How about we stick to valid arguments?
As most of you know, I am, generally speaking, an Obama fan. I voted for him, and I think he's done a lot of good things so far. Having said that, I have to admit that I'm not 100% certain where I stand on the health care overhaul debate. I'm absolutely certain that our system for providing health care needs to be overhauled, but I'm not sure we're going about it in the correct manner.
The thing that really bothers me, though, is the rhetoric that's coming from a lot of the opponents of health care reform. In my eyes, it appears that most of the people screaming against reform are just picking up language they heard from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or some other demagogue and repeating it. That might not be so bad if the language they're using wasn't blatantly wrong and easily logically refutable.
Here's the most common instance of what I've described: I was having a discussion with another Marine the other day, and he stated that having the government involved as a market participant in providing health care (i.e. having a public option) would ultimately drive all other participants out of the market because they wouldn't be able to financially compete. This is stuff I've heard from the mouths of several conservative commentators, and it's not supported by historical evidence. In the majority of the fields in which the U.S. government operates as a market participant, other, private, market participants are able to thrive. The example I used with him was the U.S. Postal Service (actually, I was a bit snide. I said "You're absolutely right! After all, look how hard a time UPS and FedEx have competing against the U.S. Postal Service! They're barely staying afloat!"). However, there are numerous other examples (home mortgages, electric power supply, etc.) In the few fields of legitimate private enterprise where the U.S. government has become the sole market participant, it is usually because the government stepped in and became a market participant when it became clear that the market was folding and, for interests of national security or interstate commerce, could not be allowed to fold. The most obvious example of this is Amtrak. Amtrak is a government-owned corporation that is the sole provider of nationwide rail transportation for people (as opposed to freight) on a large scale. However, Amtrak was only created in 1971 after it became clear that the non-freight rail transportation industry was getting ready to cease existence. In other words, the government's participation in the market did not drive out other market competitors. Those competitors were driven out of the market by lack of profitability prior to government participation.
Another example is the statement (made by certain well-known politicians) that the health care proposals currently in Congress would encourage euthanasia by having mandatory counseling sessions for the elderly in which they would be directed in how to end their lives. If you've read the pertinent parts of the proposals, you know that this was absolute bunk. That's like saying that having a voluntary suicide awareness class at a community center will encourage suicide. The proposals did have VOLUNTARY counseling focused on decisions that might need to be made when the individual was incapacitated (i.e. living wills, etc.). HUGE difference.
So, the point of the rant above is this: If you want to have a civil discussion about health care or convince me of your position, try using logical arguments instead of just blindly repeating assertions that I can easily prove to be ridiculous. If that same Marine had told me that he had a problem with the current health care reform proposals because he just couldn't understand how we were going to be able to fund them over the next 20 years without a marked increase in taxes for everyone, I'd have respected and understood his position. Heck, I have the same concern myself. I just wish people would stop being lemmings.
The thing that really bothers me, though, is the rhetoric that's coming from a lot of the opponents of health care reform. In my eyes, it appears that most of the people screaming against reform are just picking up language they heard from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or some other demagogue and repeating it. That might not be so bad if the language they're using wasn't blatantly wrong and easily logically refutable.
Here's the most common instance of what I've described: I was having a discussion with another Marine the other day, and he stated that having the government involved as a market participant in providing health care (i.e. having a public option) would ultimately drive all other participants out of the market because they wouldn't be able to financially compete. This is stuff I've heard from the mouths of several conservative commentators, and it's not supported by historical evidence. In the majority of the fields in which the U.S. government operates as a market participant, other, private, market participants are able to thrive. The example I used with him was the U.S. Postal Service (actually, I was a bit snide. I said "You're absolutely right! After all, look how hard a time UPS and FedEx have competing against the U.S. Postal Service! They're barely staying afloat!"). However, there are numerous other examples (home mortgages, electric power supply, etc.) In the few fields of legitimate private enterprise where the U.S. government has become the sole market participant, it is usually because the government stepped in and became a market participant when it became clear that the market was folding and, for interests of national security or interstate commerce, could not be allowed to fold. The most obvious example of this is Amtrak. Amtrak is a government-owned corporation that is the sole provider of nationwide rail transportation for people (as opposed to freight) on a large scale. However, Amtrak was only created in 1971 after it became clear that the non-freight rail transportation industry was getting ready to cease existence. In other words, the government's participation in the market did not drive out other market competitors. Those competitors were driven out of the market by lack of profitability prior to government participation.
Another example is the statement (made by certain well-known politicians) that the health care proposals currently in Congress would encourage euthanasia by having mandatory counseling sessions for the elderly in which they would be directed in how to end their lives. If you've read the pertinent parts of the proposals, you know that this was absolute bunk. That's like saying that having a voluntary suicide awareness class at a community center will encourage suicide. The proposals did have VOLUNTARY counseling focused on decisions that might need to be made when the individual was incapacitated (i.e. living wills, etc.). HUGE difference.
So, the point of the rant above is this: If you want to have a civil discussion about health care or convince me of your position, try using logical arguments instead of just blindly repeating assertions that I can easily prove to be ridiculous. If that same Marine had told me that he had a problem with the current health care reform proposals because he just couldn't understand how we were going to be able to fund them over the next 20 years without a marked increase in taxes for everyone, I'd have respected and understood his position. Heck, I have the same concern myself. I just wish people would stop being lemmings.