'Nope' is not an argument. Government rules previously forbid kickbacks, a common commercial practice. the rules were changed to remove this restriction. If legislators are corrupt for changing the rules, who is corrupting them? why should they skate? This was clearly a reduction in government interference in the marketplace, and what we've got instead is a situation where the dominant market player uses its commercial power to negotiate long-term exclusive contracts. Nobody in government forced them to issue such contracts or the hospitals to sign them without negotiating the right to purchase competing products.
Lobbying is a problem, but it is NOT illegal. I fully agree with disallowing it. So long as it isn't, those who can will use it.
Then advocate for that instead of putting all the blame on the government, and explain what you're going to fill the campaign finance gap with, or how you'll circumvent existing first amendment precedent. Bribery is one of those dances where it takes two to tango.
Something else that needs to change: Government workers cannot be unionized.
I happen to agree, but this is hopelessly irrelevant to the subject at hand.
In the real world the government workforce should have been cut by at least 25% to 50% and their salaries by another 20%+.
Suprisingly, Obama has cut government more than Reagan [1], and wants to cut it more [2]. Rome was not built in a day and it isn't torn down in a day either. Your argument seems adrift from reality and increasingly resembles mere ranting.
"Your argument seems adrift from reality and increasingly resembles mere ranting."
I really have to thank you for that. I appreciate personal comments of this kind in the middle of an otherwise civil discussion. I apologize for not agreeing with you and moving on. Thanks.
I haven't made any personal remarks about you. I've just observed that you've devoted more than 50% of your comment above to argument about irrelevant topics, and that those arguments rest on inaccurate assumptions, such as the inevitable expansion of government.
Government interference isn't a homogenous force that is amplified or reduced. While one particular rule or restriction may have been removed, the end result can still be an even more distorted marketplace (eg. because one side is disproportionately favoured), depending on the nature of the remaining rules.
Lobbying is a problem, but it is NOT illegal. I fully agree with disallowing it. So long as it isn't, those who can will use it.
Then advocate for that instead of putting all the blame on the government, and explain what you're going to fill the campaign finance gap with, or how you'll circumvent existing first amendment precedent. Bribery is one of those dances where it takes two to tango.
Something else that needs to change: Government workers cannot be unionized.
I happen to agree, but this is hopelessly irrelevant to the subject at hand.
In the real world the government workforce should have been cut by at least 25% to 50% and their salaries by another 20%+.
Suprisingly, Obama has cut government more than Reagan [1], and wants to cut it more [2]. Rome was not built in a day and it isn't torn down in a day either. Your argument seems adrift from reality and increasingly resembles mere ranting.
1. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-r...
2. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/13/news/la-pn-obama-see...