What's Ahead for Health Reform in the Senate

Thanks KT. Any idea who the interest groups were?

'Leave Joe Lieberman alone. I'll handle him. I know Joe,' " says a Democratic strategist who has been part of those conversations."

.
1. says Lindsay Graham
.
2. says Dede Scozzafava (well she is not that far from Connecticut, it's possible)
.
3. says John McCain
.
4. says Ed Kilgore
.
But, in other news. I found a good chart that breaks down the differences between what the House has proposed and what the Senate is working with, and then a 3rd column showing Obama's needs as well.
.
For those of you who do not like reading the mis-mash of words in the actual bill to decifer it all.
.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_healthcareproposals_20090912.html

Ok thanks KT.
.
My sense is that part was given to you to shut up your liberal/progressive readers with regard to Lieberman.

BTW, I don't think that these sources should be quoted unnamed.
.
I'd rather not have that "information", i.e. what people are willing to say about other people when they can hide behind anonymity, than have something that's predictably deniable by Reid's people out there to become He Said-She Said--leaving us no better off than if we hadn't hear the gossip in the first place.
.
If people don't go on record, then it doesn't matter if you believe at the moment that they're credible, KT, it matters if we, i.e. any objective observer, can determine for ourselves if they're credible, and can then begin to establish a pattern.
.
If Reid's office denies this anonymous claim, how do we know that they're telling the truth or not? All we have is you saying "But Senator, some people claim X", and we're right back to more He Said-She Said, which (I hope we all understand by this point) leaves readers with a less clear picture than before the whole thing started.
.
Transparency is the new objectivity, KT.

stuart, this isn't really a challenge to dual or heavy criticism of the reporters (like I ever do those), but sometimes background info. is the only way to move a story. The classic examples are Watergate and Enron. We only recently found out who was Deep Throat. And who back then was going to risk everything by stepping forward? Would you have preferred to wait and risk no coverage at all? What else would Nixon have gotten away with? Enron biz coverage was a disaster – nearly everyone missed that and didn't get cautionary names on record …with rare exceptions as Bethany McLean. Her book on this (w/ Peter Elkind) is stuffed with conversations and facts but BM / PE said up front that many sources were on background. (still waiting for KT's book) If KT has to make the call on dropping names, so be it. To the point – do YOU trust Karen to make that call? I do. (or Amy, but I digress) Relying on ONE source without verifying is quite another matter. One of the few things I agreed with Reagan was his “trust but verify” motto. I think Karen, Jay, and yes, even Amy try to do this. I'll cut them slack here. I'd appreciate your (disagreeing?) thoughts, stuart.

The reason I brought this up in the first place was because that kind of secondhand quote is given for a reason.
.
Often not for the reason stated. This was a signal to the reader from the unnamed source that they should back off Reid and Lieberman.
.
There is zero evidence provided that Reid spoke to any groups about Lieberman.

What you reported is what you were told.
.
Evidence would be something beyond unnamed (to the reader) people telling you "it happened". A group that was spoken to for instance, as I mentioned earlier.
.
Forgive me for having the temerity to question blind self-serving quotes but the run up to Iraq wasn't that long ago and was filled with them and reported in very reputable places.
.
Not that this compares in importance but...

deconstructiva:

stuart, this isn't really a challenge to dual or heavy criticism of the reporters (like I ever do those),

No problem, but it's curious that you are so reticent with respect to "heavy criticism" of reporters. Why shouldn't we criticize reporters? It's good for them, IMO.

but sometimes background info. is the only way to move a story.

"Sometimes"? It seems like almost every time, doesn't it? That's a system of official secrecy at work, not "moving a story". That's a system in which only a select group of people know who really says what, and why they're saying those things. That's the opposite of transparent politics, government and journalism. If it were rarely used, that would be one thing, but it's systemic --and corrupting.

The classic examples are Watergate and Enron. We only recently found out who was Deep Throat. And who back then was going to risk everything by stepping forward? Would you have preferred to wait and risk no coverage at all? What else would Nixon have gotten away with?

You're right, those are "classic examples" --classic examples of the rare exceptions that journalists throw out to justify their everyday abuses of anonymity that serve the press corps' interests and not citizens'. Asking those rhetorical questions posits an argument nobody is making. Nobody's saying that anonymity should be abolished, or that genuine whistleblowers should have no protected place to tell the unofficial story --that's a straw man. We're saying that the system of casual anonymity justified only by the rationale "everybody we talk to refuses to go on record" serves news consumers (and democratic government) poorly.

To the point – do YOU trust Karen to make that call? I do.

No, of course not. Of course I don't hand over my intellect to someone just because secrecy is the currency of their trade. I'm not saying that Karen is an untrustworthy person, I'm saying we shouldn't have to trust reporters in most circumstances to exercise judgment for us poor, blind baby mice. It's not our job to trust journalists, just like it's not their job to trust government officials. That's not what freedom of the press is for.
.
We shouldn't be trusting little chicks in our nests, begging the political press corps to regurgitate information into our open mouths, deconstructiva. That's not our proper role as citizens in a democracy.
.
Journalists play along with sources refusing to go on record about the most banal, he said-she said comments because it puts them at an advantage over news consumers, because it forces us to rely on them more than if we possessed the knowledge of who said what ourselves. It works for them, which is why they do it.
.
Until we demand differently, until we let them know that lack of transparency degrades trust, credibility and confidence, this disempowerment will continue.
.
That's why I say "transparency is the new objectivity", deconstructiva.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this.

…thanks stuart and Karen. Lots to ponder here. And KT, I was going to ask you for more thoughts on this thx to stuart's replies, but once again, you type much faster than me.

Thank you for giving us your perspective KT.
.
I trust you can understand mine-and not to speak for him-Stuart's.

Thank you for replying Karen, I do have one more question. Will the Democrats be able to stop amendments and debate once started with sixty votes?
.

bacalove:
.
I asked you this yesterday when you posted something very similar (link to almost word for word duplicate post), and you didn't respond, so I'd like to ask you again:

a public option/competition is the only way to really control cost and to bring about true reform thereby putting a definite Halt to the “out of control” medical costs

In the spirit of honest discussion, I must ask you:
.
How so?
.
How will a public health insurance option reduce health care prices in the US from twice that of the rest of the developed world?
.
Doesn't Medicare already pay more for hospitals, medical procedures, prescription drugs and laboratory tests than every other OECD country?
.
Even if the public option were to reimburse at Medicare + 5% (which is not in any current legislation), how would that "control costs", except to slightly slow health care's already wild inflation rate?

Thanks for the background.