I thought I'd write a long song-and-dance about my opinion on the US health care reform effort, but then I realized that not only would it be highly susceptible to the worst sort of nitpickulation, it would also be better summarized as a table. Well, at this point in time, there are two legislative options: no bill, or a bad bill. Here's my assessment of the relative likelihood of good, bad, and ugly outcomes of both options:
|Long-term outcome likelihood|
|Bad bill||Very Low||Reasonable||High|
So, as you can see, I've done the math and I think it's better to pass a bad bill rather than no bill. A bad bill has a chance of defeating at least one pernicious meme: that no Congress or administration can alter US health care delivery systems, which are wholly broken.
I will not get into Nate Silverian attempts at defending anything about the bill as it stands. It's a terrible bill. It is completely bone-headed not to simply expropriate the "health" "insurance" "industry" wholesale and immediately institute a Canuckistani single-payer system. Anything that doesn't lead to this outcome is a lie. However, if I had a dollar for all the political lies and terrible ideas we have to tolerate, I'd be Warren Buffett. Am I Warren Buffett?
Nevertheless, the bill should pass. The only condition under which I would take this statement back is if there is any chance that there are legislators who are willing to scuttle this turkey who also have the wherewithal to bring about a better bill---one that eventually eliminates the desurance industry. Since this has a hellball's chance in snow, it's better for all the other people who think that they'd rather have no bill to fix that problem---that they have no effective progressive representation in Congress, or that they have no leverage either way---than engage in perverse quests to leave the effort with nothing.