Where to start with all of that?
First of all, I didn't say I wanted the government managing health care.
Second of all, we don't have the "best quality health care system in the world." That's a great talking point for the radio pundits, but the WHO rates the US #37, not #1. Who are you going to believe, the pundits who know diddly squat, or the WHO?
We do have the most expensive health care in the world, that's indisputable.
No, the health care systems in other countries are not run perfectly. Being human institutions, they do have their faults.
I'm not sure where you got the information about 3 million people being unable to get health care in France. I've never seen anything about it, but maybe it's true. I don't know, I do know that over 40 million in this country are without health insurance, however.
About SS: It is self sustaining in that the taxes collected for SS more than pay for the program. Doing away with SS, therefore, would be a net revenue loss to the government. I'm not about to argue that the program is well run. I've already outlined reforms that could be done to put it on sound fiscal footing. It seems that, whenever fiscal irresponsibility and the growth of government are discussed, the term "social programs" or "entitlement programs", usually meaning social security and medicare, are used to explain why federal spending is out of control. Even if those two programs were eliminated entirely, which would result in enormous social consequences, the federal budget would be even more unbalanced than it is currently.
