President Obama doesn't get it. It wasn't the manner in which he sold his health care plan, as he suggested in the state of the union speech, but the health care plan itself that alienated the American people. This morning, he advanced a new health-care plan that retains so much of what was offensive about the old House and Senate bills. Here are a few observations. Price controls are a sure-fire way to create shortages. Capping prices on specific medical procedures will make those procedures unprofitable. It will de-incentivize the reason for providing those procedures. Shortages, and a black-market, will ensue. Giving 31 million people insurance who currently don't have insurance will cause tax rates and the deficit to skyrocket. Raising taxes on pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and plans will inflate the cost of health care even further. By mandating health insurance, the president creates an artificial demand for a product which will necessarily cause the cost of that product to baloon because of the laws of supply and demand, which, unlike Obama's proposed health-care law, aren't up for a vote.

Oh, he gets it. He just doesn't give a fat rat's patute. And for good measure, the 'new' bill he's going to jam through has additional $200 billion of goodies on top of the original costs that we will be taxed to pay for immediately after the bill is signed but will not render service until sometime around 2014.

So do the Republicans attend his bi-partisan media dog and pony to 'discuss' healthcare? No. Why bother!

It's all going according to plan, isn't it?

President Obama doesn't get it. It wasn't the manner in which he sold his health care plan, as he suggested in the state of the union speech, but the health care plan itself that alienated the American people.

This is refuted by demonstrable, ie, empirical evidence. 50%-60% support a public option.

Price controls are a sure-fire way to create shortages. Capping prices on specific medical procedures will make those procedures unprofitable. It will de-incentivize the reason for providing those procedures. Shortages, and a black-market, will ensue.

What evidence are you using to justify this induction?

Giving 31 million people insurance who currently don't have insurance will cause tax rates and the deficit to skyrocket. Raising taxes on pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and plans will inflate the cost of health care even further.

The costs of "care" in the American Illness Treatment Industry dwarfs the costs of health care in all other industrial countries.

By mandating health insurance, the president creates an artificial demand for a product which will necessarily cause the cost of that product to baloon because of the laws of supply and demand, which, unlike Obama's proposed health-care law, aren't up for a vote.

Refer to my last sentence based on irrefutable evidence.

As an aside, we have more than enough in the public coffers to provide for the subsistence needs of every precious human being in America. For example, by reducing the military budget by $200 billion a year (as a further aside we could reduce military industrial welfare by 300 billion and still devote an additional 100 billion to troop pay increases) $150 billion per year could be devoted to health care and we'd still reduce the deficit by $50 billion. It's a matter of public will; we are not restrained by costs. Even if we reduced the military budget to $500b/year as opposed to $700b/year we'd STILL outspend every other country on the planet and maintain military superiority.

More irrefutable facts:

* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.

* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.

* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.

* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.

* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.

* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

*In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.

I will let a medical expert give me my facts instead of a faux-economist/blogger. How "elite" of me. So I will hand it over to Marcia Angell, M.D. senior lecturer at the Harvard Medical School and former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine.

"There's a fundamental illogic to trying to contain costs in a market-based system. Markets are about expanding, not contracting. Like all businesses, hospitals want more, not fewer customers -- but only as long as they can pay. Conventional wisdom holds that we need to retain this system because many Americans are satisfied with it. But except for industry spokespeople and politicians whose campaigns they support, I've never met anyone who actually is."

"...The only workable solution is a single-payer system (there, I said it), in which everyone is provided with whatever care he or she needs regardless of age and medical condition. There would no longer be a private insurance industry, which adds little of value yet skims a substantial fraction of the health-care dollar right off the top. Employers, too, would no longer be involved in health care. Care would be provided in nonprofit facilities. The most progressive way to fund such a system would be through an earmarked income tax, which would be more than offset by eliminating premiums and out-of-pocket expenses."

Ah but you conservatives geniuses seem to love health care! You know so much more than those elites who work in health care. How fitting that the heroes of your cause -- like Glen Beck -- proudly advertise their lack of education as they rave like morons. Does Glen Beck know where he gets his library books? OOHHH.... It's the gg..gg...government! Scared, folks?

You know who really hates America? People as smart as you who sell out so that readers of this blog continue in ignorance. Ah, but my elite knowledge of social psychology tells me you actually believe every word you write. How politically expedient. No, really.

Normally I wouldn't chime in but for the bitter taste in my mouth. Because this issue actually MATTERS. And may you understand that one day, sir. You watch and see if Karma doesn't come and kick you in the butt. I hope it doesn't, only that you study your issue more instead of acting like you just took ECON 101. Witness: Dan knows about supply and demand!

So do you ever blog about solutions, or do you just stick to the negativism, fear mongering and self-righteous blather that defines your brand. Oh, you didn't know that was your brand?

Wow, I just got negative. It feels terrible. I guess you're going to have to feel that way for seven more years. Pity. Fortunately, integrity and reason will prevail over the medieval minds that you keep company with.

Join the cause, Dan. And I will say that in the name of Jesus Christ, sir, if that befits you. Because it is the TRUTH. Can you say that about everything you write?

Health care is a moral cause. But I get it, you don't want to help. But can you do us a favor? Pretty please? If you're not going to help, can you at least not get in our way as we go and fix the problem?

Thanks.

God protect us from "solutions." I like my healthcare. It is not perfect, but I am confident it suits my needs far, far better than a government-run program. I want to pay for and enjoy the benefits of healthcare. The single-payer concept would take mine from me and force me to pay the doctor bills of others. Personal responsibility, liberty, and superior healthcare must be products of medieval minds.

Webster wrote,

I like my healthcare. It is not perfect, but I am confident it suits my needs far, far better than a government-run program.

What are your needs? Do you require extremely expensive care necessary to sustain your life? Or are you one of the fortunate who hasn't needed to incur crushing debt for survival. Again, as an aside the top cause of bankruptcies is medical bankruptcies.

The single-payer concept would take mine from me and force me to pay the doctor bills of others.

More pathetic ethical egoist conservative argumentation in an attempt to justify selfishness. "Take mine from me and force me...", you sound like a spoiled brat who never learned to share his toys.

Sharing is a charitable concept, not one enforced by the authority of government. I am happy to give to charity and I do so. I only wish I were not so burdened with taxes so that I might give more. That is sharing.

What I do not have is the arrogance required to demand that my fellow citizens give over their hard earned worth to the government. Liberty is absent in such a scheme. Sharing is charitable, unforced, and voluntary. Government is no substitute for it, though it pretends to be.

You're not thinking very deeply about this. Charity has never been enough to provide for the subsistence needs of every human being. As an example, the world produced enough food in 2006 to feed 11 billion people. At that time, the world population was approximately 7 billion, yet ever 3.6 seconds a human being starved to death. What is your solution for providing for the subsistence needs of every human being when charity fails to do so?

Charity will never solve all problems, but neither will anything else. The all-powerful government that is required to solve all problems is a bigger problem than those it "solves." Our government's parameters and goals are outlined in the Constitution. If it simply stuck to that I believe we would do best.

Other countries need to do likewise to best care for themselves. Feeding the starving in countries with repressive regimes has proven impossible for us.