STRINGS ATTACHED

If you were going to build a new house, you might hire a architect to design it, then shop the design around to several trusted contractors to get their bids to construct it. You would be looking for the cheapest bid. It would probably be unimportant to you whether the contractor employed union members, or whether the persons working on the job were part of a minority group.
Now, if for some reason, your rich uncle agreed to pay half of the construction costs, you would probably be open to his suggestion that "contractor A" would be hired because she employed only union members. As long as you were confident that the home would be built to your exact specifications, and you were saving 50%, the strings attached to your uncle's contribution would be welcome.
Uncle Sam passes out money in this way. Strings are attached. On construction projects, there may be minority set-asides. There may be requirements that only union members may work on the project, or that a prevailing wage would be paid to tradesmen. While these conditional provisions might drive up the total cost of construction, they allow Uncle Sam to achieve certain social goals, and are acceptable to, say a college that is getting a new classroom building at a discount due to federal contributions.
In short, federal money always comes with strings attached. Well... not always.
When the bank bail-out money was passed out, there were no strings attached. Because of there was a crisis, it was imperative that banks took the money immediately, whether they wanted it or not. To stabilize them. To preserve the entire financial system. And then PNC used theirs to buy Provident Bank.(Not that the feds were opposed to mergers and acquisitions. But they only liked them if it was their idea.) And the big bonuses kept coming, and the retreats to expensive resorts. Then the feds, and the tax-payers, began to think they'd been had. In a come-lately fashion, the strings were attached.
The point is that by passing out money in the form of grants, subsidies, and bail-outs, the federal government has a great power to coerce, and to enforce a social agenda. And this has great importance when it comes to Health Care, because many proponents of the health care reform bills believe that by passing a bill (ANY bill), Americans will have an established RIGHT to health care. This is why some don't care what kind of bill it is. If citizens have a constitutional right to health care, what does this mean in practical terms?
Can a Catholic hospital which accepts federal money in the future be able to deny abortions to anyone? Can a doctor who accepts Medicaid payments decline to refer a patient to an abortion clinic? Can a pharmacist who is self-employed and federally licensed to dispense medicines decline to fill a prescription for birth-control pills as a matter of conscience? Or will these institutions or individuals be coerced into choosing whether to violate religious or ethical beliefs, to violate someone's constitutional right to health care, or to just go out of business?