step 1 of 3!

and now that it's been passed in the House, it goes to committee for more changes, and then on to the Senate, if whatever it has become by then passes there too, then on to the white house for signature, that's when it becomes law

not sure what this means to the Baucus bill that has also gotten through step1 in the Senate, maybe they'll just put both bills in a blender and see what happens

You must mean minorities like me.

Having perused some of those poll results, the minority shifted back and forth quite a bit. Reform is good. This particular bill or iteration of reform...well, I hope I'm wrong in my concerns.

Or the "Welfare Kings"....riding the gravy train does not only apply to women....

LOL actually I don't put you in that group. I find your posts reasonable and I don't think you are for doing nothing. You disagree with the public option and I think there are some valid points for that position. I am not sure I agree but that is an OK thing to me. I have seen to many abuses at the hands of the insurance companies to not favor a public option or at least some massive regulatory reform on that industry. We are all influenced by our personal experiences.

There are way more extreme positions, on both sides, out there than yours that do bother me though and I see no logic behind them at all other than to benefit a very small section of the population at the expense of the majority.

Yea go figure removing the antitrust provisions that health care companies enjoy should stimulate competition right?? nah they get to all raise rates.

Sorry but the idea that there is any competition in the health care industry in the United States right now is just not true

Glad to see that the House bill that just got through Step 1 of 3 includes a repeal of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act:

WSJ Wider Oversight Looms for Insurers

if you are going to let these companies sell across state line then you have to have some federal oversight on them which they did not want.
As I understood it the republican proposal to allow companies to sell policies across state lines allowed them ignore stricter state rules if they were headquartered elsewhere and selling across state lines. This would stop that. I need to make sure on that though.

lots of twists and turns here

It's kind of coincidental that you mention them raising rates in the lull period before any changes take place via any law that is passed. I was thinking about this health care stuff earlier yesterday (mainly cursing the fact that they included an individual tax as opposed to a payroll tax like many other countries with publicly funded plans have...although any new tax doesn't sit well with me) and the exact same thought crossed my mind. Not only will they do that, but they will up the cancellations of policies retroactively, increase denials for service, and do anything else they can to increase the bottom line.

Also, I don't understand your comment about green??? Am I green like eco-green, like a "green horn", or are you calling yourself green? Help me understand. Also, liberal times? Please help me understand.

Yes, but under what provisions can the federal government regulate this? That is apparently where some of the confusion lies. I think arguments are being made that it doesn't fit under the ICC, therefore it is being questioned how the feds have any authority to regulate it. Watching this portion of it with great interest.

I don't know what, if any, kind of authority the FTC could exert.