Nearly a trillion dollars shouldn't result in "tiny" progress; not that it's progress for the people I know who "make enough" on paper but still can't afford health insurance, fining them for something they'd only maybe be able to afford if the Obama administration was competent in any of its other efforts.

67.174.131.145 (talk)04:27, 23 March 2010

Read my comment again, and the context it was made in. The progress I talk of is not the content of the bill but the fact it passed at all in the face of a propaganda campaign.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)07:39, 23 March 2010

Progress can't be done for progress's sake. When neither side is right, the "victory" of one over the other is a loss for everyone.

Fishy c (talk)22:03, 24 March 2010

For the second time, I talk not of the content but the fact that it is possible to pass it in the face of such an absurd propaganda campaign. I think both sides must recognise that the campaign was ludicrous (though I know they won't), and while the opposers may feel that this was perhaps the wrong bill to break through, the fact that it happened at all is progress. For the second time, read the context in which my comment was made.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)22:37, 24 March 2010

Of the definitions of progress, you're concerned about the one where something happens, rather than the one where something happens to make society more competent and evolved?

Fishy c (talk)01:17, 25 March 2010

No. I am concerned that it is possible for something to happen. My point is that we need not be so pessimistic as to think that big vested interests - in this case a propaganda campaign - always win. That makes society more evolved. "Call me a pessimist, but I don't think we will ever see true comprehensive health reform in this country [the US] because social darwinism is so pervasive," - that may or may not be true, only time will tell, but my point is there is now hope where before there was nothing.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)07:45, 25 March 2010