The Healthcare Bill: What’s Going to Really Happen?

There has been so much confusion with this Healthcare Bill not only because the contents, like the abortion language, are not clear but also the way it was passed was “unconventional” to say the least. I will try to explain what I know and will give you my personal opinion about the bill and how it was passed.

Some Facts: The bill passed 219-212, the magic number being 216, without any Republicans voting for it. What also passed was the compromises that will be added onto the Healthcare bill after they go to the Senate and are voted on, however if these “compromises” have to do with the budget in some way it falls under reconciliation and therefore senators can’t filibuster them. I believe we talked about the filibuster on this blog before, but I’ll refresh your memory: It’s when a senator decides to disrupt the Senate by declaring his filibuster and then talking at the Senate for hours (sometimes) until a vote for cloture is called for. They can end the filibuster with 60 votes and if they don’t have them that “kills the bill”. As was also mentioned before, Democrats don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore with Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, so they decided to go around this rule. How did they do that? The House passed the Senate’s healthcare bill instead of the two bills by the House and Senate being reconciled (which means almost “merged”; the House and Senate duke it out to see what goes into the final bill essentially). But, because the House doesn’t entirely like the Senate’s bill they want to make amendments to it which are the “compromises” I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. This is part of the complication; it’s hard to understand why they passed a bill they didn’t like? Why are they allowed to circumvent the rules of the Senate or House? Why can they be sneaky and go around Democratic processes our Founders wanted, like debate? Why? Because they wanted the bill passed NOW. Time was a major constraint and the Republicans winning an extra seat in the Senate didn’t help much. To pass anything they already had was their option or to scrap the bill altogether and start over (which I would have liked) which would politically look bad for Obama.

What does the bill do: Well, that’s hard to ascertain because many things are “projected” and we won’t know what’s certain until many years in the future. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), this plan will cut deficits by 1 trillion dollars in the second decade. Personally, I don’t understand how that’s possible but I’ll address my qualms later. Remember this is projected not certain. It creates “health exchanges” which make it cheaper to buy insurance, Medicaid will be expanded, It creates new taxes for health insurers and higher income families, and you are required to buy health insurance. An important clarification is that of the abortion situation: NO GOVERNMENT MONEY WILL BE GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS. If people want abortion coverage they pay for it with their private funds and this was also clarified by an executive order issued by Obama.

My contentions with the Bill: First of all, I was unnerved with the way it was passed. No Republicans voted for the Senate Bill in the Senate and no Republicans voted for the Senate bill in the House. There is some talk of their proposed amendments making it into the bill, but as of now we don’t know that for sure. So, basically this bill had NO bipartisan support. In my opinion, on legislation this big and sweeping bipartisan support is needed to legitimize it and also just make it better and more likeable. I like using this example, in the Supreme Court for big cases they much rather have a 9-0 decision than a 5-4 decision because it shows the strength behind their argument. It’s the same with healthcare. I just feel throughout the process Republicans were being ignored because they (democrats) thought they could ignore them. When they had to deal with them, as in after Scott Brown was elected, they still went around them by passing law in an unconventional manner without the thought process that usually is present.

That brings me to my second point; they totally disregarded the rules and ideals of our country. Someone on C-SPAN made a really great point, he asked if they can pass bills like this why do we usually do it the longer way? I think the answer is the longer way makes the bill better in the long run. You are able to fit more ideas/opinions in and really compromise. The founders wanted bills to take a long time because they wanted us to think about what we’re doing. And I think knowingly going around this deliberate process is wrong and the end product turns out being mediocre at best. That’s what I think we have; a mediocre healthcare bill that doesn’t really address cost very well and that could have been worked on longer.

My third point is the contents of the bill don’t fully make sense to me. I think the cost issue is still a problem. I bet the government health insurance will cost more than private insurance because maybe they’ll have to pay doctors more or they have to pay for it because Medicare doesn't cover it, or something like that, so it has to cost more. This is just my opinion, but it seems plausible. Also, how exactly are we paying for this? They stipulate cutting Medicare will pay for a lot of it but they’re also using that money to expand Medicaid, subsidies, etc. so that doesn’t exactly makes sense. They’re obviously going to raise taxes which I think is unnecessary for a bill that doesn’t do much and in an economy that’s not too healthy right now. I believe TORT reform is in the amendments to the bill and should be (which would subjugate insurance companies to ant-trust law and therefore make competition). But, that would have helped in the first place and maybe we wouldn’t need this whole government run thing.

One thing I like about the bill is that it doesn’t let insurance companies drop you for pre-existing conditions. That’s just cruel and also that’s the reason people have health insurance in the first place. That should have been made a law much earlier. Another thing I find beneficial but have some dissonance with is that people must have health insurance. I like this idea because if everyone has to buy it the price goes down (supply and demand) however I also feel the government shouldn’t make you buy something you don’t want (for whatever reason). If it’s a “right”, then shouldn’t we be able to choose if we want it or not?

All in all, I was just disappointed and disheartened to see this bill get passed in this way and the quality of the content. I think there could have been more bipartisan support for the bill and they could have passed the bill in the intended way: with thoughtful debate. Also, I think the bill isn’t that great and doesn’t cover the main reasons why people wanted a healthcare bill in the first place. I suppose it’s fine for now, but once the taxes and costs and deficit’s rise I think we’ll be sorry we passed it. We’ll just have to see what happens.

Further reading:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?src=me&ref=general

http://documents.nytimes.com/health-care-reconciliation-bill#p=2

(text of the Healthcare Bill)

Arguments Against a Multiparty System

So, I've decided to play devil's advocate here and give the arguments against a multi-party system because I believe every good argument has an equally excellent counter-argument.

While I agree with Anya that only having two parties makes it harder for everyone to get along, I suppose I don't see how a multi-party system does this either? People and parties have differences and that's just a fact. In a multiparty system (let's take Britain's main parties) it would just be the labour and liberal parties against the conservatives because they all lean a certain way (more liberal or more conservative). In fact, one could argue there would be more sniping within these groups because of the opposite ideologies they have (if it's a type of coalition government). Or, even if it's just a generally "liberal" coalition there are still differences between them (let's say the liberal and labour parties) because they obviously different parties for a reason. I hope this makes sense, but essentially I'm saying there might be more issues/tribulations to argue about in a multiparty system.

I also agree with Anya that candidates in America have become more centrist, however they have because we want them to be. Many (but not all) don't really want a "radical" president to shake America up and would prefer a President who was less ideological and looked at things from different perspectives. However, I'm generalizing. My question: wouldn't finding common ground between multiple parties make the government more centrist? It seems logical to me that the more parties involved, the more diverse ideas there are, the harder it is to find common ground, and the more centrist/to the middle policies are adopted. I will illustrate with an example. If you are out with one friend and are deciding between seeing a horror movie and a romantic comedy, eventually one of you will give in and decide to agree with the other person. This is a "stronger" stance because it's not diluted by too much compromise. However, if you're out with five friends and everyone wants to see something different it's a real problem, you become indecisive and say (at least in my group of friends), "whichever you guys like the best." In the end you all might give up on the movie all together (aka nothing getting done in the world of politics) or spend a lot of time crafting a compromise: "If we see Avatar this week then next week we have to see A Single Man"...and so forth until everyone is pleased (like how centrist policies please everyone). So, my point: Not only is it harder to reach a conclusion in a multi-party system, it also will result in a down-the-middle policy because too many people and ideas are involved and everyone has to be included and say their piece.

My contention with the last point made: multiparty systems may give more "variety" however that won't encourage people to vote if they're apathetic. In fact, if one is apathetic, one would like to vote in the easiest way possible, which would be with the two party system, because there are only so many ways you can go. You're either Republican or Democrat and then use the "straight ticket" voting approach (vote all for one party). However, this doesn't foster an informed society and electorate (things are never perfect)

Oh Massachusetts!

Oh Massachusetts! The seemingly blue state! However, on Tuesday January 19, the people of Massachusetts decided to vote a different way; they decided to vote for change…again. So, the candidates were R-Scott Brown and D-Martha Coakley. I found it odd that the seat the late Edward Kennedy filled for almost half a century is now held by a Republican, however that’s how politics works. To quote a TV show, “no one owns a Senate seat.” If you want to keep it you have to work hard for it and the political winds have to be just right (however the incumbent does have an advantage, usually).

Anyway, what does this signify? Well, if you’re a Republican it means your party is doing something right, it’s coming back, and finally Democrats will have to listen and take into consideration your ideas. You also will take any chance you get to say it has to do with Obama and shows his political future. For a Republican, this is game changing. If you’re a Democrat you’re trying to keep it from touching on the President, meaning it doesn’t foreshadow anything for Obama in the future. Also, you might feel some of your agenda will be centralized and you are definitely feeling wan from a fall from power. I suppose your front is it’s no big deal, but you might be panicking a bit on the inside?

The facts: Democrats don’t have that 60, that impenetrable number, to override filibusters (a filibuster is when a member talks, reads, etc. for a certain amount of time in order to “back up” the Senate and then a cloture vote is called for, where 60 votes ends it. More details:http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm. Republicans have been very much on the defensive this past year about Healthcare reform, etc. and this was mainly because the Democrats had the 60 votes and they didn’t need Republicans for anything, so excluding them was best. Now, Harry Reid WILL have to change his strategy. He didn’t really try to reach out to any of the Republicans in the end, even Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who were open to working with him and were very much centrist on the ideas proposed. Gosh, now he’ll have to deal with the very conservative Republicans as well. I’m sorry Mr. Reid but the way you’ve been doing things is going to have to change it will be a very bumpy ride. Republican ideas will have to be present in the bill to get some votes. And there are just some Republicans who won’t be won over. I either foresee some Republicans really being listened to and trying to work with the Democrats or I see stubbornness on both sides, which will make it impossible to accomplish anything. I am planning for the latter and hoping for the former.

Other possible effects: We can only guess at what this means for the President. Some say it’s an indicator of where people think his government is going and they don’t like it, and other’s think you can’t really apply what’s happening in one state to the whole of the Presidency. I think it may be both. I feel like people turned up to vote and wanted this change because they didn’t like where the Healthcare Bill was going (especially the December vote) and were scared of what cap and trade would do to their small businesses, and maybe didn’t want new taxes. All of this is controlled by who wins that Senate seat, and that’s now Scott Brown. Also, we can’t look at this and say Obama is finished. Not everyone feels the same way about him like the people in Massachusetts do. Some people love what he’s doing and some people hate it so it’s hard to get an accurate read on where he’s going.

How did this happen? It looks like a combination of a lot of things. Coakley had one thing going for her; it was Ted Kennedy’s seat and therefore people might think it just “belongs” to a Democrat. However, that may have also hurt her because if people think that and don’t want the seat to go to a Democrat then they will have even more incentive to go to the polls and vote. I think the “60 vote” mentality of the Senate contributed to Coakley’s downfall because people felt ignored, excluded, horrified, etc. at what was getting passed and wanted to put a stop to it. Part of this comes from Republicans not being listened to because not one Republican voted for the Healthcare Bill in December and that looks bad and I think people were turned off by it. Also, having Obama endorse her (Coakley) might have backfired just a bit. She thought he would change people’s minds and he didn’t; so basically she counted on him changing people’s minds too much.

I just think it was a time for change. I feel that maybe the Democrats were getting too lax on the Healthcare Bill by not trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle. I think this challenge will produce a better and more accepted Healthcare Bill, if one gets passed. It all depends on how well the Republicans and Democrats can work with each other for a common goal. This should be interesting.

My sources:

1. http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2010/01/seven_things_at_stake_in_brown.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_massachusetts_senate
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatuzIwL.TBs

Anya is horrified, but morbidly intrigued to see how this plays out. I do know it will mean a very centrist healthcare bill, far less liberal than I would have liked. Hopefully more bills will have bipartisan support now while still making the sweeping reforms we need. Congrats to Ashley on a very well written post :)

Anya Thinks You're Tired of Hearing About Healthcare . . .

. . . But really hopes you're not. And she begs your indulgence for one more point. After this, we'll be going on to other topics, until the Conference Committee starts work on merging the House and Senate healthcare bills.

I've already given you more than an earful about the contents of the bill. Now, I have to say that I'm not very happy with the final vote, for several reasons. Actually, they all boil down to the same reason, but here goes:

1. Party line 60-39 vote (main reason)
2. Artificially imposed deadline (Christmas)
3. The fact that very few senators have read the whole bill (kudos to those who, like Claire McCaskill [D-MO] who did)

Yes, I think the bill was too conservative. But no, I don't think a more liberal version could have passed. Yes, I'm unhappy that all of Reid's focus was on getting the whole Democratic caucus behind him. But no, I'm not sure I would have liked the bill better if there had been more Republican involvement. Yes, I think that the Republicans made themselves look a bit childish by scrambling for procedural roadblocks to throw in front of this bill. But no, I don't think they're the only ones to blame for the partisan sniping that has surrounded healthcare all year. Both sides hurled their fair share of nastiness around, and what was the result? I don't think anybody is really happy with this bill.

Our Constitution was written so that our government would debate almost everything and do next to nothing. In this case, it worked to well without working at all. Debate everything? Well, if they did that, we wouldn't see a final bill for twenty years, but communication between the two parties was sorely lacking here. Doing next to nothing? Well, the bill passed, so that is something, but it was pretty iffy there for a while

Let me tell you something, Mr. Reid. A party line vote on an issue this big is not a good thing. It makes our government look split and opens you, ostensibly the victor, to acidic attacks from the other side of the aisle. You might be proud of getting your sixty votes, but you should have tried for 61 or 62. There are moderate Republicans who wanted to be involved in this bill. Maybe you couldn't have come to an agreement with them. But you should have tried, and you shouldn't have had to "buy" the votes of anyone in your caucus with special benefits to their states (Nebraska, I'm looking at you). You just needed one Republican to give this legitimacy . . . and if you want my frank opinion, you could've gotten her.

Healthcare Redux: Ashley

I would like to take some time to address what Anya mentioned in her previous posts. I would like to amend my earlier statement that the government would be a business. This is because they wouldn’t be getting a profit from any insurance they would be selling; they would probably be using that money to pay for the people who can’t afford Healthcare. But, it just seems to me like private insurers, with some direction from the government, could go down a better path if there was incentive to do so. I suppose, to me, that’s how the government should act; they should get involved the least amount as possible. That’s just a truth for me.

I’ve already said my piece on why I don’t like the public option but it’s becoming clearer to me that I have no idea what will work. Could the public option work? Or would it throw off the delicate balance of government and the private sector and wreak havoc on private insurers and small businesses? What about the trigger option? Would it be effective? Or would it just keep things at the status quo because the insurance companies wouldn’t reform? And what about the votes? Will we ever be able to get a majority on this? Let’s take into consideration the makeup of the Senate. There are the people who wouldn’t vote for the Bill at all, even if Christ showed up to persuade them, there are people who won’t vote for it if it allows tax money to fund abortions and vice versa, there are people who won’t vote for it if it cuts Medicare, and vice versa, there are people who will always vote for it, there are people who won’t vote if it doesn’t have a public option and vice versa, and there are people who won’t vote for it if it has a trigger option, and vice versa. How can all these different people ever agree on one succinct Bill that is actually effective? Sure, they might come out with something, but it might be completely watered down, cost more than any benefits people could get from it, and god help us, it could make the healthcare system worse.

However, even though the bill isn’t turning out the way any of us thought, this is the way we are supposed to decide things: through thoughtful debate and discussion. If people can’t be persuaded on something, then maybe it’s not right for the country yet. Also, in something as important as healthcare, the majority should really consult the minority. Something as big as this should not fall on party lines, all Americans should be represented and included. Senator Mitch McConnell stated after the “victory” in the Senate for the Healthcare bill, “This debate was supposed to produce a bill that reformed health care in America. Instead, we're left with party-line votes in the middle of the night, a couple of sweetheart deals to get it over the finish line, and a public that's in outrage"(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul_361).

To sum up my thoughts, I don’t know where Healthcare is headed and I don’t know what will or won’t be passed. It seems safe to say anything too controversial or “out there” will be cast aside, but who knows where we’ll be in the future. Some fundamental things I do know are: this should be debated fully and said debate should have both parties participate, the people in Congress should be listening to their constituents and making decisions based on them (after all, we’re the one’s this healthcare overhaul is for), and we should all be informed citizens and listen and read about what’s going on about this topic because we’re the future and we’re the one’s who vote. I know this brought up a lot of questions and hopefully we’ll find some more conclusive answers as we come into the New Year. I say keep-asking questions and eventually answers will materialize.

Am I a Bad Democrat?

Why, of course I was paying attention in AP Government today!  Whyever would you think I wasn't? :)  Anyway . . .

Is it bad for Reid that he has the "magic number" of 60 in his caucus?  Did it get his hopes up too high?  With 60, he might've thought that he could get a very liberal bill though without needing to compromise with the Republicans and that the more conservative Democrats and independents would fall in line just because of party loyalty.  In any case, when all is said and done, it would look very bad for Reid if the vote fell completely along party lines.  That would very quickly become the favored punching-bag for the Rush Limbaughs of the Republican party, who would immediately jump on Reid/Obama/Democrats in general for "forcing the bill through Congress", etc.

Anyway, going back to what was my main point.  I've been cheering for the negotiations going on in the Senate lately, especially surrounding what I see as the "big four": Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman, whose yay or nay votes are going to be absolutely critical when the bill in its complete form is debated on the floor.  Ultimately, I think we're going to have a better/more widely accepted healthcare bill because of it.

Obviously, I'm not happy with all the compromises.  There are places where I think we Democrats have bargained away too much, a la the public option being completely axed.  Honestly, I think private insurers have had their day, and squandered much of their goodwill on ineffective plans, discrimination against women, and obscenely high premiums in the name of profit.  But that's a topic for another day.  On the other hand, if Joe Lieberman wasn't willing to stand up and risk the anger of his Democratic colleagues and denounce the Medicare expansion, we'd have people ages 55 to 64 buying into Medicare while cutting the already underfunded program even more.

I suppose that's where I break away from the really liberal Democrats.  Well, that, and I support the trigger option.  I think a nonprofit corporation handling insurance with a "trigger" option for a plan with more government is a good idea.  Why?  Simple.  It comes from the center.  And . . . it has a really good chance of passing the Senate.  More than a straight-up public plan would.  It's a decent compromise which promises both bipartisan support (even if the only Republicans to support it are Snowe and Collins, it gives the bill more legitimacy) and improved healthcare (which is the most important thing, really).

But at the same time, I think that the liberal Democrats in the Senate have no excuse for not supporting the bill.  It's not going to be the best thing to come out of Congress, and it's not going to make everyone happy, but it's progress.  Howard Dean, the former DNC chairman, has said that the Senate should kill the bill and go back to the drawing board.  With all due respect to Mr. Dean, that is very five-year-old of him.  Opportunities like this for total overhaul only come around . . . well, much less frequently than Mr. Dean seems to think.  It was a fight to get the different committee bills written, it was a fight to get the bills reconciled, it was a fight to agree to debate the bill, the amendments are fights . . . and on and on.  The only things that will be accomplished by sending the bill back to the drawing board/refusing to pass the bill is we'll have wasted months of work, millions of Americans will still have little or no healthcare, and maybe there'll be even less chance of a bill getting passed.

So, at the end of the day, am I a bad Democrat?  No, I don't think so.  I've just got common sense, an eye for what direction the Senate's leaning on different issues, and a head full of Economics knowledge from last semester's econ class :)

My Views on Healthcare: Anya

Every good point needs a good counterpoint, and, well, I see this as a perfectly acceptable substitute for my AP Government & Politics course homework ;)

The healthcare bill is going to end up being one of, if not the most defining pieces of legislation when people examine Obama's first year in office.  It will also play a large part, I think, in the re-election campaigns that senators will be running next year.  So it only makes sense that everyone is paying very, very close attention to this particular bill.

I've realized a few major things from this healthcare bill.  One, is that I really, really, really want to be Harry Reid.  I want to be the guy (or, in my case, girl) who has to negotiate with all the different factions to bring together a bill into its final form.  I know it would be insanely difficult, but I think it would also be fascinating, rewarding, and fun.  Second, I'm really pleased that I predicted a lot of things in this bill as it stands now.  For example, the trigger option.  As soon as I heard Senator Olympia Snowe say that she supported a trigger option I thought, "the final bill out of the Senate is going to have a trigger option, because Reid is going to do almost anything he can do to get Snowe and Susan Collins to support the healthcare bill."

Way back when in late 2007 and early 2008, during the Democratic primaries, I was a starry-eyed fourteen year old going to Hillary Clinton rallies who heard "universal healthcare" and said "that would be amazing!"  Needless to say, my opinion has changed a bit since then.  Americans are far too individualistic to ever support a universal healthcare plan, or even, as we've seen, a public option run by the government.  Ashley says that's because the government shouldn't act like a business, but really, what if it doesn't have a choice?  And besides, and public option in a Senate bill would have, I assumed, taken the lead from the House bill and required the government to negotiate rates with insurance companies, providing for fair competition and affordable rates.  The government (through the Fed) already buys and sells bonds.  I know that it's a leap between bonds and healthcare, but would it be as big of a leap as people think?  In any case, our current economy, deficit, and the make up of the legislature make universal healthcare impossible.

But what about the public option?  I strongly support that.  In fact, I think it's necessary, because we've seen that private insurers can be . . . well, an epic failure.  And a majority of the population supported it too, in the latest polls I've seen.  Which brings me to another thing I've learned: at some point, it stops being about writing the best legislation you can and becomes all about counting votes.  Which explains the major compromises in this bill.  I can live with most of them, I've decided.  I really can.  I would have liked more government involvement, but at least we are not relying solely on private companies to care for the people.  And, with the trigger option, the government can step in if the need arises.

But what I just completely fail to understand is the Medicare cuts.  I mean, people on Medicare already have a hard enough time finding a doctor willing to treat them, because the doctors get so little money.  So now we're not only cutting billions of dollars out of the Medicare program, but we're also decreasing the minimum age?  Yeah, we're opening Medicare up to those people aged 55-64 who have no insurance.  Counterproductive.

So I want to leave you with one final thought.  The more conservative bill that came out of the House a few months ago cost more than the more liberal option did.  Now . . . what will happen in the Senate?

My Views on Healthcare: Ashley

Hello, it's Ashley. I know you probably got to read my opinions on the healthcare debate already when you read the conversation Anya and I had on Facebook that we posted earlier, however I wanted to present my views in a more succinct and deliberate way. There is a bias here, however Anya will be posting her opinions as well which serves to balance our blog out. I hope you are able to maybe read some new ideas you haven't heard of before and get a broader basis of knowledge on this complicated issue.

I personally was not originally on the bandwagon for a Healthcare bill; I suppose you could say I'm not really for one now either. This is not because I don't think Healthcare needs reformation, because it does. I think that Healthcare is way too costly now and this really shouldn't be. However, it is my own personal beliefs that if given the chance and opportunity, the private sector can fix many economic wrongs. The way we could do that is make the private insurers have to comply with anti-trust laws. This would aid in creating more competition in the market and therefore lower the prices. It's a basic economic principle: If you have more companies selling the same product (basically) the good is very elastic, meaning the insurance companies have to have low pricing to stay in the arena. And as already stated competition creates low prices, which is good for people purchasing Healthcare. Also, in the long run, fewer people would be dropped by their insurers for having illnesses, etc. because then bad word of mouth would spread about said insurance companies and they would eventually go out of business. On the flip side, why would we wait to take the long run when we could just have the government fix it? Well, I suppose the answer to that question lies in how much you think the government should interfere in our lives/the economy/the private sector. This is a simple way the private sector could take care of one of the main contentions with the state of Healthcare as it is now and it is a much more cost-effective way to do so. The proposed Healthcare bills would be in the trillions of dollars price range and the private sector option wouldn't cost as much, if anything. However, I don't think the private sector can make all the changes that are necessary to improve Healthcare, but it seems to be a good start and it seems to cover the main points of debate. Also, it seems like in the proposed healthcare plans the quality of care is not talked about much. What would this do to the quality of doctors we have and hospitals? A worry is that future doctors wouldn't have incentive to become doctors or current doctors would leave their practices because they wouldn't be getting as much money as they do now. I think we don't want the quality of our care to go down so we should pay the doctors what we're paying them now, or work something out that wouldn’t compromise the quality of our healthcare. They're already reluctant to see Medicare patients; do we want them to be reluctant to see all patients? This is just one thing to think about though. However, I have a firm grasp of reality and know all the things I have proposed are not going to happen, at least in this Administration. However, I think it's important for you to know both sides of the coin and not only understand the government Healthcare bill, but also how things could be done differently.

To talk about the actual Healthcare bill, I like the idea of the trigger option, which would apply to people not getting coverage from their employers. To my understanding that would mean there would be insurance exchanges, which are not run by private insurers or the government, however the government will watch over them to make sure they’re reaching standards, etc. I think a good analogy for it would be to say it’s like a Stock Exchange for Insurance plans, but it’s a non-profit organization. So substitute buying/selling stocks for buying/selling insurance plans. If these insurance exchanges aren’t effective, then that would trigger a government run public option on a state-by-state basis. The reason why I like it is because the insurance exchanges are like a third party, meaning the government isn't getting involved unless it's not working. That's a little more comforting than to think that the government will compete with private insurers. Some problems with the government competing with private insurers are that it might not be a fair competition, and also because the government isn't a business and it worries me when it starts to act like one. Business and governments are completely different and in my humble opinion, should not be mixed. So, if the government public option competes fairly with private insurance and the government doesn't try to take over Healthcare, then I’m somewhat okay with a public option. But for me personally, as stated before, I'd like the least amount of government in this as possible.

On a side note: I just wanted to express my awe of how Healthcare has evolved since last November and now. Last November, the words "universal healthcare" were being tossed around and that was an actual consideration for what our Healthcare system would look like. It seems like now the point of universal healthcare is moot. After the notion of universal healthcare was dispelled, then came the "public option". It started out as broad and then just got narrower and narrower until it disappeared, almost. It hasn’t totally been erased from the bill, but it's been severely diminished to the point that it's like a last resort. So, now the trigger option seems alive because it will generate the most votes by being unassuming and quiet. On other words, it doesn't ruffle many feathers. It's an interesting feeling to go from thinking there will be total government control of Healthcare to barely any. I guess that's what’s great about a democratic society, extremes are weeded out if the people aren't ready/don't want them.