What about the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors? What about a patient suing a doctor or hospital for 150 million? Are you interested in addressing these problems? No, not excessive at all.
Actually, I think it's absurd. Is anyone doing anything about it? I suppose there may be a chicken-and-egg thing going on here, as I don't know which came first. However, if I had to pay an arm and a leg for a medical procedure that was botched by incompetence, then you can be sure I would be looking for more than just a contrite apology and a get-well fruit basket. Admittedly, however, the numbers being bandied about are beyond ridiculous.
This is the first post from you that makes some sense. Liberalism is not libertarian. An unregulated, "free-for-all" society, will not have any individual liberty to speak of. Protection of individual liberty, the foundation of liberalism, requires very much government intervention. Take the tax as an example. Libertarians would want to demolish all taxes. We know that it is easier to make more money once you have money. Without any taxes to act as a brake, there will be a rapid concentration of wealth. From human experience in the past, a society with an extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of few is not one in which free market flourishes. In fact, in that case liberty would die as well. Therefore a progressive tax system is necessary to prevent such a concentration of wealth. Progressive tax is an important part of liberalism, not because liberals want big government. It is needed for the protection of the free market and individual liberty from the super rich. Many so-called modern "liberals" forget the principle, and misuse the tax system to serve other political purposes, such as using it to favor one segment of the society over another, or to erect trade barriers. That's not liberalism.
It's interesting that in this case, the conservative "free-market" advocates are trying to use government regulation to control the market. Not that I think it's unreasonable. There is a role for the government in every part of our life. Government is not the problem. Abusing power by politicians (Bush) is the problem.
Progressive tax systems allow the free market to flourish? Now that's ivory tower stuff at its finest. If you would observe the real world, I'm quite sure you would notice that the more progressive the tax rate, the less free a society is. Unless you think communist countries are the ultimate in freedom.
I suppose it would come down a few percentage points if a canadian style system was implemented, but then as the chief justice of the canadian supreme court was quoted as saying, "access to a waiting list is not access to health care". Guess that would solve the problem of only the poor having their gonads squeezed. Everyone would have their gonads squeezed. Except Hillary. No lines for her to wait in, of that I would be sure.
Showing your ignorance again. Communist countries never had any tax. They didn't need to. If you compare the US, Japan, Europe, and China, China has the least progressive tax system, and Japan the most progressive. Which country is free and which is not? I may be in an ivory tower but you're not living in this world. BTW, progressive tax system was first proposed by Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism.
The wall street journal does a piece on economic freedom (including tax rates) and compares it to general prosperity and well being of the populace in the world's countries. There is an inverse correlation to freedom and tax rates. That is the real truth. How you can come down on this issue by saying, in effect, "we're going to take your money away from you in order for you to be free" is beyond me. I'll quote Walter Williams: " Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person. There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation."
I see where your problem is. You're confusing tax rate (be it flat or not) with a progressive tax system. Read Adam Smith, and you'll understand the difference.