WaPo for Teddy?

Of course, Teddy would vote for this. It's Big Government.

He believed that health care for all our citizens was a fundamental right, not a privilege, and that this year the stars -- and competing interests -- were finally aligned to allow our nation to move forward with fundamental reform. He believed that health-care reform was essential to the financial stability of our nation's working families and of our economy as a whole.

I still wonder at what point in the Constitution it says government has the right to force healthcare on everyone. Further neither are we "aligned" (the majority does not support this plan), nor is there any "reform". Unless of course, you consider government takeover some type of "reform".

There is no indication this will maintain current levels of care or reduce cost. I challenge anyone to tell me where a government program has come in at a lower-than-expected cost. The claim is,"we will cut waste and fraud". Again, the challenge is at what point has government ever been effective at cutting waste and fraud?

If this bill passes:

-- Insurance protections like the ones Ted fought for his entire life would become law.

I have no clue what she is referring to here.

-- Thirty million Americans who do not have coverage would finally be able to afford it. Ninety-four percent of Americans would be insured. Americans would finally be able to live without fear that a single illness could send them into financial ruin.

Here, again is the big Leftist lie. First, there are not 30 million chronically uninsured. Myriad sources indicate this number is closer to 12 million when you take out illegals and many fewer if you take out those who have chosen to go without. Millions are on state programs as well; technically uninsured, but not without healthcare. I also point out that it is virtually impossible to not get healthcare if you really need it.

The single illness-financial ruin thing is a lie as well. Again, many sources indicate the numbers are overblown.

But here again comes the question,"why is government supposed to 'lift this burden' from our collective shoulders. At what point does everyone "deserve" a house with 5 acres, a Lexus and a boat? And maybe a $200,000 annual stipend. That would lift a lot of "burden" from my shoulders.

-- Small-business owners would no longer have to fear being forced to lay off workers or shut their doors because of exorbitant insurance rates. Medicare would be strengthened for the millions of seniors who count on it.

No, they will shut their doors because the tax burden has brought them to ruin. Medicare is not strengthened by this bill, but cut.

-- And by eliminating waste and inefficiency in our health-care system, this bill would bring down the deficit over time.

I go back to this: At what point has government ever cut waste and inefficiency?