Add new comment

You don't know what it means to be underfunded or ineffiecient, because your 'proposal' shows no identifiable way of overcoming either problem. Also, look at your fifth point... come on - do you not see a contradiction here? First you say your against turning it over to that wretched, incompetent government, yet you want to expand current programs? A program which is underfunded is not a euphemism for being inefficient - it simply means the program is underfunded. The US government has A LOT to account for - nevermind healthcare - like for instance, a war that is still going on in case you've forgotten. You'll have to enlighten me on how the government is 'one of the most inefficient organizations'. I don't see how or why the private sector is run any better (in fact big businesses use this 'inefficient organization' to lobby for policies they want - makes you think where some problems can occur). If you've paid any attention to what has happened in the past two years, today included with the insurance industries, you can hardly blame the goverment (again, deregulation has been lobbied for by private power for the last 30 years) - in fact its the government that has to clean up every mess the private sector gets itself into (see Goldman Sachs). I think the military and their industrial complex is far more superior than anything the private sector is capable of - the fact that you are reading this is such evidence, as we owe the creation of the internet to 'one of the most inefficient organizations'. I receive my mail everyday except for Sunday - I have no qualms about that - do you not receive it six days a week? If you do, what is so inefficient about that? How would it be even more efficient if, say, it was run by FedEx? Whether its the post office, medicare (surveys indicate those in the program like it, by the way, I doubt you are even eligible), the police department, fire department, sanitation, park districts... I don't see evidence of 'one of the most inefficient organization', rather, when I think about your claim, I see more evidence of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but think they do.