Perhaps, just perhaps, oh, no, maybe, golly gee darn it!

Okay so I'm thinking, and yes that can be dangerous.

When I read a quote this morning wherein Gibbs says the President is not going to threaten a veto, I got to thinking a little differently about things. I don't know why that kicked me in the head, but it did.

Let's say that everything in the bill from the House that we like, except a public option, is passed by both House and Senate and arrives on the President's desk. Do I really, I mean really, want to deny those that will be safer and more secure with those rules, just because I'm one of those 45M uninsured? Am I really that selfish?

Man, I just don't know the answer to that just now. But crap, I'm thinking about it.....

There's no reason not to include a public option except greed and fear on the parts of the insurance companies and the senatoadies that support them.

IT'll be the biggest transfer of wealth in history, bigger even than Bush's.

And every cent that goes to line the insurance company CEO pockets comes from the working class.

There are key factors in the bill to assure that at least insured people aren't denied coverage. That one cannot be stuck in a job for fear of losing insurance coverage. That one cannot be removed from coverage after a condition arises, and so much more along these lines.

Is it truly okay for me to want the President (not Congress, now I'd totally hold Congress responsible with majorities that can't stand up and get the job done), but the President to actually veto a bill that does some of these really important things?

I recognize that I'm a victim, but should I be so selfish as to want to see that others that might no longer be at risk, stay at risk when their issues will be covered?

This is a classic case of the victim blaming themselves.

IMO, it should be a PACKAGE DEAL.

Without the public option, with ONLY the requirements to buy private insurance, they're getting paid for their cake and them getting paid to eat it too.