Skip to main content

View Diary: Waxman Opening another Front in Healthcare Debate? (307 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  alternately, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Support Civil Liberty

    my defense of the First Amendment and the right not to be intimidated and harassed by the government for daring to dissent from Waxman's agenda is touching.

    But, whatever.

    Sean Parnell
    Center for Competitive Politics

    •  This is what government is FOR (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sabredance, LynneK, JC from IA

      It's to keep private interests from running roughshod over the public interest.  I might add that the federal government is the only entity which even comes close to matching the reach and power of the insurance companies, and as we're seeing with the healthcare debate, government is no match for them.

      Waxman has acted in accordance with the express powers of his office, exactly as the title of this diary suggests — to "open another front" in the healthcare debate and force the companies into a defensive posture.  I'm not exactly sure why that's such a bad idea, nor do I understand where you get the idea that somehow the companies won't be able to continue spending $1.4 million per day in your premiums to thwart the general welfare, one more time.  

      If you think that's a bad thing, well, ok, but I'm not really interested in debating this further.  Waxman's move is nothing unusual, and for once the powers of Congress are being used on the people's behalf.  

      •  Who gets to define the public interest? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Support Civil Liberty

        Who gets to define the "public interest"? How do you know that this is Government's purpose?

        •  The fucking public, troll. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sabredance, LynneK

          As represented by their members of Congress.

          Are you just vacationing in the US, or can someone as stupid as you actually make it out of school?

          •  Majoritarianiam = Public Interest? (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            JC from IA

            Hmm, I guess we can sign you up as a believer that the public interest in CA was to get rid of same-sex marriage?

            No, wait, that was the public voting directly, not their representatives.

            OK, so the Bush tax cuts in 2001, that was the public interest, right? Because the representatives of the public voted for it.

            OK, now I get it - anything Congress votes for, is by definition the public interest. Thanks for clearing that up.

            Sean Parnell
            Center for Competitive Politics

            •  Reading difficulties, little wingnut troll? (0+ / 0-)

              It's always amusing to see you in your little troll circle-jerks.

              But, as I told your little chum, I'm done tutoring clueless fuckwits for one day.  If you haven't learned anything about the US system of government, I can only conclude you are foreign-born, or just not very bright.

              Your website proclaims the latter, but I wouldn't want to rule out the former, without further information.

          •  Repost of a hidden comment! (0+ / 0-)

            Wow - not sure why the following was hidden, but here it is again:

            Which congress person's definition of the "public interest" is the correct one? All of them?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site