Actually, the US health care system is one of the best in the world; though we do need some improvements such as TORT reform, which, big surprise, isn't a part of this bill. Why don't you ask the Canadians who came here specifically for our health care what they think.
And by unfair, do you mean "every person in the US isn't covered by a government run HC system, like the one in Canada or Cuba; therefore, we should put a trillion(+) dollar burden on the next generation of Americans, just so we can have a poorly run HC system that the majority of Americans do not want?"
If you want another example of gov-run health care, ask Brock Lesnar, a belt holder in the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship). Even he doesn't want this hideous health care bill to pass! He was out hunting in Canada recently and he got sick and needed to go to the hospital. He said that when he was there he got treated like a third-world citizen, the health care was so bad!
"The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task." I took that excerpt from the site. And I've heard about the WHO before, and if I remember correctly, they weren't giving much of an accurate statement on the overall quality and cost of health care.
By taxing the rich in order to cover this atrocious health care bill, we are going by this principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." I think you know who I'm quoting. Plus, 140 billion isn't exactly a small or even midsized number considering our current financial situation.
If the govt. option is so efficient, then why do so many people from Canada, UK, Cuba and other nations that have govt. run HC come here to the US for our health care?
Although a UFC fighter may not be an expert on such an issue, he's not alone on his opinion. A large number of people have experienced both health care systems, and came out with the same view.
What we need is for our govt. to spend less, quit wasting our tax dollars, and listen to the people for a change. And although Nancy Pelosi and other democrats say otherwise, conservatives do have options that don't include spending billions of dollars; plus these options are NOT called "do nothing."
I highly doubt that we could recover from 37th to first in 10 years.
Rich get taxed a significantly less percent than everyone else. And you said "trillion(+)", 140 billion is hardly close. And the only way we got out of the great depression was due to a war that cost huge amounts of money.
All negative profits, excluding Obama (His term isn't up yet), have been made by republicans since WWII [link]
You still haven't said how or why govt. controlled (the same government that got us into this huge mess, no matter what party you blame) health care would be better for our country, or why so many people are against it.
One of the main reasons that I'm against it is because it will cost too much. Even though you stated that it would only cost 140 billion, the current bill that the democrats are trying to pass will cost nearly a trillion dollars. [link]
And who knows how much will be added to that price over time. But trillion(+) might not be too far off the mark.
A number of states are already paying over 30% on income taxes. And California has many of their residents paying around 40% on income taxes. [Citation needed] And you really think we need more taxes.
And before you say that taxing the rich will help us, at least take a look at this: [link]
We don't need socialism. It hasn't worked in other countries, and if history serves, then it won't work here in the USA. But I'm not saying that we don't need health care reform; what I am saying is that we need a plan that won't cost us the arms and legs of future generations. Just think of the debt that this bill will impose on our kids, grandchildren, and their children.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."