And then I'll stop discussing it for a while, I promise. In yesterday's post, anonymous commenter Paul had much to say, not all of which really related to my post. I believe he found my blog after I posted on the left of center Bloggasm. Since he is anonymous I can not respond to him privately so here is an open letter.
I wonder if your comments on my blog were meant to persuade or inflame. If they were meant to inflame, then all you have done is add energy to the opposition to the various Democrat plans for health care, which doesn't seem in your best interests. If to persuade, then you might consider using more temperate language and speaking in a way with which your audience will identify. For example, when I commented on Simon's blog, I referenced DailyKos to support my points. You might have recognized that my readers are a mix of libertarians and conservatives and couched your language accordingly.
I find it ironic that you criticized John Mackey for commenting anonymously, but you have chosen to comment anonymously on my blog. Also, the picture on the blog is not of John Mackey, but of Simon Owens, of the aforementioned Bloggasm blog.
When comparing the private sector to the public sector, you fail to remember that private sector has accountability of the rule of law as well as market pressure to perform. Government bureaucrats are only accountable to the law, and they have government funded lawyers to defend them when citizens sue them. Further, even though the famous bankruptcies you cite were certainly failures, they had the salutary effect of cleansing the ecosystem of those companies and their leaders. When government fails, the Congress typically concludes that more money is needed. To use the President's own example, FedEx and UPS are making profits while the Postal Service is making a loss, which will be subsidized through taxes. While government doesn't always fail and the private sector doesn't always succeed, that's the way to bet.
You cite military health care as a fine example of government run health care, but as a veteran who is treated through the military system, I can attest that I am experiencing continued deterioration as that system becomes unaffordable, see my post on that subject. Medicare is no great shape either, it has failed to contain costs and Congress' own GAO has issued report after report of how Medicare is rife with fraud. Even though individual payments to doctors may be controlled in Medicare, the fraud rate causes overall spending to increase above the rate of inflation. Given the President's intention for cost containment, this bodes ill.
With regards to pre-conditions, there are free market solutions that have been offered for that, see John Cochrane's excellent article in the WSJ, where he suggests that we provide the right to buy health care in the future, so that individuals will not lose coverage and can be covered for pre-existing conditions when they change jobs.
Finally, as a Tea Party attender, I can attest that Republican operatives and politicians have been strongly discouraged from attending these events. It is a true grass roots movement and to denigrate it, rather than seek to understand it, is to do yourself a disservice. Further, lumping "birthers" in with the Tea Party group is an unfair ad hominem attack. I have denounced the birthers as have most responsible libertarians and conservatives.
Finally, you say that we do not know what we want, but that is not true. I recommend you read my Freedom Coalition Agenda to see exactly what I want. In brief, I want the smallest government possible that meets its constitutional duties.
You claim that I hate but don't debate, but I challenge you to be as temperate as I have been with my comments in left-of-center blogs.