From all that I've read, there is agreement on about 80% of the "final" bill that has been negotiated between the House and Senate. The Democrat-controlled commitees that have been central to the negotiations have even accepted 161 amendments offered by the GOP and they will be included in the final bill.

There may be a few other issues, but the "public option" seems to be a sticking point between the parties. The Democrats feel it's a cornerstone of any true reform. The public seems to agree. Several polls that I've seen indicate that over 70% of the public wants a "Medicare-like" option to private insurance.

The Republicans seem to be aligned with the insurance and drug companies and are arguing that everything to be handled by the private sector. Reports are that even though the GOP has gotten most of the amendments they've offered accepted in committee, they will still vote 100% NO unless they get the public option removed.

The risk we all run, I think, is that the Democrats decide to test their majority and ram thru "their" bill. They will clearly be able to get it thru the House. In the Senate, they may need to convince 2-3 Senators in order to get to 60 votes, declare cloture, and proceed to a vote on the floor where they only need a simple majority. The pressure that will be applied on just the 2-3 Senators needed to achieve cloture will be tremendous. They could vote for cloture and still vote against the bill and it will still pass, probably a politically effective way for them to "vote both ways" and not offend anyone. Of course, the President will sign the bill.

If this happens, you can be sure that many if not all of the GOP amendments that were agreed to by the Democrats will be removed from the final bill. Then the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the absence of a "bi-partisan approach" will commence.

We have a chance to get a decent reform bill done this time around. For sure there will be a healthcare reform bill passed. The only question is: will it be reform that will be effective? Or will it be a Rube Goldberg set of competing and offsetting ideas that will leave us worse off than when we started--with many more government employees and very little cost reductions?

If it's "Rube Goldberg" again, it will be further demonstration that it's the special interests that are running the country, not "government for the people and by the people". I heard a report on TV today that the drug and insurance company lobbyists are spending $1 million a day on Congress to get the content in the final bill that they desire. The drug companies are desperate to avoid any government intervention in their ability to charge whatever they want for prescription drugs. The insurance companies are protecting their turf, which is already eroding as the baby-boomers graduate to Medicare, and trying to get all the new uninsured people placed in their tender care.

I'm not trying to kid anyone. I think there needs to be a viable, competitive alternative to the handful of insurance companies that are running healthcare in the country. A public option would be OK with me, but if some other form of third-party ownership for a new insurance company could be designed, that would be great. I would be disgusted if that option were chosen and we later find out that it's really being run by the insurance and drug companies. If that's the result...again...we will reap what we sow.