Specifically, the report said that "Health insurance COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on the cost of private health insurance coverage". Once again, with the passage of the mandate for health care, it simply means that health insurance would be required, but not necessarily government health care. Government health care is ONLY for those without insurance or for those who want better health care. PEOPLE WITH HEALTH CARE PROVIDED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS THAT THEY ARE HAPPY WITH WILL NOT BE AFFECTED. Some people still just don't get it (i.e. they simply don't/refuse to understand this simple English).

A Finance Committee aide (presumably working for Chairman Max Baucus) denounced this report as "blatantly false and misleading". This aide is justifiably angry.

According to Karen Ignani, the president of the group representing (among others), Aetna Inc., Cigna Corp., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., "Because we don't see comprehensive cost control IN ANY PIECE OF LEGISLATION, we're looking at continuing those 6.2-percentage point increases...I think it's time to bring that back".

A spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus responded that this assessment "excludes all the provisions that will actually lower the cost of coverage", specifically tax credits and higher enrollment. The impact of tax credits is obvious while increased enrollment (because of the penalties for refusing coverage) will ultimately lead to economies of scale (i.e. more people have health insurance and this will ultimately lead to a reduction in costs per person).

According to White House spokesman Reid Cherlin, "This is A SELF-SERVING ANALYSIS from the insurance industry (because these folks are) ONE OF THE MAJOR OPPONENTS OF HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM". Again, this is true because previously, private insurers, as a collective group, FACED NO COMPETITION because there was no government health insurance OPTION. Well, now we've got one. In addition, according to Yahoo!, "Cherlin said (that) the insurance group's report was timed to coincide with the Finance Committe's vote", which is the latest example of dirty politics because Cherlin is saying that, just as the insurance system/sector is about to be reformed, the insurance industry comes out with this barrage of criticism, most of which is baseless and irrational. "It is hard to take it (i.e. the insurance industry's comments) seriously ". Finally, Cherlin says that the analysis by these insurance companies " COMPLETELY IGNORES critical policies (which) will lower costs for those that have insurance and provide affordable health insurance OPTIONS (there's that controversial word again) who are priced out of today's market (because of job losses, etc.) or are locked out by unfair insurance company practices (e.g. insurance companies' refusal/reluctance to cover pre-existing medical conditions)".

The insurance report isn't finished: "Efforts to increase coverage and promote quality COULD lead to a more efficient healthcare sector, BUT they COULD also lead to increased growth in costs IF implemented without a full appreciation of the downstream impact of health insurance coverage". Notice "could", "but", "could" and "if". This is an indication that the insurance companies WANT TO say that a public insurance OPTION is a bad idea, but CAN'T.

Finally, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, "Higher premiums, higher taxes and more government - THAT'S NOT REFORM". This is an OLD GOP argument. "But that's precisely what the American people, the Congressional Budget Office and now outside experts have identified with this $1 trillion experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes and premiums (there's that old issue again) and threatens the health care options that millions of Americans now enjoy (?)" McConnell doesn't know what he's talking about. The only people "enjoying" health insurance right now are the people who have health insurance and millions don't. With the implementation of Mr. Obama's plan, millions more will have access to good quality healthcare. Now, Sen. McConnell, why are you so against something that has obvious benefits?