>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/16/us.healthcare/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Snippet:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad said on "Fox News Sunday."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>His comment signaled a shift in the health care debate, with Obama and senior advisers softening their support for a public option by saying final form of the legislation is less important than the principle of affordable coverage available to all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Money talks
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm
>>>>
>>>>And so does the Insurance Industry:
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html
>>>
>>>That is exactly what I believe has been going on. It's good to hear it from an insider. The sad thing is it's working.
>>
>>Just to be clear, both sides of the debate have talking points and are spending money. While you may find it sad that the opponents messages are resonating, it's hardly from lack of trying by supporters. For Christ's sake, supporters have the legislative control, the money advantage, the bully pulpit of the presidency and his network infomercials.
>>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-13-healthads_N.htm
>>All groups have invested a combined $57 million in health care ads this year, Tracey said, and supporters have outspent those who oppose the legislation by roughly 2-to-1.
>>
>>That they're losing the debate goes to show just how opposed the citizenry is to government involvement in health care.
>>
>>That they've lost the elderly, despite specifically courting the AARP's support long before the debate went public, shows just how badly botched this campaign is.
>>
>>Of course the insurance industry is throwing money and influence around. The Congress and White House are actively and publicly trying to drive them out of business. What would you do if your livelihood was threatened and you had the means to defend yourself?
>
>I do not consider offering an alternative to private insurers and trying to rein in runaway costs an attempt to drive them out of business.

I've already explained this ad nausem. The "public-option" in the bill(s) as written will drive private insurers out of business. The rhetoric coming from the supporters is easy to understand and single-payor is the goal. The "alternative" is not on a level playing field. Just as medicare is not "competing" with private care for the elderly. It sets its own terms which no private entity can match and then fails to satisfy it's own enrollees needs. One version of reform is commonly called "medicare for all". If passed, we get to look forward to a bankrupt system, higher taxes and the vast majority of us will need to buy supplemental insurance to fill the coverage gaps.