There is certainly nothing wrong with covering preexistiong conditions and some of the other objections citizens have with insurance companies. It doesn't take over a 2000 page bill to accomplish this nor is it necessary to totally destroy our present healthcare system to accomplish what needs to be changed. Tort reform would be nice, too.
So a one sentence statement would suffice for you?
"Everybody gets health care, regardless of preexisting conditions."
Just think if it were that vague the fun it would be in 20 years. If it were as vague as the constitution it would cause havoc. Just look at the debate regarding separation of church and state, abortion, guns, etc.
It doesn't take a bill that long to do anything IMO and that is something we REALLY need to change. The bill's length, extraneous content, how many people voting on it actually read it, the pork/amendments etc. were nothing new or atypical - people just decided to be aware of it for this bill (or make people aware of it ;-)).
Question - if we had tort reform (which I am for) would BP have had to pay out less for the spill?
It depends on the tort reform, it doesn't have to be across the board, it can be specific. For instance when Florida passed legislation regulating how ambulance chasers, er personal injury attorneys, are compensated.
