Even if Canada, one country, has half of the admin costs that the US private sector does, what does it matter? Is their health care system better? Is there universal health care system the same as ours will be? If the plan is so good then why is it being jammed through congress with such amazing speed (relative to EVERYTHING else they do) instead of standing on its own merits?
The WHOLE POINT is that there are better ways to approach the problem, which will not lead to another financial black hole program for the federal government. '
Keep in mind that the government can only exist as a parasite to the private sector, they get paid with our tax money. They have better benefits, garaunteed pensions, shorter careers, and NO responsiblity. They can operate at a loss and it is excepted because of the nature of the government.
That is not to say that I am against all programs, but there has to be confines for the govt, when the economy contracts, they should get bigger? One of the biggest contradictions that exists in left wing politics is that they are supposed to be champions of freedom/individual rights, but they are all in support of forcing people onto their programs. Yet when Bush invades Iraq, it is a ploy for oil and we are stealing from them, forcing them to live like us, Imperial power etc. So what is the standard that you guys abide by?
Please refer to Sections 8 and 9, Article 1 of the Constitution, and point out where there is enough latitude to support the current universal health care proposal, also note that the word welfare did not carry the same meaning when the Constitution was written, as it does in modern times. I am no Constitutional lawyer, but it seems unconstitutional to me to force citizens onto a federal program.
