PROS AND CONS IN CONGRESS.

As President Obama reminisces from the stewed chicken with curry at the state dinner and bash (party), which has been held at the White House to please and pacify the taste-buds of Prime Minister Singh of India and his entourage; two major thoughts are not too far from his mind. They must be the troops that he is supposed to deploy in Afghanistan and the health care votes that Congress, particularly the Senate, must have to clench victory for a bill to pass and eventually become law.

There have been threats by Democrats who intend to vote "no" after the procedural voting that took place last Saturday to bring the issue to the floor of the Senate chamber for debate. The success there by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get the 60 votes was an advancement that was tinted with several compromises from moderate Democrats to keep party unity from coming apart; yet, those threats were still present to bring the process to a grinding halt.

The main reasons were obvious; some of which were abortion and illegal immigration having their monetary and eligibility problems, respectively; and showing up in the Senate bill as well as that of the House of Representatives; but the outstanding one was a "Public Option" or government run insurance plan that most left wing members of the Democratic Party desired to see in the merger bill that would be voted on in the future.

Well, what is Public Option as it appears in the health care reform proposals? It will be a government owned insurance company that will sell insurance plans in competition with private industry. It will research plans that will be appropriate for consumers to sign up on; its premiums will be competitive, if not lower than what are being projected by private insurers. Its aim is to lower the skyrocketing cost of health care as a whole, and to make insurance coverage affordable for all citizens.

So, why is it being denied by some lawmakers who are frowning on the idea and telling Townhall meeting attendees and "Tea Party" participants that it is a bad thing, and it must not be included in the health care reform that is before them?

The campaign against it must come from so many sources; yet, the main one will be health care insurance companies being afraid that it (Public Option) will attract more consumers, and thus cut into their profits. The industry will not be profitable any longer and it will discourage investors to direct their investments elsewhere. That is what is fueling the opposition.

Of course, America happens to be a capitalist nation, and therefore, allowing the government to practically indulge in private enterprise will be against the genre of capitalism. It will be awful for the industrial and international money markets, which must operate under privacy and without restrictions from outside. In other words, Government intervention of any kind must not be allowed, so that yearly gains will increase for these companies, their patrons and shareholders, unchallenged.

Fiscally conservative Democrats are also against it, because of its cost; Republicans wholly think it repulsive. Wall Street will never back it, for the sake of losing profit margins; and it will therefore be an uphill battle for its proponents in Congress.

However, whichever way one looks at it, the health care industry needs reform, to include the 40 to 50 million people who are presently uninsured; and even those who have pre-existing conditions to be inclusive. It cannot remain "as is". Who will win in the last resort; Pros or Cons?