Well and thoughtfully written, Cabo. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but a lot of it for sure. What I can't embrace is the idea that Obamacare was the product of only the progressive Democratic elite.

The way I recall the process of the development of this legislation, the POTUS began with a central and relatively simple objective...to achieve health insurance for 30-40 million Americans who were uninsured and whose use of ER's as their primary care was a big chunk of the escalating healthcare expenses which the country clearly couldn't afford. That and steps to begin to tilt our national healthcare from reactive to preventive.

From that point the lobbyists and the members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who were beholden to special interests took over. Yes, it was a Democratic-controlled Congress, but not by enough of a plurality to jam thru any legislation they desired. In the last weeks and days, the special interests--the insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, trial lawyers, virtually everyone except the public--got what they wanted in this bill. The stuff that was added that is so objectionable to all of us was put there by both Democrats and Republicans in the last ditch effort to keep all the special interests satisfied.

The POTUS got what he wanted as well--insurance for a lot of uninsured Americans. If he is to be criticized, it would be for not vetoing such a Rube Goldberg of a bill.

But now the country is left with what to do about it. Yes, the 2010 elections sent a statement to the Congress. While lots of change was accomplished, not enough to reasonably expect that the legislation in it's entirety can be repealed. The question, it seems to me, is should the Congress waste a lot of time debating something that clearly cannot be accomplished until after the 2012 elections at the earliest--and maybe not even then if the same POTUS is in place to veto a repeal. Or should Congress try to amend the act to correct the most objectionable parts? Or should they attack the funding of the government, effectively strangling the implementation of the legislation which was passed?

All I'd suggest is that there probably are parts of the act that are very desirable--insuring the uninsured is one as far as I'm concerned. So why not work on what can be changed and not waste time trying to play political one-upsmanship when no purpose can reasonably be served?