"1. Pre-existing conditions don't preclude coverage..effective immediately. "

A POPULAR AND MUCH-NEEDED CHANGE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM, THIS IS A CRUCIAL PATCH.

"2. Children can now be covered under parent's plan longer...until age 26; currently most policies stop coverage when the "child" reaches age 21 or 22. "

NOT SURE I LIKE THIS AT ALL. I'M UNINTERESTED IN PAYING MORE TAXES TO HELP COVER NUMEROUS SLACKERS WHO AREN'T WORKING AFTER HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE. PARENTS SHOULD HAVE TO PAY A LARGER PREMIUM FOR THIS KIND OF EXTENDED COVERAGE, ESSENTIALLY A FULL ADULT RATE AS IF THERE WERE A SECOND SPOUSE. IS THAT HOW IT WILL BE CHARGED?

"3. Premiums remain unchanged or raised within reason, no more steep increases. "

A NICE IDEA, BUT HOW WILL THAT BE ENFORCED AND WHO DECIDES? IF INSURANCE COMPANIES GO OUT OF BUSINESS OR START CONSOLIDATING AS A RESULT, HOW WILL THIS HELP? WILL THEY CAP RATE INCREASES WITH OFFICIAL RATES OF INFLATION?

"4. Uninsured get insurance (don't know about how good the coverage is)."

THIS SHOULD HELP AS PREVENTION IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN CURATIVE MEDICINE. I'D LIKE TO SEE CO-PAYS GO UP IN RESPONSE, THOUGH. $10-$20 VISITS AND $10 DRUGS DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL COSTS. OVER-USE CLOGS THE SYSTEM AND CREATES DEPENDENCE ON WHAT ACTS LIKE A SUBSIDY.

"1. Medicare gets cut for at least a few years to help fund it, then (we hope) there is supposedly a payback to the Medicare coffer in 5 years, when the baby boomers really start getting their terminal illnesses (that will include me...yippeee, geezerdom here we come). "

CUT BENEFITS AS NEEDED TO BALANCE MEDICARE'S BUDGET. IT'S PRIMARILY THE BABY BOOM GENERATION WHO HELD THE LARGEST VOTING BLOCK POWER FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS AND DIDN'T ADEQUATELY FUND SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, OR THEIR OWN RETIREMENT FUNDS. LET THEM EAT CAKE.

"2. Self-employed and others without insurance are mandated to "buy" insurance or face penalty on their tax returns. However a tax cut is supposed to come into place to help offset the cost of premiums for those who cannot afford it."

THIS IS A MAJOR WEAKNESS. IT IS SURE TO BE CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THE ROBERTS COURT UPHOLDING IT. AND BY WITHHOLDING ANY PENALTIES ON THOSE WHO 'CANNOT AFFORD' IT, IT'S REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN RE-DISTRIBUTION IN DISGUISE.

"3. The cost of this thing is ridiculous. Taxes will have to go up, significantly and for a long time to pay for it."

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A VALUE ADDED TAX SOON (AND HOPEFULLY SOME CUT IN INCOME TAXES FOR BALANCE). VAT WILL HELP REDRESS THE OVERCONSUMPTION ISSUES WE HAVE NOW. VAT MAKES IT HARDER FOR THE RICH TO AVOID TAXATION THROUGH TECHNICALITIES. CAPITAL GAINS TAXES NEED TO BE LOWERED TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT AND AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION. BUSINESS INCOME TAXES NEED TO BE LOWERED TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYMENT.

I THINK WE NEED TO PHASE OUT MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTIONS AS WELL, BUT THEY'D BETTER DO THAT SLOWLY (OR WITH GRANDFATHERED MORTGAGES) SINCE SO MANY PEOPLE BOUGHT WITH THAT DEDUCTION WORKED INTO THEIR BUDGET.