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.

Fundamental Transformation

In the final run up to the election last year Pres. Obama, speaking at a campaign rally, said "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America". At the time it sounded like typical, soaring campaign rhetoric.
If only we had known.
His campaign of 'change', with few specifics given, was widely interpreted to refer to the policies of George W. Bush. Now we see that he was also referring to the policies of Madison, Jefferson and Washington.
When he said fundamentally, he meant it.
Fundamentally, America has always been defined by freedom. Freedom from overbearing government. If you're over 40 you were taught in high school of the principle of "Laissez faire". Merriam-Webster defines it "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights". (If your children attend(ed) public school they have likely never even heard the term.) This guiding principle has been fundamental in America.
Obama's philosophy believes the government's economic role is to forcibly apply his version of fairness. It's a philophy that attempts to manipulate outcome rather than opportunity. It's a philosophy that believes the government is benevolent and individuals cannot be trusted. 180 degrees out of phase with the Founders.
Fundamentally the federal government was intended to have very limited powers, with the House of Representatives representing the people and the Senate representing the Several States.
Obama's vision is top-down government where the people and the states are controlled through mandates, regulation and taxation.
Our Founding Fathers had a vision of a nation that, through Laissez faire, would foster excellence, ingenuity, innovation, self determination, individual responsibility, natural accountablity, perserverance, etc by releasing the natural inclination of man to survive and prosper.
Obama's vision for America stands in stark contrast, fundamentally.

Let's see. 2 + 2 = ??

Are we really still talking about Congressman Joe Wilson?
Critics (on the left, surprise surprise) of his outburst last week would now have us all believe that they can read Wilson's mind. Of course their conclusion is that his outcry was motivated by racism. There is of course no evidence of that, but that's never stopped them (lefties) from similar smears before.
To get to the bottom of this incredibly important issue I've watched the clip numerous times. I listed all the pertinent facts. I come to a different conclusion. Let's see if you agree.
Fact 1- Congressman Wilson yelled out the words "You lie" at Pres. Obama (he's black you know) during his speech last week.
Fact 2- He did so immediately after the president had inarguably told a clear lie about a controversial subject.
After careful consideration, and in the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to presume that Wilson was more annoyed by the president's lie than he was his race.
Now, in the spirit of judging people by their own standards I must conclude that every time the liberals leapt to their feet to give Obama a standing ovation, they were doing so not because they were reacting to what he had just said, but because he's black.

Everything old is new again.

Have you noticed the latest 'new' strategy being used by the left wing? Apparently "socialism" has become the new "N" word. So have "Marxist", "liberal", and now "liar". In fact any word used to criticize Pres. Obama is tantamount to dropping the "N" bomb.
Fortunately, truth always being the ultimate defense, these words all have well established definitions which Obama seems to personify.
Actually, this is not a new strategy. It's just the latest incarnation of a liberal staple. This very tired trick is their pathetic attempt to be on offense.
On the surface it would seem that the enlightened left, arbiters of all that is inclusive, are the ones unable to see past race. And that is actually true.
But this is so much more. In this case the race-baiters themselves don't even believe the charges they levy. They simply want to change the debate from Obama's wreckless policies to the motives of his detractors. And to minimize the opposition by making good people afraid to speak out, lest they have a scarlett 'R' imprinted on them.
I know the press is on their side. And the libs have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the unions, the 'community organizations, yada yada yada. It would seem, as it were, that we are surrounded by Syrians.
"Fear not: they that be with us are more than they that be with them". Keep working and soon the armies and chariots of fire will be clearly visible to all. (See 2 Kings 15-17)

Get your Obama care here.

Does anyone think the SEIU goons that are busily assaulting and intimidating voters at town hall meetings understand the details of Obama's health care plans?
Or that the malcontents protesting outside Whole Foods' stores comprehend the catastrophic unintended circumstances of single-payer ANYTHING?
What they do know is that they like Obama. And they know that they don't need to know anything else.