on terror? Over a hundred billion a year on war to stop terrorism, while six full years after nine-eleven anyone can still walk across our borders. What's wrong with this picture?
2007-10-24 11:48:53 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, this government certainly can't. Bush and company are more about facilitating profiteering than getting the job done. And more about causing enough disruption on the Homeland Security front to give the appearance of doing something--while accomplishing nothing.
And who says the Government can't run a National Health Care Program. Medicare is by far the MOST efficient Health Insurance Provider ever, with an administrative cost of 3% vs a 30%+ industry average. Private Insurers prove on a daily basis that they can't efficiently deliver care.
In fact, not having National Health is one of the biggest gaps in our National Security. Any really infectious disease is going to rage out of control because the large numbers of uninsured who won't go to the ER until they've passed it on a hundred times.
Not to mention the Hospitals that will go out of business due to unpaid claims. "We're sorry, but we can't pay your claim because the insured failed to pre-notify us of his hospital visit for Pneumonic Plague."
2007-10-24 14:34:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Same question I've been asking, Ken.
I just posed it the other way around; the Cons can't have it both ways. They claim their administration is perfectly capable of conducting this "war on terror," but oh, God...government can't administer universal health care...
2007-10-24 19:57:40 · answer #2 · answered by John Doe 1st 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just as governments don't have a great track record when it comes to doing many things, such as providing health care. Private enterprise has not put in a great showing in the warfare department.
Governements are good for enforcing laws, fighting wars, and not much else. Besides, if you don't trust your governement to fight wars, you're trusting everyone else's governments to refrain from conquering you...
2007-10-24 19:58:22 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Turn that around.
We want the government to run our healthcare, where our own lives and our children's lives are at stake, when we can't even run a foreign war where it's mostly people from a whole other country whose lives are at stake.
2007-10-24 19:01:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're talking 3 issues.. that's the problem.
The "War" on terror is separate from the immigration issue. Related in some way, I will admit, but it's not like we can say we lost the "War" on terror because a few immigrants crossed over the border.
We don't have a national health care system to run... and I thank God that we don't. It just isn't feasible, unless you want to pay half your wages to taxes. I respectfully say no thanks.
2007-10-24 18:53:53 · answer #5 · answered by Modus Operandi 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
"There's one group of people who still believes in government, that government can be effective. And the Republicans have a sweet racket because they run on "government is ineffective," and then when they f-ck things up, they go, "See."
– Bill Maher
2007-10-24 19:01:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its very hard to stop people waliking across our borders when we have some people in Washington encouraging people to come here. This country has spent billions in wars before this one, even democrats during their preisdential terms.
2007-10-24 18:54:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
exactly!
lets let them work with healthcare before they move on to the big stuff
2007-10-24 21:04:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah really, let the military run it. Politician fu%# everything up.
2007-10-24 18:54:54 · answer #9 · answered by @#$%^ 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yo dude,you answered your own question!
2007-10-24 20:46:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋