Healthcare reform advocates are undoubtedly relieved to have successfully facilitated a historical legislative process - the culmination of which resulted in President Barack Obama passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a federal statute which, in tandem with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA) of 2010, formed the Health Care Reform Act of 2010. This dual set of reforms jointly address many of the undesirable issues that have transpired within the United States health care system, such as offering citizens a cost-effective broad choice of Insurance coverage, bringing skyrocketing healthcare costs under control, making Medicare more efficient, and enacting consumer protection laws which will hold insurance companies accountable for the prevalent discriminatory actions which have pervaded the system (Obama, 2009). However, HCERA opponents will continue to utilize legislative protocol to upend the policy. As with any perceived discrepancy in the legislative process, opponents of HCERA are outraged that the “Democratic leadership’s decision to “ram through” reform using budget reconciliation to modify the Senate-passed bill sufficiently to make it acceptable to the House” (Aaron & Reischauer, 2010). As much as “outrage” may have no legitimate place in policy-making, high emotions will nonetheless negatively affect future debate. The level of vitriol from the opposition to health care reform reached unprecedented heights, with people like Glen Beck comparing health care reform to Nazi eugenics. "You have three people in the White House that are in love with eugenics or whatever it is you would call it today. … Please dear God, read history. Please dear God read the truth of what these people have said in their own words, and ask yourself this one question: Do you trust these people enough to give them control over who