The bill envisions the exchanges not just as markets for insurance, but as data-rich markets for insurance with regulators providing a skeptical barrier to entry and misbehavior. That, the authors hope, is how you'll get real competition among insurers.

To help this along, the bill's first direction to the exchanges is that they must "implement procedures for the certification, recertification, and decertification." As that implies, the hope is that insurers who raise prices unnecessarily, or behave poorly, will be kicked out and only let back in when they forswear the offending behavior. There's no public option, but there is public oversight. A state with an ambitious exchange administrator could really do a lot with this provision.

• The insurers will control the initial appeals board for claim denials and there will be no federal standard

• Insurers remain in full control of what they will offer and what specific treatments they will cover

• There are huge loop holes in premium pricing. For example, for those who fail the wellness tests(say because they have diabetes) they can have their premiums doubled

• Also, while they can not deny you for a pre-existing treatment, they can charge 4 times more for premiums for certain conditions

• They can continue to rescind insurance for fraud and misrepresentation with little oversight

Here in WA, the AG has joined the lawsuit parade, citing the unfunded mandate issue:

Today:

"I'm concerned that the measure unconstitutionally requires all Washingtonians to purchase health insurance and places an extraordinary burden on our state budget by requiring Washington to expand its Medicaid eligibility standards in violation of our state's rights guaranteed under the10th amendment."

The WA governor is on the other side of the lawsuit.  But she's expressed similar concerns.

Last year:

"As a governor, my concern is that if we try to cost-shift to the states we're not going to be in a position to pick up the tab," said Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington, also a Democrat.

But don't call it a netbook, a category Jobs went out of his way to trash as a crummy compromise. The iPad is the first embodiment of an entirely new category, one that Jobs hopes will write the obituary for the computing paradigm that Apple itself helped develop. If Jobs has his way, before long we may be using our laptops primarily as base stations for syncing our iPads.

The fact is, the way we use computers is outmoded.