I read a good portion of HR 3200 and questioned staffers in my Congressman's office about it. They either lied to me, or chose to read the cliff notes version and believe it. What I read was troubling. One essential element in that version of the bill that worried me was the stipulation that insurance companies would be unable to ever change the terms of insurance after day one year one of the bill enactment. Dependants could remain covered under their parents coverage, but upon reaching emancipation would have to go on the government option. Business paid insurance would remain in place for employees, but the employees (or users) were grandfathered, not the plan...so new employees did not have an option, unless they used portability to bring a plan with them...not sure how that would work. I am sure those items were addressed deep in the annals of the bill somewhere. The fiscal issues you mention are another worrisome issue. We collect revune for ten years to pay for four years of coverage...that means that the following ten years (given the conservative estimates, deep cuts and tax increases) would still result in a sixty percent increase in cost over the next ten years, even if the spending remained the same. In other words, a half trillion dollar shortfall. And that is using their own, extremely biased numbers. Given the track record of the CBO, I would suggest those numbers would be drastically higher. Not to mention the fact that increaased demand would drive up costs for certain procedures, creating "de facto" rationing and inflation. I am certain inflation caused by a twenty percent increase on supply was not factored in to the numbers. The entire solution proposed in this reform is suspect. I am pro reform. Let's find smart ways to save money and improve coverage. Big government is never a solution.