wileypeter: (Default)
[personal profile] wileypeter
Or rather, it came to a screeching halt when I actually engaged the issue.

What? A relative sent me one of those "THIS IS THE TERRIBLE STUFF HIDDEN IN THE HEALTHCARE PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!" emails. So I scoffed, as I am wont to do, and was then sent the plan itself with a "Read it!" admonition. Fair enough, though I'd actually read it once already. So I went through point by point for the first third of the email and either A) pointed out that the original emailer either was lying or hadn't read the passage they were citing, or B) for every "DEAR GOD!! THEY'RE TRYING TO INSTALL A ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT" alarmist interpretation there was also a less histrionic, we-won't-have-to-wait-a-week-for-medical-records-so-we-can-be-treated interpretation.

Dead silence in return. I'm sure each of us thinks the other has drunk the Kool-Aid.

BUT! My point in posing this is to provide you with one simple litmus test as to the debate over the existing Congressional plan. Verbatim, from the email:

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

The first words in Section 152 are:
"Except as otherwise explicitly per-
mitted by this Act"

Which leads us to page 143, where we find:
5 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
7 not lawfully present in the United States.

So, it is "explicitly permitted by this act" to ban Illegals, and they are so banned. Period. That line of the email is an outright lie. It does provide a simple litmus test, though: Anyone citing that either hasn't read the whole document, distrusts the government to a degree that debate based on the document is a pointless exercise, or is, for reasons I won't speculate upon, not above lying to make a point. I get not wanting to read it (though I did so before now). I get the distrust, though it makes citing negatives pointless, as they carry no more weight than the parts that discount them. Lying about it, though...

In retrospect, I'm not too surprised the debate ended there. It's more diplomatic than I'd wanted to be in the first place, but on rereading it the wording isn't kind to the overly-credulous FOX viewer. Which would describe the emailer...

Date: 2009-12-16 01:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randwolf.livejournal.com
There seem to be rather a lot of people who will believe just about anything in their inbox, especially if it agrees with their prejudices.

That said, the thing's turned toxic, and I think it's time to kill it. Damn.


wileypeter: (Default)

April 2017

910 1112131415

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios