Reply #5: It is a great question. One that all critics should be gutsy enough to answer. I'll start:

[Political Heretic]

First of all, its a great question. Because its extremely easy to criticize all the capitulations and concessions made in the health care process and "piously" demand a veto.

Make no mistake, there are conditions where I feel a veto would be absolutely appropriate. But what we have here is a real dillemma.

One one hand, sometimes when you settle for something so weak that it is nearly worthless on its face, the rationalization is that "we'll come back a little later and keep adding to it." Indeed this was the exact rationalization when the paid leave provision was dropped from the Family Medical Leave Act in the 90s. It is now fifteen or so years later, and not only has no one ever gotten back to it, its not even remotely on the political radar. In that instance the "we'll fix it later" was used as an excuse to pass something and then bury it. When advocates attempted to lobby for part II, the response from congressional representatives was "we've already 'done' family medical leave."

But on the other hand, social security is a great example. Not everything was there when it initially passed, and it was revisited later, more than once, and made better. So what does that mean for us now? I think it leaves us pretty much where we've always been, with acknowledging that there's probably a point where a bill is so bad that it should be killed, but bills that don't include everything but have a strong framework might need to be passed.

Where is that line? Well, that's the debate we've been having yes? I think that line is at a public option. The ideal would have been single payer. The acceptable compromise is a public option. Anything less than that isn't meaningful health care reform. It might be insurance reform, but its not comprehensive health care reform and its not what Americans need or deserve.