OK, someone correct me if this differs from state to state, but where I come from, "Pre-existing condition" simply means that the new coverage will not cover any expenditures for a single year. Once you are past that year, they *do* cover any costs.

Also, I will add that, perhaps it seems cost prohibitive...but I just had to disburse a loan for a man who's son was in intensive care for 6 months, and then died. They had a sizable savings before all this, but no health coverage when the boy went into the hospital. By the time they were done, there was no more savings, their house was mortgaged to the hilt, and they had to borrow money using one of their vehicles as collateral (extending it out past it's value according to the NADA book...which means, if it is totaled, they will not get enough from the insurance to cover the loan) to bury him. No health coverage is fine if you're talking about minor health issues, or the occasional Doctors visit...but if you find yourself dealing with a catastrophic and costly health issue, suddenly, the premiums don't seem that bad anymore. And yeah, it really is a crap shoot. You have to weigh out whether you want to risk being in the shoes of the guy described. Yeah, socialized medicine in the USA would be nice, but until that happens, I for one will pay to insure that I do not lose everything just trying to keep someone in my family alive.

And Bobert? I voted green...absolutely agree that the votes have to echo the conviction. This whole "lesser of 2 evils" thing, and the "A vote for (non-democratic/republican party ballot) is a wasted vote" stuff is an insult. If everyone who said that they wanted to vote outside of the 2 major parties did, the message would have been loud and clear...pity.