Most Popular This Week
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
- Obama Offers to Cut Social Security, Medicare and Popular Programs (Again)
Popular content
Today's Top News
HR 3962: Why I Voted NO
We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.
By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.
This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.
Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



211 Comments so far
Show AllEsquire??? Obama accomplishments????? LOL
Seriously, all of those "accomplishments" cited by the authoritative(???) Esquire Magazine (lol at "Esquire" again) don't amount to a bag of chips. Roughly half of them have not even happened, although it was announced that they were to happen, lol again.
And, the point was, in Obama's post apocalyptic America, it will be indisputably better to be dirt poor income wise, assuming of course you have enough wealth or enough in kind benefits to cover basic necessities, which is indeed doable, (more easily doable in small towns than in big cities incidentally, so the neighborhood may actually be quite nice) than to be simultaneously a lower income wage slave working the hind end off, and at the same time a slave to the multimillionaire insurance executives.
How sweet (no, how disgusting, actually) the irony that a "black man" brought us slavery to the ultra wealthy insurance execs. The wonders never cease, lol.
The United Swindles of America remains the United Swindles of America.
Good on you, Dennis. You had my (write-in) vote for Prez in 2008 and you shall have it again in 2012 should you choose to run again. Keep up the good work. You are one of less-than-a-handful of representatives who actually have the best interests of the people in mind, instead of the best interests of the corporations. Just remember, it takes only one person to make a difference, no matter what the odds.
HR 3962 will give the libertarians and conservative Republicans plenty of ammunition to criticize government as too intrusive in health affairs. HR 676 would have kept government out of people's health affairs, out of interfering with business, and stayed limited to defending the health care of its citizens. Either the Senate defeat this bill or it is time to get government completely out of the way. They are meddling with business affairs by siding with the insurance giants and crushing small businesses. I strongly stand against corporate welfare and side with Dennis Kucinich as a Green/Libertarian mix.
I say amen to Broadway Carl. I am a long time admirer of and contributor to Dennis' K's positions and campaigns, but I think that in this instance he has made the perfect the enemy of the good and (what no one in politics should ever forget) the possible.
I assume, then, that you will have no trouble educating the readers here as to what is "good" in the bill.
Exactly, perfesser.
The bill is not good.
It's godawful, a step backward. As the PNHP has already stated, it's worse than no bill because it will FORCE people to purchase an extortionate, lousy product and will thus strengthen and subsidize a piratical industry that needs to be euthanized.
Don't be fooled. Kucinich's vote was a token. If the bill had really been in danger of failing, he would've voted in favor of passage, like virtually every other member of the progressive caucus.
Kucinich's ruse is precisely the sort of tactic Democrats use to keep progressives from abandoning the Democratic Party. They will cast a vote in support of a failed cause or come out in support of some undefined legislation, just enough to lead you on, but in the end, progressive bills are always blocked from coming to a vote. If Kucinich were genuine, he wouldn't have backed off the single-payer amendment.
You bring up the larger structural picure. I agree the election and electroal systems are rigged, the winner takes all system produces only two parties and is anti-democratic (results in minority rule).
The legal framework that favors corporations and gives them the individual rights of a human being is deeply unjust, the legal framework that equates money as free speech is deeply unjust. Allowing a corporate media oligopoly, that spews little more than propaganda and tabloid fluff, to emerge is deeply unjust. The two-party system is a de-facto ONE PARTY STATE.
Some people find it too disturbing to admit this. Decade after decade we see the same old thing no matter who controls Congress or the White House. Even so called progressives believe that the system still works. The Nation is a good case in point, it is little more than a spin doctor for the D party.
The Ilness and Death Profit Industry (IDPI) wins, no surprise here. They flooded Congress with 10s of millions of dollars of bribe money and got what they paid for.
I wish my rep would have voted NAY along with Dennis K. As already outlined, the bill is a criminal extortion racket. It gives the IDPI millions of new customers that will result in billions in new profits; guarantees obscene, barbaric and Vampiric profit margins; and uses our own govt. as a thug to force people to buy a sub-standard product at wildly inflated prices. If that was not enough, taxpayer money will be directly handed to the IDPI in the form of subsidies.
If anything like this gets signed by the Emperor, it should be legally challenged as unconstitutional.
Thank you Dennis!
"America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system"
The majority of Americans already recognize this: the politarians don't, and they're as remote from the acute suffering of people as the aristocrats in 1789 and 1917 were.
Here is a lucid, thorough explanation of the reasons that this bill SUCKS:
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/11/05/health-care-reform-2009-no-bill-is-better-than-a-bad-bill/
Just stop and think for a moment. All of this could have been avoided if the voters had only cast informed ballots. Nader supports Single Payer - along with 4 others of the 8 presidential candidates that were on my ballot.
Blame the voters who continue to vote for dem/repubs and then they get voters' remorse. Voters keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Does anyone out there really believe that the dems or repubs will ever represent the people??????
I commend you Dennis for keeping your word in your July 30 letter, signed with 56 others, to not accept anything short of a public option tied to Medicare rates, available to anyone. Bravo! You and Eric Massa are the ONLY TWO of those 57 who kept their commitment.
I posted a comment to Lucinda Marshall's article listed below, and wished I'd published it here when encountering Broadway Carl's inane apologetics. I hesitated after seeing RichM, et al, apply the appropriate smackdowns.
But I feel that I might as well go on record here, too, after "jcarrigan" popped up in support of Broadway Carl, and actually USED the expression... well, you'll see:
____________________________
But... but... the Democrats have a PLAN! Dontcha SEE?
They're gonna FIX all this in Obama's second term!
This so-called "first term" is REALLY just a campaign for the SECOND term. The SECOND term is the "money term"!
During the FIRST term, or "pre-term", Obama and his crew have to take two steps backwards, keep their powder dry, and most of all not make the perfect the enemy of the good!
But once's Obama's elected to a SECOND term, the Fix is in and the Fixing begins! Unless the time isn't right, of course, and the Dems realize that the Fixing won't happen unless Obama's (Democratic) SUCCESSOR gets a MANDATE.
OK, the successor won't be able to do much in their FIRST term, but...
[Cue: Sonny & Cher, "The Beat Goes On"]
· Yr Obd't Servant
I said nothing about a second term. This bill has to go through the Senate and then be voted on again in both houses. But you can guarantee that had nothing been done on health care, if it dies right now, there won't be a second term, which may be fine for you, since Obama hasn't fixed everything on the progressive wish list in his first 9 months. Go ahead and write him off and enjoy a President Pawlenty or President Palin in 2012. Then come back here and whine some more.
You want single payer? So do I. But where did everyone go? Where are all the throngs of people that followed, volunteered and voted for Obama during his campaign? All I see on TV are teabaggers and wingnuts with disgusting signs and strapped with guns. Where are our single payer rallies? When do we go to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to state what we want?
Dan Froomkin: Want Obama To Be Bolder? Take To The Streets!
"...Obama has fallen way short of expectations. He surrounded himself with too many people who represent politics-as-usual, and he has buckled under to pressure from the national security establishment that Bush put on steroids.
How much of that would be different, however, if the people who voted for Obama had remained politically active? If they were visibly and energetically not just supporting him, but pushing him to be bolder?
But Obama's supporters aren't giving him even rudimentary political cover.
Almost forgotten these days is the fact that in Obama's first address to Congress. In February, the new president served up a pretty darn bold agenda, backed up by a respectably progressive budget proposal. So what was the reaction? Obama looked over his shoulder and saw -- no one.
The talking heads on TV and in the newspapers tut-tutted about what a big gamble he was taking. And without any palpable expression of public support to worry about, the moneyed interests and their congressional lackeys in both parties went about nibbling everything to death."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/want-obama-to-be-bolder-t_n_348969.html
I supported Kucinich and still do. I contributed to his campaign. He had a great plan: He needed one million people to donate $50 to fund his entire campaign. How much did he raise? I don't even think one tenth of that. I can't imagine there aren't one million progressives out there with the ability to donate.
And you call me an apologist? Maybe I'm just not ready to give up and run down the street with my hair on fire after 9 months. I remember the last 8 years.
"And you call me an apologist? Maybe I'm just not ready to give up and run down the street with my hair on fire after 9 months. I remember the last 8 years."
I think I would call you an apologist, although not for the silly straw man that you projected into another writer. I think that your arguments point to a blank check for Democrats on the basis of their not being Republicans. Your comments to me and others seek to frame all discourse in terms of the alternative being a Republican administration. This maneuver defines the current situation as relatively good, no matter what may happen.
In this way, you decouple ideas from the context. Since I cannot conceive of politics without considering the ideas that attach to those politics, blank checks like yours, rhetorical or otherwise, are simple apologia.
Well then call it what you like. I don't see it as apologia, I see it as reality. Until we have something other than a two party system, that's exactly what it is. But don't stop those write in votes for Kucinich or Nader. See how far that gets you.
And a blank check for Dems has gotten us where again?
Yeah Carl you are so moronic you don't even realize what you are saying whenever you talk! It's good that the brilliant debaters on this site can translate your words into appropriately abusive language. Carl, try harder and maybe you too can sound just like Rush/Glenn/Bill! :[
Having fun joking progressivism? How much again is Obama paying you to troll like a cultist?
Cash?
NOW who's "whining"? Maybe it's all in the ear of the beholder!
Not to mention that you may well be one of those folks who wouldn't run down the street with their hair on fire even if their hair actually WERE on fire. So that zinger goes by the board, I'm afraid.
You've got that moderate Democrat battered spouse syndrome thing going, so it won't help to point out that our Elected Misrepresentatives from the Top Dog down have made it clear that traditional citizen protest and activism is null and void; health-care activists opposed to the No Insurer Left Behind abomination-- aka Obama's Win-- have been persistently either blown off out of hand, or forcibly removed and arrested for daring to interrupt the hucksters conducting the "business" of government.
Max Baucus was, and perhaps remains, so bewildered by being hassled by single-payer supporters that he decided, or was directed, to conduct a blatantly-cosmetic and belated meeting with such supporters in which he apparently remained utterly clueless at the prospect that anything beyond partisan political calculus governed events.
So everybody pretty much just left out the same door they came in, and Baucus resumed Moving Forward as if it had all been just a bad dream. The White House excluded Obama's OWN former personal physician from participating in a staged "health-care" symposium, etc.
I don't want to laterally leap onto my Barney Frank Critique soapbox here, but I'll note that Frank, in his usual imperious and sarcastically condescending way, has made it clear that the Elected Misrepresentative para-corporate collective hive mind, fka the US federal government, has rendered traditional political dissent and protest irrelevant.
It's reasonable to infer from Obama's own conspicuous distance from dissenters, evidenced during his candidacy by his refusal to acknowledge dissenters at the Democratic National Convention except for a brief wave with a ten-foot pole, that he shares Baucus's and Frank's perplexed disdain for such rabble up in arms.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. If you desire to Change the Collective, the first step is to voluntarily assimilate. Resistance is futile... [repeat, ad infinitum]
Also, for all their talent at righteous scolding, even the coolest-browed mod Dems never HAVE been able to make up their minds over whether the thing to do is CHEERLEAD "support" Obama regardless of disappointment at his compromises, or BOO Obama in the course of putting his cloven hooves to the fire when he seems unwilling or unable to take satisfactory positions.
I'm not much of a sports fan these days, but as one born and bred in Philly, I suppose the "boo-bird" spirit is accordingly strong in me. For instance, it seemed natural to boo when Obama received the Nobel MVP Award after a first quarter filled mostly with punts and fumbles. Even being edumacated afterwards that it's really more of an INCENTIVE award didn't help.
And it seems just as natural to boo when Obama cooes that the AARP and the AMA are on board with Our History-Making Health Care legislation.
But it's so selfish and mean-spirited and ultimately self-destructive to BOO at the drop of a hat, because it's certainly not helping the star quarterback's morale! Since booing is so problematic, it's probably more of a matter of "if you can't cheer, better not to open your mouth at all".
Because, regardless of all that hype about We the Progressives diligently holding our Well-Meaning president's feet to the fire, Booing is really a last resort, and so difficult to do appropriately that it's best avoided at all.
This last point is indicative of the heart of battered-spouse syndrome; if Daddy hurts us, if the star quarterback ends up throwing interceptions or is turned into pudding by the defensive front four, it's really OUR fault for letting him hang out there to dry!
OK, just checked mirror, not even a wisp of smoke rising from what's left of the crop.
PS: to avoid burdening comments threads with unnecessary duplication, also see my November 8th, 2009 5:37 pm comment posted to "Single Payer Advocates Starting to Break Against Obama" by Russell Mokhiber-- it's presently just under "Further...:" on the left-hand column in the main page.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Carl, quit using straw man arguments! We are the only ones allowed to set up a flimsy straw man and then easily knock it down. We own the straw man paradigm! :\
You have it, Obedient. Sounds like an over-the-top satire, but that's exactly what will happen and people will fall for it, just like they fell...never mind. It's so easy.
If folks start registering and voting Green en masse, we'll know they are serious.
As an old girlfriend used to say, "half a loaf is better than none". But I'm glad you lodged the protest vote Dennis. It shows you are one of the few politicians with principles. I'm sure you knew beforehand that it wouldn't lose the entire bill to the Repugs and con Dems. Now at least we have a bill that can be improved as we go along.
This bill is NOT half a loaf. It is no loaf. It is worse than no loaf--it's toxic swill.
See the following lucid, thorough explanation of the reasons that this bill SUCKS:
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/11/05/health-care-reform-2009-no-bill-is-better-than-a-bad-bill/
If the Repugs and con Dems were so much against it, it must be an improvement.
Did you read the article and think about the actual details of the bill?
It's a shell game.
The insurance lobby WROTE this bill.
They have all their bets covered. They finance and control all the Beltway players. They all agree on one essential point--retaining the stranglehold of the private insurers on the health-care financing system.
The "disagreements" are simply about how best to jerk the American people around.
"had this bill failed, health care reform would have died with it."
This is a bill about mandatory private insurance, NOT about "health care reform". The Democrats will rue the day they celebrated this raft of crap as "historic".
One might wish Rep. Kucinich -- or SOMEbody! -- had seen fit to denounce the crass obscenity of throwing more of the poor into the rolling Death Panel of Medicaid.
Obama, with his drum-major -- or is it majorette? -- fantasy of leading with a "baton", is an even-more-ludicrous embarrassment than even the most cynical predicted. His prissy parade's about over, and the whole country's knee-deep in pony poop.
Dem-dat-dare November 8th, 2009 5:12 pm
"Obama, with his drum-major -- or is it majorette? -- fantasy of leading with a "baton", is an even-more-ludicrous embarrassment than even the most cynical predicted."
Verified. Have you noticed that anti Bush articles have pretty much dried up on the progressive Internet? When an empty suit follows what many in Progressive Land consider to be the worst Presidency in history, who wants to or can profitably think or write all that much about either one of them? I mean, Bush has been covered already, and there isn't all that much to say about an empty suit, is there, laugh out loud?
Just wake us up when at least one of the two Corporate parties implodes or when there is a new, half viable non-right-wing party that isn't tagged as a one issue party and that does not have the poison word "socialist" in its name.
Or if China stops buying Treasury bonds, that would justify a wake up I guess.
Dem-dat-dare, that's Hilarious, thank you!
I have no way of proving this, but I would bet that if the House had been evenly split and Kucinich's vote was the tie-breaker, he would have closed ranks with the Democratic Party hacks for whom he urges everyone to vote during every election cycle.
His vote was not needed, so he could afford to indulge in some "principled" speechifying.
Granted, this is a mere hypothesis, but there is ample evidence for it in his inexorable calls for people to vote the straight Democratic line, even though he knows those Democrats will trample everything he claims to stand for.
If he places party loyalty above political principle during EVERY election cycle, he would probably do so in a crunch like this.
But his vote was not critical--so he can continue to play the role of the Democratic Party's "useful progressive idiot."
I disagree with your conclusions (though in the current climate of Washington I can understanmd why you might see it that way). To paraphrase an old Barbara Mandrell country song, DK was progressive when progressive wasn't cool. I see no evidence that anybody is cutting him any slack for selectively changing his votes on the various issues he has championed including single-payer health care.
He is still regarded as an irrelevent gadfly in the Democratic party (much like Ron Paul is in the Republican party). Even though his positions reflect the clear majority of the several hundred posters to this blog most times, without sites like Common Dreams nobody outside of his conmgressional district would have even heard of him.
Poet
Kucinich has always called on people to vote for the very mainstream hack Democrats who he knows full well will crush the progressive agenda he yaks about.
Anyone who campaigns in practice for politicians who oppose everything he claims to uphold in rhetoric is--full of it.
I was unable to watch the voting on TV. I understand that this was a recorded vote in which case representatives vote in alphabetic order. Did the Dems have the required 218 votes when Kucinich voted? If the answer is no then he could not be absolutely sure that his nay vote would or would not defeat the measure. It is not new that politicians change their vote at the last moment. Your smear of "useful idiot" could therefore well be a vile insinuation based indeed on nothing but guessing.
I presented strong evidence that he places party loyalty above principle--that that is his basic modus operandi. You, of course, conveniently elided that part of the post.
So it's not a "smear"--it's based on his long-time record of calling for votes for the very people he knows full well will oppose his agenda.
The outcome of the vote is known in advance, through back-room caucusing.
They can change their votes after the time limit is over. On C-SPAN, I've seen lots of embarrassed-looking Blue Dogs come to the podium and switch their votes to the Republican side after a Democratic victory was certain. These people obviously have an agreement with the leadership that allows them to side with the GOP on certain votes as long as it doesn't give the GOP a win. This is clearly what Kucinich was doing on the healthcare vote, although he was voting against the party in order to delude progressives, rather than conservative voters in some red state.
I must say, after watching his behavior and the behavior of other alleged progressive Democrats during this healthcare fight, I no longer have any respect whatsoever for these people. Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner are no better than Max Baucus or Joe Lieberman as far as I'm concerned.
Kucinich 2012?
Not by my vote.
Excellent insights, succinctly stated.
I wish that the splintered forces of the sane left would meet in a national conference and forge a united anticapitalist party along the lines of the NPA in France.
So many progressives in this country seem tactically and strategically clueless. Many single-payer groups, for example, are now staging sit-ins at the offices of the private health insurers. This is preposterous. What's the point? What's the obejctive? To elicit a promise from the private insurers that they will voluntarily put themselves out of business? Good luck!
That's the wrong target. All these actions should be directed against the Democrats who now hold the reins of power. But the most of the single-payer groups have their suction cups firmly attached to the Democratic Party and evidently fear taking any action that would benefit the Dems.
A sad state of affairs indeed.
What we need is a national mass demonstration for Medicare for all in Washington this spring. I doubt that the current single-payer leadership can pry itself sufficiently loose from the Democrats to bring it off, thought.
Let's face it, nothing is going to change in this country until progressives are willing to punish the Democratic Party politically, and that just isn't going to happen anytime soon, since most progressives are wealthy elitists who can continue to live perfectly comfortable lives with the status quo offered by the Democrats.
This is a Classic: you ignored my questions. New question: how do you know that Kucinich knew the outcome through backroom caucusing? You are this site's champion guesser.
Time for a remedial-reading class for you.
I did not ignore your question.
I repeat my answer, which obviously went over your head the first time:
"The outcome of the vote is known in advance, through back-room caucusing."
The outcomes of all votes are known in advance to all members of Congress. Just ask one sometime--or attend any seventh-grade civics class, or just read the newspaper. All the votes are carefully and assiduously lined up in advance on important votes so that nothing is left to chance. All party members are in touch with the speaker's office--or vice versa--and are well aware of the impending outcome. Your ignorance on this point is the problem here. There must be a primary-school primer on line titled "How a Bill Is Made."
What's really "classic" here is that you, who falsely accuse me of ignoring your point, are the one who ignores my key point: that Kucinich has a long history of placing party loyalty above political principle by (a) constantly calling on people to vote the straight Democratic ticket in elections, thereby helping to elect the people he knows full well will oppose every progressive proposal he claims to support, and (b) he never clearly denounces and calls out the party leadership on these betrayals. He is, at heart, a party hack who makes pretty speeches but ensures that the people who will crush the ideas in his speeches are elected and respected. You've ignored that point several times now. CLASSIC!
Here's a Web site you might find useful:
http://www.ldanatl.org/aboutld/professionals/adult_literacy.asp
Very perceptive and well stated.
You could run as a Green and not get elected too.
Dennis got elected and is a strong voice in Congress.
Are you jealous?
Kucinich: "We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are."
We can't?
No, we can't. It is called capitalism. The insurance companies aren't nasty because that want to be, but because they have to be, or they go out of businesses.
pjd - You're not becoming a - gasp - libertarian?? :-)
I'm not quite "into it" to the extent of being able to give a moral pass to anyone picking my pocket and stifling my health care. But I'm not much of a capitalist either.
pjd412 is technically correct. Trust me though, he's not a libertarian. I would love to see Big Insurance/Pharma put out of business or at least have their profits severely curtailed so that they will be forced to behave properly.
I was joking to pjd. I know he (?) is the smiter of libertarians.