Sixty years ago the continent was a pile of rubble and we were the recognized political, military and economic masters of the world; now their living standards, wages and free time are higher than ours while our commitment to reactionary principles has seen continual erosion of the success achieved through commitment to progressive ones. Put another way, when the term "Old Europe" actually fit, when their governments vainly sought to preserve a status quo in which they were ascendant while we fought for liberty and empowerment, my sympathies would've been with America, but since the role reversal I long for the ideals that made this country the leader of the Free World, by example rather than dictate.

Tax evasion by moving abroad; I hear this constantly. See my other responses: WTF are they gonna go? Europe, or Canada, where they'll be taxed far more? China, where "tax audit" means the "peoples" army takes you and your family to a prison labor camp in the dead of night? Seriously, let's get real here, folks.

I'm not saying we should have a public healthcare system totally devoid of oversight and accountability. Stringent oversight and accountability should be its primary aspects; the lack of oversight and accountability is possibly the biggest systemic problem within American healthcare and the reason its cost is growing so much faster than in places like Europe and Canada. The disconnect between treatment and actual health as well as EXISTING death panels and denial of service through private insurance can be traced to precisely those lacks. As can the price, effectiveness and side effects of a variety of drugs; just today it was announced Pfizer will pay $2.3 billion as the result of a federal case against them for marketing a drug to treat conditions for which it never received FDA approval.

What I AM saying is that if even all the oversight in the world results in an inefficient, overpriced and ineffective system in which no one wants to participate--the private option will still be there. I find it revealing that the acolytes of competitiveness, who insist the private option is always the least expensive and highest quality, don't think that theory sound enough to test by competition with a government option. Even where industry lobbies have deigned to consider a public option from a government the seem to feel their servant it's invariably been with two caveats:

1) The industrys current cost limiting measures CANNOT be adopted by a public healthcare system AND

2) They cannot be prohibited in the continued private systems.

It seems as if those who sound the clarion call to competition on a level playing field and may the best man win don't think that's them.