ratbastid

You know.... I was just sitting here thinking about this...

I'm for health reform. But it just occurred to me that somebody could pretty easily construct an argument against public-option or single-payer health care (which I'm for, in principle), based on an assertion that costs will spiral out of control and we won't be able to afford it. I'm quite sure numbers could be found that would support that view. I'd be willing to be convinced of such a view. If you were actually interested in changing my mind about health reform, that would be one way it could be accomplished.

Why, then, is the big anti-health-care-reform argument "Socialism!!"? Screaming "Socialism!!" won't change my mind. I'll just pity you, you poor deluded middle-class-white-guy who's out campaigning for the ongoing paycheck of your corporate overlords. "Death panels!!" "Euthenizing the elderly!!" "Rationing!!".... None of these hold ANY damn water, and they're ALL scare tactics.

Why doesn't the opposition actually look at the plan and evaluate it on its merit? Why does it have to be scare tactics and flag-wrapped polemic? I don't understand. It just seems counter-productive.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 PM ----------

"Public Option" is an OPTION. If you'd read the HR, you'd see this.

The idea is, when shopping for insurance you can pick from all sorts of plans, including commercial plans, and including the one provided by the government. It's cheaper, with fewer perks. But it's INSURANCE, just like any other insurance, just cheaper and easier for people to get access to. But you pay for it, if you opt for it. OPTION, see. Among other options.

So the idea is, it pays for itself just like any other insurance would. So there's no scarcity. It pays for itself, so there's no limitation of resource to dole out. So there's no need for death panels or rationing or euthanasia. See? If you actually see what it IS, it's a pretty good idea.