Fox News!!! Now a reputable source at DU.

[beachmom]

God, I am reminded again why I despise the majority of so-called "liberal activists" on the blogs. They are flagrantly dishonest.

[ginnyinWI]

1. what does this refer to?

I saw your other post too--but what is it about?

[beachmom]

2. Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8517388

[TayTay]

3. It's not just Fox News, it's hearsay all down the line

and a flagrant and, at the risk of being called an elitist, offensive display of 3rd party evidence. Honestly, have we no standards at all when it comes to evaluating seriousness of purpose?

This is a poster who flagged a story saying Sen. Kerry was working on or supporting a "trigger" to compel a public option on the health care debate. There is no evidence to support that Sen. Kerry ever said that and no direct quotes attributed to him, a member of his staff or press office or an on-the-record Democrat asserting support by Kerry.

However, this person read a news story from Fox News that quotes the subscription-only newspaper Roll Call that quotes a Republican Senator as saying that she is working with Democrats, including Kerry, on a "trigger" for a public option, if all other negotiations on a public option fail. Apparently that means, to the original poster, that Sen. Kerry is leading the charge for a public trigger. Perhaps logic is not that person's strong suit.

I refuse to get all worked up about hearsay and 3rd hand quotes attributable to a Republican Senator about a close-door Democratic Party meeting that that Repub Senator could not have attended. As for the post on another part of DU: meh! There is nothing there, only the insane desire that the people who do not believe in the accuracy of the post prove the negative that what was not said was, indeed, not said. This is a logical impossibility. It is also a colossal waste of time and effort that could be better spent talking to Senators like Mary Landreiu, Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh who truly are fence-sitting on the public option. However, that poster seems to think that whacking Senators who have publicly declared for the public option is more advantageous than going after those who have not voiced support. I don't get the logic, but it's a free country and magical thinking, to my knowledge, has not been ruled out of discourse in politics. (See Palin, Sarah for many examples of magical thinking in discourse, if you can stomach it.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8517388&mesg_id=8517388

[wisteria]

4. The quality of posts and proper accredited references has gone down the tubes

here at DU and most other sites. The blogs are not what they once were. Now, they all seem to just copycat the MSM-any source is fine as long as it makes your point. I used to be able to get news first on the blogs before I read or heard about it elsewhere- not so any more. This post regarding Senator Kerry is just one more example of the mediocre and lazy state of many blogs.

[karynnj]

5. That one is one of the worst

I searched his past to see where he was coming from when he wouldn't except Kerry's spokeswoman's well written response. He is a Nader supporter, who knowledge and logical abilities are not impressive.

Here is a sample of his work:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8331387&mesg_id=8331508

The thing I really don't like about this is that unless Obama really makes a very concerted effort on having a public option, it likely will not work - unless many not on Dean's list support it. Even if he does, moving 10 people is not going to be easy. Unless there are many other with Snowe's position even that might be the best we can get, if we can get that - and it will be significant if we increase coverage as much as expected. If the trigger is short, it might create the same force to cut excessive administrative costs and profit taking. I dislike that they are demonizing an idea that is not inherently bad.

[beachmom]

6. I agree. If we are talking 2 years, that is workable. nt

[karynnj]

7. It would also depend on the trigger being defined

by metrics that reasonably model the level of cost cutting that you would have with a public option. If done correctly, the threat of a public option, could have the same result as the public option itself without decreasing each company's size (giving them less leverage and less profit).

In fact if I were a CEO of an insurance company, I would already being looking for ways to streamline how things are done and prepared to cut profits. Under any new plan, there will be a huge new pool of customers (the uninsured)and all plans from all companies will change to meet the new law. Because it is in the interest of any company to be the first one cutting the price significantly, all of them will do it.

On GD-P, the problem is that some of these people equate public option with free healthcare or single payer. (they also conflate single payer and paid by tax revenues.)

[Inuca]

8. It's not only costs, it's "attitude"

Healthcare as a for-profit enterprise. That in and by itself is unacceptable for me. Whenever I hear various RW idiots saying that "you do not want a bureaucrat between you and your doctor" I see RED. I very much prefer to have a bureaucrat than a corporate bean counter.