Originally Posted by dippin

What I find fascinating about the death panel myth is how incoherent and how little sense it makes. It at the same time accuses the public option of being far too much and not enough. The position claims that the public option will not spend enough to provide adequate care for everyone, and so we shouldn't spend anything on it - "it can't cover everything, therefore it shouldn't cover anything at all."
How can anyone reconcile those two positions without some serious flaw in judgment is beyond me.