One thing I have no patience with politicians, or really anyone, about is the idea that people who are protesting or dissenting, are not speaking with their own voice. That somehow they are just parrots miming something others have told them to say. I may think a lot of things about people who protest against things I feel strongly about, but I would never assume that their opinions are not authentically theirs.
Frankly, if someone is just blowing dissent off as fake, with out engaging in the criticisms, then my opinion is they don't have a leg to stand on. If they did they would stand on it. Even if that leg was merely to explain why the dissenting opinions are crazy.
Elderly people worried about what exactly an end of life consultation will really be, is not crazy. Certainly, even if it is not set out to be a question of Euthanasia, things go wonky when suddenly voters no longer have the power to draw the line in the sand. Oregon's euthanasia laws were supposed to be humane, for those who could no longer stand life, and yet a cancer patient is told the state will cover her assisted suicide, but not treatment that will extend her life. Though the state says she mis-interpreted the statement, the fact is they won't cover the meds that will help her, and I have a hard time believing there weren't some beans counted in that equation.
The difference is that if your insurance company tells you that, you have other options. A consumer as big as the Federal Government will negate the options it doesn't believe in. Medicare already has the power to drown out technology it doesn't care to pay for, even if it is safer and better.
So the committee has promised to take that out of the final bill. Let's hope they don't push this through as fast as all the other bills so that we'll be able to double check before they vote on it.
And while we're worrying about things in these proposed bills floating around, let's look at the provision for the government to come in and teach you how to raise your children. Some parents of young children and parents-to-be will get visits from a government worker to help them with child raising tips.
(No, I'm not making this up. Here are two different versions of the bill and the pages where they talk about this:
It all sounds good and wonderful. Working to prevent abuse and neglect is a worthy goal. However, especially growing up around plenty of good and well-meaning people, I get worried any time the government gets involved with the raising of children. Yes, some kids need to be protected from their parents, but that goes overboard quickly. Even with well-meaning people.
Besides, not everyone has the same views on the raising of children. I have something against "helicopter parents" and I certainly don't want to be one. But what if my government official expects that kind of parenting out of me?
Frankly, it's just not something the government needs to control.
And that gets to the bottom of what I feel about government-run health care under any innocuous attempt at a name or description.
First, The government has no more money. I don't know if anybody else has noticed this, but they've been on quite the spending spree for the last year. It just isn't there. At the moment nobody can afford more taxes and with inflation on the horizon (oh, I know, they say they're not going to allow that) people are going to have need of even more of their pennies.
Second, name one government program that works well. Even Obama knows the Post Office is always in trouble. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veteran Care, etc....always in trouble. Government run schools? Yeah, always in trouble. Government is the best way to man a military (and we all know there is no money wasted in the military) and the worst for social programs.
But mostly, I'm against government-run health care because I'm Pro-choice. I know abortion is murder. And yet, as against abortion as I am on a personal level, I realize that guys in Washington can not make one blanket rule that works well for every situation. I don't want my congressperson to have even that much control over my body or the bodies of anyone else I know.
So, since I don't want them to have that much control. Since I don't think they know what is best for a woman who has to make that decision, which would be so simple for me to make, why would I want them to make the decisions for anyone who has a cold or a brain tumor? Decisions about disposable or cloth diapers? Decisions about a cancer treatment or early death? Do you really want Obama to be in charge of your health care? Would you have wanted George Bush to be?
Yes, there are problems in our health care system that need to be addressed; many of them that will not be addressed with government-run health care anyway, but there are better answers for each of them. Answers that do not give over our choices to our congress people.
Because seriously? When was the last time a congressman/woman or senator really drew a line in the sand of ethics that you were comfortable with it?