If true, that's it for me.

After donating ample time and money to Democrats in 2006 and 2008, I no longer see much point in offering another nanosecond of my time or penny of personal treasure to this so-called "progressive" party, which is really just the Democratic Wing of the ruling Corporatist Party.

This is not reform. This is a clever way to give Big Pharma and Big Insurance new windfalls. The Wall Street looting class has already gotten its windfall from the Democratic Wing. Is there a pattern emerging here?

But life can be good after discarding politics: new books to read, old music to appreciate, plays to attend, new countries to visit, new foods to taste, new wines to try, old friends to enjoy.

And there are still deserving recipients of an occasional donation: the ACLU, Amnesty International, MoveOn, CARE, Doctors Without Borders, local charities, etc. But Democrats are no longer among them. Let the Democrats eat their sought-after corporate cash. It should suffice. They clearly do not see a need for either cash or time from progressives.

If Obama and the Democrats abandon the public option I will abandon them. Period.

What are you guys going to do, overreact? Look Dems do this crap all the damn time.We keep letting it be known we want it in the bill, if he drops it. Then we crush THEM ALL.

I have been an avid supporter of Obama, even through the health care debates but if there is not a public option then im not even voting next election. Democrats deserve to lose (even if Repubs dont deserve to win). That's saying something from a Dem who has voted straight Dem since he was 18 in every election

Obama hasn't given up on the public option yet. I think this letter is premature. Let's hear what Obama has to say next Wednesday.

Insurance premium, $1,334 per month; taxes, the rest, take home pay, $0.
Age 60

Does anyone think I have time to WAIT??? Long term rate reductions are a slap in the face, triggers set for years from now are a punch to the gut. If taxpayer dollars are spent on supplements to the insurance companies or to set up small co-ops that WILL NOT WORK, it's not only wasted money; it leaves nothing to correct the situation when it fails.

How is it possible to have a discussion about whether Obama should or shouldn't support "the public option" without first having a discussion of what "the public option" is? If the version we're talking about can't set its premiums below those of the insurance industry, if it won't be large enough to survive, if it's going to have its lunch eaten by the insurance industry, why should we care whether Obama supports "the public option"?

If we're talking about the "options" in the Senate and House legislation that has passed out of committee so far, then we should be urging Obama to drop support for the "option." The "options" in the legislation that passed the Senate health committee last July, and which passed out of three House committees late in July and in early August, are worthless little baubles. In fact, they are worse than worthless. They will serve as an excuse for Democrats to vote for the enormous insurance industry bailout proposed in both bills.

Kip Sullivan

and obama will say 'i still believe in the public option, but...'

and those who pay attention to everything that follows the 'but' will be scoffed at be everyone who ignores everything that follows the 'but'.

and on and on it will go.

and as karl rove and anyone paying attention knows, obama and the WH and the dem leadership will need to claim a victory in the name of health care reform whatever it may be. and there will be those who will congratulate him for it and they will scoff at anyone who criticizes him for it.

In general, I'm discouraged by the political news and some of Obama's missteps. I'm not happy with the Wall St stuff (although it might have avoided a Depression) and continuing negotiations with right wingers like Grassley (although those appear to be ending). I agree with the need for a public option (which may still be part of Obama's health care plan).

That said, have you already forgotten that in just 6 months, Obama:
-- banned torture (yes, no DC political prosecutions of high officials yet, but doesn't he get credit for ending this practice where it counts, out the real world?),
-- created the biggest infusion of resources ever into green energy,
-- pushed real limits on greenhouse gasses, rejoining the world community in the process,
-- dropped major Bush anti-env. policies and appointed real regulators (not just industry shills),
-- ended the ban on family planning in our international policy,
-- reinstated the right of women to sue for job discrimination,
-- greatly expanded childhood health care,
-- appointed pro-worker officials at DOL and elsewhere;
-- set up the largest stimulus ever, providing for new jobs in much-needed infrastructure and allowing teachers etc to keep their jobs,
-- carried out his commitment to begin removing combat troops from Iraq,
-- shot down a major weapon system (for the first time in decades),
-- appointed the first Hispanic ever to the high court,
-- etc, etc

THESE ARE PROGRESSIVE VICTORIES!

I think it's important for allies to continue pointing out policy disagreements and fight passionately for what they support. But my fear is that too many libs/progressives ignore major parts of the record, or emphasize one thing (public option, rendition) at the expense of 40 other critical issues.

Plus, he's the best we've got (it's nice to have an articulate, calm, informed leader) and the only hope out there that I can see.

The public option is important. But there's another issue that, to my mind, is even more important - namely, the fate of 50 million uninsured Americans, most of whom are low-wage workers, and a disproportionate number of whom are people of color (particularly Latinos). In my view, if 20 million of these folks gain health coverage, thus improving their health and likelihood of survival, that will be a huge step forward for the country.

Yes, if they're enrolled in private insurance, the insurance oligopolists will make even more money than they do today--but if we have a chance to dramatically improve the lives of 10s of millions of vulnerable people, should progressives reject that opportunity on the grounds that only legislation that sticks it to the insurers deserves support? If you had an uninsured, low-income diabetic worker in front of you who can't afford to fill his prescriptions today, would you say to him, "Sorry, pal, you'll just have to get sick and maybe die, because a reform bill that could get you health coverage isn't touch enough on the insurance companies"?

It's amazing to me that any president could be so ineffective as a political leader as to throw the public option overboard when 80% of the public wanted it, and it's the only thing that makes sense in terms of controlling costs. And this is the man whop promised he was going to fight for us? LOL So far, the only thing I've seen him fight for are corporate interests - whether it's the banks and hedge funds that got us into this recession, or the military industrial complex that wants to keep us in Afghanistan, and now the health care industry. This isn't change we can believe in - it's change that can be very easily bought off by corporate interests.