Tea Party Questions

Hmmm.If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too?

No Rhavin, there was no attempt to quote-mine, my question was simply a question. You might want to ask YOURSELF what's with the paranoia. Thanks for the false accusation though, it's such a delight communicating with you. Oh brother. Yes Rhavin, asking ONE question "If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too?" is the same as representing you as a pro-private healthcare advocate. Furthermore, I didn't ask you if you do have a problem with business models that equate profit with denying coverage. Err, thanks anyways, but here is my ACTUAL question, again:"If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too?"Your answer "I'm an absolute supporter of a single-payer, 100% tax-funded healthcare system like in Canada", seems to contrast your previous post "I don't have a problem with people making a profit." Thanks for the clarification.[We already have death panels, they're called insurance companies]

There you go again, "thinking" peremptorily again. Such limited thinking Rhavin. Yes, I comprehended that part the first time you wrote it, thank you. And here again is my UNRELATED, simple, honest question: No, no, and no. Because you included the qualifier "denying coverage" in your subsequent sentence, it would not NECESSARILY follow that it was an indictment against ANY potentially-for-profit social service, like fire, police, and libraries. Thus my simple and honest clarifying question didn't include "denying coverage".Now, I have read that you want to tell me what I "really" meant by my single, simple question, but I can assure you I know what I meant. I am well aquainted with . . . me. It's kinda the part I was born to play. You're behaving like Crashfrog insisting you can mind read my "real" thoughts. Per the forum's rules, argue the argument that was written. Pretty simple advise.Rhavin, knowing your liberal bias history (except for murdering woman and children with atom bombS as a FIRST resort based on a best-hoped-for outcome), I concede it was plausible for ME to GUESS what you meant in your original post. But I also thought your post was clumsy enough to need clarification for the benefit of tea-party and republican voting lurkers, hence my one simple and HONEST question. Now that I know you'll ONLY peremptorily jump to angry accusations when faced with simple and honest questions, I will be more clear in the future, mea culpa.Having conceded that, your original post WAS clumsy and your followup proves it. That you had to STRAIN so hard in your "parallel" examples below shows that your original post was shaky, at best. Rhavin writes these contrived and BS examples (get this): Just comical."Denying police protection while soaking up tax/private payment/WHATEVER = higher profit". Yeah, its always a sign you were abundantly clear when you desperately use the example "WHATEVER" in your followup. How in the world does "soaking up tax" translates/parallels to private business profiting? Just who is doing the soaking? Be specific. Just how widespread is private payment in police protection for profit? This is simply silly."Denying a fire truck for an emergency fire call while taking revenue from "fire insurance" = higher profit." What? I tried reading this three times for maximum/ANY comprehension. Are you stating in the real world that a fire department has actually made a profit on FIRE-INSURANCE? Really? When has that EVER happened? Actually your argument seems to be counter productive, wouldn't a fire insurance company want to limit the damages paid out by having as many fire trucks called as possible to limit the damage? Cite an actual example or concede this is a ridiculously contrived and non-sensical BS example."Fewer books at a library while accepting payment = higher profit." LOL, what? Please specify who in this example is profiting. Be specific. Seems to be the book publisher, not the library. And are you confusing PROFIT with outright THEFT. There's a difference Rhavin. Perhaps this is the reason for your on-going confusion.Thusly, Rhavin, for your ongoing arguments to hold ANY weight, the real/actual world health insurance profit example would have to be juxtaposed/paralleled with REAL/ACTUAL real world fire department, police department and library profit examples, not silly contrived "whatever"s. Great, I wish more "liberal" readers would view Obamacare in this light. Since this is the ONLY issue I wanted lurkers to glean from your original and potentially erroneous post, you can dispatch with the above silly examples and posts. A pity that we waisted time and effort to get to this simple and honest declaration.

1. Cool fact. The things we learn on EvC. What year are you talking about? (Is this two CENTURIES ago?) Thanks Jar.2. To be clear, Rhavin wrote "DENYING a fire truck for an emergency fire call while taking revenue from "fire insurance" = higher profit." You (and I) wrote the opposite, the fire companies got rewarded/paid when they responded. While logically cost-wise (depending who you be), it is hardly a humanitarian plan.To which I would ask again:If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too? Or another way of asking: Would it be better if ALL our social services, including police department, fire department, and libraries, be privatized? I think that is a legitmate question because IMO, I believe like social security, many americans would surprisingly say yes.Would any forum participant like to agree?Edited by dronester, : clarityEdited by dronester, : clarity

Taq, are your questions rhetorical, for anybody, or just to me?I think you already know my leftist stances, and I am horrified when non-liberal government polices, such as Obama's, favor the rich/elite over the public's needs.

Well, I want to agree with you, but there SHOULD be a tipping point where enough people will eventually need said services (especially during the US' recession), and then come to their senses that it is a good thing social services are not privatized. E.g., unemployment benefits are a good thing when Bush's Enron cronies lay off their employees and steal their pensions.But some people, like "SOME" religious/republicans, are willfully clueless. We have seen where the tea-partyists would prefer to go over the cliff.I often think of the Germans who went along/supported Hitler. People are so eager to die/suffer others for their idealisms.What can be done?

Viva la revolucion'?americans are too cowardly. After 9/11, its citizens dutifully voted for congress/presidents who voted for wire tapping their phones. The citizens allowed their child-daughters to be felt up at security gates to "fight terrorism". americans voted for presidents that support torture. So cowardly they have became, they didn't even object to security taking away their 1 inch nail clippers for "home security" reasons.Those who give up freedom for safety deserves neither.I am not feeling optimistic these days.

Good job Rhavin. I am in agreement, but, can I play devil's advocate for a moment? . . .IMO, the biggest reason US health care is so bad (unaffordable, not equal for all, bad quality when compared to Euro nations and even Cuba) because the people who are running the for-profit health companies, make the rules. Obama made back door deals with the pharmaceutical companies when pushing "his" Obamacare policy. Well, under these conditions, shouldn't the public expect to be screwed with this for-profit system? Afterall, how often does fascism work to the benefit of mankind?So the question is: If the PUBLIC made the rules, with NO corporate assistance, could a FOR-PROFIT-SYSTEM be developed that would be successful/affordable/good quality/for all?I would at least expect the public's system to be somewhat fairer than the current system, but still wonder if there might even be some surprising benefits when compare to socialized health care?Or perhaps my fleeting capitalist thought is as logical as a four-sided triangle. I certainly am not gonna fight for this argument, I am merely being curious.Any thoughts? It might be more credible if right-wingers answered this. Coyote?