Home : Blogs : David Holzmann : David's Blog

Agreement

With all the heated discussions (or screaming sessions) that are going on, I think it would be helpful to take a step back and affirm those things that we can all agree on. Or at least, affirm those things that most of us can mostly agree on.

Sure, there are issues where there will be staunchly held, diametrically opposed perspectives. But even there, perhaps we can find one or to points of agreement.

What would you say to starting a series of posts to try to find those points of agreement?

Posted by David Holzmann on 08/29/2009 06:34 PM

Comments (9)

Post is included in group: Tea Party
Post is included in group: Silent Majority
Post is included in group: Dissent
Post is included in group: Blatant Politics

9 Comments on Agreement

AUG

A great suggestion which I've made more than once. I don't think too many will take you up on it but I for one am in if you are.

David - I'll play.

1) prohibit denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

2) prohibit lifetime coverage limits.

I have more but I'll see where these two take us.

Suesan - Thanks for responding! I guess we'll just have to wait and see how many are willing to take me up on this.

John - Thank you too, for responding. I look forward to having you play along!

In order for this to be as productive (and positive) as possible, let's put each suggestion as a separate post. That way any discussion can stay VERY focused and on-track. I'll leave it to you to post those two suggestions as possible points of agreement. OK?

I'll play too. And I think John Secor's first two suggestions are legitimate points to discuss where improvement can be made. David, thanks for your effort to find common ground. It will be interesting.

AUG

David ~ My basic premise - profit making has no place in health care.

Liz

David ~ Be careful what you call a screaming match. I could only wish to be back in 1776 when our founding fathers had no silent meetings discussing the declaration of independence and no taxation without representation. Was the Boston Tea Party a silent majority?

Patrick, Liz, and Nicholas - thanks for your comments.

Nicholas - to answer your question succinctly: No. However, it wasn't a screaming match that resolved things. By "screaming match" I mean situations where people aren't really addressing the core issues with discussion but rather name-calling, inflammatory remarks, and a focus on "yelling" out the most divisive parts of their arguments. As I noted in my post - there are (and will be) staunchly held, diametrically opposed viewpoints. The way to move forward is to find points of agreement - however small they may be - and build on those, leaving behind the rhetoric that insinuates (or declares) that those points of agreement don't exist. (See my first "Agreement" post.)

SEP

David - I agree, but people are just baffled how government under the leadership of Obama and the most liberal congress in history are trying to takeover one of the most imprtant part in people's lives which is health care.

Seniors are concerned, and rightly so, that they are taking away from their retirement benefits, $500,000,000 cut in MediCare alone.

Would that make you mad as hell and want your congressman know that in no uncertain terms!

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?