Here are some things wrong with OBAMACARE:

1) If it's so wonderful, as the D's claim, why aren't they and their families covered by the new plan? HUH? That's right, under every plan currently on the table, none of them apply to members if the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the federal government or their families. If it is not good enough for them, then it should not be good enough for their bosses, i.s. US! Me and my family should have the same exact access to premium medical care as to the elected officials who work for me.

2) One of the biggest drivers of health care cost increases over the past 30 years are lawsuits. Greedy trial lawyers have gotten filthy rich off the system. That's why they've given hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats so that Congress will not ever tinker with personal injury attorney's gravy train. There is not a SINGLE provision in the current Reid bill that will stop or prevent lawsuit abuse. NOT ONE WORD! And where are the Republicans on this? Not one single peep from them about the huge cost of lawsuit abuse

3) This abomination (OBAMACARE) makes it easier for unions to take over hospitals and health care facilities. More unions = more cost (much more cost actually) = poorer service and less freedom for American worker. Unions will use the additional revenue to buy more Democrats so they can gain even greater control over the American worker.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. This entire mess can be cleared up by one simple act. Put the U.S. consumer back in charge of his/her health-care purchasing decisions. Here's an example: Suppose you wreck your car and you have collision insurance. What do you do? You find a body shop to repair the damage. The body shops all want your business, so even though the insurance company is obligated to pay the claim, you get to choose which body shop does the work. The body shop owners know this, so they are willing to negotiate with you to earn your business. Two things to consider that you consider when making the body shop selection: quality of work and price. Assume all body shops are equal in the quality of their work, then price becomes the deciding factor. The body shop with the lowest price earns your business, because you know from experience that the smaller your claim against your insurance company, the less likely they are to increase your premiums. Everyone wins: the body shop gets your business, the insurance company benefits from your negotiations and YOU win because you are less likely to have a large premium increase.

In medical care, the insurance companies and the medical profession have cobbled together interlocking co-ops called HMO's. How convenient. The buyer and the seller of medical services get to set the price, without competition because you, the consumer, MUST go to one of the doctors and medical facilities in your "plan". No competition, for your business exists and since it's in the doctor's and the medical facility's best interest to get as much money as they can, they do. The insurance company has no incentive to negotiate a lower price for the provider's services because they know that they will just charge you higher premiums to cover whatever they pay out. Who get stuck holding the bag under this scenario? You and me, the policy holder that's who. Higher, and higher premiums are are the result of this monopoly.

The solution, Have the patient pick which ever doctor that they want. Have the patient and the doctor agree on a price for the provider's services and have the insurance company reimburse the policy holder, just like they do with car insurance. Are medical consumers too dumb to make these decisions for themselves? Then fix public education which has also been ruined by liberalism and unions, But that's another topic altogether/

Mr. K I usually agree with you 100%. However, on the issue of Sarah Palin, I find myself diametrically opposed to your view.

Had not Governor Palin been on the ticket, your "most worthy presidential nominee to be denied the prize" would have lost by at least 20% points. Pre-Palin, McCain's crowds were minimal at best, horrible at least. McCain inspired NO ONE. Not the media, not conservatives, not the old or the young, not the hip, not the duds. . NO ONE!!

Contrary to your view, the issue of experience in public affairs should have gone to Palin, hands down. B'HO was a neophyte political back-bencher with no business or administrative experience. NONE!! The reason that she "lost" the experience issue to the Chosen One is that the media took B'HO's position and savagely attacked Governor Palin's resume. This may have been predicted, but at some point a candidate has to believe that the media would provide some semblance honesty and balance.

McCain lost because he's a lousy politician. Democrats mock him and use him as a "useful idiot" while at the same time Republicans hate him because he undercuts conservative ideals to enhance his "maverick" image.  During the financial meltdown, had he returned to Washington and fought tooth-and-toenail again the goofy, ineffective "bailouts" he would have won the election. The American people are smarter than Washington insiders. We knew who was responsible for the financial meltdown: Frannie, Freddie, Clinton, Carter, Frank and all the other liberals who thought that providing then guaranteeing mortgages to people who could not afford them in the name of "fairness" was a keen idea. Anyone who thought that using an unemployment benefit check to qualify for a 30 year loan is an IDIOT. McCain could not articulate the issue (or any other issue for that matter) and as a result got hammered at the polls for supporting the bailout.

Ms. Palin was the only person in the McCain campaign who could actually "talk" to the American people. McCain is a war hero and will always have my deepest appreciation and respect for his valor and service to the country. But, he's was a horrible candidate. The only reasons that he finished as close as he did were: Sarah Palin and the fact that most people were (and still are) troubled by B'HO's dubious past and radical views.

Saying otherwise Mr. Krauthammer is simply untrue.