Apparently I'm a pimp

I actually have no interest in responding to this. I decided some time ago that life is too damn short to waste it arguing with assholes on the internet. I've stuck to that reasonably well, and been happier for it. But since I have been personally named I suppose I should give it a perfunctory response. That's all it deserves. 

I wouldn't bother at all, in fact, if it weren't for the steaming mass of ad hominem attacks piled on top of it. But that's his style: he uses strawman arguments and personal insults to obscure fuzzy thinking. Apparently, in the minds of the free-market, anti-government zealots out there, if I support expanded government funding and regulation of health care insurance, which I long have and still do, then I may never ever criticize or disagree with anything the government does. 

That's the mindset of an ideologue: purity above all else. You are for the government or you are for the private market. It’s an either-or, absolutist position. You cannot logically have a nuanced view or a pragmatic approach: that’s unpossible! 

Clearly, there’s no point in discussing anything with this sort of person, so I won’t bother. But I will make one point — just one point — in rebuttal. The worst abuses I have encountered, thus far, have been by private, not governmental actors. Contracted Medicare carriers and insurance companies have been far more aggressive in trying to exploit the logical catch-22 in the medical necessity rules. For those who say they fear the government intruding into medical care, I agree it’s a fair point. But given their financial incentives and lack of ethics, I will always fear the private insurers even more.