The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is "Democrats' plan to help 'uninsurables' questioned". This could be legit.

To start off, we have the following scenario: "You're afraid your cancer is back and a health insurance company has just turned you down (this is a typical scenario). Under the health care bills in Congress, you COULD APPLY for coverage through a high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would IMMEDIATELY start serving people with pre-existing medical conditions", which is good, right? The only thing is, there's a catch: "Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify". Hm. That's a MAJOR 'catch'.

According to Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network, he denounced the waiting period in the Senate version of the healthcare overhaul as "unacceptable". More specifically, Finan said: "If you are a cancer patient AND HAVE CANCER NOW, you (obviously) can't wait six months to go into a plan BECAUSE YOUR CONDITION CAN GO FROM BAD TO DEATH". This is very true/a very legit concern.

Acording to Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University health policy professor, "If you are somebody with CANCER or A HEART CONDITION (i.e. serious chronic ailments) who needs IMMEDIATE coverage and IMMEDIATE treatment, THAT'S (obviously) NOT VERY HELPFUL". This is even more cynical.

Finan goes on to say that "THE HOUSE VERSION will provide immediate relief for people with high-risk conditions who have no alternative to coverage", but this must be reconciled/somehow combined with the Senate version.

Yahoo! says that "It may be easier to fix the waiting period than the financing". The waiting period is a matter of policy, which can EASILY be changed while financing depends at least partially on market conditions.

"Both the House and the Senate bills set aside $5 billion for the pools". According to Douglas Holz-Eakin, a former top adviser to Sen. McCain during his presidential campaign last year, "IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE it's near enough money". How much will it take then, Mr. Holz-Eakin? Republicans have been like this recently: identify the problem without providing any feasible solutions.

According to Thomas Buchmueller, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, "It would seem that ($5 billion) IS GOING TO BE SMALL RELATIVE TO THE NEED".

The final significant comment is from Pollitz: "THERE CLEARLY IS NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO COVER EVERYBODY". Still, SOME insurance is better than NONE.

So the bottom line is: even if this proposal passes, there will still be major gaps in our insurance system, from who will be covered to finances.