when there's money on the line, Nader is right -- the two political parties in this country serve the same masters.

Yes. yet folks will repeatedly tell you "well, just vote in somebody else!", not noticing that the sham "democracy" really isn't a democracy at all--it's a textbook plutocracy.

The worst part is, people who want to rid themselves of "big government" simultaneously embrace "big business", which is chiefly the same thing. They give up power to corporate control and call it "democracy" and "freedom". Meanwhile, Wall Street takes their pensions, flips them the bird, gets bailed out by the government--and they *still* don't get it.

Both Republican and Democrat politicians take money from the same people so why should we expect different results?

With only two choices campaign contributors win no matter who wins the elections.
That explains why many campaign contributors give money to both parties and even give money to politicians who are unopposed.

Hey Sen. Ron , we know you are a wealthy plutocrat now , but we remember when you were a man of the people. For old times sake,
just one last time,fight openly for us ,
MEDICARE FOR ALL

This is closer to the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

There is a way out still and that is a third party. It is time to water the tree of liberty again as it is withering. Our freedoms are slowly being taken from us by the empty suits that pretend to be working for the people.

Discontent is spreading. In Roseburg, for example, a not-entirely original expression of free speech has been deemed newsworthy:
http://www.kval.com/news/62906002.html

Nobody was in a better position to carry the flag for real universal health care after Ted Kennedy went than Ron Wyden. Very disappointed that he has lost his soul and couldn't rise to that challenge. Will probably not be voting for him again.

Ron, Here is the Rx we need: Medicare option available to everyone who wants it. No triggers, no coops, no weasel language, no multi-year delays. No sell outs.

In Switzerland, they manage to have universal health coverage without a "public option," but it involves insurance companies providing a basic plan "at cost," - they only make money on elective procedures.

Unfortunately, the Baucus plan doesn't have this structure.

And I don't see what's so wrong with co-ops if they're properly set up. If Kaiser Permanente is an example of one that's fine with me - I have had perfectly good health care from that outfit.

One discussion of "co-ops":
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/22/the-health-care-co-op-idea/

The fundamental difference between the US and every other first world country is this: Others tend to provide health CARE, but Americans tend to get minimal health INSURANCE. And in America, that insurance is often insufficient for all but the cheapest, most simple events.

Keep this in mind when you hear debate about health care--they're really debating health INSURANCE. And extending the current types and levels of insurance we have to all Americans isn't going to make things much better--what's needed is reform of the system, and that reform must include getting the profit motive out of caring for people's basic health.