I find it interesting that “progressives” like Andrew Villeneuve follow a very familiar pattern in trying to defend large scale federal government intervention in our society.

First they demonize the opposition, notice his claim in his column in the Oct. 9 Redmond Reporter that Republicans are to blame for not wanting “health care reform” by any means.

Second, he takes the position that opponents complain of “socialized” medicine, aren’t we all beneficiaries of “socialized” services now? Yes these are services that provide for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S.

I don’t think anyone can rationally argue that police and fire departments are equivalent to providing taxpayer financed health care (other than emergencies). Medicare and Medicaid are rife with corruption and fraud, why not fix those programs? The reason is because the federal government is unable to run them efficiently and there is no incentive for the federal government to control costs. They can print more money when they run out! Learn some economics and study history.

Third, he attempts to guilt the reader into agreeing that to provide universal health care is taking the moral high ground, and his position is the only moral one. Yeah, “progressives” are the only ones who know what “moral” behavior is. In fact they know what’s “best” for us.

Fourth, he has no problem with capitalism, as long it’s fair. Get a clue, Andrew! A free society and capitalism have inherent risks, that’s what drives people to excellence. Surprise! Some people don’t win!

It isn’t fair or perfect and everytime government has tried to make things “perfect” things go really wrong. There is a myriad of other very good economic reasons why the federal government shouldn’t be starting another boondoggle of an entitlement program.

Dave Stella, Redmond