Difference between revisions of "2009-08-08 Reply to critics"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/link/news)
 
m
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<hide>
 
<hide>
−
<let name=data index=Date>2009-08-08</let>
+
{{page/link|article}}
−
<let name=data index=Author>Kip Sullivan</let>
+
[[title/short::Reply to critics]]
−
<let name=data index=Source>Physicians for a National Health Program</let>
+
</hide>
−
<let name=data index=Topics>\2009 US healthcare reform</let>
+
* '''when''': [[when posted::2009-08-08]]
−
<let name=data index=URL>http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/08/reply-to-critics-of-%E2%80%9Cbait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%98public-option%E2%80%99-was-sold%E2%80%9D/</let>
+
* '''author''': [[author::Kip Sullivan]]
−
<let name=data index=Title>Reply to critics of "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold"</let>
+
* '''source''': [[site::Physicians for a National Health Program]]
−
<let name=data index=TitlePlain>Reply to critics</let>
+
* '''topics''': [[topic::US/healthcare/reform/2009/public option]] [[topic::2009-07-20 Bait and switch - How the public option was sold]]
−
<let name=data index=Text><blockquote>
+
* '''link''': [[URL::http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/08/reply-to-critics-of-%E2%80%9Cbait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%98public-option%E2%80%99-was-sold%E2%80%9D/]]
−
<p>[[US conservatism|Conservatives]] never base their opposition to single-payer on the ground that it is "politically infeasible." They oppose single-payer on policy grounds and they say so. The "political feasibility" argument is used exclusively by proponents of [[universal health insurance]] who profess to admire single-payer systems but who refuse to support single-payer legislation in any meaningful way (and often support legislation that impedes single-the ground that single-payer cannot be enacted, soon or at all. Merton Bernstein and Ted Marmor refer to these people as "political yes buts."</p>
+
* '''title''': [[title::Reply to critics of "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold"]]
 +
* '''summary''': [[Summary::>&ldquo;Several "yes buts" took issue with a comment I posted on {{date|2009-07-20|July 20}} on this blog entitled "[[2009-07-20 Bait and switch - How the public option was sold|Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold]]."&rdquo;]]
  
−
<p>"Political yes buts" have been lecturing single-payer advocates since the modern American single-payer movement began in the late 1980s. Several "yes buts" took issue with a comment I posted on {{date|2009-07-20|July 20}} on this blog entitled "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold." In that comment, I compared the original version of the "public option" promoted by Jacob Hacker, the intellectual godfather of the idea, and [[Health Care for America Now]] (HCAN) with the version incorporated in two bills introduced by congressional Democrats in July.</p>
+
<blockquote>
 +
<p>[[US conservatism|Conservatives]] never base their opposition to single-payer on the ground that it is "politically infeasible." They oppose single-payer on policy grounds and they say so. The "political feasibility" argument is used exclusively by proponents of [[universal health insurance]] who profess to admire single-payer systems but who refuse to support single-payer legislation in any meaningful way (and often support legislation that impedes single-payer's progress) on the ground that single-payer cannot be enacted, soon or at all. Merton Bernstein and Ted Marmor refer to these people as "political yes buts."</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>"Political yes buts" have been lecturing single-payer advocates since the modern American single-payer movement began in the late 1980s. Several "yes buts" took issue with a comment I posted on {{date|2009-07-20|July 20}} on this blog entitled "[[2009-07-20 Bait and switch - How the public option was sold|Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold]]." In that comment, I compared the original version of the "public option" promoted by Jacob Hacker, the intellectual godfather of the idea, and [[Health Care for America Now]] (HCAN) with the version incorporated in two bills introduced by congressional Democrats in July.</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
−
 
+
{{page/link/footer}}
−
</let>
 
−
 
 
−
<let name=data index=TextShort>&ldquo;Several "yes buts" took issue with a comment I posted on {{date|2009-07-20|July 20}} on this blog entitled "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold."&rdquo;</let>
 
−
</hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if>
 

Latest revision as of 01:35, 19 February 2020

Conservatives never base their opposition to single-payer on the ground that it is "politically infeasible." They oppose single-payer on policy grounds and they say so. The "political feasibility" argument is used exclusively by proponents of universal health insurance who profess to admire single-payer systems but who refuse to support single-payer legislation in any meaningful way (and often support legislation that impedes single-payer's progress) on the ground that single-payer cannot be enacted, soon or at all. Merton Bernstein and Ted Marmor refer to these people as "political yes buts."

"Political yes buts" have been lecturing single-payer advocates since the modern American single-payer movement began in the late 1980s. Several "yes buts" took issue with a comment I posted on July 20 on this blog entitled "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold." In that comment, I compared the original version of the "public option" promoted by Jacob Hacker, the intellectual godfather of the idea, and Health Care for America Now (HCAN) with the version incorporated in two bills introduced by congressional Democrats in July.




Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2009-08-08_Reply_to_critics&oldid=65680"