A recent New York Times/CBS poll shows Americans support for healthcare reform is being eroded by fears that the proposed changes will limit their ability to choose doctors and treatment.

Things are beginning to happen in the healthcare reform that's working its way through congress like a peccary through a python.  It's hard to tell just what shape the legislation will be in when it emerges for vote on the floor of the House or Senate, but we can be assured that our voices will be in strong competition with special interests trying to protect their own financial interests.  There's a lot of money to be made, or lost, depending on your perspective.  The forces of the status quo are arrayed against us as consumers of medical goods and services.  We've all ready seen how the healthcare and insurance industry have donated over $133M in the second quarter alone of this year to our elected representatives.  One physician owned hospital, made famous in Gawande's New Yorker article for its' disproportionately high costs, has contributed over $500K  to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and over $800K  to the House's counterpart, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to disclosure reports.  That's one hospital contributing over $1.3M to just the Democrats in an effort to influence the shape of whatever bill emerges from congress.  By the way, while these types of donations are made to no specific Senator, those managing these funds usually keep an unofficial tally of individual senators and congressmen, who raised these monies.  These senators and congressmen usually get a say in how and to whom in the party that money is dispensed, much as the lord of the manor might, for colleagues in need.  Politics is power after all, and nothing displays power quite like a campaign war chest brimming over with treasure.  

It's almost funny that a senator who represents less than 0.33% of the people in this country is going to control the form of the bill that emerges from the Senate.  He's not alone either.  The "Gang of Six" senators who seem to be most opposed to a strong public option in their spirit of 'bipartisanship', collectively represent only about 2.74% of our population.  The economic forces of the status quo are aligned against meaningful reform, and the senators from poor, rural states look like the most likely to deliver the most bang for the buck to those corporations wanting to keep things just the way they are.  

Keep in mind that the size of America's healthcare sector is as large as Britain's entire economy.  That's an enormous economy in and of itself, and its no wonder those invested in it are scrambling to protect their financial interests.  Money will be lost regardless of how the legislation is shaped.  The only question is whether it will be lost by those with economic interests in the status quo of the healthcare sector, or by the rest of us who are held hostage to high healthcare costs.  Americans now spend about a 20% of the average wage earner's income on health insurance.  The average cost of medical insurance for a family of four now exceeds the yearly income of a minimum wage worker.  Our healthcare insurance  costs have doubled in the past decade, and if congress is unable to pass legislation that will help slow or reverse that trend, our Medicare costs will bankrupt the nation, and our personal insurance costs will bankrupt each and every one of us who is not well above average with regard to our incomes.  What all this means is that none of our current insurance policies are going to look the same ten years from now regardless of whether meaningful legislation is passed or not.  Employers will not be able to afford to provide the same level of benefits in the future if costs continue to escalate as predicted, and insurance companies will be forced to restrict access in order to accommodate the financial reality of business and private party alike. 

So when you hear the fear mongers decrying attempts to reform our healthcare system, as they try to scare those of us who have an insurance program that we're satisfied with into believing our policy will be inexorably altered by healthcare reform that includes a strong public option, know that they are right.  Know also that your policy will change, and for the worse, if nothing is done to curb our spiraling healthcare costs.  So make your choice wisely, and when weighing the arguments put forth by the Republicans and Blue Dogs, always follow the money.  It's generally leaving a trail of campaign contributions to their doors.  Our decision boils down to whether we want our healthcare insurance changed for the worse by the greed and inefficiencies of our current 'system' as we price ourselves out of affordable coverage over the next ten years, or will we attempt to change that system for the better by controlling costs via a meaningful healthcare reform act of congress which includes a strong public option?  Call your senators and congressmen and demand they support a viable public option that's allowed to pay Medicare rates, and that's allowed to negotiate lower prices for drugs and services, (unlike the Republicans' Medicare reform Act of 2003, which effectively raised Medicare drug costs by disallowing such sensible negotiations as well as locking in subsidies for the insurance industry).  On top of all this is the reality that reducing our per capita healthcare costs depends on our coverage of all our citizens in whatever plan emerges from congress.  Contrary to the diatribes against universal coverage by pundits who maintain healthcare to be a privilege as opposed to a right, insuring all Americans is a necessary part of a program that will effectively reduce our healthcare costs.