SSG says, "The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."
It all boils down to socialism vs capitalism and both sides believe in helping those who can't help themselves. The biggest problem I have is paying for other people's obligations so that they can better afford luxeries I can't afford for myself. I drive a 10 year old car and still watch TV's that have tubes. If someone can't make it despite cancelling their cable, quiting smoking, canceling their cell phone, etc. then I will know that they truly need help.
A very large portion of the 50 million that don't have health insurance are people who would rather have their big screen TV's and new cars and are playing Russian Roulette with their families health. I have a problem with paying for that in the form of higher taxes and less effective health care.
Every time you hear, "Prevents insurance companies from..." their is a steep price to be paid either in cost or reduced effectiveness. I have a problem with paying for 26 year-olds to be on their parents policy, I have a problem with insurance companies being forced to cover the uninsurable. Remember when banks were forced to loan to the non-credit worthy? Look where that got us. I just don't believe that the best way to help those who can't help themselves is for the government to take over 1/3rd of the US economy.
By the way, insurance companies have caps and annual limits because you and I wanted lower premiums so this was their way of getting there. You can get truly unlimited if you are willing to pay for it. Don't put that on the insurance companies. And do you really want them to have a cap on their overhead? That probably means less customer service...you like that?