This isn't meant as a completely coherent argument, but rather some thoughts in response to ideas in favor of HCR that I've seen argued at other places and quite frankly I wasn't quick enough to get the response in the thread.
First, get it passed and then they will fix it. I remember when NAFTA was being argued and exactly the same argument was made, by many of the same people (Emanuel for instance). How did that work? I really do not recall any fixes being put in place after it was passed. No do not argue that it was different because it was a treaty, they SAID they would fix it, they didn't an they didn't try to.
Second, look at those right wing nut cases who oppose it, their reasons are just crazy, they can't be right. Well, I'm reminded of the massive change in the bankruptcy law that was pushed by, once again, many who are pushing HCR. It was the most progressive and the far right that prevented it from becoming a law for a year. The specific criticism's from the right were not accurate, but they were right the law itself is a disaster for the average American and it was our most centrist democratic leaders who pushed it (Hoyer for instance) and finally got it through. They were more than happy to screw the people they supposedly represent.
Third, you don't trust them to fix it, but you do trust them to run a [public option/single payer] whatever. This just shows an sad inconsistency in your thought. Actually, it doesn't and it is a cheap high school debaters game. I trust them to administer a program be it Social Security or Legal Aid. Sometimes better and sometimes worse, but to still run a program under the law that happens to be in existence. As for trusting them to fix it, see First above.
UPDATE: Fourth, you are just a purist and you really are insisting or the "perfect which we all know is the enemy of good enough. That is complete B.S. no one in congress and most out of congress are not insisting on real socialized medicine. Not even single payer. No simply some form of an insurance that the government has that one can buy to compete with the insurance companies, the public option. The alternative seems to be a requirement to buy insurance from insurance companies at whatever they want to charge with a subsidy of 80% to 90%.
Originally run without spell check.