>>It looks like they are thinking of scaling it back to the parts that most people agree on, such as insurance companies not being able to dump people when they get sick.
>>
>>I actually agree with that part of health care reform. Since Andy and I are both over 55, our health care costs us a fortune - apoproximately $1,000 per month to cover the both of us. The reason we pay such an exhorbitant sum is to insure our assets in case we become ill.
>>
>>However, a good health care reform bill must include the ability to purchase health care insurance across state lines as well as tort reform. These things would have a real impact on cost containment. However, neither of these things were in any bill that came out of congress. I suppose that tort reform is not an option for most of our congress people since most of them are lawyers.
>>
>>FWIW, I never said that I was against heath care reform. I am merely against the bills that have come out of congress since they do nothing to lower the costs. And I am against the corruption that allowed the bill to pass in the senate by buying off Ben Nelson in Nebraska (something with which even a majority of his contituents are also disgusted) and the Louisiana Purchase.
>
>It's nice to be in agreement once in a while. I also agree tort reform is a good idea. Not sure if it will get through Congress, though.
>
>Sen. Nelson gave back what he was given, BTW. Apparently he was listening as well. Nebraska was to be exempted from a Medicare cost increase. He announced that they no longer would be.

Getting driven from a local pizzaria by angry constituents can have a chilling affect on even the most hardened politician.