Mac is bad, PC is good. Mac is bad, PC is good. Mac is bad, PC is good. Mac is bad, PC is good.

Agreed

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

In the military there's a saying: "A good plan now is better than a great plan later." - Has no bearing. This is not the military, but people's health care and tax money.

-People who can't afford healthcare will continue to suffer.

-Small Businesses that can't afford the high costs of healthcare will continue to go under, which will undermine economic recovery

-Insurance companies that do not want this bill to pass will continue to buy politicians (you would be amazed at how much they donate to political campaigns)

-We spend more than any other industrialized nation on healthcare, and if we hope to recover economically there is no way this can continue

- Do not deny these conditions. They are very true. They are not compelling enough though to warrant a poorly designed health care reform bill that will cost how many more billions than necessary and maybe solve the problem.

would you rather have the leader of the U.S. spend his time reading a 1,000 page bill or have one of his aids who is undoubtedly well trained in law to explain to him what is on it?

- This bill, whether it perfectly addresses the correct issues or not, will cost many billions of taxpayer dollars, and so yes, I do want him to read it. I simply do not care that it is 1018 pages long. The length is the result of an entirely separate issue which does not belong in this debate. If he is indeed as passionate about the bill as he is pushing it through congress, I would think he would care a little bit more about what the actual text says.

And if you're concerned about what is on the bill, how about you read it for yourself. It's not like they're hiding it or keeping it a secret. Honestly this is what the media should be doing, in addition to questioning those who are trying to pass the bill. It is the media's job to educate the public, not necessarily the governments. In this country we have a fairly open source government. You can read what is going on during sessions of congress, and usually even see them on tv. Obviously it's asking a lot of the average citizen to research this, but certainly not asking too much of the media.

-- Absolutely right, yet does not relinquish the need for Obama or any other "professional politician" to read the bill.

The members of congress and the president are already on a public healthcare option...I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

-- Yes they are public servants that have a publicly provided health care option, but you can not lie to yourself by proclaiming that the public option provided by this legislation would be anywhere near the quality of health care that the president and members of congress enjoy. Obama has admitted that he would not use the newly established option.

Here's what's cool about our system: if something doesn't work we can always go back and change it. Clearly Obama thinks it would be better to make tweaks to the system later rather then get caught up in a prolonged debate that would likely get us almost no where and allow the uninsured and the economy to suffer in the meantime.

-- Terrible reasoning here. So you would rather rush to pass legislation that costs more than necessary and also fails to address all of the issues just so that you can come back later and try to fix the problem again while spending even more money. Let us not forget that this is taxpayer money being spent as it is any government spending.

Also, the reason for the debate has very little to do with the actual substance of the bill. That's why you hear these ridiculous accusations like death panels, because those who oppose it don't care about making good arguments, but only scaring people into opposing it by saying that it will destroy America.

-- Read and ignored on the basis of it being a empty rant based solely upon the writer's personal opinion.

Lastly, I will use quotes around the phrase "professional politician" because the quotes refer back to traits, I previously discussed, that I feel characterize my definition of a "professional politician."

Most current/compelling evidence proving Obama to be a "professional politician":

Health care reform legislation is currently the source of much debate.

Passing this legislation has become Obama's top priority yet he has failed to provide anything other than high level ideas of how we wants it to work.

Why has he put so much pressure on congress to pass this legislation quickly? A logical person would believe that if he was genuinely concerned about fixing the problems in health care, which he has accurately identified, he should not rush this process.

He should take the time to address and accurately target each issue so that a more meaningful solution will result.

Obama has not done this. He has openly admitted that he has not read the entire bill. How does he know what he is signing into law if has not read the bill? He doesn't. He only knows what someone else has told him it says. The same argument applies to most likely the majority of those in congress.

The current version of health care reform includes a public option for health insurance. Will Obama and members of congress be on this new public option if the legislation passes? NO! Obama has already publicly stated this. They are public servants! One more point that proves how disconnected these "professional politicians" are from those they serve.

I support the push for health care reform, but I feel that rushing it through congress can only result in costly and ineffective results.

You believe he won the election based only upon his hard work where no outside factors were involved?

Can you really deny that elections are not bought and paid for these days.

You are right that he worked his way up from being poor, but at some point in that time line he became the political face for something much larger than his self.

My point is that money put him in the presidency. He is now a professional politician. He is not the same person that grew up poor.

Political parties are what create those Americans who "are too lazy to think about their vote."

That is the real relationship that exists here.

Political parties create "professional politicians" who are completely out of touch with the average citizen.

Political parties create elections won and lost by who spends or doesn't spend enough corrupt money.

Political parties replace collaboration with blind competition.

Obama was not a good choice. I can only give him credibility when he can guarantee that has sat down and read all 1000+ pages of the health care legislation he is pushing so intently. Only when a politician reaches out to the public divulging every detail of how legislation will work and can then explain in detail how any random citizen's particular situation will be affected, will they gain my respect. Obama has not done this. He has not shown any effort in attempting to do this.

He is no more than a professional politician. He, just like any other politician, was elected by money and has not and will never know what the life of the average US citizen is like. Modern politicians are completely out of touch with the average American and therefore cannot begin to accurately address their needs.

I am not anti-democrat. I do not associate with any party. I choose to ignore the "battles" of "party" politics.

Personally... it makes me sick when the news and media portray the passing of a piece of legislation as a "victory" for one party or the other.

I realize I may have grammar issues above. I don't care.

If I could add a second tag it would be Anti Professional Politician, but for the sake of this debate Anti Obama will do.

I believe the main reason people are so upset at these town hall meetings is because there have been no details provided as to what exactly this legislation will do. I believe people are upset because they believe that they have probably read more of the actual text of the bill, then their representatives in congress have.

People will naturally resist when they are being forced to accept an idea or position that has not been clearly explained or planned out.

That is my take on why people are so loudly voicing opposition at the town hall meetings.

Please let me know if anyone has any information contradictory to what I have said. I'm still searching for the bottom of all this mess.

So what if that what the founding fathers wanted, its not what I want. Change is good sometimes and I think that this needs change.

Your personal beliefs do not justify widespread change and reform. You still pay taxes even though you do not want to.

The same goes for saying the pledge of allegiance, if my child does not want to say this ode to America and God she shouldn't have to.

If your child does not want to say the pledge then tough. If they want to live in the US, then they will say the pledge.

These things are what this nation was founded upon.

They are what made this nation great.

You want to live in the land of the free but only as it suits you.