I'm not parsing my remarks, I'm explaining your misinterpretation of them.
I'm not in a hole, nor am I digging. Nothing you've said would suggest that the program isn't meeting it's objective -- you simply reject the idea that we should try to meet that objective. I agree with you on that point.
I tried analogies becausce you didn't seem to understand the point directly, and I find that most people who can't understand something directly can be made to understand a point if you put it in terms that are within their life experiences.
I don't ask you to agree with my point, I'm just trying to make sure you understand the point. If you don't understand the point, your opinion of it is meaningless to me, because your opinion would be based on something OTHER than the point.
If you were able to show an understanding of the point, then I would understand your opinion of it. But in fact I don't think we differ in our opinion, just that you misinterpreted my statements because you didn't understand what I was saying and so you think despite my corrections that I wanted this program, or think it is a good idea.
Look pal, I've been reading your posts for while. You seem like a nice guy, but you're prone to long winded diatribes that don't answer the questions of the debate. I'm hear to discuss political conservatism, in the context of a conservative policy agenda for America. That is what Free Republic is all about and what I'm all about. One more time. The new Prescription Drug Program is anathema to the conservative agenda. It is a liberal socialist, welfare entitlement program and it should not exist. From your ongoing defense of the PDP, I can only conclude you support it. That is not the conservative position. Nuff said.