With the Democrats about to cave (again) to the Conservatives (they don't have one party), it needs to be asked: "Is killing the bill worth it?" That question, above all else, is complicated.
It is clear there is a lot of good in the bill (it has been said enough times for everyone to be able to recite them). It is clear there is a lot of bad in the bill (it has been said enough times for everyone to be able to recite them). The question has been answered by Howard Dean, Ed Schultz, Jane Hamsher, Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, etc. Of all of these answers however, N. Silver's answer seems the most persuasive. But first, the potential answers need to be boiled down to three different theories:
1.) Kill the bill; the bill is useless. This is the standard of several voices including J. Hamsher and H. Dean. This is pretty self-explanatory; without something like the public option, the bill is nothing but an "insurance company bail-out". Either start over or move on.
2.) Pass the bill; the bill is still good. This is the idea coming from elected officials. Effectively, even without the public option, other things are good enough. The reforms and new regulations are good enough and it could always be addressed again later.
3.) Stall the bill; it is better to hold out for something better. Simply put, "Progressives" need to hold out and engage in some brinkmanship or at least make a stand and allow the dice to fall where they may. Either the Conservatives concede or kill the bill or "Progressives" will kill the bill themselves. This has merits, especially because this would be yet another surrender. Finally, if Barack Obama is to be the next F.D.R., then who is to be the next Huey Long (or the Progressive version of Jim DeMint)?
N. Silver had the clearest explanation with a chart that he produced on his website. The bill, even in its current form, is decent (not good, great, or perfect). It is up to you to decide whether or not N. Silver is correct in his post.
Now much has been made of reconciliation and it is assumed that the Senate Democrats would be hammered by it (especially by, sadly, Senate Democrats). Additionally, trying to untangle the process from the conservatives' egos would upset them and that could mean that they would oppose it for that (like Lieberman did for the Medicare buy-in). Well, much has been made about "11th dimensional chess" as well. I rather Go, so let us play that game. Cut the deals by cutting out the public option and anything close to it. It (the regulations) pass and it gives you something to start franking with. As soon as possible after the vote, file for reconciliation on the public option (or Medicare buy-in) and be done with it. At this point, you might even be able to simply fold them both into each other and allow people to buy into Medicare through premiums while establishing a commission to deal with the regional disparities (thus giving a bribe of sorts to the rural Senators). Everyone is happy (except conservatives). Thus, everything is accomplished and conservatives angered. It is really a win-win if you think about it.