3) There are no independent commissions established, which would be free from political pressures, to advise and offer help to Congress in discovering the most efficient medical procedures and thereby helping to eliminate wasteful spending and/or unnecessary treatments.

4) Neither bill does anything to address "tort reform" and/or the medical liability problems that have caused increased "defensive medical practices." "Defensive medicine" will continue to escalate and, therefore, continue to increase our medical costs." The lawyers win.

5) Neither bill has any support for "evidence-based medicine" payments. This idea attempts to find out which procedures work under what circumstances and pay for those that have shown to be valid. These valid procedures would be reimbursed at a higher rate than other procedures that may only work in limited circumstances. In fact, the House bill clearly states that "comparative effectiveness data can’t be used to influence HHS in coverage decisions." Note that the "one size fits all" philosophy is applied to plan design and price but not to validity or effectiveness of procedures.

6) There appears to be no escaping additional benefit costs for employers. Both bills require employers to provide benefit plans that meet detailed and expanded coverage specifications and benefits OR face costly fines. Even if the employers provide "qualified" plans, they may still be fined, if an employee seeks coverage from the government offered plans.

Also, small and medium-sized employers are required to pay between 60 and 72.5 percent of single premiums and up to 65 percent of the premium for family plans. Additional payroll taxes on higher wage earners (above $200,000 per year) and/or a 5.4 percent income tax increase on wages over $500,000 per year are anticipated.

These six items are but a few missing pieces that are seen in the current bills from both legislative branches of our government. Within both of these bills, we see the federal government taking control of the health care/medical insurance business. These bills set specifications of what products can be sold. They establish the customers to whom products are sold. They mandate pricing principles. They dictate how much profitability is allowed by suppliers. They require customers to "play or pay" for specified products, whether desired or not.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, we will have a very hard time getting it back in. This new entitlement plan, under the guise of reform, has morphed into a complete takeover of 17 percent of our economy. While the need for an answer to the "un-insured problem" and the "escalating costs problem" is clear and visible, are these bills the most efficient and correct answer? If we are reworking the rules for 17 percent of our economy, must we rush or should we take the time to get it right? Can we not do better?