Recent comments

Mr. Potter: I came upon your writings when searching something on a collegue, when I came upon your McCarthy-like implication of Mr. Pete Petersen's NY Times editorial reply. I decided to read up on 'your angle" , read your Senate testimony, and found your blog. While you have the power of the pen, or the mouse, at your disposal, you are using it in a way not representing the best intentions of the foundation of your organization and employer. Lets start with this article. First you overstate your role and your knowledge, then you demonize and villanize your past ways in evangelic method, and you close with an all knowing accusation that those opposed to your viewpoint are liars. You did the same thing in your Senate Testimony associating Aetna's loss of 8mm policies and the circumstances where a carrier may rescind. It made for a good story, but that's all it was, and it belonged in the fiction area. Where appropriate I will be glad to elaborate much further, even though it's your job to be balanced, I thought. You open this post with the editorial that your group you spoke to was "broad-based" with those supporting the public option and others a single payer system. That's balanced? That's balanced only in a world where an impartial jury comes in with half ready to hang em, and the other half ready to shoot em. It's not news that industries hire PR firms and lobbyists to advocate their best interests. You should expect it. It's part of a democracy. You claim that you didn't "intentionally" lie. I guess that means that your lies are unintentional. What's not part of a democracy is your 1930's Eastern European style of attack like you did on Mr. Petersen. You accused PriceWaterhouse of creating a fraudulent document outlining what insurance companies pay out because a private entity ordered the study. You eliminated the Congressional Budget Office 2008 study on the admin cost of public healthcare with vague rationalizations, completely unsourced. You used those two dismissals to assail an independent and sourced, opinion. A JOURNALIST would not do that. You show your continued "for hire" propoganda by claiming that those opposing the Public option are ONLY THOSE WHO " have bought into the lies the insurance industry’s shills are telling them and as a result we advocate daughters and granddaughters to fall into the wrong crowd and die of a drug overdose. I respect most of those who want a public option or single payer system. Health insurance is very confusing, even to the informed. It's unreasonably expensive to both employers and individuals. It's a burden of paperwork to physicians. It';s a financial burden to providers as well since the government plans, especially the States underpay the cost, and don't pay providers for as long as a year. I understand the frustration and applaud the push to change. You sir are a propoganda minister who;s on a soap box against the industry that you don't like anymore.Your articles are based on the theory that "someone else should pay for it' and "it's someone elses fault". YOUR example of a girl who, fell into the wrong crowd, did drugs, overdosed and died, is the fault of an insurance company, is so beyond reponsable journalism that I don't think there is a word for it. A slick talker like you probably has one. I am 100% against the Public option, if Medicare Reimbursement rates are mandated. WIthout them, the plan cant compete. Explain that!.

Again, I don't quite get what makes it a front group. It lists almost 370 associations and companies as its members, and they include manufacturers, retailers, distributors. Some are large, some are small, but all have a real interest in this matter.

The Center for Media and Democracy, however, is one organization. Its funding is untraceable. How is it any more credible than a coalition with nearly 370 pledged members?