Every time the issue of limited government comes up, someone will come forward with tired old 'straw man'. Would I prefer having the option of not getting Medicare and Medicaid while NOT having had my salary taken (involuntarily) to fund these programs? Absolutely! Do I have an alternative to Medicare? No, unless I have the funds to self-insure. This is a matter of law, not choice.

Your 'choice' in whether or not to participate was taken away under FDR. At that time, the people were promised that those who paid in would receive payments proportional to the amount that had been paid in by them. Today, we know that Medicare funds will be reduced by 500 Billion dollars to pay for the 'uninsured'. The idea of means testing for social security is being bandied about and will probably come into fact in either 2011 or 2012. Similarly, your choice on whether or not to participate in Medicare went away under LBJ.

I suggest that those who are concerned about the size/expense of government are correct. Our local governments are set up to provide police/fire services, parks, schools, roads, etc. What they were not intended to do was to carry out ever increasing Federal Mandates imposed by a National Government that believes it has the authority to do whatever it chooses to do.

Why don't your stop tossing about terms such as Fascism until you understand their meaning per Webster, ": a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." This accurately describes a National government with no limits on its powers as described by Congressman Stark.