Why do I feel that some of you would have been against SS and Medicare when they were passed?

Both of those programs were weak and not nearly as strong as they are today when they were first created.

Do we really want to give up on something that may eventually become single-payer just because it's not perfect right now?

In the other cases it was the Republicans opposing the change.

Doesn't that make my point?

I have no say in how they vote.

And in particular found ways to exclude many African Americans from it.

It was originally sold as a door to a true universal system (sound familiar?), and nearly 50 years later and were still waiting on that.

What others thought 50 years ago has nothing to do with my point.

I still remember all the whining, kicking and screaming that happening then, too. Same party slightly different faces.

And they still stand as the MOST that has come of such periodic debates. By contrast, out of the debate in the early 70s, we got HMOs!

the early 50's. In the 60's, I remember the AMA opposing Medicare and the labor unions fighting for it.

You might want to find a little more accurate analogy.

That wouldn't be the case if they were voted down.

But, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't get my point.

Enrichening the insurance companies at the expense of the middle class and the poor is not going to help us.

I feel sorry for you if you really do believe it.

We have moved so far to the right as a country that someone magically brought here from 1965 wouldn't recognize the political landscape at all.

For example, the top marginal tax rate in 1965 was 70% on income over $200,000..

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

So their short-comings went so far as to place further burdens on situations they were too weak to help?

Um. No.

I've yet to see an argument that makes me think otherwise.

A true single payer would be one thing, mandating you buy private insurance is entirely another.

Cost of uninsured is 8% of family premium:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/03/cost_shift.html

State with mandated health insurance highest family premiums in nation, 12% higher than average (Mass at $13,700+ a family, per year):
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Data%20Brief/2009/Aug/1313_Schoen_paying_the_price_db_v3_resorted_tables.pdf

So, any costs that can be reclaim by insuring everyone may be instantly lost by guaranteeing demand to private insurers (despite pricing), which allows them to readjust their price points higher. This would create a system that targets those in the middle with the heaviest burden, being that the bottom is subsidized in the exchange and its peanuts to the top.

I'm not sure what the arguments are for mandates, if a nation is unwilling to guarantee EVERY last American can find responsible and affordable coverage. Until the government proves that condition is met, mandates have no place in public policy

The Federal Government is going to force it's citizens to buy a product from a private entity.

Don't give me the car insurance nonsense. You don't have to drive. You do have to live.

Please tell me where do you see any hope of a single payer health care system in this bill.

If you tell me hope I'm going to laugh.

NO price or quality controls? Why not stand up and DEMAND SINGLE PAYER NOW.

to buy insurance and pensions from private corporations or pay a fine and...oops,never mind, they didn't.