>>FWIW, IMHO, Glass-Steagall should never have been dismantled. If it hadn't been, we would be in less trouble today.

Agreed. And Goldman Sachs et al could have followed Lehman Brothers to where their market behavior led, without risking the savings of hard-working American citizens unless mummy state intervened.

>>This is where we have to disagree. A much better way to bring medical costs down is giving people the ability to buy insurance across state lines and tort reform.

Insurance can't charge less than it costs which is why behind the scenes, ACA is packed with measures to improve efficiency. I don't think it's even possible to back some of those out now.

As for tort reform: you may get your wish. Tort reform already was part of Paul Ryan's/House Republicans' "Better Way" pre-election policies, in which they say failure to get on with tort reform costs $300B annually. From source: "The nation’s medical liability system is broken, and it has imperiled patient access and imposed tremendous costs on our nation. The current system has forced doctors out of practicing in certain specialties; it has caused trauma centers to close; and it has forced pregnant women to drive hours to find an obstetrician." All arguably true. At one stage in rural Texas, obstetric access was down to third world levels because of lawyers' open season on obstetricians. The same lawyers fought reform tooth and nail even after it was shown to bring the doctors back. They're still fighting it, wishing for the good old days when 1 in 3 obstetricians had a law suit against them at any given time.

What about cost, though? Latest figures available to me as of October 2016 are that real life state tort reform in the US has reduced healthcare premiums by 2.6% and employer costs by 3.5%. That's about $15B saving extrapolated across the US. It's not $300B but it could underwrite the cost of Airforce 1 for the rest of the century. ;-)