Rant, Rave, Crawfish, but No Answers
If you missed last Sunday’s Enterprise article interviewing State Representative Joe Deshotel, orthopedic surgeon Dr. David Teuscher, Catholic Bishop Curtis Guillory, and the Reverend James Fuller, you missed a point I’ve tried to emphasize regarding the health bill.
The bill is too vague, as in ‘not specific.’
The language in every section of the currently proposed health bill could be interpreted in several different ways, depending upon those doing the interpreting.
In other words, the thousand page plus document is the personification of politically obtuse narrative. And let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, our Congress is a master at obtuse narrative.
All of the gentleman in the article recognize the need for reform. Only one got into specifics, the others relying on inference and platitudes and anger.
No disrespect intended, but only one seemed to have a firm, specific grasp on specific problems and solutions regarding some aspects of the bill.
According to the Enterprise, Representative Deshotel stated that while health care is an issue of great concern, much of the hysteria over Obama’s proposal is irrational and the rumors absurd. “That’s so stupid-it let’s you know that’s not the issue-the issue is the president. They haven’t come to accept an African-American president,” he said.
‘Stupid’ is an ill-chosen remark. Stupid means ‘dull, foolish, inane.’ I suggest millions of Americans who simply want to express themselves or demand clarity are not stupid. They can’t all be ‘dull, foolish, inane.’
Then the extrapolation between ‘stupid’ and what the speaker considers consider the real issue is difficult for me to grasp. Sure, there are folks opposed to Obama because of his race, but not the majority of us.
Why is the hysteria ‘irrational’? Why is it ‘absurd’? How about letting us in on why you so believe. Perhaps we can agree. ‘Anyone can see it,’ is no answer.
Dr. Teuscher, who believes in reform, stated the government should not get into the medical health arena until it solves its current problems. Then he gave specific reasons. 1. Medicare is not paying its full share, leading doctors to limit the number of patients.
2. The system’s financing mechanism is broken. They’re paying for Medicare last year with payroll taxes you’re going tot pay next year. It’s not sustainable. It’s completely unsustainable.”
Now, that’s specific, but it is nothing we haven’t known. Why hasn’t something been done about Medicare? You really believe tossing a whole new system into the confused milieu right now is going to make things better?
Both Bishop Gillory and Reverend Fuller addressed it from their pulpits appropriately.
Neither provided any specific explanations regarding various aspects of the bill. Their bailiwick is the souls and care of their flocks, and both gentleman carry out their callings with the fervor that will assure them of stars in the crown when they meet St. Peter.
However, the Reverend did point out one aspect regarding the cost of health care. Noting that his own premiums were prohibitive, he suggested perhaps that might be lowered with the new bill. Then, he added that such a decrease could help offset the higher taxes expected to accompany a national health care system. And a system in which everyone paid into could result in lower costs for all.
The only exceptions I take to the gentleman’s remarks are two vague and indeterminate words, could and could. If you’ll listen to the proponents’ arguments, they are filled with ‘might’, ‘could,’ ‘looks like,’ ‘supposedly,’ ‘should’, and other such vague terms.
Neither the bishop, the reverend or the representative provided any specific answers. And that’s the overall problem with this bill.
If our lives are to be changed, we’re entitled to the dignity of a ‘will’, not ‘could’.