4). Cooper and castle feel that the universal aims of the program, coupled with the program's redistributive intent, will prevent congressional fence-sitters from voting against a plan that is so obviously in the best interests of the vast majority of working Americans. Ultimately, the bill's appeal to social justice will bridge the partisan divide, and provide President Barack Obama with a firm foundation on which to build future change. Of course, change, especially necessary change, is in the eye of the beholder, as are partisanship and bipartisanship. Cooper and Castle call their piece a "bipartisan view," but appear to spell out a largely Democratic approach to healthcare reform, one that seems specifically designed to entrench President Obama's position, and guarantee his reelection. They laud the expected, intended, or proposed actions of a man who has not yet taken office. Many of the authors' supporting arguments have already been rendered moot: Senator Daschle was knocked out of the running almost immediately, and higher taxes are already included in current bills. Further, the authors take much for granted in their positions on healthcare reform supposing, from the outset, that virtually all Americans seek a drastic overhaul of the current system. They speak of the enormous costs involved in providing adequate medical care, and address waste within the industry and federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid (Cooper and Castle, 2009, p. 3), but do not look into the underlying issue of why healthcare costs have risen so dramatically in recent decades. They seem to infer overbilling and mismanagement, but do not examine why doctors and hospitals charge such exorbitant fees even when not employing high-tech equipment or cutting edge methods. Nor, do the authors of the article address fundamental assumptions about American society from any point-of-view other than their own. They take it as a given that all thinking Americans seek redistribution of wealth; the movement of funds from private...

4). Neither do Cooper and Castle address the underlying concerns over what constitutes a true democratic "reform" of a major sector of American life. At the time of the writing of the article, the Democratic majority in Congress was not filibuster-proof, and has become only barely so today. Sixty votes for out of a total of one hundred, equal forty percent against. Forty percent is a sizable share of the American electorate. To compel forty percent of the population to adopt radical changes with which they may not, or do not, agree is tantamount to forcing scores of millions of Americans to adopt changes they do not desire. A private club or organization with one hundred members that permits sixty members to institute radical changes against the wishes of the other forty members would soon be a club or organization with only forty members. Government policymakers, from the President to members of Congress, must remember that they represent all Americans. Working toward "best" policies is often a good idea, as it indicates compromise, and an attempt to reach actual consensus.
In conclusion, the following questions might be asked of the authors of this article, and of government policymakers:

1. Why are costs rising so rapidly even above and beyond the costs of fiscal mismanagement?

2. Why should all Americans be concerned with how healthcare reform can boost the popularity and influence of politicians for whom they might not have voted, and with whom they might not agree?

3. How does taxing "gold-plated" healthcare plans (and medical equipment and devices) to pay for lesser quality healthcare plans help inculcate values of fairness? Will residents -- owners or renters -- of "overly large" houses and apartments one day suffer punitive taxation in the name of discouraging "improper allocation" of residential resources?