Good on the lady who told the child, “this isn’t what democracy is all about.” I only wish she were right. This summer, it seems like demagoguery, pandering histrionics, and outright lying are all democracy is about.

But what the hell else is new, right?

“I’m trying to work with you, here, Spart!”

I know you are; my comment was for your entertainment:)

“…being a Left Coast Liberal, I would prefer a latte instead of a beer!”

(*SHUDDER*)

OK. How’s this… either a glass of wine or a double espresso?

(I’m trying to work with you, here, Spart!)

BILL

Hey, thanks, Barker. Of course, being a Left Coast Liberal, I would prefer a latte instead of a beer!

……..So now you know Alex……someone who has wandered of the Redstate reservation considers you etc etc…..I’m sure you’ll learn to live with it

You are one elitist fool. Rednecks, hicks? are you serious?

Why don’t you open up a history book and find out about the screaming matches that went on between our Founding Fathers?

Why don’t you open up a history book and find out about the screaming matches that went on while the Articles of Confederation were the law of the land? Why do you think the States decided that they needed something better than the Articles of Confederation? Do think America’s ancestors sat around talking nicely to each other during the birth of our Nation drinking lattes?

Open up an American history book and learn something about the great protests that went on.

What you are seeing is democracy at work.

By your article and your posts, it is obvious that you believe that only an elitist group should make decision for us, the idiots. No different than what most Liberals think, people are too stupid to make their own decisions. They need to be led by the best and the brightest.

The saddest part is that you are not ashamed of what an incredible poorly informed snub you are. You are actually proud of it.

I find you uncouth and poorly educated.

By the way, maybe you can answer? Where were you, David Frum and the rest of the fake Conservatives on this site who said nothing, who sat idly by when left-wingers were disrupting Republican town hall meetings during the past 8 years, eh? And please don’t make me school you on this historical fact!

You went with a preconceived notion of who these people at the town hall meetings were and you fulfilled your own prophecy. You are as closed minded as any Liberal that I have ever come across.

“No matter how much I disagree with you (which is an awful lot), I always appreciate your intellectual honesty.”

(*SMILE*) Thanks. Next time you’re visiting or traveling through New York’s beautiful lower/mid Hudson Valley give me a shout – I’ll stand you a beer!

“As I’ve said before, I don’t favor a public option (or similar govt intervention) out of ideology. I favor it because it’s the only method I’m aware of that has demonstrated its ability to contain costs on a wide-scale, sustainable basis.”

But this whole “demonstrated ability to contain costs” is what I worry about. HOW will costs be controlled? It seems to me you’ve either got to limit care across the board generally to get across the board in general saving, or, you save money by telling everyone connected in any way to medical administration/care, “hey… the good news is you’ve still got a job – most of you that is – the bad news… we’re gonna be slashing pay something awful.”

(*SHRUG*)

I just don’t see any way around that.

And again… while doctors earn damn good incomes and in the abstract one might say “sure, they can afford to take a haircut,” what will this do to our system over time; will it mean fewer doctors… fewer of the BEST doctors the capitalist system creates…???

(And, yeah… no doubt other systems create great doctors… but there’s a reason the rich and powerful from around the world more often end here than anywhere else when the $hit hits the fan with regard to their health. Just in case I ever develop a “House” disease… I wanna know “House” is still practicing.) (*SMILE*)

You and me need to keep on chatting, Spart! (*GRIN*) Between us we’ll “solve” the problem. (*WINK*)

BILL

“It’s unclear to me how any of your proposals control costs…” – “That’s because they don’t – not initially. (*SMILE*) (And no… beyond “initially” I haven’t really fleshed out any argument about costs longterm – which is probably why you’re unclear.) (*GRIN*)”

No matter how much I disagree with you (which is an awful lot), I always appreciate your intellectual honesty.

As I’ve said before, I don’t favor a public option (or similar govt intervention) out of ideology. I favor it because it’s the only method I’m aware of that has demonstrated its ability to contain costs on a wide-scale, sustainable basis. I think universal coverage is imperative, but completely unachievable without cost containment. The two are equally important and you can’t do one without doing the other.

This is why I’ve always argued that healthcare reform simply reflects different values between conservatives/GOPers and Dems. It seems that if you really believe, as Dems do, that universal coverage is important, then you have to have a meaningful way of containing costs, which is why the public option is necessary. On the other hand, if you believe, as conservatives/GOPers do, that universal coverage is important, but not worth govt intervention or additional govt spending, then you will oppose the kinds of reform that will result in meaningful cost containment not because you’re opposed to cost containment per se, but because you’re opposed to the only proven methods of cost containment.

Until this country adopts Social Darwinism, it has to come up with a meaningful way of containing costs. You can’t avoid both Social Darwinism and cost containment.

………..We’re basically agreed……Regs are way down the totem poll in barriers to entry……I do understand you know what you’re talking about…..sorry if I conveyed any contrary impression