The Upside of Supporting the Bill: Updated

In response to my post, a friend writes:

I don't see the upside of supporting the Senate Bill. When people realize how bad it is, they will abandon the Democratic Party

There's plenty to be upset about, but we can't walk away without a victory. It has come too far, with too much heartache along the way. I'm not unconditionally supportive of the Senate Bill, it's not perfect. It doesn't help as many people as it could with the Medicare Buy-in or the Public Option. BUT, that doesn't mean it's not good.

Here are some of the upsides of the bill:

• Insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny people based on pre-existing conditions
• Insurance companies are no longer allowed to practice rescission (essentially canceling a patients contract because they became too expensive to cover)
• Millions more will gain access to health care, as many as 31 million more
• It will lower premiums and make healthcare more affordable
• It provides billions in subsidies for lower- and middle-income families
• It mandates minimum levels of coverage
• It controls costs by bundling payments, ensuring 'prudent purchasers' with exchanges, and by creating a Medicare Commission. (Ezra Klein has more)
• It creates health insurance exchanges. These are marketplaces that will certify, rate, and regulate insurers and will allow consumers to find and compare insurance plans.They also regulate how insurers raise their premiums. These exchanges will likely begin small but grow over time. As they grow, consumers should see prices become more competitive and the quality increase.
• No lifetime or annual limits.

This is not a comprehensive list, but its still nothing to scoff at. Here's a few more defenses from Senator Jay Rockfeller, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, John Podesta and Nate Silver.

I would support the outrage coming from the left if I thought it could achieve something tangible. But I don't. The votes don't exist to keep a public option. Worse, I'm afraid this outrage will only convince people that success is a failure.

Unfortunately, the Senate is broken and majority rule doesn't carry the day. Democrats need 60-votes, 100% group compliance, to pass this bill plus a Republican or two. The leverage lies with those at the margin. So we get people like Lieberman, who can anoint themselves as the '60th vote.' With that power, Lieberman destroyed a really good compromise for what appears to be no good reason.

And while that really sucks, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't walk away at the finish line. Starting back over, beginning from scratch, is a recipe for disaster.

If the bill fails, and reform collapses, it is likely that Congress will become more risk averse and enact even less of the President's agenda, Democrats will look like failures, and the momentum will be given to the teabaggers. To me, this is an unacceptable alternative.

People won't leave the Democrats because they didn't go far enough, but they'll leave if Dems do nothing at all. Just because we can't finish the journey in one step doesn't mean it's not worth taking that step. Our system favors the incremental revolutionary.

Final thought: why can't Democrats come back, after this passes, with a reconciliation bill to add the parts they still want? Why does this bill have to fail?

Update: Krugman says 'pass the bill"