Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[Wry Catcher]

But no matter what you do, government is going to have that power, the universe where we don't have governments like that is far away from our own. The best we can do is make laws that it's illegal for government officials to use their positions to pick winners or losers, or give 'special favors' to. It's kind of something built-in to what politics and government is. Money, power, influence.

You seem to really want to disagree with me for some reason, but it's not clear why. Why in the world wouldn't we want to push for laws (or better yet, constitutional provisions) limiting the government's power to intervene in our economic decisions? Are you advocating for complacency?

I mean, look... I am all for a system where the guy with the most weed and coconuts gets to decide what we're all going to do. We can discuss all kinds of ideas for how we plan to run our new laissez faire society, or we can join the real world and understand that we actually live in a society where government has influence over our lives. Like it or not, we have to grow up and accept this, and deal with what we can do as a society to ensure peaceful cohabitation.

???

Why in the world wouldn't we want to push for laws (or better yet, constitutional provisions) limiting the government's power to intervene in our economic decisions? Are you advocating for complacency?

Why not just disband government and go with the weed and coconut guy? Seems just as realistic to me. You haven't explained how you're going to prevent government from doing what government does. Look, take out your wallet and pull out what you think is money, and look to see if you can find anywhere that it says it's money? It is a promissory note from the Federal Reserve. As long as government controls our currency, they can intervene in our economic decisions and affairs.

I am advocating for realism.

YOU will never find realism, you're paranid and a concrete thinker (please excuse the word "thinker", there was no other alternative word to describe the fantasy you hold as realtiy!).

 

[Boss]

Next, let's look at corporate welfare. Is it a myth, or is it real? If Corporations are people too, why don't they pay the same rate on their profits as do people? And why is it that members of Boards of Directors don't go to prison? When the corporation is found criminally guilty of a crime (if you or I poured oil into a storm drain, wouldn't we serve some time?) it seems if the Corporation is people too, people ought to go to jail/prison and pay restitution - not the stock holders (you do understand "duty" do you not?).

People don't make profits, they earn wages. We have separate rates of taxation on wages and profits because the nature of each is different. Most countries have a relatively lower corporate rate of taxation because this encourages corporations. It's a good thing to have corporations, they provide jobs and generate new wealth. They compete with other corporations and drive price down to the consumer while furnishing a need. In the US, we currently have the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized country.

People who break the law and are prosecuted go to jail, it doesn't matter if they sit on a board of directors. I don't know what would happen if you poured oil in a storm drain, but I imagine it depends on if you got caught. Not sure if you'd do time, you'd probably have to pay a fine.

 

[Boss]

YOU will never find realism, you're paranid and a concrete thinker (please excuse the word "thinker", there was no other alternative word to describe the fantasy you hold as realtiy!).

Why don't you ever articulate on the many accusations you hurl? Here, you say that I will never find realism (not sure what that means), and I am a paranoid and concrete thinker. Paranoid and concrete doesn't sound very good, but you haven't really explained what you mean.

You see, we have a term for what you are presenting here, it's called an "ad hominem" attack.

 

[bripat9643]

Wall street didn't have a thing to do with Greece's current predicament. Public Sector unions and outrageous benefits are the reason Greece can't pay its bills. The government made promises it couldn't possibly keep and now the bill has come due. In typical fashion the appologists for socialism are all looking for a scapegoat they can blame when the blame belongs with them.

Wall Street had everything to do with the previous Greek government's secret debts and the 2008 global debt crisis. Despite the fact that thirty years of neoliberalism resulted in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, bankers and their useful idiots continue to push austerity and privatization as solutions to a problem they created and continue to profit from.

What solution do you propose for the problem of being too far in debt other than spending less?

Taxes, not cutting essential services which you would want.

There's nothing essential about any of the services government provides. Government already takes too big of a chunk out of the hides of taxpayers. No one who isn't getting a check from the government believes he isn't paying enough taxes. What the people who are getting a check from the government believe doesn't count. They're parasites.

But, let's do cut the fat. First, the salary and benefits of members of Congress who work less hard than every fast food/minimum wage earner (how many hours per day does your member of the H. of Rep. spend raising campaign donations? If you don't know, look it up). How many days did your member of Congress actually work? It seem Boehner has the House not in session more than in session.

Next, let's look at corporate welfare. Is it a myth, or is it real? If Corporations are people too, why don't they pay the same rate on their profits as do people? And why is it that members of Boards of Directors don't go to prison? When the corporation is found criminally guilty of a crime (if you or I poured oil into a storm drain, wouldn't we serve some time?) it seems if the Corporation is people too, people ought to go to jail/prison and pay restitution - not the stock holders (you do understand "duty" do you not?).

It's all fat.

The cuts you listed amount to trying to empty a swimming pool using a tea cup. Real corporate welfare is defended by most libs. Take farm subsidies, for example. Dims vote for them in large numbers. Then there's the Ethanol mandate, subsidies for renewable energy, vouchers to the elderly for energy, yada, yada, yada. These are all examples of corporate welfare, but Dims voted for all of them.

When the officers of a corporation commit a crime, they are charged and go to jail, so I'm not clear exactly what you "crimes" you are referring to. I suspect its stuff that no one would consider to be a crime, like producing a superior product that everyone wants to buy.

The fact that you're a hopeless partisan and dumb as a box of rocks makes any debate with you, rabbi(t), Stepanie, CrusaderFrank and the rest of the echo chamber jerks impossible. That finger in your avatar, is it a sign of your IQ or the age you act?

Is that you're way of saying "I surrender?"

 

[bripat9643]

Wall Street had everything to do with the previous Greek government's secret debts and the 2008 global debt crisis. Despite the fact that thirty years of neoliberalism resulted in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, bankers and their useful idiots continue to push austerity and privatization as solutions to a problem they created and continue to profit from.

What solution do you propose for the problem of being too far in debt other than spending less?

Taxes, not cutting essential services which you would want.

There's nothing essential about any of the services government provides. Government already takes too big of a chunk out of the hides of taxpayers. No one who isn't getting a check from the government believes he isn't paying enough taxes. What the people who are getting a check from the government believe doesn't count. They're parasites.

But, let's do cut the fat. First, the salary and benefits of members of Congress who work less hard than every fast food/minimum wage earner (how many hours per day does your member of the H. of Rep. spend raising campaign donations? If you don't know, look it up). How many days did your member of Congress actually work? It seem Boehner has the House not in session more than in session.

Next, let's look at corporate welfare. Is it a myth, or is it real? If Corporations are people too, why don't they pay the same rate on their profits as do people? And why is it that members of Boards of Directors don't go to prison? When the corporation is found criminally guilty of a crime (if you or I poured oil into a storm drain, wouldn't we serve some time?) it seems if the Corporation is people too, people ought to go to jail/prison and pay restitution - not the stock holders (you do understand "duty" do you not?).

It's all fat.

The cuts you listed amount to trying to empty a swimming pool using a tea cup. Real corporate welfare is defended by most libs. Take farm subsidies, for example. Dims vote for them in large numbers. Then there's the Ethanol mandate, subsidies for renewable energy, vouchers to the elderly for energy, yada, yada, yada. These are all examples of corporate welfare, but Dims voted for all of them.

When the officers of a corporation commit a crime, they are charged and go to jail, so I'm not clear exactly what you "crimes" you are referring to. I suspect its stuff that no one would consider to be a crime, like producing a superior product that everyone wants to buy.

The fact that you're a hopeless partisan and dumb as a box of rocks makes any debate with you, rabbi(t), Stepanie, CrusaderFrank and the rest of the echo chamber jerks impossible. That finger in your avatar, is it a sign of your IQ or the age you act?

It's a sign of his respect for you.
No wonder. You are the most worthless poster on here. You can't debate the rest of us because you are ill informed and lack knowledge of much beyond gay prison sex.

You have to cut Wry Catcher some slack. He's a social worker who spent his/her entire career working for the government. In other words, everything he knows is pro-government propaganda. You can't expect a man to know something when his livelihood depends on him not knowing it.

 

[dblack]

But no matter what you do, government is going to have that power, the universe where we don't have governments like that is far away from our own. The best we can do is make laws that it's illegal for government officials to use their positions to pick winners or losers, or give 'special favors' to. It's kind of something built-in to what politics and government is. Money, power, influence.

You seem to really want to disagree with me for some reason, but it's not clear why. Why in the world wouldn't we want to push for laws (or better yet, constitutional provisions) limiting the government's power to intervene in our economic decisions? Are you advocating for complacency?

I mean, look... I am all for a system where the guy with the most weed and coconuts gets to decide what we're all going to do. We can discuss all kinds of ideas for how we plan to run our new laissez faire society, or we can join the real world and understand that we actually live in a society where government has influence over our lives. Like it or not, we have to grow up and accept this, and deal with what we can do as a society to ensure peaceful cohabitation.

???

Why in the world wouldn't we want to push for laws (or better yet, constitutional provisions) limiting the government's power to intervene in our economic decisions? Are you advocating for complacency?

Why not just disband government and go with the weed and coconut guy? Seems just as realistic to me. You haven't explained how you're going to prevent government from doing what government does. Look, take out your wallet and pull out what you think is money, and look to see if you can find anywhere that it says it's money? It is a promissory note from the Federal Reserve. As long as government controls our currency, they can intervene in our economic decisions and affairs.

I am advocating for realism.

Why are you so fixated on weed?

Look, you've got a rather large stick up your ass about something, but all I'm suggesting is that the reason there's so much interest in lobbying government is because they have so much power to intervene economically. We can limit that in any number of ways, starting with simplifying the tax code. But hey, if you like it the way it is - by all means, continue sucking on it!

 

[Wry Catcher]

YOU will never find realism, you're paranid and a concrete thinker (please excuse the word "thinker", there was no other alternative word to describe the fantasy you hold as realtiy!).

Why don't you ever articulate on the many accusations you hurl? Here, you say that I will never find realism (not sure what that means), and I am a paranoid and concrete thinker. Paranoid and concrete doesn't sound very good, but you haven't really explained what you mean.

You see, we have a term for what you are presenting here, it's called an "ad hominem" attack.

It is an ad hominem attack; that does not make my accusations untrue. You are paranoid and have not, to my knowledge, ever responded to by looking at all part and elements of issues - thus, your limitations and fears leave you little to post but right wing propaganda - a sure sign of a concrete thinker.

Defined:

"Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now”, and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract thinker can think about dogs in general. A concrete thinker can think about this dog on this rug; a more abstract thinker can think about spatial relations, like “on”. A concrete thinker can see that this ball is big; a more abstract thinker can think about size in general. A concrete thinker can count three cookies; a more abstract thinker can think about numbers. A concrete thinker can recognize that John likes Betty; a more abstract thinker can reflect on emotions, like affection."

More here:

Tutorial Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking

 

[Boss]

Why are you so fixated on weed?

Look, you've got a rather large stick up your ass about something, but all I'm suggesting is that the reason there's so much interest in lobbying government is because they have so much power to intervene economically. We can limit that in any number of ways, starting with simplifying the tax code. But hey, if you like it the way it is - by all means, continue sucking on it!

I'm not fixated, I was just suggesting an alternative to having civil government. As long as we have government, it will be involved in our economic affairs. I love the idea of simplifying the tax code, but that's not going to remove government from our economic affairs. Now maybe that would give you some false sense of security and help you sleep better at night, but the government would still be very much involved in our economic affairs. And it's not just our economic affairs, government is involved in our social affairs as well.

Politics is power. There's really not a way to keep it from being power without destroying what it is. The best we can ever do is limit the power, and I would suggest following the enumerated powers granted under the Constitution. Of course, we've gotten far away from those specified powers as the courts have reinterpreted things like the commerce clause.

 

[Boss]

YOU will never find realism, you're paranid and a concrete thinker (please excuse the word "thinker", there was no other alternative word to describe the fantasy you hold as realtiy!).

Why don't you ever articulate on the many accusations you hurl? Here, you say that I will never find realism (not sure what that means), and I am a paranoid and concrete thinker. Paranoid and concrete doesn't sound very good, but you haven't really explained what you mean.

You see, we have a term for what you are presenting here, it's called an "ad hominem" attack.

It is an ad hominem attack; that does not make my accusations untrue. You are paranoid and have not, to my knowledge, ever responded to by looking at all part and elements of issues - thus, your limitations and fears leave you little to post but right wing propaganda - a sure sign of a concrete thinker.

Defined:

"Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now”, and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract thinker can think about dogs in general. A concrete thinker can think about this dog on this rug; a more abstract thinker can think about spatial relations, like “on”. A concrete thinker can see that this ball is big; a more abstract thinker can think about size in general. A concrete thinker can count three cookies; a more abstract thinker can think about numbers. A concrete thinker can recognize that John likes Betty; a more abstract thinker can reflect on emotions, like affection."

More here:

Tutorial Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking

I didn't need you to define what a concrete thinker is, or how they are different from abstract thinkers. I was hoping you would point to some examples to support your claim, but you just admit it's an ad hominem attack and insist it's true.

You are paranoid and have not, to my knowledge, ever responded to by looking at all part and elements of issues - thus, your limitations and fears leave you little to post but right wing propaganda...

What have I been paranoid about? You haven't said. I have no limitations or fears, I am willing to listen to any credible idea. The failures of Marxism is not a credible idea, in my opinion. I base this on very careful evaluation of all the parts and elements of the issue as well as historical facts regarding the failed ideology. You can't address those failures with anything more than a litany of excuses for why they failed, and the notion that your 'new and improved' version will miraculously work to solve all the problems... we call this, Utopianism.

Now, to the young "abstract thinkers" out there who aren't up on their world history, and don't comprehend this stuff, we have consistently had a problem with Marxist-style socialism. It seems about every 30-40 years, a wave of this ideology in some incarnation, rolls out to the masses, and is presented as some all-new way of thinking. The proponents hate being called Marxists, and will reject that label. This is where your unfounded "paranoia" claim comes from.

 

[dblack]

Why are you so fixated on weed?

Look, you've got a rather large stick up your ass about something, but all I'm suggesting is that the reason there's so much interest in lobbying government is because they have so much power to intervene economically. We can limit that in any number of ways, starting with simplifying the tax code. But hey, if you like it the way it is - by all means, continue sucking on it!

I'm not fixated, I was just suggesting an alternative to having civil government. As long as we have government, it will be involved in our economic affairs. I love the idea of simplifying the tax code, but that's not going to remove government from our economic affairs. Now maybe that would give you some false sense of security and help you sleep better at night, but the government would still be very much involved in our economic affairs. And it's not just our economic affairs, government is involved in our social affairs as well.

Politics is power. There's really not a way to keep it from being power without destroying what it is. The best we can ever do is limit the power, and I would suggest following the enumerated powers granted under the Constitution. Of course, we've gotten far away from those specified powers as the courts have reinterpreted things like the commerce clause.

That's all I was suggesting, dumbass. I think you just like to get all puffed up and play Foghorn Leghorn. Whatever.

 

[Boss]

Why are you so fixated on weed?

Look, you've got a rather large stick up your ass about something, but all I'm suggesting is that the reason there's so much interest in lobbying government is because they have so much power to intervene economically. We can limit that in any number of ways, starting with simplifying the tax code. But hey, if you like it the way it is - by all means, continue sucking on it!

I'm not fixated, I was just suggesting an alternative to having civil government. As long as we have government, it will be involved in our economic affairs. I love the idea of simplifying the tax code, but that's not going to remove government from our economic affairs. Now maybe that would give you some false sense of security and help you sleep better at night, but the government would still be very much involved in our economic affairs. And it's not just our economic affairs, government is involved in our social affairs as well.

Politics is power. There's really not a way to keep it from being power without destroying what it is. The best we can ever do is limit the power, and I would suggest following the enumerated powers granted under the Constitution. Of course, we've gotten far away from those specified powers as the courts have reinterpreted things like the commerce clause.

That's all I was suggesting, dumbass. I think you just like to get all puffed up and play Foghorn Leghorn. Whatever.

Well, I get what you're saying, I have all along. I'm not getting puffed up, just pointing out realistic facts that you may not have thought about. We're dealing with power, money and politics. Some people think we ought to limit the money, you think we should limit the power. I don't think we should limit the money, and I don't think we can limit the power. What we should do is elect politicians with integrity and hold them accountable. If someone is caught exchanging money for their vote, frog-march their ass out of the chamber in handcuffs and shackles.

A bunch of people will say the are "for smaller government" and I am guilty of this as well, but the problem is, we are depending on an entity to take the unnatural act of limiting itself or making itself less relevant and smaller. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, government will never volunteer to make itself smaller. So to me, this is a rational thought we must consider when deciding what to do. Government doesn't want to cooperate with our making it get smaller.

I love Walter E. Williams. He is one of my favorite speakers when it comes to Constitutional Conservatism. He did an amazing job explaining the problem when he addressed a question he often gets... Why don't you run for President, Williams?

He said, "because I wold lose in a landslide, no one would vote for me." He goes on to explain, when the people wanted to know what he was going to do for them, he'd have to be honest and tell you the he had read the constitution and doesn't believe he is supposed to be doing about 90% of what is being done now. Not to expect him to bring home the bacon. He said, "now, how many people would vote for me?" You see, it's the system we've developed. Every politician, whether republican or democrat, is out there promising you something they are going to do with the power of government if you elect them. No one is saying, I am not going to do anything, I am going to stay out of your way and let you do it on your own! No one would vote for that.

Someone mentioned cutting congressional salaries because they haven't been in session much... as far as I am concerned, the less time the better. The more they are in session, the more they are expanding the size and scope of government in some way that effects your life.

 

[Wry Catcher]

YOU will never find realism, you're paranid and a concrete thinker (please excuse the word "thinker", there was no other alternative word to describe the fantasy you hold as realtiy!).

Why don't you ever articulate on the many accusations you hurl? Here, you say that I will never find realism (not sure what that means), and I am a paranoid and concrete thinker. Paranoid and concrete doesn't sound very good, but you haven't really explained what you mean.

You see, we have a term for what you are presenting here, it's called an "ad hominem" attack.

It is an ad hominem attack; that does not make my accusations untrue. You are paranoid and have not, to my knowledge, ever responded to by looking at all part and elements of issues - thus, your limitations and fears leave you little to post but right wing propaganda - a sure sign of a concrete thinker.

Defined:

"Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now”, and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract thinker can think about dogs in general. A concrete thinker can think about this dog on this rug; a more abstract thinker can think about spatial relations, like “on”. A concrete thinker can see that this ball is big; a more abstract thinker can think about size in general. A concrete thinker can count three cookies; a more abstract thinker can think about numbers. A concrete thinker can recognize that John likes Betty; a more abstract thinker can reflect on emotions, like affection."

More here:

Tutorial Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking

I didn't need you to define what a concrete thinker is, or how they are different from abstract thinkers. I was hoping you would point to some examples to support your claim, but you just admit it's an ad hominem attack and insist it's true.

You are paranoid and have not, to my knowledge, ever responded to by looking at all part and elements of issues - thus, your limitations and fears leave you little to post but right wing propaganda...

What have I been paranoid about? [ You haven't said. I have no limitations or fears, I am willing to listen to any credible idea. The failures of Marxism is not a credible idea, in my opinion. I base this on very careful evaluation of all the parts and elements of the issue as well as historical facts regarding the failed ideology. You can't address those failures with anything more than a litany of excuses for why they failed, and the notion that your 'new and improved' version will miraculously work to solve all the problems... we call this, Utopianism.

Now, to the young "abstract thinkers" out there who aren't up on their world history, and don't comprehend this stuff, we have consistently had a problem with Marxist-style socialism. It seems about every 30-40 years, a wave of this ideology in some incarnation, rolls out to the masses, and is presented as some all-new way of thinking. The proponents hate being called Marxists, and will reject that label. This is where your unfounded "paranoia" claim comes from.

 

[Bush92]

Everything the federal government touches turns to shit. Privatization produces a better product and a cheaper price. Cost of health care had went up since the 1960's because hospitals will bilk the system. I wish we could go back to the days of the family doctor getting paid with a chicken.

 

[mikegriffith1]

...our healthcare system?

Already there is a big money in healthcare. If corporations run our healthcare system, they can charge whatever they want. Seriously what good is having state of the art healthcare if poor people can't afford the most basic of cancer treatment?

Why would it not be better to create a system that insures proper treatment for everyone? Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but if you take away profit as an incentive you are less likely to have corruption. Let's stop wasting billions a year on useless defense expenses and focus that money on socialized medicine.

Here's a fun fact: polls show 92% of Canadians prefer the Canadian healthcare system over the US system.

Yet, where do wealthy Canadians go for advanced medical treatment? The U.S.

How many Canadians really even know much about the U.S. health care system?

Why do people from all over the world come to America for advanced medical procedures?

 

[Wry Catcher]

YOU will never find realism, you're paranid and a concrete thinker (please excuse the word "thinker", there was no other alternative word to describe the fantasy you hold as realtiy!).

Why don't you ever articulate on the many accusations you hurl? Here, you say that I will never find realism (not sure what that means), and I am a paranoid and concrete thinker. Paranoid and concrete doesn't sound very good, but you haven't really explained what you mean.

You see, we have a term for what you are presenting here, it's called an "ad hominem" attack.

It is an ad hominem attack; that does not make my accusations untrue. You are paranoid and have not, to my knowledge, ever responded to by looking at all part and elements of issues - thus, your limitations and fears leave you little to post but right wing propaganda - a sure sign of a concrete thinker.

Defined:

"Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now”, and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract thinker can think about dogs in general. A concrete thinker can think about this dog on this rug; a more abstract thinker can think about spatial relations, like “on”. A concrete thinker can see that this ball is big; a more abstract thinker can think about size in general. A concrete thinker can count three cookies; a more abstract thinker can think about numbers. A concrete thinker can recognize that John likes Betty; a more abstract thinker can reflect on emotions, like affection."

More here:

Tutorial Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking

I didn't need you to define what a concrete thinker is, or how they are different from abstract thinkers. I was hoping you would point to some examples to support your claim, but you just admit it's an ad hominem attack and insist it's true.

You are paranoid and have not, to my knowledge, ever responded to by looking at all part and elements of issues - thus, your limitations and fears leave you little to post but right wing propaganda...

What have I been paranoid about? [ You haven't said. I have no limitations or fears, I am willing to listen to any credible idea. The failures of Marxism is not a credible idea, in my opinion. I base this on very careful evaluation of all the parts and elements of the issue as well as historical facts regarding the failed ideology. You can't address those failures with anything more than a litany of excuses for why they failed, and the notion that your 'new and improved' version will miraculously work to solve all the problems... we call this, Utopianism.

Now, to the young "abstract thinkers" out there who aren't up on their world history, and don't comprehend this stuff, we have consistently had a problem with Marxist-style socialism. It seems about every 30-40 years, a wave of this ideology in some incarnation, rolls out to the masses, and is presented as some all-new way of thinking. The proponents hate being called Marxists, and will reject that label. This is where your unfounded "paranoia" claim comes from.

Capitalism regulated by a government, a government restrained by checks and balances, which can be changed by the people every two years, seems to be the best form of government ever to exist in recorded human history.

You and some others seem to believe, magically believe, a market system sans outside regulations, rules and laws would self regulate. I don't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

...our healthcare system?

Already there is a big money in healthcare. If corporations run our healthcare system, they can charge whatever they want. Seriously what good is having state of the art healthcare if poor people can't afford the most basic of cancer treatment?

Why would it not be better to create a system that insures proper treatment for everyone? Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but if you take away profit as an incentive you are less likely to have corruption. Let's stop wasting billions a year on useless defense expenses and focus that money on socialized medicine.

Here's a fun fact: polls show 92% of Canadians prefer the Canadian healthcare system over the US system.

Yet, where do wealthy Canadians go for advanced medical treatment? The U.S.

How many Canadians really even know much about the U.S. health care system?

Why do people from all over the world come to America for advanced medical procedures?

Kaiser Permanente is, "a system that insures proper treatment for everyone" and IMO seems to be a good example of a single payer, not for profit health care system.

The only reason the issue of health care in America has remained a politcal football is because health care is the Golden Goose for many of the well-healed, and Plutocrats have funded massive campaigns against reform for over a century.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Private Industry is driven by individual need... thus individual ingenuity solves the problem, where the problem exists.

There is no problem in the Medical Business/Industry which is not founded directly in and which is not a direct the result OF the policy set upon that industry by the US government and, the rejection of sound principle common to the influence of the Ideological Left which has so long infected US Government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Private Industry is driven by individual need... thus individual ingenuity solves the problem, where the problem exists.

There is no problem in the Medical Business/Industry which is not founded directly in and is a direct result OF government and the rejection of sound principle common to the influence of the Ideological Left which has so long infected US Government.

Your written words in the last phrase are pretentious and missing the direct object in your run-on sentence. You may have had something to offer, sadly you were unable to convey it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Private Industry is driven by individual need... thus individual ingenuity solves the problem, where the problem exists.

There is no problem in the Medical Business/Industry which is not founded directly in and which is not a direct the result OF the policy set upon that industry by the US government and, the rejection of sound principle common to the influence of the Ideological Left which has so long infected US Government.

Your written words in the last phrase are pretentious and missing the direct object in your run-on sentence. You may have had something to offer, sadly you were unable to convey it.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Private Industry is driven by individual need... thus individual ingenuity solves the problem, where the problem exists.

There is no problem in the Medical Business/Industry which is not founded directly in and which is not a direct the result OF the policy set upon that industry by the US government and, the rejection of sound principle common to the influence of the Ideological Left which has so long infected US Government.

Your written words in the last phrase are pretentious and missing the direct object in your run-on sentence. You may have had something to offer, sadly you were unable to convey it.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Thank you so much.