I point you to a couple of things:
Before the House vote last Saturday, Obama made two key political points to Democratic House members. First, they needed to vote for health care because it would motivate the party base in 2010. Second, those who think they can run away from the president by voting against his signature legislative effort are kidding themselves.
This is about control of our lives, at any cost. The Evil Party, and a bunch of RINOs in the Stupid Party, like having control of us; it makes them feel less threatened by voters. And, note, he's not phrasing this as "It's better for people"; he's pushing this as "It's good for the Party. And maybe I can help you stay in office for a long time." Which is one more reason I've come to be real interested in term limits.
Second, the Evil Party desperation to keep a 'public option' in the bill:
That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. “If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position,” Landrieu said last week. “It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim.”
Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program.
For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.
There is absolutely no reason that any actual 'health care reform' needs the government taking over insurance. And all these 'options'- like the 'opt-out' where a state would still have to pay for it even if they opt out, and the 'triggered by' crap, are just ways to get a government takeover through so they can then change it, or interpret it, to allow complete takeover(anyone think Landrieu's 'choice and affordability' wouldn't be defined specifically to allow the feds to take over as soon as possible?)
Make no mistake, this is about control, nothing more.