A Simple Question for The Defenders

Matt et al, I have one single, simple question:

Is there a Democratic bill that you wouldn't support, as long is it was labelled "Health Care Reform"?

I ask because the "grow the fuck up" contingent seem to honestly believe that the content of the bill doesn't matter, not anymore. It stinks, absolutely STINKS of the sort of desperation that Rahm brought to Reid's office when he told Harry to do whatever Lieberman wanted. The bill before the Senate is almost maximally terrible, a gigantic transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to insurance companies, one that will almost certainly lead to consolidation, regional monopolies, and premiums that make the current extortionate ones seem almost reasonable. It doesn't even really protect against Rescission, since they'll just hide behind the "fraud" excuse.

Still, even if it isn't maximally terrible, that isn't the thrust of the argument. They aren't arguing in favor of this bill, they're arguing in favor of any bill. Which raises the aforementioned question.

Is there a line? If there were a bill called "health care reform" that consisted solely of "everybody tithes 10% of their money to Rupert Murdoch", would they still support it? If THAT were all that Joe Lieberman, Nelson et al were willing to vote for, would Rahm head on down to Reid's office and harass them to pass the Health Care/Buying Rupert Murdoch Big Yachts Act of 2009?

And if they wouldn't support that, if that's a line they wouldn't cross, THEN WHY THE HELL SHOULD THEY BE SURPRISED THAT THERE'S A LINE EVERYBODY ELSE WOULDN'T CROSS EITHER?

So Sir Charles can take his "grow the hell up" and blow it out his ass: him and everybody else singing from that ridiculous hymnbook. The Senate bill is a terrible bill, they all knew it was a terrible bill when it was the Finance bill, and the only reason anybody is supporting it is because they're transparently trying to stave off next year's electoral bloodbath.

Well, sometimes you deserve to lose an election. Sometimes you, and your apologists, need to be taught that you can't take the "supporters" for granted.