A couple of months ago, the progressive caucus made a promise to vote against any health reform bill that does *not* include a strong public option. Health reform without a public option is no health reform at all. Will you continue to stand by your pledge to the American people to insist on a public option for health care by voting against any bill that does not include it?

So we know from Medicare, the VA, Canada, all of Europe, and other countries that "single-payer" plans -- Medicare for everyone -- provide better medical outcomes and better satisfaction at much lower costs than plans with private insurers, thanks to low paperwork and administrative costs, one big pool, and no profits for stockholders. Will you fight for the only system which will improve our healthcare *and* save money simultaneously?

Why were organizations supporting a Single Payer plan not allowed to be part of the discussion? Why have insurance and drug companies and those who represent a failed system been given such a big advantage over those who oppose them and represent real change? Why are those of think healthcare is a luxury and a profit center given preference over those who think our communities are most productive, vibrant, and harmonious when access to healthcare is available to all?

Clearly there are some powerful forces working to stop single payer. Can you please tell us EXACTLY who these people are -- not "big pharma and big medico -- but "Bill Roberts at XYZ Associates on K Street, who has spent $5 million to block this..."

At present many people cling to jobs, broken marriages, and other artificial distortion of their lives just to keep their health coverage. This is a form of imprisonment, and is a big economic distortion as well as a source of personal pain, expense, and insecurity. It's literally killing many people.

Most of the industrialized countries of the world, and some not industrialized (like Cuba), have actual, national health care. Not like medicare, not like the program Congress gets, actual, public health care like the VA program, but better. (Lot's better). It would be less expensive, would have enormous public health benefits, and would be equitable. It seems wrong that it isn't even on the table. Someone should be lobbying for the real thing, not some watered down compromise that will keep the right from branding us socialists.

refer to this #1 Daily Kos diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/19/205029/864

Take away THEIR coverage and let THEM try their hand with Blue Cross

Obama would be very effective out campaigning on the need for a strong public option. Besides he was for a public option during the campaign anyhow. He could also educate the people to let them know they already have single payer; it's called Medicare. Obama should threaten to help primary any Democratic Senator who doesn't play ball, at least for budget reconciliation. Expose Democratic Senators who try to water it down.

Numerous people have been helped by so-called "alternative" medicine, i.e. acupuncture, chiropractic services, massage or myofacial therapies, but many current plans refuse to cover these services at great cost to those that have been helped. Is there any thought or discussion about making these services more accessible, especially considering many of the treatments forgo side-effects so often seen in modern drug-therapies or surgical remedies?

There's lots of talk about subsidizing "those who can't afford it", but what subsidizing the chronically ill, who have to pay outrageous fees for minimal access? What will you do for them? It is the sick who need health care subsidies, for they truly "cannot afford it" at any income level.

If your rich, you don't need help. If your poor, you get help. If your in the middle, you are getting creamed by medical bills. Where is the help?

A campaign to take away our employees' (Congress persons) government-backed health coverage as a way to highlight the problems with health care.

Some Senators have vowed to tax "gold-plated" health care benefits. Those of us who are middle-class, and receive health care insurance from our employers, stand to lose if we are taxed. This could also discourage our employers from offering decent health care insurance. It's offensive and it's wrong to tax those of us who have worked hard and ,in some cases, chosen our employers based on the quality of the health care benefit.