ABC News took a look at the health care industry's pledge to reduce costs over the next 10 years, the better to enact a government takeover of health care.

To their credit, ABC found some people who are less than optimistic about this idea. In particular, it quoted John R. Graham, a contributor to State House Call. Here's the relevant paragraph:

"If the interest groups in any other American industry colluded on a plan to control costs, they'd be charged under the anti-trust laws," Graham said. "The American people should not tolerate health-care interest groups collaborating with the government to form the mother of all cartels, rationing our health care to adhere to a federal budget."

It also cited Greg Scandlen, another SHC contributor:

This is Big Government teaming up with Big Labor, Big Hospitals, Big Insurers, and Big Medicine to divvy up the health care pie between them," he said. "All of these interest groups have proven to be ineffective at delivering value to the American people. ... Every penny they spend comes from us, the American people, and is supposed to be used for our benefit."

It also quoted Judy Feder, a fan of the proposal:

But she noted that she suspects some of the stakeholders will be resistant to change.

"They may be dug into positions in which they are not willing to accept change," she said.

Not willing to accept change? I've got two responses. One is "hell no!, if by change we're talking about instituting the slow and painful death of private insurance and consumer choice." The most significant opposition is not from drug companies or insurance companies or hospitals--many of them will find a way to coexist with government. The most significant opposition should come from individual consumer and patients, who don't want to see their health care options turned over to the equivalent of the IRS or DMV.

But the other response I have is that that that "not willing to accept change" is a red herring. Of course we need change. Few people dispute that. But the change we need is not what largely absent from the political landscape today--doctors working for patients rather than insurance companies or government boards, tax laws that treat the HR bureaucrat and the person who wants to buy insurance on his own equally, and the ability of consumers to buy what they want, when they want it.