[ale] ["Topic"? I don't think it means what you think it means] Re: Incompetent corporate web sites

[William Fragakis]

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 15:25 -0400, wylde bill wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 12:44 -0600, JK wrote:
> 
> > general (which is why I also think anti-trust laws ought to
> > actually be ENFORCED, and that "too big to fail" == "to big to
> > continue to exist as a single corporate entity"), if the "public
> > option" were to put every single private insurer out of business,
> > I for one would shed no tears.
> 
> I wouldn't either.  I hate insurance companies.  With a passion that
> makes my hatred of windows look like first love.
> 
> The only problem with the "public option" is that we've already tried
> letting congress take care of our disability/retirement/medical via
> FICA- and if, as the psychologists claim, past behavior is the best
> predictor of future behavior, we could be fairly certain that letting
> the guys who make and enforce the rules hold the money would screw us
> royally yet again.
> 
> Let's have a collective that congress can't touch.  And shoot any of the
> bastards who try.
I think that's a great idea. And how would we decide who runs the
collective? It would seem sensible that the collective itself would
decide. Maybe by voting? Therefore the collective would elect who runs
the collective. That sounds definitely better than the system we have
where we vote for... 

oh wait... we do that already.

Never mind, let's stick with the collective idea. If people didn't want
to be part of the collective, they could make their own agreements with
either healthcare providers or private groups which would provide
services similar to the collective...

oh crap... we do that already, too.

To paraphrase Shaw: We get the government (and healthcare system) we
deserve.

wf