>>My point about Viagra is that it is presently funded both in private insurance (regulated by the states) and through direct state plans, cutting spending like that does not result in death. Thus spending cuts are not equal to death.

It's been said that 1% of the population consumes 30% of the healthcare spend and that 50% of Medicare spending is on people who die within 2 months. Viagra may be easy but it's not the elephant in the room if you want to reduce costs. And this particular elephant has plenty of votes as well as including many voters' grandmas. It's almost reached the point where it's politically easier to let it collapse so that politicians can ride to the rescue with a severely downsized scheme. Shame.

>>Not just whether we want to fund it but how. Piggybacking on your point in another thread about the Super, I'd like to have a 401k type of account for health expenses. A pre-tax, matched by employer, privately managed investment account which can be accessed for health care expenses. Presently we have a very limited "flex" account for minor expenses, but if we expanded it, people could modify their coverage through time depending on their savings. I could also envision insurance rates dropping based upon account balances effectively leveraging my account to coverage. Plus, the account would be private property which I could pass on to my family.

LOL, your last sentence saved you from being labeled a Socialist. ;-) The key element is to preserve the fund from politicians and privateers. If its an insurance scheme then the premiums are not returned or inherited. Then the fund can grow and grow for mutual benefit. With its huge population and current capital starvation for many businesses, the US could enjoy bumper returns and a booming economy that is not delivered by the capital distribution in the status quo. Where is the victim?