The "My Opinion" article on health care reform that the Town and Country got a response. Wow - what an attack. Here is my response to the response - I have submitted this to the Town and Country to see if they want to publish it.
Title: I agree to agree, but without the name calling
According to the national media, the proponents of the health care bill offer rational thoughts while the opponents are crazy people, yelling a lot and making nasty personal attacks – here in the Valley it is the other way around. Two weeks ago, I wrote an opinion piece explaining in detail why the new health reform law won’t work. Last week’s reply was – well, geeze, I don’t know what I said to bring that on.
Ironically, if you overlook the fact that the author never contradicts what I said and omit the personal comments about me, the two real points the gentleman made were legitimate. First, the gentleman was critical of the efforts of the Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate. I agree. The alternatives offered by Republicans were weak and counterproductive. The only reason I harped on the Democrats was they are the only ones who voted for this stupid law.
Second, the gentleman suggests rules used by insurers to refuse to sell coverage to people with medical conditions be eliminated right now. I agree. Helping people with medical conditions get access to coverage right now is the single most important thing Congress should have done. Unfortunately, the Democrats can’t afford to implement the change he wants because they put so much junk in the law increasing federal spending and raising insurance premiums.
On the other hand, the gentleman suggests I don’t want 32 million Americans to get health care coverage. Not true. What I said is that raising taxes, the deficit, and the cost of insurance while reducing insurance company competition won’t result in more people getting coverage. Unfortunately, I am right. Benefit advisors have begun telling employers to consider cancelling health insurance to avoid the higher premiums and government red tape caused by the new law.
Rather than try to disprove anything I said, the gentleman closed with a whimsical comment - “there are big lies, little lies, and statistics.” Rather than respond to his personal comments, I’ll close by saying that what we need in our political discourse is less shouting, less threats, less name calling, less personal attacks and more honest, thoughtful, rational discussion.
Title: I agree to agree, but without the name calling
According to the national media, the proponents of the health care bill offer rational thoughts while the opponents are crazy people, yelling a lot and making nasty personal attacks – here in the Valley it is the other way around. Two weeks ago, I wrote an opinion piece explaining in detail why the new health reform law won’t work. Last week’s reply was – well, geeze, I don’t know what I said to bring that on.
Ironically, if you overlook the fact that the author never contradicts what I said and omit the personal comments about me, the two real points the gentleman made were legitimate. First, the gentleman was critical of the efforts of the Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate. I agree. The alternatives offered by Republicans were weak and counterproductive. The only reason I harped on the Democrats was they are the only ones who voted for this stupid law.
Second, the gentleman suggests rules used by insurers to refuse to sell coverage to people with medical conditions be eliminated right now. I agree. Helping people with medical conditions get access to coverage right now is the single most important thing Congress should have done. Unfortunately, the Democrats can’t afford to implement the change he wants because they put so much junk in the law increasing federal spending and raising insurance premiums.
On the other hand, the gentleman suggests I don’t want 32 million Americans to get health care coverage. Not true. What I said is that raising taxes, the deficit, and the cost of insurance while reducing insurance company competition won’t result in more people getting coverage. Unfortunately, I am right. Benefit advisors have begun telling employers to consider cancelling health insurance to avoid the higher premiums and government red tape caused by the new law.
Rather than try to disprove anything I said, the gentleman closed with a whimsical comment - “there are big lies, little lies, and statistics.” Rather than respond to his personal comments, I’ll close by saying that what we need in our political discourse is less shouting, less threats, less name calling, less personal attacks and more honest, thoughtful, rational discussion.
Comments