To be fair

My new friend, Mr. Lawson, was kind enough to respond to my, admittedly, less than courteous response to him with the following ...

Hi, its your sophmore pen pal, you should shop insurance with greater discrimination and exactitude. And, it helps to read the contract. Or, is that too sophomoric.

Having owned various health plans over twenty years, never have I had to twaddle over or sift through a single scrap of paper to have the mean ole insurance company pay the bill.

Until your health care is mandated by the omnipitant one you may want to try that free choice thing and change vendors.

Let's see, an anecdotical observation, blaming the individual and over-the-top accusations against a prominent figure who may or may not represent my views in an attempt to divert the conversation away from its origin ... yep, we've got all the classic signs of a floundering line of argument.

Now, getting into a tit-for-tat with an ideologue isn't something I'm terribly interested in. If you want to talk with me about legitimate concerns you may or may not have with a particular issue or policy proposal, that's fine.

Because - when you come across a story like this where a two-year-old is denied coverage, despite being perfectly healthy because she's underweight - you have to think that sensible people recognize that there are serious flaws in the current system and that a whole host of policy proposals, from across the ideological spectrum, could be incorporated to make this right.

As a result, I will simply repeat what I said here ...

I appreciate, encourage and value respectful disagreements and alternate points of view, but I don't have time for crazy.