what I'm trying to sort out in my own mind:

[bain_sidhe]

All these posts about "if there's no public option we should not pass anything"

Ok, perhaps that's a firmly held, moral position... I can certainly see a rationale for that position, having mostly to do with keeping the pressure on...

... but, if the public option really is in trouble, the "nothing" leaves the insurance companies free rein to do what they're doing now - deny coverage or jack up the premiums to infinity and beyond for pre-existing conditions, recind coverage when you get sick because they found a typo on your application from 20 years ago, etc, etc. I know the insurance companies don't want a public option as a competitor, but I'm also sure "nothing" what the insurance companies *really* want. No new regulations, no interference with their :sarcasm: god given right to bleed their "customers" dry and deliver *nothing* for the premiums we pay.

...but, again, I see the rationale - and I believe it's basically a sound strategy - for screaming "all or nothing" at this stage...

So should I suspect the motivations of those screaming "all or nothing" or not?