--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <mainstream20...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "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.
Uh, no, it doesn't. Not sure where you get that idea. > Perhaps your hero Hillary would have insisted on the I haven't mentioned Hillary in quite awhile. You seem to be the one hung up on her. > (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 temperament. Thank God he beat Hillary. >
