Isn't it a shame we can't have a logical debate on health care?

K

Kevin A.R.T.

New member
By debating this bill based on ideas and laws that it does not contain, aren't we losing out on logical, reasonable debate? Seriously, if we keep debating death panels, eliminating the federal ban on abortion funding, free ice cream and puppies (heck, while we're debating things the bill doesn't contain, why not?). Wouldn't it make much more sense to actually debate what's IN the bill, so we can try and get the best bill possible for the health care reform American needs, whether it contain a public option or not?

Let's get to the core issue: How can we make sure lower middle-clas Americans can have affordible health insurance so they don't have to declare bankruptcy every time they get surgery? How can we keep health insurance companies from dropping people just to make a higher profit? THIS is what we should be debating, not non-existant clauses about death panels and leprechauns and pots of gold.


Seriously, what is a Senator to do? If his Republican constituants call him telling him to vote against the bill becuase of the death panels, and his Democrat constitutant are calling him telling him to vote for it because of the "free ice cream and puppies" clause (I know it isn't in the bill, but neither are death panels!), what is he to do? Should he listen to someone telling him not to vote for a bill based on a reason that doesn't exist, like death panels, overturning the ban on federal funding of abortion, free ice cream and puppies?
Galaxy Girl: I could not agree with you more
 
Everybody knows that Heath care is broken....that's not the issue...what is the issue is how to fix it.

Obamacare is NOT the fix!

If you have a hole in your pool you don't just keep adding water for years and years you fix the damn hole!
 
I agree with you. it's funny, before the presidential election all anyone could talk about was how awful the heath care system was. and now that he is trying to change it everyone is like "leave my health care alone" wtf.
 
If you want real debate, why aren't you insisting that the other bills (that Republicans have introduced) also be discussed based on their own merits? You act as if we only have one proposal to talk about.
 
The point to debate is whether or not we really need to have a federal health care bill, particularly a very expensive one during a recession. Health care has always been pretty much of a state government issue, and according to the 10th Amendment it should be a state issue.
Moving so quickly to debating what should or should not be in a federal health care bill is already a major concession.
 
I don't understand the "they can work for it" argument. If a person makes around $50,000 a year, but they aren't provided insurance through their employer, private health care is almost out of reach. It's too expensive. Now, if that person making $50,000 a year has a family, children, and works hard - why should he/she be unable to provide health care for his or her family?

A $50,000 salary isn't below the poverty line. It would mean a person is gainfully employed. How can anyone ignorantly say that "they should work for it?" What do they expect this person to do? Get three more jobs just to pay for health care?
 
Back
Top