I attended the gathering outside the Laconia, NH City Hall for Carol Shea-Porter's town hall meeting. (I didn't get to actually attend the meeting as there were only 60 seats and I got there too late to even stand in line to get in.) She was there to convince us that ObamaCare was going to do wonderful things for everyone and that there would be no problems paying for it all, but it appears most of the 60 folks actually in the meeting weren't buying it. She chose not to answer other questions asked of her, either doing a rope-a-dope, giving a non-answer answer, or giving a constituent the runaround rather than a straight answer. And she wonders why we're angry?
Since I couldn't get into the meeting I spent time talking with the folks outside, some of whom supported CSP and her vote in favor of ObamaCare and the rest that did not.
Almost all of the supporters were retirees, with one or two of the rest being dyed-in-the-wool don't-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way government-is-the-answer-to-all-our-problems-even-the-problems-the-government-created liberals. Discussing the issues with them was enlightening. One of the first things I realized about the folks I was talking to was that they had little understand of economics, particularly in regards to ObamaCare, and did not understand the implications of the heavy economic burden ObamaCare will impose. They were of the opinion that "the rich will pay for it all" and that they don't pay nearly enough. I asked one of them how much money the rich, as they defined them, made in a year. She guessed over a couple of trillion dollars a year. Even after I informed her that even if they took 100% of what the rich made in a year to pay for ObamaCare, the government would only collect about $400 billion. I also mentioned the government would only collect that much the first year and that the second and subsequent years they would collect $0 because either the rich would pack up and leave or they would 'go Galt' (go on strike).
Her response?
The government should force them to work so they could "pay their fair share of taxes." At that point I said her "So you would advocate turning the rich into slaves just to fulfill some twisted ideal of 'social justice'?" Of course she said no, but I pointed out she had just said they should be forced to work against their will. That, by definition, is slavery, something that is unconstitutional, immoral and unethical.
From that point the discussion pretty much ended as I think she realized she had strayed into a topic that was indefensible from any viewpoint and didn't want to talk to me any more.
I did manage to have an intelligent discussion with a couple of pro- and anti-ObamaCare folks. We all agreed some kind of health care reform was necessary. We merely disagreed on the level of reform needed. But after about 30 minutes of debate some of the pro-ObamaCare folks appeared to be shifting their outlook on ObamaCare as written. As one of them said, "We have to do something!" But one of us on the anti-ObamaCare said something along the lines of "True, but let's make sure it's the right something and not the most expedient and seriously flawed something like the present law."
Unfortunately I had to leave the discussion at that point to get back home. But I felt that perhaps we had put some doubt in the minds of some not-so-wholehearted ObamaCare supporters.
Since I couldn't get into the meeting I spent time talking with the folks outside, some of whom supported CSP and her vote in favor of ObamaCare and the rest that did not.
Almost all of the supporters were retirees, with one or two of the rest being dyed-in-the-wool don't-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way government-is-the-answer-to-all-our-problems-even-the-problems-the-government-created liberals. Discussing the issues with them was enlightening. One of the first things I realized about the folks I was talking to was that they had little understand of economics, particularly in regards to ObamaCare, and did not understand the implications of the heavy economic burden ObamaCare will impose. They were of the opinion that "the rich will pay for it all" and that they don't pay nearly enough. I asked one of them how much money the rich, as they defined them, made in a year. She guessed over a couple of trillion dollars a year. Even after I informed her that even if they took 100% of what the rich made in a year to pay for ObamaCare, the government would only collect about $400 billion. I also mentioned the government would only collect that much the first year and that the second and subsequent years they would collect $0 because either the rich would pack up and leave or they would 'go Galt' (go on strike).
Her response?
The government should force them to work so they could "pay their fair share of taxes." At that point I said her "So you would advocate turning the rich into slaves just to fulfill some twisted ideal of 'social justice'?" Of course she said no, but I pointed out she had just said they should be forced to work against their will. That, by definition, is slavery, something that is unconstitutional, immoral and unethical.
From that point the discussion pretty much ended as I think she realized she had strayed into a topic that was indefensible from any viewpoint and didn't want to talk to me any more.
I did manage to have an intelligent discussion with a couple of pro- and anti-ObamaCare folks. We all agreed some kind of health care reform was necessary. We merely disagreed on the level of reform needed. But after about 30 minutes of debate some of the pro-ObamaCare folks appeared to be shifting their outlook on ObamaCare as written. As one of them said, "We have to do something!" But one of us on the anti-ObamaCare said something along the lines of "True, but let's make sure it's the right something and not the most expedient and seriously flawed something like the present law."
Unfortunately I had to leave the discussion at that point to get back home. But I felt that perhaps we had put some doubt in the minds of some not-so-wholehearted ObamaCare supporters.
Leave a comment