....I merely like to point out the obvious advantage in doing almost anything different from our previous, 17% of GDP, more expensive than any other similar nation while not insuring all citizens way of doing things. If McCain was elected and passed the same bill, I would feel the same way, slightly irked but glad we did SOMETHING. After all, this is a pretty centrist bill when you compare it to other nations or even what republicans in this nation proposed back during the days of Clintoncare or Romneycare (as recently as 2006).
Even though it is off topic, and we have beaten this subject to death, I must respond.
Doing 'anything' to change the economy is not always better than 'doing nothing'. The economy is the primary concern of most voters, not healthcare, and the effects of the new law will impact the economy in a negative way. This political contradiction can be explained as either stupidity, or an ulterior motive : one more basis for wealth redistribution. Too many people have been duped into believing that this is really about helping people, and not about power.
Americans have chosen to pay for the best healthcare in the world ( up to now ), better care is more expensive.
Equal healthcare is not a 'right' in this country as it may be in others. The way we have done things ( up to now ) has produced better healthcare results than other nations. There is no need to follow their example.
I doubt that any republican or conservative ( who is not actually a progressive ) would have proposed a
federal government solution to providing healthcare. However, tort reform and other issues may be within the powers of congress to enact. Free-market or state solutions should be the first attempt at reform. This law is radically different, taking power from the states and the individual. "Romneycare" is only at the state level. Federal control and power is the prime concern to most constitutional opposition..
