This same writer probably thinks that the predatory pricing that 0bamacare will introduce into health insurance, ultimately driving private firms into bankruptcy, is just fine.
The same writer is also probably blasting Wal-Mart and then shopping there. I really hope he is putting his money where his mouth is and paying more somewhere else but I doubt it.
This same writer probably thinks that the predatory pricing that 0bamacare will introduce into health insurance, ultimately driving private firms into bankruptcy, is just fine.This is one of the most blatant attack pieces I've seen in a while. This writer didn't even try to hide her anti walmart bias.1 posted on October 19, 2009 5:40:54 AM EDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Excellent point. If Walmart enables poor people to eat, get medicine, and get toys for their children - and makes a buck doing it that's awful. But having the government create its own predatory company using money it seizes from the very people it intends to "compete" against? Nirvana!. . . which illustrates my take on governmentism (a.k.a., "socialism"). Ownership of property or money is simply a concrete form of credit for doing something (or being loved by someone else who did something). The system by which that credit gets accrued by some people more than others is easy to second guess, but excruciatingly difficult to improve upon - and seems to be impossible to improve upon without suppressing freedom.
Socialism is simply the lust for credit for the labor of others. The little red hen grows the wheat and bakes the bread, but the rest of the farmyard is envious when the hen is the only one who gets to eat the bread. The socialist politician wants to seize the credit for the fruit of the labors of the little red hen, and get credit for benevolence for distributing it to others. The credit the socialist lusts for isn't necessarily money - but it is for power, which is worse yet. With power, the socialist doesn't need mere money.