Reply #48: That depends.

[ElboRuum]

If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs succeed in bearing the beast with no teeth, I believe that would serve as ratification for the "smaller government" viewpoint... unless they are perceived as obstructionist. I believe that they would be, so killing the bill might be the break from bipartisanship that I think we all agree needs to happen if anything of value is going to get done.

On the other hand, if this is painted as an Obama/Dem failure, it will embolden the Republican base and cast doubt on Obama's credibility to get things done. This is a danger because there is a vehement contingent in this country who would be gleeful to see him fail, period.

Sorry to non-answer your question, but I don't honestly know what the right move is. However, I do believe that any push in the direction of reform could be beneficial in the longer term even if in the shorter term it won't seem like much. Why? Because up until this point, insurance companies have been essentially unassailable from a regulatory standpoint, and any reform at all would be a foothold into further action. In other words, a precedent will have been set. It would be much easier to get things done if we have actual legislation signifying the fact that the people of this country want this industry brought to heel.

Hopefully that's a better answer than my initial non-answer.