Wow - this article is a prime example of the uselessness of the media today. To summarize the article: Baucus is carrying the President's real plans through the finance committee so that Obama can say one thing while getting the bill he really wants through the Senate.

The source of this conclusion: "Senate Democratic aides" - the Washington, DC version of the proverbial "they".

That's all this article adds to the discussion. Sure, it tries to defend the Baucus bill, but does so with zero specifics on the bill itself, but merely on the strategy of the fight over the bill. There is no discussion of the bill itself, no discussion of whether the assumptions made in the bill for revenue neutrality are reasonable. no discussion of the limits on insurance-company practices, no discussion on the impact on the number of uninsured, no discussion on how the costs for emergency services for the uninsured or underinsured will be reduced by the bill.

Instead the article focuses solely on the strategy of trying to get a bill passed. Reading this article is like watching a football game, but where the broadcast only shows the discussion of the teams' strategies, but doesn't show the game itself. It's like watching the pre-game show and then skipping the game and watching the post-game show. Sure, its great to know that one team is using a weak 3-4 defense to counter the short passing game, while the other team is looking to use the run to draw the linebackers in and then strike with the deep pass, but show me the specifics.

And even if all you care about is the strategy, the article is still incredibly shallow. So Baucus and Obama want to be able to claim bipartisanship? How can they if they have no Republican votes? How is one side giving concessions and the other giving none, "meeting them half way"?

The article's link to the Washington Post poll that supposedly says that independents are 43% of the electorate links to the second page of the article (first page unavailable without signing up fo a WashPo account). At least that page does not make any mention that 43% of the electorate are independents. The closest relevant statistic is that "Just over half of independents say the current plan would amount to overreach, significantly more than said so in the early 1990s." So, if we take the claim of 43% of the electorate falls into this group and assume that they represent the middle-of-the road folks, then only about 22% of the electorate are independents that favor bipartisanship on this issue (since the Republican stance is no reform).

The article doesn't even mention the opposing strategy - Republicans plan to stall and stall and stall and bet that they can do a better job of convincing people that the current system is better than any reform than the Democrats can do in convincing people that reform is needed. Going back to the football analogy, it's even a crappy pre- and post-game show. It's like they are only discussing one team's strategy without mentioning the other team at all.

So once again, instead of discussion focused on what are the pros and cons of a policy and checking facts (e.g., death panels, WMDs, etc.), it gives a shallow discussion of one side's strategy.

Here's a better version of the article:

Health care: independents like bipartisanship so Obama and Baucus are showing them that by giving up key aspects of reform and getting no additional support in return. It doesn't matter what the actual legislation is, becasue Obama wil get enough support from independents for a different fight sown the road.

Why would Dickerson have anything favorable to say about Baucus & his "reform" bill? Baucus is a hack entirely owned by the insecurance firms ($2.5 million in contributions) and his bill makes them, and no one else, happy. It would prove highly profitable for them and dreadfully expensive for the citizenry. Dickerson, like Baucus, is a propagandist posing as a moderate but catering to inside the Beltway and corporate interests.