I can't help but associate with Dr. Nancy Synderman's comments on "Morning Joe" this morning - in terms of how the debate has taken place and in terms of our need for a public option.
She also hints at what I've said in one of my latest posts - that what Obama's good plan (and not the watered down public-option lacking alternative he is now hinting at) leads to a two-tiered (or maybe three-tiered) health care system which would allow everyone to get the bare bones version to provide what is needed but those who can afford to would buy a supplemental or premium version.
I really believe we need a public option in the bill and the president has given up on this option too soon. The bill that will make its way through the Finance Committee won't include a public option and worse, it won't include a provision allowing us to purchase cheaper prescription drugs from other countries (this we can, according to the article, blame on the Democrats) know that the Republicans haven't been negotiating with the president in good faith. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) claims he was merely negotiating with the White House in order to slow the process down and allow its opponents to kill the plan. The president and the liberals who voted for him should be able to pressure the Democratic "centrists" to at least vote against a filibuster even if they cannot vote for a plan that includes the public option itself. That bill could pass, albeit by a slim minority.