Sunday, October 25, 2009

Fools And Liars Should Be Excluded From The Health Care Reform Debate!

Recently, I participated in an online discussion about whether it is ever reasonable to refuse to debate with somebody and whether a tolerant person would refuse. I'm of the opinion that it is sometimes reasonable for a tolerant person to not debate.

We all know to "never argue with a fool" but, fool or not, we also should not bebate with anybody who is not acting in good faith.

The current health care reform is one such occasion when refusing to debate is reasonable.  Most, if not all, of the legislators who oppose health care reform are in my opinion either fools or not acting in good faith.

Representative Michele Bachmann is an excellent example of a fool with whom we should not debate.  Bachmann assures us that the government will establish death panels under the proposed reform legislation and, in my opinion, only a fool could believe in death panels.

Senator Jon Kyl is an example of a person who will not debate in good faith.  Although 60% of the health care insurance providers will not cover maternity care, Jon Kyl disagrees with requiring all health care insurers to cover maternity care.  Why?  Jon Kyl stated that he does not personally require maternity care coverage and therefore does not want to pay for it.  I say that Jon Kyl is not debating in good faith and does not deserve to participate in the health care reform debate.

The Senate and the House should ensure that their members are acting responsibly and should censure its members when they do not.

I do not doubt that some people will claim that Michele Bachmann's speech is protected under the Constitution but I argue that Congress is responsible for representing the People accurately and fairly and any other conduct is a corruption of our government.


Kansas Bob said...

I agree with you Joe. Sometimes refusing to debate is the tolerant thing to do.

Some folks like you have convinced me that a Public Option is needed for real healthcare reform. I used to hear the term bargaining in good faith regarding company-union negotiating. What do you think that means for healthcare reform? Can a good faith congressional negotiation result in something that does not include a public option?

Joe said...

I think a Public Option is the best way to ensure affordable insurance coverage, but I also think that there is more than one way to skin the cat and good faith bargaining could produce adequate reform without a Public Option.

I would really prefer a single-payer system but I don't expect Conservatives to agree to such a significant change. The Conservatives don't want government provided insurance or health care services but may accept more industry regulation of the coverage and cost to ensure performance and affordability.

However, I don't think the Republican party will bargain in good faith because I think they are unwilling to reveal their real objectives and incentives. Any politician who is committed first to the protection of the healthcare industry, as I think many are, is not going to admit it in Congress nor to his voting constituents. Each of them then must come up with reasons to oppose reform that are intended to increase health care performance and affordability that are neither based on their real objective (the benefit of the industry) nor logical arguments against the proposal(s) that truely target increasing performance and affordability of health care.

So, good faith bargaining need not result in a Public Option but I don't believe that enough of the Conservatives will act in good faith.

Kansas Bob said...

Are there fiscal conservatives in the GOP?