Reply #15: It is the false implication that supporters of Single Payer are naively desiring "free" healthcare..

[Faryn Balyncd]

...that is condescending.

The truth is that physicians and nurses in Physicians for a Natl Health Plan and the California Nurses Association support Single Payer as the best way to reduce administrative costs, and achieve affordability.

Continuing to argue against a straw man (continuing to proclaim that there are expenses to be paid and stating that "some" believe Single Payer to be "free" or "cheap") distorts reality and misrepresents all the supporters of single Payer that I know.

Single Payer has the advantage, not of being "free" or "cheap", but of addressing excessive administrative costs by insurers who are, in fact, mismanaging the system.

For some reason our party is so desirous of "compromise" that one of our fine senators (Wyden) has stated repeatedly that neither Single Payer nor any public option is on the table, stating that neither would be acceptable to Republicans and the insurance industry.

Only after vigorous protest from folks in Oregon has Wyden finally stated that perhaps he would support a public option (not Single Payer) only if his plan stalls.

So it would seem to me, that if you are "strongly in favor of Single Payer with optionS...not just one." as you state above, that the way forward is not to agitate for "compromise" (and falsely accuse others of wanting a "free" plan), but to apply pressure to Wyden and Baucus, and let them know that the kind of NO-PUBLIC-OPTION plan that they are peddling is unacceptable.

Wyden has made it crystal clear: He will only support a public option plan, if his "no public option" plan that caters to the corporatists stalls. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/wyden-open-to-public-heal_n_207638.html