For now, anyway, the fight over whether or not to extend government health care to those already covered under health insurance is done.  For all the angst over the cost of health care, Washington really doesn't have a clue that THEY are the ones forcing costs through the roof. 

Thanks to Medicare's inflationary side-effects, instead of spending less out-of-pocket for health care, the elderly will spend approximately 29% of their income on health care by 2025, compared to spending approximately 19% in 1965, the year Medicare was passed.  The prescription drug benefit to Medicaid raises prescription prices 7 to 10 %. 

And of course, my favorite whipping boy, third-party payer insurance.  All sorts of regulatory loopholes and government manipulations were used to make third-party payer insurance favored over the traditional indemnity plans.  Then throw in the HMO Act of 1973, which forced employers to offer insurance if they had over 25 employees, which therefore was offered in lieu of higher wages, and with more people using third-party insurance, out-of-pocket costs soared from from $119 per capita in 1970 to $840 per capita in 2005. 

The best solution would be for traditional indemnity insurance to be on the same regulatory playing field as third-party payer insurance, and to have some sort of supplemental catastrophic insurance for major health crises.  Since that won't happen, some are suggesting that you be allowed to shop across state borders for health insurance instead of being restricted to buying health insurance in-state.  That form of competition would definitely help.  While the left condemns them, I think HSAs would play a significant part in reducing costs also.

We'll see what happens.

More good analysis on SCHIP here, here, and the follies of using cigarette taxes for health care here.