Without a viable Public Plan government run

[Jack Sprat]

option, should Progressives even want this healthcare reform legislation at all now? As I see it, the looming legislation may not have any public alternative plan that keeps private health companies honest. So, in effect, the trillion dollar cost of implementing a new system will do nothing more than assist private health companies to continue their profit bonanza. The healthcare industry will be awarded some new customers from those who couldn't afford private insurance to begin with. No government option to compete with, and when premiums and cost go unchecked, which party will feel the wrath for it? Adding a trillion to the debt, no real reform, and who ultimately gets the blame? This has divolved into a 'no win' political disaster. As I see it, if there's no public option included in legislation, there's really no reform. We would just be assisting in the rape of consumers and have to raise taxes to do it.

[WeDidIt]

1. AS far as I'm concerned, no public plan will make matters WORSE

and my 2010 and 2012 goals will be seeing whatever they come up with rolled back, regardless of party affiliation.

[crazy_vanilla]

2. in the end, it is turning out to be "much ado about nothing"

I hope I misunderstood Sebelius this morning, if I didn't - things are looking bad.

If the President wasn't planning to fight for it, he should've spent his valuable time on something else, as it seems things will end up exactly where they were before.

[DJ13]

3. No public option should mean no reform passed

Its obvious that the country isnt desperate enough to support government intervention in our health care system, so maybe failing at this time will hasten the need in the coming few years.

When more and more employers drop their coverage after another couple of years worth of double digit premium increases then those complacent this time will get off their asses and demand reforms.

I actually think the insurers and the conservatives (in both party's) overplayed their opposition this time because with millions more demanding reform the next time a public option may not be acceptable.

The demand could be to join the rest of the world with an actual universal system.

[JDPriestly]

4. No public option -- no health care reform.

[Jack Sprat]

5. That's where I am. Here are some concerns.

Major concerns. First, we have a segment of the population barely affording housing and on disability that rules out affording insurance of any kind. Food and a roof over the head takes all they have. Right now, they might qualify on a state Medicare plan or be able to report to Med Ctr ERs and receive care.

We have another segment that can barely afford insurance and premiums eat them alive.

Unless there is some kind of 'not-for-profit' care offered by government, then this entire health reform deal is going to blow shitz back in a lot of sad faces.

Then figure in some stipulation requiring everyone to buy insurance regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

Then imagine that, without singlepayer or a public nonprofit plan, everybody is required to purchase private insurance in a real world where real inflation raises the cost of everything; If we are not going to provide nonprofit healthcare available to everyone, then we don't need to be talking about spending much public money for it. Because it will be nothing but another scheme to use public money for the good of healthcare industrialists who are already swimming in wealth.

[JDPriestly]

7. We need to point out to members of Congress that we are proposing

freedom and choice. The Republicans want to prevent us from being free to choose. They wish to dictate to us they we should pay large sums of money to insurance companies. The Republicans once again framed the issue.

With regard to schools, they want the right to choose between public and private alternatives.

That is all we want with regard to health care. If they can have it with regard to schools, why can't we have it wigh regard to health care?

[fascisthunter]

6. no