Kate Southwood arouse ire with the question "Why Isn't Health Care a Right?" and proceeds down a fine anecdotal path.
I'll offer a tactical and a strategic response.
Tactically, Alinsky Rule #4 says: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." Now, I don't consider you an enemy, Kate, or have an interest in making you such. I would substitute "opposition" here, but I don't really oppose the idea of people democratically choosing some kind of public health care program, in accordance with the laws of the State in which they reside. I'm libertarian enough in attitude to tolerate non-libertarian States. I might even cruise through occasionally to inspect the fruit of the utopian seeds and offer a "Yep".
What, though, is the book of rules in this question, Kate? Why, that would be the Constitution. The simple fact is that those pursuing this change are starting everywhere but square #1 in convincing me (and a jolly big chunk of other citizens) that this idea is more than so much fail. The thinking, the tactics, the advertising, the parliamentary maneuvers on display so far have been so bereft of anything resembling clear appeal to the intellect as to make one wonder if we're not trapped in a collective high-pressure sales pitch. Put the Sham-Wow guy out there, for increased honesty.
Strategically, if you followed the Perot Charts link under 'so much fail' above, these entitlements are on a trend to capsize the country financially at some point. While 'legislate in haste, repent at leisure' may work for you, Kate, many consider passing unread legislation a particularly stupid means of inviting tyranny. The 111th Congress is a beacon of irresponsibility on so many levels.
So, Kate, opposing this methodology for improving health care is not about being a meanie. It's about ensuring that any decision undertaken has been thoroughly picked over, carefully considered, and doesn't omit such crucial details as the Constitution and tort reform. Call an Article V convention. Make it an Amendment. If we're going to do something as wrong-headed as the 16th Amendment, then please attach a number to it so that it's useful as a target on a dart board.
I'll fall short of attributing bad motives to you Kate, and hope you can return the favor.
Linked at Carol's Closet.
American Thinker argues that Health Care is not a group service. Good point, especially as far as the actual visit goes. But that visit is the tip of the iceberg. There are aspects, such as the FDA, that I would not seriously argue should be scuttled. What's needed is thorough analysis, which you're not getting from the Wicked Witch of the West and the Dim Bulb from Vegas.
Federal judge rules Obamacare subsidies illegal - Oklahoma has really been in the news lately. Today, it was for a good reason. A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that the subsidies in ObamaCARE are illeg...
10 hours ago