Paul Krugman has weighed in this debate on whether or not the Senate bill should be killed because it isn't what progressives want. He has written a column in which he basically says: PASS THE DAMN BILL!
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Paul Krugman has stated that although this bill is weak and is missing key ingredients (robust public option, medicare buy-in, better subsidies, etc), it is still worth passing. You may be angry at Lieberman, President Obama, Ben Nelson, etc but this bill should still be passed.
A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.
But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.
Krugman's rips into the dysfunction of the senate:
Yes, the filibuster-imposed need to get votes from "centrist" senators has led to a bill that falls a long way short of ideal. Worse, some of those senators seem motivated largely by a desire to protect the interests of insurance companies — with the possible exception of Mr. Lieberman, who seems motivated by sheer spite.
Krugman points out why the bill should be passed:
But let’s all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail.
At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.
All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs.
He talks about the 30 million people that will be affected who don't now have insurance.
The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically. That’s an immense change from where we were just a few years ago: remember, not long ago the Bush administration and its allies in Congress successfully blocked even a modest expansion of health care for children.
Krugman points out the history of social legislation that the legislation starts out imperfect and weak but improves over time (ie blacks weren't allowed to get social security when it was first enacted, the disabled didn't get social security, etc).
Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.
Many are angry with this legislation that liberals have given too much just to get 60 votes as if this progressive legislation is being held hostage. Krugman looks at history on that.
Again, history suggests the answer. Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.
Joan Walsh on MSNBC made a great point. She looked at history and asked the questioned is it better to kill social legislation as many on the left want in hopes that one can pass better social legislation in the future? Her conclusion is no. Social legislation once killed often times gets WORSE when attempted the next generation ie health care reform that could have been passed under Nixon is better than what could have been passed under Bill Clinton. Health care reform got worse. As oppose to social legislation onced passed IMPROVES over time.
Her conclusion is to pass the bill so that it can be improved in conference and again in the years to come.
Paul Krugman also concludes:
Right now, let’s pass the bill that’s on the table.