As every day passes, it becomes ever more clear that no one is happy with the health care reform bill in the Senate. Republicans are trying to gut it until it becomes a weak excuse for reform. Liberals are becoming ever more frustrated and have called for it to be scrapped. Is that really the best approach?

Back when President Obama made health care reform one of his top priorities, liberals and progressives were giddy with anticipation. Everyone began drawing lines in the sand as to what was acceptable and what wasn't (some liberals insisted anything less than single-payer was worthless). Meanwhile, Republicans were insistent that if they could "kill" health care reform, it would be Obama's "Waterloo". As the bill continues to be watered down, it is apparent that the Blue Dog Democrats and the hard-line progressives may end up granting the Republicans their wish to kill the bill.

I feel the need to continuously remind myself and my friends what health care reform was supposed to accomplish. In my mind:
1) Eliminate, or at least reduce insurance company malfeasance. This means no more pre-existing condition limitations, no more dropping clients when they get sick, making good on payments, and charging everyone the same amount for coverage.
2) Ensure that everyone is covered.
3) Reduce costs.

If all 3 of these things were accomplished in some form or fashion, I would feel like we had real health care reform. Some people (myself included from time to time), however, got hung up on the means and lost sight of the ends. The "Public Option" has become a rallying issue for the left, with everyone having a different idea about what it's for and who's going to have access to that "option". It reminds me of the whole "traditional family values" tag that Republicans used in the 80s. It meant something different to everyone, but everyone felt it was important.

The reality is that the 3 things could (and can) be achieved without the public option via tight regulations and proper funding. The big question is whether the bill will have strong enough regulations to achieve the necessary goals, since it seems the Democrats are willing to negotiate the public option away. Even President Obama seems willing to go along without it if it means getting the rest of the bill passed. If they do end up negotiating it away, they better create regulations for the insurance companies and provide funding for those that can't afford coverage.

I get distressed, though, when my fellow progressives throw their hands up in the air and say "scrap it and start over". Really?... start over?... How realistic is it that a new bill would be created if the current one were scrapped? How long has it taken just to get this bill out of all those freakin' committees? If this bill gets "scrapped", there will NOT be another bill - of this I am certain. Scrapping the bill equates to the death of health care reform. I absolutely do NOT want this bill scrapped.

Howard Dean is one of those stating that the Senate bill should be scrapped. However, he thinks they should just use the House bill, do reconciliation with it, and pass it with 50 votes. That's an interesting approach. Why would the Senate bill need to be scrapped to do this? Why not pass the Senate bill, then fix all the crap in reconciliation with the House bill, and pass it with a 50% vote?

This can get done without starting over. It just requires that we draw our lines in the sand with regard to the goals, rather than the means to achieve them.