Very true, but the public has to be given the alternative of having a public option in order to demonstrate whether it prefers private insurance of government insurance. I really have difficulty seeing why the two can not co-exist. They do in England, but the vast majority of the Brits prefer their National Health Service to private insurance. . It would appear that the Senate has nixed it along with an extension of medicare and the ability to buy prescription drugs from Canada. 

 Members of the House were irate this morning at the bill that the Senate is structuring. Just as there are Senators who refuse to vote for a public option there are members of the House who refuse to consider a bill without it. Should make for some interesting conversation when they try to reconcile the two.

The house member on the news this moring brought up a good point...without the public option how does one contain cost. Without cost containment the entire exercise becomes academic. It makes no difference if health care is reformed  if no one can afford it. ..unless price controls are being considered. There was some discussion of limiting health insurance premiums and administrative costs to 10%.