President Joseph M. Hart, Democrat:

This is not an easy decision for the best of minds, and for all the medical society, these decisions are best left to a referendum or inititive process because the powers to be will never touch them, they're too political.

President George P. Stoddard, Democrat:

I think the "Hillary" may be best but it should include a provision for the recipient of services to have to pay some fair out of pocket cost for the services. This would put more pressure on costs and fees and add some small competitive feature. The plan may have to be implemented incrementally.

President Alan P. Felton, Democrat:

Managed care is the only sensible solution because it holds down costs while providing virtually universal coverage. Other solutions work, but only in the short term. Employer mandates will work in favor of the businesses that pay up by helping to provide a healthier, more stable work force. One other aid to the health care problem is to encourage medical students and schools to cut back on training specialists and put out more general practioners, and encourage these new doctors to practice in rural and poor urban areas. By increasing the number of general practioners, preventive health care will rise, thus causing a drop in long term health care costs.

President Marc Rubin , Democrat:

If we aren't going to get plan A/B/C now we should certainly get Dr. Jack. I want the same quality of medical care that Bob Dole has had all his adult life and I want it from the same source. If we aren't going to get health care reform now lets have a referendum to end all medical care for elected federal officials. They can rejoin at their own expense if and when they institue a new plan. The system we have now only works for them. We will get rid of it when it stops working for them, and not before.

President Bruno Freitas, Democrat:

The general, the American public is afraid of radical change. The "TEDDY" plan simultaneously offers security and reform without evoking the fear of big government and increased taxes.

President Shelley Arnold, Democrat:

I am a person who had preexisting conditions that made our premiums astronomical. Before I went back to work (I was a stay at home Mom), our premiums alone were $12,000 yearly, my family's were $4000, and mine was $8000. Now that I'm employed and insured in a group plan I, unless things change, will never be able to quit. I must stay with this job forever as I will not be able to get insurance. I had been turned down for insurance before in an attempt to find less costly rates. I am not the only person with this particular problem. I've become Democrat because of this. My husband is an attorney. I have a Masters and work at a university. If this is causing us financial worry, what about all the people less fortunate than us. Yes, I would say this is still a very important issue.

President Charles H. Riggs, III, Other:

I chose Option Teddy, moderate insurance reform. It is not that I do not recognize that this country must eventually embrace universal coverage if it is ever to get control of the rampant cost-shifting driving up the nation's medical costs. But the fact of the matter is that our country has no experience with universal coverage, and a currently uncontrollable prejudice against anything which casts the Federal Government in any sort of central coordinating role. Meanwhile people are losing their health insurance and their quality of life is being severely impacted.

Since politically it is impossible and therefore a waste of time to push for a private-sector based form of universal health care coordinated by the government at both the federal and state level, as in the Clinton plan (let alone a single-payer system, with the payer being the Federal government), the only morally effective step is to move in a politically viable direction to alleviate injustice. Obviously eventually reality will catch up with us, as it has caught up with industrial democracies from Canada to Germany, and we WILL implement some form of universal coverage, probably along the lines of George Mitchell's plan offered in the summer of 94, which did not implement guaranteed universal coverage, but a delayed system of soft-triggered employer mandates if 95% coverage had not been achieved by a certain date.

But in the meantime those who really want to do a little good, as opposed to pushing for unattainable perfection, have no choice but to fight, and fight vigorously, for that option which the spiritual leader in the fight for universal health care, Ted Kennedy, has acknowledged is the only realistic course for now. The other more universal options will have to wait for a time when people have more faith in the good intentions and the competence of our government. The latter will not occur until other issues have been satisfactorily addressed, like the obscene role of big money in politics, the irresponsible squandering we are guilty of with our children's patrimony, and the subsequent piling-on of a hideous mountain of debt, etc. etc.

In the meantime, until the people's faith shall have been restored in the legitimacy of our democractic form of government, one must set about to accomplish that which can be envisioned realistically, however much one's universalist principles may be violated.

President Rick Zabell, Independent:

Trouble with "Lyndon" is that younger folks are subsidizing Medicare now. Giving them Medicare benefits would be best way to deliver the benefits, but who's left to pay? The "Hillary" plan, I thought, made a lot of sense when it first was introduced, but as arguments were made against it, I began to worry that it might have a lot of negative unintended consequences. Therefore, I prefer the "Teddy" plan to correct a couple of the most obvious problems with the present system first, and then perhaps we should look at other reform possibilities later on.

President Charles W. Rogers, Republican:

People have got to stop asking the government to help. The government bought $250.00 toilet seats and hammers with your tax dollars at a mark up of about 1000%. Now you want them to handle your health insurance because the price is too expensive. You honestly can't beleive that the government will save you a cent. Even if they could, what in God's name makes you think they would give it back to you? You would have better odds of pulling raw meat from a frenzied pack of hyenas. You get the Government involved and you take Freedom out of America and replace it with Dictatorship. But hey it's your Country; you want my Jack Booted Thugs to run it for you? They will and in many cases already are....

President Michael Liguori, Democrat:

This was a difficult decision (wait around a couple minutes, I'll probably change my mind again). I feel that it is important that everyone has coverage and that health-care costs be brought under control. The Hillary decision would seem like an obvious one. Two things hold me back:

1. Government programs predictably cause different outcomes than were predicted. This program is so different and complex, it scared people at a distant glance. What would it do if let loose?

2. This is the type of program that you can not scale back, without causing huge problems. So we better be sure it is going to work.

So I have chosen to reform insurance and try to fill some holes in the current system.

President Bob Warwick, Independent:

Option D is a start. If we really want to reduce costs, however, we must adopt more of a market-based approach -- one in which the user of medical services pays his own costs.

Except for the historical quirk resulting from tax policy during World War II that taxed employers if they paid market wages directly but not if they paid them indirectly in the form of medical insurance, there is no reason that medical care should be tied to employment. Indeed, if the same people who use medical care had to pay doctors' bills and insurance premiums they would use medical care more judiciously.

Additionally, insurance policies sold directly to consumers would have to take into account the needs of individual purchasers (just as cars, clothing, food and just about every other consumer good must) rather than the "one size fits all" approach provided by employers. This would improve quality while controlling cost.

President Chris Garver, Republican:

The problem is one of education. We have to make the public understand first that medical care should be a budget item the same as food, clothing and shelter and second that they're ultimately paying for "employer paid" medical care and aren't necessarily getting a very good deal.

The government needs to give the people credit for intelligence. We are all capable of making decisions and the government doesn't always have to be subsidizing us. We were self-sufficient for years before the government started playing parent. We can--and should--be taking care of ourselves and our families now and in the future.

President R.C. Alexander, Republican:

Tell me one thing you get from the government that you would pay more for. That goes for health care. Look at it. Paper is killing the system. Funny thing happened when they deregulated natural gas. There was more of it. Get the government out of health care and the problem will take care of itself...

President David E. Nowicki, Republican:

Financial resources at risk will always motivate people to be careful and well informed consumers of medical care. When someone else is paying the bills, there is little incentive for individual responsibility. Medical savings accounts and high deductables for those who can afford it, subsidies for those who can't - htis is the skeleton of a plan.

When the American public gives up its decision making to MBA's, our society will be faced with "value of life" issues. These ethical concerns are far beyond our society's demonstrated tolerance for discussion of profoundly complex principle-based issues.

President John Negley, Republican:

I like the idea of having money saved for future medical expenses. If you are young and healthy you can have the money saved for a time when you really need it.

President Ron Bouterse, Independent:

The common thread among all your options is that there isn't a single solution that will fix all the problems. I like the idea of the health care spending account, but is it a solution to the entire health care problem? Of course, not. Let's not try to make a perfect system in one major change (the fatal flaw of the Hillary option), but let's make some sensible changes (spending accounts, free market bidding, govt payments to HMOs who will then taken on those without insurance, etc.) and see how those work. The problem has arisen over the last 25 years so it may take several years to turn it around.

President Linda Nicholson, Independent:

It is not the responsibility of the government, Federal, State or Local, to provide me with health care or the funds to pay for it. Those responsibilities are mine. The government's role, if it has one, is to create or protect an economic environment which allows me the opportunity to provide for my own needs. Lower my taxes so that I can keep more of my income, and allow me to use tax shelters such as Medical IRA's, and I can pay my medical bills without relying on government programs.

President Chris Randolph, Republican:

This option is the best because it help to establish self- responsibility. In this day and age everyone is saying "What can the government do for me?" As my parents taught me, one must take responsibility for one's actions. If you know as you age your health care costs will rise and do not save for it, you should pay the consequences. The government should have to pick up the slack for your irresponsibility.