I'm not sure I agree on the first two items you mentioned and, in any event, I'm not sure they qualify as meaningful chunks in the grand scheme of things. But let's table them. More importantly, to which government-run healthcare initiatives do you take exception? As an aside, I note that you have a dim view of oversight committees. And so, while you don't like wasteful spending, you don't hold oversight in high regard. Fascinating.
Your earlier remark, alluding to communism, betrays a different viewpoint. One that is decidedly more black-and-white. Only the outer reaches of any given viewpoint lack depth or complexity, i.e., balance.
They are buy two examples in a long line of similar government programs. I take exception with the entire healthcare system in general, not any specific program. As I said, a two-tier system would be ideal. Healthcare for all, plus advanced service for those willing to pay for it. Are you trying to hint at the fact that government run healthcare is adequately efficient? You love to put words in my mouth, generalize, and you even think you can read my mind! I never said I don't hold oversight in high regard. Oversight is 100% necessary when it comes to government spending. My whole point, which is completely going over your head, is that these "oversight", "planning", "whatchamacallit boards", would not be necessary if the government hadn't felt the need to spend the money in the first place!
I never brought up communism. Referencing a communist with socialist ideology does not equate to calling someone a communist. Again, I am not sure why you insist on giving the government more of your money. Do you honestly believe they spend your money better than you spend your own money?
Not exactly. You speak in broad, sweeping generalities and then don't accept the attribution when you are called on it. I think we've both had enough of this exchange. I know I have.