You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #42: Batshit isn't required, contextual, or applicable [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
42. Batshit isn't required, contextual, or applicable
Boycotts, marches, demonstrations, and killing counterproductive bills aren't being crazy in the least. These are common sense responses to nonsense in the world.

Now, I do believe that our thinking or at least our approach should be rational. I personally do not see much in the way of alternatives to the public option to control cost growth, guarantee coverage, and to increase competition but that does not exclude the possibility that another mechanism that is equally or even more effective exists. There are few if any single solution problems. So, I think it is perfectly appropriate to be open to another route to reducing costs, increasing competition, and expanding coverage to all. That is the lever, it has nothing to do with private/public in and of themselves.

I can also accept that a bill can be productive without being a cure all, it won't make me happy but there are real possibilities out there that can be cost effective while making real efforts to increase security for many Americans. Bills can be wonderful, good, mediocre, unacceptable, and complete shit. I will not support anything in the later range, including the last minute homework that Baucus is slanging, at least as is.

My concern is that some seem more focused on eliminating insurance companies than achieving the goals of cutting costs, expanding coverage, and expanding consumer choices. It may well be the case that eliminating the insurance leeches is the only real way to met the goals but that call needs to be the result of problem solving versus a goal in and of it's self. If the leeches can be made to be useful and productive (as they have been made to be elsewhere) then it is fine for them to persist or even flourish, if not then we have every responsibility to put the interests of our citizens over corporate profits and/or ideology.

Being reasonable is elective but being rational is mandatory and it is important to keep rational responses out of the batshit bin. If we need to be utterly hardline let it be from the vantage point of being pragmatic rather than emotional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC