Any experienced investor knows that these are not normal times. But they could become truly historic times, if the United States is able to pass universal health care legislation in the the weeks ahead.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has crafted a health care bill that would cut the U.S. budget deficit by about $130 billion over 10 years, while extending coverage to up to 94% of Americans, The Associated Press reported Thursday. The bill's estimate cost is $848 billion.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada and Senate Majority Leader, is weighing increasing the Medicare payroll tax by 0.4 to 0.5 percentage point, as a way to help fund universal health care, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday (subscription required.)

The current employee share of the Medicare tax is 1.45%. Reid's proposal would apply to only those earning more than $250,000 per year, which would conform to President Obama's campaign promise to not raise taxes on individuals earning under $250,000 per year, CNN.com reported Thursday.

While the debate over health care reform rages on, hospital operator Tenet Healthcare Corp. (NYSE: THC) said Tuesday it swung to a loss in the third quarter, one day after health insurer Humana Inc. (NYSE: HUM) posted a 65% jump in its third-quarter profit.

Tenet said it lost $3 million, or a penny per share. That compares with a profit of $104 million, or 22 cents per share, a year earlier. But, Tenet reported a one-time gain of $140 million a year ago after selling investments.

The health care reform debate continues, and really, given the horse-trading and logrolling that's likely to occur in the upcoming conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions of each chamber's health care reform bill, assuming each chamber approves them, to cite a phrase used by political science professor Larry Sabato, the party's just begun.

A bit jaded by it all? Don't be -- it's just the political process at work, and here's one, major positive to take out of the health care reform bill's passage: a new policy that will finally end the 'tax' that U.S. citizens and businesses pay for uninsured Americans who obtain health care services.

This 'hidden health care tax' increases at the rate of $1,354 per second or $116.98 million per day. As of Friday, the American people have been charged $33.37 billion this year to pay for health care for the uninsured: that's the bill that hospitals pass on to those who have insurance.

President Obama started an intense debate in recent months about national health care. People are concerned about how to pay for the high cost of health care in America and feel it is just too expensive. There has to be a better way!

I like oranges and I grew up in Wisconsin, but in January oranges do not grow very well in Wisconsin. I don't know why -- I am not a horticulturalist -- but maybe it's the lack of sunlight, hard frozen tundra, blowing snow or temperatures of 25 below zero. We could spend a long time pointlessly debating the actual reason.

I'm reiterating my Buy rating for Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (NYSE: PHG), commonly known as Philips, first recommended on June 2, 2009 at a price of $20.30. If you purchased PHG then, you're up about 20%.

Amsterdam-based Philips missed the Street's revenue and earnings estimates in Q2, in what amounted to an essentially break-even quarter.

As a Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) shareholder, I was quite unnerved by recent talk centering on the issue of a soda tax. I'm sure PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP) shareholders were likewise frightened. According to Bloomberg, President Barack Obama is apparently open to the concept. In theory, funds generated from such a tax could be used to help defray the costs associated with a new health-care paradigm.

Besides raising money, what would be the justification behind such a governmental strategy? Well, excess sugar consumption can be dangerous. It can lead to all kinds of complications. You know the drill: obesity, diabetes, etc. When health issues like those rise, the cost of health care increases as well.

"Capital," Maxwell Emery (Hume Cronyn) said in the finance film Rollover (1981), "has a life of its own."

The market absolutists and conservatives who oppose health care reform are going to find out just how much havoc that capital force can generate in the years ahead, as it relates to health care costs.

Here's a brain teaser for investors: What enabled the United States to ascend to superpower status?

Was it the inherent genetic superiority of Americans? Perhaps it was the nation's work ethic? Was it the vast and ample nature resources, or generally favorably climate? Or perhaps is was the nation's location, bordered by two, large oceans that discouraged many who had thoughts of launching an assault?

Well, while ruling out the first variable (there are a lot of smart people in the states, but no, Americans aren't genetically superior to others), the remaining variables played a role in the nation's ascendancy. But there was another pivotal factor.

The dealmaking continues apace in the drug sector. Today, Warner Chilcott plc (NASDAQ: WCRX) agreed to shell out $3.1 billion for the global pharma business of Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG). The deal is all-cash.

There are several megatrends driving the pharma deals. First, it's getting tougher to produce new drugs. And unfortunately, many pharma companies are running out on the patent protection of key money-makers. At the same time, President Obama is intent on getting some type of reform in health care.

One of the complaints we often hear is that the private insurance companies are gouging customers, second guessing doctors, and cutting corners at every turn to increase profit margins. A great deal of this is true and I would not debate that this dilutes the quality of health care in the United States.

Is the corollary that the government intends to run a health care program that does not make a profit?

That is a very probable outcome. If that is the case then how is it possible that the government will be able to fund something that is a money loser from the get go?

One economic point brought to the forefront in the universal health care debate is something economists have talked about for decades, but one that only recently Americans are beginning to understand fully.

Namely, efficiency in health care is a good thing, but if it's applied to private health insurance company business models -- i.e. insuring only healthy people or the healthiest citizens -- the logical consequence of it is, obviously, a larger and larger pool of excluded, less-healthy citizens and/or people who need more care and whose health care costs are higher.

One benefit of universal health care that has been overlooked? A better match between employee and position, and enhanced job mobility.

Right now, millions of professional and blue collar employees are remaining in current jobs, not because it's their preference, but because of their health care plan. In some cases, it's health care for a spouse or dependent: the employee knows that a job shift with a health plan shift could jeopardize coverage or benefits, hence they stay put.

Ever wonder why it's so hard for the United States to pass public policies -- particularly economic ones -- and relatively easy for European nations to do so? Well, part of it is our constitutional system -- which separates power -- as opposed to Europe's parliamentarian system, which concentrates or fuses power.

Part of it also is the United States' anti-state political culture: Americans generally want and expect economic issues and problems to be resolved in the private realm, not the public realm. In the United States, it is always: private sector first, public sector second.

Could a tax on health care premiums, applied to both businesses and individuals, slow the increase in health insurance premiums?

It seems implausible, but indeed it could. Here's why: