Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
OK we have been debating the House version of the health care bill for a while now. I have seen lists of about 15 or 20 major complaints. Some lists might go on for 30 or 40 but they are being pretty picky.
And yes not all the complaints are based on a completely accurate understanding of what is in the bill. (which is why one of the complaints is that the bill is not written so that people can understand it.)
Btw,
"The internal effects of a mutable policy are [...] calamitous.
It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail
to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice,
if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read,
or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they be repealed before they are promulgated,
or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows
what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."
Anyway back to the point:
Then after the complaints have been made the other side comes and makes their counterpoints. Some of the counterpoints are good. Some of the counterpoints don't address all the points, and all the parts of the points are not addressed (only the obvious errors) and some of the points that are addressed were not even made by those making the points.
So it is true that the bill does not mandate death counseling for everyone. It does mandate it once a discussion has been begun and it does encourage doctors to start one. Why would someone bother to complain that the point does not mandate counseling when it comes so close?
And it is true that the death panel is not purposed to kill people. It is purposed to make the decisions for people about what life or death care they will or will not get. Semantics. Why dispute semantics?
But what about the parts of those points that are very true and what about all the other points that have not even been touched.
Even if one were to concede that the points have flaws and if one were to completely throw out the points that have been addressed that still leaves plenty to hate about the bill.
Why have the counterpointers chosen not to address all the points, and instead to call the pointers racists, and bigots, and astroturf, and teabaggers? The congressmen call town hall meetings to listen but clearly some spend all their time trying to persuade people that a bill they claim they don't yet support is worth supporting. And then the congressmen are surprised when the people openly state that they don't trust them.
Anyway when all is said and done there is plenty for all to hate in the bill. The most important thing being that it is a blatant attempt to usher in socialized health care. That is the desire of the proponents of the bill. And if all the negative paragraphs were removed from the bill the motives of those who write it would still remain unchanged. Nooo, we can trust no bill that comes from these people. A socialist will not be writing bills to strengthen capitalism - the American way!
And yes not all the complaints are based on a completely accurate understanding of what is in the bill. (which is why one of the complaints is that the bill is not written so that people can understand it.)
Btw,
"The internal effects of a mutable policy are [...] calamitous.
It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail
to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice,
if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read,
or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they be repealed before they are promulgated,
or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows
what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."
Anyway back to the point:
Then after the complaints have been made the other side comes and makes their counterpoints. Some of the counterpoints are good. Some of the counterpoints don't address all the points, and all the parts of the points are not addressed (only the obvious errors) and some of the points that are addressed were not even made by those making the points.
So it is true that the bill does not mandate death counseling for everyone. It does mandate it once a discussion has been begun and it does encourage doctors to start one. Why would someone bother to complain that the point does not mandate counseling when it comes so close?
And it is true that the death panel is not purposed to kill people. It is purposed to make the decisions for people about what life or death care they will or will not get. Semantics. Why dispute semantics?
But what about the parts of those points that are very true and what about all the other points that have not even been touched.
Even if one were to concede that the points have flaws and if one were to completely throw out the points that have been addressed that still leaves plenty to hate about the bill.
Why have the counterpointers chosen not to address all the points, and instead to call the pointers racists, and bigots, and astroturf, and teabaggers? The congressmen call town hall meetings to listen but clearly some spend all their time trying to persuade people that a bill they claim they don't yet support is worth supporting. And then the congressmen are surprised when the people openly state that they don't trust them.
Anyway when all is said and done there is plenty for all to hate in the bill. The most important thing being that it is a blatant attempt to usher in socialized health care. That is the desire of the proponents of the bill. And if all the negative paragraphs were removed from the bill the motives of those who write it would still remain unchanged. Nooo, we can trust no bill that comes from these people. A socialist will not be writing bills to strengthen capitalism - the American way!
