“You can’t use reason to argue healthcare with a person who failed to do any research to arrive at their opinion.”

A good place to check lots of claims (on both sides) is

http://www.factcheck.org/

have you read the bill?

To a limited degree, yes. I know what it's basically proposing, but I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the thing; it is over 1,000 pages, after all.

On the 1000 page note, I remember joking with a friend on more than once that if I ever got elected into any office any bills I come across would be compared to the Constitution and if the bill was longer I would simply go 'tl;dr - no.'
My argument was that after all, why should a bill that covers such a small aspect of life be worded so much longer than the one that governs the very structure of the government voting on the issue?
I can see why this is not the case now, but seriously,it shouldn't be so longwinded that it gets voted on without reading it. We should all learn from past mistakes. Government should never say 'tl;dr - yes'.

If you have not read it how do you know all the other accusations are wrong?

What do you bet those voting on it haven't read it either?

Probably true, but you don't have to spend much time with it to see that death panels and complete socialized care are NOT part of it.

I think that most people on both sides have not done research.

True enough, but one side is using lies.

Sarah Palin should be ashamed of herself (as should anyone else who claims that this bill contains anything about euthanasia). Investor's Business Daily should be ashamed of themselves. The debate we're seeing is NOT about the bill. It's about things that opponents claim are in the bill but actually aren't. If the bill passes, people will be able to keep their current insurance plans if they so choose. If the bill passes, people will be able to keep their current doctor. If the bill passes, then those making critical decisions about their end-of-life care (setting up a living will for example) will be able to talk to a counselor and have it PAID for by the insurance program.

I'd love to see an honest debate about the issues in the bill. That's not happening, and it's not happening because those opposed to the bill are more than happy to spread (or in some cases simply not correct) misinformation about the bill. The public debate has been taken over by those who are lying (or outrageously misinformed) and who are not interested in hearing answers to their questions.

This is a government option insurance bill (with coverage for some who can't otherwise afford coverage). It isn't a government takeover of the healthcare system. It isn't government-run health care.

Actually Carl, it sounds like you like this just the way they are given how you throw stones. It is clear most of these reasons against are BS and they are the exact ones that those vocally supporting the bill (which bill by the way?) are using it to dismiss all opposition. The real questions are getting drowned out by the idiots (the administration included) spending their time on it.

A valid question listed above is about employer care being dropped. The plan is to use tax credits as incentive to keep current plans but no one really knows what will happen. Let's face it, both sides use seriously warped logic to either support or oppose these types of issues.

Dale, I don't think that it's a fair criticism to assert that those supporting a bill are pointing to the BS opposition and asserting that ALL opposition is BS. There are apparently people in this country who are willing to believe outrageous falsehoods, and some of these people through their assertive questions at town-hall meetings seem to have a desire to spread the BS memes (and secondarily to impede debate on the legitimate issues). I think that it's extremely important to clear up these many misunderstandings, and any legislator or news organization that allows the BS to pass unquestioned is not doing their job (though it is true that the news organizations should be doing a better job of quickly dismissing the BS and getting to real issues).

I stand by my assertion that the use of terms like "death panel" is shamefully inflammatory and does nothing to clarify misunderstandings or to engage in real debate. Yes, there are issues that ought to be debated. I agree entirely. The question you raise is a good example of a valid point of discussion.

I think that it's clear that we need to do something (and should have done something long ago ... it's not like we haven't seen the rising costs and other problems coming). The goal of SOME people seems to be to throw so much crap at the issue that NOTHING will get passed. It's like the campaign "strategy" of throwing lots of crap in the hopes that SOMETHING will stick and your opponent will be unelectable. It's shameful in elections, it's shameful in this context, and yes, it angers me.

"Yes, there are issues that ought to be debated. I agree entirely."

Not everyone's willing to admit this. For some, it's just plain easier to discredit than rationally refute.

Shame is too useful a word, too applicable, and shouldn't be. It's a shame that these are the circumstances of today's discussion.

-=T=-

An incredibly powerful question.

I can imagine a response, from those who haven't, "No. Have you?"

-=T=-

"It’s like you’re tossing them a baseball, and they’re jumping on a toboggan."

LOL