It's sad things so often have to come to that, not least because there's usually a lot of collateral damage by people driven past the point of rationality (see Robespierre, Maximillian and Stack, Joe. ) As things stand the whole country remains well on the way toward the same problems CA is having (as with utility deregulation, CA may be a microcosm of the nation as a whole. ) This bill will only accelerate that, since it puts the federal government on the hook for skyrocketing insurance premiums the whole country is now legally obligated to endure. From that perspective the best case scenario may be that since rates will continue to rise well above the rate of inflation, more and more people will decide it's cheaper to pay the "uninsured tax" than premiums only marginally offset by subsidies (IF you qualify. ) We hear talk of how wrong "government control of 1/6 of the economy" is, but no one ever stops to consider what it means that rapidly rising healthcare costs are ALREADY 1/6 of the economy. Put another way, healthcare already costs the nations consumer-taxpayers twice as much as the federal government, and the cost continues rising at an alarming rate.

For me, personally, the best course by far seems to be moving to a country where private health insurance is legal but unmarketable due to federal insurance that covers everyones healthcare as part of taxpayer funded government service. It's perplexing that such places are held up as examples of how wrong government insurance is on the grounds that it works SO well only an idiot would by private insurance. That's a real epic failure (of intellect. ) Granted, I'd rather have a system more like the Brits where non-essential care is only covered by private insurance than one in which taxpayers finance every elective procedure, but if I have to choose between the latter and millions going without critical care, it's a no brainer.

So you're looking forward to being gone in 50 years and I'm trying to leave; wtf happened to this country? Tell me again how we reconcile "Christian family values" with insatiable greed. Understand, I'm not asking for a defense or endorsement of either, just an intellectual exercise in how they can be wed.