Their argument being that voting on single-payer now would sap the energy of the movement to get it passed. I'm not sure I agree with their reasoning, but I can understand it.

From Kucinich's web site:

From Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.

The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676.

This seems not to be true.

While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies.

That's why a full analytical study was needed, and shame on Conyers, Kucinich, and Weiner for not understanding that and getting it done. Though it sounds like the CBO study was awful, and that's how Pelosi was able to shove the knife into single payer's back.

Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

Except... It would have been better to create a different climate, no?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing.

And the status of the Kucinich amendment is?

Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

If that's the trade, then fine.

Was that the trade?

Yeah, trading the floor vote for keeping the Kucinich Amendment would have been a concession (after all the Kucinich Amendment was already in the bill when Weiner was promised a floor vote) but it would have been a defensible one. Or trade it for a compromise that only public option plans get federal subsidies and let private plans offer abortions or psychic surgery or whatever, but without a dime of taxpayer money.

Instead, it sounds like Weiner caved in such way that undermines the reputation of both himself and Speaker Pelosi. After all they had a deal. If one tries to renege on a promise and the other lets her renege, they send the message to friend and foe that neither can be trusted to stick to their guns. I tell you, sometimes I miss the bullheaded obstinance of Bush and his crew. Its funny how the Republicans can be so dumb on policy but so smart on politics: Don't negotiate against yourself, don't back down from a fight, keep on fighting even when its clear you don't have the votes to win this time.

I wonder now, at what point did Weiner decided to throw in his cards? He certainly hasn't made any effort to sell or explain the details of his Amendment, either to fellow Members or to the public at large. That would explain why there's no CBO score. Why waste the CBO's time if you know the Amendment is never going to a vote?

Unlike me, Conyers and Kucinich have won elections and passed legislation. I am not much for trusting our leaders, but in this case I defer to their judgement.

The critical thing is to get the Kucinich amendment reinserted, or the Sanders amendment on the Senate side, and just generally continue to build the single payer movement.

if the legislation fails we go into a start from scratch mode. if we passes we highlight all the ways if fails to protect public health. One thing we will be sure to do is make sure that they cannot say "we passed legislation, we are all done with this issue for the next decade."

Weiner:

“Given how fluid the negotiations are on the final push to get comprehensive health care reform that covers millions of Americans and contains costs through a public option, I became concerned that my amendment might undermine that important goal.” (An "important" goal that he had viewed as less important than single payer. I suppose that goal isn't "important" anymore.)

“I am going to continue to press the case for health care reform in every venue I can. (No you're not.) And I also will continue to press for a smarter (Nope), less-expensive (Nope), more-comprehensive alternative to the employer-based health insurance system we have today.” (Well, congratulations. The last one might be true, but only because it forces people to buy shitty insurance)