I like to read liberal blogs and magazines.  I like to know what the other side is doing.  One of my favorite is Slate.

Slate is kind of neat because sometimes, they serve just as good critics (their legal person, though, is a jerk and they hired Eliot Spitzer, as if anyone wants to hear from that guy).   Here’s an example:

http://www.slate.com/id/2218102/

A big argument put forth for national insurance is that it will somehow save money.  Apparently, according to Obama, $2 trillion.  But how?  No one really knows.  As this article points out, its not obvious there are such savings to be had.

The fact of the matter is that healthcare is expensive because it consists of  large hospitals with highly educated people administering the best technology (machines and pills).  That’s where the large amount of expenditures go.  “Controlling costs” means cutting some of those things, which is paramount to recieving less healthcare–people who have paid for healthcare and are accustomed to it are not keen on that idea.

Anyone who wants universal healthcare ought to be upfront about the cost.  When people have insurance, they use more health care (the government, health insurers and our mothers have not been able to make Americans make the lifestyle choices that we so desperately need to make, so I doubt Obama can, although…). 

Universal healthcare will cost a large amount of money–more than just soak the top 5% of taxpayers amount of money.  As in, Social Security payroll tax amount of money.  Beyond saving a few billion dollars on “paperwork” there is no reason to believe that “universal care” or “public option” or the gobbly-gook referenced in the Slate article alters the old adage that there is no free lunch.