10-13-2011, 08:24 PM
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
I don't disagree with the facts you are presenting, but I don't agree with the characterization of that being "not a whole lot more rational" than the positions put forth by the Republican candidates in the debate. I say that because it seems to me that what you have described that has happened with Democrats and health care is that they are stymied by the politics of the situation. Is it a logical contradiction to take what they can get toward more health care for those who wouldn't otherwise have it even if the political process keeps them from adequately addressing things that you mentioned? I think that is different from advocating ideas that are diametrically opposed, as is what I think the Republicans are doing. Republicans bashed Democrats in the 2010 election cycle for voting for reductions in Medicare benefits which helped them take over the House and then what did they do - they passed Paul Ryan's bill that would very drastically reduce benefits. The Republican candidates for president just seem to advocate one side or the other of this contradiction - whichever is expedient at the moment - without acknowledging the contradiction. That's the reality distortion field.
I love your characterization that "the political process keeps them" from doing the right thing. And who, exactly, is running this "process?"
The issue with the Democrats is more pragmatic; they appear to believe that if they simply refuse to deal with the financial problems posed by Medicare, and continuously allow its costs to balloon, either 1) someone else will deal with it later, or 2) magic elves with bags of cash will appear and fix it. Cowardice is understandable, but not rational in this case. Sticking your head in the sand and not having a debate about what to do about Medicare is a reality distortion field all by itself.
Well, there is this thing called a Senate filibuster as an example of "the political process keeps them". But I sense that more of our disagreement is semantic - what is rational? I get the sense that I tend to tilt much more heavily toward the "logical" orientation of its potential meanings and you more to the "reasoning" orientation. Language is a dynamic thing, so I'm not going to say your use is wrong, but my inclination is to think that the way you want to use the word "rational" is a little too loosy-goosy for me. :-)