I'm not arguing for or against either side of that equation. I just have a problem with those who are harshly critical of the elderly on this issue, to the point where they would suggest denying them the benefit that they paid for and planned for, in order to coerce them into supporting a particular bill. As if once a person gets any benefit from the government (whether they wanted it or not), he become a servant of the government and give up his right to oppose anything the government wants to do. If that's the liberal view of how citizens under a welfare state should act, then count me out.

(I guess it's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway.) For me… both are valid principles. My parents taught me to be self-reliant and do my best. They also taught me that some people aren't as “lucky” as others in life and to help those in need.

There are millions of people without health insurance and millions with inadequate health insurance. I hope we as a nation are compassionate enough and civilized enough to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves.

Besides people are foolish if they think they're safe with their health insurance. They could pay into a plan for decades and never use it. If they lose their job and can't afford health insurance, then they'll lose their coverage. God forbid should they have an accident without health insurance.

They have, at least partially. It's part of the FICA tax.

I don't get the accusations pointed out the elderly on this issue. Yes, the cry to “keep your government hands off my Medicare” is not the best way to put it, but the underlying concern that Medicare benefits could be cut is valid. Each individual person may or may not have supported Medicare when it was put into place, but regardless of whether they supported it, the money for it was taken out of their pay check. So, who can blame them if they feel entitled to get the benefit that they paid for?

They are also called selfish because some of them don't want to extend benefits to others at the cost of putting their own care at risk (whether that is true or not is debatable, since there is no solid bill on the table, a fact the left reminds us of anytime there is a criticism, but doesn't remember whenever they want to tout reform. But when the president talks about paying for reform by finding efficiencies in medicare and creating a panel to decide what changes might be made to save money, it is understandable why some might be concerned about that, regardless of how many times the president says that it won't affect their care).

So yes, some of them are self-interested. But yet, the left apparently has no problem with the uninsured supporting the reform proposals out of self-interest. In fact, when presented with the fact that apparently some of the uninsured don't support the current reform plans, some on the left are so perplexed that they assume that these people must just be racists, as described in this post: http://themoderatevoice.com/43542/i-dont-unders…

So which is it? Is self-interest a valid reason to support or oppose a bill, or are principles more important? If we should stick with principles, is compassion the only valid principle, and self-reliance not a valid principle?

I think you are right. I think the only way that is going to happen is if Medicare was revoked. After all, in poll after poll, the biggest opponents of healthcare reform are seniors. They already have their government healthcare and don't want to have to share. They think they 'earned' it.

daveinboca wrote: “Grammar rules make that nugget ungrammatical, but the really sad part is that this simpleton believes rather than thinks.”

Poor old daveinboca, always spouting republican talking point… saying that because I'm in favor of MAJOR Health Care Reform that I want to kill “grammar”.

I would say, however, that the public plan was never the only thing wrong with the proposals, and I tried to document a few others on my blog. So there are certainly still reasons for Republicans to be skeptical, even without a public option.

However, Kyl's remarks go too far. If Obama and the Democrats can make the bill revenue neutral, it's worth our consideration without dismissing it before we know anything about it. Kyl's preemptive attack seems more political grandstanding than serious policy making. Also, I think painting the co-op idea as a trojan horse is a talking point stretched too far. The public option was a trojan horse to implement single payer (that one was actually supportable since several progressives said so), but a co-op is a trojan horse because it might lead to a public option, which might lead to single payer? Come on.

SteveK seems to be a religious type with “Every progressive I know (myself included) believe…”

Grammar rules make that nugget ungrammatical, but the really sad part is that this simpleton believes rather than thinks.

Tyranny of a majority historically has worked for about one session of Congress in the USA. Even with rent-a-mob ACORN and SEIU thugs wandering about the marketplace of ideas, the independents are going against ObamaCare at a three to one rate.

Haha. Yes, true. I guess that's because Republicans have people believing that Obama's plan will kill people, as do terrorists. The Republicans portrayed Obama's plan as an attack on Americans and their strategy is winning. Even if it took lies to do so.

Sadly, I am being proven right. I say sadly because it scares me that people are more afraid of terrorists than they are of becoming ill. It explains how “risk assessment” has gotten to be so wrong.

Crooksandliars.com has a Rachael Maddow interview with Matt Taibbi on what many of us expect of the President and Congress that we put into a position and majority:

Matt Taibbi: No Public Option Will Mean a Revolt Among Progressives

Rachel Maddow talks to Matt Taibbi about what is going to happen to the Democratic Party if the White House settles for a bill with no public option. Taibbi feels that this is the moment the progressive wing of the party draws a line in the sand.

[...]

Taibbi thinks a deal was cut from the beginning between the White House and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and that they never intended to have a public option. As both Taibbi and Maddow note it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, they're not going to get any Republican support for the health care bill, so wooing Republicans doesn't make any sense.

Every progressive I know (myself included) believe that this is what HAS to be done.

Politics…