Difference between revisions of "2009-08-08 Reply to critics"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(link to other article) |
m |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<hide> | <hide> | ||
| − | < | + | {{page/link|article}} |
| − | + | [[title/short::Reply to critics]] | |
| − | + | </hide> | |
| − | + | * '''when''': [[when posted::2009-08-08]] | |
| − | + | * '''author''': [[author::Kip Sullivan]] | |
| − | + | * '''source''': [[site::Physicians for a National Health Program]] | |
| − | + | * '''topics''': [[topic::US/healthcare/reform/2009/public option]] [[topic::2009-07-20 Bait and switch - How the public option was sold]] | |
| − | + | * '''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- | + | * '''title''': [[title::Reply to critics of "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold"]] |
| + | * '''summary''': [[Summary::>“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]]."”]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | <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> | <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}} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 01:35, 19 February 2020
- when: 2009-08-08
- author: Kip Sullivan
- source: Physicians for a National Health Program
- topics: US/healthcare/reform/2009/public option 2009-07-20 Bait and switch - How the public option was sold
- link: 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/
- title: Reply to critics of "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold"
- summary: >“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."”
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.