Read my comment again, and the context it was made in. The progress I talk of is not the content of the bill but the fact it passed at all in the face of a propaganda campaign.
Progress can't be done for progress's sake. When neither side is right, the "victory" of one over the other is a loss for everyone.
For the second time, I talk not of the content but the fact that it is possible to pass it in the face of such an absurd propaganda campaign. I think both sides must recognise that the campaign was ludicrous (though I know they won't), and while the opposers may feel that this was perhaps the wrong bill to break through, the fact that it happened at all is progress. For the second time, read the context in which my comment was made.
Of the definitions of progress, you're concerned about the one where something happens, rather than the one where something happens to make society more competent and evolved?
No. I am concerned that it is possible for something to happen. My point is that we need not be so pessimistic as to think that big vested interests - in this case a propaganda campaign - always win. That makes society more evolved. "Call me a pessimist, but I don't think we will ever see true comprehensive health reform in this country [the US] because social darwinism is so pervasive," - that may or may not be true, only time will tell, but my point is there is now hope where before there was nothing.