@Cycloptichorn,
You can ask for "substantion" for these and other facts, well known to others, all day without motivating them to respond. You choose to hide behind ignorance, whether real or feigned, as a rhetorical device, and apparently it suits you.
Not everything "citable" on the internet is true.
Many of the objections you raised were to logical inferences that required only a little bit of critical thinking.
For example, President Obama has, in many speeches and public comments, referred to the huge savings he will reap from medicare. This started during the campaign and has continued through his term of office (though in the last few weeks he appears to have stopped these references). How will he accomplish this? You say it will be through the application of modern methods to medical practice. How will this be done in Medicare which only sets rates and write checks? Isn't it clear that, absent some fundamental restructuring of the Medicare law itself - one that directly inserts the government in the doctor patient relationship - this cannot be done without arbitrarily reducing payment rates or other denials of service? Interestingly the president has assured his audiences that he will do neither. People aren't stupid, and they are generally pretty good at detecting a con. This is merely one example of the real issues that are driving an increasingly widespread public disaffection with the president and his health care program.
I recognize that the health care industry, like many others, is very complex. "Reforming" it cannot be done in a stroke, and there are many serious contradictions that must be dealt with in any such effort. Perhaps the real lesson here is that the government shouldn't be into "reforming" industry or public economic activity at all. If the 20th century taught us anything on the matter it was (1) that industry and commerce require government regulation to set limits, enforce laws and contracts, and equitably collect taxes; and (2) that attempts at government central planning or management of industry produce only inefficiency, corruption and decay.
The Administration has reacted to the criticism it has earned by demonizing the insurance companies - the very entities that were so forcefully encouraged during the Clinton Administrations. These companies - many non profit - are regulated by the 50 states. This form of regulation does cause regional inequities in rates and sometimes coverage, and it limits competition nationally. All such regulatory structures create coalitions of regulators and regulated that find ways of benefitting from the existing structure - whatever it may be. This limits competition and the portability of coverage as people move from job to job and place to place. Here is an area for some enlightened reform that might produce some benefit. We allow national competition by auto insurers and (im most states) require proof of coverage if you want to drive. Might this not be a good principle for health care? (It's what Walter brags about so incessantly in Germany.)
