Why act now? Well, let's turn to some real reporting from the NYTimes and David Leonhardt:

The United States now devotes one-sixth of its economy to medicine. Divvy that up, and health care will cost the typical household roughly $15,000 this year, including the often-invisible contributions by employers. That is almost twice as much as two decades ago (adjusting for inflation). It’s about $6,500 more than in other rich countries, on average.

Andrew Hyman and Jarrod Moses do a good job of sticking to the issue, being fair, and not buying into the pseudo-journalist hijinks. Though, I'm not sure why an entertainment mogul like Jarrod Moses is being interviewed about healthcare? Thoughts? Maybe Fox needed someone and he was available? Mayhaps a connection based decision? I don't question his POV and he seems knowledgeable. But why him?

Dr. LaPook: Ultimately, philosophically, do you believe that each individual American should be required to have health insurance?

President Obama: I have come to that conclusion. During the campaign, I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come. I've been persuaded that there are enough young uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down. I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there's a hardship exemption. If somebody truly just can't afford health insurance even with the subsidies that the government is now providing, we don't want to double penalize them. We want to phase this in, in a way that we have time to make sure that coverage is actually affordable before we're saying to people "go out and get it."

Obama goes on to make some very interesting and insightful remarks on providing incentives and the right circumstances for physicians to be able to make better healthcare choices for their patients. Check it out.

Taxing the rich may be popular with many Americans, but some experts warn that a proposed tax on the wealthy to pay for an overhaul of health care could be bad economic medicine.

He substantiates this by mentioning and quoting Joseph Thorndike:

Joseph Thorndike, a historian with the Tax History Project, said broadening the tax base to more Americans — though it may be less politically popular — might be better policy. In part, a broader tax could be less easy to repeal in the future.

"If you ask people to pay something then they have an ownership stake in it," Thorndike said, citing Social Security as an example. "The narrow, soak-the-rich approach is real short-sighted politics."

Thorndike is probably right. Strategically speaking, it's more sound to have everyone contribute.

But you know what, Frank? I say fuck it.

We've taxed the hell out of both the poor and middle class. The rich have had their asses carted around and treated like royalty. Only to have their banks bailed out and car companies salvaged (kinda) by the poo(er) after being mismanaged by the rich. Halliburton overcharges the governement--who get most of their money from the non-rich.

Enron and Maddoff and the like liquidate the retirement accounts of the poor and middle class. Well, really, I guess Maddoff screwed anyone he could, regardless of richness. I retract him.

So, yeah, anyway. What the hell. Let the rich pay for facilitating healthcare change. At least for a couple years.

I'm good with that.

And if/when I'm making that kind of money, I'd be happy to kick down a couple extra grand a year to help and make sure people on the street have access to care.

Are you kidding me? If this was a truly civilized society, this would not even be an issue. As Thorndike says, we'd all pay for it.

A 1 percent to 5.4 percent surtax would be applied to families making more than $350,000 and individuals making more than $280,000. That money would be used to guarantee health coverage to

While these families and individuals can certainly afford these costs, especially when compared to the ratio of costs, the quality of care, and the struggle that someone making $20,000 would face in dealing with the same health problem as their rich counterpart, it is of paramount importance that these funds are used in an efficient and productive manner--and not simply become a bailout for Medicare.
The NYTimes reports:

House Democratic leaders took a big step toward guaranteeing health insurance for most Americans on Tuesday as they introduced a bill that would expand coverage, rein in the growth of Medicare and raise taxes on high-income people. Three House committees announced plans to begin voting on the measure this week.

Starting in 2011, a family making $500,000 would have to pay $1,500 of additional tax to help subsidize coverage for the uninsured. A family making $1 million would have to contribute $9,000.

An employer who does not provide health insurance to workers would generally have to pay a fee or penalty to the government equal to 8 percent of their wages, but there would be exceptions. For example, an employer with a payroll less than $250,000 a year would not have to pay any fee and could obtain tax credits to help defray the cost of coverage for its employees.

The fee or penalty would be equal to 2 percent of wages for a company with a payroll of $250,000 to $300,000; 4 percent of wages for an employer with payroll of $300,000 to $350,000; and 6 percent of wages for businesses with payroll of $350,000 to $400,000.

Visit The NYTimes for the complete story and many more details.

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a
secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years
on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the
agency's director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and
House intelligence committees, two people with direct
knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal
the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the
mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush
administration had put a high priority on the program and its
secrecy.

North Korea fired six ballistic missiles on Saturday, South Korea's defence ministry said, in an act of defiance towards the United States that further stoked regional tensions already high due to its nuclear test in May.