Reply #22: While I understand..

[imnKOgnito]

the pragmatism involved here, the debate was about "health care" reform until the "OMG SOCIALISM" crowd got loud and boisterous and dominating the "discussion" on the evening news. But the goal posts have already been moved significantly toward the right end zone and in response that minority is screaming even louder. I don't for a moment believe that the President (being much smarter than I am) believes that he can win these people over. They hate simply for hates sake. So, any watering down of terminology or long term possibilities that come out of what ultimately gets enacted is targeted for other ears.

With that said, national government sponsored health care could very well be the end result of a strong public option. The profit driven free market, which has no interest in health care aside from the profit derived in denying it to its own customers, can't compete with a meaningful non-profit option. Surely the President knows this, as well. So, in assuring the fearful that this won't lead to government run health care, he's either going to do his part to make sure it doesn't, or he's being dishonest with those he is assuring. And, even if it's the former, I also don't mean to suggest that is "sinister" in nature. I'm well aware that the President holds beliefs about the free market that I do not. In that, he and I respectfully disagree. If it is the latter, I can only say that I wish such tactics weren't a necessary evil. I would like to believe that "civilization" would follow the paths that the overwhelming evidence reveals as most civilized, but I'm not naive enough to believe that to be true.