nationalized system and I really don't care if we call it Medicare or public option.

Submitted by lambert on

... see the only chart you need on health care in the sidebar.

* * *

On shaming: The people who propagated the public option Sparkle Pony damned well ought to be ashamed; the tell is that they could only carry the day analytically by refusing to engage their opponents.

* * *

On the national system: Public option -- and here I think I'm parting company with Vast Left -- despite its vacuity in terms of implementation, was always a neo-liberal, market-based solution that continued to place the insurance companies at the heart of the health care delivery system; that's why it's a public option. And that explains two things: (1) Why it got some traction in Versalles, because neo-liberalism is the ruling ideology across all parts of the permitted spectrum of discourse; and (2) Why it won't work, because markets for health care do not work (see, again, the chart).

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

The numbers I think that need to happen is what percentage of a person's check is going to go for health care? What percentage of business payroll would need to be deducted? I understand that we spend more per capita than other places but I don't think that and life expectancy are the only numbers needed.

I guess I'm with Vastleft. I'm not convinced that we couldn't have a federal system that allows people to decide on public or private insurance and lets the weaker of the two die a death of a million papercuts. I personally was hoping they'd expand Medicare this go round. Or at least allow single payer actists to have their part of the discussion. That being said discussing things like an adult means that instead of making fun of things that you don't agree with providing constructive criticism. My problem with the public option is that it was poorly defined. It segued from an option for anyone to an option that only people the private market weren't interested in insuring would be able to obtain. That's problematic. I also have my problems with a nationalized plan based on some of my nightmarish problems at the VA and my experience with military care(I was a Navy corpsman and frequently by September we ran out of funds for medications and had to issue IOUs). I am not an older American so am not as familiar with Medicare other than the brief period I spent trying to help an elderly neighbor with her coverage when she became diabetic and her medication costs exceeded $300 a month.

wrensis's picture
Submitted by wrensis on

I became discouraged with Jane at FDL and Bowers at Open Left when those uf us unwilling to kiss Obama's feet were discounted as idiots. Why now would I pay Jane to ignore my opinion? Herding cats to provide a viable candidate like Kuchinch is going to take a great deal of effort and willingness to let discussions be open and honest. I am 77 years old, I have voted in every election since I was 21. I cannot chose not to vote but I will be damned if I will vote for Obama who has made Bush look almost sane. The only choice for health care is Medicare for all and it needs to be implemented before our citizens are deemed to ill to live. The gift to the Pharma houses from Part D is obscene. I was just given a prescription for Levaquin 750 a standard broad spectrum antibiotic. 7 tablets cost $380 dollars, paid for my Medicare...I got off with only 7 per dose. I would love to see Kuchinch dragged kicking biting and screaming into this next election because I see no other possible voices out there who are willing to stand up and fall on their swords for our well being. I am old and tired but I am here to help when and where I can .

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

I prefer Bernie Sanders to Dennis. Dennis is a nice enough person and I agree with him on many things but he seems to have alot of ego, to the point that he endorsed Obama in the primaries.