I think it's a very good place to start. The reduction to the federal deficit is most definitely a step in the right direction.

As far as the reduction in the uninsured, my thoughts are that we have to start somewhere and not everyone will take advantage of insurance as soon as it comes available to them, affordable or not. There are a good number of citizens who do not believe in conventional medicine. There are people who have simply lost faith in the insurance companies and prefer to only pay for care when it's needed rather than a couple hundred dollars out of every single paycheck. The story also noted that about one third of the 25 million left without insurance are illegal immigrants.

I think it should pass and at least make health care more affordable and therefore available to more people.

I'm not saying spending should suddenly be slashed like crazy, but I wonder what would happen if a government made it their policy to not run deficits - ever. Most people can't afford to run deficits for long periods of time in their personal finances, yet governments agree to provide more and more services before money comes in to pay for those services. For now, I think the CBO analysis is a net win, I just hope the government can get back to generating more than it spends in the foreseeable future.

This health care plan is a joke why should I pay out my hard earned money and try to manage a tighter budget because I have to fund Health care for people who are not motivated enough or just too damn lazy to work. I'm funding people who get on welfare just so they don't have to work, I went to school with alot of people who got on welfare just because they didn't want to work it's a joke

The US Federal government has yet to show a profit on any bureau, department, agency, etc, including (or especially) that of Medicaid, Medicare (State run, but partially Fed supported), and Social Security, just to name a few, much less run any without corruption, overspending, etc, yet they expect to ram the 1,000+ page (as of October 2009) National health plan bill through, which is heavily reliant on the backs of the middle class, smack in the middle of the worst unemployment, recession, and deficit, in decades, forcing even those on unemployment to pay into it "or else", vis-a-vis probable penalties on income taxes (*) if we don't buy some insurance from someone (which, undoubtedly, will create a whole new industry of health care scammers, and enough fine print to choke an elephant), and, somehow, everything will turn out just fine.

Never mind that the total of any such premiums will be a drop in the bucket compared to probable medical expenses, not to mention the overwhelming lines at the doctors' offices, who are, even now, hard-pressed to see all patients; and just wait for the post-Natl health plan insured to line-up to get their "fair share" of health services, and don't forget about the inevitable rise in malpractice and corresponding lawsuits.

The current administration and other Pollyannas with rose-colored glasses
should consider wearing blinders, instead, if they already aren't.

This hastily conceived National health plan will be great for the ailing insurance industry, severely hit by claims from massive natural disasters (e.g., Katrina, mortgage failures, etc), and, of course, the lawyers.
Do I really need to mention who's going to get the shaft/raw deal on this?

"Good news???" Yeah . . . right.

(*) Massachusetts forces those who don't have a health plan to pay substantial penalties on their State income taxes (which, to me, seems illegal, since they don't do so for mandatory automobile insurance, assuming one has a driver's license, of course), unless one can prove that he/she has an outstanding reason for not needing insurance (e.g., religious doctrine, etc), and, yet, does not allow taxpayers to deduct premiums from the taxes. I'm sure the Fed will follow along those lines. An unemployed, middle-class, well-off-but-not-rich Mass taxpayer would spend nearly $5,000 per year, if he/she selected a plan from the Mass gov't, which means that a high-wage earner would spend nearly three-quarters of his/her unemployment benefits on the plan, assuming no unemployment extensions, which, currently, is about 40 weeks (granted, there may be cheaper plans available from other, non-gov't, sources, but if the State's plan can't compete with private insurance plans, why even have it? Brilliant!).