Taibbi argues that the bill "doesn't address the two biggest problems with the health care crisis... and additionally is a big give-away to the insurance companies." He says there will be better chances for reform in the future, "I think it's much better for the Democrats to lose on this issue and then have to regroup maybe eight years later, six years later, and try again and do a better job the next time then to have it go through."I like Taibbi, but to this I've got to say, "Are you totally out of your mind?" We don't have "maybe eight years, six years." Millions people are suffering right now, and need what even a compromised bill offers. Everyone would benefit from the ban on pre-existing conditions. Etc.
Besides, if Obama loses this one, I think there's a good chance that Sarah Palin will become the first successful third party candidate for president in 2012, winning a three-way race pitting her against a weakened president with a reputation for ineffectuality and a clueless Republican.
I'm with Krugman on this. Pass the bill.
Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.This isn't the time to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Pass the bill.