Most of the discussion above has centered on the supposed popularity of the system, and the power it would give Democrats in serving identifiable constituencies going forward. I haven't seen any defense ohere of the notion that it could remain popular while, at the same time, reduce our spending by half as its proponents claim. The references to continuing political gains from such a system are themselves acknowlegment of the likely political corruption that will attend it.
"Supposed popularity"? If consumers of such programs in ALL other western nations remain in support of those programs and refuse to see them dismantled (thus, as I noted, no political parties move to make this a platform plank) how on earth can you imagine the word "supposed" makes any sense at all here?
"Remain popular"? A lot of these nations have had their programs in place for many decades.
"Reduce by half"? Who the hell cares if someone said half or five sevenths or fifteen sixteenths. That's a straw man, george. If costs are reduced AT ALL or even if costs remain the same but outcomes improve and number of citizens covered is increased, you win.
" The references to continuing political gains from such a system are themselves acknowlegment of the likely political corruption that will attend it." Well, that's not my reference, it was Bill Kristol's reference and reasoning for why Hillarycare had to be beaten down. As to "likely political corruption", please. This is entirely meaningless and incoherent unless you might, for some unknown reason, imagine that corruption can only arise as a consequence of one arm of government messing about with another arm of government (private enterprise being some creature like Mary, ever virginal and pure).
Some of you folks make be familiar with Rick Perlstein, a very bright young American historian. I can very highly recommend either Nixonland or Before the Storm if you wish to get a better handle on how the present right wing has come into being. But let me toss in a quote from his first post (Jan 7) over at the Nation where he's writing now...
"Now, in response to something like that, you’ll hear my fellow debaters repeat a curious fallacy, a crushing intellectual failure. They’ll act like only governments have the power to deprive citizens of freedom."