Every stone left unturned, doctor!

It was to be expected. With a House majority and the ability to ram through a reform bill, the Democrats would have done so without batting an eyelid.

While we wait for November to come and, hopefully, a new majority, let's hope some of this jumble of a healthcare bill works. And that the Republicans get their message right. Judging by some of the gratuitous and pathetic outbursts in the House yesterday such hopes are misplaced.

There are tons of arguments against this reform. It does almost nothing to change tort law, it compels citizens by virtue of their existence and violates the key tenet of a solid economy: "I am free not to want your business". Compelling businesses to extend services to customers they do not want is a dangerous enterprise.

All they've done is taken a problem and spread it over the rest of the population.

Call me thick, my concept of an insurer is similar to the one of a bookmaker. The insurer bets that you will pay in money and not require the healthcare service. Therefore some people will be susceptible to certain conditions and will need to give the insurer better odds if they are to get coverage.

Pelosi did what liberals do best and milked the feel-good factor. "Being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition". From the depths of my ignorance I know that women are 100 times more likely than men to have breast cancer and are the only half of the human population that can develop cervical and ovarian cancers, require a hysterectomy or maternity services. Men are the only ones to require prostate surgery or to develop testicular cancer, but that's another story.

I would much rather have had a full NHS-style reform than this concoction of dirigism. We can all agree not being covered for a preexisting condition is shocking, many poor people can't afford the premium and the cost of care is soaring in no small part due to over-zealous attorneys.

What was wrong with a public option for pre-existing conditions? Why can't we spend money on no-fault public malpractice insurance? Why couldn't they open up the market to inter-state coverage?

And why, in the name of all that's holy, are the Republicans putting up such a childish show about a deeply controversial and polarizing moral issue when there's so many faults in the law to pick on?

The fillet is before them, and they lunge for the offal.