Health Care Bill Passes

Apogee, thanks for expanding on an answer ["no"]to Gunsmoke.

So, dirtbag, "No," the gov can't extract that kind of money from the economy without putting a significant drag on it at a critical time, but "Yes", that fact won't affect you? Did I get that right?

2.5% is not a big deal.

There is no evidence supporting the "slippery slope" argument with regard to increasing tax rates for the wealthy. The most fundamental evidence [whatever that means] shows that tax rates of the wealthy have no [NO, Zero, Zip, Nada] impact on the economy. [In fact, ] There is a very strong [not just strong VERY strong] correlation between economic prosperity in the US and high tax rates on the rich.

I'll repeat it. No, I don't think it will be a major drag on the economy, especially when the benefits are figured into it

Citing Thomas Jefferson about the merits of Health Case reform sounds important, but is ultimately irrelevant to us today -- Jefferson never addressed the subject and medical care was rudimentary and inexpensive in the 18th and early 19th Century. I doubt Jefferson thought that proper medical care was unimportant. But since Jefferson is long dead, we have no idea of his take on the subject.

Edit: Gunsmoke, I thought you were leaving?

Gunsmoke, in contrast I don't think you can look at only the costs without looking at the benefits. The benefits to many individuals is likely to be considerable.

MadBolter wrote at length about a mindset of the Founding Fathers. This mindset is reflected in the Jefferson quote back on Post #3. That is an overarching principle that gives clear insight into how they would view this debate. The question is, has society changed sufficiently in the past 200 years to make their paradigm antiquated and in need of replacement?

Yes, let's revisit that comparison, and repeat it over and over:

The 2009 US Military budget is $680 Billion, which will be spent on bombs, wars, killing people, supporting endless defense contractors, and hopefully maintaining a few jobs and actually a little defense for the citizens.

This bill theoretically will cost $940 Billion over ten years, which works out to $94 B/per year. Which is about 1/7th of the current military budget.

In that kind of light, I really don't have much of a problem spending that kind of $ on preserving the lives and well-being of the citizens. Hell, it would be easy to argue that doing so will provide far more protection and 'defense' than the US military.