The most discouraging thing all along has been that the "debate" has focused on how to make the bill just bad enough to pass by stupid, incompetent or corporate-bought legistlators, instead of just how to make the best bill, period.

Frankly, I'm not sure what more the Blue Dogs could want from the legislation --

The Blue Dogs are Republicans who take money from the Democratic party. They want the bill to fail. You can't bargain with them.

I've never understood this "Blue Dog" stuff. Anyone voting usually does so for one of two major reasons: either to vote FOR a candidate/party or AGAINST a candidate/party. These people are so out-of-touch with their own constituents that they have no idea WHY they were voted into office?
For those that voted AGAINST the Republicans, the congressmember, if reduced to no other explanation for his/her support, can point out that this program is hated and feared by that party, therefore it is probably something the voter would like. For those that voted FOR the Democrats, this is a major policy initiative that, hopefully (a lotta hopefully, right now!), will do good by putting some downward pressure on HC costs, make recissions and denials of coverage illegal and (for those of us more mainstream) possibly lead to a public option/single payer (I ain't dead yet!).
Of course, if they're just red elephants, none of the above applies...

"Frankly, I'm not sure what more the Blue Dogs could want from the legislation -- "

Which is precisely what progressives have been saying- the entire bill has become a conservative handout and yet we're expected to line up even as the people who actually benefit hold out for more goodies...

What a crock.

I'd like to think the lefties who opposed the first time were getting their yayas out with a vote that won't matter...

If they shoot this down now?... well, they're all dead to me.

The disingenuous or false statements made by Team Obama and collaborating members of Congress, to transform the critique of the Bill into praise and gratitude by the public, are sickening and demoralizing. Their credibility can not be raised by constant repetition by increasing number of protagonists. Unfortunately many hosts who were challenging the falsehoods head on are doing so less and less, perhaps because they are getting tired and increasingly resigned to inevitability of a flawed bill. However this technique can not work because it will be very hard to create a collusion involving millions of progressives and independents. It is too bad that many defenders want to be trusted because of their eons of experience in the Washington scene, which has not even helped them develop enough intellectual honesty to recognize this basic concept. Some of the most egregious half truths going unchallenged are:

1) Subsidies and exchanges etc start in 8014, thus all this sobbing about 45k dying is at best crocodile tears. If true ED we should not be talking any other topic at all. Do you not want to see how can we stop these deaths immediately?

2) Insure 31M (not 47M) by 2019, not exactly a crash program, is it? Why do they not point out that tax payer money will be squandered on high bone crushing premiums (and more than proportionately higher subsidies) which are projected to grow 111% by Ins Industry�s own estimates.

3) No clear description of what new alternatives, which provide the same cost lowering and competition as the Public Option, have been created and which were not present in Obama Campaign�s Health Care plans.

4)Ban the insurance denial based on pre-existing conditions. Bu the differential of older people with pre-existing conditions can be upto 300% in the Senate Bill and 200% in the House Bill. The same number is 20% in Vermont state regulation. At this number people higher than 400% poverty level will not find it affordable. For those eligible for subsidies, tax payer will be hit for obscenely high amounts.

Unicorns, according to myth, could heal the sick with their horns.

The public option could heal people at substantially lower cost and less hassle than the current plan.

Unicorns and the public option being included in any Senate bill that gets 60 votes are on almost equal terms when it comes to flights of fancy and yet we're to entertain the progressive wing's lamentations as a sensible approach to universal coverage? Why?

It covers 94% instead of 100%. 45,000 die per year until 2014 when the numbers can be expected to improve.

Kill this bill and the same 47 million very well may not be covered in 2015 and beyond.

It's a crappy bill. That's all Lieberman and Nelson will allow. The proper response is to replace Senators bought and paid for by health insurers and introduce the public option when this program threatens to break the bank. It probably has to be Democrats only since Tom DeLay's "Hammer" approach lives on.

Get this awful, steaming pile of legislation passed so we can plant a rose bush in it.

Rahmie's stable of DINOs will not vote with Dems. is my prediction.