"that's a lie"

lost amidst the brouhaha of who is allowed to say what to whom where and when, is an interesting half-full/half-empty observation about our presently-proposed healthcare reform.

on the one hand, we have a president who assures us, as we'd all like to be assured, that, under his plan, no care will be extended to anyone not legally in this country, so that we all might be able to afford to extend care to everyone who is. on the other hand, we have an earnest opposition who sees in the proposal no reliable safeguard to prevent such.

excuse me for the impertinence, but don't we all agree about this point?

wouldn't a reasonable proponent listen to the concern, and want to faithfully and honestly address it? and wouldn't a resonable opponent listen to the intent of the proposal, and want to faithfully and honestly support its essence?

unfortunately, what we have is a logjam of "is not" "is so" nonsense that will result in a bill that no one likes and everyone will endeavor to sabotage, either in its passage, or, worst possible, in its incredibly expensive administration after something ill-fated is jammed down our disrespected throats.

why can't someone say, "let's please tighten up the checks against improper benefits", and someone else say "let's please agree that no one should die for lack of being able to afford a doctor".

of course, if you were to ask me, i think this whole mess needs to be taken second after we all put our heads together and figure out how the hell we're possibly going to be able to pay for it.

my first humble proposal is to throw out every registered republican and registered democrat in congress as being guilty of aiding and abetting the looting of our federal treasury, and start over with a clean slate of honest men and women of thoughtful, sensible, and collaborative mien.