Reason #3: The bill didn't go far enough

That's right. It would have been better if the bill would have been more extreme and took more control of health care. As it stands right now, we don't have what anybody wants.

Why? Because as part of the compromise that was needed to get votes in Congress, the people in Washington eliminated the "public option". What is the public option? More or less, it's when the US government has its own brand of insurance. So instead of getting your health insurance from a private company like Aetna or Health Net, you would have the option of getting it from a federal government run "company" which would be less expensive for you because it's subsidized by tax dollars. For the present, let's call the new government-company "Fedical" (that's really bad, I know).

Fedical is what people on the left wanted and wanted bad. In fact, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is well known for being to the far left, did not support the final version of the Health Care Bill for this very reason. That is, until the very last minute. He only supported the bill because he felt it would be a "gateway" to a completely public health care system.

It is my opinion that if you want to enact a plan to globally change America's health care system, why not go all the way? Let's not play games with it. Let's just make the switch instead of all this gradualism. I want Fedical! Or maybe something with a better name. But what's the point if we are only providing health care through putting a bunch of regulations on doctors, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical companies and the average American. Why not just make a new government department to do that? That kinda brings me to the next reason.