DGDevin wrote:

diggerop wrote:

Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that
I was vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable
disaster actually worked reasonably well (and could work better, I
have no doubt,) doesn't make me a socialist. Just smart enough to
admit I'm not always right.

Well said. Unfortunately a great many Americans (on the left and the
right) take an entrenched tribal view of things, and either you stick to
their party line all the way, or you're a heretic.

The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program does
is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon the
government for a very basic need. Future debates then no longer revolve
around freedom, they revolve around the cost of the health system, what
special interest groups get funded, what rationing is applied to what
unfortunate group of citizens. [Yeah, I know, the statists will cry that
the health insurance companies do that now. The fact is however, that if
one doesn't like what a health insurance company determines, there are
alternatives. At worst, one can leverage one's personal assets and get a
loan for the needed treatment. When government says, "no", the answer
based on the 2000+ page Pelosi/Obama-care bill is "NO".]

This whole fiasco has nothing to do with health care and everything to do
with increasing power and control of the government. This, coupled with
the global warming legislation places the government in control of every
aspect of our lives. Are people really so willing to surrender to this in
the name of having other people pay for their health insurance?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham