4 ms·
The Weekly Standard appears to have a very partisan tone in this article and others concerning the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, the ACA is politically divisi
by hawkharris 13y ago
The Weekly Standard appears to have a very partisan tone in this article and others concerning the Affordable Care Act. Obviously, the ACA is politically divisive. Everyone should be able to debate and critique it, but those who do condemn the approach need to propose a viable, stronger alternative.
This isn't an academic debate in which we have the luxury of finding a perfect solution. As Howard Zinn said about politics, "We're on a moving train." I worked for a health care center in a city where 1/3 of residents were uninsured, unable to afford check-ups and essential services. A similar dynamic exists in hundreds of other U.S. regions.
So, if you shoot holes in a solution (in this case, the ACA), please add to the conversation by proposing alternatives to address the urgent, obvious problems in U.S. health care.
- talmand 13y agoWait, so you're saying that if I see something as a bad idea I have to propose alternative solutions before I can say anything? If you see my alternative solutions as a bad idea does the rule apply to you as well? Do you just repeat the idea I say is bad to refute my idea you say is bad? Doesn't seem a good way to debate, just seems a good way to shut down disagreement.
- hawkharris 13y agoIt's about how you phrase things - and your intentions. It's the difference between... The Affordable Care Act will never work because it's too expensive. And... What steps can we take to make affordable healthcare more financially viable?
- talmand 13y agoWho gets to define the appropriate way to phrase things? I see the difference between your two examples but they don't necessarily work for me in terms of what you were saying. There's nothing wrong with saying the ACA will never work because it's too expensive. It's an opinion that could be proven wrong. A potential intention is to stop the ACA because it is too expensive and I fail to see what's wrong with that intention if the person actually feels that way. A good response to the statement is to ask for details as to why one would think that, not tell them to offer alternatives or shut up. As for your second example. If I were a big supporter of the ACA my answer to your question is easy, the answer is simply the ACA. Which does not further the debate in any way. Maybe the "about how you phrase things" and "intentions" should be considered a two-way street?
- bnolsen 13y agoYou mean like this one? http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/small-bill http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/small-bill Yup a one page bill was submitted and shot down. Just because the media didn't tell you that alternate plans were being submitted doesn't mean they didn't happen.
- hawkharris 13y agoI never said that no one proposed an alternative. I said that not enough people are being constructive and proposing alternatives.