[brown9-2]

If the argument though is "we can't have nice things because we screw it up", perhaps we need to look more at why America tends to screw these things up instead of taking away the lesson that we shouldn't try to have nice things.

[hga]

While many of us would argue with the "nice things" concept (ScottWhigham grossly overestimates the nation's enthusiasm for socialism at the beginning of this thread), it doesn't take away from his point that it's stupid to try such grand projects while we have a demonstrated inability to do them.

I mean, the government is taking control of 1/6 of the nation's economy, why ever did the Obamacare enthusiasts think this would work even vaguely well???

[brown9-2]

To be fair, the government isn't "taking control" of healthcare - they haven't assumed control over every private health insurance company.

[hga]

And how many of those "private" insurance companies can still write "major medical" high deductible catastrophic coverage polices that so many of us have used in time past as ... gasp, insurance, as opposed to a tax advantaged benefit + originally a way to get around WWII wage controls? Etc. etc.

In a system that's structurally rather close to Original Formula Italian fascism, how "private" nominally non-government companies are when so much of what they can and cannot do is highly debatable, to the point where I think your quibble is very very minor.

[ScottWhigham]

The "why" is easy enough to figure out. The "problem" with a democracy (or rather America's in particular) is two-fold:

1) when you say "we need to look more at why", the answer is "Because you keep voting this or that yahoo into office and he/she is a career politician whose sole interest is in continuing to please the various lobbyists, PACs, and special interest groups that offer the most perks."

You can then say, "Okay, Scott - how do we solve that then?" I think the logical/easy answer is "Put term limits on Congress". Force the lobbyists/etc to make new relationships every four years. Take things out of the back room and make Congress be part of someone's CV, not their entire CV.

2) Those same "career politicians" are the ones who have sole vote on whether to reform any change in term limits. Term limits have been tried before but failed to get anywhere.[0]

Until you change something with the career politicians of this country, we can't have nice new things.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_State...

[ScottWhigham]

If you down voted the above, I'd love to hear the reason. It's fine to disagree but I don't think disagreeing on principle warrants a downvote.