Talk about somebody standing in the dark closet and assuming therefore that nobody else can see...
I don't care if it "fights" not to be regulated, it can still be regulated and that is the better way to deal with this than creating a government-owned system that simply will be worse, has been shown to be inadequate elsewhere, and even if it were perfectly run doesn't solve the problem to begin with. All that "awesome" fail with no recourse when it becomes corrupt, bureaucrats are not elected and are rarely held accountable.
The reality is, there is recourse with private entities that you do not have with government programs that have been specifically exempted from lawsuit (all from the same group that argues that tort reform wouldn't save money in the current system yet are willing to give their own mess this advantage in the artificial market), and they can still be regulated even if they lobby not to be. Your excuse seems to be, "Well they can't be regulated because they pay our Ds money!"
You can't have it both ways, either you can pass huge systemic changes that create government-owned systems that fail at their assigned task at inception (poor people still won't be able to afford care) or you can't even pass actual reform in legislation because your politicians are paid off... Which is it?
We can do better than this mess. And if this mess is forced on people it will seriously be reflected in 2010....
A case of mistaken identity...
Ah, yes... well it wouldn't contain a rebuttal then would it? I wasted good sarcasm, now I'm sad. Forgive me, I don't know you well enough yet to know where you stand on issues, it makes me "jumpy"...
I wish you would post here more often.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...we all know you think you're the resident genius and your mental meanderings are the word from the mount on high. Pity the recorded exchanges kind of poke a hole in that gasbag.
I don't care And THAT is your problem, Damo. What you don't like you just deny/discount without logical cause. History has proven your stubborn assertion to be at best, unrealistic. if it "fights" not to be regulated, it can still be regulated and that is the better way to deal with this than creating a government-owned system that simply will be worse, has been shown to be inadequate elsewhere, and even if it were perfectly run doesn't solve the problem to begin with. Your regurgitating what you previously stated, and as I pointed out, you're contradicting yourself. All that "awesome" fail with no recourse when it becomes corrupt, bureaucrats are not elected and are rarely held accountable.
Pardon me, but when a gov't program fails, the people through their representatives/Party and legal advocacy/action groups go after them to set things right. That's the way it's been since I was born, and WAY before. Once again, it behooves the PEOPLE to get more involved in the system. Once again, YOU keep condemning a system that you want to regulate a private industry that has SUCCESSFULLY lobbied against regulation beyond a certain point. At best your stance is contradictory. What it all boils down to is that you are AGAINST the current administration...but you have YET to enlighten us as to WHOM YOU FEEl should be in office to perform the dual political miracles you keep asserting.
The reality is, there is recourse with private entities that you do not have with government programs that have been specifically exempted from lawsuit (all from the same group that argues that tort reform wouldn't save money in the current system yet are willing to give their own mess this advantage in the artificial market), and they can still be regulated even if they lobby not to be. Your excuse seems to be, "Well they can't be regulated because they pay our Ds money!"
Once again, you give a new version to the same old clap trap of yours...then you try to misrepresent what I am saying. AGAIN, for the cheap seats: you are IGNORING THE FACTS that the private health insurance industry has lobbied successfully to keep the fed gov't from 100% oversight and regulatory action.....which is why the HMO's are screwing the public with skyrocketing rates and denial of services. That is the "reality" you can't handle.
You can't have it both ways, Projecting? either you can pass huge systemic changes that create government-owned systems that fail at their assigned task at inception (poor people still won't be able to afford care) or you can't even pass actual reform in legislation because your politicians are paid off... Which is it? Only if one accepts your pure supposition and conjecture (with a dose of misrepresentation) as what is the ONLY reality and conclusion of the reform proposals. As I've demonstrated time and again, in order to accept your claptrap, you have to IGNORE recent history as to how and why we have a "crisis" in this area, and then one has unconditionally accept your double standard regarding the gov't ability to regulate and create. Sorry to inform you, but no matter how many ways or times you try, that dog of yours just won't fly.
We can do better than this mess. And if this mess is forced on people it will seriously be reflected in 2010....
He probably does...Would you like me to kick Damo for his sarcastic remark?
You have the patience of a saint! It's clear he's satisfied with the status quo and no matter how bad the current system is, or how much we need this health care act to be passed, he'll deny, deny, deny.
Ah, yes... well it wouldn't contain a rebuttal then would it? I wasted good sarcasm, now I'm sad. Forgive me, I don't know you well enough yet to know where you stand on issues, it makes me "jumpy"...
Mine? Your posts have contained enough straw men to warm my barn for years. You refuse to see anything but what you want and are largely a waste to debate as you constantly miss the main point, repeat the same inanities, rebuild the same straw man, then sing your own praises.
Once again, you display a condescending attitude based on your own delusions...as I said or alluded to nothing as you state in this last sentence. My previous responses stand valid, and your insipid stubborness and denial of your neocon mindset ring clear to all. You've got nothing else, so I'd say we're done here. You may have the last word, if it makes you feell better.Mine? I ain't talking about Alan Greenspan! Your posts have contained enough straw men (Ahhh, the new neocon catch phrase that's falsely trotted out whenever they can't defend their statements.) to warm my barn for years. You refuse to see anything but what you want and are largely a waste to debate as you constantly miss the main point, repeat the same inanities, rebuild the same straw man, then sing your own praises.
Damn, you sound more like Southie and the other neocon peanut gallery with each post.
And yes, my post did point out your projection in that area, the first thing you've seem capable of understanding more than minimally.
What is this some sort of rap singer "I'm cooler" BS?