Oh..."legitimate media"? You mean like Fox, MSNBC, and CNN? :As opposed to economiccollapseblog and watchdog.org?
I think you're misreading what's going on here. I mentioned that the reason I'm always at odds with Libertarians is because they take such a binary view of things, and you're doing just that. I suspect that everybody here would agree with a few very simple premises: Too much government is a very bad thing. Governmental oversight can be a good or bad thing depending on how it's handled. No government would be a very bad thing. Pretty straight forward.
Where the disconnect comes in is when people aren't able to acknowledge all of these things, and Libertarians often struggle with a few of them. Not only do you seem to have a real problem with the second premise, but you're ascribing your own inflexibility in the matter to everybody else when you suggest that people here who disagree with you do so because they love big government.
Are you trying to tell me Fox and MSNBC are less biased? Because as far as I'm concerned, a media outlet being biased (which both Fox and MSNBC are) doesn't hold much legitimacy. You can basically predict more often than not what they are going to say and what their stance on things will be.
I fail to see my binary view on things. I have an open mind towards every aspect of politics and some of my views are probably not even Libertarian. You're taking one instance where we have conflicting viewpoints and making a broad assumption. As for the last sentence, I am probably a bit harsh in that instance. But the logic is very simple. Health care was fine in this country until the government got their greedy paws involved. It still blows my mind how people can't understand how the astronomical regulations the government inflicted on the medical industry is what caused the detrimental break down of the health care system. It actually makes me laugh when people say there aren't enough regulations.
Hey Prog Snob, how about you stop shoving your fucking beliefs down mine and everybody else's throats?
No one is making you look.
Look no further than MA, where we've had "government mandated" health insurance (conceived, proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney) since 2006.
1. The economy in MA has not collapsed
2. Insurance premiums haven't really changed much at all
3. There has been no measurable impact on jobs here
4. We now have about a 97% insured rate in this state
Point 1. That is irrelevant. The country's system is already in a state of shambles, not to mention the deficit. Romneycare would not work in California because of their financial issues, nor could I see it working well in NY. MA were not in the financial straits our country is currently in nor a state like California.
Point 2. I have sources that say otherwise.
Point 3. I'll agree with you on this since I can't find information saying otherwise.
Point 4. Source for that, because I can't find it.
After reading the Romney website, I don't see Romneycare being that extreme as compared to ACA even though ACA was based on it. ACA seems to have taken Romneycare off the beaten path and made it more authoritarian.