If you'll scroll down to my latest reply to Fitz, you will see that no, I am not against it.  I do, however, think it can be instituted on different levels and that it is not a reductive choice between a totalitarian state (which happens to have UHC) or a free market system in which those below a certain income level are basically screwed. 

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte

Holy crap!  You pick yourself off the mat and attempt to fire back with that?  Swing and a miss, pal.  If this were a pay-per-view event, I don't know who would have stopped the fight first, the referee or your corner man.  I love debunking left-wing fantasies as much as the next guy, but I'm actually starting to pity you for your ignorance.  Sure, every baseball player enjoys batting practice, but even they find it tiresome after a while and long to face some actual pitching in a real contest.  But if you insist...

I don't expect for you to understand subtle nuance, especially as you can't seem to tell the difference between using existing taxes to support the national defense and demanding an increase in taxes to in effect support the reelection campaigns of incumbent politicians.  For instance, why does it fall on the taxpayers of California (or any other state for that matter) to use a frivolous and irresponsible monument to Woodstock to fund the reeclection bid of Chuck Schumer in New York?  And no doubt New Yorkers (Floridians, Arkansans, etc.) are footing the bill for the reelection bid of Barbara Boxer for some "bacon" she's "bringing home" to San Francisco.  During times like this, there's nothing like a budget battle over war funding to exhibit just some of the things the government could and should do without.  Perhaps, instead of bitching about "underfunded" government programs and blaming the gap on the war on terror, Bill Moyers could offer to do with less than the millions he's stolen through public broadcasting over the years.  I'm sorry, but there are far more important concerns in this country than whether or not PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts or Planned Parenthood...all resources for the very few...get full funding in this budget.  Whether you admit to it or not, the federal government is a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy.  Most of what the government does can be, and often is, done better in the private sector.  National defense is not the budgetary problem...it's the necessity that permits us to argue over the use of ancillary tax revenues.  I'm not thrilled at the idea of paying taxes to support inefficient government entities that pretend to serve the needs of the many yet fail to meet the needs of even the very few.  But I'd be a lot less thrilled if I was forced to surrender additional money just to keep some bogus bureaucracies on life support.  And I'd imagine you'd feel the same way if you had to fill out anything more complicated than a 1040EZ.

My reference to Sweden was only to dispel your implication that all instances of socialized medicine lead to a Castroian totalitarian state. Isn't it funny how I STILL haven't defended universal healthcare in this 24-hour-old thread.

First of all, you dispelled nothing with your Sweden example.  In a previous post, I asked you several relevant questions regarding Sweden's socialized medical system and why it is exemplary...other than it being socialized and not "Castroian".  And here's a tip: merely suggesting that it's not "Castroian" is damning it with faint praise.  And, frankly, everything you have written to this point is funny...you haven't defended anything, let alone universal health care.  But as you so conveniently ignored from my last post, you were the one who first singled out socialized health care as an issue by dishonestly contorting my statement as an indictment on the poor.  So, quit obfuscating.

As I said waaaay at the top of this thread, if you want to ask me a question about my ideology, feel free. I'm not going to lay out a bunch of unsubstantiated talking points.

As would be obvious to anyone with at least half a brain reading this thread, I have asked you countless questions about your ideology.  That you've chosen not to answer them suggests a lack of confidence in your position.  And just whom do you think you're fooling?  Your entire thread has been littered with unsubstantiated talking points.

My concerns ever since you joined this thread have been 1) Your particular verbal defamation of the uninsured lower-class 2) Your sweeping generalizations about liberalism, taxation/healthcare in particular.

Let me address this first by thanking you for your "concern".  1) Geez, Jason.  Does lying come that easily to you?  At what point did "class" come into my statement?  If you learned anything from the recent housing crisis, you'd know that people from all walks of life and economic circumstances financially over-extended themselves, spent more money than they were taking in, and reached a financial crisis due to an inability to catch up to their financial commitments.  Same can be said for the auto makers who negotiated bad contracts with the UAW and couldn't generate the sales to meet their pre-negotiated salary and pension obligations.  And what have they been trying to do now that they can't meet their financial commitments?  Of course, pass their burden off on the taxpayers when they could have done a better job of negotiating with the union in the first place.  As we've discussed before, government also over-extends itself on pork projects then comes to the taxpayers demanding to be bailed out when there isn't enough money in the Treasury to subsidize their frivolous whims...despite the ever-increasing revenues generated to the Treasury through tax cuts.  But once again, you're intellectually lazy, dishonest or both so you seek comfort from the safety of the class envy argument.  And I'm not about to accept your blatant distortions at my expense to "advance" your "argument".  2) It's interesting that you accuse me of making sweeping generalizations about liberalism, taxation and health care when you are too cowardly to even attempt to tell me where my assertions are wrong.  If you had a leg to stand on, you would point out the perceived deficiencies in my argument rather than making sweeping generalizations about the "sweeping generalizations" I'm supposed to have made.  And by the way, this "you don't know anything about me" argument cuts both ways.  Seems to me that we've been questioning each other's motivations in equal measure, both on this thread and in the one about Zinn.  But it's tad cynical and perverse of you to accuse me of misrepresenting your ideology when you're unwilling to discuss what your ideology is.  But suffice it to say that I know enough about you from your, shall we say, "substantively-challenged" posts.  So get over yourself, you're not nearly as deep as you seem to think you are.  And if you haven't had enough yet, do yourself a favor...come back armed with some facts.