I'm sorry, but you still don't make sense. Maybe deliberatly or because you never thought this through. And you also don't provide an answer regarding the topic.
That's OK. There's a difference between not proving an answer and not accepting it as one. It's your article and I am in no position to make you take or even understand my point. It's not my fault you are not making an effort to get it. If you don't understand the meaning of control then there is nothinfg I can say or do to make any sense to you. You don't see a power grab in this administration and I can't make you see something you don't believe is there so at this point it's pointless to continue you argue this point with you. This is not a debate, this is a "it's still my article" argument.
I apologize, my answer to you was inappropriate. And won't claim that I used an unfortunate phrasing - I actually meant it like you perceived it when I wrote it and that was arrogance on my part.
To clarify my genuine puzzlement on your opinion: Americans accepted the PATRIOT act and, like Ke5strel pointed out, the revoking of the Posse Comitatus Act without much fuss. This means that the federal government may deploy army forces inside the USA to "restore order" in case of "a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition...".
The level of control you disaprove which is supposedly the goal of Obamas health care reform can't compare to anything the Bush administration tried and did to you.
Yes, it matters what you control. Even as a rhetoric question this comes over eminently stupid, sorry. And no, your response wasn't complicated. But you apparently think you stated some self-evident truth, which you didn't.
If you say so. As you can see I have yet to dismiss any of your comments or describe them as stupid. My goal is to simply respond to a, at this point, pointless question for there is no anwer that will satisfy or even peek your interest unless it is what you want to hear. Again, this is not a debate, this is a townhall meeting where you pay $25 to get in and be told you are a disruptor, unAmerican and you don't care about other people. BTW, remember about what I said about control? Take a look at how you have been running your own article. It's called control, what you like gets a pass, what you don't gets the title of "stupid" attached to it. And here I thought you didn't understand control.
Point taken. Again a result of my displayed arrogance.
BTW, the reason our financial markets went belly up was because of Gov't interference or did you forget Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac?
I remember enough about it that it was a lack of regulatory oversight that built up the housing bubble which popped as a result of coorporate greed. Something about granting housing credits to anyone and their mother which couldn't be paid back in case of job loss, medical bills or a sudden interest raise. And since the debts were sold to banks and fonds without checking the reliability of that financial product, everyone got to enjoy the financial collapse of the american housing market, kickstarting the whole financial crisis.
It's generally accepted that the systematic dismantling of federal regulations for the financial market promoted the development of this mess.
So in fact this is a point for more government.
So, come on, why would - In your opinion - the government want control over the health care sector?
If you don't know the answer to this question then I can't help you here. There is not a single thing I can say to someone who somehow believes the Gov't does not want control of any kind all while that same Gov't took control of banks, CEO payroll, the auto industry, credit cards and now want control,over healthcare and cap and trade. This power grab that you seem so blind to makes the Monopoly Here and Now Edition look like Chutes and Ladders.
No, come on, humor me. Why would they want control over health care? Because they want to make things better or worse? Because they can blackmail you into doing what they want unless you are happy without hospital access?
By the way, in Germany we have private and public health care. It doesn't matter which you take: you get to choose whatever doctor or hospital you want and there are no special clinics for privately insured patients. And yet the private insurers thrive because "Privatpatienten" enjoy some perks the others don't:
For one, private insurers pay proscribed treatments and hospital beds without a fuss while the government pays only a set amount for each diagnosed ailment to the doctor or hospital - say 8,000€ for mending a broken arm. This means that docs make a profit by treating a patient as cost effective as possible (usually without risking out lives or health). For example, instead of letting you rest in a hospital bed for 3 weeks the doctor determines that it's sufficient to stay for 1 week and rest 2 weeks at home with weekly checkups.
Privatpatienten can stay the whole 3 weeks because the insurer will pay.
I won't deny that this system has it's exploitable weaknesses, too. But it works good, cheap and reliable.