- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,203
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I don't think I've argued there will be no expense. It may well cost more, but i'm not sure that is proven with certainty. I have argued that we will almost certainly get more for the cost.
But I agree that this bill satisfies no one, and that is the problem. My biggest problem, however, was in the way it was demoized almost from the beginning, taken it from a rational discussion to the fear mongering we saw. From claims of socialims to death panels, the discussion went silly and this played a major role in the failing of the bill. It kept the discourse from being about what was best, and left us with getting something so improvement would even be possible.
I have some blame for both parties on this. But it has historically been the nature of the healthcare debate, and this saddens me a great deal.
I agree that the discussion on both sides sought to put their opponents in the worst possible light. Historically for something like this to really work means that there is a lot of behind the scenes negotiations BEFORE the public evens knows the talks are going on. The problem with this is that neither side gets to claim victory but has to share it.
People are tired with the result we get. The Tea Party may be flawed but it was an attempt to say we are mad and won't take it anymore. They got demonized by the left so gravitated to the right. When I was growing up the people fed up with the staus quo mostly turned to the dems. I think most tea party folks would vote for neither party if they got a chance. Saying that some of their candidates seem to be dingbats.