Baiting the Debate

The New Media Journal ^ | Oct 1, 2009 | Tony Rubolotta

[NewMediaJournal]

I recently received an email from my Congressman asking my opinion concerning an issue that has arisen from the debate over ObamaCare. That question was “Should Congress cut Medicare funding by $400 billion to fund the Democrats’ health care bill?” Those are the exact words and check boxes are provided for an answer of yes, no or don’t know. No matter how I answer the question, it can be interpreted that I support one big government program over another. The question begs another question, that being is there a right amount of funding to strip from Medicare and push to ObamaCare? This type of question baits the debate to distract the debaters from a more fundamental question that is never asked. It is not untypical of how the debate is being directed.

Recently, a proposed change to the ObamaCare bill was offered that would allow employers to charge fifty percent more in health insurance premiums to employees who smoke or are overweight. A hot debate ensued on a conservative web site between those who argued this was fair and those who thought it unfairly targeted certain health risks and not others. One constant complaint from these “conservatives” was why they should pay higher premiums than those who engage in risky behavior. Consequently, in their opinion, it made sense to allow these increased premiums. This debate had been baited and so-called conservatives swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They debated a faux issue.