I’m not surprised there are people who support and oppose various legislation. That is the hallmark of a working pluralistic democracy. What does surprise me is how some people are themselves surprised, on the shock that others are “voting against their best interest” or “would be for/against legislation x if they just understood it” or “they only disagree because FOX news is telling them lies”.
These conversation-killers are insulting to those of us who would prefer to decide for ourselves what is in our best interest — or better yet put the interest of the nation above ourselves personally and therefore not have our vote for sale to the party that convinces us they’re our best friend. They are insulting to those of us who did our homework and respectfully disagree on ideological grounds rather than misconstrued facts. And they are insulting to those of us who don’t even watch FOX, [[Glen Beck]], or listen to [[Rush Limbaugh]], yet must tolerate that constant accusation for holding any conservative opinion, no matter how self-determined, deliberate, and rational.
Not that Republicans and Conservatives are innocent of equally abhorrent propagandist rhetoric, but the above flavor of foolishness has been the [[modus operandi]] for Democrats and Liberals during these last few years of ramming through their agenda and calling anyone who stands in their way “obstructionists”, implying their “progress” is the only progress. And nothing is more emblematic of this than with regards to the “[[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]]”, known colloquially as “Obamacare” (even though the [[POTUS]] had little to do with it).
I keep seeing post after post in the blogosphere trying to “educate” we who hate it, or rather an attempt to keep supporters convinced of the “facts” detractors must not know — the supposed reason there’s even the possibility of disagreement with such a noble, compassionate, and just piece of legislation. I’ve seen the list before the bill was passed, and it’s copy-pasted ad nauseam as if it wasn’t a bunch of half-truths and omissions. But I must not understand it.
Mind you, these bloggers are likely people who voted for the congressmen who admitted they didn’t read the bill, it’s “not a tax” (the only ground on which it was upheld as constitutional), and claim we really can’t understand or debate what’s in it until it’s passed. This not only makes no sense why anyone would vote for something if they really can’t know the implications, but also forgets that the [[CBO]] projections of the time contradicted what they conversely assured us would be budget savings.
But we’re misinformed, gullible dummies. It doesn’t matter that we’ve intelligently debated complex legal considerations such as the [[Commerce Clause]], or that Supreme Court Justices and no less than 26 State attorneys agree with us. It doesn’t matter that 83% of medical doctors have considered leaving the profession specifically because of the Act. Maybe they didn’t have enough schooling, or just don’t understand the health care field as much as the likes of Pelosi.
And if we-who-dare-object are dummies who need to have it spelled out for us, maybe we should be asking some questions — you know, just to become better edumacated. Here are a just a few:
- How many of the additional people that are expected to be insured are those mandated to buy it?
- Why is there no mention of what premiums will be for those with existing conditions or high risk?
- Why is there no mention of further restrictions on HSAs … you know, people trying to take responsibility for their family’s health outside the ever-expanding insurance company paradigm?
- If it wasn’t supposed to be a tax, and proponents insisted it wasn’t, why did they specifically include a provision for hiring so many goshdarn new [[IRS]] employees?
- Now that children can be covered under a parent’s plan to age 26, does anyone really expect premiums not to reflect that as if it were free? Do they realize that may disqualify them from getting more affordable or even free coverage through college or an employer?
- Does anyone really believe that a bill that basically guarantees HMOs more clients (paying and subsidized) is something the HMOs didn’t actually want in the first place? (
- Bonus question: Did you know the bill in its basic form was written by a consortium of HMOs months before it was passed?
So how about instead of jumping up and down like kindergartners, thumbing noses and going “Nya, nay, nya-nya-nya!”, we all accept the fact that with this and other issues, substantial debate is not, should not, and will never be over. And the gloating of the side that “won” should consider that’s not as much to be proud of as they thought.