Where we differ is that you have been convinced that more legislation is better or maybe that this SPECIFIC legislation will make things better, whereas I strongly feel that it will make things worse.

It would be good then, for us to educate each other on the facts of the issue to help each other understand our viewpoints as to what changes would likely take place if this bill goes through. And perhaps even prior to that, we might both want to reflect on the even broader question of how each of us have come to believe the things that we believe, whether it be by examining the evidence empirically, thinking things out logically or by allowing ourselves to be influenced by the media and/or institutionalized schooling. The last two are actually very powerful and in many ways, more powerful than most of us realize.
Take care.

That’s a serious question, BTW

Because even as you try to avoid saying it outright, you continue to state a pathologically delusional belief that you have the ability to read minds. Do you really believe you are able to discern evil motive from a loooong overdue health care bill that is trying to make the best attempt to solve problems everybody (but you, apparently) is on board with trying to solve? Seriously?

I’m not asking so I can debate a piece of the health care proposal wth you, you’re pretty clearly beyond the debating point.

I’m just trying to understand what has you so emotionally roiled up that you’ve started hallucinating.

Seriously.

Imagining that you can read minds is scary enough in a plumber. In a physician, its bone-chilling.

‘What works’ has a lot to do with what one is trying to accomplish, which has a lot to do with one’s ideology. What Cuba does currently, by controlling its populace, nationalizing businesses, etc. – could be viewed as ‘not working’, since the country is highly non-productive. On the other hand, looked at through the leader’s eyes, they are ‘equalizing’ outcomes (even if the outcomes are generally bad) and so, they might view this as a success!

Can the author necessarily believe both in ‘what works’ and in ‘what suits the temperament of the American people’? What if the American people want no new taxes and the best health care in the world run by the government? It is up to the author (and each of us) to decide what is right and then convince others that it is right – the author is essentially abdicating this responsibility to think for himself.

Even if the author feels he knows what is correct (which he doesn’t appear to even claim) but realizes that the American public won’t be convinced to his way of thinking; at least he should advocate pushing, as much as possible, in the correct direction.

But his view is the borrowed: ‘All developed nations have a mix of public and private systems.’ and the implied – so we should too. It’s only a matter of the exact ratio of public to private, you see. There are no fundamentally right or wrong principles, there is good and bad on either side, there is honestly and dishonesty on either side, time will tell, we’ll see… yawn.

I was merely saying that your conclusion about the motives of the politicians was based on something akin to what you call “a fundamental understanding of human behavior” and not based on what their actual observed actions are. I still think we’re in basic agreement on that. peace

Thanks for clarifying,