I vote yes.

Am I for or against this healthcare bill?

I'm for it.  Unenthusiastically.  I consider it to be like chemo for the healthcare industry: the medicine makes you sick, but doing nothing will kill you.

For me, personally, as in what's best solely for Mr. Sweet and family, this bill costs me money and I get no real benefit from it, because I'm healthy, insured, employed, and fairly well off.  So if I were looking at this issue solely in terms of 'enlightened self-interest' I would have to vote no.  But then I was never one to look at these types of problems like an accountant or a Republican.

Why, then, do I give this watered down milquetoast bill a reluctant thumbs up?

1)IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING:  The realistic alternative before us is pass this bill or pass nothing for a long, long time.  And this bill, warts and all, is still better than doing nothing. Not because it helps democrats get elected and stay in power, which I doubt will be the case in any event. It's because the current system is so flawed, so broken, that even this piece of crap bill improves it. This bill is costly, unnecessarily inefficient, watered down, and in many areas does more harm than good.  Guilty as charged.  But it's STILL an improvement.

2) IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE: All those uninsured today are still gonna need healthcare.  When they do, who pays?  Currently, we do.  And we pay a lot. It shows up as extra taxes to pay for county hospitals.  The welfare costs are driven up as the uninsured move to the streets to pay for their unplanned medical bills and the astronomical cost of drugs.  It is a drag on the economy when totally preventable illnesses keep people in hospital beds instead of punching a timecard and earning a paycheck.  Add these not-so-hidden taxes up and it would not surprise me one bit to see they actually cost us more than paying to cover the uninsured outright.

3) IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, DESPITE THE COST: Even without the economic argument given above I would still be for this bill.  It's simply wrong to continue to let the insurance companies dictate who gets coverage based on the risk to the companies profit margin.  Let me be clear: It's NOT wrong for insurance companies to decide who they cover or not (this is where I part company with the democrats and how they structured this bill.) They are for-profit companies; they can refuse anyone they want if they think it hurts their shareholders. It IS wrong that we as a people do not provide an alternative to those who have been turned down by the insurance companies. In a country that pays for two wars simultaneously and homeland security at any cost there is no moral justification for denying health insurance to millions by claiming we can't afford it. 

Since this is a political blog, I'll end with a POLITICAL COMMENT:  What will be the future of healthcare reform, democrat or republican led, if this bill is defeated? The democrats will clearly be too weakened to mount another assault on this issue, so I doubt any reform will come from them. And the republicans?  Well let's just say that if healthcare is left to the conservatives I'll be investing in insurance, Republican style. I'll buy stock in the insurance companies and use the profit to pay for my medical bills if I'm ever turned down by them.  If I'm blessed with continued good health then I'll donate the excess to those with pre-existing conditions who don't have the luxury of having capital to invest.  Because, as I see it, the only people who will benefit from a Republican healthcare solution are the insurance companies and their rich shareholders.