When liberals say America is not great, they are accused of being unpatriotic. But the MAGA folks are saying it right on their hats and T-shirts. I think America is pretty great. But there are a few places where we are not doing so great on the world stage.

First on this list is education. A 2015 study placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science.

Next is healthcare. The Commonwealth Fund rates the U.S. health care system as the worst among developed nations. America is at or near the bottom across the board: access, administrative efficiency, equity and health care outcomes. To make matters worse, there is how much more America spends on health care relative to other nations.

These are big problems, complex problems with continued long-term negative consequences on America and the American people. But are these the priorities for the MAGA folks? Probably not..They're more concerned about immigrants stealing their jobs and which bathrooms people use.

For his part, Trump made a lot of (sometimes conflicting) promises during his campaign, but in his first address to congress he laid out six pillars of his MAGA agenda: Immigration, ISIS, Trade, Tax reform, Infrastructure, and Healthcare.

None of these include education. On education, he has given us Betsy Devos, a billionaire who is universally opposed by civil rights advocates and education groups. Devos and the policies she advanced in Michigan are credited with decimating that state's education quality. In the mean time, Trump has filled his administration with anti-science zealots and taken an anti-science, anti-education stance at every turn.

On healthcare, Trump promised an amazing healthcare system, with lower rates and great care, but it appears he has no idea how to actually do that. His first plan was a tax cut for the wealthy wrapped in a "healthcare" bill and upon that failing, all he can offer now is repealing ACA as part of his mission to erase the Obama legacy but with no new plan to replace it.

The third priority where I consider America to be not so great is far more controversial and that is our imperialism run amok, the "military industrial complex" what we're now perhaps calling the "deep state." This is even more challenging given this really comes down to monied interests but I think we can begin to take this down, one small bit at a time. We interfere way too much in other countries' business and it seldom is good for America in the long run - in some cases, this is directly responsible for creating the exact terrorist movements that MAGA folks are so concerned about. Draconian immigration bans don't really do anything for this problem and, when it comes to foreign policy, besides a lot of "America first" bluster, it's not clear where Trump really stands and it certainly seems to be the place he is least qualified - and that's saying something, given how unqualified he is at pretty much everything, except being a con man.

So when I say America could be greater, those are my priorities, education and healthcare first and being quite easily justified by empirical fact. My third priority, imperial overreach, is admittedly hard to quantify. But in what ways is America not great for the MAGA folks? And when was it great before? Do they even know?

First we had the "wealth transfer" bills, over $1.5 trillion, in the wall street and other bailouts - and now we have another "take from the middle class and give to corporations" plan in the, now completely debilitated, "health care reform" legislation.

Health insurers surge after key vote - The Associated Press

Credit Suisse Ups Targets on 7 Health Insurance Stocks - StreetInsider.com

Yes, our health care system in the U.S. sucks - that's a fact - and our health insurance system is terrible - but unfortunately this legislation, as it has been watered down, will not help. Well, at least it won't help anyone except the insurance companies (and presumably the crooked politicians who push it through).

This is just another form of corporate bailout, and for an industry that isn't even in trouble this time - they're just extra greedy - health insurers.

It's not about "socialism" or "big government" - it's that this bill has been thrashed and warped by corporate influences and no longer has anything for the people in it. It must be squashed. It looks like the U.S. will not be able to do what the rest of the industrialized world has done.

Those evil, socialized countries manage to pro­vide universal health care to their populations with better ­quality outcomes than ours and at about half the cost! So what do all of these countries have in com­mon? They all prohibit health­ insurance companies from being for-profit.

It sounds impossible here in the U.S. But it's not - at least in theory. Switzerland was the last of the developed countries to make that transition, which it did about 25 years ago. Their example shows that it is possible to develop a transition system in which the investors of for-prof­it health insurance companies don't get screwed.

This will probably degenerate into a flame war, but I hope it doesn't. (This one time) stirring the pot is not my intention. :)

I've read through the bills and analyses and I must say, my biggest question is "What problem are we trying to solve?" I know healthcare is "broken" but we all seem to have different definitions of what "broken" means.

It appears that a big goal of the proposed healthcare reform is to reduce the number of uninsured. Is that right? And, if so, will the reform actually achieve that goal? The Whitehouse.gov site says: "Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans" But what does "affordable" mean? I mean if I spend my money on Xbox games, then I can't afford health insurance. So how do we define "affordable" and what makes it not "affordable" today? Will the new plans really be more "affordable"? Why? How? In what way?

My take is that this reform is too much of a compromise and will end up not doing a whole lot, with a lot of potential for unintended consequences. It seems to be more of a health insurance consumer protection act than healthcare reform. As I read it, it sounds like it may help the uninsured at the expense of the rest of us.

Obama has promised, and the proposal states, that if you are satisfied with your current plan, you can keep it. However, your current plan must be a "qualified plan". The New York Times article A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform quotes Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a supposedly nonpartisan group:

“The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like [that people can keep their current insurance]. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”

Regarding all the scare tactics from right-wing crazies about euthanasia and "death panels", even the AARP says “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.” So don't even go there, please.

I am concerned about one of the issues raised by the right-wing (and others): the potential impact to Medicare. Proposed cuts to Medicare account for nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost (that's a lot of how the reform is so-called "deficit-neutral"). Obama says these cuts will not reduce Medicare benefits, but if you're taking $150 billion out of the system (over 10 years), one has to believe some things will change, that some doctors and hospitals might stop treating medicare patients on the new payment terms, etc.

But again, back to my original question: Can someone tell me what specifically this proposed reform is trying to fix (as opposed to in the general statements from the Whitehouse.gov website like "Improve patient safety and quality of care")?