boldness and strength, are also the qualities of a rabid dog. i don't hold the life of a rabid dog to be that of a life of something truly alive in any better sense. free, yes. but free in the way most short lived destructive forces are: big, fast, dumb, and quickly petered out completely
strength without prudence is arrogant and cruel
boldness without wisdom is stupid and crude
throw in the nietzsche quote and you sound like just another garden variety strutting cocksure protofascist asshole
too bad you weren't born in 1930s germany, you would have fit right in
so do your worst internet tough guy. sounds like you're overcompensating. you probably work at a frozen yogurt stand in the mall, feeding syrup to fat chicks all day
meaning the parties genuinely are different and that obama coming after bush represents genuine regime change
if you say the parties are same, or advertising controls all of our thinking, you are replacing intelligence with empty cynicism
furthermore, the people actually voted for gore in 2000, and it was a structural fault that led to the weaker candidate taking the white house
meaning those irrational people made the wiser decision all along, and the system, which we have to fix, can result in a cleaner expression of democracy, never perfect, but better than anything else in this world you can possibly hope for
now i am asking you to understand why a real world REVOLUTION is far, far worse
in terms of devastation to personal lives on a massive scale, in terms of massive amounts of injustice, and most importantly in terms of the complete unpredictability of a final outcome in terms of who actually winds up on power: usually exactly the kind of asshole you complain about in our current government, times 1000 times worse
if you take your head out of your fanboy ass and your romantic fiction, you will realize that a real world revolution is just about the worst state a country can ever be in, and people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves
and i am not debating your points, i am telling you what should be, for anyone intelligent, an obviously truthful historical fact about what a revolution really is
i am openly insulting you with the words "retard" and "idiot" because that is exactly what you are if you romanticize revolution
revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable
that you openly call for it, when your complaints about our government don't even begin to approach by many orders of magnitude a valid call for revolution, means you are, genuinely, a complete moron
solving this problem is not a matter of throwing a revolution and then everything is golden forever more
its more like a policing duty, a constant lowgrade effort at taking out the trash
in your home, do you declare a revolution on garbage and then forever more there's no more garbage?
no, no matter what you do, you need to take out the garbage every thursday. likewise in a democracy, there will be a constant crop of assholes who get power and don't deserve it. how do you get rid of them? YOU VOTE THEM OUT
this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime
so stop advocating for revolution, which is FAR FAR worse on ANY scale of abuse and damage than ANY problem you can describe facing us today
if you don't understand that, then you are 11 years old, and your lack of life experience is excused, or you're an adult idiot
because if you don't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here, that's what you are
when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution. if they can't download cartoon network for free, not so much
and i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt. but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution, not even remotely. if you think it does, you are extremely, extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world
and bankrupt the occasional soccer mom for what her kid's friends do on her computer or the occasional grandma with an unsecured wireless router
and in what way does that stop pirate bay? in what way does that stop that kid in johannesburg from providing free movies to that kid in novosibirsk or omaha, or anywhere else?
simple, obvious truth: when copyright law governed the expensive, weighty slow effort of setting up vhs duplicators or cd presses, and then salespeople on street corners, copyright law was effective, because pirates were slow and weighted down with costs and easily trappable and punishable
but now its every teenager with a modem who can point and click
and, perhaps most importantly, seamlessly over national borders. go ahead, pass the most stringent privacy raping, freedom of expression destroying, internet slowing legislation you can buy from your congress whores. and then what? that kid in philadephia is getting an encrypted, obfuscated, steganographed, sparsely delivered movie and music and bookf ile from another kid in sao paulo. how does your law apply in brazil? it doesn't. game over
so you tell me how copyright law is enforceable in this environment, i'm all ears
or maybe you should accept the death of copyright law: its simply unenforceable
its called technological progress. the gun did away with centuries of feudal caste systems, the nuclear bomb stopped the cold war from becoming a hot war, the printing press enabled the enlightenment and the middle class, which destroyed the political powers of religions, etc
and now, the internet has destroyed the copyright clause and 300 years of western legal tradition. its just that some fools like you don't see it yet
laws created when publishers were a small gentleman's club cannot be realistically enforced on hundreds of millions of poor, media hungry and technologically astute teenagers worldwide who have more distributor power each individually than bertelsmann plus sony plus warner brothers plus the rest did in 1985
i'll be sure to contact him, so he can collect from you everytime you open your door or flush your toilet
does that sound ridiculous? intellectual property subscribes to special rules that don't apply to real world goods?
ok, then i'll find the architect who designed your house
oh, yu say he was adequately reimbursed so he has no right to claim anymore?
ok, well the guy wrote "monster mash" was well reimbursed for performing his song decades ago
right?
if the architect has no right to claim you owe him every time you open a window, on what basis does the guy who wrote "monster mash" expect you to pay him money when you play the song DECADES later?
"Yeah, copyright enabling people to control their works and creators getting paid for other folks utilizing their works is just a crime against God and man"
you say that with sarcasm
i say the exact same thing, in complete seriousness
you honestly want to defend a system that says the grandchildren of the guy who wrote sherlock holmes stories or the song "happy birthday" deserve money for that. you honestly want to defend that notion?
because "we" DON'T know, for values of "we" outside the slashdot club
this is wide-open website, not a club with established agreements. as a media mouthpiece, slashdot has influence beyond the gated community of committed readers. this story is now amplified and continues to spread. that's a good thing
so these kinds of stories will never, and should never stop, as long as human beings are reading here and as long as they feel outraged at injustice, no matter how slight
what is wrong is that ANYONE expects to make money off a 20 year old song
legally of course, he has grounds to complain. morally and philosophically, the fact that he feels he has any basis to complain is a peek into something very, very wrong with this world
because the government was hard at work for the last 10 years removing regulations created after the great depression
do you in any way dispute or deny that simple fact?
so what would happen if there were no regulations at all?
what would happen is the 1800s, historical fact, moron. where greedy booms continually busted into financial panics, wiping people out constantly. why? BECAUSE THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS YOU MORON
do you know your history? do you honestly want to stand in opposition to well recorded and obvious historical fact?
do you deny that? are you going to tell me the tired line every naive utopianist has ever regurgitated: "all we have to do is convince people to behave in ways they never have in all of recorded history and libertarianism and free market fundamentalism will work! yay!"
fucking retards
fact: an unregulated market NATURALLY bubbles and pops
simple. fucking. fact
do you deny that?
are you going to sit there in denial and deny the fucking truth of the REALITY of the world you live in? not your fantasy life, not your castles in the sky about how things might work if everyone just acted magically unlike human beings. FUCKING FACT: MARKETS NEED TO BE REGULATED HEAVILY BY GOVERNMENTS IN ORDER TO FUNCTION WELL
go ahead, keep denying that
you're a fucking retard in denial of obvious historical fact if so
stop choking on your ignorant propaganda and open your fucking eyes you ignorant idealistic naive assholes, you are destroying this country
is the issue with nuclear power plants leaking tritium, enron, a shitty healthcare system, and the market implosion of 2008
a "monopolized market, where there is extremely limited choices due to massive regulations", is the only thing that makes sense with healthcare, electric utilities, nuclear plants, and the banking system. even food: melamine and e colil. you think the maarket takes care of those problems asshole?
do you fucking understand the fucking obvious now?
there has been a regular libertarian and free market fundamentalist drumbeat for a decade or more now saying we deregulate everything and everything will smell like roses
and what do we get?
you tell me, shitstain
correct your idiotic ideology, it is destroying this country
with things like energy utilities, you do NOT privatize. you heavily involve the government and you heavily regulate
no, it is not red tape that interferes with the normal functioning of the marketplace, it is the only way things fucking work right
for examples like this, for the example of the economic meltdown in 2008, for the example of healthcare, and for examples like enron
no, it does make you a fucking communist to admit that the market does not solve ALL problems. it simply makes you wise and intelligent for simply recognizing that THE. MARKET. DOES. NOT. SOLVE. ALL. PROBLEMS. full stop
for most sectors of society, indeed, a market free of most regulations IS the ideal. but even then, in something like food, for example, you still want the government running around, and you still want to spend tax money on all those pesky government employees and their horrid, horrid bureaucracy, to fucking make sure you're not eating melamine or toxic e coli. yes, you want to pay fuckign taxes for that, asshole
if you had no inspectors, the manufacturers would likely suffer business wise. true. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO KILL PEOPLE. get it? in other words, some failures that market players can suffer are so severe, a simple market correction is not the only way they should be punished. furthermore, some "failures", such as leaking tritium, or overindulging on bad mortgage loans, are so horribly disruptive as to kill people or destroy an entire economy
then you need government bailouts. after which some of you assholes will still blame the government for that, as fucking blind as you are, when it was YOUR FUCKING THINKING THAT LED TO THE DISMANTLING OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT CREATED THE MELTDOWN
please adjust your idiotic simplistic worship of market forces: they are not the fucking answer to everything. really. welcome to reality assholes
as i let the joke sink in, i attempt to measure an increase in humor. however, in the act of making that measurement, i find that i cannot isolate the amount of humor exactly. what is going on here?
what? you don't like the simple obvious meaning of "tolerance" because you've perceived that secular humanists have "coopted" it?
face it: you've just declared moral and philosophical bankruptcy with that delusional wordplay
sorry cretin, but redefining tolerance as intolerance does not win your argument. but thanks for playing
why don't you look deeply into the meaning of what it means to be a tolerant christian, and see that secular humanists embody the true spirit of jesus christ way more than small minded provincial assholes who are scared of gays, evolutionary theory, social progress, family planning, and anything else that threatens their simpleminded shallow pat understanding of the world and human nature. so they cling to the words of the holy scriptures, but completely miss the meaning
but that's a good one, i haven't seen that tactic before, its good entertainment value: redefine tolerance as intolerance
LOL! hilarious. stubborn ignorant denial at its best
the retarded libertarian mantra is the market polices itself
bullshit
the truth is that some assholes notice natural imperfections in the market, and exploit them
furthermore, smaller players are not on the same footing as larger players. the free market fundamentalist delusion is that without government, everyone will coexist in equality. when the simple truth is, smaller fry are abused by larger fry UNLESS a strong regulatory policing governmental force keeps thing equal
but no, all these ayn rand naive philosophy students with dreamy ideas and no fucking real world common sense imagine themselves to be one of the big guys, and they clamor for their right for coexist with the big guys as equals. its some sort of mass delusion. when the simple truth is, they aren't big, they just have big heads, and they merely fight for the "rights" of entrenched economic class structures, rather any sort of equality. all of their libertarian mantra serves to keep the rich rich, the poor poor, and themselves ignorant. there is no equality in libertarianism. well, there is, in all of the propaganda, but no equality in the real world effects of the idiotic philosophy. libertarianism is the mirror image of communism, and is equally stupid
for the clean functioning of a healthy capitalist system YOU NEED A STRONG GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY FORCE. iron clad rock of gibraltar fact
if that makes some assholes whine about having to deal with red tape, well, now you know what it means to have no red tape: the implosion of 2008. so live with the fucking red tape already and shut the fuck up because now you've learned your lesson the hard way, fucking morons
whose job is to deliver profits to shareholders, protect your well-being and your health? i think you would call those "corporate death panels" (snark)
why can't you see the plain common sense solution most every other industrialized nation has seen on this question?
the free market is NOT the solution to this problem. some issues, like utilities, best serve the people as quasi-public entities. ever hear of enron? privatization and the marketplace are NOT the solution to every problem in this world, dear free market fundamentalists
i recognize every bloated inefficient bureaucratic bullshit you can imagine about government run healthcare. and it is still hands down better than any healthcare system capitalism can devise, simply because the very idea of a capitalism-fueled healthcare system is a self-contradictory term. the very nature of capitalism is to drive profit, which means it must by definition of being capitalism, minimize the care you receive
Slashdot Mirror
boldness and strength, are also the qualities of a rabid dog. i don't hold the life of a rabid dog to be that of a life of something truly alive in any better sense. free, yes. but free in the way most short lived destructive forces are: big, fast, dumb, and quickly petered out completely
strength without prudence is arrogant and cruel
boldness without wisdom is stupid and crude
throw in the nietzsche quote and you sound like just another garden variety strutting cocksure protofascist asshole
too bad you weren't born in 1930s germany, you would have fit right in
so do your worst internet tough guy. sounds like you're overcompensating. you probably work at a frozen yogurt stand in the mall, feeding syrup to fat chicks all day
lol
we would not have invaded iraq
meaning the parties genuinely are different and that obama coming after bush represents genuine regime change
if you say the parties are same, or advertising controls all of our thinking, you are replacing intelligence with empty cynicism
furthermore, the people actually voted for gore in 2000, and it was a structural fault that led to the weaker candidate taking the white house
meaning those irrational people made the wiser decision all along, and the system, which we have to fix, can result in a cleaner expression of democracy, never perfect, but better than anything else in this world you can possibly hope for
did you just warp in from 1930s germany or 1930s italy?
you offer, and agree with all of them
now i am asking you to understand why a real world REVOLUTION is far, far worse
in terms of devastation to personal lives on a massive scale, in terms of massive amounts of injustice, and most importantly in terms of the complete unpredictability of a final outcome in terms of who actually winds up on power: usually exactly the kind of asshole you complain about in our current government, times 1000 times worse
if you take your head out of your fanboy ass and your romantic fiction, you will realize that a real world revolution is just about the worst state a country can ever be in, and people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves
and i am not debating your points, i am telling you what should be, for anyone intelligent, an obviously truthful historical fact about what a revolution really is
i am openly insulting you with the words "retard" and "idiot" because that is exactly what you are if you romanticize revolution
revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable
that you openly call for it, when your complaints about our government don't even begin to approach by many orders of magnitude a valid call for revolution, means you are, genuinely, a complete moron
solving this problem is not a matter of throwing a revolution and then everything is golden forever more
its more like a policing duty, a constant lowgrade effort at taking out the trash
in your home, do you declare a revolution on garbage and then forever more there's no more garbage?
no, no matter what you do, you need to take out the garbage every thursday. likewise in a democracy, there will be a constant crop of assholes who get power and don't deserve it. how do you get rid of them? YOU VOTE THEM OUT
this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime
so stop advocating for revolution, which is FAR FAR worse on ANY scale of abuse and damage than ANY problem you can describe facing us today
if you don't understand that, then you are 11 years old, and your lack of life experience is excused, or you're an adult idiot
because if you don't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here, that's what you are
when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution. if they can't download cartoon network for free, not so much
and i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt. but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution, not even remotely. if you think it does, you are extremely, extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world
and bankrupt the occasional soccer mom for what her kid's friends do on her computer or the occasional grandma with an unsecured wireless router
and in what way does that stop pirate bay? in what way does that stop that kid in johannesburg from providing free movies to that kid in novosibirsk or omaha, or anywhere else?
simple, obvious truth: when copyright law governed the expensive, weighty slow effort of setting up vhs duplicators or cd presses, and then salespeople on street corners, copyright law was effective, because pirates were slow and weighted down with costs and easily trappable and punishable
but now its every teenager with a modem who can point and click
and, perhaps most importantly, seamlessly over national borders. go ahead, pass the most stringent privacy raping, freedom of expression destroying, internet slowing legislation you can buy from your congress whores. and then what? that kid in philadephia is getting an encrypted, obfuscated, steganographed, sparsely delivered movie and music and bookf ile from another kid in sao paulo. how does your law apply in brazil? it doesn't. game over
so you tell me how copyright law is enforceable in this environment, i'm all ears
or maybe you should accept the death of copyright law: its simply unenforceable
peter waterman owes us all for writing a song which has been uninvitedly inflicted on each of us and destroyed each of our personal well being
its called technological progress. the gun did away with centuries of feudal caste systems, the nuclear bomb stopped the cold war from becoming a hot war, the printing press enabled the enlightenment and the middle class, which destroyed the political powers of religions, etc
and now, the internet has destroyed the copyright clause and 300 years of western legal tradition. its just that some fools like you don't see it yet
laws created when publishers were a small gentleman's club cannot be realistically enforced on hundreds of millions of poor, media hungry and technologically astute teenagers worldwide who have more distributor power each individually than bertelsmann plus sony plus warner brothers plus the rest did in 1985
wake up, fool
i'll be sure to contact him, so he can collect from you everytime you open your door or flush your toilet
does that sound ridiculous? intellectual property subscribes to special rules that don't apply to real world goods?
ok, then i'll find the architect who designed your house
oh, yu say he was adequately reimbursed so he has no right to claim anymore?
ok, well the guy wrote "monster mash" was well reimbursed for performing his song decades ago
right?
if the architect has no right to claim you owe him every time you open a window, on what basis does the guy who wrote "monster mash" expect you to pay him money when you play the song DECADES later?
"Yeah, copyright enabling people to control their works and creators getting paid for other folks utilizing their works is just a crime against God and man"
you say that with sarcasm
i say the exact same thing, in complete seriousness
you honestly want to defend a system that says the grandchildren of the guy who wrote sherlock holmes stories or the song "happy birthday" deserve money for that. you honestly want to defend that notion?
because "we" DON'T know, for values of "we" outside the slashdot club
this is wide-open website, not a club with established agreements. as a media mouthpiece, slashdot has influence beyond the gated community of committed readers. this story is now amplified and continues to spread. that's a good thing
so these kinds of stories will never, and should never stop, as long as human beings are reading here and as long as they feel outraged at injustice, no matter how slight
fucking ridiculous and indefensible
he only made $16 off the revival
there's something wrong with this picture
what is wrong is that ANYONE expects to make money off a 20 year old song
legally of course, he has grounds to complain. morally and philosophically, the fact that he feels he has any basis to complain is a peek into something very, very wrong with this world
its actually pretty hard. you have to be a committed passionate demagogue
sure, if you are in politics, its easy to rip people off
however, its very hard to get in that position in the first place
so, just as the post you are responding to says, it is easier to make money legally than illegally
thats element 1123 or 11235
because the government was hard at work for the last 10 years removing regulations created after the great depression
do you in any way dispute or deny that simple fact?
so what would happen if there were no regulations at all?
what would happen is the 1800s, historical fact, moron. where greedy booms continually busted into financial panics, wiping people out constantly. why? BECAUSE THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS YOU MORON
do you know your history? do you honestly want to stand in opposition to well recorded and obvious historical fact?
http://history1800s.about.com/od/thegildedage/a/financialpanics.htm
panic of 1819
panic of 1837
panic of 1857
panic of 1873
panic of 1893
why did these happen. because of HUMAN NATURE
NOT
THE
GOVERNMENT
do you deny that? are you going to tell me the tired line every naive utopianist has ever regurgitated: "all we have to do is convince people to behave in ways they never have in all of recorded history and libertarianism and free market fundamentalism will work! yay!"
fucking retards
fact: an unregulated market NATURALLY bubbles and pops
simple. fucking. fact
do you deny that?
are you going to sit there in denial and deny the fucking truth of the REALITY of the world you live in? not your fantasy life, not your castles in the sky about how things might work if everyone just acted magically unlike human beings. FUCKING FACT: MARKETS NEED TO BE REGULATED HEAVILY BY GOVERNMENTS IN ORDER TO FUNCTION WELL
go ahead, keep denying that
you're a fucking retard in denial of obvious historical fact if so
stop choking on your ignorant propaganda and open your fucking eyes you ignorant idealistic naive assholes, you are destroying this country
because the government was hard at work for the last 10 years removing regulations created after the great depression
do you in any way dispute or deny that simple fact?
is the issue with nuclear power plants leaking tritium, enron, a shitty healthcare system, and the market implosion of 2008
a "monopolized market, where there is extremely limited choices due to massive regulations", is the only thing that makes sense with healthcare, electric utilities, nuclear plants, and the banking system. even food: melamine and e colil. you think the maarket takes care of those problems asshole?
do you fucking understand the fucking obvious now?
there has been a regular libertarian and free market fundamentalist drumbeat for a decade or more now saying we deregulate everything and everything will smell like roses
and what do we get?
you tell me, shitstain
correct your idiotic ideology, it is destroying this country
how is it your famously pugilistic press can survive in this walking-on-eggshells libel law environment?
the british press seems especially mean and nasty, but you would think they'd all be cupcakes with the legal environment they work in
the market does not take care of itself
repeat: the market does NOT take care of itself
with things like energy utilities, you do NOT privatize. you heavily involve the government and you heavily regulate
no, it is not red tape that interferes with the normal functioning of the marketplace, it is the only way things fucking work right
for examples like this, for the example of the economic meltdown in 2008, for the example of healthcare, and for examples like enron
no, it does make you a fucking communist to admit that the market does not solve ALL problems. it simply makes you wise and intelligent for simply recognizing that THE. MARKET. DOES. NOT. SOLVE. ALL. PROBLEMS. full stop
for most sectors of society, indeed, a market free of most regulations IS the ideal. but even then, in something like food, for example, you still want the government running around, and you still want to spend tax money on all those pesky government employees and their horrid, horrid bureaucracy, to fucking make sure you're not eating melamine or toxic e coli. yes, you want to pay fuckign taxes for that, asshole
if you had no inspectors, the manufacturers would likely suffer business wise. true. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO KILL PEOPLE. get it? in other words, some failures that market players can suffer are so severe, a simple market correction is not the only way they should be punished. furthermore, some "failures", such as leaking tritium, or overindulging on bad mortgage loans, are so horribly disruptive as to kill people or destroy an entire economy
then you need government bailouts. after which some of you assholes will still blame the government for that, as fucking blind as you are, when it was YOUR FUCKING THINKING THAT LED TO THE DISMANTLING OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT CREATED THE MELTDOWN
please adjust your idiotic simplistic worship of market forces: they are not the fucking answer to everything. really. welcome to reality assholes
as i let the joke sink in, i attempt to measure an increase in humor. however, in the act of making that measurement, i find that i cannot isolate the amount of humor exactly. what is going on here?
but this story godwinned itself, so what's the point?
what? you don't like the simple obvious meaning of "tolerance" because you've perceived that secular humanists have "coopted" it?
face it: you've just declared moral and philosophical bankruptcy with that delusional wordplay
sorry cretin, but redefining tolerance as intolerance does not win your argument. but thanks for playing
why don't you look deeply into the meaning of what it means to be a tolerant christian, and see that secular humanists embody the true spirit of jesus christ way more than small minded provincial assholes who are scared of gays, evolutionary theory, social progress, family planning, and anything else that threatens their simpleminded shallow pat understanding of the world and human nature. so they cling to the words of the holy scriptures, but completely miss the meaning
but that's a good one, i haven't seen that tactic before, its good entertainment value: redefine tolerance as intolerance
LOL! hilarious. stubborn ignorant denial at its best
the retarded libertarian mantra is the market polices itself
bullshit
the truth is that some assholes notice natural imperfections in the market, and exploit them
furthermore, smaller players are not on the same footing as larger players. the free market fundamentalist delusion is that without government, everyone will coexist in equality. when the simple truth is, smaller fry are abused by larger fry UNLESS a strong regulatory policing governmental force keeps thing equal
but no, all these ayn rand naive philosophy students with dreamy ideas and no fucking real world common sense imagine themselves to be one of the big guys, and they clamor for their right for coexist with the big guys as equals. its some sort of mass delusion. when the simple truth is, they aren't big, they just have big heads, and they merely fight for the "rights" of entrenched economic class structures, rather any sort of equality. all of their libertarian mantra serves to keep the rich rich, the poor poor, and themselves ignorant. there is no equality in libertarianism. well, there is, in all of the propaganda, but no equality in the real world effects of the idiotic philosophy. libertarianism is the mirror image of communism, and is equally stupid
for the clean functioning of a healthy capitalist system YOU NEED A STRONG GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY FORCE. iron clad rock of gibraltar fact
if that makes some assholes whine about having to deal with red tape, well, now you know what it means to have no red tape: the implosion of 2008. so live with the fucking red tape already and shut the fuck up because now you've learned your lesson the hard way, fucking morons
whose job is to deliver profits to shareholders, protect your well-being and your health? i think you would call those "corporate death panels" (snark)
why can't you see the plain common sense solution most every other industrialized nation has seen on this question?
the free market is NOT the solution to this problem. some issues, like utilities, best serve the people as quasi-public entities. ever hear of enron? privatization and the marketplace are NOT the solution to every problem in this world, dear free market fundamentalists
i recognize every bloated inefficient bureaucratic bullshit you can imagine about government run healthcare. and it is still hands down better than any healthcare system capitalism can devise, simply because the very idea of a capitalism-fueled healthcare system is a self-contradictory term. the very nature of capitalism is to drive profit, which means it must by definition of being capitalism, minimize the care you receive
wake. the. fuck. up.