I'd love to see where you came up with that conclusion from my post.

I didn't, but I'm asking.

No, I'm not. And I'm assuming you're going to turn this into relating healthcare and national defense, which really shouldn't hold any water.

Why not?

I suspect it won't "hold water" because you don't want it to.

Because national defense is already run by the government while healthcare isn't. Pretty simple.

Pretty simple if you're dodging logic.

You don't think we should privitize national defense because the government doesn't run healthcare. Thats rich.

Here how about this. The government has a role and its to protect its citizens. Its currently letting them drown in the streets of New Orleans while being overly concerned with the people in the streets of Iran.

I'd go out on a limb and say this is a horrible idea. Cancer kills something like 400,000 people a year, how many do foreign armies kill?

What the argument is, is convenient. The government doesn't do it currently, so it shouldn't going forward. Healthcare is something the government should at least offer.

The constitution allows private enterprise to form militias, right?

The more I follow this discussion and the adjacent "Frasier" to it's "Cheers" thread the more I start to think the amswer, as is usually the case, is somewhere in the middle.

B, (stole it from Savannah, their is nothing else that doesn't feel awkward to refer to you as) You sort of passing proposed that the government should "at least offer health care" and maybe that's the solution.

A privatized government health care check box on your tax form. If you pay the required taxes on your income the government will pick up your medical tab.

Medical practitioners would have the choice too. Take a cushy government job and make good but not exceptional money or go for the big bucks in the unruly system of today.

I always say how important options are to me, this is the granddaddy of them all.

If you choose to go it alone your taxes are lower but you have to deal with insurance companies and the doctors who are in it to make the money.

JJJ, that obviously isn't feasible. Those that can't comfortably afford healthcare would choose it, the one's that can [and their $$$ are needed to have the system "afloat"] wouldn't.

Big3, you're off on a tangent. My entire argument against socialized healthcare is the economics behind it, not the idea of it.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with me there. I can't tell where you're landing in this debate.

No I'm not agreeing with you. Peer in to the great successes of the social programs the US is currently running, I'd much rather not see health care get ruined along side the others.

My point is I don't care for the whether or not socialized health care is a good idea in theory, it's more that it isn't practical in this economy in this country at all.