I don't get much time to do basic research.  Like you, I have a job.  The people who oppose us, this is their job. Fortunately, there are people who do have access to the resources I don't (or don't have time to hunt down) and who've had time to reason some of these issues out to their logical conclusions.  Remember, liberalism fears logic, since it easily exposes their game.

I heard a number of things on the radio tonight, specifically on Hugh Hewitt's show, that finally gave me the arguments I needed to make for some of the things Congressman Gonzalez has been saying in his "newsletters."

Argument 1: The United States is a wealthy nation.  If Canada, England, France and so on can afford to run centrally managed health care systems, why can't we?

Answer 1a: As I've been known to say, do the math.  The population of the US is estimated to be somewhat above 307 million humans.  According to a caller to Hugh's show, if we total all the humans in those three nations mentioned above, they reach just over 278 million.  Doesn't sound like much difference, does it?  Until you consider that no single nation in that list even approaches our  population load, and we're not talking about the difference between 278 and 300.  Million.  So, I looked them up.  Canada, call it 34 million. England, 49 million.  OK, call it 50 million. For France, call it 63 million.  Throw in the Netherlands...17 million.  She came in low. I get 164 million, even with rounding upward fairly generously.  Maybe she had newer numbers than I found on the internet, or I missed a nation or two. In the case of Canada, we are about to dump the equivalent of Canada's population on a Medicare system that's already very shaky.

Answer 1b: Let's face it. America's military is absolutely unbeatable on the field of battle.  We are the go-to guys and gals when you want something blown up right now.  We still struggle with asymmetric warfare, but right now that's because...well, that's not the point.  The point is, that kind of battlefield prowess didn't come cheap, and keeping it that way isn't getting any cheaper.  Ask Europe, when hundreds of Russian T-90S main battle tanks show up on their borders, who are they gonna call? Ghost-busters?

Argument 2: The stories of medical rationing in those nations are scare-ups invented by the Republicans to politicize health care.

Answer 2a: I have a dear, dear friend who lives in Canada.  Recently, she was ill with a respiratory issue of some sort.  Another friend took her to the hospital and she was being treated in minutes.  They sent her home with a supply of meds, all free of charge.  Except for the crushing tax rate. Don't misunderstand me.  I love my friend and I'd be devastated if anything happened to her.  But, what she experienced, in the scheme of things,, didn't cost  much.  No MRI's. No CT scans. No expensive, cutting edge medicines.  And she happens to live in a fairly sparsely populated area of the country.  Remember? 34/307, eleven percent of our total population.

Answer 2b: How many times do aged people need to be denied health care for it to be tragic?  Congress claims they will get their $500 million (one half trillion, folks) out of Medicare.  Who gets Medicare coverage? Mom, dad and the grandparents.  One of President Barack Obama's "czar's" is on record advocating that health care be triaged based on the patient's value to society. Under eighteen and over sixty and the rest of society has no real use for you.  But I'll bet the kids will want some say in that.

Argument 3: President Barack Obama only wants to cure the ills in the health care system; the high cost, the lack of portability, the exclusion of pre-existing illnesses and a few other hand-wringers tossed in for good measure.

Answer 3: Me too.  But I'd like to die in reasonable comfort when the Lord calls, not when society determines I am no longer sufficiently valued to keep alive. I also have to ask why the conservatives have been almost completely locked out of this process, with the exception of a very few who are in no position of have real impact, and whose input has been ignored? 

Why do we have the bouncing-demonization of the week? Doctors who perform unnecessary operations.  Oops...how about those evil corporate executives... Or the Republicans, who have no plan, even if we weren't ignoring it? Or George Bush (pick one)? Or the Astro-turf, swastika bearing screamers with blue hair at the Town Hall meetings? Or those dastardly, profit-grubbing insurance companies... Or Fox News?

It is the attacks by the Obama administration on the ordinary mechanisms of American politics that lead me to be distrustful of him and his.  He's made repeated attacks on the first amendment, from excluding reporters who weren't slobbering at the sight of him during the campaign to declaring Fox News to be the "opposition" today.

He's brought on upwards of thirty political managers, the "czars," who didn't endure the "advise and consent" of the Congress, about whom we know little, including much about what they are doing. The federal government now owns roughly one half of the automobile industry, with no sign that it intends to divest itself of that burden any time soon. 
Trust me, after the economic collapse, when Obama hollers "Jump!" the nation's financial institutions are yelling back, "How high?"

If, while blindfolded, I am presented with a soft flower, a sweet scent and sharp thorns, I don't have to be told the odds that it is a rose.

Keep those emails going, folks.  This one isn't over yet.  If they have to force it down our throats without any conservative support at all, then they own it. That frightens them.  Which brings up another question. 

If this is such a great idea, and they are so certain of that...why are we still arguing about it? Surely our benevolent rulers would have acted in our best interests, despite ourselves, by now.