As he has now replaced Kucinich as a leading target of DKos's health insurance reform demonization, in the interests of fairness, I thought I post his reasons for Stephen Lynch's decision.
Lynch slams the legislation as "a poor bill" that would continue the worst elements of the status quo. In explaining his switch, Lynch cites the absence of a public option, the failure to repeal the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies, and the inclusion of the excise tax on high-end insurance plans. (These are some of the key differences between the final bill and the House version, which he had supported.) "There's a difference between compromise and surrender, and this bill is surrender," Lynch tells Mother Jones. "It's a surrender to the insurance companies, it's a surrender to the pharmaceutical companies."
http://motherjones.com/...
I couldn't have said it any better.
The key point is that the bill would entrench the worst elements of the current system -- increasing the power of AHIP -- making it more difficult to bring about progressive change in the future. No public option. No repeal of the anti-trust exemption. And an excise tax that will, in time, cause millions to have worse coverage than they have now. Not to mention the political fallout from that tax. Lynch is right. The Baucus bill is a surrender. It is not a progressive bill.
Lynch is not a Gene Taylor or Jason Altmire. He is not defying party leadership because he believes the bill is too progressive. He is doing so because he believes it is not progressive. That is what the party has, and should stand, for. It has not fought since 1947 to increase the power of the for-profit health insurance industry. It has fought for universal insurance by increasing the non-profit, public, role in the system. That's what Medicare was. The current bill, framed by Max Baucus, is a betrayal of those principles. Lynch is justified in voting against it. And if not praised, he at least should not be villified for his decision.