What?
No, yours is the wrong question. If people want Not-A, that does not mean they want B. Just because reform is needed does not mean your reforms are what are needed.
But I think his basic point is that its opponents seem to think much the same thing, only their “B” is either “don’t do anything” or “absolutely nothing that’s in the bill.” (Hmm, I hope that’s clear…)
The “liberal media” has never really existed, being more often liberal on social-specific issues such as civil rights and more often conservative on issues of economy or defense. Since the health care plan consisted of aspects of both perspectives, the “media” (outside Fox News), found itself in a quandary that interfered with its ability to choose sides.
The liberal pundits, however, were divided, with a number of them pushing for the plan as written in Congress on the grounds that something was better than nothing while a different set of them argued against it on different grounds than the consevative pundits, mostly opposing the lack of a single payer proposal and many objecting to the corporate enrichment provision of requiring everyone to purchase private insurance if it was not provided by their employer.
So we have a corporate friendly right leaning media standing off from the issue and liberal pundits disagreeing over the basics of the plan, leaving only the conservative pundits to provide a unified voice on the topic.
I understand you. The point is still wrong, though. Only a fool thinks in terms of “We have to do something!” without considering what that something might be. In this case, it’s a health care reform bill built on a foundation of religious discrimination: the requirement that members of certain religions must buy a product from a third party or be punished, while the members of other religions may choose not to.
The idea that the healthcare bill was “built on a foundation of religious discrimination” is simply a lie. That was not the foundation in any sense of the word. The religious exemption is more like a side building to hold unattractive but crucial things like lawnmowers and snow shovels. It’s a balancing act between religious accommodation and widespread avoidance of the mandate.
I’m not sure how an issue like this would be decided if* not* by words. It’s not like the Republicans and Democrats are going to select champions for single combat to the death.
Though that would certainly make the process far more interesting.
Accusations (and imlications) that other posters are lying are prohibted in this forum. Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]