When I arrived at the hospital, my father lay unconscious in the intensive care unit. A staff member was able to waken him. He opened his eyes and, recognizing me, moved his hand toward mine. Then he quickly lapsed back into an unconscious state.

My father was 88 and had multiple health problems: emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and now, a second bout with pancreatitis, which had sent him again to a hospital. Years of tobacco and alcohol use had caught up with him, yet he had survived a stroke years before and was still living at home, by himself, and had no terminal diseases.

My brothers and I thought our father had a living will, but a call to his lawyer proved otherwise. So while he lay unresponsive, hooked up with an array of tubes, we discussed what he would want in medical care.

In other words, we became a family ''death panel'' of sorts. But not a government bureaucracy rationing health care to the sick and disabled, as envisioned by opponents of health care reform. The proposed legislation would pay doctors if a patient wanted to discuss end-of-life care, including a living will and hospice. It would be a voluntary consultation.

When the 5-year-old boy opened wide for dentist Lindsey Robinson in April, she found cavities in the back corners of his mouth. But his parents, who had no insurance, didn't bring him back for fillings.

The boy returned in September with a toothache. Untreated, one cavity ''got into the nerve and developed an abscess,'' says Robinson, who practices in Grass Valley, Calif. She had to remove the tooth. "The parents felt horrible putting it off,'' she says.

This recession has led many adults to postpone trips to the dentist, both for themselves and their children. "In tough economic times, you're concerned about your job and your expenses,'' says Bill Prentice, director of the American Dental Association's Washington office. "People are putting off dental care. Patients aren't coming back for checkups as they should.''

During the ferocious debate on health reform, meanwhile, dental care has largely been shunted to the sidelines. It's treated as separate -- and unequal-- to general medical care, says Oral Health America, an advocacy and education organization that has called for dental coverage for all Americans.

The American Dental Association has also pushed for inclusion of dental care in reform legislation. In addition, the group seeks better pay for dentists who treat patients covered by Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor and disabled. Currently, many state Medicaid programs don't cover dentists' costs of seeing these patients.

Isn't the public option for freeloaders? Why should we adopt it when critics are calling it socialist?

A public option won't have freebies. Everyone will pay a premium to get coverage from the public plan or option, although the uninsured with low incomes will get a subsidy from the government to afford coverage. Many individuals cannot get insurance now because they have pre-existing medical conditions, such as diabetes. These patients, under reform, could buy coverage through a private insurer or a public plan or option, if it's approved by Congress.

Users of a public option could include small businesses, their workers and many young adults, who account for a large number of uninsured.

Supporters of the public option, including President Obama, say it will increase competition in health insurance.
The public plan would be operated by the government, similar to Medicare. But the care will be delivered by private doctors, also just like Medicare. Not many people call Medicare ''socialist,'' but it's a term that opponents of the Democrats' initiative use to attack the public option. Still, there's no doubt that the public plan has become a divisive issue, and even some Democrats oppose the idea.

What kind of care would the public option give you?

The public plan would have to compete with private health plans for customers in an ''insurance exchange,'' or marketplace, so it would have to deliver comparable medical services. Democrats say the exchange would give consumers more information about the quality of medical services they're buying. So if a public plan didn't give good care -- if its customer satisfaction was low, for example -- consumers would vote with their feet. Obama and Democratic leaders have noted that the current U.S. health care system doesn't get good marks on medical quality. The system is plagued by medical errors. The life expectancy and overall health of the U.S. population ranks much lower than in many developed countries.

Kelli Glasser fights an annual battle to provide health care to her Ohio firm's workers.

Every year, the price of health insurance rises. Every year, she has to trim benefits or increase out-of-pocket costs for employees so her firm, Exhibit Concepts, can continue offering a health plan.

This summer, details of health care reform legislation have brought her new worries. And, she fears, new potential costs for her business. Other small businesses are also calculating what Washington legislation would do to their bottom lines.

A key provision in the current House reform legislation would require businesses to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty to the government. Some small firms – though probably not Glasser's -- would be exempted.

The National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group for small businesses, has strongly opposed this employer mandate, saying it will cost jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also opposes it. The Senate Finance Committee, meanwhile, is working on a compromise provision that could be more palatable to businesses.

Health care is an especially thorny problem for small firms. They pay on average of 18 percent more than larger companies for similar benefits plans, according to the NFIB. The price tag of insurance is a major reason why far fewer small businesses offer coverage than larger businesses.

Health care reform means more than wonk talk to Jeremiah Hansen

Hansen, 28, has no health insurance. He worked for years as a waiter, but the restaurant didn't provide coverage, and he couldn't afford a policy on his own pay as a waiter.

Then, in 2007, Hansen was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Every health insurer turned him down for coverage. His out-of-pocket costs for diabetes treatment, meanwhile, run into the thousands of dollars per year.

As health reform heats up in Washington, D.C., and across America, policy wonks and politicians are debating how to pay for an overhaul, and what role that government will play.

Beneath the rhetoric, though, lies a vital but often-overlooked feature of reform: Proposed legislation would prohibit health insurers from rejecting people who have pre-existing medical conditions, anything from cancer to rheumatoid arthritis.

People like Jeremiah Hansen.

You hear a lot about drug prices going up and up, but consider the case of Ann Stewart of Mattapan, Mass., who faced a price of $146 for her diabetes medicine. After a transfer of prescriptions, she's now paying $4. And then there's financially strapped Glenn Funchess, a cancer patient in Rochester, N.Y., who got the cost of his medications drop by $300 a month.

And finally, there's me, a supposedly savvy health care journalist, who took months to realize that taking a different cholesterol drug would cut the co-pay by $50.

These savings came from switching from brand-name drugs to generics. An increasing number of prescriptions are generics – now 70% of the total filled. They cost up to 90% less than brand names, and for some, it can make the difference between taking a medication -- or skipping it because it's unaffordable.

To take advantage of these bargains, you should be pro-active about prescriptions, and here's how you can do it: