Which of these two is a more fundamental progressive belief?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

edit: grammar

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. If the sick, poor, and underrepresented are being taken care of...

I've no problem if somebody gets rich in doing so.

I'm of the same opinion when it comes to curing diseases and big pharma.

[rucky]

2. This should bring quite a display of mental acrobatics...

:popcorn:

[DURHAM D]

3. Please add to the first option - and women don't get screwed.

Then I will vote.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I would think women would fall under "underrepresented" (nt)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Kick

[Capn Sunshine]

6. WTF is this ?

are you INTENTIONALLY trying to troll for comments for Sean Hannity's radio show? Corporations profit as little as possible? LOL Look I'm against rapacious unregulated capitalism, but to wish that any company with "Inc. " in its name not to profit or "as little as possible" indicates your comprehension of the economic system is based in magical thinking.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. I'm just asking what our mission statement is.

Our respective stances on policy should always reflect back to some kind of a mission statement. If we're really as principled as some claim, we should always revert to what's most important to us.

In this case, I'm asking if it's more important to help people or to prevent profits. It seems as though many here would prefer we not help 30 million uninsured Americans because insurance companies would profit from it (which is not something I necessarily agree with in the first place, but since many are basing their opposition to the bill on this opinion alone, it's worth noting). So I want to know where we stand - is it more important to help those that lack means or to prevent those with means from profiting? It's a pretty simple, fundamental question.

[Capn Sunshine]

8. yeah, that's it

I think we should Prevent profits. That's a winner in any election.
Happy, Sean?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. There are more than enough posts here that make Hannity happy. (nt)

[ClassWarrior]

13. If you have to ask...

...you must not be one of "us."

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. If the answer is option 2...

I don't want to be.

[Enrique]

9. you forgot hating America n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. You're asking the wrong question.

The point is not whether greedy criminal corporations continue to exist or not, but whether billions of dollars should be federally mandated to be annually paid to these corporations, who will use a big chunk of that money to pay criminal CEOs and shareholders, or whether that money would be better spent actually paying for health care itself.

The concept of everyone paying into a fund in and of itself is sound. It's how we get Social Security, Medicare, and for that matter, anything else funded by taxes.

The concept of creating the largest risk pool possible is sensible enough in and of itself. Any insurance model that did otherwise would be doomed to failure.

However, this model becomes a miserable FAIL when the whole point of the system is to prop up corporate profits, overpaid CEOs and the stock market, and actually providing coverage for health care is secondary.

The best way to ensure universal coverage is to go with single payer and take the greedy sons of bitches out of the question entirely. Failing that, the next best thing is to give people a choice whether they want to continue to pay for Stephen Hemsley's tax shelters in the Cayman Islands or not, with a true public option available to all.

Anything less than that is simply not reform, only rewarding the corrupt existing system with an unlimited potential to expand their fraud.

[Phx_Dem]

12. No question. #2. And they're reaction to the HCR proves it. n.t