The Hill poses the question to various lawmakers as well as Glenn Reynolds. I'd say that Reynolds has more political sense in his little finger than all of these elected officials combined.

I believe the Democratic leadership has made the calculation that it is better to have something they can call a victory, however attained, than to face a defeat. In the short term this is probably correct. The press generally treats the passage of a bill as a triumph in and of itself, and the coverage on this issue is likely to be more than usually sympathetic.

On the other hand, there's no reason to think that the program will produce any tangible benefits for voters between now and 2012, and based on recent history -- Cash For Clunkers, anyone? -- it's very likely to be a mess once implementation starts. If so, it will be a mess that the Democrats own.

'Mess' is a solid bet. No country anywhere in the world has implemented universal healthcare without degrading its quality. They inevitably end up lying about how bad it actually is rather than be accountable.

Yet the real problem with the healthcare debate is that its the wrong issue. Imagine your unemployed in Michigan, Ohio or anywhere else in the country. Are you worried more about healthcare or the economy? Yeah. Having the healthcare debate now, and investing so much political capital is Airbus politics--you get to stand besides a finished product that is wrong for the market.