Wow, I, too, am impressed by how calm and reasonable a political discussion has been! Great job, guys!
I have to say that I agree with Roger almost straight down the line. He's written, far more eloquently than I could, just about exactly what I'd write, in terms of health care, government bureaucracy never makes for better, cheaper service, etc.
In general, I think we have this idea that people are "entitled" to health care, which has just never really been the case in history. That's not to say that I believe we should just let sick people who don't have the money for health care die, but we do have to keep in mind that doctors and medicine are *expensive*, and that money has to come from somewhere. Doctors have some of the most intense and lengthy training of any profession, and medicines take many, many, many years to develop, test (think of Thalidomide) and make sure they're safe, and then market. We can't expect everything to be free, there's always a hidden cost. And when the costs are hidden, it's more likely that things won't be done the cheapest or most efficient way, because what's the incentive to improve?
I think it was Paul who seems to be saying that things like shelter, food, clothing, education, and health care are rights. I disagree. If I do nothing my entire life, contribute to the community in no way, make no effort to earn anything at all, why should these things be taken away from other people and given to me? I'm breaking that down to the most extreme example, I know, but just to point out that we don't "deserve" all of these things ourselves... we work to earn them. That's what this country is supposed to be about. We have the right to life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness, not having happiness delivered to our doorstep. Now, I was speaking of what *I* deserve. But, on the other hand, as a compassionate individual who has the basic things she needs, my responsibility is to share, to show compassion for those who need help getting food, shelter, health care, etc. I personally think it's a mistake for the government to be involved, I think that we should donate voluntarily to charities who would provide help, rather than government bureaucracy, but since the government already does and I don't think it's likely to go back, I'll deal with it. But I don't think the government should be *adding* to the responsibilities that it takes on itself. Each bit of liberty that we cede to the government is just one more bit of freedom we'll never get back. The government only takes on duties and grows bigger, never smaller.
Also, the government was not meant to tax us so that it could provide things we could provide ourselves for cheaper. If you look at what the Constitution says that the government can collect taxes for, it's a very limited list, mostly thing like building and maintaining roads, the postal service, defense, etc. Not providing "free" health care to all individuals. They actually had to amend the Constitution to give the government the right to collect an income tax.
Somebody also said that it wasn't that easy to get health care if you don't have money. Well, my husband is currently unemployed, so we lost the health insurance we'd had through his work. It took about a month to get our daughter on a state health program provided free or low-cost (depending on income). That's with already-existing health programs available (this one is through the state government, although I couldn't say if it gets federal funds or not). And in an emergency, a hospital is not going to turn away a sick person. You can also get health insurance even if your employer doesn't cover it. It's more expensive, sure, but not as much as you'd think, and considering that when you have a job you get paid less because they're paying for your health insurance (that's why they call them "benefits"), it's really not a bad deal. We would have done that if this opportunity hadn't come up.
I liked the idea of the FairTax. Sure, changing tax plans in mid-stream is complicated. Since it changes income tax to sales tax, people who already have significant savings would be taxed twice--one when they earned it, and once when they spent it--unless something is done to work around this problem. But I do think our tax-and-spend, taking money away from people who earn it (and for all people complain about CEOs and sports players, they wouldn't get so much money if what they were doing wasn't worth a great amount of money to the people paying for their services) to give to people who haven't, is just wrong, and it wasn't the way that the founders of our country intended it.
Anyway, this post has gone on long enough and I'm not sure I'm still being coherent, so I'll end now and wait to see what others are saying!
