OK, so now there's a press release from Wu that makes it sound like he may have been holding out for something that is actually a good thing:
“We are in the final stages of putting into writing an agreement that would begin to move the American health care system away from paying doctors for the number of procedures and toward rewarding quality and results."
So let's hope he's making good policy on the way to voting yes. And oh, by the way, in response to comments on my last post: I did call Wu's office prior to my last post and they just said he was undecided. I'm glad they are saying something different now. And one more thing: Context matters. If [Peter DeFazio](http://www.defazioforcongress.org) voted no I would assume that it was on hardnosed progressive grounds. But Congressman Wu voted for Bush Medicare. That would make me look at a no vote on this from him in a very different light.
Meanwhile, a HAT TIP to the Congressional Democrats for something I was not aware of until I read today's Times: part of the financing mechanism is applying the Medicare tax to unearned income (capital gains). A progressive move. As you may know, I share an interest in taxing unearned income same's earned income with our good Senator Ron Wyden. (Whose tax reform bill does not go all the way there - he did have to get Judd Gregg on the bill -- but took a step toward that.)
And a WAG OF THE FINGER to my man John Kitzhaber for not letting us know how HE thinks our delegation should vote on the health care bill. C'mon, John, I know you disdain D.C. but you must at least have an opinion. These Bradbury people are beating me up, saying you're not taking enough specific positions on issues. Give me something to work with, willya?