I just don't think the government (federal) should be doing the regulating. They are so far removed from anything that is real yet they claim to know what is best for us. Hell even when we tell them we don't want something, we get it anyway.
Government greed is also rampant, for everything you criticize the private sector a case can be made for government corruption.
Who do you propose as an alternate? Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse has never worked. Governments exists to keep all of the vast elements of a modern country in some kind of order an plan that maximizes the best interests of the country. We can rely on companies to promote their best interests and we can count on the citizens to promote individual interests. Who else but the government is looking out for national and state interests?
If anyone is gullible and naïve enough to think that turning over 1/6th of our economy to the federal government so it can be micromanaged by leftwing federal pea-counters that don’t have the first clue is not going to create a giant fiasco, then I have a bridge to sell them. Moreover, if you are naïve enough to believe that you can provide free healthcare to 30 million additional people without it tremendously raising cost, I also have prime swampland in Arizona I need to sell you The truth is Obamacare is not about reforming America’s healthcare system to make it better and cheaper for everyone. It never was. Instead, it’s about imposing Marxism on the American people, which has long been the goal and dream of the left. In any event, at a time when we have $1.6 trillion budget deficits with a sea of red ink down the road for as far as the eye can see, the last thing we need be doing at this point is adding another gigantic federal entitlement boondoggle, especially when we can’t afford the ones we already have. If Obama had half a brain, and it is obvious he doesn’t, he would be cutting corporate taxes, capital gains, taxes, and federal income taxes to boost economic growth, at the same time he would be looking to slash the federal budget to at least 2007 levels. Why 2007 levels? Because the amount of federal revenues the federal government is projected to take in this fiscal year in 2010 equals the total amount the federal government spent in 2007. Thus, the $1.6 trillion budget deficit we are facing today provides a good measure of how much the Democrats, since taken over both houses of Congress in 2007, have grown the federal government in just that short amount of time. Their Cloward and Pivens strategy is being applied in full force! Indeed, they can’t wait for that first domino to fall.
That's sounds real purty, Red, but do you really think bureaucrats and politicians are any more reliable?
I'm not sure anyone is for ALL govt. regulations to be removed. For example selling insurance across state lines. That is pretty dumb. If you want a regulation to make insurance companies accept pre-existing conditions or remove contractual agreements then you just don't understand the business model at all. And don't give me "well people have the right to blah blah blah". If you understood the definition of insurance you wouldn't be blathering about that. The problem in my opinion is the govt. getting into the medical arena with medicare and prescription drugs. They lower the prices for some individuals and then the price goes up for others. More Govt. Involvement = Pricing goes up Prescription Drug prices are so high because the FDA is the most inefficient system in the freaking world. It doesn't have to do with making more profit here than in Europe. It's the damn regulation that drives up pricing for the companies which gets passed onto us.
That's not what I said. I think that government plays a vital role in the well-being of the nation. There can be too much and there can be too little. Those that advocate no government are fools as are those that advocate total government. What we must seek is the right balance point and that point changes over time.
Forget whichever wing it is, it doesn't matter. You mean like social security and medicaid? Some people will never learn or get it!
I understand it very well. It's a business model designed to meet the needs of business. It cares nothing about making sure that the best interests of the nation are considered. The two are not mutually exclusive. Don't make up a statement, attribute it to me, and then argue with yourself. It just makes you appear foolish.
If the business model didn't work there wouldn't be anyone getting insurance. Would you like that better? And what is the "best" interest of the nation? I just advocated less government involvement to bring pricing down. I think that is a good interest. I don't think it was foolish because whether you like it or not that is how it is portrayed by some people, including me. Unless you point out otherwise.
