honest debate

That’s all the citizens opposing this health care reform want here – an honest debate where we are told the truth about the proposals currently being discussed for transformative changes in the way health care works in this country.  We want our representatives to know and understand what they are voting on at least — if they can’t be bothered to do their job and read the entire bill. (And BTW, if the bill’s too long for Congress to read or understand, why not have some non-lawyers write bills in plain English?  Controversial suggestion, I know.)  Many Congressional Democrat “leaders”  have been writing off their constituents as some uninformed rabble-rousers who are driven not by principle, but fueled by lobbyist cash. This is an extremely elitist, arrogant way for them to approach the conversation with us on health care reform.  If you have the proof, show the evidence that citizens are being paid to protest and ask questions at town hall meetings by the insurance industry.

The Democrats in Congress don’t seem to care what we think, even though I suspect they know public opinion has been steadily turning against them on this issue.

I’m going to say a little something to my fellow conservatives who join me in opposition to ObamaCare, in whatever form it ends up taking.  We can be passionate in our opposition without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks.  I know that there is so much anger and frustration out there with the policies of this administration, but in this, we must continue to fight these policies with civility and confidence.  We must not allow our passion to be used by the media to discredit our views because this issue is too important to surrender.

Now that I’ve got that out of the way, let’s get back to the conversation.

12 thoughts on “honest debate

  1. I find it quite odd that you call for an honest debate and a return to the conversation when it’s nearly impossible to get replies from this blog.

    Here still no response and here too. Honest debate does indeed begin with a conversation, but I don’t really see that happening.

    There’s no doubt that some of the Tea Baggers showing up to protest health care reform do so without any concern for honest debate. They call the president a socialist Nazi, carry swastikas, hang Members of Congress in effigy and even threaten lives. How is that honest debate?

    Even putting aside the crazies on both sides, cause surely the Democrats have them too, and to continue your honest debate, what is it that you personally oppose about health care reform?

  2. Oh, and your question…

    “If you have the proof, show the evidence that citizens are being paid to protest and ask questions at town hall meetings by the insurance industry.”

    Here’s a lady that attended a town hall meeting in Wisconsin who is a paid GOP official. There’s plenty more if you need them too.

  3. Sometimes I don’t have the energy or inclination to do the research that a back-and-forth debate with you always requires. Call that whatever you want to call it. But this isn’t about me and whether I choose to occasionally shut down comments on this blog. This is about the Democrats not being honest about what the House bill says about their plans for health care “reform”.

    You have a blog in which you can say whatever you want to say about what I post. My purpose in shutting down comments was not to close off debate, because I’m well aware that I will know your opinion on those posts soon enough. 🙂

    As to your question, I don’t oppose health care reform. That’s just not what the Democrats and President Obama intend to do with this legislation. This is not “health care reform” or “health insurance reform”. This is a complete overhaul of a health care system that already provides quality care for a significant number of people who already have insurance, with the idea of providing coverage to those who are uninsured. I don’t believe that the Democrats’ plan, as it’s currently constructed, will reduce health care costs or manage to completely cover enough of the uninsured to make up for the loss of private / employer-provided plans that the addition of a public plan option would facilitate. (And yes, I’m aware that there may not be a public option in the final bill.)

    In a future post, I’m going to discuss Dr. Laffer’s Prognosis for Health Care Reform. Perhaps you have heard of him. You know, the author of the “Laffer Curve”. He’s an economist, and he believes that the President and the Dems have the wrong approach with their prescriptions for our health care. I look forward to your comments after reading my post on that subject.

  4. Re: the lady who went to a town hall meeting as a paid GOP official – big deal. Are you saying that those who take salaries from the GOP are not allowed to voice an opinion about health care or ask questions of their Congressmen and Senators? That’s a rather rigid standard you’re setting there. Maybe I need to be clearer about what I’m requesting evidence to prove. My statement was regarding the influence of lobbyists from the insurance companies on the average citizen who is speaking out at these town hall meetings. I don’t think there’s evidence to support THAT.

    I condemn the crazies on my side. You know me well enough to know that I would do that. However, there has been much mischaracterization of average people who just want to get some straight answers about what our Congress is doing to change our health care system. As I’ve previously said, the proposals Congress is currently dealing with in relation to changes in the administration of health care could possibly be an irreversible change once implemented, so it’s very important to get the details right before passing something like this.

  5. As a former paid staffer, yes I’m saying it’s totally unethical for paid staffers to show up at town halls and present themselves off as mere concerned citizens. As a paid staffer, you are anything but an ordinary, concerned citizen. You are privy to plenty of information the general public isn’t. You are also completely aware of talking points to sway public opinion. It’s not a rigid standard at all. If staffers first identify themselves properly then there is nothing wrong with it. But this lady didn’t. She wanted to pretend to be a concerned citizen. She isn’t and yes I think it’s disingenuous. It’s like a member of the Chicago Bulls showing up to play in a church league basketball game.

    As far as your stance on health care reform and average Americans just wanting answers to questions and your condemnation of the crazies, I’ll wait to read your thoughts on Laffer before saying much else. Though I do think it’s pretty straightforward the Tea Baggers showing up are not interested in honest debate. When you boo reality, there isn’t much else that can be said. Answers are not what they are wanting.

  6. I agree with you. It’s wrong for paid GOP operatives to not represent themselves as such when speaking up at a town hall meeting. But assuming they have done that, I see no problem with them voicing their disagreement or support to proposed legislation like the health care bill. As far as talking points, at this juncture in the health care debate there’s no need to have inside info to figure out how each party will sell its position on this issue.

  7. Assuming they have done that? I link to an exact instance where a paid GOP staffer is doing it. It’s not an assumption.

    I see no problem with people voicing their disagreement or support either. It’s just if you do it and are a paid staffer at least be honest about it.

    As far as having an honest debate, I really am at a loss of how it’s even possible to have an honest debate with a Party that embraces birtherism and death panels. No debate can possibly begin with such a basis of understanding.

    Can we at least begin the debate without conspiracy theories?

  8. Ok…I admit to not reading your link, but I still agree with your point.

    Again, there’s nothing I can do to stop the crazies. I’ve made my position as clear as I can make it on the birth certificate issue, but I have zero pull with the rest of my party. As for the “death panels”, yes I think the terminology was exaggerated, but this was a part of the health care bill that could easily have been misinterpreted. In my view, it was misinterpreted. This could have been avoided if this part of the legislation was better explained by the Democrats, and BTW, if there was nothing wrong with this end-of-life counseling deal, why did the Democrats get rid of it? Maybe it was just political pressure, and not anything any more principled than that…

  9. How could the section been any clearer? Should it have said “no death panels to kill your grandma?” Even then, Republicans led by Fox News would have lied about it.

    It said nothing about killing anybody and was intentionally lied about to draw up fear. Funny to me is that Republicans in Congress have in their insurance program end of life counseling that is entirely funded by tax payer dollars. Why aren’t they drawing up fear for that?

    Why did they get rid of it? Let’s see here. Republicans go on teevee and intentionally say Democrats want to form death panels to kill undesirables. Yeah I have no idea why they removed it.

  10. Maybe I’m mistaken…but from what I’ve read, the Republicans in Congress have private health care plans that the government funds. That’s not what the Democrats want to do with their proposed health care reforms.

    You say: “Why did they get rid of it? Let’s see here. Republicans go on teevee and intentionally say Democrats want to form death panels to kill undesirables. Yeah I have no idea why they removed it.”

    So we agree on the political pressure then? 🙂

  11. Private plans entirely funded by the government/tax payer. Does the fact there are private providers not make it a publicly financed system? Some people argue that sure. But if I’m on food stamps and only buy food from private grocery stores does make it not welfare?

    • If this kind of plan was being proposed by the Dems — private plans partially/fully subsidized by the federal government — I would give it more serious consideration. That’s not what we are talking about here.

Comments are closed.