Ok 007 - I will grant you some points - and I have grave doubts about your often quoted 3% overhead costs for any government program but for the sake of argument I will concede this point to you.

Now the problems:

• Read this link where a Breitbart article discloses that the White House wants the power to determine Medicare rates and it seems there whould be no oversight - do not believe the White House will in any way increase the amount of payments - they will cut the payments even further.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99GD8QG2&show_article=1

• Medicare payments are low and often fail to cover the cost of the medical care provided - how do I know (?)- over the past 9 months I have taken on 145 medical practices as clients and they are my source - Medicare is even more problematic than insurance companies in their opinion

• A single payer system with unsupervised White House determination of payments will discourage young people from choosing medicine as a career.

• 17% of our economy (without the 45 million uninsured) is represented in the health care industry which would give the federal government the ability to institute wage and price controls ultimately over 20% of our economy

Its too much power in the hands of too few without oversight.

Its an increased pool of medical needy in an atmosphere where medicine is becoming an increasingly less attractive career.

And finally, a sarcastic argument - I will not support any universal health care plan other than that which Congress reserves for itself.

That the "opposition party" is just that. Not only do Democrats need to understand that this is the Republican role right now (it is not to give Democrats cover through "bipartisanship"), they should have understood that this was their role during the 8 years of President Shrub.

I'd wager that most of us who voted for Democrats voted for change, and change means, well, changing (duh). And since Republicans were in charge for so long, this means not doing things the Uniquely Republican Way. Seems obvious, but Obama and the Democrats just don't seem to get it. Nor do they get that if reform works, voters simply won't care that Republicans didn't sign off on it. So their first focus should be to get it right and forget the Republicans, who are a national embarrassment anyway.

Yeah I'll remember what you said when the Republicans get back in power in 2010 and you start whining how they are not including the Demorats in on any legislation.By the way a MAJORITY of us do not want "Change" that infringes on our personal rights. If you do how about just moving to Canada and leaving us alone.

1. Healthcare reform seems unlikely at this point. Did you guys really think that the Democrats would get behind some radical reform with teeth, when the healthcare/insurance industry makes up one of their biggest financial contributors? Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? I think its all a circus to make it seem like they're trying to do something, and in the end place all of the blame on the Republicans for being "obstructionist" when they had no real intention of instituting reform in the first place. And its a pretty good strategy too ... I'm pretty sure that most of you criticizing the Democrats on this thread will still vote for and campaign for Obama in 2012 even if healthcare reform crashes and burns.

2. Concerning Defense ... check out the link in my sig. Obama tried to cut $6 million from the defense budget, it was a project to protect buses from terrorists that he identified as wasteful/useless. $6 million. Thats nothing, its a drop in the bucket. But it was blocked and failed thanks to the Democrats. To give you an idea of how things are in the Senate: Franken voted against Obama/cutting this tiny program, John McCain voted for it. Now, if the Democrats can't unite to cut $6 million, then how in the hell do you expect them to cut 1 trillion or more to allow for healthcare reform? This is not the fault of Republicans. Keep in mind that the most radical proposal to cut defense spending came from a Republican (Ron Paul).

I lean right of Conason generally but fully agree with him on this one, our health care system is a train wreck in need of an overhaul. I'm not sure tax and spend is the way to go though, our system is rotten from the ground up and needs stronger regulation to root out corrption from the bottom to top, everyone milks health care: from patients making fraudulent claims, to insurance companies, lawyers, big pharma, and medical practioners charging outrageous fees. The health care system is a reflection of the endemic corruption and greed in our society regardless of political affiliation or ethnicity. Oh the tangled web we weave whether we are strung out on over-prescribed prescription drugs or otherwise.

You don't have to concede any points for the sake of argument. The data is out there. Social Security, for instance, takes significantly less than 3% to administer (http://www.ssa.gov/history/orals/ShirleyChater.html).

As for regulating 20% of our economy, here's the deal: The motivation to reform health care is that it costs way too much; the costs are killing us (figuratively, but literally for some). It's pointless to reform if said reform does not cut costs. And right now these costs are benefiting that 20% of the economy. For the sake of the remaining 80% we must cut the costs. There's no way around this.

We're not blazing new trails here. Others have already done this, either with single-payer or some hybrid approach. These countries are paying less than half per-person and covering everyone. Yet they seem to have no difficulties convincing people to become doctors. And our own overbloated health care system itself is having trouble convincing people to become primary care doctors. Those are what we need most to cut costs.

And interesting that you mention young people becoming doctors, because part of the problem (and it isn't being addressed that I can see) is that young folks who go through medical school wind up owing vast sums in student loans, which tremendously benefits our financial sector, but is simply bad policy. This too needs to change.

The one thing that you do say that is right is the need for proper oversight. By a body that is independent of the industry. Right now Congress is not; so we need yet more reform!