This is a pretty funny argument. An article detailing how far real world economics has come from the ideal is rebutted by someone who can’t be bothered to actually read what he’s arguing against because, you know, he’s a “CEO” with “lots of lawyers under him”, and so he invokes that same economic ideal (along with every cliche from Pretty Woman) to defend it.
Priceless.
Edit: And on a sidenote, Flyoverland, I’m confused. You talk about being a CEO in this thread and this one, both times using it as argument ender, as if no further discussion was needed or even appropriate in the face of your mighty CEOness. And yet in this thread you cite your former employer and your abject fear that you’ll be dumped from your health insurance:
We still get insurance from my former employer (we are in our 60’s but not eligible yet for Medicare). We live in abject fear that the company will dump us into the ObamaCare exchanges which will not allow her to get the care she needs. … We have a system of “haves” and “can’t gets.”
So which is it? Are you the uber successful CEO imbued with super powers that can end an argument with a single allusion to his CV, or are you struggling in a world where health insurance is only for the rich, and you’re liable to be dumped at any moment?
