abi, the link to www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck in the P.S. to the e-mail needs mending (the one farther down, under “Learn more and get details”, works).

This (non-)debate is problematic for that big reason - the fnords. You've got this seemingly irreducible segment of the population entrenched (entombed?) in poor education, class resentment and yes, racism. It may not be manifesting as outright war on the educated and non-white, but it creates a white noise of anger and fear that permeates everything and makes them fertile ground for any lie that reinforces their resentments to take root.

It doesn't have a hook. No OMG you gotta see this! in it.

Sorry.

My feeling is that if you are going to have headers at all, then you should make sure they are all of the same type. I'm not sure I've explained that very well, but the layout just feels slightly clunky to me. Probably there are people here with actual experience in technical writing who can explain or correct me on this.

Sorry that this isn't a comment on the healthcare issue as such.

[*] 8 is somewhere in between, and might possibly have been a better model for the whole thing.

Well played, administration. Well played.

Well, I'm assuming it's a mistake. Unless the White House really is trying to throw some traffic this way, in which case, awesome.

I agree that this won't go viral, though I hope it gives people some useful ammunition. But a viral email would work best with a story. As Teresa pointed out elsewhere recently, that's how we work.

I keep hoping this is the same thing we saw in the election, where Obama's two steps ahead of the game and preparing another masterstroke. We could use one.

1) Supporting your stance by essentially quoting yourself (emails from "The White House" citing facts from whitehouse.gov) isn't going to convince anyone who is already suspect of "either" source.

2) Nothing that the anti-health-reform OMG SOCIALISM folks have shown indicates that they're interested in facts from ANY source. They are only interested in whatever wild-assed blathering supports their own paranoid, ignorant, and, yes, racist worldview.

So... can we find a story for each of the items, and add it to the email?

Here's my go on the last of the 24 items(call it 3:8): in 2001 I insured my family for $252 a month. I had to buy the insurance myself, because I own a small business, but hey, it was affordable and covered all our needs. By 2005 the cost had risen to $800 a month for the same family, without even adding children. And the coverage with the same company shrank to 1 million lifetime from 2 million. We switched to catastrophic insurance plus an HSA. The cost of *that* is rising, too, and the coverage is dropping. Will a catastrophe make me drop insurance just to pay current bills? Like, say, the not-entirely unforeseen catastrophe of aging?

And Candle@5, I had the same problem with the mythbusting section (2:1 through 2:8).

Maybe I should send Axelrod's office a copy of this e-mail, red-penned to hell and gone, as a job application.

Croak!

I've heard a few times that socialised healthcare is Unfathomably Complex And Bureaucratic. I actually work in the NHS bureaucracy, and it is extremely complex (I work for the office that controls and issues guidelines for prescriptions in my borough, including five prescription targets per quarter - this quarter we're trying to get prescriptions of one particular statin down as a percentage of overall statin prescriptions because it's less cost-effective and blah blah blah forever) - but all of this is only your problem if you actually work in the system. From the point of view of the patient, you just go to your doctor and get seen to, with nothing more complicated to think about than how often you have to take these new pills.

Here is an example (pdf) of the sort of terribly complex form you have to fill out as a patient. It's not exactly Kafka.

I suppose it's a good sign that this gov't is sometimes a tad clueless when it comes to writing effective propaganda.

Let your conscience be your guide.

If you're going to improve the writing, or add links for story, you should send the result back to whitehouse.gov! (Even without detailed examination, I have little doubt this crew can improve it!)

I think I live in an echo chamber.

As you yourself said, the alternative is awful.

Therefore I'll do what I can.

*goes off to look for more hooks*

James D. Macdonald, #30: the Senate plan, pretty much, is the health care version of the bank bailout. Lots of money for the insurance companies, maybe makes some people actually get poorer, and it's all to do again when the wheels come off. There's no House plan at all. With the wingnuts flying, who knows what the House plan will be? While I oppose the wingnut response, there's little from the Democrats for me to support. A few improvements, mostly for people who already have insurance through their employers, a big handout to the financial industry (again!), and a somewhat smaller handout to big pharma. Why would I be enthusiastic about that? Why would anyone? And if I'm not enthusiastic, how can I persuade anyone else? To get real popular support there's got to be something real there, something more than just tweaks, even good tweaks, and so far it's just not there.

"Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized."--Daniel Burnham.

First there's the term "reform" - it means that the speaker has something he doesn't like about the current situation, and wants to assert that he's got the moral and intellectual high ground about how to fix it, but it doesn't actually have any content that you can be for or against. Other than health care, the US press most commonly uses it to refer to immigration issues - but groups claiming to favor "reform" want anything from "send all those furriners back to Mexico (even if they came from somewhere else)" to "immigration is a fundamental human right and the Immigration Bureaucracies are a bunch of slow incompetent thugs". I mean, really, who can make a speech saying that they're opposed to "reform", even though nobody knows what Obama really hopes to do because they haven't worked it all out yet?

And then there's the hopeless Right Wing. Once upon a time, American politics had some actual conservatives, such as Barry Goldwater (either the younger edition who ran for President or his older, crankier self who had the guts to say things the conservative movement didn't like if he believed in them), or Newt Gingrich's cadre who ran the Contract On America, or even Ronald Reagan (who'd give a good speech if somebody wrote it for him.) But the Bush/Rove gang kicked anybody like that out of the process - what they wanted was angry believers who'd parrot the party line and attack anyone who wasn't on message rather than having a serious discussion of issues. And now that they're out of power, there's nobody in charge any more, much less anybody providing any intellectual leadership - there's just a bunch of angry parrots stirring each other up and attacking the Democrats by making up random things and yelling a lot.

It's really sad. A competent opposition would force the Obama Administration to do some serious thinking about what to do, because it's a really large, really hard problem. Instead, they're having to defend themselves against wingnuts and dumb down their discussions with the public to avoid getting beaten up, and the political realities are that they have to Do Something reasonably quickly to avoid losing ground in the 2010 elections - so we're not going to get their best work, or anything like it. And there are lots of good issues the large pro-Obama group that put him in office could be working on, but they're also getting dragged into countering wingnuts.

Yeah, much happier with the rewritten version, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who was pained by the headers.

David Harmon@23: (Even without detailed examination, I have little doubt this crew can improve it!)

Of course, if you really want it to go viral, and want to make use of core ML competencies, it needs to be rewritten as light verse.

(Hides.)

If you really want it to go viral, do it as a snarky country song, and post a video of the performance to YouTube.

Your Daniel Burnham quote is a welcome sight. I'm a displaced Chicagoan, and I agree – it will take something Big And Mighty to displace the mythical boogeymen from the public consciousness.

Tom, #42: oh, no! The Answer is sausage! So long as it's sausage rather than sawdust, I'm OK. But it looks like the Administration has caved. So, unless the House stands up to the crazies and the Senate, it's sawdust.

Bill, #36: the debate is content-free because there's nothing left to debate. The arguments have been made, and the field tests have been done. The USA tried a public/private solution; the rest of the developed world tried public solutions. The US solution is a dismal failure. That's why the antis are unleashing the crazies: they have no case.

James Macdonald: now what? I don't see how progressives are going to defeat the Senate conservatives without support from the Administration. It's worth keeping up the fight--there's a difference between bad and worse--but so far as I can tell we're fighting a rearguard action.

What now?

Fight the rearguard action, if that's what it is. How can there be any question?

Get over it - you are all losers.

I can haz popcorn?

If this falls through, I will feel used and will work for a Republican canidate next time.

Then you'll really get to feel used.

I see Barack is re-building confidence and trust with his actions. Keep it up. I don't believe you can ever have too much accurate information - so a good letter sounds great. Tip: to really help build trust - stand up for your strong public option.

So, a real son of a dog, eh?

DeLay's going to be back in the spotlight, albeit one of an entirely different sort. He'll be on the next season of the "celebrity" reality show "Dancing With the Stars," along with fellow luminaries like Donny Osmond, Kelly Osbourne, Melissa Joan Hart and Michael Irvin.

Warp and woof.

How?

With the House and Senate in conflict, and the President unwilling to resolve the conflict in any meaningful way--and without some effective regulation of the health insurance industry there will be no resolution--, I can't see how any effective rearguard action is possible. What do you suggest?

But at a scan, it looks like I largely agree with you.

The counsels of despair are never good.

Write letters to your representatives. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper. Talk to your friends, your family, your neighbors. Go to Town Hall meetings to support the progressive side.

And next election, vote for the more progressive of the two candidates. (Two, did I say? Yes, two. I don't care how perfect the progressive credentials of some minor/fringe party candidate might be. He/she isn't in the race and can only function as a distraction.)

Don't accept defeat. Particularly don't accept defeat before you're actually defeated.

I've already done everything you suggest. My representative is a strong progressive. My senators are both Democratic conservatives. Obama's walkback makes both my representative and the senator who publicly supported a public option more vulnerable in the next election.

This isn't going to be the last concession. The astroturf anti-health-care crusade hasn't come to its finale yet. What seems most likely to me is that we'll see a health care bill similar to the stimulus bill: big handouts to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies and a inadequately-funded mandate to buy insurance that is quickly going to become a deeply hated tax in everyone's minds.

You complain this is despair. What, exactly, have we seen that leads you to believe that we will see anything better?

Maybe there's nothing that can be done. But maybe there is something. One thing that's certain is that if the belief that nothing can be done is strong enough to stifle action, nothing will be done.

If people who want reform don't keep trying, what's the alternative? Seriously, the possibilities I see are "keep trying" and "give up". What's the alternative?

And both Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein pointed out last week that Howard Dean's 2004 health care proposal was considerably more modest than what's being discussed in the Senate Finance committee (let alone what's already passed the other relevant committees).

Lexica, I'm disappointed, disgusted, and angry. Why aren't you? Facing defeat strikes me as a good reason to feel that way. We definitely have to think about minimizing the damage: unless we fight it it's very likely that the mandate is going to fall hard on freelancers like my girlfriend and many of the regulars here.

Personally, I'm going to focus on the paying attention part, to see if there is anything else I can do--anything that I haven't already done, or that I might consider trying again--to bring about the outcome I desire; the situation is still pretty fluid, after all, and things can change very quickly in politics.

I've already done everything you suggest.

Who said anything about false hope?

This may be a rearguard action, as you said. If you're in the rearguard and the sergeant hands you a machine gun and says "Hold this intersection," and you say "How long?" and he says, "Just hold it," there is no hope. False or otherwise. But do you know what you do? You fucking hold it.

Now get on your feet and get to work. You've written letters? Write more. You've talked to people? Talk to them again.

Did someone tell you this was going to be easy?

(Not criticism, just that's what it made me think of.)

And you ask for someone to set up a crossfire.

So, back to the rattle of the keyboards. More letters, more comments, more posts.

These are the barricades, and we have to man them; the other side is already storming them.

We have to come to terms with this, and soldier on. We'll vote for Obama again in 2012, even if it seems more like "the same old crap" instead of "change we can believe in" because at the top of the ticket there's only so much the president can do. The challenge is to stay positive and involved, stepping up to the next battle time and again.

In a way it reminds of Kierkegaard and The Sickness Unto Death. Existential despair, the thing that haunts you even if you don't know it. And the antidote is faith -- and that's true here and now as well. I have faith in my vision of the world, and maybe it coincides with others' and maybe not... but I do have ways to push that. Mid-term elections and a greater dem majority. Cash if even in small amounts in those races that need it, against blue dogs and corporate shills if possible (Rahm Emanuel can bite me), and staying firm in the face of dem waffling. The bridges and activist relationships we make now will come in handy in 2016 -- the battle goes on and on, and is really such an adventure and it can be the best roller coaster ride ever....

In terms of what this means...I think it's time to push hard for government support of any mandated insurance purchases. Three times the Federal poverty level is around $30,000/year, and the step from that to purchasing your own insurance (= marginal tax rate) is going to be huge. Some softening of that step would be a great help to individuals buying their own insurance. The same people who weakened the stimulus bill, and their supporters who are wrecking California, will fight that. If we can get some insurance regulation, even weak regulation, written into the bill, that would help a lot, too, but the insurance industry is fighting that tooth and nail. At this point, it looks like we're set for a showdown in conference, though it is possible the House Democrats will cave. I'm interested in hearing from the blogospheric leadership in how we handle that. I think that there does have to be some sort of bill; passing nothing will be a political loss for our side, and a victory to the radical right. So fight, I suppose, but be prepared to retreat on orders. Only, who gives the orders? Not Reid. Pelosi? More likely someone whose name none of us have heard yet.

In the longer term, I hope we can be ready when the wheels come off the bodge jobs. The banking system is set for a second catastrophe. Probably health care will be, too, but I think a bit later. The 2012 election promises to be interesting!

But haven't there already been too many?

I don't want this to be taken literally, but sometimes you have to shoot one of the officers for giving the orders. But, as Father Brown observed, one more body on a battlefield doesn't get special attention.

I bust my ass working and I already pay taxes and support welfare families, etc.

I understand that in society, you have to help those less fortunate, but where does it end?

One thing to keep in mind as you contemplate these issues is that you're already paying for the consequences of a broken system, in many ways:

• people who can't afford preventative care end up going to the Emergency Room, the most expensive place for medical care, which has to treat them regardless of ability to pay. That money comes from people who can pay, in some cases, and taxes in others.
• people who are permanently disabled to the point of being unable to work because of lack of medical care end up living off of SSI. Those same taxpayer dollars could have gone a lot further getting them care before, say, a stroke or untreated diabetes robbed them of the ability to earn their own livings.
• without good medical care, many children will never grow up to reach their full potential (kids with cavities don't concentrate well in school; kids who can't see the board don't learn too well). Those are people not driving the economy, contributing to the tax base, and paying for your retirement.

And that's just off the top of my head during a brief coffee break. I'm sure others can add a few more.

The US system is stupidly, horrendously, wastefully expensive, in both lives and money. And it's getting costlier all the time. It's not going to get cheaper or more efficient on its own.

I understand that in society, you have to help those less fortunate, but where does it end?

A fundamental question of political philosophy, that. We each have to examine our hearts and our consciences and make our own choices. How comfortable are you with people dying for lack of medical care which we could provide if we fixed this system?

It may be worth remembering, of course, that if you're a typical American, you're one catastrophic illness or accident away from being one of the less fortunate yourself. A cancer diagnosis, or even a cancer scare. A bad car accident on your way home from work. Illness in your children or your spouse. Anything that gives your insurance provider the excuse to pull your coverage and stick you with bankrupting bills. (Or, if you're lucky, disallow the charges but keep you on. I hear the nice ones do that sometimes.)

Everyone is entitled to health care. Those more fortunate than you, and those less fortunate than you, and you and your family too.

The current health care system isn't about providing health care. It's about making the stockholders and the executives of insurance companies rich.

Why should we be making them rich, while denying health care to you, to me, and to millions of other working stiffs?

Where it ends is here, and when it ends is now.

How does the government propose that this health care reform get funded?

A lot of great questions got raised at the town hall that happened around here (Maryland)

How does the government propose that this health care reform get funded?

Answered here. I found that in less than a minute from the post that started this thread.

If you want to know more about what the government proposes, click on the links in the post. The information is right there. Have fun.

You assume that Toucan really is interested in an actual discussion. If he were, he'd have easily found the answer you gave. Notice too how some people always ask about the funding when it comes to helping the less fortunate, but not when it comes to big manly wars?

Ease off, please. We're all in this together, the skeptical and the frightened, the lied to and the angry as well.

I won't spend all my joy on someone who's asking merely to sneer or to waste my time. But I'll assert that Sam is worth the effort till he's proven otherwise. He hasn't yet.

Because you get bad care if you don't. The US system delivers worse care than the British system, even to the wealthiest. This is consistent internationally: health care systems which don't deliver decent care to the poor also don't deliver the best care to the rich. Apparently, it is not cost-effective, or even possible, to fund a high-quality health care system which shuts a substantial group out, which is why the various systems of national care work so well. I don't have have the cites to hand. But I've seen them, and they seem valid.

Also, you are already paying more in taxes for uncertain and spotty care than the citizens of places with national systems pay for certain and comprehensive care.

None of this is news. It hasn't been news since 1980, and perhaps earlier. Why don't you know it?

Why assume I am a big manly man who loves war and red meat and hates Democrats?

Because we do at times get drive-by commenters who start as you have started and end in spittle-flecked rants. After a few iterations of that, it's easy to assume the worst.

Please don't pursue the matter. I'm a moderator here, and I'll ensure that things stay civil, if you'll do your part.

My questions aren't meant to incite, only to seek knowledge.

The insurance companies and the remnants of the Republican party are fighting a desperate rearguard action. We need to keep pressing the attack. Victory is almost within reach.

TomB, if the opposition is fighting a rearguard action, how come they keep winning?

I am almost certain that the taxes I paid as National Insurance contributions etc... in the UK were way less (as a percentage) than I'm already paying now in the USA (not including my employers contributions).

I'd also have to say the healthcare provided is by no means superior. In fact BECAUSE healthcare is paid for by everyone for everyone in the UK, preventative care is preferred to keep costs down.

I've posted in the other healthcare thread RE: my son's healthcare experiences. I can't attest that UK healthcare would have done as good a job, but we would not have had to rely on a charity to pay our healthcare bills.

//ends rant

Health Care will probably be the same story. 60% to 75% of email messages sent to Washington will be against the plan, just as most citizens attending the Town Hall Meetings sound like they are opposed, but Congress votes according to the instructions they receive from the people who pay them the most. We the People are not in that club.

And the plan we'll end up with won't make anyone happy, even if you support universal health coverage for all. You know the old saying about legislation and sausage factories...

The Pharma companies are controlling the debate and encouraging the media to ridicule the crowds of people disrupting the normally boring Town Hall Meetings that representatives regularly put on as carefully scripted dog and pony shows. It would be far more effective if the people speaking in these meetings were more skilled at arguing a position without sounding like a hysterical "wing-nut." Something like the essay linked below would be far more effective at persuading these powers that they are much more than a crowd of screaming senior citizens bused into these events by special interests.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/obama-postoffice126.html

And after all, as we get older, we become the primary market for the products maufactured by these companies. Those of us older than 50 are a hugely lucrative herd of Cash Cows whom they can continue to milk as long as they can keep us alive. Lots of senior groups now organize "drug cruises" to Mexico and British Columbia just to buy cheap prescription drugs from the countries with socialized medicine programs. Could this be the real reason we can't travel to Cuba to enjoy the cheap pharmaceutical phruits of the "workers' paradise"? If the embargo could be lifted, I might be on the very next boat to Havana.

Yes, it's a monopoly. How many health insurance plans does your employer offer? I'll bet the answer is one. You have two choices, take it or leave it. Oh there may be different options, but it's still the same plan.

A government backed program would introduce competition that the insurance companies could not influence or absorb; they would be forced to rethink their entire philosophy of "how much can we gouge the businesses/employees for?" while reducing coverage. Of course they are fighting this, with their willing allies the GOP.

Here in NC, insurance premiums have doubled since 2000, and are expected to double again by 2015. Our wages have increased only by less than 20% in that time period (mine a lot less than that); how much more of our money are we willing to give them before we say "enough is enough"? 30%? 50%? 75%?

That's not even addressing the lack of portability, the tendency to get dropped for the slightest reason, the failure to pay for services they said they'd cover, or women who find that pregnancy is not covered by their policy. The costs are going to eat us all alive; small businesses can't already afford the premiums. Soon that will be larger ones as well if something isn't done.

By stunning coincidence, I was just putting together a post to talk about rough and ready international comparisons.

Nothing too revealing, of course, and far too rough to be of any substantive use. But I realized I didn't have a good picture of what it costs to live where, and I like facts. Even messy ones.

This New Yorker article on US health costs is also worth reading.

You can still worry about the cost: I'd be wary of claims by a government that some new scheme will reduce costs and improve service. But the USA doesn't have to copy the NHS to be able to afford health cover for everyone. You're already spending enough through your government to pay for it.

There's a pretty obvious reason for the stories about the NHS being put about. There are people making a huge amount of money from the current US system, and, as the second article shows, that money isn't going to better health care.

And, yes, the NHS has problems. Dentistry is one: there aren't enough NHS dentists in some places.

I'm rather glad that some of these insurance industry shills in the USA are spouting their lies about the NHS. It's forcing our politicians to stand up and be counted. And I think we may already be seeing a few political suicides over it.

Good riddance.

Whatever happens, there's no magic wand to change things. The transition is going to be rough. But I can't see how the USA can afford not to make big changes.

Go over to winger sites, pretend to be a winger, and start whispering about how they (you'll say "we") have already lost, that it's time to give up, stay home, do nothing.

You enlist by taking part.

You drill by joining discussions like these, and gaining facts, and honing rhetoric.

You stand in the line and shoot by going forth and making comment.

You take aimed shots by sending notes and calls to your reps/senators/mayors/presidents/governors/newspapers about the issue.

You establish a base of fire by telling other peope about places where reasoned debate may sway a few people, where you are tired, or worn out, or not quite up to the task.

Dave Bell: We need to shoot some officers. Sestak in Penn. is just such an attempt. Lamont in Connecticutt was such an attempt (and the present officer corps rallied round the scumbag). Primary challenges are the ticket. So too is small scale activism. Take over the school boards, the city councils.

Strategy is carried out with as the aggregate of tactics.

Toucan Sam: It's paid for by taking the huge amounts we spend now, and pooling it to a single payer. The most efficient systems in the US are run by the feds. Taxes pay for them. The most efficient private systems are run on similar models (the Mayo Clinic) and can surpass the Medicare/VA models. But they aren't as profitable to stockholders, so they are much harder to get started.

We already have real death panels... they are called "reviewers", and they pass sentence on thousand of people (myself among them. Without the VA I am almost certainly never going to be insured).

Insurance companies take money, and then refuse to pay what was contracted for. An NHS won't do that. The wait for surgeries here is sometimes less than in e.g. Germany, but the surgeries there are more timely.

Why? Because it's rare for a hip-replacement to be sudden. So there is a six-month wait to get it done. THe doctor sees that in the next year, or so, you will need one. She puts you on the list, and you get it.

Here? The insurance company decides, basically, if it's too expensive.

Recall the book/movie, "The Rainmaker"? That's SOP for a large slice of the industry. Recission is a way to take money for services which will never be delivered. Then the victims are blamed, and the nation suffers.

Why do I say that? Because those are people who fall out of the system. If they were healthy they would be a gain to, not a drain on, the economy.

Yes, Brits, and Canadians, and Germans pay higher taxes. I've been in all three places, and the "quality of life" seems about the same; and roughly equivalent to the middle classes here. Based on the things they worry about (or better yet, don't) they are happier.

I want to be happier too.

And what Jim MacDonald andTerry Karnes, and especially Lee, who shortened it eloquently, said. Remember that the Forlorn Hope is still a hope; sometimes rearguard actions do more than just hold the line for a time. But even in the most likely event; if you don't try to hold the rear you're going to lose a whole lot more that if you do. Retreating in good order lets you fight again; breaking and running makes you a casualty or a non-combatant.

* Screamers of 'Death Panel!'; I think it's a nice parallel with 'birthers'.

As a home owner, I pay council rates and water rates (part of rent if I'm not). At a State government level, if I sold land or some other property there's Stamp Duty, an employer pays Payroll Tax, owning property other than my home makes me liable for Land Tax, but most people don't do these. State Sales Taxes, per se, have been replaced by the Federal Good & Services Tax (GST, like VAT elsewhere). Leaving the Income Tax, and Medicare Levy.

But there's a bunch of rebates and deductions in that. As a child-free widowed orphan, an employee with clerical-style duties, not a primary producer, I don't get family tax rebates, carer or unemployed/low-income allowances, or deductions for tools, special clothing, vehicles, fuel and such. The one-third rebate of my ~$AU1,000pa private health insurance is taken at source by MBF.

So working that out, and finding, then comparing, what's an equivalent person's amount in different systems, like the USA, Netherlands, UK and so on, is not that easy. Unfortunately, a lot of the comparisons I do see are done with an obvious bias towards showing one or another system is worse, rather than disinterestedly comparing the ratio of your earnings you give in tax and the kind of infrastructure and social support you benefit from in return.

I say we go with the New York Times standard, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1201093928-zCXctMhIOUeNZnqq/gH0PA&oref=slogin 935 lies, then OFF WITH THEIR HEAD! It will make reelection so much simpler!
Nick

Another point is that it isn't entirely clear that the events of the past couple of days have actually reduced the chances of getting a health reform plan with a good public option through Congress.

Noam Scheiber today in his "The Stash" blog at tnr.com:

"Around the conference table at TNR, we've been saying for weeks that what Obama really needed was a group of equally vocal, equally zealous critics on the left, pulling the debate's center of gravity in the other direction. And, wouldn't you know, that's exactly what's happened over the last 48 hours. We've now got a pole on the left to match the intensity of the pole on the right. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting a moral equivalence between the two. As far as I'm concerned, the critics on the left are basically right and the critics on the right are either insane or deeply cynical.) From a sheer tactical perspective, I think the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress have dramatically improved their position."

Terry, #97: as often, I agree with you pretty much down the line. I do want to emphasize the need for strategists and leaders, however--we seem to be short on those.

BTW, best news I've heard all day is that it appears the Senate Democrats and the administration, after egregious abuse by Republicans, have decided to throw over bipartisanship. On the other hand, they seem to focusing on the so-far useless co-ops as an insurance competition model. Progress. But I don't think we progressives can claim any credit for it--I think they just got tired of hugging cacti. And the direct attacks on Obama have to have rankled.

It's also important to remember, this isn't a rearguard. The fight against torture seems to be rearguard (in that we keep reminding people the moral issues and the practical issues are intimately related).

This is a response to counter-attack. The battle was being won, then they got a delaying actionl; held the line, so it looks as though the bill won't be really voted on until Sept.

So they took advantage of that to counter-attack. If we push back hard enough (and we can, if we post in places other than this blog), the bulge will be pinched off.

This Guardian piece is good ammo... someone who left the US, because the insurance companies' "death panels" have already condemned her, and did it before she was a teenager (feed that to the people who try to mention the NHS and Stephen Hawking), is good for that.

Take as wide a variety of links as you can find. Use my story (it's why I told it) and every other anectdote you can find (because the plural of anectdote is data, the rigor of the data is the real issue), and keep tossing it at the walls. Some of it, for someone, will stick, and then that person isn't against it anymore.

If you do it right, they will be converted to the need, and they will join the clamoring horde.

To quote the Boss, "No defeat baby, no surrender."

To quote Zevon: "This time I would rather break then bend."

To quote Martin Luther, Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht Anders tun. Gott hilfe mir. (Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God Help Me.)

These are interesting time, and this is a great battle, it's nasty, and gritty and scarifying, and seems petty. That's what battles are. Decades from now, when the histories are written we can look back and say, "wow... we did that?", but today, it's the struggle to keep hope alive, and the flesh and spirit willing.

Yes, I'm being purple, but I was pissed, and depressed and thinking it was not merely a forlorn hope this morning, but a lost one. It's not.

It's just another grind up Hamburger Hill.

I'll close with Robert Frost:

"Only where love and need are one, and the work is play for mortal stakes/ Only then is the deed ever truly done, for Heaven, and the Future's sakes"

"When you ask me that question, I'm going to revert to my ethnic heritage and ask you a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank asked. "You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis ... Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

Who said I wasn't disappointed, disgusted, and angry? I am all of those.

What I am not, at the moment at least, is despairing. I'm not saying things like "I can't see how any effective rearguard action is possible."

My comment was counseling against despair and against giving up, not against getting disappointed, disgusted, or angry. People should be disappointed, disgusted, and angry. But the sentiment "there's nothing we can do about it" is a very short distance from "so why even try", which is half a step from "we might as well give up".

Given the choice between "keep trying and hope to come up with something effective in the process" and "accept that we can't do anything and give up", I choose option A.

To put it another way, my reaction to what's going on in the health care "debate" is, "I'm angry as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." That's a long way from despair.

I'm not fond of Barney Frank, but to give him credit, he answered that one right.

I don't know why you normally aren't fond of Barney, but, yes, it's about time someone outright said what many of us have been thinking. It's not as if diplomacy has done us a lot of good.

I'm not "quitting" in the sense of abandoning the issue. But I'm not expecting Max Baucus to suddenly turn into a progressive, either.