Just wait until a) the fever among the lefties increases; and b) there are more delays — waiting until next year for something to be agreed among the Senate and the House could easily take that long, and doesn't surprise the informed, but what will be the result among the Kathys out there who are impatient?

It's another temper tantrum. “I want my candy [public health care, the details of which I don't understand] NOW!”

Thanks Jason I bookmarked it. I've enjoyed your comments on health care reform.

Paca – thanks for the advice. It's a tough question on health care reform – I think that by delaying it it may well kill it as you suggest, on the other hand the alternative was a bill that just does not balance on the funding side. We should not be given the choice between a bad bill and no progress at all. In one sense Obama is killing the bill by his insistence that it not increase the deficit or increase taxes on people under 250K. He has given Congress an impossible task.

While I consider myself moderate one of the weaknesses of being a moderate is it makes it a lot harder to do “big things”. To do big things generally takes a large majority agreeing on something. On the other hand it does allow things to get done incrementally, which although that will not give people the results they want RIGHT NOW will eventually solve problems.

I agree with most of your comment, paca, but what I notice about these misrepresentations by conservatives is that rarely do liberals actually do what you suggest and 'point out the blatant falseness.' It really seems to me that many or even most on the left have found it more convenient and effective to ridicule and harshly criticize anyone who either intentionally or inadvertantly misreports on the content of a bill like that. And after all, it wasn't as though that policy was clearly non-mandatory- because it was creating a mandate but it was a mandate for the insurance company, not for the patient. Bottom line is that most bills are not written in clear language for everyday folks to read, and much of that is probably intentional.

Now it is reprehensible when people who know better deliberately lie about the content of a bill- but in cases like that there are a lot of people too who read something with an appropriately skeptical eye and misinterpret what is written. If people on the other side of the debate were willing to engage in discussions, then speech that is accurate would win out over that which is inaccurate.

But in short, many on the left take this approach, and I guess they find it is working for them so they'll continue to use it instead of actually discussing and/or debating.

If somebody knows of a moderate site to discuss issues let me know.

We try to have a serious and substantial discussion at Poligazette. Also, Pete Abel and Jazz Shaw here at TMV have had up some very moderate posts about health care where it might be possible to have a more substantial discussion than is made possible by the starting points Kathy provides.

I'm not sure your friend was right. TMV has become TKV. Since your post there is another post up on the same topic by the same contributor, again with name calling. Frankly I've just about had it. If somebody knows of a moderate site to discuss these things let me know.

(1) personal abuse towards anyone who would even raise such issues at all; (2) vague and unsubstantiated insistence that a single-payer system will somehow just make these problems disappear

Yep, we're reading the same thing. I might add (3) rather breathtaking misreadings of other points of view.

The sad thing is the sober-minded case for health care reform is strong. Liberals would find many committed allies in the battle if they'd change their approach. Instead they're turning on their own for being insufficiently pure.

I think the real problem is that substantive debate in the public sphere — an especially the blogosphere — tends to be overwhelming by the shouting of the extremists and purists for whom any deviation, criticism, or even questioning is considered a moral crime of heresy. That would explain why the responses tend to be so personal and moralistic instead of substantive as well as why they are so repetitive and strident.

I've tried several times to raise some substantive issues with health care reform, ranging from problems with low reimbursement rates from Medicare combining with the elimination of the current system of de facto subsidies to reduce overall access to issues of simple cost and the way that year-to-year budgeting rules produce disincentives to investment in expensive equipment like MRI machines under single-payer systems. I've raised these issues not because I oppose reform (I don't, because I recognize the problems and unsustainable nature of the current system), but rather because I oppose hasty and ill-conceived reform that happens just to fulfill ideological diktats or emotional desires to “beat” Republicans.

Unfortunately, so far, all the responses I have received from the pro-reform side to my repeated efforts both on this site and on my own have been in two categores: (1) personal abuse towards anyone who would even raise such issues at all; (2) vague and unsubstantiated insistence that a single-payer system will somehow just make these problems disappear, but with no explanation as to how or even how it could address the inevitable tradeoffs. Basically, the pro-reform case seems to boil down to “don't just stand there, do something” which is understandable as an emotional response, but very foolish as a policymaking foundation.

Jason, I agree with the sentiment. I don't think “hate” is an accurate read. My sense is Kathy doesn't understand public policy, its complexities, and why they matter in an issue like this. So she's talking about what matters to her, which is a fairer health care system, and gets impatient and frustrated with people who are inclined to derail the issue to sweat the policy and economic details. She is obviously not unique, except perhaps in airing this frustration in six posts a day.

Like you, I'm wishing for more thoughtful debate on the topic too. There are certainly moderate voices to be had here, but since they tend to agree with each other, they alone don't provide much debate.

I've been very critical of TMV in the past, but I was recently challenged by a friend to give things another chance. I've honestly reevaluated many of my criticisms, regretted many of my earlier statements, and my view of TMV and its writers has increased dramatically. But when Kathy writes hateful posts like this day in and day out, it makes it very troubling for those of us that would prefer a truly moderate/centrist voice in the blogosphere.

Actually, that's one fact that's been misstated so many times that I actually thought it was true until recently when I heard otherwise and checked into it.

Congressional members and other employees get to choose from a menu of private insurers, not from a govt run public option plan.It is funded by the taxpayers, since we basically act as their employers- but it's not 'government sponsored healthcare' in the sense of how their plans are administered. And when put to a vote, Congress declined to take the public option in place of their current insurance. What does that tell us about their confidence that this will be a good alternative plan?

TMV aims higher.

That said, if you start down the road of 'all non-liberal Democrats are Republicans', then you're going to end up with the sort of minor but pure party that many Republicans are currently advocating for. You'll be able to agree all the time with the party, but they won't be able to do anything. Progressives need to persuade the people electing Blue Dogs to elect progresssives, not toss the impure out.