To your question, “why do only a portion of us get to benefit…why isn’t this part of the discussion?” You are right that such a discussion should be engaged – all the more reason that bloated, ill-conceived legislation like the House bill and the Baucus bill should not be rushed through to satisfy political expediency and political ambitions. Did they not just rush through the “stimulus bill,” bailouts of Wall Street, GM and Chrysler? Can’t we let a crisis go to waste once in awhile, Mr. Emanuel?

I believe one answer to your question is that we all do or will benefit from Medicare, and many already benefit from Medicaid. But how much more can the taxpayers subsidize? Is not the middle class taxed too much already?

You ask, “why does the Baucus bill cost so much?” Great question, and one that applies equally to the House bill, and to the Obama bill, which of course, does not exist. I viewed today a story about an obstetrician with a perfect record of 3,000 successful deliveries whose practice is being crushed by medical malpractice insurance of $170,000 PER YEAR.

So I would ask…why hasn’t the Obama administration, the House, and the Senate included tort reform in any of its health reform proposals? Yes, I know. That is a rhetorical question, given the close ties between politicians, especially those in the Democrat Party, and their campaign contributors, the trial lawyers.

There are many such ingredients that have not been included, but should be part of health care reform. Thanks again for bringing to light an interesting perspective on the debate.