Has anyone done the math?

There have been many numbers and statistics that have been used in the debate over health care reform. They are used individually to bolster view points or elicit emotional responses.
It doesn't seem anyone has put them all together to see what they add up to. When you do so I believe it leads to one inescapable conclusion.
Here are some of the stats: (All used by health care reform supporters)
*If excluding illegal immigrants, there are roughly 20-24 million uninsured Americans.
*It is estimated that 3-5 million of these are younger, healthy people that can afford health insurance but have opted against it. (Part of the plan is simply to mandate that they purchase insurance)
*The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bills currently being considered in the House and Senate would each result in approximately 95% of Americans being covered.
*The Congressional Budget Office puts the cost at either to be just under or over $1,000,000,000,000. That cost, by the way, is for the first several years. Experience with governmental programs practically guarantees that costs will rise dramatically with time.
*Each COMPLETELY reforms the current health care system and includes a "government option" that many experts believe would eventually lead to government run, single-payer health care. The proverbial "throwing out the baby with the bath water".
*There are approximately 300 million citizens. 5% of 300 million is 15 million. That's the amount that would remain uncovered.

So we are talking about a complete reformation of the largest industry in our nation's economy, with huge (and likely underestimated) costs, and negligible increases in the number of citizens being covered.
How can anyone believe this is anything less than an attempt by the government to control, not improve, health care?

Amazing contradiction

For years the mantra for the Pro-Choice movement has been "Keep your laws off my body". The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in America is based upon a woman's right to privacy, especially from the government, regarding medical decisions. Abortion rights advocates oppose even such modest proposals as Informed Consent as an unacceptable governmental interference in the doctor/patient relationship. Last night I heard two Pro-Choice advocates repeat what I have heard others say hundreds of times, "I'm not pro-abortion, I just don't think the government should be making decisions best left to doctors and patients".

Question: Why are all these same activists and politicians in favor of universal health care?

Dinosaurs of ideas

The "progressive" push for nationalized health care (if you think the end game is anything less than that you are hopelessly naive) is not really progressive at all, but actually regressive and a rehash of the tired old liberal mindset of womb-to-tomb government control. One might even call the idea a dinosaur.
Given that metaphor, I thought it appropriate to seek wisdom for the ages from someone well acquainted with dinosaur encounters, Dr. Ian Malcomb of Jurassic Park.
Says Dr. Malcomb "Yeah, but your scientists (politicians) were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
Dr. Malcomb understood that there are principles that should never be subverted, even by those that think they are well intended. One of those similar principles is that of limited government. How ironic it is that the progressives love to refer to us as the richest nation on earth, trying to make their claim that nobody should lack health insurance, without any apparent understanding of how we got to be the richest nation on earth. Freedom stimulates resourcefulness, innovation, creativity, and excellence. Remove freedom and there is nothing special about America anymore.
How appropriate that Dr. Malcomb's field of specialty was as a "chaotician", the study of chaos. For that is surely where we are heading.