I've been going back and forth with a few people over the last couple of days debating whether to pass the bill or not. A recent thread of conversation has come up here about yanking the mandate as a fair compensation for losing the public option. This is problematic though because it would get blocked by the same people who are blocking attachment of a public option.
So I have another option...
My solution is simple. We pass the bill as it is, give or take whatever horrors are going to be wrought by Ben Nelson, etc, in the mean time. Pass it with a mandate and without a public option. A victory for Obama, a victory for Democrats, reform has passed. Yay team!
The Catch
What happens is that a progressive Senator, who votes to support that bill also commits to filibustering any and all legislation until a public option gets brought through reconciliation. They need not even make the threat up front, so as to quietly sneak this bill on through with 60 votes on board. But once the bill passes, bring the hammer down.
I keep hearing about how we have to pass this bill or we won't get back to health care reform for a decade or more. At the same time I hear we should pass this imperfect bill now and then make improvements later. But if we can't be expected to come back to make changes in 10 years when there's a clear crisis and no bill, why should we expect to come back sooner if there is a bill?
However, if a Senator were to hold the rest of the legislative agenda hostage, we could pass this bill now, and then force them to come back and deal with a public option immediately rather than hoping it happens later. I know Feingold won't do that because he's very much a stickler on process issues, but maybe Sanders or Burris could do it?