It will be damn similar to the old fashioned type of filibuster when Senators had to read from cook books and sports magazines to keep legislation from coming up for a vote. Democrats should not fear that, they should welcome it. It will totally expose the Republican Party for using blatantly obstructionist tactics that no one could confuse with legitimate legislative diligence. Republicans have been trying to stall this session of congress into being unproductive all along, so that they can run against Democrats not getting much done. If they tried to jam up reconciliation on health care with a non stop stream of petty amendments that must each be voted on they will be flushed out into the open, and probably sooner than later the general public will turn on them over it.

Republicans would not be able to rationally claim that Democrats are abusing their powers by using reconciliation to pass health care reform because that is exactly what Republicans used to push through tax cuts for the rich under Bush, and Democrats never resorted to that kind of obstructionism when Republicans did so. I predict that if Republicans try to jam up reconciliation, and if Democrats don't cave under that type of gamesmanship, eventually Democrats will have the 60 votes needed for cloture on debate for the normal method of getting health care reform passed. Either Lieberman or one or more Republicans will step forward and say that they would support cloture for a normal motion "reluctantly", in order to end the total paralysis in Washington. They can then vote against the bill but it won't matter because then we will only need 51 votes and amendments could be limited.

Republicans would take a real beating in the meantime, just like they did under Gingrich when they tried to shut down government before they had to cave in. We can win this and hurt the Republican Party as a bonus.

Forbes Magazine, which has never been called a liberal rag by the Right, recently published a 2009 national survey by the United Health Foundation entitled: "The Healthiest And Unhealthiest States". The funder for this foundation is none other than insurer UnitedHealth Group. In their most recent quarterly earnings report (October 2009) UnitedHealth Group cited revenues of $21.7 Billion, an 8% Year-Over-Year increase, and healthy profits. So no one can rationally accuse this health survey of being a hit job on the insurance industry. In truth it is chock full of interesting and useful health data, and worthy of close study, but what jumped out for me immediately are some bold political implications that it also documents. They are far from friendly to opponents of health care legislation currently before Congress.

They succinctly describe their methodology in the preface to the survey:

"This annual ranking, published by the United Health Foundation, looks at 22 indicators of health, including everything from how many children receive recommended vaccinations, to obesity and smoking rates, to cancer deaths. (Insurer UnitedHealth Group funds the foundation.) Scores for each state are determined by gathering data from a variety of government and nongovernmental databases and then calculating how much each state is better or worse than the national average for each measure."

Specific charts ranking states in a number of health related areas are included, but the one most eyes will turn to first is a simple ranking of all States, from one to fifty, with the healthiest State number one and the unhealthiest State number 50. I took that data and did a quick overlay of it on a 2008 Presidential Election electoral map. The results sadly are no surprise though they should be shocking. Keeping in mind that McCain/Palin didn't win all that many electoral votes to start with, less than half the total that Obama/Biden gathered - with 385 for Obama and 173 for McCain, the Republicans would have won in a total blow out if only unhealthy State votes were counted.

Comparing the electoral vote breakdown for both the 15 healthiest States and the 15 unhealthiest States; Obama was ahead 72 to 8 votes in the 15 healthiest states and McCain was ahead by 129 to 47 votes in the 15 unhealthiest states. But those results are in a way misleading, because Obama got 42 of those votes from the 14th and 15th unhealthiest States; North Carolina and Florida. If instead we only tabulate the top ten healthiest and unhealthiest States, the results are even more dramatic and one sided. Obama won by 37 to 5 electoral votes in the 10 healthiest States; McCain won by 78 to 5 in the 10 unhealthiest States.

Further more, in this surveys listing of the top ten states showing annual improvement in overall health, Obama swept 9 our of 10 of them in the 2008 elections. He failed only to win Alaska which is number 8 on the improving chart but still ranked 34th overall in citizen health. All of this begs the question: Who in their right mind would trust letting representatives in Congress from the states doing the worst job at providing for the health of their citizens dictate health care reform for all Americans? Overwhelmingly Republicans in Congress, who almost unanimously oppose Obama's health care reform efforts, were elected from States and districts with the unhealthiest residents in America. How can anyone continue to pretend that the National Republican Party has any credibility in this area?

Link to the source Forbes Magazine story:

Lists & Rankings
The Healthiest And Unhealthiest States
Rebecca Ruiz, 11.17.09, 12:01 AM EST
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/16/unhealthy...

In 1997 Gallup polled that 27% of the American public supported gay marriages. After peaking at 46% in 2007, that percentage dipped to 40% in 2008 and stayed at that level in Gallup's May 2009 poll. Although support for Gay Marriage slipped somewhat from its all time 2007 high, it remains 13% higher now than it was in 1997, with acceptance of Gay Marriage polling strongest in the 18-29 age bracket, with 59% of that age group in favor of it. For those who support Gay Marriage, the long term trend line is clearly positive.

CQ Politics posts a graph of changing polling results on Gay Marriage between 1997 and 2009 here:
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/20...


Gallup has also been polling the relative strengths of the "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" positions in regards to abortion since 1995, with "Pro-Choice" sentiments establishing a high water polling mark of 56% in that year. Gallup's most recent poll in July 2009 shows Americans almost evenly divided in their current attitudes, with 47% identified as "Pro-Life" and 46% identified as "Pro-Choice". A graph of Gallup polls on this question can be found at:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122033/U.S.-Abo...


Like many polling outfits, the validity of Gallup polling has been called into question on more than one occasion. Personally I would not stand by their specific numbers any more than I would by a leaking nuclear reactor. But I don't think there is much real argument about the overall long term polling trend line regarding abortion rights. Support for a pro-choice position was clearly stronger in the past, while support for Gay Marriage overall has been increasing.

Why is that? The answers to that question will ultimately determine the future abortion rights of women in America. The Stupak amendment is only the latest skirmish in that ongoing battle, with pro-choice advocates increasingly being forced into a defensive position.

The argument over this year's health care reform bill has enough pro and cons to fill 3 DU forums, but Ill keep it simple. For me, no public option equals no deal. Period. If that gives Lieberman the power to kill it, so be it. There are many good things about this legislation, but many bad things also. The whole effort is riddled with compromises, so what's the big deal about one more? Ask yonder Camel, piled high with straw. There always comes a breaking point.

The public option has been whittled down to a mere 6 million users in the current House bill with the math skewed to help it fail but at least, in the House, it still lives to see the light of day. Where there's life there's hope, so possibly this meager public option could be improved on by future sessions of Congress. A beachhead can always be expanded on but without one there is nothing to build on, just an unbroken massing of entrenched emboldened opposition. If the current concerted national effort to reform our heath insurance system ends with no public option put in place, there is absolutely no reason to think one will be added anytime in the foreseeable future. AFTER the moment is ripe, opportunity rots away. Timing is everything.

Who here believes that health care reform will succeed in America without at the very least establishing a robust public option that private insurers must compete against? Without an opening toward daylight that a public option offers, we would be locking Americans into a closed failed insurance system headed toward ever greater failure. Before signing on for Democratic sponsored reform failure I would rather simply scrap it and blame the Republicans for thwarting reform instead. There needs to be a new bottom line in Washington with evasions no longer accepted: Health care reform must minimally include a public option or there will not be health care reform passed until it does. Politics in Washington shows that only those who credibly draw bold lines in the sand get their bottom line respected. Once that reality sets in, and only after that reality sets in, a public option will cease being seen as an optional component of health care reform. It must be no more "subject to negotiations" than banning preexisting condition exclusions is thought of being as today. It is at the heart of any real reform.

Just look at the fight to save the Public Option that was waged by the grass roots Democratic base this Fall after virtually everyone wrote it off as dead by Summer. There was no massive national media coverage pumping us up 24/7; what coverage there was was meant to demoralize us. There was no "pull out all the stops" campaign being coordinated by the National Democratic Party promoting the benefits of a strong government role in health care for Americans. Nope, none of that, just a true bottom up movement advocating for and defending traditional Democratic values. A deeply committed one.

That is the type of passion, the type of self starter organizing capacity, that the Democratic Party needs to have to win important close elections. If the Democratic Party tries to placate that type of activism with an arms length attitude instead of harnessing it whenever possible behind causes that most Democrats deeply care about, it will be lucky if it manages to rally a base once every four years for Presidential Elections.

The national media won't make this connection. They would rather blather endlessly about whatever Alice through the looking glass Tea Party FOX News is currently pushing, even though after the conclusion of the so-called hot summer the American public STILL strongly favors a public option for health care insurance. The Democratic base did come out in force this year, to fight for real health care reform; with just minimal encouragement. Perhaps that is an inconvenient truth.

That makes a critical difference in an off year election with traditionally lighter turn out. Most of us here agree that the "conservatives" who are all fired up this year are also a bit, say, extreme. But they are passionate and they vote in disproportionate numbers. What gets them all so fired up are dramatic concepts like "Saving America" and "fighting Socialism". To get folks to organize and to vote in numbers, it don't matter much if truth is a motivation, just if they are motivated.

The Democratic base was all fired up the last few major election cycles. We were all about "Saving America" and "making sweeping changes". We were motivated and we voted. Now Democrats are in power in Washington. Congress and the President can change America's course and make dramatic changes. Rhetoric won't suffice to rally the Democratic base when actions speak louder than words.

Even if Reid knew he didn't have 60 votes locked up, Reid made the right choice. Even if the White House worried that he didn't have 60 votes, he made the right call. The corporate centrists in our Party have too long grown accustomed to winning through refusal. Their refusal to even allow serious discussion of a Single Payer plan was just one recent example.

We are essentially in a state of war regarding health care. About as many Americans die annually as a consequence of poor or non existent health care insurance as died during the entire Viet Nam war. Our adversary, many would say enemy, is the private health care insurance cartel. They run the system that is responsible for those deaths. Not only do they run it, they profit off it, which makes them war profiteers in my book.

This matter is infinitely more grave than mere power politics. It far eclipses getting re-elected or defeated, being in the majority or minority in Congress. Those concerns effect how the ship of state is run, but protecting the lives of American citizens is the purpose of our ship of state. There is no business as usual during a state of war. For too long a war on Americans has raged undeclared as Senators posing as our protectors collected their special interest campaign contributions, while consigning thousands to their deaths through malign neglect.

It's time we declare a domestic war to protect American lives. That's what this is about and it must be declared for what it is. In war, one does not protect the interests of your adversary over those of your own people. One does not negotiate terms of surrender with a deadly foe as an alternative to engaging it in battle. It is time for the American people to ask of our elected leaders, whose side are you on? And it is time for the answer to be given. If Harry Reid sticks to his guns, the curtains will be pulled back and the answer to that revealed.

Life and Death and special interests. Let the battle lines be formed. The insurance industry had 40 years to get it right, the handwriting was on the wall after Medicare was established. Clean up your act or else. It is time for "or else", the trigger has long been pulled. The Republican Party essentially controlled the entire Federal government for 12 years, officially for much of that period. They had a chance to prove good faith, instead they proved the opposite. Let them filibuster now, and let our traitors be flushed out. Let the fight begin and let the truth be known. No more business as usual when the business being run is a Congressional brothel for corporate johns.

Harry, don't back down.

There is nothing moderate about opposing the public option, not in a nation where the members of Congress get public insurance and Medicare has been well established for nearing half a century. Centrists support a public option. Progressives support Single Payer. The Right opposes any government role in Health Care Insurance. I suppose you could call Olympia Snowe Center-Right for hinting at a possible role for a Public Option in the future, with her trigger to nowhere proposal. Maybe. But Snowe and her extremely small band of conservative compromisers are clustered together someplace huddling at the extreme right bank of the American mainstream. Opponents of the Public Option fall outside of the American mainstream. Just thought we should clear that up.

It would no more bridge the gap between the majority of Americans and anti-government Conservatives on health care reform than a certain discredited structure in Alaska made any useful connection. If you go that route might as well cancell the whole damn thing. Don't waste our time with fantasy. If you are going to reject the Public Option be up front about it and simply kill it; then wait for us to make the next move.

I mean that, it is my honest sentiment. However it won't help them one bit if people in NO states are given the choice of a public option instead. Understand that I write this as someone who strongly supports establishing a Single Payer, or Medicare for All, public health insurance system in America; NOW. Sure I support that, but I also know that there isn't a prayer of a chance of making that happen, not now.

Call the system unfair, call the game rigged, unless someone has the power to change that system or nullify that game it will be go on being played under the rules in effect. I am not a defeatist, I am a fighter, and mine has been one small voice among many pushing the fight forward in the current session of Congress. I have witnessed our ability to move a mountain, against all seeming insider odds, to keep some form of a public option alive, to expose and reject the false promise of a "trigger to nowhere" being offered us as a sleeping pill instead. Our power is real. And so is the mountain. Our ability to move it slightly helped crack the aura of it's permanent invincibility. But that mountain is still there, pushed a few yards further down the road.

We weren't going to get Single Payer out of the players currently residing in Washington, and we weren't going to get a public option available to all in all 50 States either. We were going to get a mere fig leaf of a nod in our direction, a promise to look again at setting up some type of Public Option somewhere much further down the road, but we made the mountain move instead. And I'm proud of that, because though I may be an idealist I'm a realist also. I know how hard we pushed, and I felt the resistance to our movement. We pushed hard and they had to give, a little.

Some think what we just accomplished is insignificant, but I know that's not true. I know because if what we just won truly was insignificant, they would gladly would have thrown it to us early in the game, to confuse, distract, and divide us if nothing else. But the vast gray Center Right that holds power in America today instead chose not to do that. We made them do it anyway. The entire Republican Party united against the Public Option, and a quarter of our elected Democrats were always with them in spirit, looking for some way to protect the private insurance monopoly in America. If the plan Harry Reid now plans to introduce in the Senate bore no threat to that monopoly, it would not have been so fiercely resisted.

Our adversaries are terrified of a camel's nose, because the walls of the tent that they occupy are very thin, and the inequities that it defends are so grievous. Not all tents that camels get their noses under collapse, but many of them do. So they did all they could do to keep it out, but we are shoving it under there anyway. The liberation of Europe in World War II began with the liberation of a beachhead in Normandy. The war goes on and people still do and will continue to suffer, but we just won an important battle, you can read that in our enemy's eyes.

Yes rumors continue to swirl about President Obama's tactical preferences for pushing health care reform through Congress this year. Some believe that Obama is playing 11 dimensional chess which will ultimately result in getting the strongest Public Option possible under the current political circumstances. Opposing voices worry that Obama is now protecting special interests and/or centrist Senators that he cut deals with earlier in this process, so therefor he prefers a watered down version, possibly "a trigger".

More in the realm of speculation below, but first some facts:

1) President Obama has never changed his tune regarding his support for "a public option". He believes health care reform needs mechanisms to control costs, force competition, and keep private insurers "honest." He thinks a public option is the best way to achieve those objectives but he is open to considering all ideas for doing so.

2) President Obama is now actively engaged in the process of crafting the legislation that ultimately will be put to a vote in Congress. He is not now, if ever he was previously, sitting back patiently waiting for Congress to present him with their ideas for accomplishing his objectives.

3) Uncertainty about President Obama's current tactical preferences extends beyond idle chatter on discussion boards like this, and it extends beyond media coverage of the health care debate also. Members of Congress, Democrats included, who ultimately must vote on the final legislation are uncertain of which specific approach the President most favors and how strongly he prefers it.

In regards to President Obama's unchanged support for a public option, including clear denials issued by White House spokespersons that he is not in any way backing off from that support, the key lies in Obama's original and consistent position. None of the varied reported things that Obama is said to have told Democratic leadership in Congress this week contradicts that long held position. I repeat, NONE of those alleged reports are at odds with Obama's consistent views on health care reform. Obama is not now nor has he ever "backed away" from a public option, but there would be ample opportunity for him to claim that legislation dictating that a Public Option be offered to Americans IF it is shown that private insurers are not capable of providing the solutions America needs would in fact be legislation supportive of a Public Option.

Much has been said about the strategy session held at the White House on Thursday where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is reported to have told the President that he was leaning toward including a triggerless public option with an opt out for states that want it in the bill that will be brought to the Senate floor for debate. Some unattributed sources report that the President expressed a preference for moving forward in the Senate with a trigger proposal instead. Others report that the President instead just commented that "I hope you know what you're doing" in regards to pushing the opt out version over a trigger. Finally some have said that President Obama signaled he will rally support for whichever version rounds up 60 votes first, and I haven't heard of any denials issued by anyone regarding that part.

Whatever Obama is reported to have said or not said at that meeting, the fact that it was held is obvious evidence of Obama's involvement in the nitty gritty aspects of the process at this stage, that and the fact that his Chief of Staff and Cabinet members have sat in on the meetings being held by Democratic Senate leaders to craft the bill that will get presented for a vote. If anyone wants to debate that assertion, we can do so below.

Which brings me to my third assertion of fact, and to the title of this OP; The Problem with a Race to 60 Votes. It's not simply that some political blogs ranging from left to right, from Huffington to Politico, report a suspected Obama bias for moving forward with a trigger proposal in the Senate. Back it up from that brink, a suspicion that Obama is actually pulling for one specific approach, and view this "controversy" instead as minimally more evidence of uncertainty, at this relatively late stage, over what approach Obama prefers.

It is highly dubious that any sane Democratic political source would be willing to go officially on record with an assertion that President Obama is the guy riding the brake pedal against faster movement toward real health care reform. So "un named" sources are a little harder to push out of mind in a political scenario such as this than might otherwise be the case. Actual leaks afterall are part of how even well connected people, foes AND friends, in Washington sometimes attempt to force an Administration's hand. It all feeds into an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding TACTICALLY how Obama wants Congress to proceed on health care reform now.

It is an uncertainty that Obama can choose to clear up anytime he wants to. Just like he has always nuanced his support for his professed first choice toward achieving his health care reform goals in the first place; a Public Option, the President can do so regarding his preference for a specific Senate approach now. This is a man, afterall, with excellent communications skills. It would not be difficult for President Obama to craft a statement, if he wanted to, that encouraged those seeking to include a non-triggered Public Option in the Senate bill while still expressing an appreciation that some may have principled concerns regarding that approach that would lead them to prefer a different route to reach the same ultimate end; quality affordable health care for all Americans. And, just like Obama has repeatedly stressed regarding health care reform in general, he could then purposely leave the door open to accepting that some other approach, a "trigger" or whatever, might be included in the Senate Bill instead.

Here is why Obama's perceived stance on all of this means so much now. Uncertainty carries a very strong conservative bias. Whenever the hunt for 60 Senate votes is talked about, the same few names predominantly occupy center stage as potential hold outs to reaching that magic number, and those are the public option "skeptics". Those are the relative handful of Democratic caucus Senators who repeatedly have expressed varying degrees of opposition to the overwhelming majority sentiment in the Democratic caucus for the inclusion of a Public Option in health care reform legislation.

Experience on this subject has already shown us that only very strong pressure focused on these holdouts causes them to ever so slightly undig in their heals from using their essentially veto like powers to block a public option from inclusion in legislation. The Public Option has long been branded as Obama's baby, his preferred way forward. His opinion matters. A lot. The President risks sending a signal to the Senate hold outs by NOT actively encouraging Harry Reid's trial balloon for an opt out rather than a trigger approach to achieving a Public Option. He risks encouraging the hold outs by giving them reason to believe that not only can their intransigence be rewarded by victory on this matter, but that they may be shielded from the wrath of other Democrats by the President himself if they simply hold firm to their opposition to an "opt out proposal" now.

The last time a Senator sitting in the Democratic caucus faced real consequences for breaking with the overwhelming majority of that caucus on a key party loyalty issue was when Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain. Lieberman escaped those consequences then in large part because President Obama provided him with political cover. Minimally now it will be far more difficult for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to twist enough Senate arms to reach the magic 60 vote threshold to include an opt out version of the public option into the Senate Bill because of the President's silence in support of it, making it easier for the trigger to win the race to 60 by default.

The strong upswell of grassroots support for a real public option in health care reform caught some Party leaders a bit off guard. But what really caught them off guard was the tenacity with which so many of us have doggedly campaigned, no matter what the odds were against it, for that provision to be included in the final reform. No matter how strong our convictions on this matter are though, no matter how determined we are to fight for it, we do not get to vote on the final legislation. Congress in it's collective wisdom will render the final decision which no doubt the President will willingly sign off on.

In reaching their decision I assume some Democratic members of Congress are contemplating the financial hit they may take if the final reform package displease some of their large corporate donors. That's understandable; fund raising of course is a prerequisite to getting elected, or reelected in their case. Leaving aside idealistic notions of why they should even care about getting reelected if prioritizing that goal causes them to vote against the interests of those who voted them into office to begin with, they should contemplate the following also. Would they all be sitting there in Congress today, or at the very least sitting there with the type of majorities that they enjoy with a Democratic President in place to sign the legislation they pass, were it not for the passion and tenacity of the Democratic grass roots in the first place, the fervor of which they witnessed again in the last few weeks? Where would they be now without that type of passionate support, and where will they be tomorrow if it drys up, or perhaps even turns against them?

Democrats in Congress have been delighted with the results of internet based fund raising on their behalf over the last several years. They have come to depend on the enthusiasm of Democratic volunteers to power their campaigns across the finish line to victory in fall elections. The love it when we effectively refute the right wing media slander that has and will continue to pop up against them in coordinated efforts to bring them down.

If they have been surprised, or even a bit impressed by the fervor of a movement that continually has restored the Public Option to center stage after repeated premature rumors of its death, let them ponder what politics would be like for them going forward from here without that type of support to count on. The Democratic Party has duly been put on notice.

This isn't the first time I've seen them try to slam Medicare as a failed program because it's "going bankrupt". From "The Hill", October 20th:

"Republicans mocked the idea of re-branding a plan they still consider a government takeover of healthcare.

It didn’t matter what they called Crystal Pepsi; no one wanted to drink it,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “No matter how the Democrats ‘re-brand’ their government takeover of healthcare, the American people oppose it.”

Republicans also note that Medicare is already $37 trillion in the hole and is projected to go bankrupt by 2018. “Has anyone noticed that Medicare is completely broke?” said Andrew Biggs, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who worked in the White House on President George W. Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64029-me... ...

Without even bothering to challenge their numbers, I wonder if Republicans can grasp this simple truth: If the income stream that supports Medicare was allowed to rise annually at the same rate that private insurance premiums have been rising in America for a decade, Medicare would be awash in cash. Medicare's funding has not been allowed to rise the way private insurance premiums have because Seniors and others who depend on Medicare simply can't afford it, and unlike those who don't qualify for Medicare, they are not held hostage to the greed and inefficiency of this nation's private insurance industry for whom demanding a 30% annual hike in premium costs in order to remain insured remains business as usual.

Relax, Obama does not now need to be vigorously defended from attacks by Democrats who are worried about what exactly health care reform will ultimately include. He has shown himself more than capable of handling attacks from sources far more potent than disgruntled progressives on the blogsphere.

Obama never promised anyone an immediate Single Payer system so complaints about that represent water under the bridge, down the river and deep into the ocean in so far as they are relevant to attempting to influence the legislation that is emerging now.

Concerns over whether or not Obama is doing all the right things as best he can to deliver a public option plan that many of us are seeking from health care reform legislation, will start sorting themselves out organically within the next few weeks as the final plan emerges. If bloggers are satisfied with the results, no one will be complaining. If people are not happy with the results, let the blaming and defending commence. That is when Obama may need defenders against unfair accusations, or fair ones, you pick.

For all I know Obama is currently pursuing a result I will find desirable to me with the skill of a grand chess master. Then again he may be blowing it in one way or another. I can make guesses but I really don't know for sure. Nor do any of us. For better or worse I do know he is involved in the nitty gritty of it all now. If ever Obama was standing back and leaving it to legislators to legislate alone, he isn't any more. Olympia Snowe may get daily briefings about the negotiations going on to hammer out amerged Senate Bill, but Rahm Emanuel is one of the small handful of people actually sitting in on every minute of those negotiations.

My priority is simple; keep our eye on the ball. The actual contents of the final health care reform that will emerge from Congress hangs in the balance NOW. If people feel strongly about what should or should not be in that legislation, now is the time to make sure that those who have some direct influence over what emerges know exactly how we feel about it. If some of us go over the top and make an unfair accusation against Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama or Ben Nelson in the process, it little matters. The record will be set straight shortly. Now is the time to focus on getting our messages across to our leaders on this matter. Sometimes shouts speak louder than words.

The great Wall Street Bail Out, TARP and the various programs associated with it, continues to breed deep levels of resentment and cynicism in the American public who footed the bill for rescuing the financial sector in America. The resentment is easy to understand. The fact that there really were no good options left by the time Obama was elected President helps to explain his Administration's actions in that crisis, all taken under duress and incredible pressure with virtually no time for full contemplation let alone careful detailed planning. Those facts do almost nothing though to deal with the publics anger, which repeatedly flares up like a California wild fire facing El Nino winds. Huge Goldman Sachs bonuses and Wells Fargo record profits are merely the latest gale wind gusts. All the while cynicism keeps growing that our government is in bed with giant financial interests writing sweetheart legislation as Valentine Day presents for corporate Sugar Daddies in a ritual that repeats as often and predictably as Groundhog Day in Hollywood.

That is the backdrop against which the fate of a strong Public Option in health care reform must be viewed. Without it the Democratic Party stands on the virge of delivering multiple billions of dollars of new federally mandated business to perhaps the only private sector in America with negatives that rival Wall Street's financial charlatans; private for profit health insurers. They, as a group, have done as good a job at undermining our nation's physical health through the invention of concepts like "pre-existing conditions", as the investment bankers did in undermining our fiscal health by creating a fake paper economy in derivatives. These are not "good guys" to an increasingly angry American public, and those who legislate to prop them up do so under great electoral risk.

The Republicans are shameless when it comes to exploiting a political advantage. They are the Party that last crawled back into Congressional power through a Contract with America that promised voters term limits and a balanced budget amendment. Only after regaining power did we learn that their Contract with America was written with vanishing ink. If Democrats succeed in imposing on citizens the mandatory purchase of health care insurance from private insurers without at least offering a credible public alternative as a bailout from complicity in the way that industry operates henceforth, know this. Democrats will "own" that industry in the public mind as surely as the Feds own General Motors. At least most GM car owners are relatively happy with their cars, even with occasional safety recalls. But how will Americans react to continually increasing private insurance premiums, and the "death panels" those insurers will continue to employ the next time someone they love must face one?

Do Democrats really want to be known as the Party that bailed out the Private Insurance Cartel?