I was not making a case for passivity or quietism, but I DO defend a person’s right to engage in them. I’m FOR harmony. I’m a communitarian libertarian, not your more common atomistic libertarian.

It seems unavoidable that the more we “democratize” the market, the more that creates disharmony. Those who have the BEST connections or the slickest rhetoric win.

I suggest you consider whether your analogy of the marketplace and the political process are the same. It’s not the “hardest working” or even the “smartest” who win in either venue. Of course, we’d need to define what “winning” is. For a while, Madoff and Ebbers were big “winners,” and now they are in the slam. So was Rep. Jefferson and Pres. Nixon, with Nixon getting a pardon.

Of course, in the marketplace, “winning” is even HARDER to define. I’d much prefer being happy than rich, and some of the most apparently miserable folks I’ve met are rich ones.

It is very similar to people who like the federal income tax system when they file their taxes and get money back. When the situation turns around and people have to pay, they hate the system. Generally, of course. It is neither condescending nor disingenuous to note this phenomenon.

People also know where their paychecks come from. It is very rare to have a large employer that does not enjoy popular support from the employees and others dependent on those employees. Workers in West Virginia love the mining companies, although there is concern about mountain top mining. That popular support does not make what the mining companies do right.

In the end, it is true we will have to agree to disagree over approaches to health care.

Truce.

You claimed many people have problems with their healthcare systems, then when I give overall mass support for the programs, you claim that it’s because they just “don’t understand” the situation, which is rather condescending, and frankly, disingenuous.

There is reform happening in nations with national healthcare programs, like Ireland and Germany, but it’s not in the way you think. Ireland is moving towards a single payer system (which has broad support among the many parties there), and Germany is moving towards a singular social insurance model for healthcare, moving away from the market based bismarck model.

Anyway, at this point I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Truce?

What do you mean by “nice”?
Do you still think we are fascists or did I set the record straight?

(Come on, give a girl some credit <3

***but do you want to FORCE people to participate in their communities?***

No I want to INSPIRE them to participate in their communities.

***Those who don’t want to participate/special plead much or at all, is it just tough on them?***

People who don’t want to participate in the marketplace don’t get a say, do they? Those who don’t want to work/produce much at all — do they get to have a house, a car, a cell phone, brand-name clothes, organic food, etc. — or is it just tough on them? (I’m just saying lol)

As far as participatory citizenship = “special pleading” — that is your bias. Libertarians and Greens have completely different understandings of government and it’s role in a civil society.

Green stance in a nutshell: Participatory citizenship is not special pleading. Special pleading implies that you are beginning from a place of dis-empowerment (pleading to an authoritative power for special treatment – like you are subordinate to something else [you get what I mean]).

Our view is that citizenship is a _privilege_ awarded to everyone (for free, at birth, and regardless to inherited social status) that empowers the individual by giving them a voice/vote in decision making (governance).It is up to the individual to exercise that voice.

So participatory citizenship is actually *Self*-Governance. It’s _of_ the people, _by_ the people, and _for_ the people. It implies that the individual is inherently free from any outside authority AND THUS responsible for themselves. If you do not step up and take accountability and responsibility for *your place* and *your role* in your community, SOMEONE ELSE WILL. No one takes power from us – we give it away. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s the patriot act, or private enterprise (like Wal-Mart) steamrolling its way into your neighborhood, because this is bigger and broader (is that a word?lol) than “Capitalism” or “Democracy”.

This is one of those “natural laws” that our founding fathers understood: If you are not willing to stay *vigilent*, _you are making yourself vulnerable_. And it’s a choice.

To be a participating citizen in political governance is _the defintion_ of “eternal vigilence”.

***It strikes me that communities should first be about peace, which cannot be forced.***

You are right, communities should be about peace. What separates a Green from a Libertarian is very subtle: it’s our respective _definitions_ of peace, or what we believe peace *means*.

Libertarianism stands on an axiom of non-aggression. Greens are pro-peace, and our stance is axiomatic (relating to or derived from an axiom without _being an axiom_, per se).

Here’s the key to the Green understanding of Peace *in the context of community*: it is something that exists *between people*. So while we cannot force each other to cooperate, we nonetheless *have to* engage each other in order to achieve peace. Positive action is necessary for peace; yet non-aggression is literally *non-action*. It’s not coercive, which is good, but it’s also not asking anything of the individual (where peace *does* ask of the individual. You could say that peace is _inherently_ coercive, or coercive _by nature_.). Ultimately, this is what renders the axiom of non-aggression _powerless_ in its effort to promote peace among groups of people.

So to Greens, “Peace” is something more akin to “Harmony” (which connotes action) than to “Non-Agression”(non-action, passivity). Using music as an example, harmony is not *silence* (non-action), it’s an active and creative process.

I found some good quotes from Dorothy Thomas that more or less sum up “green peace”:

“Peace has to be created, in order to be maintained. _It will never be achieved by passivity and quietism_. Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict – alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.”

“They have not wanted peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war–as though the absence of war was the same as peace.”

I’m waaaay behind on this thread (still writing mho on health insurance/healthcare) , but feel free to fire back on this topic (Rob or anyone) — I love a good intellectual debate! <3

When did I ever say the health care systems of other nations were unpopular? You have said they are popular, and I gave some reasons why that may be true. It is true there are people who see serious problems in those systems and are trying to reform them.

I confront your argument by saying it is not right to force some people to pay for the health care of others or to needlessly limit the choices of the individual.

Securing the ability of individuals to make their own health care choices is a case of government securing individual rights. Coercing payment for health care services is not securing individual rights. Single payer does not have to be set up that way, if that is the direction you want to go. That is the way the current proposal for reform is set up, however.

You have said that if I don’t want to pay for other people’s health care, I should move, which is not a good argument. Saying other countries use a certain kind of health care system does not necessarily make it the best in this situation.

It is comparing apples to oranges to compare the legitimate functions of government to secure individual rights with the provision of health care goods or services.

PEACE”

I wasn’t debating with you, so uh?

I wouldn’t waste my time with someone who uses such blatant emotional appeals for arguments.

When I show you that taxes are collected ultimately at gunpoint, you say they are not. This shows me that no debate with you will go anywhere.

PEACE

Huh??

Well, if you think that a bunch big ugly guys with guns *WON’T* show up at your door if you refuse your “democratically approved” war tax, why would anybody pay for it?

Let’s give peace a chance!

PEACE

Hyperbolic language. Please spare me the “I’m FORCED AT GUNPOINT” argument, as it’s not even accurate.

“The struggles of many nations to maintain their current health systems are also very real.”

With no struggle life wouldn’t be worth living

“If people think they are getting something for “free” it is usually pretty popular. Expose the true cost and things can change.”

What you’re basically saying is this. You confront my argument by claiming the healthcare systems around the world aren’t popular, then when I show that they are, you claim they only like it out of some misconception. That sir, is dirty debating, and it just shows me continuing with you won’t go anywhere.

I suppose it is better to create false boogeymen than real ones. The Democratic proposal without the public option was estimated by the CBO to add one trillion dollars to the federal debt in ten years and increase coverage by a net 16 million people. Single payer would cost more. The struggles of many nations to maintain their current health systems are also very real.

@31 “You don’t have to. If you don’t want to use any services, health, roads, police, firefighters, fine, but do not use them. I’d recommend Somalia, no taxation there, and it’d be easy to move there.”

I’m assuming you meant if I don’t want to pay for the services, don’t use them. It is not a question of not wanting to pay, but being compelled to pay for things that are not a primary responsibility of government. I have already described how our community fire company is funded voluntarily.

The public roadways are a commons, not rightly owned by the government, although governments often open and maintain right-of-ways. If I use a mode of transportation, like a horse, that does not depend on a smooth paved road surface or winter maintenance, why pay for those things? In most cases people wouldn’t. It so happens I do use a motorized vehicle, therefore by that choice I do pay for the road construction and maintenance, but many of my neighbors do not. Still, if I want to minimize my payment, I can limit my driving. It is my choice and I pay for my use.

There are alternatives to removing choices from people in order to have those services available. Saying if you don’t want to pay for others to use the service you should move is not a very good justification for imposing the tax.

@31 “Because where I live, I don’t live in a “Free market society”, I pay taxes, and get services in return. I like using public roads, public education, public firefighting, food assistance, housing assistance, and etc. It’s my dues for being in a civilized society. If you don’t want to live in one, please move.”

You do live in a nation that was founded on the principle that governments exist to secure the rights of the individual. The United States is rather special in that regard. While I may have a right to choose my health care options, I do not have a right to make others pay for my choices.

There is a difference between paying to secure individual rights and paying for the choices of others. A system of criminal justice serves to secure the rights of all and is different from the provision of health care goods and services.

If you wish to pay for a particular good or service, that’s fine and is within your right to choose. If you choose a particular good or service and point to others saying they must help pay for it, that is not fine.

You may voluntarily choose to pay for those things, and if communities want to establish programs to assist those in need, they should be able to do so. People can then make reasonable choices whether they want to live there or not. Do not ask the federal government to impose things on the nation, though. Again, saying if you don’t like it move is not a good justification.

@31 “*facepalm*”

I don’t know what that means in this context.

@31 “Do please keep in mind, that Canada’s medicare system still has a really high approval rating, at 87.6E%, and the NHS has an even higher approval rating in Britain.

Sure, there’s problems, but nothing is perfect.”

A lot of people like the federal income tax system when they think they get free money back from it when they file. If people think they are getting something for “free” it is usually pretty popular. Expose the true cost and things can change.

While we are having a debate on health care in the United States, why not evaluate all of the options?

@31 “You’re right, and the best road to go about that would be a single payer healthcare system.”

This is debatable. I think it would be a much stronger contender if it were optional and voluntarily funded, or funded in a manner that did not rely on coercing individuals, such as with levies on environmental pollution or natural resource extraction.

A “civilized society” of course being one where one is forced, ultimately at gunpoint, to support whatever war or boondoggle is in vogue at the moment.

Somehow, this doesn’t seem too “civilized” to me.

All we’re saying is “let’s give peace a chance”.

PEACE

Well, I’ll give you kudos for supporting a safety net of some sort, but you’re wrong that the “rest of the world” is going away from their “systems”. That’s propaganda from groups that want to create false boogeymen when debates are brought forth on health reform in America.

“Yet for health care your response is I must pay for others. You still haven’t answered why that is.”

You don’t have to. If you don’t want to use any services, health, roads, police, firefighters, fine, but do not use them. I’d recommend Somalia, no taxation there, and it’d be easy to move there.

“If you don’t like that why would you choose to live in the United States?”

Because where I live, I don’t live in a “Free market society”, I pay taxes, and get services in return. I like using public roads, public education, public firefighting, food assistance, housing assistance, and etc. It’s my dues for being in a civilized society. If you don’t want to live in one, please move.

Also, who says I’ll remain in the United States indefinitely?

“Rather than make everyone wait three hours for spaghetti, wouldn’t it make more sense to get those who don’t have lunch a plate of spaghetti? ”

*facepalm*

“There are many people who have serious problems with the NHS and the system in Canada, and medicare for that matter. Any time you get a big bureaucracy you are going to have problems. Why not try to avoid those problems?”

Do please keep in mind, that Canada’s medicare system still has a really high approval rating, at 87.6E%, and the NHS has an even higher approval rating in Britain.

Sure, there’s problems, but nothing is perfect.

“What the government *should* be doing in regard to health care is insuring people can make the choices necessary to meet their health care needs.”

You’re right, and the best road to go about that would be a single payer healthcare system.

It strikes me that communities should first be about peace, which cannot be forced.

All that the House bill does is make more of the current problems, and all single payer does is substitute several corporate bureaucracies for another corporate bureaucracy.

Free markets are about people making choices for themselves. If you don’t like that why would you choose to live in the United States? Rather than make everyone wait three hours for spaghetti, wouldn’t it make more sense to get those who don’t have lunch a plate of spaghetti?

A safety net for those who currently do not have health care is possible while correcting the problems of privilege in the current system. Are you sure we want to go down a road that other nations are moving away from or will soon be forced financially to move away from?

You can dismiss me as someone who thinks people can make choices for themselves and sigh every time I question the need to force some to pay for the health care of others, that is your choice.

I pointed out where there were alternatives to taxes for roads and police and you assume I am saying there is no role for government in those things. Your response was to say I should not use those services if I don’t want to pay for them. Yet for health care your response is I must pay for others. You still haven’t answered why that is.

There are many people who have serious problems with the NHS and the system in Canada, and medicare for that matter. Any time you get a big bureaucracy you are going to have problems. Why not try to avoid those problems?

There are things where government can play a role to address market shortcomings, provision of public goods, regulating natural monopolies, or addressing negative externalities. Providing health care does not fit those categories.

What the government *should* be doing in regard to health care is insuring people can make the choices necessary to meet their health care needs.

***Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

Again, this does not describe us. We want EVERYONE to participate in civic life, we need EVERY VOICE to be heard or it’s not a democracy. We ENCOURAGE people to contribute to their communities; to own their citizenship and not just their consumership.

As stated before in a quote directly out of our party platform, we want people to vote their *values*, and we encourage them to create political parties around their values. Even if they are not on “our side” we need them to be on *their side* once and for all – and not on the side of these corporate-sponsored parties.

We want to repeal the Patriot Act, we want 9-11 declassified — and these are things that MANY progressive Americans want.

*sigh*

“A lot of people are directly employed by the NHS (3rd biggest employer in Britain) with many more dependent on it, so it does have a big block of support.”

Great way to write off the massive support of the NHS as simply “they’re employed by them” Others dependent on them, oh wait, could it be people who actually get their healthcare from them? Oh gee, wonder why they’d support them lol…

“It is not so great according to many, including UK MEP Daniel Hannan”

Daniel Hannan is one MEP, who’s an opportunist twat, who was chastised by his own party for his statements on the NHS. That’s like me stating MEP Nick Griffin’s quotes as evidence the “white race is superior”.

“At what quality and at what cost? Who makes the decisions?”

Your doctors do in the NHS, and if you’re not satisfied with it, there’s always the private option.

“If the NHS in the UK is so good, why is it that people who can afford to buy private insurance do?”

Some do for optional things the NHS doesn’t, largely plastic surgery, which is the biggest private health industry in the UK. Also, some use it to get past the waiting lines, which for elective surgery can be a while.

“What happens when you have to wait three hours to get your spaghetti?”

I’d gladly wait three hours rather than waiting forever and never getting any.

“If you are simply an advocate for a particular position, nothing I say will change your mind.”

The same is easily said about you.

Listen, you seem too knee deep in this Free Market dogma and because so, this discussion isn’t going to go anywhere.

I’m just going to leave you a quote and a video, and hopefully these will sink in.

“The markets make a good servant but a bad master, and a worse religion”~Amory Lovins

If you dont’ want to pay taxes, let’s make a deal– you don’t pay taxes, but you don’t use anything that is paid for with taxes. You can’t buy anything that arrives on a road, you can’t go anywhere on any roads, you can’t buy gasoline, which is subsidized by the government, you absolve yourself of protection by the military, you absolve yourself of protection by the court system, the fire department, etc etc etc.
http://current.com/items/90726751_so-you-dont-want-to-pay-taxes.htm <== watch this

***Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system.

From the Green Party 10 Key Values:
1.) We believe in grassroots, PARTICIPATORY democracy. That means bottom-up democratic self-governance of by and for citizens. Not top-down AUTHORITARIAN nationalism.
2.) We oppose the centralization of power, both in government and the private sector. We are anti-corporatist, period. Our economic system is COMMUNITY based, not CORPORATE based, and we advocate a model of sustainability (Steady-State Economy/Conservation Economy) with an emphasis on social & environmental responsibility. American capitalism today is characterized by reckless profiteerism, mindless consumerism, and is in love with “tricks & traps” business schemes.

So far, we are neither radical authoritarian nationalists, nor do we support a corporatist economic system.

***and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.

We are located in the lower left quadrant of the political compass. We have been characterized many times as “the radical left”, NEVER as “the far right”.

***Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.

Greens are global and united under the 10 key values. Our foreign policy is not based on inciting human conflict for America’s gain (ridiculous!), we choose to focus on the human capacity for cooperation and creative-collaboration. We are for peace and disarmament, we stand for fair-trade, and for sustainable development and social and economic justice across the globe.

***Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.

Again, we are for the decentralization of power, both public and private:

“We believe in multi-party democracy for partisan elections as the best way to guarantee majority rule, since more people will have representation at the table where policy is enacted. We assert that introduction of a multi-party democracy is essential because The change in the structure of electoral politics will moderate the influence of extremist views and domination by the larger parties, and offer more fair representation to a greater number of citizens; and a third party can validate and raise other points of view that need to be heard. ” [Part I, Section A, #10]

***Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

***Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.

Hmm… “class conflict”. You know, slavery has existed for THOUSANDS of years – has capitalist liberal democracy existed for thousands of years too?

From wikipedia: Liberal democracy (or constitutional democracy) is the dominant form of democracy in the 21st century. Capitalism dates back to the middle ages, with elements of capitalism dating back to the Roman Empire.

The truth is that we do not believe capitalist liberal democracy is to blame for the *creation* of class conflict. What *is* to blame? Human frailty; mankind’s lower nature — there are a million different ways to describe it.

As far as communism — again, we don’t believe communism *is to blame for* exploiting class-conflict. It certainly does – but so do .

Greens are pro-democracy. We are COMMUNITARIAN, without being *Communist*. We are PRO-SOCIAL in our outlook (in the psychological sense that we are concerned with the wellbeing of others) without being *Socialist*

We aren’t interested in turning political ideology into a rigid political constitution/doctrine. Green politics is not like that. Our platform is a *living document*, open to change. Political philosophy guides our decisions, but our solutions for bettering the human condition are based on *pragmatism*. (More on this in the next post where I will explain the limits of what Capitalism can do for a civil society, and why health INSURANCE, among other things, is therefore better assigned to the public sector. Greens believe in *better* government “for service”, not *bigger* government “for charity”.)

***In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a “Third Way” in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation’s system “the corporate state”).

I’ve stated my case.

***No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.

And that’s why people call us fascists – because they can.

This term is pejorative and so ambiguous that simply sticking the word to an opponent can be enough to invalidate them and even kill the debate (leaving you the victor).

Yet obviously there *are* specific parameters to describe what fascism *is* — and the Green Party doesn’t fall under any of them.

I only like it when it will better address the problems that are encountered. This is one of those cases.

@24 “Yeah….uh, if “they can afford it”. Key concept there dude…

And the NHS provides healthcare to many who would otherwise not be able to get it in Britain.”

At what quality and at what cost? Who makes the decisions?

@24 “You already are paying for others (Expensive ER treatments for people that could of had ailments treated for much cheaper earlier on, and also with private insurance, you pay for others one way or another)”

You still didn’t answer the question. If I am already paying for others, why do I need to be forced to pay for others? With the system now I have a choice to opt out or choose another plan without also paying for one I don’t use. A government safety net for those in need is fine. That is not what this proposal is, however.

@24 “I see it’s still the most popular institution in the United Kingdom…I wonder why…

Don’t you remember the “We love the NHS” campaign as of late?”

It is not so great according to many, including UK MEP Daniel Hannan. To be fair, in most cases wait times are under 18 weeks. A lot of people are directly employed by the NHS (3rd biggest employer in Britain) with many more dependent on it, so it does have a big block of support. There are efforts to take some of the control from the NHS bureaucracy and put it in the hands of individuals as well, which is the direction Mr. Hannan advised Mr. Obama to go.

@24 “Maybe because “market” solutions haven’t worked? I really think you should put down those Ayn Rand novels, I see you’re really quite extreme in this belief in the “free market””

I have never read any Ayn Rand, nor do I particularly care to. I think generally people can make choices for themselves better than other people can make decisions for them. In order to claim the market solutions haven’t worked, first you have to try them. There has not been a free market in health care since the 1930′s and arguably not before that.

While people like Kenneth Arrow and Paul Krugman may not believe free market health care can work, the more successful European models include some market aspects, and will need to include more to be sustainable. There are also examples in Latin America that may be more appropriate for the US.

@24 “If you’re not satisfied with the public system, you’re free to use the private system, as you are in Britain, Australia, and countless other nations with public universal systems. Don’t whine if you can’t afford it though, as that’s why there’s a public healthcare system to begin with.”

Why should anyone be satisfied with a system that is inefficient, bureaucratic and we know is not sustainable? If the NHS in the UK is so good, why is it that people who can afford to buy private insurance do?

This is especially true when there are alternatives that better address the problems of health care costs and accessibility to care. If you are concerned about the issues, at least consider the alternatives. If you are simply an advocate for a particular position, nothing I say will change your mind.

If someone said to you that because some people cannot afford or do not have access to lunch that you cannot choose when and where you will have lunch but will have have to pay for a plan where you get spaghetti at noon in your choice of three places, would you think that was an improvement? What happens when you have to wait three hours to get your spaghetti?

The free market is a religion for you, aren’t they?

“That is not saying much. It would certainly limit their choices much more than they would have in a truly free market. Anyone under the current system can get the same health care coverage as our federal legislators if they can afford it, too.”

Yeah….uh, if “they can afford it”. Key concept there dude…

And the NHS provides healthcare to many who would otherwise not be able to get it in Britain.

“Why didn’t you just say this instead of insinuating I misunderstood Single Payer? Let me ask again, why did you say I shouldn’t use police services or public roads if I don’t want to pay for them but say people should get health services at the expense of others?”

You already are paying for others (Expensive ER treatments for people that could of had ailments treated for much cheaper earlier on, and also with private insurance, you pay for others one way or another)

“Look at the NHS in the UK. ”

I see it’s still the most popular institution in the United Kingdom…I wonder why…

Don’t you remember the “We love the NHS” campaign as of late?

“It is true the insurance corporation should not be able to overcharge and limit coverage. The fact that they can is an indication the market choices to address those problems are not available.”

Maybe because “market” solutions haven’t worked? I really think you should put down those Ayn Rand novels, I see you’re really quite extreme in this belief in the “free market”

“If I am already paying for health care through taxes, is it more likely or less likely that I will be able to afford the health care *I* want?”

If you’re not satisfied with the public system, you’re free to use the private system, as you are in Britain, Australia, and countless other nations with public universal systems. Don’t whine if you can’t afford it though, as that’s why there’s a public healthcare system to begin with.

This is brought about because of special privilege and limited choices regulated by government. It is this interference that reduces the free market to a special group of privileged providers. Further reducing the free market choices of consumers by forcing a purchase from these special providers or offering a government-run option will not solve the problem of health care access or affordability.

It is true the insurance corporation should not be able to overcharge and limit coverage. The fact that they can is an indication the market choices to address those problems are not available.

@22 “Because they aren’t accountable to anyone at the moment, as they’re so loosely regulated. “government bureaucrats” wouldn’t control your healthcare under a single payer health insurance plan, your doctor would.”

This is nonsense. They aren’t accountable because they don’t have to be. They don’t have to be because they enjoy special privilege. They have no competition to worry about. The insurance industry and the health care industry are two of the most regulated sectors of the economy. If you have government bureaucrats involved it won’t be any different. Look at the NHS in the UK.

@22 “The point of single payer is to cover everyone (or at least provide a public option for any one who can’t or doesn’t want to pay for private healthcare).”

Why didn’t you just say this instead of insinuating I misunderstood Single Payer? Let me ask again, why did you say I shouldn’t use police services or public roads if I don’t want to pay for them but say people should get health services at the expense of others?

@22 “Well, what you are describing is indeed, regulation. When the courts determine you’ve commited fraud, and prosecute thereof, that’s regulation.”

It is not excessive regulation that squashes free choice for individuals, though. I never said there is no role for government to play, I just question whether government running the show will really address the problems of health care in the US.

@22 “Sorry, but a single payer insurance model wouldn’t take away people’s choices, anymore than the NHS in Britain does (anyone in Britain can use private healthcare if they want and can afford it).”

That is not saying much. It would certainly limit their choices much more than they would have in a truly free market. Anyone under the current system can get the same health care coverage as our federal legislators if they can afford it, too.

If I am already paying for health care through taxes, is it more likely or less likely that I will be able to afford the health care *I* want?