Reply #6: But all the options AREN'T on the table. So FURTHER compromise IS capitulation:

[Faryn Balyncd]

If Single Payer Medicare-for-All actually WAS on the table, then a REAL compromise might be a public option that allows younger Americans to opt in to Medicare, or keep their private insurance.

Such a compromise is somewhat similar to Kennedy's plan, except that Kennedy's plan has (at the insistence of insurance interests) already financially handicapped the "public option" by forcing it to pay 10% higher rates than Medicare, in order to protect the insurance companies from competition.

But with Single Payer OFF the table from the get-go, the insurance companies and their collaborators are fighting, not for a compromise with true Single Payer, but to either kill of further emasculate the ALREADY COMPROMISED and ALREADY PRICE HOBBLED (compared to Medicare rates) Kennedy plan.

The industry collaborators have already achieved, at this preliminary stage, their greatest goals.

Further compromise will result in a Kennedy bill that is so flawed that an affordable public option will not be viable.






In reality, as the Times reports, Baucus is now peddling the preposterous notion that the WYDEN BILL (which has NO public option whatsoever) is a "fallback compromise". Indeed, Wyden's work has been the greatest obstacle to support for a public option plan such as Kennedy's (the only plan on the table which IS a real compromise).






But Wyden, under pressure from long-time progressive supporters in Oregon (and perhaps his conscience), has indicated he will be open to a public option ONLY if HIS NO-PUBLIC OPTION plan STALLS.

So, does it not look like we have work to do?






What purpose does it serve (besides those of pampered corporate free-loaders) to aggressively push "compromise" at this early stage?