Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
People are looking towards Obama, and not their state governments for health care reform. Part of the reform he should be pushing for is allowing insurers to operate out of state lines. Is he? No. Has he ever even talked about this issue outside of last night? No.
|
So the only way Obama can be a success in your mind is if he gets all 50 states to simultaneously change their own regulatory systems.
I'm beginning to understand why you don't like him. Anything he does, you'll just invent something even more impossible that he didn't do yet.
It's called the utopia fallacy. Sure, it would be great if the health care industry were regulated by the feds rather than the states (which is what you're advocating, btw). However, this is not practical. Your argument is that unless Obama does that (which we can probably agree is impossible) he can't do
anything at all. That's fallacious reasoning. Just because you can't do X,Y and Z together doesn't mean you shouldn't do just X and Y.
Not to mention that you're calling him "stupid" for
even talking about this issue at all! So to sum up--you'd prefer that he eliminate all state regulations of the insurance industry, in the process trampling states' rights and arrogating to the federal government regulatory authority over something that it does not currently have--and to do it without telling anyone about it, ever!
And I'm the one who's using rhetoric? Seriously--Obama
can't win with you. He should go back to saving starving children from tigers.
In all honesty, if you want to avoid giving the impression that you hate Obama because you just don't like him, then you should at least outline reasonable criteria by which you might judge him to be successful. If nothing could possibly please you, then that's a pretty good indication that your objections are personal and ideological, not practical.