Capitalism Consuming Itself

IT WOULD, IT SHOULD BE EASY to understand how president obama might have the attitude "it was a fair vote. we voted to have obamacare". Now we have it. Its too late to try to stop it." Anybody can understand that attitude. Meanwhile, however, as obamacare gets closer and closer to implementation, obama himself keeps "tweeking" it, changing the dates, and implementation schedule, mainly trying to give the states more time to catch up. This gives the republicans the ammunition they think they need. Obama claims that nobody should mess with the law of the land, but he keeps messing with it. (The only difference is that obama is trying to support it, improve it, not get rid of it.) If you can prove that the other guy is a hypocrite, you can justify your own behavior, and win the argument. Somehow, that strange notion has worked its way into public discourse, as if we're all trying to be surpassingly logical and intellectual, but aren't sure how to go about it. One cannot excuse, explain, or justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, but boy, we sure do try. Warren Buffet, who has evidently decided that he does not like obamacare, nonetheless believes it is folly to try to defund the entire country unless obama care is defunded, and he might just have a point. If you have enough insurance companies to force them to compete against each other, you don't have enough customers for each company. If you have only a few insurance companies, the way we do now, they don't compete agianst each other, but instead they work together in what we call a "monopoly" ro keep profits up, which they do now in america, and have always done. Just like the fuel companies ("fuel" companies are those corporations usually mistakenly called "oil" companies, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, etc.). Let nobody harbor the delusional fantasy that fuel comapnies or insurance companies in the united states engage in any real competition. Rule by a few is as rule by one. A plutocracy is in effect a monopoly, which is supposedly illegal. There used to be this thingie called the "Sherman anti-Trust Act", of 1892 i think 'twas - whatever happened to it? But wait! The sherman anti trust act is socialistic, because it is anti capitalistic, which is to say, anti free market, because part of the free market is competition, winners, loosers, growth, and death. By making it illegal for capitalism to consume itself, th ACT protected capitalism from itself, but now we have lost is, misploacedc the sherman anti trust act, and, at long last, eventually, ultimately, everything in the world will be owned and controlled by a single person. We'll have to hope the prices aren't too high. If they are, we won't be able to do anything about it.