Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
Two I have seen a few items, mainly:
- tort reform (I don't think this does squat)
- allow ins companies to compete across state lines (I like this one a lot!)
I thought they were against the public option, then I saw it in the proposal made this morning (by you or CC, I forget). I have missed a comprehensive answer to the question and wondered how coverage for all was handled.
I know a strong complaint from conservatives is taking money from people to pay for others care. We have this of course, with taxes on the "Cadillac" plans and fees on the uninsured. Plus at $172 billion a year to the deficit, your average taxpayer is paying (as are his children!).
Three, I think the Republicans should have a positive alternative to replace the bill if they are going to campaign on rolling back this POS.
But it is probably the wrong thread for this.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
- Your right to live materialistically or not materialistically.
- Your right to man-love, or not to man-love
- Forcing some people to pay for other people.
- Forcing everyone to purchase a specific good/service
Because you seem to be commenting on the first two, which hopefully everyone here supports...while ignoring the actual argument, which is the last two.
What I WANT to see, is people using FORCE to enforce my liberty to live materialistcally or not, to man-love or not, to provide charity or not, to purchase goods and services or not.
See the difference?
Last edited by Mach; 03-23-10 at 03:15 PM.