The following personal account appeared on a Facebook page and is being reprinted here with permission from the author.

In general, I think anecdotes are an overused tool in political persuasion – but not this time, and not on this issue. For one thing, this particular story highlights the urgent need for health care reform in several different ways – not all of which get enough press. It also shows the adverse impact our crazy, broken, non-system can have on cultural touchstones such as marriage and entrepreneurship – two favorite conservative talking points.

But also, the response to it underscores the absolute abandonment of any pretense of “compassionate conservatism.” On the original Facebook post, most of the responses are – as one would hope and expect – sympathetic and supportive… but not all. Some are of the its-your-own-fault or why-should-I-help-you variety.

With the compassionate veneer now so passe, what we are left with in the debate over this issue is not simply naked me-firstism, but something even nastier. It isn’t simply about “you’re on your own” or “every one for themselves,” the comments and heated rhetoric actually crosses over into an enthusiastic grinding of others down. For some of the most vocal trying to prevent reform, it’s become about punishment – not just for the sin of finding oneself in an untenable situation, but for having the gall to hope for some kind of help from one’s government and community. A brief tour of the right wing sites and you’ll see; it’s gotten ugly beyond words.

So here, then, is a story that lays out, once again, the status quo these misguided tea party types are so determined to protect:

When I was 20 and in college, I was still a part of my mother’s insurance through her work. I was pregnant and so relieved that I had pretty good insurance (in my opinion) I was pregnant and seeing the Dr weekly around 7 months and didn’t have a copay. (Thank GOD! because even a $10 copay would have been impossible for me at that time)

When Reya was born, she was covered for 30 days. She wasn’t a dependant, so they didn’t have to cover her. In those first 30 days she was diagnosed with retinoblastoma (eye cancer). Everything was a blur. We flew to NY for her treatment because nobody in Texas was equipped to deal with a 10 day old baby with 3 tumors. (when we got to NY 3 days later they found 4 more)

Much, much more follows…

My dad and aunt Dianne paid for the trip. We thought it would be a 3 day trip. My dad came with us, but we were told they would be starting chemo and Reya and I couldn’t leave. Dad flew home and left me with a newborn Reya and $1500 in cashier’s checks (courtsey of Aunt Dianne) Between hotel, airfare, food, and other essentials the whole trip cost about 4K. We were in NY for 3 weeks. Reya’s second round of Chemo was AFTER she was 30 days old. I was 20, I was scared. I had a brand new baby.

When we got back to Texas, I took her to DHS and applied for medicaid knowing that in 2 weeks I had to be back in NY for more treatment. I had NO idea how I was going to handle these insanely expensive medical bills. (did I mention I was scared?) DHS had a medicaid card for her in less than a week. Reya was covered. Without govt healthcare I have no idea how this would have played out. It still makes me ill to think about it.

Here’s the tricky part. Reya’s got a history of cancer. She’s also missing a tumor suppressor gene. That puts her at risk for secondary cancers later in life. Teenagers with her diagnosis have a significantly higher chance of sarcomas (bone tumors). Add in the trouble we’ve had with her knees and the number of times she’s had them xrayed, and it makes me nervous. VERY nervous. Reya is uninsurable. No private insurance will cover her, and if they did they would exclude cancer treatment, and the premium would be insane. If I make too much money, she LOSES her healthcare.

If I get married, she loses her healthcare based on Levi’s wages. His insurance WILL NOT cover her because of her pre-existing conditions.

I’m trying to start a business, but I’m terrified to do anything. (it bears repeating) If I MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY REYA LOSES HER INSURANCE. One of those pesky secondary cancers could show up.. Then what? Or better yet she doesnt get annual screenings and nothing gets caught til it’s too late. That is a SHITTY way to live.

If this healthcare bill passes then I can still work, still start my business and not have to worry about Reya’s ability to see the proper care givers. If it doesn’t I may have to sit this one out. I cannot have her not be insured. The risk is just too high.

Is a confrontation in the cards for Senator Bernie Sanders’ town hall meetings on health care this weekend?

Of the 3 alerts I received on the meetings, two (VPIRG, VT Workers Center/Jobs With Justice,) raised the spectre of possible confrontation and sounded the call for activists to show up en masse to counter potential unruly teabagging hordes, the likes of which have been seen in other states. Email samples:

Our Vermont town hall meetings are a great opportunity for reform advocates and activists to mobilize-which is particularly important given the potential for a disruptive few to prevent real public dialogue.  They have already held demonstrations at the Vermont Offices of Sanders, Leahy and Welch’s offices with the message “Government Health Care Makes You Sick”.

They are getting groups of right-wing activists, sometimes busing them in from near-by states, to come and disrupt the meetings by shouting down anyone who attempts to speak.

Two at once suggest some actual hubbub. Although Peter Welch’s town hall meetings this week have been passionate, if standard fare, at least one of Bernie’s health care-specific events is being promoted by Vermont teabaggers, so its possible. Are these groups onto something? Are they simply being dramatic (and if so, does such drama bring with it the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecy?)

In any case, it is now even more in our interest to attend – likely with video cameras and internet connectivity at the ready.

SATURDAY AUGUST 15, 9:30 am, Rutland Unitarian Universalist Church, 117 West Street, Rutland, Free Brunch at 9:30 am, Meeting at 10:00 am

SUNDAY AUGUST 23, 5:30 pm, Peacham Congregational Church, 56 Church St, Peacham, Free Dinner at 5:30 pm, Meeting at 6:00 pm

I only check out Vermont Tiger if I’m feeling uninspired to blog, as there’s always tons of material there. Unsubstantiated claims supported by discredited or mischaracterized links generally, but sometimes they’re just silly:

If Texas asks us not to mess with ’em, perhaps they will let us copy some public policies that seem to have worked so well […] There’s a reason why Texas has the 2nd-largest Gross State Product in 2008.

Yeah, there is a reason. It’s that Texas has the 2nd-largest state population. California has both the highest population and (predictably) the highest gross state product. I suspect the VT Tiger folks wouldn’t have us emulate California.

A more helpful (but still inadequate as a standalone) metric might be to look at per capita, gross state product, where mighty Texas drops waaaaaay down to #22 – that would be right after #21 – Vermont. Oops (Oops, indeed – as apparently this relative ranking is no longer current – see comments – although Doug, your link doesn’t work…).

For our friends at Vermont Tiger, then, I offer the following that has been making the rounds on the internet (ht fdl):

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet — which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration — and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

Well, well, well. With all the scapegoating and fist-shaking being done at bloggers from unimaginative newspaper folk in denial about the realities of the changing media landscape, but desperate to find a bad guy to blame it on (for all the good it will do them), this is a refreshing change of pace. In a direct response to ramped-up, aggressive efforts by the Associated Press to police the excerpting and linking of their content and punitively charge for linking that falls clearly within the realm of “fair use” law, Chris Ahearn (“President, Media at Thomson Reuters”) offers the following on his blog (naturally), while presenting Reuters as a more measured, less reactionary, and more forward-thinking alternative to the imploding dinosaur that is the AP:

[…]yes the global economy is fairly grim and the cyclical aspects of our business are biting extremely hard in the face of the structural changes. But the Internet isn’t killing the news business any more than TV killed radio or radio killed the newspaper. Incumbent business leaders in news haven’t been keeping up.[…]

[…]Blaming the new leaders or aggregators for disrupting the business of the old leaders, or saber-rattling and threatening to sue are not business strategies – they are personal therapy sessions. Go ask a music executive how well it works.[…]

[…]I don’t believe you could or should charge others for simply linking to your content. Appropriate excerpting and referencing are not only acceptable, but encouraged. If someone wants to create a business on the back of others’ original content, the parties should have a business relationship that benefits both.

Let’s stop whining and start having real conversations across party lines. Let’s get online publishers, search engines, aggregators, ad networks, and self-publishers (bloggers) in a virtual room and determine how we can all get along.

Ooo. But that’s hardly the message many of our local media “experts” have been giving us, as recently as last week. Rutland Herald General Manager Catherine Nelson and WCAX’s Adam Sullivan clearly think if those rotten bloggers would just go away and stop stealing the news, traditional media would blossom anew.  As these folks, and so many of their peers eagerly echo, the bloggers are the problem. How can they be part of the solution?

Even the esteemed Rutland Herald editor David Moats warns against a future left in the hands of “blogmaniac(s).”

With all these experts so vigorously identifying bloggers as the media boogeyman, clearly this Ahearn guy is talking out of his depth. I mean, who cares what he thinks? It’s not like he’s a President of Reuters or anything…

As we learned from vtbuzz the other day:

On the shores of Lake Memphramagog this weekend, the Progressive Party state committee will hear from gubernatorial candidate Susan Bartlett.

The committee heard earlier in the year from Doug Racine.

The meeting was scheduled for 10 this morning, and I’d love to hear a report. What about it? Any of our Progressive readership have a first hand account to share?

Until such a report emerges, the rest of us can place bets as to how long before Markowitz changes course on approaching the Progressive Party proper, rather than remain the only Democrat not to to address them collectively. I say it’ll be their next state committee meeting.

From Sen. Sanders’s website:

Sen. Bernie Sanders will soon begin a weekly series of web-isodes on various topics with Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films.  This program will be available on www.sanders.senate.gov on Monday, Aug. 10 and regularly on Thursdays thereafter.

What NTodd said:

Ericka and I joined 14 other concerned citizens at Congressman Peter Welch’s office today in Burlington (parking less than a block from a giant sinkhole that threatened our very lives)[…]

[…]I was Tail End Charlie in the initial round, re-emphasizing that we could use a unified bloc of Progs (through a pledge promoted by the national netroots – and currently signed onto by 15 Congresspeople –  to vote against any final bill that does not include a strong, meaningful public option) to counter the Blue Dogs and pointing out that folks in the trenches would like him to signal unequivocally that he stands with us and for us.  Peter was predictably unconvinced, being not only a politician but also the guy who worked hard in committee for a lot of improvements to the flawed HR3200.

Really, I do appreciate his point(s).  We differ on tactics, though the outcome we all want is the same.  Still, pushing the pledge is a useful exercise.  The pledge is a tool that we can use to lay out our desired result and demand a line be drawn in the proverbial sand regarding a strong public option.  It fostered some constructive dialog, and the process continues.[…]

[…]We recognize the Congressman is fundamentally on our side, so the tone throughout the 45 minute meeting was civil and frank.  A number of the people attending have built relationships with Peter and his staff, and I suspect all of us will continue pushing this pledge thing with him despite his reticence.[…]

Thanks Todd. -DL

Dare a teabagger to watch this. Let them face exactly who it is their giving they’re time and energy in the service of as they try to derail health care reform.

(UPDATE: Just caught the Hallenbeck/Hemingway piece in the Freeps on this, and I should add that it, too, was well-done as stand-alone reporting, as well as in serving to further the public conversation. It’s good for everyone that the discussion has widened among the 4th estate, and we’re seeing some solid journalism in the process.)

(UPDATEx2: Ken Picard has a follow-up spun off his blurt blog piece in this week’s paper. It should be noted that he does address the TBI issue in the context of the current charges in the last couple paragraphs. It reads a bit like an obligatory afterthought, but in fairness it may not have if I’d read it first and not brought in the icky feeling I already had from reading the coverage up to this point. Let me repeat what I’ve said on many occasions – Picard is one of my favorite reporters in the state. In addition to praising him several times on this site, I even told him directly that I am “a big fan” at last year’s Daysie party, but that doesn’t change the fact that the 7 Days coverage of Flanagan has made me (and many others) feel icky.)

There’s just been something – untoward – about Seven Days’ coverage of the story it broke regarding Ed Flanagan’s alleged behavior in the Burlington YMCA. It certainly started off on the snarky side in tone. It’s also been relentless. Since Totten’s initial column, he, Ken Picard and Cathy Resmer have all produced further follow-up posts on the 7 Days blog which have served to keep the story’s fires burning without moving the narrative – which has remained the talk of the town – forward dramatically.

And in my mind, one line continues to color all the coverage; Totten’s comment that “…I wonder if Flanagan’s supporters will reconsider their blind faith in his ability to handle the rigors of public office…”. It’s made it all seem like a gotcha moment, initiated by a Burlington activist with a clear axe to grind (Tiki “[if you] were principled in the first place, you wouldn’t be a Dem.” Archambeau), making the subsequent coverage seem… well…  like piling on, laced as it is (given Totten’s line) with a sense of self-satisfaction in getting back at the world for the criticism of Picard’s initial, poorly-sourced article on Flanagan’s statehouse performance. I dunno, that may not be fair, but I know I’m not alone in this queasy feeling.

And that visceral reaction felt a bit validated today, juxtaposed against the excellent coverage from VPR’s John Dillon on the radio this morning. Not only was its tone far more appropriate for a work of professional journalism, it was complete, airing a full discussion of Traumatic Brain Injury – the key component missing from the Seven Days coverage since the allegations broke.

Among the traditional media outlets, Dillon’s piece should be considered the gold standard. Until I heard his report, I felt like I hadn’t heard the whole story. He approaches the touchiest of subjects like a real pro. Some excerpts after the fold.

And last month, reports surfaced that Flanagan was seen on several occasions masturbating in the locker room of an adults-only fitness center at the Burlington YMCA.

Flanagan denies he did anything wrong, although he’s apologized for offending anyone. He said he’s still learning how his injury has changed him.

(Flanagan) “I’m constantly discovering little subtle ways that the traumatic brain injury impacts discretionary decisions I make. And I guess I made a poor one here, and I’ll be very careful not to make such a poor judgment again.”

(Knakal) “Dis-inhibition is absolutely one of the issues that you can see after a head injury, but it’s usually something you see early after injury and not so much a late effect of traumatic brain injury.”

(Dillon) Flanagan says he’s fully recovered. But he says injuries like his can change a person’s behavior.

(Flanagan) “Brain injuries could affect discretionary decisions that affect behavior, yes.”

(Dillon) “And do you think that’s what happened here?”

(Flanagan) “I don’t know, but it may have been a large factor in the incident.”

Paquin said that for brain-injured people to succeed in public life, they have to manage their disability in a way that their political career can be judged fairly. And that may involve reaching out to others for help. Paquin said they must effectively communicate, do a good job of representing their constituents, and show the public that they can work with other political leaders.

(Paquin) None of those things are determined by any particular disability that an individual has. The question is does the individual understand how to get what accommodation they need around their disabilities so their abilities can be the determining factor for their constituents.

Here, again, is the link to the whole shebang. Do yourself a favor and check it out. And give VPR a pledge while you’re at it.

From the Washington Post, regarding the compromise that finally caused the Blue Dog Democrats to relent and allow the Health Care Bill to emerge from the House Energy & Commerce Committee:

Despite threats from almost 60 progressive House Democrats — who outnumber the Blue Dogs — Pelosi defended the compromise, saying it was similar to one backed by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Pelosi predicted that the liberal wing would fall in line because the legislation is so important to them.

“Are you asking me, ‘Are the progressives going to take down universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans?’ I don’t think so,” Pelosi told reporters Friday, breaking into laughter at the question.

Breaking into laughter, indeed. And it sums up just how seriously the progressives’ threat is taken by Pelosi. Liberals on the Hill have been continually bludgeoned with the “perfect as enemy of the good” argument, which seems to be employed to justify any and all compromises – including a potential compromise on the Health Bill’s “public option” that would water it down so far as to potentially reduce the entire bill to an expensive corporate welfare program for the insurance industry, with little or no actual “reform” in the bargain.

It’s why there’s a netroots push across the country to encourage congress members to take a pledge now – before the damage is done – to stand firm and reject any bill that does not include a strong public option. In other words – to play the game as bare knuckled as the Blue Dogs do, and demand, not simply the same deference, but greater deference from Pelosi and the Obama administration by virtue of the progressives’ greater numbers. It is an effort that is now turning its attention, through national blogs such as firedoglake and national netroots infrastructure networks such as Credo, to Vermont’s delegation (and Peter Welch in particular, as the emphasis is, for the moment, on House action). And the early signals from Welch’s office in response to questions about the pledge are sketchy.

How can this be, you might ask? This is Vermont, with likely the most progressive delegation in Washington – none of whom have any serious Republican challenge on the horizon. What’s the problem?

The problem is twofold (well, two and a half); that annoying damn quote from Otto von Bismarck (“politics is the art of the possible”), and what we might call “Let My Love Open the Door” (LMLOTD) politics.

And, at least in the immediate case of Welch, the problem may also in part be, ironically, our famously progressive, “democratic socialist” Senator Bernie Sanders.

A full explanation after the flip…

First of all, an explanation of why this pledge is so important. In a nutshell, we’re seeing the prospects of a good, meaningful bill rapidly diminish, and a pledge by enough of our elected representiives would, very simply, front end the power in the process. The pledge sets the goalposts in acceptable territory and sends the message that liberals are every bit as serious about their convictions as conservatives are. And by doing so, it shapes the debate.

Make no mistake – health care is the big enchilada. Representative Welch immunized himself against attacks on his integrity and seriousness by holding fast on the war appropriation vote recently, but health care – more than any other issue – has become the very heart and soul of the progressive left. And its an issue many on the left have already felt – fairly or not (and I’d say, generally speaking not) let down by Welch on, after the compromises with Jim Douglas necessary to bring about the Catamount Health program during his final years in the State Senate. Set apart from whatever dynamics Welch faces in the House chamber, taking such a pledge would clearly make for good politics among voters here at home.

Also – taking the pledge would not only be a statement in and of itself, but now that 14 Representatives have done so, not taking it is also a statement – just one that Reps like Welch probably don’t want to make.

So onto the problems. Number one is the mindset behind this “politics is the art of the possible” nonsense. This oft-quoted political mantra is, along with being an excuse to marginalize major reform as not “possible,” an implicit commitment to politics as a process-oriented affair. Now often – maybe even most of the time – such an approach is fine. But given the nature of the health care crisis, its time for full-on goal orientation, and the pledge is this approach made manifest.

So that’s a general problem among Democrats, but the bigger problem we have here in Vermont is the peculiar counter-pressure to reform created when you have solid progressives comfortably seated in office (what, you thought you could get something for nothing?).

“When everything feels all over

When everybody seems unkind

I’ll give you a four-leaf clover

Take all the worry out of your mind”

LMLOTD politics isn’t exactly “captive constituency” politics. The captive constituency mindset suggests that a politician isn’t sincere about progressive priorities but simply gives them lip service to get into office and stay there. LMLOTD politics sets in when progressive politicians confuse their own sincerely held progressive beliefs with themselves and their own comfort zones.

“Let my love open the door

It’s all I’m living for

Release yourself from misery

Only one thing’s gonna set you free

That’s my love”

When an elected official tells you not to worry about pressing a high-stakes, high-pressure issue with them because they’re right there with you and they’re all over it, you need to be watchful for the LMLOTD mindset.

“When tragedy befalls you

Don’t let them bring you down

Love can cure your problem

You’re so lucky I’m around”

The LMLOTD political mindset says don’t worry your head – you’re just lucky I’m here and you can trust that I will do whatever should and can be done and the reciprocal, if I’m not inclined to do it, it wouldn’t do any good anyway. It superimposes the politician’s comfort zone over any objective, goal-oriented political strategy.

It’s not a helpful mindset, and as greatful as I am for each member of our Washington delegation, let’s be honest – it’s a mindset that rears its head from time to time. And its going to be our biggest hurdle to getting our delegation onboard with anything as firm as a pledge.

Making it more difficult still is the fact that the very member of the delegation most associated with take-no-prisoners, radical health care reform – Independent Senator Bernie Sanders – has already set the bar on the issue on this very site. From the GMD interview with Sanders from a couple weeks back:

odum: Will you vote for a bill that doesn’t include a public option?

Sanders: I don’t want to – the answer is, I have been probably – you know, my view is that there should be a single payer – at the very, very least there has got to be, not just a public option, but a strong public option, and let’s leave it at that. That is what my view is, and I don’t want to be talking about what I will do and what I won’t do, but I think at the very very least there has got to be a strong public option.

Getting Welch to sign onto a health care pledge became exponentially harder with these words from Bernie, who has now goalposted the issue pretty far from the end zone. Sanders’ rejection of the pledge gives more than enough political cover for Welch to avoid such a committment as well, despite all the compelling reasons to draw a line in the sand now, and as clearly as possible.

Still, the biggest thing we have going for us is that Welch is on our side. He was among those who went head to head with the Blue Dogs in the House Energy & Commerce Committee and moved the bill through, even as he is among those we will be able to count on to strengthen the bill on the floor.

But the fact that Welch and other progressives have extracted a promise from Speaker Pelosi to bring a clean single-payer bill to the floor for a vote makes me very nervous. No one – and I mean no one – thinks such a bill will have a chance in hell, leading to the obvious question as to whether or not such a promise was only made to give progressives political cover before their constiuents after the public option is purged from the product that actually passes.

All the more reason to go for broke now, while the goalposts are still being set. The pledge would do more to guarantee a meaningful public option emerges in any final product than any other action progressives could take, and that’s just a fact. We may be lucky Sanders, Leahy and Welch are around, but this time – for this issue – we need more than luck.

Vermont Office

30 Main Street

Third Floor, Suite 350

Burlington, VT 05401

Phone: (888) 605-7270 (toll free in Vermont)

             (802) 652-2450

Washington, DC Office

1404 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Phone:(202) 225-4115