Here's why I hope a HCR bill is passed:

[Vattel]

It can be improved upon. The false assumption that many critics of the Bill make is that it should be rejected because it solidifies the place of private health insurance instead of moving us towards a single-payer system. But we don't need a single-payer system to have a good healthcare system. Germany has an awesome healthcare system, and it is a heavily regulated insurance system. Even the Senate Bill would be a step in that direction.

[TheKentuckian]

1. If they had any actual intent of regulating then they wouldn't leave

an anti-trust exemption in place.

Do you see anything like the will to heavily regulate a damn thing in this country? We won't even regulate the financial sector that is a serious threat to take the country completely down. Wishful thinking more than reasons for faith that we are moving to anything but consolodating corporate influence and power while holding the people hostage to the whims of a predatory cartel.

[Vattel]

3. There is opposition to regulation

but I suspect that there is even more opposition to a single-payer system. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Vincardog]

2. We don't need itty bitty tinny teeny baby steps. We need STRONG LEADERSHIP

[On the Road]

4. That is True

but on the other hand, sometimes unsatisfactory legislation is more difficult to change than would be to pass a bill from scratch. This is particularly true of contentious laws like this one where it's difficult to muster the votes for any of the most needed improvements.

In political terms, it might actually be a step away in the wrong direction. This legislation could solidify the role of private insurers and cement the employer-based model for the next century.

This is why I'm really torn about the issue. Not saying you're wrong -- it's just difficult to predict how likely individual improvements are to be made. It took 17 years since Clinton's effort to get another serious health care bill on the table. That's an awfully long time to wait, and it makes it more important to get some of the less central changes into law now.

I do think the mandated coverage is going to be a huge burden for a lot of working-class families, and that's going to stimulate some kind of political change in the next 5-10 years. I doubt this bill is going to be the permanent solution.

[Vattel]

7. Thanks for your thoughts

I certainly don't pretend to be able to predict that the second and third steps necessary to get us soemthing like the German system will in fact be taken. I guess I'm inclined to think that if Krugman is right that the failure of this Bill might delay our getting started again for some time, it's worth a shot to pass this Bill now and see if we can build on it.

[Lord Helmet]

5. I agree it's a foot in the door.

[salguine]

6. If this thing passes, it'll make the likelihood of its ever being improved far less, if ever. If

you think the insurance cartels have a tight grip on Congress now, what'll it be like when they have a couple of hundred BILLION dollars more money mandated by law to them with which to flood Washington? No, if this thing passes, it'll only exponentially entrench these interests further. This abortion of a bill needs to be beaten to death with a shovel and have a stake driven through its heart.

[IndianaGreen]

8. No dice! We were told they were going to improve NAFTA

and look at the calamity that brought us.