I saw a Republican Senator (Bob Corker) on MSNBC today debating this bill with Chris Matthews. He said something like " you know if the Republicans were in the majority and we proposed this bill most liberals would probably be against it." By forcing people to contribute individually via premiums and collectively via taxes to private insurance companies, I wonder if there isn't some truth to this. Even moreso when they strip out the tiny public option language.

In my opinion the only way a forced insurance requirement will be good for most of us is if there is a wide scale government subsidized public option available to everyone. Once we go this far we might as well have single payer government furnished health care and do away with insurance since most health care insurance companies will not be able to compete.

It may surprise you to know that there's a flourishing private healthcare insurance industry in Canada.

Supplemental insurance. The existing companies might have to alter their business models under a universal program, but there's no reason they couldn't survive.

So far it is beginning to look like a perfect storm for failure in the Senate. There are 4 Democrats who say they will not vote for any bill with a public option in it and quite a few Democrats who say they will not vote for a bill without a public option. All Republicans accept for maybe 1 or 2 will vote against this health care reform bill no matter what form it takes.

I suspect they will have to strip the public option out and strong arm the pro public option Democrats to vote for the bill anyway in order to get the 60 votes and pass something.

I agree it is still an uphill battle...but far too soon to predict an outcome.

I suspect the end result will be some type of "opt-in" public option which, again is not my preferred choice, but grudgingly acceptable in order to achieve the numerous other beneficial provisions.

I have to add that I thought the Corker comment ("you know if the Republicans were in the majority and we proposed this bill most liberals would probably be against it.") was pretty damn funny, given that the Republicans hadnt proposed anything for the six years they controlled Congress and hardly have a record of putting consumers first.

Do you think the "wouldn't vote for it" democrats would support a filibuster? Because if not, then only a simple majority is needed to pass the bill. They only need a supermajority to pass a cloture vote to terminate a filibuster. Is it just me, or is it about time for a Roberts Rules Reset?

I say, let those Dem holdouts twist in the wind come re-election time when the public option is working and they're in record holding out against it. And obviously, let the Repubs flounder like the minority they are.

That's a good question. I imagine it would be rather bold for these 4 Democrats to abandon their President and party leaders and refuse to even terminate a Republican filibuster. If they can't get all of them they will need a Republican or 2 to switch over.