Leading Blue Dog: Covering uninsured not top priority of health reform

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said on Wednesday that providing healthcare to uninsured Americans is "not what this healthcare reform debate is about. . . ."  Ross, who is the centrist Blue Dogs' health reform point man, questioned one of the primary health care goals of the White House and Democratic leaders. . . .  Instead, the fifth-term congressman said the bill should focus on "cost containment."

The Energy and Commerce Committee member reiterated that he wants to pass a health reform bill by the end of this year, a desire that may irk some Republicans who supported his effort to slow the bill before August recess. . . .  The influential fifth-term Democrat identified several provisions that would prevent him from voting for the bill. . . .  Providing government subsides for abortions, coverage for illegal immigrants, rationing of care, and deficit increases comprised Ross' deal-breakers.

I think what Matt, Ezra, et al. fail to take into account is the role they have as de facto spokesmen.  When Matt Yglesias writes a blog post saying "gee, maybe I could live without a public option," it's not the same as me chatting with BTD over a beer and saying the same thing.  It's not even the same as me writing the same thing in a blog comment section.  When these guys start making blog posts, like it or not, the folks at the White House are going to take it as indicative of "what the blogs think" or what progressives think in general - unless and until we all get on the phone directly and tell them otherwise, which we wouldn't have to do if the high-profile voices who actually believe in a public option would just SAY SO instead of saying "oh no, public option is off the table, I'd better drop it so I don't look unreasonable."  We are already being plenty reasonable, at least some of us, by talking about things that aren't single-payer in the first place!

If you want a word of advice on political strategy, just listen to George Bernard Shaw:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

I wonder if next they'd be willing to give up subsidies as long as they could keep regulation. I mean that will probably be the next logical GOP progression in regards to what they need to stomp their feet over. I can hear it now, "but we have a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge deficit we can't afford to subsidize the poor's care.

for our punitive damages we will accept a single payer public option with free rides to and from our doctor visits, repayment for time missed from work when sick and a pony.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the articles the last week or so are more directed to the community to convince them to accept the crumbs on the table.

The only thing that should be demanded by folks like Matt is a concrete proposal from the Baucus/Conrad faction. To even discuss what the Progressive block should do is sheer stupidity. but that is all Matt, Ezra, Kevin and others want to talk about.

You tell them, and mean it, that you will not vote for a health care reform proposal that does not include a robust public option

What is that?  Some insurance companies or no insurance companies? Fully tax-payer funded or tax on existing benefits?  Offered to everyone or offered only poor people?  

Why shouldn't that be demonized in the same way the Right is demonizing the public option?  I'd start calling the Baucus plan the "public giveaway."  We've had so many over the past 9 years I guess the thinking is, Hell what's one more?