--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> , "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > <snip> > > > I read what you said. All that would have been the same > > > with the public option, except that there would have been > > > the *additional* component of competition with the private > > > insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase > > > benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the > > > public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car > > > without brakes is better than a set of brakes. > > > > I can assure you, it is a much better option. > > One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but > with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except > with no public option. > > We got (b). >
Your logic assumes the (a) version, with the public option, was acceptable to the Senate. It was not. Perhaps your hero Hillary would have insisted on the (a) version, but she would have failed insisting on it, similar to her failures on the health care issue in 1994. Obama is head and shoulders above everyone, in intellect and termperment. Thank God he beat Hillary.
