I see you have difficulty making distinctions between "good and bad" and "bribe and reward" as evidenced by your example.
Often parents bribe their children. For example, they may tell their child that if they receive good marks in school they will get a gift they wanted. Rather than use the word "bribe" we tend to use "reward".
We know a government health plan is good. We know every country which implemented a health plan has kept it. We know the cost is much less than what is currently being spent. We know more people will be covered.
When it comes to abortions we know restrictions result in women obtaining illegal, life-threatening procedures. We know young women often stop their education and end up in poverty. We know the children brought into the world by women who did not want children often end up neglected. We know a large percentage of neglected, mistreated children grow up to repeat the cycle or end up in prisons.
In an ideal world, I agree, the necessity of such legislative rewards would be frowned upon, however, considering the magnitude of benefits a health plan will offer coupled with knowing implementing a health plan has taken generations to become reality surely you can see the much greater good.
In the first place, it is yourself who cannot distinguish the difference between reward and bribe. Bribe occurs as a promise of a reward prior to an action in order to motivate a desired behavior. Reward occurs as a response to a desired behavior. Reward, if the desired behavior is shown, is a part of the bribe process. But a bribe is not necessarily a part of the reward process.
And the fact that you can equate the governance of a (supposedly) free people to the rearing of children is pathetic beyond comprehension. Do you actually promote the idea that we hold adults who are writing trillion dollar laws to the same standards that we hold our children? Yet this self-same child-like governing body you trust to "do the right thing"?
And, while I can see the good in providing health care to those in need but cannot afford it, I do not see that good coming from this particular piece of legislation. I do not see ANY ultimate good coming from any health care "reform" (what a fucking lie!) that does not first and foremost address the reasons health care costs have, over the past two decades or so, risen an average of 3 times the inflation rate.
And I NEVER agree that using illicit and corrupt means to pass a piece of legislation will EVER result in "greater good". That idea smacks of an elitism that is intolerable to our type of society. "We know what is best for the rest of you whether you agree or not" simply will not pass muster - especially when "the rest of you" happens to comprise a majority both in public opinion and among the legislators themselves. If the "greater good" is actually contained within the legislation, then it should be able to pass on its own merits rather than being forced through using favors and bribes. If it cannot pass on its own merits - especially when the party pushing it holds an insurmountable majority - then the difficulty in getting it passed SHOULD be a warning flag to anyone outside the legislative process who supports it. If you cannot get your own party members to sign on without bribing them to do so, then just MAYBE it isn't such a hot bill in the first place.
And the "anything is better than nothing" claim is equally unsustainable. Would adding a rider requiring people over 70 with terminal disease be euthanized be an acceptable part? Wouldn't that still be part of "anything" and therefore be better than "nothing"?
Of course not. The reason I use this extreme is to point out that ANYTHING does not automatically mean better than nothing. The objections to this bill are numerous, but the most important one is it is a big fat profit grab for the major insurance companies. It does nothing to control health care costs, and contrary to their talking points, it is far more likely to increase both health care costs and health insurance costs. It's costs are already way outside the original claims, especially when they have granted exclusions to certain states in order to buy some votes.
What do you want to bet that there are already deals being struck in back rooms to assure certain insurance carriers are guaranteed acceptance by the federal insurance clearing house when it comes to power? What do you want to bet that deals are also being struck to EXCLUDE certain rival insurance companies? Not only does this bill get passed by corruption, it begs more corruption.
Bottom line, it is a bad bill. No, I do not disagree with the principle of getting people in need adequate health care. I do not disagree with providing assistance of any kind for those who need it. I DO disagree with most (but not all) liberal methods of assisting the needy - whether it be health care or housing or anything else - because most of their methods end up being used as economic traps by the government supposedly looking out for them. And, more specifically, I disagree that the bill up for negotiation between the two houses of congress is a good bill. It is not even a step in the right direction of providing more equitable access to health care. It is a bad bill, and THAT is why it needs bribery and skulduggery to get it passed.
