Longtime readers here will remember that I’m not what one would call a Conservative. I tend to think of myself, when questioned about labels, as a Libertarian Progressive (yeah, I know; they don’t really seem to fit, but plz bear with me here). I voted for Obama, and would do so again. I have my issues with some aspects of the President’s policies, but overall I find him to be a thoughtful, historically-mindful person who’s handled a nasty job with more politeness than I myself would have managed.
Gripes: The Wall Street bailout was a scam. Had it been up to me, every one of those [censored] would have been tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
I wish he’d have been tougher. “Bipartisanship” may be goal for DC Villagers, but all the Americans I know, regardless of political affiliation, tend to have a lot more respect for someone they disagree with but who’s willing to stand up for it, than they do with someone they like who’s scared of their own positions. I dig that he’s a peacemaker by temperament, which I respect, but sometimes you hafta knock a few heads to make your point.
But, while I have sympathy for both sides to an extent, I’ve got no patience for being BS’d. Which leads me to my point.

Mr. Gardner, I have a few questions for you.

“The majority of what I saw in that video was nothing more than rank fear mongering…The general push of these tactics today are that if Obamacare is not passed, then from this day forward your chances of having health care when you need it are somehow less.”

Which portions, specifically, did you consider “rank fear-mongering”? Does a frank discussion of cause and effect qualify? I’m a healthy 36-year-old with no outstanding medical problems. Given the state of affairs, are my chances of buying decent coverage over the next few years increased or decreased as a result of what the President is proposing? When you say “having health care”, are you referring to a full-coverage family plan, or the fact that anyone who staggers into an emergency room is legally entitled to be treated?

“After all, he did imply that Dr.’s were hacking off perfectly healthy feet and ripping out perfectly healthy tonsils just to make a profit.”
I’m afraid I missed that speech. Plz site the relevant passage wherein the President makes this outrageous claim.

“As has been noted by many, reconciliation is an after the fact fix that will never see the light of day. The Administration is going for the end goal here and they are engaging in classic fear-mongering to get there.”

Reconciliation would not be used to pass any version of any Senate bill. That has already been done. Reconciliation would be used to “reconcile” the budgetary differences between the two, but the bills themselves have already been passed, with wide majorities & the support of some 51-64% public support (depending on which poll you decide to buy into).

And then there are the jibes (I’m a fan of Sadly, No; as such, I’m not gonna get on anyone’s butt about making fun of politicians, I think that’s one of the last useful tools us citizens have left to modify their behavior). But if your going to tease people for their positions, you’ve gotta have something to hang it on. To wit:

“”You can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the people.”

Well sir, I don’t think we should have a system that works better for the government than it does for the individual.”"

Nothing factually wrong with either of those statements, but how are they related to each other? Insurance companies have a long, distinguished record of screwing their clients. Medicare and the VA, both government-run health plans, do suffer from fraud and official neglect, but they are also both popular with the people they help (here is where my buddy Mike, a 2-tour Vietnam Vet reading over my shoulder, smacks me on the head, and demands that I make clear that the VA is getting overwhelmed by returned psych cases they don’t have the counselors for. Duly noted)

Now we move on to the “kinda hinky” portion of our post:

“The President, and his party, still don’t get it. Even with McConnell telling them plainly how it is.

If the bill does go through, avoiding a GOP filibuster by using the reconciliation tactic in the Senate, the battle moves to its next stage.

“Every election this fall will be a referendum on this bill,” McConnell said.”

Gosh, that’s awful sweet. Personally, I can’t think of any reason whatsoever why SML McConnell would give bad electoral advice to Democrats. He’s clearly throwing his personal political ambitions to the wind in an attempt to help his Democratic partners out. What a guy, huh?
I was born at night, but not last night.

“Every election. McConnell is 100% correct in that assessment. The people have clearly spoken in poll after poll and march after march.”
I’m sorry, which polls are those? Would you cure my ignorance and post links to some of them? I looked and looked, but I could find no backup for this assertion. Perhaps you got in a hurry, and neglected to link to them. A common error. I’ll be here all night, so whenever you find the time, just drop it in.

And last, though honestly I’m at a loss as to how to deal with this stinker:

“Mr. President, your ideas are anathema to freedom”

Which freedom, Aaron? The freedom to pay twice as much, while getting half the value, as every other civilized nation on the planet? The freedom to have nothing standing between you and the accumulated legal might of your insurance company?

I’m gonna get flamed like crazy, and probably banned in the process, but before I do, I wanna hear from some real people about what they really think.

I hafta run to the beer store (if my arguments suffer over the next few hours, I trust you will ascribe it to alcohol; If my arguments are still reasonably well-written, but you demolish them anyways, then that’s my fault)