******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Please Go There

Blogger and media professor Jeff Cohen argues at HuffPo that the reason Obama's health care plans are failing is that the liberal netroots are not pushing hard enough for a full-blown, nationalized, "single-payer," "one nation, one plan" style medical system:
Activists must recognize the surest way to get a strong public option that could compete with the Cadillac of health plans. We needed to mobilize millions of Netroots people, almost every union and 150 members of Congress to endorse a maximum demand: National health insurance . . . enhanced Medicare for All. In other words, a cost-effective single-payer system of publicly-financed, privately-delivered healthcare that ends private health insurance (and its waste, bureaucracy, ads, sales commissions, lavish executive salaries, profiteering).

Had liberal groups sent out millions of emails building a movement that posed an existential threat to the health insurance industry, Sen. Baucus and Blue Dog Democrats and their corporate healthcare patrons might well be on their knees begging for a comprehensive public option -- to avert the threat of full-blown Medicare for All.

Cohen goes on to compare the health care debate with the efforts to end slavery, the Vietnam War, and segregation. Demand everything you want, even if it is more than you are willing to take in compromise.

The historical analogies are faulty, as is the negotiating strategy. Demanding too much will result in failure, but who cares at this point. I certainly do not want to get in the way of this strategy.

The Democrats should demand single-payer health care with a loud and clear voice. If they do, Cohen's prophecy of doom for the Democratic Party is sure to come true, although because of not in spite of, his advice:

And if Obama does fail, we can quit laughing at a Republican Party in disarray due to Bush, religious extremism, hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism.

Because in this period of crisis and fear, unless a progressively-prodded White House delivers reforms that actually improve lives soon, right wing reaction could rebound more dangerous than ever in 2010 and/or 2012.

Please go there. We can't do it without you.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. sadly this isn't a problem with just Democrats I read to many republicans that think the problem with our message is that we aren't saying it load and slow enough. I think the Key to any message is figuring out how to sell it to the most people and thats a problem for both Republicans and Democrats.

  2. The liberals can't talk specifics on gov't health care because the people REALLY don't want it.

    The conservatives have free rein with the facts. It's an uneven contest.

  3. I truly hope it is only a half-hearted fight. The problem with liberals is that as long as the people who support them know they don't have to work for a darned thing because the liberals will keep sending those checks, they have no reason to fight for Obamacare. And for that this African American who has worked her whole life is thankful.

  4. Honest lefties (I know, I know, don't laugh) know the country as a whole does NOT want to go there. The basis of Marxism really is forcing on a people what they do NOT want, and going AGAINST human nature. It's actually possible that a president with political skills could conceivably get this monster passed, but Obama has only campaigning skills. He has zero political skills as a leader. Furthermore, the Left hasn't yet managed to prevent truth from getting out to the people. I'm sure they're working feverishly on that "problem."

  5. It is interesting that Cohen draws a distinction between the "public option" and single payer, there are plenty of liberals who genuinely believe the public option is just a means to get to single payer. Rarely, if ever in fact, do you see anyone at HuffPo explaining how this magical public option solves all the health care industry woes. Most often it's a mantra, railing against the evils of profits of the evil insurance companies and greedy doctors.

    I have, on occasion, donned body armor and questioned the magical public option in the comments at HuffPo. Interestingly enough, HuffPo is not so liberal an organization that they are pro free speech. My comments are more often removed by a moderator than they are left on screen. I did have an exchange last night though, where I asked why anyone thought a Freddie Med would be any more likely to be succesful than the government foray into the mortgage market. Surprisingly two people challenged me as to why I thought this meant giving government control over health care. I am almost stunned that anyone can not see how this all leads to government control over health care. The phrase Freddie Med got their attention though. Lo and behold the whole exchange was pulled by the moderator. I guess they can't allow a conservative on there to actually make a credible point.

    I wholeheartedly agree though, please let this be their strategy. They are doing so well with the one they have now, why wouldn't a bit more extreme argument do even better?

    Last point, but not least, thank you very much for linking my blog in your new blog section today. It was like waking up to find it was Christmas instead of the dreaded Zero hour. I am incredibly grateful.

  6. Yeah, single-payer will hurt the Democrats just like Social Security ruined FDR's career.

  7. Yeah, single-payer will hurt the Democrats just like Social Security ruined FDR's career

    Oh it most certainly will if it goes through. Canadians with means storm the US border when in need of top of the line, expedient health care. If it is the run of the mill stuff such as prescriptions, minor injuries and the like, they tolerate waiting hours to be seen in either a doctors office or emerg. Having been treated in both countries and knowing the two peoples, I can positively say that most Americans will be extremely disappointed in the change.

    Ever hear the saying "you get what you pay for"? Well, that is quite apt here.

  8. What these folks on the Left don't understand is that we folks on the Right will not simply accept what they foist on us.

    If liberals attempt to and successfully take away my rights, I will fight back. Physically, if need be.

    For all their talk of compassion and free speech, they are the most enslaving, anti-Constitutional, snd intolerant people on the planet.

    Such people will not have power over me, if I can help it.

  9. Cohen is a classic liberal. He refuses to believe that a said liberal policy, in this case single payer, is flawed or unacceptable by the electorate. Instead they blame everything under the sun except the policy.

    I am with you, PLEASE push single payer loud and clear.

  10. Regarding Mary Sue's comment above, to wit:

    "It is interesting that Cohen draws a distinction between the "public option" and single payer, there are plenty of liberals who genuinely believe the public option is just a means to get to single payer.

    You are quite correct.

    Here is a link to a video (ht, Allahpundit at HotAir) taken by an advocate of the "single payer" option, questioning Barney Frank about "single payer."

    After boasting that he is himself a strong supporter of "single payer", Barney blurts . . . he as much as admits that the "public option" is little more than a Trojan horse, and that the "public option" will eventually lead to single payer -- that it is politically the only way to get there -- but that the liberals cannot now do it in a straight-up manner, as the votes are simply not there for "single payer."