Please ignore me. It's your only defense when you cannot debate a point. I asked you a point blank question, and pretending I didn't is denial. I merely pointed out the flaw in your assertion that insurance companies were “evil republican” entities. You chose to not reply. Typical liberal tactic. How's that workin' out for ya?

And yet I put my sources down for my information, both conservative and liberal to eliminate any bias.

Where are YOUR sources that are more “updated”? Care to elaborate? Or are you going to stay partisan on this one and ignore the truth?

Your data is incomplete and not up to date.

Go look at who the “crooked republican insurance companies” donate their money to. I believe Leonidas posted those figures a while back (correct me if I'm wrong, Leo). Go ahead and look. Let me know what you see. Take off the rose-tinted glasses and actually look for some truth instead of rambling partisan canned comments.

And by the way….. Progressive insurance is completely Democrat controlled, with profits benefitting liberal causes (ACLU: 8.5 million – DNC 527s: 24 million – MoveOn.org Vote Fund: 2.5 million). Isn't that interesting?

Liberal source: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/227933.htm
Conservative source: http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archiv…

What say you, Partisan_Father_Time?

That does pretty much put it all in perspective doesn't it? Should we tell anyone we agree on something, or should we keep it to ourselves?

Yes, I find the scary myself.

The fake “competition” (only the feeble-minded believe it is “competition” that “keeps the insurers honest”; proponents would do better to rely instead on a partial truth, like “reduce their profits and hopefully the rise in their charges”) may well be augmented if the lib Dems in the House have their way; Pelosi has now been chattering about levying a “windfall” [sic] tax on the insurers with whom the public option would have the federal government “competing.”

(There's been next to no other incrementalism tried in place of “Universality Lite” such as taking over and expanding Medicaid, incorporating Medicaid into Medicare, extending S-CHIP, incorporating S-CHIP into Medicare and extending Medicare to all children, lowering the Medicare age from 65 to 62, nor has there been substantial effort redirected from the federal government to the state governments as choice agents of government for health care intervention and provision. The takeover advocates have blundered even with their core object and set of measures they could undertake.)

I will cherish the day.

… extremists, but the rest of us aren't surprised, as keeping the insurers alive while arranging bogus “competition” with them by the federal government gives the Dems the time they need to continue their incrementalism. (The public rejects any rash, stupid rush promptly of complete government takeover, let alone presuming it's some kind of “obligation” [sic] involving the federal government.)