David Swanson:

Why is a bill better than no bill? Why is a bill that funds absolutely useless parasites like health insurance companies at the expense of our grandchildren's unearned pay better than nothing? Why -- when blocking a bill would almost guarantee a better debate in round 2 -- is it more important to pass the bill and close off the opportunity for valuable reform? Is there nothing this bill could do that would lead you to oppose it? If the senate turns the "public option" into something that does not even exist until possibly "triggered" years from now, then will you oppose the bill? But the public option barely exists in the House version either. Why wait until the last minute to pointlessly pretend you oppose this pig?

Why not speak up now wen it might make a difference? Why not at least demand No votes unless the Kucinich amendment is restored?

Silence is not speech.

War is not peace.

Illness is not health.

And 2 percent is not robust or public or an option.

NOTE Somebody who still has an account over at "Open" "Left" might consider posting this as a Quick Hit there; access bloggers need to be called on this. Via Arthur.