SteveZ,

Like others. I appreciate your deep research and neutral tone in the political forum. But you seem to be overly committed to two pillars of Republican (or call it what you will), philosophy.

Your response to the elements of Kahuna's proposed health plan was thoughtful and accurate, but also paradoxical. You lump those ideas together and rebut them because they suggest "the government is the only solution". But then you mention how things are here and in other nations and you recognize those very big things only governments have fixed, or can seem to fix. The health insurance plan itself, related tort reform, uncontrolled 'medical' research, immigration, tariffs, etc. You seem to agree that tight, comprehensive regulation sprinkled liberally over free enterprise is the solution. In some circles you'd be called a 'commie', like I've been.

In the same way that it's too simplistic to say "the less government we have the better off we are", the other traditional axiom of free enterprise, the 'trickle down' effect, is demonstrably superficial. You suggest that 'taxing the rich', the proposed means by which a part of the new health insurance plan will be paid for, will have serious negative affects on businesses, unemployment, etc., because the wealthy will be disinclined to invest. What greater proof do we need that the wealthy will do nothing outside of their self-interest than what has happened with the current economic crisis. Investors, corporate and individual, are sitting on their billions, not because of a new pesky little mosquito-like health care surtax, but because the markets were not properly regulated and those who raised greed to a whole new level were able to bring the whole house down. There we go with that 'r' word again. I guess you just have to get used to being called a 'commie' if you think government regulation needs to be sprinkled liberally over free enterprise. Why not join the club?

Couldn't it just be that alot of business stagnation can be attributed to a POTUS who scares the heck out of everybody especially when he is armed with the majority congress and a motto that says something about "not wanting a crisis go to waste?"

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

SteveZ,

Like others. I appreciate your deep research and neutral tone in the political forum. But you seem to be overly committed to two pillars of Republican (or call it what you will), philosophy.

Your response to the elements of Kahuna's proposed health plan was thoughtful and accurate, but also paradoxical. You lump those ideas together and rebut them because they suggest "the government is the only solution". But then you mention how things are here and in other nations and you recognize those very big things only governments have fixed, or can seem to fix. The health insurance plan itself, related tort reform, uncontrolled 'medical' research, immigration, tariffs, etc. You seem to agree that tight, comprehensive regulation sprinkled liberally over free enterprise is the solution. In some circles you'd be called a 'commie', like I've been.

In the same way that it's too simplistic to say "the less government we have the better off we are", the other traditional axiom of free enterprise, the 'trickle down' effect, is demonstrably superficial. You suggest that 'taxing the rich', the proposed means by which a part of the new health insurance plan will be paid for, will have serious negative affects on businesses, unemployment, etc., because the wealthy will be disinclined to invest. What greater proof do we need that the wealthy will do nothing outside of their self-interest than what has happened with the current economic crisis. Investors, corporate and individual, are sitting on their billions, not because of a new pesky little mosquito-like health care surtax, but because the markets were not properly regulated and those who raised greed to a whole new level were able to bring the whole house down. There we go with that 'r' word again. I guess you just have to get used to being called a 'commie' if you think government regulation needs to be sprinkled liberally over free enterprise. Why not join the club?

Then let me try to clarify:

1. In our quest to butt-kiss China and others, we have handed our manufacturing capacity on a silver platter to them by giving them free access to our markets while they pay slave wages to their people and ignore what we consider normal as OSHA and environment control, AND THEN keep raising the overheads of American businesses so they can't compete. The result is a depressed economy, wages going down, job loss and all the resultant harm from borrowing to eat with no chance of payback. THAT is what has made a mess of health care, because when the economy is cooking, there's jobs, health care for employees, and discretionary funds for research. ANY plan to change health care IN ISOLATION of repairing the damage to the economy is useless, expensive and just sending us deeper into a financial abyss.

2. It is too easy to hand problems over to elected officials who have no idea what any of it is about, or too lazy or ignorant of the subject matter to read the legislation (let alone intelligently vote on it). Just "passing the buck" to government to be mother, father, and boss never has solved anything. I don't see government as the omnipotent protector of all facets of life, and am afraid to death when government (meaning the people in office) see themselves in demi-god roles.

3. Germany, the U.K., France, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Greece, and all the rest of the European countries are no bigger than American states. So, if something works in Germany or the U.K., means maybe it would also work in New York or Illinois. It does not mean it will work across the entire USA. SIZE DOES MATTER in trying to implement anything, and the immense size of the USA and its internal diversity must indeed be considered before anything is conceptualized for national implementation. There's a reason why the European Union has not attempted to impose an EU Health Plan, and that is that each one of the countries have unique concerns and situations, just like each of the USA States do. So, what works in a country of 30-80 million in a land mass smaller than Montana may not indeed work in a country of 305 Million in a land mass the size of all of Europe.

4. Per you, "You seem to agree that tight, comprehensive regulation sprinkled liberally over free enterprise is the solution. In some circles you'd be called a 'commie', like I've been." Far from it. In fact, the reverse. The problem with regulators is that they operate so divorced from the system they regulate, they just don't understand it. They may understand the regulations, but have no idea how they really impact the affected industries. I saw that first-hand when I went from private industry to spend five years within the government entity which regulated my industry. When changes in regulations are proposed, it's normally to help the regulators, not make the industry more efficient or safer or cleaner or better. It's government for government's sake.

The Founding Fathers were sharp dudes. They envisioned a federal government whose responsibility was to be the collective for defense of the member states, provide a unified voice when dealing with outsiders, and provide those inter-connective services (e.g., waterways, postal service, etc.) that were truly interstate in nature. They ALL warned about the dangers of too strong a federal presence, as that's what they revolted from. The goal was to let the states be the states, except for those limited and necessary items which crossed state lines.

We have gotten state-lazy and federal-dependent. That's probably an offshoot of having national radio and television networks and a national print media. It's too easy to see ourselves as only Americans at the expense of being Floridians, Illini, Nebraskans and the like. If we are going to seek social change in any manner - be that in how we receive health care or distribute bread - the place to do that is at the local (state) level first. If we want to emulate how the Brits or Germans do things, we must remember that those nations are at best no bigger than a State or two here.

Change is a wonderful thing - as long as the change is managed with logic and science to confirm that the change will do good rather than make things worse. WE HAVE NO DATA that says any facet of this health care bill will work - only guesses and promises BUT NO DATA. I spent too many years in a system management environment to rely on guesses and promises. I's skeptical of Santa Claus promises and won't accept blilnd faith which only rewards political grandstanders.

No component , man-made or biological, can physically maintain a growth rate in the 10-15% range before completely overwhelming the system in which it lives. The medical system is no exception, and at it's current growth rate will consume our whole GDP in a short few years. Yet what group in the U.S. is in favor of reduced medical spending? Not drug companies that continually charge higher & higher prices for drugs that in many cases are no better than generics. Not hospitals, who are always complaining about loosing money while at the same time adding yet another new wing. Not physicians, who are paid ridiculous amounts of money for performing more & more procedures, 30-50% of which are known to be unnecessary. Not insurance companies, who (much like Las Vegas) make money by skimming a percentage of the total "pot"- bigger expenses = bigger premiums= bigger profits. Not the consumer, who generally pays little if any of the bill anyway and equates more care with better care.

It seems that there is no one who is at all interested in lowering costs at all. Indeed, the government instead proposes to spend a trillion or so more to "reduce costs". Two proposals come to mind that might create a group that has an interest in reducing costs:

A. Create a cadre of physicians paid a salary plus a bonus based on providing good outcomes at a cost less than the prevailing rate spent on that particular disease. The existing procedure rate would drop at least 30% immediately, along with the associated costs.

B. Structure medical insurance with, say, a $2,000 deductible of which the unused portion is refunded to the consumer every year. If you spend $700 on medical care then you would get a $1,300 refund that year. Now, the patient may ask "Is this really necessary?' or "What are my other options?" At present, these questions are rarely asked or even considered.

These two would definately result in some major group interested in reducing costs. Other ideas may be just as or more effective. However there is absolutely no discussion of any substantive ways to reduce costs. Anyone with some other good ideas?
Steve S

Originally Posted by clod

No component , man-made or biological, can physically maintain a growth rate in the 10-15% range before completely overwhelming the system in which it lives. The medical system is no exception, and at it's current growth rate will consume our whole GDP in a short few years. Yet what group in the U.S. is in favor of reduced medical spending? Not drug companies that continually charge higher & higher prices for drugs that in many cases are no better than generics. Not hospitals, who are always complaining about loosing money while at the same time adding yet another new wing. Not physicians, who are paid ridiculous amounts of money for performing more & more procedures, 30-50% of which are known to be unnecessary. Not insurance companies, who (much like Las Vegas) make money by skimming a percentage of the total "pot"- bigger expenses = bigger premiums= bigger profits. Not the consumer, who generally pays little if any of the bill anyway and equates more care with better care.

It seems that there is no one who is at all interested in lowering costs at all. Indeed, the government instead proposes to spend a trillion or so more to "reduce costs". Two proposals come to mind that might create a group that has an interest in reducing costs:

A. Create a cadre of physicians paid a salary plus a bonus based on providing good outcomes at a cost less than the prevailing rate spent on that particular disease. The existing procedure rate would drop at least 30% immediately, along with the associated costs.

B. Structure medical insurance with, say, a $2,000 deductible of which the unused portion is refunded to the consumer every year. If you spend $700 on medical care then you would get a $1,300 refund that year. Now, the patient may ask "Is this really necessary?' or "What are my other options?" At present, these questions are rarely asked or even considered.

These two would definately result in some major group interested in reducing costs. Other ideas may be just as or more effective. However there is absolutely no discussion of any substantive ways to reduce costs. Anyone with some other good ideas?
Steve S

There are many good ideas. Doesn't it make sense to try a variety of things at the state level before trying to implement it all at once on 305 million people? If we have never done it at the 1-20 million people level successfully, what makes us think that we can just jump into the 305 million people level with success?

Every manufacturer or system developer prototypes and Beta tests before going into mass production of anything. Why is this different?

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...It is too easy to hand problems over to elected officials who have no idea what any of it is about, or too lazy or ignorant of the subject matter to read the legislation (let alone intelligently vote on it)....They may understand the regulations, but have no idea how they really impact the affected industries...Change is a wonderful thing - as long as the change is managed with logic and science to confirm that the change will do good rather than make things worse....

I agree with all of your statements, but I'm still left with a problem...the problem.

We've all agreed, I think, that we have a serious problem with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. Measured as either cost per capita or as a percentage of GDP, it's increasing at an unsustainable rate. It will both "break" us while at the same time reducing healthcare insurance coverage for millions of Americans. I heard a statistic this morning that as recently as 2000, 61% of American businesses provided some form of health insurance for their employees. This year's statistic shows that only 38% of employers do so today. The problem we're facing is serious. Both the citizens of the U.S. and our elected representatives have been ignoring the problem(s) for years.

We also seem to agree that a big chunk of the cost problem is the cost of caring for those with no insurance. A lot of those people are illegal immigrants. Both the numbers of illegals and simply uninsured Americans are growing rapidly. Again, we're back to the growing cost problem with no apparent solution. The immigration problem in particular has proven to have no politically acceptable solution within our government--or even among our citizens!.

We would all like to believe that the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers would work. Over the very long term, they have. But right now we're facing a serious problem with the cost of healthcare that has to be fixed in the short term, not the long. The "enemy" isn't just forming up on the horizon, they're coming in over the edge of our foxhole!

I'd like to believe that the free enterprise system could bail us out of this one. But who's going to do it? Will the drug companies give in? Will the insurance companies get together and agree on standardized coverages and claim processing? Will they voluntarily agree to maybe reduce their profit margins? Will hospitals voluntarily reduce their costs? Will the trial lawyers agree to stop suing for millions and hoping just to settle out of court? Will the firms doing medical research voluntarily slow down their efforts because as a country we can't afford to continue to fund them? Will the doctors agree to work for what they would earn if they worked in Europe? Will U.S. citizens who can afford to do so volunteer to pay for their own healthcare rather than use Medicare? The Brits have an answer for these types of questions...not bloody likely, they'd say.

No, this is like the recent Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. Both companies could not survive with the cost structures they had in place. But there was no way that the creditors and stakeholders could or would agree on who's ox was going to get gored the worst in the bankruptcy. So the government stepped in and played hard ball with them all. I don't agree with all the settlements that the government demanded, but I know that GM and Chrysler would be in liquidation today without the government's intervention.

So again, we need the government to step in and re-form the health care industry. I guess I should say the re-form the cost structure of the healthcare industry; I think we'd all be willing to let the things that would show us to be a healthier country wait for longer term solutions. The industry itself is incapable of doing it without the intervention of a third party.

Our government has done nothing to earn our trust in recent years. But unfortunately, they're the only ones who can solve this problem. All we can hope for is that our government will assure that "the change is managed with logic and science to confirm that the change will do good rather than make things worse". What other alternative do we have?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I agree with all of your statements, but I'm still left with a problem...the problem.

We've all agreed, I think, that we have a serious problem with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. Measured as either cost per capita or as a percentage of GDP, it's increasing at an unsustainable rate. It will both "break" us while at the same time reducing healthcare insurance coverage for millions of Americans. I heard a statistic this morning that as recently as 2000, 61% of American businesses provided some form of health insurance for their employees. This year's statistic shows that only 38% of employers do so today. The problem we're facing is serious. Both the citizens of the U.S. and our elected representatives have been ignoring the problem(s) for years.

We also seem to agree that a big chunk of the cost problem is the cost of caring for those with no insurance. A lot of those people are illegal immigrants. Both the numbers of illegals and simply uninsured Americans are growing rapidly. Again, we're back to the growing cost problem with no apparent solution. The immigration problem in particular has proven to have no politically acceptable solution within our government--or even among our citizens!.

We would all like to believe that the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers would work. Over the very long term, they have. But right now we're facing a serious problem with the cost of healthcare that has to be fixed in the short term, not the long. The "enemy" isn't just forming up on the horizon, they're coming in over the edge of our foxhole!

I'd like to believe that the free enterprise system could bail us out of this one. But who's going to do it? Will the drug companies give in? Will the insurance companies get together and agree on standardized coverages and claim processing? Will they voluntarily agree to maybe reduce their profit margins? Will hospitals voluntarily reduce their costs? Will the trial lawyers agree to stop suing for millions and hoping just to settle out of court? Will the firms doing medical research voluntarily slow down their efforts because as a country we can't afford to continue to fund them? Will the doctors agree to work for what they would earn if they worked in Europe? Will U.S. citizens who can afford to do so volunteer to pay for their own healthcare rather than use Medicare? The Brits have an answer for these types of questions...not bloody likely, they'd say.

No, this is like the recent Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. Both companies could not survive with the cost structures they had in place. But there was no way that the creditors and stakeholders could or would agree on who's ox was going to get gored the worst in the bankruptcy. So the government stepped in and played hard ball with them all. I don't agree with all the settlements that the government demanded, but I know that GM and Chrysler would be in liquidation today without the government's intervention.

So again, we need the government to step in and re-form the health care industry. I guess I should say the re-form the cost structure of the healthcare industry; I think we'd all be willing to let the things that would show us to be a healthier country wait for longer term solutions. The industry itself is incapable of doing it without the intervention of a third party.

Our government has done nothing to earn our trust in recent years. But unfortunately, they're the only ones who can solve this problem. All we can hope for is that our government will assure that "the change is managed with logic and science to confirm that the change will do good rather than make things worse". What other alternative do we have?

But that does not change the fact that so far the efforts by various states have been marginal, or have failed. If we can't get it right at the state level yet, what makes anyone think a top-down federal "system" comprising of totally untried concepts won't make things worse?

"There's never the time to do it right, but always the time (at even more money) to do it over." - that's one rule we all learned. For some reason, when politicians are involved and there is charisma attached to the attempt, logic goes out the window.

I agree that all of this is serious business, but it's being treated like a turn at the roulette wheel.

If this system - HR 3200 - is so good, then what's wrong with trying it first in Massachusetts, or all of New England, or California, with even a different plan tried in Texas or Illinois? Better still, fix one of the state systems with federal assistance and then expand it if/when it works to a greater number of states or an entire region. Prototype and Beta Test!

This is a $Trillion roll of the roulette wheel, and we have to borrow the money to lay the bet down. Why not prototype and beta test? What's the fear? Is there that much trust in politicians who have no experience in developing any service-and-delivery system, who can't understand what's in the written "plan," but are great salespersons?

Many a good con game starts with, "there's not enough time to...." That's the cynic in me, and I don't take out a mortgage and lay down the money on a hope and a prayer. Why should I trust a person/people with no credentials in the health care industry, but really good at spending other people's money for their party's cronies, when they say, "we gotta get it done by August...." when they don't even know or understand what it is?

No time to do it right......but we can always borrow more money to do it over.

And yes, if GM and Chrysler went in liquidation, their circumstance would not be any different. They still have bloated inventories, are still building-to-inventory, and no one is buying the product. There is an inevitability to that situation, and we all know it.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...If this system - HR 3200 - is so good, then what's wrong with trying it first in Massachusetts, or all of New England, or California, with even a different plan tried in Texas or Illinois? Better still, fix one of the state systems with federal assistance and then expand it if/when it works to a greater number of states or an entire region. Prototype and Beta Test!

Too bad you and I aren't in charge, Steve. If I was the benevolent dictator and you were my consigliore--or vice versa--a state-by-state or region-by-region test might be an OK idea. Then you and I could choose where it would be tried out and for how long. But we've got "the 435" involved in this thing, and they'd all want the test to be in their district or their state.

To some extent, whatever reforms are finally agreed to will wind up getting rolled out over an extended period of time. I've read somewhere that whatever changes are agreed to might not take effect until as late as 2015. That would be plenty of time for people to disect the programs and demand changes. Heck, we'll have a presidential election and three Congressional elections before then. I'm looking for some small solace in how long implementation might actually take.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Too bad you and I aren't in charge, Steve. If I was the benevolent dictator and you were my consigliore--or vice versa--a state-by-state or region-by-region test might be an OK idea. Then you and I could choose where it would be tried out and for how long. But we've got "the 435" involved in this thing, and they'd all want the test to be in their district or their state.

To some extent, whatever reforms are finally agreed to will wind up getting rolled out over an extended period of time. I've read somewhere that whatever changes are agreed to might not take effect until as late as 2015. That would be plenty of time for people to disect the programs and demand changes. Heck, we'll have a presidential election and three Congressional elections before then. I'm looking for some small solace in how long implementation might actually take.

Even if NO changes ("reform" indicates a positive) occur in the next ten years, the government agency to manage/oversee/fiddle this action will have been created, funded, contractors hired in lieu of employees to fill offices, write regulations and procedural documents, design a new logo and issue new business cards and signs, make titles, provide political appointee jobs, go on fact-finding missions, establish and staff field offices, and SPEND MONEY on all of the overhead activities to "be ready" to do something. What a waste!

This wouldn't be so idiotic if just half the congressfolk and either the President or Vice President had any credentials, experience and understanding in delivery of consumer services. - any kind of consumer service! It's like a group of short-order cooks deciding federal railroad policies.

We elect representatives (President, Congressfolk. et al) to act as our legislative and administrative agents. When they are not knowledgeable about the subject at hand, their responsibility is to get smart about it before acting. That includes full dissection of the bill in front of them section-by-section, meeting with experts to acquire any mission knowledge, and voting only when fully knowledgeable about the pros and cons. Anything less is poor performance, and any other agent we have who acted poorly would be immediatgely discharged. I would rather have a representative/agent vote "abstain" if the rep didn't understand fully what was before him/her, than vote Yea or Nay out of ignorance. What this action, as many others before it, show is that the representative is not the voter's agent, but rather is the party's agent - save for a few who still believe in the Constitution.

Even if the program is scrapped, the new "health care reform" federal agency shall continue to breathe, be fed, and "be ready" just in case. Both parties will insure that the political appointee slots remain no matter what, and the contractors will continue to fill positions in lieu of.

Fire them all in 2010 (House and 1/3 Senate), and the rest in 2012.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

In all circumstances, the countries mentioned are highly restrictive in their immigration policies, rarely take political asylees (except Sweden) and are geographically small (the largest, Sweden, is equal to California). The health condition of foreign visitors, students, temporary employees, asylees and many others (including border-jumpers) is not checked until they apply (if ever) for green-card "permanent resident" status. Their "pre-existing conditions" impact all health statistics.

We also have the worst diet and sedentary lifestyle, and high intentional infant mortality. You can't legislate what folk eat or make them exercise

the other 13 "developed countries" have high tariffs and other trade-protective mechanism to protect their economies and have positive balance-of-payments ratios. That affects all economic ratios, includeing health care to everything else.

WHO only compared medical-to-medical costs and did not factor other economic conditions. We can solve half the uninsured problem by resolving the illegal immigration factor.

The largest uninsured group in emergency rooms are illegal aliens. The citizenry issue is one thing - the "everybody here, legal or not" is another.

The USA is also has the greatest ethnic "melting pot.' The disability factor includes wounded veterans and those with genetic conditions. The former have protected just about everyone else, and the latter is due to our propensity to accept more of the world's desperate.

"Fairness in funding" is highly subjective.

Again, let's compare sizes. Florida residents may be very content with their coverage, while residents of Nevada may not. That would be the equivalent of Germans and Greeks in a European study. We seem to keep forgetting the USA is geographically as large as all of Europe (excluding Russia).
--------------------------------
When government keeps imposing higher overhead upon US employers, making them less competitive than the foreign goods/services providers who receive "most favored nation" trading status despite having nationalized, socialist-run industries, something has to give to keep the business doors open so they can keep employees. In this, we are our worst enemy.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Then let me try to clarify:

The Founding Fathers were sharp dudes. They envisioned a federal government whose responsibility was to be the collective for defense of the member states, provide a unified voice when dealing with outsiders, and provide those inter-connective services (e.g., waterways, postal service, etc.) that were truly interstate in nature. They ALL warned about the dangers of too strong a federal presence, as that's what they revolted from. The goal was to let the states be the states, except for those limited and necessary items which crossed state lines.

This paragraph should be the route thought of the bulk of our political debate, but, the political parties have high jacked the hearts and minds of the American public to the extent that too many people look towards government as the answer to all problems in our lives.

I know many here might be tired of me saying "Free To Choose", but the late Milton Friedman in his book and documentary series of the same name, point out the same things that SteveZ is saying in this paragraph. The Nobel Prize winning economist, Mr Friedman, has a way of cutting away the layers of an issue, to expose the simple facts of Government involvement in our lives. He explains how our Government, though well intended, creates a mess with it's laws and regulations. You'll better understand where I'm coming from in my posts after watching Friedmans inciting series.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Even if NO changes ("reform" indicates a positive) occur in the next ten years, the government agency to manage/oversee/fiddle this action will have been created, funded, contractors hired in lieu of employees to fill offices, write regulations and procedural documents, design a new logo and issue new business cards and signs, make titles, provide political appointee jobs, go on fact-finding missions, establish and staff field offices, and SPEND MONEY on all of the overhead activities to "be ready" to do something. What a waste!

This wouldn't be so idiotic if just half the congressfolk and either the President or Vice President had any credentials, experience and understanding in delivery of consumer services. - any kind of consumer service! It's like a group of short-order cooks deciding federal railroad policies.

We elect representatives (President, Congressfolk. et al) to act as our legislative and administrative agents. When they are not knowledgeable about the subject at hand, their responsibility is to get smart about it before acting. That includes full dissection of the bill in front of them section-by-section, meeting with experts to acquire any mission knowledge, and voting only when fully knowledgeable about the pros and cons. Anything less is poor performance, and any other agent we have who acted poorly would be immediatgely discharged. I would rather have a representative/agent vote "abstain" if the rep didn't understand fully what was before him/her, than vote Yea or Nay out of ignorance. What this action, as many others before it, show is that the representative is not the voter's agent, but rather is the party's agent - save for a few who still believe in the Constitution.

Even if the program is scrapped, the new "health care reform" federal agency shall continue to breathe, be fed, and "be ready" just in case. Both parties will insure that the political appointee slots remain no matter what, and the contractors will continue to fill positions in lieu of.

Fire them all in 2010 (House and 1/3 Senate), and the rest in 2012.

Here, Here!!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

[*]Some sort of single payment system the could be designed and regulated by the government. I don't mean a system where the government makes the payments. Rather, I mean the establishment of a system or procedure with the objective of simplifying and standardizing the claim payment process, thereby reducing the overhead costs of healthcare insurance.[/LIST]

The problem I have with this part is look how the IRS system has been "simplified and standardized" and what a mess it is. I really don't see how they could handle the healthcare system any better based on their track record there.

Say what we will about not liking more government involvement in the healthcare system, the conundrum remains...

HOW DO WE STOP THE SKYROCKETING COST OF HEALTHCARE IN THE U.S.? IT IS UNAFFORDABLE AS IT IS AND THE RESULT IS THAT MORE AND MORE CITIZENS ARE FINDING THEMSELVES WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE. THAT INCREASES THE COST FOR THE REMAINING PEOPLE WHO HAVE INSURANCE AS WELL AS THE OVERALL COST.

IF NOT THE GOVERNMENT, SOMEONE PRESENT A RATIONAL SUGGESTION OF WHO CAN AND WILL TAKE THE ACTIONS TO ACCOMPLISH THE COST REDUCTIONS?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashbt.htm