Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
Oh and SAKO. Shut the hell up and leave this discussion. If you are who I think you are you have been banned a kajillion times.
|
Which is why we should all ignore him and not feed him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
I am not so sure our Army and Navy are that well run from an efficiency stand point. Do you not believe there are billions upon billions of dollars in waste and fraud within the services?
|
I'm quite sure there's inefficiency. That wasn't the point. At all.
The point is: there can be inefficieny in the public sector
and in the private sector. Nevertheless, there are some things more appropriately entrusted to the government to run, some things more appropriately left to the private sector and some things about which people can reasonably disagree (without being socialists, totalitarianists, hyper-free market capitalists, etc.). The claim that if the government runs it, it is
automatically worse or more inefficient is a dodge that avoids dealing with the real issues.
If the military is beset with waste and fraud, is the answer to address that waste and fraud and try to stop it or to privatize the military on the assumption that the waste and fraud will disappear? Which is in the country's best interests?
Quote:
|
To your point on private insurance carriers they are just that, private. If they can justify to their stockholders the Executives pay then so be it. I am not pleased about the disparity between what the person at the top makes versus the person at the bottom but that is for the companies and their stock holders to sort through.
|
Call me crazy, but I have a real problem with that business model when it affects the premiums I have to pay and the health care I and my family receive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorbaby
Ladies..and gentlemen...please, please trust Federalism. Already, 37 (or 39?) states have filed suit against the national government. The balance between the national and state powers has not been struck and many states are upset (rightfully so) concerning the passage of this bill and the powers given to the national government under it.
|
Just because they sue doesn't mean they'll win. Anyone can sue. While I'll readily admit I haven't looked at all the issues that might be raised, I have a gut sense that these lawsuits are going to be a waste of state dollars at a time most states don't have too many dollars to waste.
ETA: Any legal challenges will be to specific aspects of the bill, not to the bill as a whole. Those states that have announced that they may sue have mainly indicated that they will attack the mandate that each person have insurance or be fined; that is the aspect of the bill the pundits and think tanks/legal foundations seem to be attacking and encouraging suit on. Perhaps ironically, the individual mandate aspect of the bill is quite similar to Republican proposals from the 1990s and to Mitt Romney's Masschusett's plan.
Meanwhile, this is a good read:
Anti-Health Care Reform Suits Face Steep Hurdles: Not All Opponents Confident of Repeal, by David Weigel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moe.ron
David Frum's take on the political fall out:
|
I saw that earlier and thought it was interesting.