I thank you for your reply.

Work has demanded my attention, so my response is being delayed. You deserve more than a one line comment. I will reply as soon as I can.

OK, you want a discussion. How about a civil one? I’m all for it. I’m glad we can find common ground on that!

I am sorry that I brought Abortion into the debate. My intent was NOT to upset you, honestly. To my way of thinking, it is a good example of a slippery slope. However, instead of making the assumption that I was purposely trying to upset you, maybe you could have answered this way:

SJ, please don’t use abortion in this debate. It is an extremely emotional subject that made me mad, and I’m sure others like me. Could you please use another example of the slippery slope so I can understand where you are coming from?

That would start a dialog between us, rather than throwing grenades, don’t you think? I’m not trying to get into a touchy-feely kind of situation here, but it seems right now that if the goal is Bi-Partisanship, maybe the side with power would be wise to ask what issues they could agree with the other side of the aisle.

From your answer in #14 about bridges, schools, and the police, it sounds to me that you think all slippery slope arguments are invalid. That means you have a problem with the original article, in which the writer describes good slippery slope arguments and bad ones. Would that be fair to say?

In fairness to you, my comments about not reading the bill are directed at the Congress and White House, who didn’t read the Stimulus Bill or the Cap and Trade Legislation before passing it. It appears to me that they wanted to do the same with this bill and rush it through without giving anyone a chance to really know what’s in it. Can you understand where I get that idea? I think much of the frustration being directed at the Health Care bill is the snowball effect of those actions.

Maybe that’s a slippery slope?? I just thought of that. A = they didn’t read the stimulus bill before passing it + B they didn’t read the Cap & Trade before pushing it through the House, = They’ll do the same with this Health Care Bill. I haven’t thought it through, so I hope it doesn’t sound too bad. (Please go easy on me if it does!)

Your thoughts??

Looks like I stung you with the “Jesus” remark.

You’re right . . .I am angry. I’m angry over all of the “debate” over healthcare reform. I’m angry at the misinformation, confusion, and outright lies being “debated”. This is a serious topic, and it deserves serious debate.

You said your comment about abortion was to illustrate the “slippery slope” danger of this bill. I asked it before, and now I’ll ask it again: Does that mean you are against the government doing anything? If the argument against the bill is “I’m against X, this bill has nothing to do with X, but who knows what might happen in the future so I’m opposing the bill”, then there really isn’t any bill, on any topic, that could pass that standard. That’s not discussion.

You refer to your use of abortion as a “grenade”. I agree. It’s a powerfully emotional topic (btw — I’ve posted on this site often, and I feel confident saying you will not find a single comment of mine that endorses or supports abortion). The purpose of a grenade is to destroy a target. The purpose of throwing the “abortion grenade” into a discussion about this bill is the same — to enflame passions and stop any rational debate. It is a deliberate tactic to stop conversation, made more manifest since this conversation has nothing to do with abortion. It is the same tactic as saying “Obamacare will euthanize the elderly” or “the healthcare logo is a Nazi icon”. I don’t say this to be rude — it is cheap and shallow, and it is an insult to everybody on both sides trying to learn from each other.

The remark about Jesus was a deliberate slap in your face, and it was clearly effective. That was me throwing a “grenade” right back at you. You didn’t like it? I’m not suprised. I didn’t intend for you to. I didn’t like your grenade either. You clearly are opposed to abortion. You think it is killing a person. That means people who support it are murderers. By tying your beliefs about abortion to this bill, and by extention to those that support it, you intentionally backhanded them (I am one of “them”) by implying they are morally bankrupt baby killers. Don’t like it? Think about that the next time you cook a grenade.

“Push the bills through that no one will read. . .”

I read it. KenMcCloud read it. Rick read it. Have you? If you haven’t, maybe you should before you decide if its a good bill or not.

“. . .no one can figure out . . .”

It is certainly a mess, confusing, and downright boring, but it ain’t hard to figure out. Have you tried?

“. . .and put lots of pork in there for your Liberal special interest groups.”

Newsflash — I’m not a Liberal. Nor do I have any special interest groups (except the Hallowed Brotherhood of What’s Best for Busboy, of course). Nor do I have any input on what goes into the bill. This might also suprise you . . . I’m a spiritual person, and as such I have no animosity for “Jesus lovers”, and I don’t think that makes anybody stupid. Loving Jesus doesn’t make a stupid person any less stupid, though.
I didn’t call you stupid, before or now. Seems like I’m not the only one here with a little anger.

from today’s online New York Times:

“There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other “end of life” services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any “end of life” proposals from consideration.

A pending House bill has language requiring Medicare to finance beneficiaries’ consultations with professionals on whether to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. (I believe this is H.R. 3200 - John)

Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate “because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

***********

Let’s let this be the final word on the intent of the amendment.

John

Busboy:

Your question “What on earth does late-term abortion have to do with insuring the uninsured?” missed the point I was trying to make. I guess my “grenade” blinded you to the fact that the article was about the “slippery slope,” rather than the actual arguments about health care.

I guess I made the same mistake the author speaks about - I went from A to Z without explaining the logical steps in between. I was trying to compare how abortion was sold to mainstream America: as a way to prevent thousands of women from dying from back alley abortions, that only first trimester fetuses would be aborted, and that abortion would be mainly for rape and incest victims. Had someone stood up and said, “One day we’ll legally pull a baby out of the womb, leaving it’s head in the birth canal, stick scissors in it’s brain and suck out the contents and call it abortion,” that person would be labeled a fearmonger and out of touch with reality, much like people are labeled today. They would have been told to shut up, sit down, and that Americans would never let that happen. And yet, we have slid down that slippery slope.

You make my point about the accusations, sir. You said, “In my experience, people only resort to emotion in a debate when they have nothing substantial to argue.” Again sir, this article was about the SLIPPERY SLOPE, not the arguments themselves.

So, what emotion are you bringing to the argument? Sounded like anger to me. Seems you’re throwing your own grenades. Maybe I’ve watched a program from that far-right outfit National Geographic called “In the Womb” and learned that life may really begin before birth. What’s with the Jesus remark? I may be Jewish or Muslim, you don’t know.

But it’s OK. Mock us and dismiss us. Push the bills through that no one will read, no one can figure out, and put lots of pork in there for your Liberal special interest groups. You know what’s best for the mob of stupid Jesus lovers. We’ll sit down and shut up. You may not hear from us again until November of 2010 or 2012. I guess we’ll see.

What Ken said was “no such ’shall’ sentence exists”. The term “such” means that there is no sentence using “shall” in the style that Sandy Szwarc used: “you shall do x,y, and z”.

As you noted, the “shall” sentence that you quoted defines what shall be included in the meeting . . . not whether the meeting shall occur or not.

That isn’t ambiguous or vague. There isn’t any honest way to interpret that sentence as applying to anything other than what is included in the meeting. That isn’t what Ken is talking about, since this entire conversation deals with mandatory (you shall/must have a meeting) meetings.

the work “shall” appears exactly 12 times in section 1233 of HR 3200. I never contested that.

I just asserted that there is no sentence that says that medicare patients “shall” receive these consultations.

Page 425:

“425
•HR 3200 IH
1 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
2 consultation shall include the following:”

Might not be in the context either person implied, but there is a “shall” sentence.