As a lifetime Republican (somewhat embarrassed to be at this time), I found this column to be lacking and inaccurate in several areas. Here is what I mean:
1. I know of no "Obama Healthcare Bill", just some guidelines from the Whitehouse and a number of bills in Congress. This sounds a lot like the current GOP tired/old rhetoric - "it is all Obama's fault".
2. There is no "better way" offered in this column. Just why what you wrote about is bad.
3. You call having people pay for or contribute to their health insurance "taxes". I guess everything that costs us money is taxes per the GOP now, even if it is not going to the government.
4. You did provide some good data I had not seen about "possible" costs for health care insurance. I actually thought these costs and the decreasing cost level based on lower income were quite reasonable. Much less than the approximately $13,000 a year my wife and I pay for our group insurance through the aerospace company I retired (early) from (and we are both in good health with household income under the $66K you had in your column). Your data did not show any comparison to what people who have insurance now pay, but implied (wrongly I think) that the numbers in your column were more.
5. I think you must have needed to meet a deadline, and didn't give this column enough attention to provide a reasoned, factual (or state what is not factual) opinion that recognizes the complexity of this issue, and at least provide some alternative. Try to do better to recognize complexities and offer alternatives in future columns and you will come off as more credible.

Thanks,

Dennis

This is an addition to my previous comments on your opinion article that I forgot to add. Another "error" or at least misleading bit of information in your column was in stating what percentage of families will be at various income levels in 2013, 2014, or 2019. As you well know, incomes and population in the future will change, especially 10 years from now. Thus any percentage based on changing average income and changing number of families is only a prediction, or more likely in your column something based on today's numbers. This should be so stated.

"Subsidies" for lower income families are the inverse of taxes. This should be recognized. Of course subsidies come from somewhere, ultimately taxes of either businesses or people (though some can come from the"bailout" loans interest I the government may get).

Thanks,

Dennis