Health bill compromise - worth it or unprincipled?

Is the recent, modified version of the health care reform bill a worthy compromise aiming to save the effort, or abandonment of key principles? This is an interesting question (even going forwardwith later revisions) that deserves thought. The public option, long espoused by liberals, has been jettisoned in favor of a federal umbrella regulator (my vague sketch) that oversees private health plans. Will this arrangement be similar to the Mass Connector, with power to negotiate with health plans and physicians? Or will it be like the FDA, with token regulatory power over many industries? Remember, Supreme Court jurisprudence holds insurance regulation as a state power, i.e. not interstate commerce, so federal regulation is a step forward. But is it enough? Looking at the opponents of reform, it seems clear that opponents aren't seeking to overthrow the entire effort, but undermine it piece by piece. They hope to defeat reform by watering down its key elements, until the bill that gets passed will implement little substantial reform. Thus, is compromising on the public option, while remaining steadfast on allowing federal funds for abortion, the wrong focus for the reformers? Finally, expanding Medicare to 55 year olds is unwise. The system is already reaching insolvency, and added eligibility will only add to the demand for Medicare reimbursement. Just a thought - Medicare in its original form, enacted in 1965, has been viewed as placating opponents of reform while enacting token reform. Many historians view Medicare as the end of any hopes for national health insurance. Will this compromise repeat history?