As with stimulus — the next question will be, will it be the same now for damage control of health care, or will it be still like the House climate bill (with the public as well as the GOP saying “don't do this”)?

“the Dems should offer a simple OPTIONAL Medicare for all bill”

That's not what I said, but [shrug] it's actually more honest, still, than what they're doing now.

One of the approaches I've heard of was to offer buy-ins for people in their fifties, either 55-and-over or past age 50 (fifty). These are the people outside Medicare facing the largest per capita expenses (for themselves, as opposed to the family plans, which typically exceed four figures monthly now in many states). Presumably a family approach and “safety net” approach could relax eligibility for Medicaid or extend it to the unemployed or in place of COBRA. (That would elevate the problem with these two programs, Medicare and Medicaid, of underpayment to providers and expose more access problems.)

And if Olympia “Babs of Snowe Country” Snowe has figured that out and won't go along with it, you'd better start wondering if maybe the tactic hasn't worn itself out.

Regards,
Ric

As for “the facts” being on your side on the other issues, I disagree. Ad hominem attacks are opinions, not facts.

Our system is rigged. What's being sought is even more rigged “competition.”

It would remain divisive, but would be much preferable to see a plain bill with only the “public option,” if the logical thing isn't going to be sought instead (actual, honest reform).

And I wouldn't be surprised to see the House Dems put the public option back into conference legislation if that is based now on Baucus's bill rather than HR 3200.

Having the facts on my side is sufficient. Some don't like the truth, and sugar-coating it won't help them. There's no need for me to make bogus concessions any more than there is a need for me to conceal the occasional bad news or instance when I'm wrong, merely because it would lose debating points. I'll put up with the gripes about style and continue to stay on the right side with the substance.

Mikey's behavior is well-known. In fact, I've been generously brief with him normally. Enough said.

learn some debate skills, buddy.

That's one way of seeing it.

“Right-wing Conservatives almost want to burn Snowe at the stake as a heretic for making concessions to democrats on past bills.”

I think it's awesome that you wrote the sentence above right before the first one I quoted, with absolutely no pause for reconsideration.

“consider exploring the reasons democrats cannot convince their own members to go along with the proposed legislations that has been rejected by democratic prostitutes who are addicted to insurance company lobbyist money.”

Fixed that for you.

Ryan's bill is a disaster. And no one has suggested what it would cost. I see nothing in the Ryan bill that would slow the increase in private insurance premiums one cent. It would doubtless increase them.

Respectfully disagree. Tort reform and increased competion would drive costs down IMHO. Both are in the Ryan bill.

Yes, probably, given that Baucus all along has been trying to work with the few Republicans who have shown a slight (if hollow) interest in reform

Actually other Republicans have pushed healthcare reform bills that Democrats have ignored or stonewalled Paul Ryan's plan being the most noteworthy.

Meanwhile, even moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe has stated that she won’t be supporting the Senate Finance Committee’s bill. Which is to say, no Republican senator will be supporting it —

When Olympia Snow makes a statement like that you realize just how partisan the democratic proposals are. Right-wing Conservatives almost want to burn Snowe at the stake as a heretic for making concessions to democrats on past bills.

As I’ve said before, it’s time, long past time, for the Democrats to go it alone on health-care reform.

They have been free to do so for quite a bit of time. Remember, they had control of both houses of congress a filibuster proof majority until Kennedy's death, and a democratic President and they still could not muster the needed votes. That again shows just how partisan the proposals have been even within just the democratic party. I mean whats the excuse that the democrats couldn't pass legislation under those conditions, it certainly wasn't ” obstructionist” Republicans was it? To make such an accusation is intellectually dishonest.

What a poor post.

I suggest in the future that you consider exploring the reasons democrats cannot convince their own members to go along with the proposed legislations that has been rejected by democratic moderates.