This was originally posted as a response to Kirk's Difference of Values post.
I think you over simplified the health care issue a lot. I mean, I am sure every candidate would love health care for everyone on the planet (well, except terrorist), but they would probably love for the whole world to have ice cream cones as well (again, except the terrorist. . . okay the democrats would give the terrorist ice cream too, but that is beside the point). The question comes down to who is going to pay for it. I don't want to pay more taxes, and I don't think you do either. I am sure that the rich would get the brunt of the tax to pay for health care, but that is just the government playing Robin Hood.
Where do you stop for health care. My wife wants a nose job. The rich are still rich and we are still poor so it should be paid for (yes, an extreme example). But what and who is covered for how much. Why don't we all pay all of our income as tax and rely on the government to do everything for us.
Let's look at past projects the government has set up. Social Security, did someone say going bankrupt. Welfare, I heard a person once actually got off of this program. The Iraqi war! The common theme here is that none of these has really worked out the way they were planned. Do we really want to give those idiots in D.C. more money for another project that will ultimately be a failure. Heck we have had free education for years and we see how much that helps the poorest and most disadvantaged.
How many Canadians (that great bastion of free health care) come to the US to get treatment because of backlogs and holds. I once met a Canadian doctor that came to the U.S. because he was not limited to doing only two surgeries every week here.
Anyway, you just kinda simplified the problem and demonized the republicans as wanting to kill disadvantaged sick kids. I am sure that they want everyone to have access to health care, but they don't want the big bill that comes with that.
