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.

"Folks, it's coming [...] healthcare reform that is deficit neutral."

Fantastic. But how about healthcare reform that works? How about healthcare reform that places health first foremost, and not Big Pharma profits?

Because that would be deficit positive.

In meeting with several Republican governors today (that weren't on leave in Argentina) to discuss the national healthcare system.

He sent a message to the AMA by stating that patients would be able to choose their doctors under his system.

Via the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says Americans will still be able to choose their doctors under the health care changes he is seeking.

From Achieving Health Care Reform — How Physicians Can Help (Fisher ES, Berwick DM, Davis K.)

Two threats in particular put reform at risk: conflicting doctrines (regarding the creation of a new public insurance option and government support for comparative-effectiveness studies) and opposition to change among some current stakeholders. In the face of this uncertainty, physicians have a choice: to wait and see what happens or to lead the change our country needs. We'd prefer the latter.

Physicians should first help to create a shared vision that could overcome doctrinal divides — and bring providers together to create a system better aligned both with public needs and with providers' fundamental interests and values. The starting point is to recognize, as most physicians do, that improving a complex health care system requires action on multiple fronts. In its landmark report Crossing the Quality Chasm, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) described a "chain of effect" that links systems at four different levels as the interrelated determinants of health care quality that must be aligned for reform to yield the desired results.

The first level is aims. For health care reform, we propose that physicians, through their advocacy, help lead the country to embrace the so-called triple aim: better experience of care (safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable), better health for the population, and lower total per capita costs.¹

A Win–Win Approach to Financing Health Care Reform (Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D.)

There are a number of possible sources. One is reductions in existing government spending on health care through cost controls. President Barack Obama proposed more than $300 billion of such cost controls in his budget, but it is not clear that either politicians or providers have the appetite to go further. Another is increased taxation of "sin goods" — cigarettes, alcohol, and high-sugar or high-fat foods that cause obesity — whose use raises the cost of health care for all Americans. These taxes make sense, yet it is difficult to raise sufficient revenues from them. The government can also look outside the health care system to increased revenues from taxes on carbon emissions or on other goods and services. But this approach would involve expanding the fight over health care into other realms, compounding the difficulty of passing any legislation.

There is one final potential source: the elimination or limiting of the income-tax exclusion for expenditures on employer-sponsored insurance. Ending the massive tax subsidy for such insurance would result in both the most natural source of financing for health care reform and one of the few that is clearly large enough to finance the necessary subsidies.

"To say it as plainly as I can, health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America's long-term fiscal health. That is a fact," Obama said.

"In order to do that we are going to need the help of the AMA."

Obama should also involve nurses and all Primary Care Practitioners, such as chiropractors and acupuncturists.

Many people in the healthcare industry want reform. They are tired of watching patients not receive the help they need due to decisions made by insurance companies. Of course, this includes doctors, too. If a single payer system allowed doctors to maintain their level of income and provide better treatment decisions, they would be fully on-board.

However, doctor's are very wary of greater government involvement in healthcare. This is primarily due to the fact that Medicare is an absolute mess of a system that is plagued by fraud and never properly reimburses practitioners. So, the idea of extending Medicare to provide universal coverage is a faulted strategy.

That said, reform is required immediately. Healthcare costs have been out of control for years, primarily due to corporate orchestrations that patients aren't aware of and that doctors typically lack the time and resources to protest. In short, its a complicated, flawed system.

Yet other countries do healthcare better. As a leading civilized nation, it is inexcusable that we don't provide better care to our own people. The main reason other countries provide better health services is because they keep the health and well-being of their people as the foremost objective in legislating. The U.S. puts business interests first.

We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.  We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without coverage, or turns its back on those in need.  We're a nation that cares for its citizens.  We look out for one another.  That's what makes us the United States of America.  We need to get this done.

There are two main reasons for this.  The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay.  And a lot of people in this room know what I'm talking about.  It's a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can't spend much time with each, and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it's not necessary.  It's a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession -- a calling -- to a business.

That's not why you became doctors.  That's not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R.  That's not what brings you back to a patient's bedside to check in, or makes you call a loved one of a patient to say it will be fine.  You didn't enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers.  You entered this profession to be healers.  And that's what our health care system should let you be.  That's what this health care system should let you be.

Now, that starts with reforming the way we compensate our providers -- doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren't paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead paid well for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up, because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes, so we're not promoting just more treatment, but better care.

Our current system is simply not right. It is broken. It is based on business and politics and not about what is right for the people.

The answers are out there. Hello Health is a perfect example of what happens when technology and patient-first solutions are put into play.

We just need more people with the motivation and willingness to understand the benefits found when you take better care of yourself -- and others. We need a single payer system based on a James E. Burke approach.

According to a Fortune article, Burke's "defining moment" actually came six years earlier when he challenged his fellow executives to either recommit to the company credo or "tear it off the wall."

Penned by J&J scion and legendary chairman General Robert Wood Johnson II in the 1940s, the credo proclaimed that J&J's "first responsibility" was to its customers and then to employees, management, communities, and stockholders-in that order.

By the mid-1970s, however, Burke was troubled by a sense that the credo had lost its influence in the organization. "When I asked people what they thought of it, I got vague answers," he says. But during a series of "challenge" meetings he arranged, executives debated the credo in the context of the company's history and mission. "It became clear that our value system had been vital to our ability to outperform the competition for nearly one hundred years," Burke recalls. "Whenever we cared for the customer in a profound-and spiritual-way, profits were never a problem."

We need people like Burke leading the charge for the nationalization of healthcare. People will get better care. And don't worry, since because are sadly always ill, there will be profits made. Just not by the same corporations, perhaps.

Can you imagine what this world would be like if we invested all the profits from healthcare back INTO healthcare? That is most assuredly not happening right now.