WebsterMark wrote on 08/29/13 at 05:44:10:I think that's the point Tony. We now have another 18,000 federal employees in a program that will be a massive net loser even without those salaries and benefits. It's like the TSA and Homeland Security. Another agency that will be hard to get rid of and they WILL expand their reach.
If the "scope of government" is your point - then I understand your point. Your point of view is valid and many share that view. I don't share that view - but understand it well enough. Also, the point of this thread I thought was about government investigators being armed. So that is what I was addressing in early posts.
America is the largest economy on the planet. We are the third largest country by population and fourth largest by land mass. It takes more than a teeny-tiny government to run it. The federal government needs to do more than keep a standing army for self defense.
Most historians believe the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be a "living" document. A framework that would evolve and expand as the country grew. So the constitution doesn't establish an EPA, or an OSHA -or a Homeland defense. Or more to this thread an agency to administer the Affordable Care Act. But then Franklin and company didn't live in a time where a handful of terrorists might be able to load a nuclear bomb or biological weapon into a cargo container and ship to NYC - killing in one blow most of 8+ million people living there. So if Washington, Jefferson and the rest were alive today, who can say for certain that there might not be a dept of Homeland Defense?
That there are 30-40 million Americans without health insurance - and that this causes a variety of problems in society - is not debatable. What to do about the problem is debatable. Many people think that since it is a national problem a national solution is needed - and is constitutional and reasonable under the "for the common good" part of the constitution and declaration of independence.
My perspective is that 18,000 employees trying to guide, help and determine eligibility for subsidies for 40 million people doesn't sound a like a bunch of waste.
It really all comes down to one's view of the role of government - and I both expect more in the way of services and protections from the government and am not concerned or fearful of it's size - at least not as it is today. A viewpoint that desires a smaller government is equally valid. The strength of a democracy is that some compromise takes place and we as a country meet somewhere in the middle.
Considering that nearly all non-third world countries have some sort of national health care system funded in full and ran by their governments, I'd say what we have certainly represents a compromise.
Pages: 1
