Really? It was very close. And it DID pass the House.

"We had it, we wanted it ... it's not in the reconciliation," Pelosi said at her weekly press briefing. "It isn't in there because [the Senate doesn't] have the votes to have it in there."

Momentum had been building to reintroduce the government-run plan. Over 40 senators have endorsed a letter sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) that called for senators to pass the public option using the budget reconciliation process.

http://thehill.com/b...be-in-health-bill

It would have helped if we'd had a little leadership from the White House. Like, for instance, he could have written about the public option in this editorial: http://www.nytimes.c....html?ref=opinion and not, as he did, send the message that he was ready to cave in to his Wall Street masters through his minions as he did here:

"Racing to regain control of the health-care debate, two top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals," The Washington Post front-pages. "As President Obama finishes a western swing intended to bolster support for his signature policy initiative, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius opened the door to a compromise on a public option, saying it is 'not the essential element' of comprehensive reform. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on CBS's 'Face the Nation' that Obama 'will be satisfied' if the private insurance market has 'choice and competition.'"

http://firstread.msn...-no-public-option

I was on Ralph Nader's list and the Baucus Panel would not take testimony from ANYONE who favored national health insurace. It was largely accepted that the reason that panel would not hear anything about single payer healthcare (which was supported by a majority of Americans) was because the White House did not want it heard.

What was it he said? "If you want to be a leader, you have to lead."

This turkey has been everything I thought he was going to be.

40 were already on record. But by then he had caved in. That's what I meant about leadership. Strong arming people instead of doing what he always does - leave the Progressives out on a limb by themselves. This is what I expected he would do and why I said his election in 2008 would be a catastrophe for progressive politics.

The bottom line is that he had majorities in both houses and a mandate from the masses. He was incompetent at the task of using that power and provide(d/s) absolutely no cover for any Senator or Congressman who dares have an idea inconsistent with the will of Obama's Wall Street backers. It's Government Sachs and President Wall Street, as predicted.

Then corporate boards.

Edit: I was going to leave the joke and say nothing more because you can't seem to get it. My position is that no one should profit from some one's illness, least of all accountants, CIEFO's, shareholders and the rest of those who do not in any way participate in the delivery of healthcare, but capitalize on it anyway. In short, I want what virtually every other person living in the industrialized world outside of the United States already has - a right to healthcare not predicated upon the proposition that non-actors in the delivery of my healthcare must profit financially from its delivery.

"Socialist utopia" indeed. Nice try. But what I'm really talking about is "reality" virtually everywhere except here.

http://www.fda.gov/d...calls/default.htm

Good thing the government's looking out for you.

If it hadn't been for Salk refusing personal profit? Bidness doesn't do anything it can't make money on. It always cracks me up to hear the euphemisms in "Vision Statements" and the like. The only reason any business exists is to make money for the shareholders. Think the government doesn't already fund the majority of drug research? Think again. Google "university drug discoveries" some time. Lilly spends roughly 17 dollars on advertising for every dollar it spends on research. Take government grants to universities out of drug research and see what happens.

There are some things the government does that it is uniquely qualified to do. Pure research is one of them. In bidness, you better be damned sure you're going to discover something the shareholders are going to be able to make money on in 10 months. Or you can forget the company paying for your research. We're about to learn a painful lesson about that now that the Big O has decided to "privatize" NASA. Sit back and watch how well that works. Most big discoveries come serendipitously. Bidness won't stand for that, but researchers at universities - with government grants - do it every day.

Making a buck is not the only motivation for most people. And personally, I don't want anyone who is driven exclusively by the pursuit of profit making decisions about my healthcare. It should be obvious why, but I'll elaborate: for such a person given the choice between greater profit for them or better health for me, I will lose 100% of the time.