I want there to be clarity here. I am clearly against "Bigger, and Growing an already too big, government." That growing colossus isn't working now. Your premise reflects "Government" ... and then proceeds to define "more efficient." We may be talking about the same thing here. I won't agree with any platform that wants to continue to grow inefficient government. A "new school" trimmed down efficient government is where we need to head.
It sounds like you could make a nice run in a gubernatorial race in say California, Illinois, or maybe Michigan.
I like that idea! But without changing anything i don't see it happening. There are of lot of people who have a vested interest in the status quo, i.e., they are making a lot of money from things as they are. These same folks are pretty effective at convincing the electorate, and the congressional mouthpieces they sponsor to oppose any meaningful change in the way we do things. We, i.e., the US, are a nation of crises.* When a crisis occurs and we have no choice but to act, we will act in a meaningful, substantive way. In the meantime we will change "incrementally," as proposed by the Republicans. In other words: "Let's change, we all agree that change is needed. But let's not change too much!" *Not only are we a nation of crises, but also a nation of laws -- thousands of them. We seldom bother to eliminate old laws, we just pile new ones on top of the old. Many of these laws can't be effectively enforced or have virtually zero impact on the human behavior they are attempting to alter. Some are ridiculous. Many are obsolescent or obsolete. Some focus on victimless crimes. Some have absurd cost to benefit ratios. Many are aimed at giving one group an advantage over another while pretending to be something else. Some are aimed at making money for someone and provide no significant public benefit. A few make good sense and are useful. I have always thought that we should make a new law that requires that henceforth any new law be linked to the elimination of an old one. That all laws, including the constitution should have an expiration date. That lawyers should be barred from serving on any law-making body. Those features alone ought to be helpful in holding the size of government in check.
Sad to say, there seems to be a lot of evidence that the respective perspectives of the average citizen and of K-Street Lobbyists are both right.
Why do you say 'force feed' ? The American Medical Association supports the bill, the American Nurse's Association supports the bill, large number of Americans support reform. The only people that oppose the bill is Insurance companies and people who have insurance. A large number of those with insurance opposing the bill are Medicare recipients and Veterens: SHAME on them for opposing EVERYBODY getting what they already get from the gov't. It's the same ole-same ole: I got mine so you get yours phenom.
A main course of Big Brother with a side of Sickness Entitlement. No thanks for the criminal theft and intrusion.
Reform is not necessarily the current version of the Senate bill which is what they are trying to pass. More importantly it is apparently unconstitutional. Read Article 1 section 8,9,10 of the Constitution and then the 10 Amendment. Those sections list the powers, and limits on Congress, as well as the limits on the States. And the 10th Amendment is specific: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since the idea of placing everyone onto a FEDERAL plan of any kind is not included in the Congressional list of powers, then it is up to the States. Also, there is the issue of FORCE, which is unconstitutional on its own. There is no way possible to interpret the Powers of Congress as being able to FORCE the entire nation onto a health care plan. None. In fact, they also wouldn't be able to FORCE the unisured onto the plan even if it was to the benefit of the majority, they could only make it available. Also the majority of the nation opposes the plan, not that it matters cause its uncontitutional.
We'll let the Supreme Court rule on its constitutionality. I'll bet my money that the court will not even review the case at all. The powers of Congress 'force' you to participate in Social Security. The powers of Congress 'force' you to pay income taxes. The powers of Congress 'force' you to register for the draft. The powers of Congress can pretty much pass any law it wants as long as it doesn't violate a clear-cut constitutional act. The 10th amendment is so vague that it might as well not even exist. States Rights = bullshit.
Income taxes are covered in the Constituition. Congress also has the right to raise a militia, I assume that can mean a draft is legal. SS is different, but essentially a tax, especially since most of us are never going to get a penny back from it. Also SS is a colossal failure, why would u want another federal program after witnessing the existing program's fail? Perhaps SS is on shaky Constitutional grounds? States rights = BS... really? They are included in the Constitution because the founders framed everything based on checks and balances, in this case specifically to prevent the federal govt from assuming to much centralized power. Your willingness to pick and choose what YOU think is "right' out of the Constitution doesn't change the FACT that it is the supreme law in the USA. However forcing people to "buy" the federal coverage or be fined or imprisoned is fucking wrong, oppressive, and apparently unconstitutional. There are also many other issues with this proposed bill, and universal health care in general, namely COST.