Question about healthcare repealFollow

Um, ok?

I'm suggesting that the Democrats were so effective at getting their message out that they have changed the hearts and minds of the American public. It is enough experience to lead a country to have been a junior legislator. I know I've seen the light.

I don't see him running either.

NOVEMBER 2ND WOULD PROVE YOU WRONG IN THIS INSTANCE, GOOD SIR!

I've seen the resumes of some of the candidates, and I have to tell you I think I'm right. There were a lot of inexperienced people elected to positions of power this week.

Been stuck in meetings all day, so I'll touch on a couple points:



It's interesting just how stark the dividing line is between products and services which are subsidized/regulated/mandated or otherwise heavily government controlled, and those which are not. In areas where they are not, the same pattern of competition consistently results in an increasingly superior product at an increasingly more affordable price to the consumer. Where the government is involved, you see the opposite. Costs rise. Product improvements slow to a crawl.

If lasik had been covered by health care systems, anyone want to argue that the price and quality would have improved as much as it has? In a nutshell, that's your argument right there.




That's a false dilemma IMO. People can *both* work to make the state they are in the ideal they want *and* choose to move to another state which is either already the way they want, or closer to it and more likely to be movable to that idea. The real dilemma is between a system in which one set of rules exists for the whole country and everyone has to fight over and live with that one result, or a system in which there are 50 different sets of rules allowing both for people to more easily change the rules they live under *or* move to a state where the rules are more to their liking.

If you were to assess which system would allow the most people to live under a set of rules they like, it's pretty obvious that the "keep most differences at the state level" model works best. The absolute best you can do is get 51% of the people to like a single federal system. You can potentially get much much much higher levels of happiness and agreement if you keep that process at the state level instead.


And isn't "pursuit of happiness" one of our founding principles?



As to the original question? We could simply roll back the health care to what it was prior to the passage of the health care bill with minimal effect on anyone right now. What that would do is at least reduce the looming costs associated with said bill. That's not to say that we don't have other looming costs in the form of social security and medicare, but it's a decent start. I frankly never understood the logic of arguing that since we can't afford what we're doing right now, that we should just do more of it. The follow up argument (which I've heard a lot of in the last couple days) that if we can't fix the original problem we shouldn't bother wasting our time on the subsequent problems is equally fallacious.

It's a good start. And maybe if we hadn't been put into a situation where we have to first undo all the spending from the last 2 years piled on top of our already unsustainable spending, we'd be able to focus on the real problems instead of having to dig through 5 feet of garbage just to see it again.

One of your best!

There's a lesson in this

Rubio's certainly closer to the center than Palin, but not as close as Romney. However, Rubio isn't "handicapped" by Healthcare or Mormonism so he'd actually be a decent candidate on paper to run against Obama. He'd probably even be less divisive for the GOP than Palin or Romney would be in the primary.

But will he run?

Spot on, varus! And the fact that corporations can now give as much as they want to any candidate they want had nothing to do with any of it! Yeah!

Mike Castle in Delaware, Charlie Crist in Florida, and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska would disagree with you on that liberals only idea. Granted, Murkowski might still pull off an upset as a write-in.

Too much bribery going on in Washington altogether. My big ***** is that the rich crowd can funnel millions into campaign advertisements anonymously. I want to know who is buying my politicians, thank you.

I'm against both, for the record. But adding corporations into the mix certainly had an effect on this election.

I feel pretty warm and fuzzy, nestled here in my little incumbent/Democratic corner of the nation.