The term "neo-con" is generally used incorrectly. If one is trying to make a point, it is important to use the correct terms as to not do so calls the entire statement into question.
Wikipedia defines neo-con[servativism] as "a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes." Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con Since few if any liberals today support the use of military power for much of anything, I submit there are few if any "neo-cons" in the US today, and if they did exist, they would be in favor of government run health care. As far as fostering competition, imagine a situation where Wal*Mart didn't need to make a profit, in fact could loose as much money as they saw fit, with no repercussions. How much competition would that foster? But, the real problem is, once the competition collapses, the remaining provider, having no competition, has no incentive to provide anything above the bare minimum necessary to prevent the rise of a new competitor. John
