None of this is political, as I prefer to look at issues themselves, rather than simply stick to a particular simple political ideology.
The reason there is such a strong push to get something done, finally, is because the health care system is actually very close to bankrupting the country. I would guess it is about 10-20 years away from doing it.
Just 40 years ago, health care made up a tiny portion of our country's GDP, something around 2%. There were very few medical related personal bankruptcies. Now? Health care costs are going above 20% of our GPD. Over 50% of personal bankruptcies are primarily due to medical costs. That is more than unsustainable growth, the country is currently hurtling right into the wall of bankruptcy. It is only in these sorts of situations that Congress will act, when it has no choice but to either increase taxes (which it hates doing) or attempt to fix things.
The current legislation, as it is now, doesn't really change anything, for better or worse, for the most part. It makes major cuts to Medicare, increases taxes at the top bracket, and allows for subsidies to be available for the poor and lower-middle class for health "insurance". The bill fills in the access problem, allowing most Americans to be covered.
What the bill does not increase or decrease, and for the most part doesn't address, are the costs of our current health care system. The two primary causes in the rise of health care costs are new life extension treatments/life saving procedures (which everyone wants), and the fact we have a 3rd party payment system, so nobody ever shops around (makes frugal choices) about the health care they are getting. We certainly aren't going to limit the development of new treatments, so what can be addressed is the 3rd party payment system.
Congress has not gotten into this, and has shown inclinations to not want to get into it, at least until the access issue is separately dealt with, since the access issue is is a lot simpler to fix. There is nothing in the current bill that really addresses this, at this point. Some attempts were made to add a public option or an extension of medicare, but these were essentially band-aid attempts to address the cost issue, as they also really didn't address the problem with the 3rd party system, which is why it was opposed, at least somewhat, on both sides for being included in the Access bill.
So what should be done for the cost issue (of health care, not the tiny bill going through Congress right now)? The issue that really matters? The 3rd party system obviously needs to be fixed. Congress so far has only attempted to go the easy route so far, to copy the single payer system of other countries, which allows the government to have more leverage and control over what is charged. However, a single payer system is not a market based system, and very poorly meshes with the current system, which is half pure market based.
I think we need we need the type of system where catastrophic costs are covered by high-deductible insurance, and people directly pay for non-catastrophic care through a HSA type system. Obviously such a system would need subsidies for the disabled and poor, but for the vast majority of the population, they should be the ones administering how they pay for their health care (they already pay for it now, it is just much more expensive having someone else doing it for you). To make an analogy, would you really want some stranger you don't know choosing how to pay for your housing or automotive costs? In such a situation, they wouldn't shop around to get decent repairs, or do the repairs themselves, they would just do what is most convenient (which is extremely expensive). Medicare/Medicaid would also continue, but would, very very slowly, be phased out or adjusted to match the changes in coverage offered by a HSA type system.
Just my thoughts after having the issues explained to me in a Health Care Law class taught by a MD/Harvard JD.