EVERYONE from all sides wants a reasonable healthcare plan for those that need it. The question remains; do we jeopardize the exsitng system by implementing a bloated, government backed system which includes unfair surtaxes on companies like MDT that already pay their taxes or do we make reasonable, sustainable changes to insure those people??. You make several statements that are misleading and flat-out wrong. Checkout this reputable site ~ http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx A Quote from this site: "Liberal non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation put the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million". The current health care proposals are not intended to decrease costs and will not do so. I agree that costs to companies are getting too high, but the democratic bill does nothing to address cost, it only attempts to address the no insurance issue. The republican plan does attempt to decrease costs by rolling out tort reform, which will decrease 'defensive' medicine (ie. overtesting by the doc to avoid a potential lawsuit). The republican plan also allows buying insurance across state lines, which the dem's won't allow. Did you know that it costs on average $5,800 for a 25 year old to buy insurance in New Jersay yet it costs the same person $1,000 in Kentucky. Why? Is it because the procedures cost less in KY? No, the cost difference is realted to democratic state government beauracracy. The New Jersey policy requires unnecessary and elective coverages that drives up the cost. A change is coming, and that's a good thing. The question is whether Amy and Franken will have the guts/courage/ethics to vote no on any unfair, arbitrary surtaxes for device companies. I have doubts that they have the will to do the right thing for MN....call or write them!