The Will Ferell Health Care Reform video

[bebopdeluxe]

My compensation (and the level of taxes I pay) is important in the sense that this is one high-income taxpayer who cares more about trying to address some of the biggest isues that our collective society faces (with the reality that I will likely have to pay even more in taxes to help support health care reform, enact some kind of "cap and trade" or carbon tax, support education in my local public school districts - even thouogh I send my kids to private schools - and on and on....) than trying to minimize the amount of taxes I pay.  You don't think that my argument would have less weight if I made $18K a year and paid $200 in taxes?

At the end of the day, a society either cares about the collective good, realizes (as I do) that those who are INCREDIBLY fortunate to have above average means have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate...or you believe that what is yours is yours, that those who didn't win the sperm lottery (or those who have the wrong color of their skin, or those who don't have a penis, etc...) have to just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" (because that's how it's done in America).

Regardless of our differences of opinion, I wish you well.

[westkoast]

koast, I'll listen to that one tonight.  But also think about this...every country that has "socialized" or "universal" or "govt run" health care also have some of the highest income and consumption taxes in the world.  They also spend much, much less on national defense, roads, etc.

I am very much aware of that.  I understand we are bigger and have more people.  My comment wasn't that we fully borrow just one system from another country.  Rather look at all the systems and learn from the mistakes they have made over the past few decades.  

Hay, I think we are all in agreement that we would trade universal health care for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!  I am not bothered by less 'national defense' spending.  I think it would be great if we stopped playing world cop, pulled out of the wars we are currently in, and cut costs by spending more money at home improving our security here than abroad.

Are you willing to pay income taxes at a 25-35% higher rate than you do currently?  And look in the Wall Street Journal for an article yesterday (or Tues) about a left wing think tank calling on Obama for a Value Added Tax and think about the impact on prices and consumer spending.  And most of the plans also shift more Medicare funding to the states...many ogf which are already financially strapped.  This entire discussion goes far beyond just providing health coverage for every American.

I would be willing to pay higher taxes for something I feel benefits our entire society.  Less sick people, less people dying, and better preventive medicine being practiced I think would benefit this country is a number of ways.  Where did you get the 35% number?  I know you didn't pull it out of your rear so if you could explain or link me to how that number was produced, I would be interested to read it.

I understand it is more than just providing health care.  As with everything in this country it's a major money issue.  As for states, yes they are strapped for cash.   They also foot the bill for people who cannot afford to pay for those emergency visits/surgeries.  

As for consumer spending, if a family or individual is getting nailed on rising premiums that is going to hurt them as well.  Or a family who is coming out of pocket because Billy broke his hand at the park?  What about people who have had to file for bankruptcy due to being unable to pay health bills?  Either because they were capped (happened to my family) or did not have health insurance?  It is hard to purchase cars and houses when you have a bankruptcy tied to you.  If we recalled the Bush Tax cuts would that cover a portion of this?  I was reading an article a few weeks ago (and can't remember the details for the life of me now) but they discussed where to make changes to get the cash going in that direction.  You are obviously understand all of it more than I do so I will concede to you on points until I can prove otherwise.  And even then if it is not right, please set it straight.  I think information needs to be taken in and think a CPA could provide great information on the financial parts.  

I wholeheartedly agree that our current system needs to be fixed.  I am NOT advocating the staus quo.  Just want to make that clear.  I just don't believe the current proposals address the problems with our system but instead just compound those problems.  Adding another insurance provider (public option) does not address the runaway costs of health care.  

Part of the run away of costs is the 30% insurance overhead and our inability to negotiate drug prices (big ups to the Republicans for that one!).  If the public option was to operate similar to medicare, with a 5% over head, their prices would be cheaper and force the insurance companies to be more efficient.  My honest to god belief is if there is no public option there is no reason for the health insurance companies to change what they are doing.  When the public option was shot down yesterday I woke up to see health care companies stocks shoot up even though the market is down.   Not to mention if the government has a stake in this they will be able to negotiate  drug prices much like Canada and other European countries do.

I think we def need to address the lawsuit issues and what bebo was mentioning about practicing medicine in a fashion to prevent lawsuits as oppose to provide a cheaper solution.  That I think needs to be pushed a bit harder by everyone in the debate.  It should be right behind the public option IMO.

In that link I posted in one part the gentlemen discusses how the Japanese system forced them to figure out ways to lower costs of tests.  I believe he said he had an MRI in the states that cost 1250 and the exact same test in Japan was 105 dollars yet they are still turning a profit.  

And speaking of taxes, effective 1/1/2011 Bush's tax cuts and the right to work credit (stimulus plan) will expire.  A single person earning approx $50,000 will pay over $1,000 more in taxes than they will under the current laws.  Are you ready for a 2-3% decrease in your take home pay?

Again, correct me if I am wrong here because you know more about this than I do.  If those tax cuts do expire than the very wealthy who they seemed to benefit the most would also be paying more right?  Why would the middle class be hit with a 3% increase?  What would someone making over 200k be raised to?

This is not directed at anyone in this discussion because it's been awesome but why did we not discuss numbers when we started the last two wars?  We just jumped into those no problem and spent a lot of money.  Yet when it comes to improving the health of our country as a whole numbers are now top priority.  Not saying they shouldn't be.  Just saying that should ALWAYS be the case.  Whether it's health care or war.

Part of the reason why I am so for reform is the fact that my step father had been 'capped' on the amount of money they were shelling out for his brain cancer treatments in the 90s (around the time Clinton tried to make a push) this led to an insane amount of medical bills that fell on my mothers lap after he passed.  She tried to pay the best she could, which left us with no money to spend (back to consumer spending), and ended up having to file bankruptcy because she was unable to support 3 children and make those payments.  That black mark on her credit really caused a lot of problems as I am sure you've seen many times in your field of work.  This is not a 'unique' story sadly.  There is a lot of people who have had similar stories.  

[Lurker]

My compensation (and the level of taxes I pay) is important in the sense that this is one high-income taxpayer who cares more about trying to address some of the biggest isues that our collective society faces (with the reality that I will likely have to pay even more in taxes to help support health care reform, enact some kind of "cap and trade" or carbon tax, support education in my local public school districts - even thouogh I send my kids to private schools - and on and on....) than trying to minimize the amount of taxes I pay.  You don't think that my argument would have less weight if I made $18K a year and paid $200 in taxes?

No, I don't believe the amount of money you are currently making adds to the weight of your argument.  Based on that reasoning then you should have asked for my financial situation before considering my opinions as it would determine how much weight to give them.

At the end of the day, a society either cares about the collective good, realizes (as I do) that those who are INCREDIBLY fortunate to have above average means have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate...or you believe that what is yours is yours, that those who didn't win the sperm lottery (or those who have the wrong color of their skin, or those who don't have a penis, etc...) have to just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" (because that's how it's done in America).

A society can care about the collective good...as our founding fathers did...and still espouse the ability for each individual to pursue their life, liberty and happiness.  As far as bringing oneself up by the bootstraps, that is exactly how it should be done in America.  If one takes personal responsibility for their actions and choices then there are very few barriers to overcoming the "sperm lottery".  Otherwise how do you explain such shining examples as the Obamas and Justice Sotomayer? 

I was the first in my family to achieve a college education and I did it by working full time, attending school at night and raising a family.  I didn't fall into some entitlement mentality that just because I was born into a lower economic situation that I was stuck there.  And I worked hard to give my kids every opportunity to grow to their potential and become mature, productive members of society.  And they went to elementary school with plenty of kids from section 8 housing.  So save your holier than thou mentality about the "common good" and individual responsibility as being mutually exclusive.  I have been a PTA president, a officer in band boosters and have given talks to middle/high school students about my chosen field. I give back to my community in sweat as well as money.  Can you say the same?

As far as helping the less fortunate, my attitude is that if they are willing to help themselves then I will help them to achieve.  We helped plenty of people who were hurt by Katrina (as did many in our community and state) but at the same time had to give "tough love" to the ones who thought they now deserved a lifetime of govt support.  Have you been to New Orleans?  I have been every year since Katrina and have talked to people who are working hard to rebuild their lives.  And those people deserve our compassion and assistance as well as financial support.

Regardless of our differences of opinion, I wish you well.

Same to you.  The ability to discuss intelligently and respectfully is a quickly fading art.  As many of the Laker fans here could tell you I fully respect anyone who can do so without resorting to banality.

[Lurker]

Are you willing to pay income taxes at a 25-35% higher rate than you do currently?  And look in the Wall Street Journal for an article yesterday (or Tues) about a left wing think tank calling on Obama for a Value Added Tax and think about the impact on prices and consumer spending.  And most of the plans also shift more Medicare funding to the states...many of which are already financially strapped.  This entire discussion goes far beyond just providing health coverage for every American.

Where did you get the 35% number?  I know you didn't pull it out of your rear so if you could explain or link me to how that number was produced, I would be interested to read it.

It is based on the fact that most of those countries have a 45-50% average income tax rate compared to the 15-20% (federal tax only) the majority of Americans pay.  Most of those countries also allow far fewer deductions than the US tax code allows.

Part of the run away of costs is the 30% insurance overhead and our inability to negotiate drug prices (big ups to the Republicans for that one!).  If the public option was to operate similar to medicare, with a 5% over head, their prices would be cheaper and force the insurance companies to be more efficient.  My honest to god belief is if there is no public option there is no reason for the health insurance companies to change what they are doing.  When the public option was shot down yesterday I woke up to see health care companies stocks shoot up even though the market is down.   Not to mention if the government has a stake in this they will be able to negotiate  drug prices much like Canada and other European countries do.

Here is just an excerpt from one link on administrative costs...you can google "health insurance administrative costs" and get several articles.  Most of which show that there is a lot of rhetorical BS from both parties.

The explanation is really quite simple, and it's provided here by Robert Book of the Heritage Foundation. The statistic cited by Alter and Krugman uses administrative costs calculated as a percentage of total health care costs (For Medicare it's roughly 3 percent and for private insurers it's roughly 12 percent).
But here's the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a percentage of total costs. This creates the appearance that Medicare is a model of administrative efficiency. What Jon Alter sees as a "miracle" is really just a statistical sleight of hand.
Furthermore, Book notes that private insurers have a number of additional expenditures which fall into the category of "administrative costs" (like state health insurance premium taxes of 2-4%, marketing costs, etc) that Medicare does not have, further inflating the apparent differences in cost.
But, as you might expect, when you compare administrative costs on a per-person basis, Medicare is dramatically less efficient than private insurance plans. As you can see here, between 2001-2005, Medicare's administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers.

 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/27/the_adminstrative_cost_benefit_myth_97193.html
 

And speaking of taxes, effective 1/1/2011 Bush's tax cuts and the right to work credit (stimulus plan) will expire.  A single person earning approx $50,000 will pay over $1,000 more in taxes than they will under the current laws.  Are you ready for a 2-3% decrease in your take home pay?

Again, correct me if I am wrong here because you know more about this than I do.  If those tax cuts do expire than the very wealthy who they seemed to benefit the most would also be paying more right?  Why would the middle class be hit with a 3% increase?  What would someone making over 200k be raised to?

The main reason is that Bush's tax cuts created the 10% tax bracket for the first $8,000 (approx in 2009) of income for a single person. This bracket will reset to 15% when the cuts expire.  $8,000 x 5% = $400 tax increase.  The right to work credit enacted with the stimulus (by Repubs against the Dems wishes if we want to keep score) was also $400 per taxpayer.  So right there a single person with $8,000 of taxable income will be hit with close to $800 in taxes (their work credit may be lower). 

It is a BIG fallacy perpetuated by the media that Bush's tax cuts were for the wealthy.  His tax cuts also expanded tuition credits, made the child credit refundable and expanded retirment savings levels - all of which are phased out as your income rises and well before the $250k mark.

This is not directed at anyone in this discussion because it's been awesome but why did we not discuss numbers when we started the last two wars?  We just jumped into those no problem and spent a lot of money.  Yet when it comes to improving the health of our country as a whole numbers are now top priority.  Not saying they shouldn't be.  Just saying that should ALWAYS be the case.  Whether it's health care or war.

Part of the reason why I am so for reform is the fact that my step father had been 'capped' on the amount of money they were shelling out for his brain cancer treatments in the 90s (around the time Clinton tried to make a push) this led to an insane amount of medical bills that fell on my mothers lap after he passed.  She tried to pay the best she could, which left us with no money to spend (back to consumer spending), and ended up having to file bankruptcy because she was unable to support 3 children and make those payments.  That black mark on her credit really caused a lot of problems as I am sure you've seen many times in your field of work.  This is not a 'unique' story sadly.  There is a lot of people who have had similar stories.  

I concur that govt spending should have come to the forefront much earlier than it has.  As far as the war efforts many Democrats have selective memory when it comes to whether they agreed to it or not.  After 9/11 the nation was very much behind getting "revenge".  I do blame Bush for misdirectinng that desire but Dems have no standing to claiming it was all Bush.

I am truly sorry to hear about your family's situation.  I don't deny that there are cases out there like that.  And when it is personalized as in your case it makes the debate more ardent.  However I would also point out that in terms of all Americans it is a small percentage.

I would also like to say...in relation to the comments with bebop...that I admire your family for taking responsibility for your misfortunes and working hard to overcome them.  And while the bankruptcy is a black mark it does fade with time.  Your mom could have easily fallen into the entitlement mentality and passed it on to you and your siblings. 

And now you made me admit that I admire a Laker fan's ethics.   

[westkoast]

It is based on the fact that most of those countries have a 45-50% average income tax rate compared to the 15-20% (federal tax only) the majority of Americans pay.  Most of those countries also allow far fewer deductions than the US tax code allows.

Okay thank you for the explanation.  The 'moral' argument in my eyes is a no brainer but it cannot trump the financial one.  As much as I wish money wasn't an issue, it is, so that is the reason I am trying to pick your brain.  More direct responses to the questions I pose than just reading some article.  I trust your 'down the middle-ness' tho I do know you are a fiscal conservative.  You are at least objective.  Something I don't think is happening right now in general.

Here is just an excerpt from one link on administrative costs...you can google "health insurance administrative costs" and get several articles.  Most of which show that there is a lot of rhetorical BS from both parties. 

The explanation is really quite simple, and it's provided here by Robert Book of the Heritage Foundation. The statistic cited by Alter and Krugman uses administrative costs calculated as a percentage of total health care costs (For Medicare it's roughly 3 percent and for private insurers it's roughly 12 percent).
But here's the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a percentage of total costs. This creates the appearance that Medicare is a model of administrative efficiency. What Jon Alter sees as a "miracle" is really just a statistical sleight of hand.
Furthermore, Book notes that private insurers have a number of additional expenditures which fall into the category of "administrative costs" (like state health insurance premium taxes of 2-4%, marketing costs, etc) that Medicare does not have, further inflating the apparent differences in cost.
But, as you might expect, when you compare administrative costs on a per-person basis, Medicare is dramatically less efficient than private insurance plans. As you can see here, between 2001-2005, Medicare's administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers.

Interesting.  Though I am a bit confused on how administrative costs would be lower if these elderly people are visiting the doctor, phramacy, and local hospitals at a higher rate than most of the population.

Medicare is based on the Canadian system which has a 9% administrative overhead costs.  They seem to be more efficient than the private insurance companies in this country are.  Either way I am going to read the whole article since today is a slow day at work!
 
 

The main reason is that Bush's tax cuts created the 10% tax bracket for the first $8,000 (approx in 2009) of income for a single person. This bracket will reset to 15% when the cuts expire.  $8,000 x 5% = $400 tax increase.  The right to work credit enacted with the stimulus (by Repubs against the Dems wishes if we want to keep score) was also $400 per taxpayer.  So right there a single person with $8,000 of taxable income will be hit with close to $800 in taxes (their work credit may be lower). 

It is a BIG fallacy perpetuated by the media that Bush's tax cuts were for the wealthy.  His tax cuts also expanded tuition credits, made the child credit refundable and expanded retirment savings levels - all of which are phased out as your income rises and well before the $250k mark.

So that increase + this proposed higher tax on people making over 250k, in your opinion, would make a tiny dent in the cost of this proposed plan?  Or not enough to even mention with out it being daisy chained with other DRASTIC taxes/cuts ?

I concur that govt spending should have come to the forefront much earlier than it has.  As far as the war efforts many Democrats have selective memory when it comes to whether they agreed to it or not.  After 9/11 the nation was very much behind getting "revenge".  I do blame Bush for misdirectinng that desire but Dems have no standing to claiming it was all Bush.

I was speaking in general terms.  Though I am a Democrat I know they went along with this.  The debate on if they were mislead or not really is irrelevant to me at this point.  We already spent the lives, money, time, and effort on the war. 

Not just the politicians but the regular citizens should have been asking financial questions about these wars from the jump.  I know you don't always have time to do that in war but it seems like the the cost wasn't even discussed in as much detailed as this is across the board.  Even right now you hear talk about 'more troops in Afghanistan' but very little information on the actual cost to continue to fight this war until....I don't even know!

I am truly sorry to hear about your family's situation.  I don't deny that there are cases out there like that.  And when it is personalized as in your case it makes the debate more ardent.  However I would also point out that in terms of all Americans it is a small percentage.

Oh I know it's a small percentage when it comes to my story.  Though I don't think families being really bogged down by paying for health insurance costs both in premiums and out of pocket expenses is a 'small percentage'  They may not be going bankrupt but they could be living pay check to pay check. 

  I appreciate the kind words as well.  Just wanted to put out there why this issue is important to me personally and not just a 'hay im a Dem and this is what they want so Im blindly supporting!'  The issue hits me right in the chest.   Plus I just find it very interesting in general.

I would also like to say...in relation to the comments with bebop...that I admire your family for taking responsibility for your misfortunes and working hard to overcome them.  And while the bankruptcy is a black mark it does fade with time.  Your mom could have easily fallen into the entitlement mentality and passed it on to you and your siblings. 

And now you made me admit that I admire a Laker fan's ethics.   

LOL!

As for your comment about Obama not doing enough, I've heard that from people on the left as well.  Now I am assuming here but I think part of his let the other elected officials duke it out before he really steps in has to do with the fact that Clinton took the opposite approach and failed.  Clinton's Administration tried to push their plan on them as oppose to letting them craft their own and giving guidelines.   Since we know ALL our politicians have egos  it seemed like their thoughts in the 90s was 'Pfft you think you can do a better job than we can!?'

Obama cannot make laws obviously and I think some people don't realize how our government operates (not you, I mean the average person).  They think Obama should be drafting legislation and in the thick of it on the floor, not in his power.  Though I do agree I would like to see him apply MORE pressure because he certainly can do that.  USE THAT DAMN CHARM GUY!

On a side note, were you guys aware that Doctors do not get a 'cost of living' increase from the insurance companies reimbursement?  While health insurance costs have gone up the amount of money the average doctor makes running a practice has not.  The only way they can make more money is to see more patients.  That means less face time, less personalized care, and just as much over crowding. 

[Lurker]

The main reason is that Bush's tax cuts created the 10% tax bracket for the first $8,000 (approx in 2009) of income for a single person. This bracket will reset to 15% when the cuts expire.  $8,000 x 5% = $400 tax increase.  The right to work credit enacted with the stimulus (by Repubs against the Dems wishes if we want to keep score) was also $400 per taxpayer.  So right there a single person with $8,000 of taxable income will be hit with close to $800 in taxes (their work credit may be lower). 

It is a BIG fallacy perpetuated by the media that Bush's tax cuts were for the wealthy.  His tax cuts also expanded tuition credits, made the child credit refundable and expanded retirment savings levels - all of which are phased out as your income rises and well before the $250k mark.

So that increase + this proposed higher tax on people making over 250k, in your opinion, would make a tiny dent in the cost of this proposed plan?  Or not enough to even mention with out it being daisy chained with other DRASTIC taxes/cuts ?

In short, the admin's projection of $9 trillion deficit over the next decade already includes the proposed revenues from the expiration of those cuts.  And scarier yet is that they also forecast GDP growth in excess of 4% for 2010 and 2011.  And I just read an article the other day that the level of unemployment will cause SS & Medicare revenues to be lower than payments for 2010.

Here is another way to look at how screwed the taxpayers are:  Based on the number of individual tax returns filed for 2007 each one would have to pay an additional $10,000 to cover the current year deficit.  This is based on approx 160 million returns to fund $1.6 trillion in deficit spending.

Another Bush tax cut goodie that I didn't mention: lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.  So everyone who owns mutual funds outside of retirement plans will also face higher taxes.

[bebopdeluxe]

Lurker:

My background is the same as you...grew up in North Philly...single mom...some time on public assistance and food stamps...first in my family to graduate from college...worked two jobs while I was there and did temp work every summer and Christmas...

Nobody gave me JACK.  I earned it.

There is a scholarship at my alma mater that I funded - with the scholarship recipient specified to be a public school student from the Philly region in need.  While I don't do as much charitable work these days (I am 49 with 4 kids), I have done everything from volunteering with kids at St. Christopher's Hospital for Children (my hospital growing up) to working at Habitat for Humanity building sites.

I could always do more...but I've done my share.

There will always be examples like you and me...or Obama or Sotomayor.  Exceptional people (you and I excluded) will always find a way to make a mark.  However, to baseline what we as a society should do to provide things like affordable health care, quality education and the like with the high-achievers on the tail end of the bell-curve distribution...

Hey!  Obama did it so EVERYBODY can..don't worry about being raised by a single mom in Cabrini Green or Crenshaw...don't worry about the fact that there are ZERO jobs in your region of Applachia...don't worry about being downsized out of your job at 51 years of age (with your COBRA coverage running out and your wife having a respiratory issue that will cost $40,000 after-tax to pay out of pocket...

Just "grab those bootstraps"...right?

And I agree about the civil debate, bro...and I respect you for it as well.  Too many azzholes who populate forums like this that show ZERO humanity with a keyboard.

[Reality]

Either "side" of the issue, will anything ever be done about $$$ waste?

Therein lies 50% (60 70 80?) of the financing resolution for healthcare IMO.

[Lurker]

Either "side" of the issue, will anything ever be done about $$$ waste?

Therein lies 50% (60 70 80?) of the financing resolution for healthcare IMO.

So where was the waste & fraud elimination amendment on the rushed law to freeze Medicare premiums?

If there is that much waste & fraud in the program the govt currently runs then how will expanding that program eliminate that waste?

And WHY does ANY President need a law to eliminate waste & fraud?

If they can do it to pay for "reform" then DO IT NOW!!!!  Then ask the American people to spend more.

[bebopdeluxe]

When a provider makes a decision to not provide services to, say, 10-15% of the available population, they believe that is a rational business decision - they believe that they can gather enough business from the remaining 85-90% of the population.  However, when that percentage of the population rises to 30-35%, it becomes a harder decision to walk away from that business.

When you are the intermediary for 85-90% of the total marketplace (as the traditional health insurers are) - providing the customer pool for the service providers (doctor groups, hospitals, etc...), it is a lot easier to 1) negotiate deals that benefit you as the intermediary and then 2) use the leverage obtained by forcing the service providers to provide said services (at a very attractive spread to the intermediary) to both retain your customer pool AND pass on price increases (premiums paid by businesses and individuals) over and above what may be necessary guarantee quality service by said service providers.

For years, this has been a game that has been set up to benefit EVERYBODY BUT THE PEOPLE PAYING FOR THE SERVICES.  It has been a basic oligopoly - with the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies benefitting from a structure where TRUE competition does not exist.

While I am for a public option primarily as a competative weapon to force down costs and spur rationalization and efficiencies within the health care industry, I would also be fine without it - as long as the government uses its power to increase competition within the health care system and improve the efficiency of the people who actually provide the services - the doctors.  Allowing both interstate health insurance sales and devolving health insurance provider selection would increas competition and force prvoders to sharpen their pencils on premium pricing.  Tort reform would help to eliminate the mountains of wasteful and over-the-top "CYA" spending by doctors and hospitals.   Portability of coverage (which goes hand-in-hand with devolving the decision-making from company to employee) would allow talented labor to be more flexible within the economy - which would provide valuable ancillary benefits.

Many of these things would cost ZERO...but they would require GOVERNMENT REGULATION - because we certainly know that things that would force providers to increase efficiency, price more competatively and take excess capacity out of the system will not be done from within.  It's like letting the fox guard the henhouse - they simply cannot be trusted to get this system under control...and given the MASSIVE cost of health care in this country (and the sheer impact that it has on the every-day lives of ALL of this country's citizens), health care passes the screen in my eyes to be looked at in the same vein as national defense, infrastructure, education and the other big-picture issues where it is the GOVERNMENT who is the only entity that can insure that this essential service is provided to all citizens.  The industry has shown - time and time again - that it will put profits ahead of the common good.  For the 51-year old woman whose husband has lost his job and has a respiratory problem that will financially destroy their family to treat, this is not like buying a new plasma TV or another Coach handbag - we need to find a way to provide a road to treatment for this woman that takes the decision out of the hands of an insurance provider...because we all know what is going to happen.

And for those of you who hate government regulation in all of its forms...for those who favor deregulation as a way to unleash the entreprenural energy of capital and the private sector....just ask yourself how that worked out in the financial services industry...

Pretty well, huh?

[Reality]

Either "side" of the issue, will anything ever be done about $$$ waste?

Therein lies 50% (60 70 80?) of the financing resolution for healthcare IMO.

below

So where was the waste & fraud elimination amendment on the rushed law to freeze Medicare premiums?
I don't know.

If there is that much waste & fraud in the program the govt currently runs then how will expanding that program eliminate that waste?
Why not eliminate waste with or without expanding that program?

And WHY does ANY President need a law to eliminate waste & fraud?
Because the wasters & frauders won't change unless they face consequences.

If they can do it to pay for "reform" then DO IT NOW!!!!  Then ask the American people to spend more.
Cut waste and fraud NOW!  Yes.