Jim Henderson wrote:
> I haven't looked at the plan in great detail, but the vibe I get from 
> what I hear about it is that it's not a replacement for the current 
> system, but an addition to it.  Those who oppose it say it's a bad idea 
> because "government run programs don't work efficiently" - like the 
> military or the post office don't work well at all.  (But wait, they 
> do. ;-))
> 
> But those same people then say that it would supplant the current system 
> because of competition.  But wait, if the current system is good and 
> competition is good, then adding an option run by a supposed inefficient 
> government agency shouldn't be a threat to the existing system, should 
> it?  The opponents need to decide, either the government can run it 
> effectively and competitively (thus undermining shareholder value in the 
> current scheme), or the government is incompetent and can't run an 
> effective program that's any better that what we currently have - in 
> which case, it's not a threat.  It can't be a threat and not a threat at 
> the same time.
> 
Hmm. Need a new deck for this one. It doesn't quite fit the 6 of 
hearts/diamonds:

"The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. 
Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include "this is just a tool," and "you're 
banning technology."

Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still 
widely-used argument—that technology "can't be regulated." Of course, 
any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but 
this exercise isn't about being cogent, it's about stopping whatever 
intervention the denialist opposes."

or the 6 of clubs and 7 of spades:

"One can always employ the "we can't handle new regulations" argument.

Alternatively, the denialist will argue that they are already highly 
regulated, and thus no new interventions are needed.[10]"

maybe the 10 of diamonds and 10 of clubs:

"Not only do you not understand the delicate denialist, you are 
proposing that the denialist be subject to bureaucrats! ("Bureaucrats" 
is always said with a sneer.) Buzz phrases here focus on denigrating 
Washington.

At this point, the denialist must propose "self regulation" to deal with 
the problem that doesn't exist.  The cool thing about self regulation is 
that it cannot be enforced, and once the non-existent problem blows 
over, the denialist can simply scrap it![19]"

Could be 9H - Muddy the Waters, vs. 9D - Poison the Well... Need to 
think about this a bit. lol

http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message