"The Assault on Health Insurance," Chicago Tribune, July 5, 2000.

• "But in the wee morning hours last Friday, just before leaving on their Fourth of July vacation, the U.S. House passed a bill that could have a dire impact on the affordability of health insurance."

• "If the physicians want to form business partnerships and negotiate, fine. That's how many now operate. But why should doctors be allowed to fix prices as a group when federal antitrust law bars other professionals, from lawyers to veterinarians, from doing so."

• "It's hard to see how a double-digit increase in some doctor's fees and a jump in the cost of private health insurance - to say nothing of the increased costs to publicly funded health care programs - will translate into better quality. It's much easier to see how it could translate into decreased access for some individuals."

• "Any legislation that would reduce competition in any field of endeavor deserves extra scrutiny. Given the special-interest fingerprints all over the mislabeled 'Quality Health-Care Coalition Act,' the House Judiciary Committee clearly didn't provide that needed oversight before voting on this legislation."

"Antitrust Measure not the Best Medicine for Health Care Ills," B.J. Snell, Past chairwoman of the political and economic affairs section of the American College of Nurse Midwives, The Business Journal, April 24, 2000.

• "HR 1304's supporters, led by the American Medical Association, claim the bill is needed to level the playing fieldagainst health plans. But exemption from antitrust laws will not level the playing field for nonphysician providers; rather, it will create additional noncompetitive obstacles for them.

• "Simply put, an antitrust exemption is not the right medicine for the health care system.

"A Cartel for Doctors," Editorial Desk, New York Times, April 8, 2000.

• "The bill would invite doctors to form cartels, jack up prices, boycott health plans and exploit consumers in ways that are permitted to no other independent businessmen in the economy."

• "Current laws already permit physicians to act cooperatively when it benefits patients. Doctors can, for example, coordinate efforts to raise standards of medical care and form networks to improve care. By contrast, the cartels envisioned by Mr. Campbell would victimize consumers."

• "Anyone who favors fair competition and affordable, accessible health care should hope the U.S. Judiciary Committee, which is considering HR 1304, rejects the bill."

• "Along with less competition, higher costs and more uninsured, the proposed legislation would diminish access and innovation by reducing consumer choice."

• "Consumers would be deprived of additional choice and of the accompanying lower costs and higher quality that come from having more competitors in a market."

"Doctors Cartels are Bad Medicine," Editorial, Chicago Tribune, February 17, 2000.

"White Coats Should Not Have Union Labels," Jordan J. Cohen, M.D., New England Journal of Medicine, February 10, 2000.

"Should Physicians Unionize? No, Patients Would Pay the Price," Uwe. E. Reinhardt, Wall Street Journal, July 7, 1999.

"Doctors Unite?" Robert Pitofsky, New York Times, July 18, 1999.

"Collective Bargaining for Doctors . . . Bad Medicine," Thomas L. Greaney, The BridgeNews Forum, June 18, 1999.

"Economic Scene: If Doctors Win the Right to Organize, Patients Could Lose," Michael M. Weinstein, New York Times, July 8, 1999.

"Beware doctors' claims for unionization; they have ways to work for better care," Thomas L. Greaney, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 29, 1999.

"Health care proposal leaves patients powerless," Alan Mertz, Kenosha News (Wis.), June 22, 1999 (distributed by Scripps Howard News Service).