If the beltway boys think objections to "reform" as it is currently being presented will only come from the "whiney," easily (by them) dismissed "Left" they are in for a big shock. Wait 'til independent and moderate voters find out what's been done to them. It is not "just" the "far left" that is getting screwed here -- it's everyone who doesn't work in the public sector and get their paychecks and health coverage paid for by the taxpayer. Public sector employees, unlike private sector employees and employers, won't see much change and what change they do see may be an improvement.

But if you are a small business person responsible for your own and perhaps others' health care coverage, a freelancer or one of the large and rapidly growing number of contract employees, what are you being offered? Only the demand that, under threat, you turn your books over to the government, humiliate yourself before bureaucrats, and beg for a subsidy.

These are the people most affected by the failures of the current system -- people who reform, done right, could have put into the Democratic camp for a long time to come.

But perhaps the Dems think they can afford to write them off?

So, how about all those people who work for large private sector employers who are currently able to offer decent coverage? Can the Dems write them off too? Incentives in this plan mean those workers will likely, over time, see the value and amount of coverage their employers provide decrease.

Will those workers really agree with the beltway consensus that begging for subsidies to obtain coverage that is otherwise unobtainable is preferable to a competitive, well-regulated market that provides easily affordable coverage options? Or, a "socialized" system in which everyone contributes to financing quality care for all?

On the individual mandates designed to lower premiums, taxes to coerce individuals into buying insurance and the absence of any public option or medicaid buy-in, Cost states that the Senate bill will make purchase of insurance from private companies a "condition of citizenship" and the revenues from the tax ultimately wind up in the insurance companies' hands.

On the Senate's capitulation on a public option:

     "And now, there is a push to get the bill passed before Christmas, not because that's best for the country - but because the startlingly irresponsible 44th President correctly intuits that health care is pushing his numbers down, and he wants to move on to talk about jobs."

Cost calls the opposition to the Senate bill the "broadest political coalition I have seen in my lifetime", points out the public's strong opposition to the Senate bill and call the bill "... one of the biggest giveaways to corporate interests in the nation's history."

Cost goes on to point out that by intending to pay for the "plan" by cutting $1/2 trillion from Medicare, the Dems are betraying the party's historic commitment to providing a public option/safetynet for seniors.

The idea that this bill does more harm than good is substantively wrong. Greenwald is looking at what the bill lost rather than what it gives us, and there are excellent reasons to pass the bill in its current form. Krugman is a notable supporter, and I trust him more on domestic policy than Greenwald.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you almost have to look at this bill the same way you would look at a recipe: if you're trying to bake a chocolate cake, and you take away the flour, the eggs, and the butter, you can still make the argument that the sugar and chocolate you still have are tasty enough - but you can't make the cake if that's all you have.

Greenwald also doesn't understand that legislation passes based on who and what arguments have genuine power behind them. And if you don't have power, then you have to buy off those who do. It's unfortunate that we had to buy off the pharmaceutical lobby, but they held their fire.

I think Glenn understands quite well who has the power. And I think he understands who has been bought; it isn't the pharmaceutical lobby that has been bought off, but the politicians who have been bought so as to make sure the pharmaceutical lobby gets what it paid for.

There is an alternative to buying off those with power, and that's getting your own power. And sorry but politicians do not have it. When progressives are flooding the airwaves and townhalls and pushing memes like right wingers have done for decades, then we'll have power. Until then, sad to say it, but our side is doing little else than begging paid Congressional staffers to care about us.

Until people start fighting for policy and not personality, or thinking they can serve their own personal power goals via activism, and until it is possible to break through the wall the media has erected against any message it does not want to to include in the conversation, it won't matter how hard we try to flood the airwaves.  

Like I've said elsewhere, this bill is NOT reform. I'm not an apologist for the lost opportunity here. This bill needs to be thought of as a health insurance assistance bill and nothing more. We will need another push for real reform, and that is deeply disappointing. However, this bill will help millions of people and save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. It will need to be revisited because it's leaving an unsustainable system intact, but we at least have a chance to end what is currently a moral tragedy.

I think it remains to be seen how many millions of people will be helped by a bill that does little but force them to buy insurance; as Glenn so rightly points out in his post today, "covering" people with insurance is not the same as making sure they have access to care.  The moral tragedy is not that millions do not have insurance, but that millions are prevented from accessing care by the barrier that insurance artificially places between individuals and providers of care.

And hopefully, if we're lucky, all these people who have been screaming for the public option and single payer will remain engaged and help create a public consensus for real healthcare reform.

"Screaming for the public option and single payer?"  That's a telling characterization, I think.  What would be better?  A polite, "please, sir, may I have another?"  I realize that "screaming" does not fit the civil and seemly standard Obama wants to set, but not making noise has never resulted in the kind of change we need to make happen here.

I also disagree with Greenwald on another point. Passing this bill, flaws and all, will send a message that we can actually pass massive healthcare bills. If we kill it, then healthcare reform becomes radioactive and it's 1994 all over again. Does anyone honestly believe that a failed legislative effort is going to improve in 2010?

I have to disagree.  Horrid legislation is horrid legislation, and all passing it does is prove we had neither the courage of our convictions nor the stamina to fight til the last dog died; no one is going to thank Democrats for passing bad legislation.

It's become clearer in recent days that what is on the table is exactly what Obama wanted all along; Congress can either stand up to him and speak for the people, send a clear message that they are not going to roll the people for the benefit of the corporate interests, and at the same time send a message that if Obama thinks he is going to do to Social Security and Medicare what he is doing to health care, he needs to think again - or they can roll over and pave the way for more of what we're seeing now.

Greenwald also doesn't understand that legislation passes based on who and what arguments have genuine power behind them. And if you don't have power, then you have to buy off those who do. It's unfortunate that we had to buy off the pharmaceutical lobby, but they held their fire.

There is an alternative to buying off those with power, and that's getting your own power. And sorry but politicians do not have it. When progressives are flooding the airwaves and townhalls and pushing memes like right wingers have done for decades, then we'll have power. Until then, sad to say it, but our side is doing little else than begging paid Congressional staffers to care about us.

Like I've said elsewhere, this bill is NOT reform. I'm not an apologist for the lost opportunity here. This bill needs to be thought of as a health insurance assistance bill and nothing more. We will need another push for real reform, and that is deeply disappointing. However, this bill will help millions of people and save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. It will need to be revisited because it's leaving an unsustainable system intact, but we at least have a chance to end what is currently a moral tragedy.

And hopefully, if we're lucky, all these people who have been screaming for the public option and single payer will remain engaged and help create a public consensus for real healthcare reform.