You mean like the Iraq War?

That is true for selling against something too, right?

If Silver and Dem strategists and politicians really believe in the superiority of this plan, then sell it honestly based on an explanation of its true merits.

This statement would appear to suggest that “Silver and Dem strategists and politicians” (a huge group, obviously) haven't been “selling it honestly.” Do you have any objective evidence for this notion, or do you just disagree because you oppose a public health care option? With regard to Silver specifically (since he was the individual on whom Jazz based his criticism) do you have any objective evidence that when Silver talks about “selling” the Democratic plan, his meaning or intention is to propagandize?

The other funny thing is that there's always time to be a fiscal scold when it comes to citizens actually getting, y'know, benefits FOR their money. Military adventurism, corporate welfare, subsidaries, and pork are completely fine though. After all, what's a 2 trillion dollar war among friends, right Jazz? Also, that last link was interesting since it put you in the unusual position of complaining about yourself, since you've now decided to rebut Nate for selling a bad idea, then proceeded to offer a whine for fiscal responsibility, a disguised paean to the status quo if I've ever heard one. That's your “alternative plan?”

Speaking of passive agressiveness, what about yours in this post, Jazz? Slamming Nate Silver excessively in a post seems to be more a fishing expedition for some conservative cred. What did he ever do to you? We get it: You don't want to pay for healthcare reform.

I'm just really astonished that THIS is the line in the sand for you guys. Healthcare reform is the big cliff. Not the military industrial complex, not the police state, not the runaway government and bureaucracy, and certainly not the nation's Death Pact to Cthulu on Raising Taxes. Nope. Healthcare reform.

I have to disagree about the lack of populist rhetoric after the pep rally, er, town hall meeting today. He sounds like he's still campaigning.

As discussed in another post, the support now versus the support a month ago has changed greatly, reflecting the fact that people may support a general concept but not specifics.

It will be interesting to see what the real plan will end up like.

The other thing I like about Nate's post is its pragmatism. I can't tell from his post whether he thinks the car will run or not, he's purely critiquing the sales process. I'd grade the democrats higher than he does, but I've been exposed to so much leftish hyperventilation on here, I'm probably not representative.

I do give Obama credit for not stooping to demonize insurance companies as Nate recommends; not that I think they're adding a ton of value, I just don't support the moralizing. They're rational actors in a complex economic system, exactly the same as us, the nurses, their unions, the government, and so on.

Hey Jazz — are you aware that millions of middle-class Americans whose incomes and assets put them well above the poverty line cannot afford private health insurance?

There is another point of view on this subject, Jazz. Nate is not advocating that Democrats sell a destructive plan. Nate is advocating that Democrats sell a constructive plan that will start to fix many of the most intractable problems we have with health care delivery in this country. Similarly, Republicans and conservative Democrats (as well as conservative bloggers) have been working very hard to persuade Americans to oppose a pubic option by telling them all the terrible things it will do to them — largely untrue, in my view. But by the same token, you feel that Nate Silver's sales points are largely untrue, and that he knows he is selling snake oil, and that he is no better than a crooked user car salesman.

Isn't this demonizing the motives of people who view the health care reform issue differently than you do? Just as some people here have accused supporters of a public plan of doing?

Nate Silver is not “showing blatant honesty” (meaning dishonesty) or using false selling points to win some kind of p.r. battle for public health care, Jazz. He is suggesting that liberals and Democrats might want to stand up and fight for the plan they believe in — just as conservatives have so effectively been doing to fight against the plan they don't believe in.

Oh really?

Okay, I realize it's not a central point, but at the same time the only reason that is apparent to me as to why you think he's “pear shaped” as an analyst on global warming is because you can't wrap your head around the evidence suggesting he's right. I'd be a little more lenient and suggest that you just weren't aware of it, but that's exceedingly difficult considering that in the comments of the link you provided to your own topic I outlined two of the main reasons why Silver's bet is not “a crap shoot” (or as you refer to it now, “pear shaped”. And if you want further evidence, check out the new study published in the Geographical Research Letters discussed here. Again I say, there is every indication that Silver knows what he's talking about. In contrast, your argument depends on the assumption of lack of evidence. And given that numerous lines of evidence do indeed exist, your argument is de facto erroneous.

If I have time I'll try to comment on the main point of the present topic, lol! But I just couldn't let this one pass.

Sorry about the poorly formed sentence.

“If so, maybe you be pushing alternatives instead of just complaining.“

I'm assuming that's just a poorly formed sentence which lacks only a “should” after the word “you.” And in this case, you're claiming that I'm doing nothing but “complaining” after I put a link in the original post doing exactly what you were bitching about. I have been proposing alternatives in addition to highlighting what I see as flaws in the current House and Senate versions getting foisted by the Democrats. You just don't like being called out on the fact that your accusation against me was false, as usual and, again as usual, want to change the subject and pull your typical passive aggressive BS. Peddle it elsewhere. I'm all full up, thanks.

I'm not shocked that you consider disagreement to be an attack.

Here's a post from last week where you called people who disagreed with you lemmings.

It also true that recently (in the post you linked in the second paragraph from the end) you agree there's a problem and you seem sincerely unhappy that no one is looking out for your point of view.

Then again, in this very post of yours that we're commenting on, you're calling Silver a BS'er.

Who's the attacker?

And you have to admire the creators of this health care initiative for their technical savvy. They've taken a Windows OS approach to health care: just keep the bloat coming. Once they add the slick Aero interface to the health care plan, it's as good as CLICKED!

Since the start, the Dems have been dishonest as well as incompetent, and in particular their deliberate evasion of the costs (never mind undertaking yet another rashly pursued harmful measure during an economic slump while claiming to need to revive the economy at the same time) have contributed to the ever-growing public concerns about this latest Washington Dem “adventure” (the correct context in which it should be judged — along with also-stupidly-rushed measures like the non-stimulative “stimulus,” takeover of GM, the “climate” legislative nonsense in defiance of open public opposition, and so on).

In fact, their incompetence, and rushing to cobble together _something_ that involves this and that additional change or addition of formerly-neglected details only serves to add to the concerns.

There is no need to “sell” this on anybody, nor for anything, Something, ANYTHING! to be done this year.

He thinks he's right, you think you're right.

I have the idea that you do think all those uninsured people are a problem. If so, maybe you be pushing alternatives instead of just complaining.