Many of the people attending congressional district meetings to protest the emerging healthcare reform harm the cause of freedom when they are unruly and, more importantly, when they repeat unfounded rumors they’ve heard on the radio or read on the Internet. My advice is to get your facts straight and act in a dignified way. Reason should be in for forefront. Passion too prominently displayed looks like blind emotion and alienates those who might be persuaded by calm argument. Don’t call people names. Coolly state the moral and economic reasons against government control. Remember: Statism did not begin with Obama.
That said, I must point out that the critics of the protesters — those who want to continue the status quo of government-dominated health care but even more so — are off base in their sneering dismissal of the people who are worried about the so-called reform. Why would anyone have confidence in an 1,000-page-plus piece of legislation, obscurely written, that would give not-fully-defined powers to the secretary of Health and Human Services? Because Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd say so? Excuse me, but that’s not good enough.
Anyone who doesn’t have an instinctual revulsion at such a bill needs to read some history.
4 comments:
Sheldon, I'm with you on the despicable behavior and actions of many of the town hall protesters at a number of these "health care reform" events. I concur with you that many of them are behaving childishly and foolishly and act like mere jackasses over Obama's proposed "health care reform" plan, which is the state's hijacking of the entire health care system itself. They are hurting the cause of human liberty by being "unruly" (dazzling deduction on your part when you used that term) and uncivilized over the matter.
Aside from the idiotic Birther claims at a handful of these events and their urge of the statist politicians to "go back to Washington, D.C. and represent the people," what unfounded rumors are you referring to? If you mean the alleged "death panels," I did read page 425 of the bill, and, although it does not out-rightly say that seniors would be put to death via "mandatory euthanasia," it certainly hints at and implies it, or at least lays down the foundation for it. Plus, the provision calling for "mandatory counseling" for the elderly is in those pages; I should know, because I saw it. (The language of the bill, which I haven't been able to read all of it, is very convoluting and troubling, not to mention pretty vague and muddy.)
Other than that, I agree with you 100 percent.
"I did read page 425 of the bill, and, although it does not out-rightly say that seniors would be put to death via 'mandatory euthanasia,' it certainly hints at and implies it, or at least lays down the foundation for it. Plus, the provision calling for 'mandatory counseling' for the elderly is in those pages;"
I read it too, and I don't see what you see. Please be specific, Todd. I see no consultation mandate, much less a euthanasia mandate. The page amends the Social Security law to include advance-care planning consultation in the list of reimbursed services. I see no suggestion of any mandate. Where is it? (See this.)
Igor, he's got a birth certificate. He's got published newspaper birth announcements. Let it go already.
Sheldon, I am looking at the pages right now as I write this. I stand corrected. There is no mandate as far as I can tell. And honestly, there is no euthanasia mandate. My apologies for thinking otherwise.
It does amend the Social Security Act to include "advance-care planning consultation" in, as you poignantly noted, in the list of reimbursed services. My question is, "What do they really mean by 'advance-care planning consultation'?" That's the part that I find very questionable and convoluting. It defines the term in the bill as "a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph, the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years." That sentence is very eerie. The list of "services" included in the bill after that sentence is pretty vague, but even more so, quite disturbing. Why the need for "advance-care planning consultations"? Why should taxpayers fund such consultations along with the list we already cover? What is their ultimate goal regarding this?
That's what I'd like to know.
Personally, I'm cheering on the end of the nation, rather than hoping we sit in this stagnant state of affairs for further decades. Huzzah for Obama!
Post a Comment