@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Yes, they are obvious. So is the massive pressure and misinformation campaign brought on by the insurance lobby (and Republicans). Folding under pressure is not the same as having second thoughts about the proposed solutions.
There's lots of lobbying and misinformation out there on this subject coming from all sides. The president himself in his typically vague and abstract assurances has also contributed to this. It is merely part of the current Democrat line to demonize the recent protestors. Certainly some of it is contrived or hypocritical - but so is much of the hype over the proposed new program(s).
Apparently we agree that the so called "Blue Dog" Democrat legislators are "obviously" influenced by public (and their own) reservations about the wisdom of many aspects of the program (s).
FreeDuck wrote:
So twice now you've hinted that I'm hiding some prejudices and being deceitful. We all come to this topic with prejudices, including yourself. If I ask for more information, it's because I want more information -- possibly so that I can challenge my prejudices, possibly so that I can challenge yours (or anyone's). But if you're going to make me out to be some secret whatever-you-think-I-am, then you ought to come straight out with it and quit hinting. That's right, I'm asking for more information! Suck it.
I can recall doing it only once, but I am glad to see that you noticed !
georgeob1 wrote:Many serious people don't believe that additional massive government intervention in health care will deliver any net gains for the country. There may be some new winners and losers, however, the brueaucratization of the system is likely to create a sclerosis that will limit advances and innovation in a system that has so far done both very well. You assert that they are opposed to "fixing the problem".
FreeDuck wrote:
And you assert that the people in your first two sentences are the same people as in your third. I was clearly talking about Republican congressmen and senators. If they were the serious people you mention in your first two paragraphs then they'd be talking seriously about it and not scaring people with Death Panels and Socialism.
No I didn't. Read what I wrote again. To exactly which Republican congressmen and senators are you referring? Exactly what did they do or say??
I do believe there are legitamate reasons to be concerned about the massive government intervention in private economic activity implied in all of these proposals. Are you suggesting that these concerns are intrinsically invalid or meaningless?
FreeDuck wrote:
I've spelled out to you in a previous post in this same thread what I think the problems are, though perhaps not all of them. I've already come out defending what I think are good solutions to it. Our Republican leaders on the other hand have not. Perhaps your hidden prejudices prevent you from acknowledging that.
I guess I missed your proposals. I don't know to which Republican leaders you are referring, so I can't say whether they are at fault for anything. One who thinks the current health care situation is OK (or merely less bad than what is proposed) isn't under any obligation to propose any alternative. Overall, my impression is that legislators on both sides of the aisle are behaving, more or less equivalently, in their traditional ways. Certainly the Democrats, who have voted down every Republican amendment and who are now threatening to misuse a reconciliation process designed only for appropriations to force their proposals through the Congress, are in no position to cry foul.
I have my own prejudices, however, I don't make any effort to hide them or be coy about them. All things equal or nearly so, I strongly prefer action through the private sector (as opposed to government) to address social and economic issues. I believe that a strength of this country is our relatively competitive society (compared to other modern nations). In particular, this enables us to assimilate immigrants more effectively than others and adapt to changing external challenges. In general I believe that freedom and individual initiative produce better long run results than attempts to perfect problems through direct government intervention. There are lots of examples of apparently successful government interventions - as well as lots of examples of obvious failures. However, even the successful ones have their adverse side effects and need to be periodically refined and updated. Unfortunately most tend to create organized communities of beneficiaries who lobby often effectively for the perpetuation of their good deal.
Government regulation is like entropy - it tends only to increase, and takes hard work to reduce it.
