Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
In terms of immediate loss of U.S. life the Iraq War decision is certainly worse. However how many lives did we save in the process, be they U.S., Iraqi, or possibly other nations that could've been a victim of terrorism sponsored or funded by Saddam or people murdered directly by Saddam and his regime. The Kurds are certainly glad we overthrew Saddam.
In terms of money, this health care bill is likely to be far worse than expenditures on the Iraq War in overall burden to the National Debt.
I agree with you that the country is certainly not going into a revolution or the world stop spinning on it's axis because of this law. However, with this new law we will see a further erosion in personal freedoms/personal choice, further intrusion into the private secor by the federal government, further expansion of the federal government's power over the states, increased taxes and an increase in the National Debt. Providing health coverage for the uninsured, working through the pre-existing conditions issues, and allowing more competition for health coverage could've been done in a different way.
|
Would you agree that Barack Obama won the presidency chiefly because of voter discontent over the war? There were a number of factors that led to his victory, no doubt. But in my mind, at the top of the list was Iraq. Polls were running heavily against the war by the 2008 election -- and the Republican response? Nominate a man who suggested we might be there "a hundred" more years.
As defiant as conservatives accuse the democrats of being with regard to health care, the GOP was just as defiant in the face of public opinion about the war in Iraq.
Assuming everything comes up roses in Iraq -- and that's an awfully big "if" -- would it be worth it if the price we had to pay was a Marxist in the White House who paved the way for nationalized health care?