Well, everyone else weighed in ....

... on that historic bill that will provide health care for all according to those on the left, or the bill that will take this country into socialism according to the histrionics of those on the right.

As I've said before, a pox on both their houses. Neither side has been honest with the electorate: there are costs that will raise the deficit, but there are good areas that will lower some health costs. Yet, what does this bill do ... no one really knows.

Its funny however, listening to the GOP alternative plans, they sounded awfully like those we heard about 18 years ago, from Bill and Hillary !! If they are so keen on their health co-ops, why didn't they just go for it then?? Well, its wasn't their idea then, and anything coming from the other side is a bunch of socialistic nonsense. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Has the level of discourse come to this, that nothing the other side proposes will be agreed to because its from the other side. That compromises and negotiations are sneered at as caving?? Oh please, without such negotiations or compromises most of the major legislation of the 60's and 70's would not have passed.

When has it become an offense to disagree with your party on something, when has it become traitorous to vote your conscience, rather than with the rest of the party? Why must an elected official have to worry about being called RHINO or BLUE DOG when they take their assignment from the people who elected them serious; to vote their conscience, and stand their ground on principle? Why does a Representative who was not sure about the bill, be subjected to pressure from special interest groups on both sides to vote their way; then be threatened by these same groups when he votes opposite, even when he fully defended his actions with studies that the bill will not contain health costs, which the Representative was concerned about?

FWIW ... I agree with the Representative, there isn't much in the bill that will contain health costs. Having gone through a recent surgery and checking out what was billed, and what was actually paid by the insurance company, I can't understand how hospitals can get away with charging non-insured patients the original rates. If they can make money getting paid with the insurance company payment, why can't they do the same for all users.

Then again, maybe requiring everyone have health insurance will do that?? I have no idea, and unfortunately, I'm not sure those jackasses and packyderms (to steal a line from Dr. Bob Kopp) in Washington have any idea either.

All I can say is that I've been lucky in that I've always had a job that provided health insurance, the last one cost me about $160 a month for me and my wife. That said, I was working at Trader Joes for about $15.50 an hour, and part-time to boot (about 24 hours a week). If I didn't already own my house, I couldn't afford the insurance, as I'd have a hard time paying rent and eating.

Oh sure, I had a fall back, as I retired from the military, and have Tricare. However, they have a deductible, and per visit fee also.

Luckily having both a primary and a secondary insurance all these years, I've been sheltered from having to worry about paying what any insurance doesn't. But if I didn't have a secondary, I'd have no idea where I'd find the money to pay the hospital and surgeon what the insurance company didn't.

And that is the bottom line, while its great that this bill provides insurance for all (registered trademark of DNC), what happens when those who are covered, get the final bill for all the stuff that's left over? Where is that cost containment?

Oh wait ... I don't think its there!

... and so it goes !!