does she really want to compare health care "reform" to Social Security?

From the LA Times' Nancy Altman in the C-J...

Opponents have unleashed a torrent of hyperbolic claims and heated invective in an effort to stop President Barack Obama's health-care reform. But the president shouldn't be surprised by the rhetoric. Three-quarters of a century ago, nearly identical denunciations were used in an attempt to kill legislation that created one of the country's most popular government programs: Social Security.

Although no one was talking about “death panels” back then, opponents claimed that Social Security would result in massive government control....Today, opponents of a public health insurance option claim that it would drive private health insurance out of business and put a bureaucrat between doctors and patients....Then as now, opponents played the socialism card....

Unlike today, however, the political rhetoric never gained traction in 1935....

Well, that was relatively simple income/wealth redistribution; this is wholesale expansion into a vital sector of the economy.

Although nearly every Republican in Congress was vehemently opposed to Social Security, Roosevelt prevented them from controlling the debate. Months before Congress was presented with legislation, FDR sought to immunize the public. In a series of fireside chats and other broadcasts, the president anticipated arguments and responded before public opposition got out of control....It may be too late for President Obama to frame and control the debate over health care reform. But if he is to have a successful administration, he should learn from FDR. Like Roosevelt, he must talk directly to the American people....

For those who favor Obama's health care proposals, this is a troubling analogy when one considers the promises of Social Security, the predictions about its cost to taxpayers, and the ease in administering it (mailing checks vs. running health care).

Here's the letter I sent to the C-J...

Does Nancy Altman really want to use Social Security as an analogy for Obama's troubled health care proposals?

When one considers how much the government underestimated the tax burden and costs of Social Security, it should worry us a lot to consider the federal government vastly increasing its footprint on health care.

In addition, Social Security is relatively easy to administer-- largely as a book-keeping task and mailing out checks. If the federal government has struggled so much with Social Security, why would one think that they'd handle something incredibly complex like health care?

If one believes that more government is the answer, why not embrace 50 state-based efforts rather than a single, grand, federal experiment?