Media Matters and CMPI have an honest difference of opinion on Obamacare. Media Matters believes that the majority of the country rejects the increase in government regulation, higher taxes and reduced choice in plans (including dumping up to 80 million Americans into Medicaid) because of Republican 'lies' that distort the true beauty of the law.
CMPI believes in and supports patient-centered, portable and affordable health care coverage. We don't accept the status quo. We believe we can do better but that Obamacare is an obstacle to innovations in medicine, technology and funding that are essential to improving the healthcare system. That doesn't mean some features of the law shouldn't be preserved. It means that to preserve them will likely mean repeal takes the form of substantial reform.
That's an honest difference of opinion that we are welcome to debate and discuss anytime.
So when MM responds to our interview with Michele Bachmann (See the Media Matters response and the video at politicalcorrection.org/blog/201103040003 ) by first accusing us of being paid to be part of a "front" to kill healthcare reform it suggests that Media Matters is more interested in silencing CMPI rather than engaging in debate. It would be easy to respond by pointing out that MM's funding is from George Soros, whose non-profit empire could be considered a "front" of sorts.
Conflict of interest is a canard that cuts both ways. It scores points and generates heat but little light.
It's fine for MM to take issue with Congresswoman Bachmann and CMPI's interest in her views. However it seems that Media Matters is more interested in repeating talking points than in substantive discussion.
I will debate or discuss Obamacare with anyone from Media Matters or ThinkProgress any time or any place. But I don't think they will take up the challenge. They seem too obsessed with reassuring themselves that the rejection of Obamacare is the result of a well-financed campaign to lie about how wonderful the new healthcare law is.
If and when Media Matters and ThinkProgress snaps out of that disassociative state, I will be happy to engage them.
CMPI believes in and supports patient-centered, portable and affordable health care coverage. We don't accept the status quo. We believe we can do better but that Obamacare is an obstacle to innovations in medicine, technology and funding that are essential to improving the healthcare system. That doesn't mean some features of the law shouldn't be preserved. It means that to preserve them will likely mean repeal takes the form of substantial reform.
That's an honest difference of opinion that we are welcome to debate and discuss anytime.
So when MM responds to our interview with Michele Bachmann (See the Media Matters response and the video at politicalcorrection.org/blog/201103040003 ) by first accusing us of being paid to be part of a "front" to kill healthcare reform it suggests that Media Matters is more interested in silencing CMPI rather than engaging in debate. It would be easy to respond by pointing out that MM's funding is from George Soros, whose non-profit empire could be considered a "front" of sorts.
Conflict of interest is a canard that cuts both ways. It scores points and generates heat but little light.
It's fine for MM to take issue with Congresswoman Bachmann and CMPI's interest in her views. However it seems that Media Matters is more interested in repeating talking points than in substantive discussion.
I will debate or discuss Obamacare with anyone from Media Matters or ThinkProgress any time or any place. But I don't think they will take up the challenge. They seem too obsessed with reassuring themselves that the rejection of Obamacare is the result of a well-financed campaign to lie about how wonderful the new healthcare law is.
If and when Media Matters and ThinkProgress snaps out of that disassociative state, I will be happy to engage them.
