The problem is that even after the bureacratic snafu was brought to their attention one of Reagans "all regulation and taxes are bad" flunkies still tried to defend making ketchup a vegetable AS SUCH. Not "oops, that's really not what we meant to do, here's what actually happened" but "yes, ketchup is a vegetable, you regulation crazy commies; deal with it!" Even THAT might have been understandable (if no more acceptable) on the basis of overall economizing, except that Reagan and his pals were FAR more understanding toward the independently wealthy they gave tax cuts even as they cut vegetables from school lunches because we couldn't afford them. They said we couldn't afford to feed kids but could afford millionaire tax cuts; you may not like how that was "spun" but it's a fact, and even when given a chance to rectify said fact the adminstration didn't want to take it.

We can dance around the issue all day long, but at the END of the day it still boils down to Reagan and his party being more able to empathize with impoverished millionaires than malnourished schoolchildren. They made that choice, a habitual one for the GOP leadership, but that's not my fault, not my responsibility, and shouldn't be my problem. If you don't like it, your beef is with them, not me.

What's false about it, and this the WHOLE PROBLEM with criticisms of a public option, is that the care will still be available to anyone who can pay out of pocket; there are just some things that won't be covered by your taxes. In other words, it'll be JUST LIKE PRIVATE INSURANCE ALREADY IS (oh noes!) The very thing that the public option would reduce is the chief criticism of it, because it doesn't completely ELIMINATE the problem. It's like saying you don't want your broken leg set because the splint is uncomfortable.

The death panel charge is false because it claims that:

1) the government is trying to "create" something that's been widespread in the US for decades and

2) a public option would eliminate life saving treatments that would otherwise be available.

Both of those claims are simply false, and the people making them know it as well as you and I do. Not that is slows them down for a second.

Because private insurance, as well as paying for it without insurance, would still be every bit as much on the table as they are when private "death panels" deny CLAIMS (NOT treatment) now, and because when given the opportunity and encouragement to back away from starving children, the Reagan administration refused to do so, defended calling ketchup a vegetable on its face. Obama and Co. have never tried to say, "Hey, what's wrong with a bunch of bureacrats deciding if your gramma lives or dies?" but rather denied the false claim completely.

Obviously, I disagree; I think I'm being both consistent and logical, and I brought up the 30 year old case because it was an example of a sitting Republican President LITERALLY denying children food to save money he wanted to return to millionaires who didn't need it. They literally starved children to enrich the wealthy, and even when given the opportunity to clarify the matter the official administration was the same as mine: The charge was accurate. All of that is stated in YOUR "debunking" link, so I don't have to take any liberties to get there. The difference is that St. Ronnie was OK with that and I'm not.

I don't give Dems free passes, you know that; the biggest argument for each major party is how AWFUL the other is. You'd think we could do better, but that's neither here nor there to this dicussion: GOP leadership and policy has self identified with the nations plutocrats for decades, even as it condemned liberal "elitism" (often with some accuracy as well). Hence their thirty year assault on public education has produced a generation that honestly BELIEVES we can cut the deficit AND taxes. I'm managing not to opine on how that affected the federal school lunch program, but only just....