It's difficult to either applaud or chastise Congressman Scott Murphy for his recent no-vote on the national health care bill.

On one hand, Congressman Murphy deserves credit for being independent-minded and for bucking a popular president on the president's top domestic legislative priority - the $1.2 trillion Affordable Health Care for America Act. We didn't elect our congressman to rubber-stamp everything that came down from the White House. And given the district's Republican leanings, we might expect him to vote against the party more than someone from a more liberal district. Two specific reasons he stated for opposing the bill - a new tax would have on medical device manufacturers and the elimination of a tax credit for paper companies - are certainly sound. So he certainly could justify his vote.

On the other hand, he did have some political cover for being so courageous and principled. By being a freshman Democrat in a traditionally Republican district, Mr. Murphy is considered vulnerable in his re-election bid next year. To protect these insecure seats, the powers at the top of the political power structure tend to allow these congressmen a certain amount of "independence" in order for them to reach a broader constituency at election time. That's the same reason why a freshman Republican from a poor Louisiana district was allowed by GOP leaders to vote in favor of the bill without punishment.

The House version of the health bill passed by five votes. So the Democratic leadership could afford to let a few vulnerable congressman vote against it. Had Mr. Murphy's vote been crucial to passage of the health care bill, you can bet he would have found a way to support it.

So opponents can stop protesting him and supporters can stop praising him for this particular vote. It was symbolic at best, meaningless at worst. The health care legislation is still very much in play.

The Senate still has to pass its own version of the bill, which many expect will cover fewer people and cost a bit less than the House version. Both bills will have to be submitted to a joint conference committee of the House and Senate to resolve the differences. Whatever compromise bill comes out of that committee will be the one both houses vote on.

It will be much more difficult next time for Mr. Murphy to tippy-toe around the final version of the health care bill while defending himself against a Republican challenger in November. And if the Obama Administration doesn't see more green chutes emerging from the economy come the 2010 congressional elections, the president will be even less tolerant of getting scrooged on health care by members of his own party as he enters the crucial last two years of his first term.

Residents of the 20th Congressional District can best judge our congressman not on what he did Saturday, but on what he does to influence the final version of the bill.

For instance, what kind of success will he have trying to convince fellow lawmakers to reduce or eliminate the punishment on the medical device industry for allegedly driving up medical costs? The House version of the health care bill passed Saturday imposes $20 billion in taxes on medical device manufacturers to help offset the cost of the health plan, while the early Senate version seeks $40 billion over the next decade. Will imposing these taxes actually drive up costs further as medical device manufacturers pass the tax on to customers? How will this tax hurt smaller companies or keep them from prospering in places like here in Catheter Valley? How effective will our congressman be in lobbying against this tax and getting it reduced or eliminated in the final health care bill?

Same thing goes for a plan to generate $24 billion toward health care by eliminating a special energy tax credit for pulp- and paper-making companies. Can our representative be effective in protecting Finch Paper and International Paper Co. from this unfair burden?

There are other aspects of the legislation - from the public option to an amendment on taxpayer funding of abortion - that are still undecided and can still be changed. So citizens concerned about this legislation should stay involved and apprised of the developments.

Rep. Murphy's vote on the health care bill on Saturday gave us an indication as to how he stands on health care reform. But it was only a snapshot.

What he says and what he does in the crucial next few weeks will really determine how he should be judged on this issue.

Local editorials represent the opinion of The Post-Star editorial board, which consists of Publisher Rick Emanuel, Editor Ken Tingley, Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney and citizen representative Robert Sellar.