In recent weeks there have been several letters highly critical of the recently passed health care law. Some have labeled it too complicated, unconstitutional, too much like socialism or an economic train wreck. One charming gentleman even compared the situation to Hitler’s Germany and suggested that men who supported the bill’s passage have been feminized by liberal propaganda. I wonder what he thinks of women who supported the bill? I don’t need to elaborate on the value of the latter statements, but the others deserve a response.

First, can we please discard the lazy argument that because the legislation is long it is somehow incapable of translating into practical benefits to the American people? A bill’s length has as much to do with how they format the written word as the actual content. I can safely assume that proponents of this argument haven’t returned their Bible to the publisher and asked for a reworking because it, too, is lengthy.

As to the law’s constitutionality, I’m not an expert in this field but there have been numerous opinions in our nation’s newspapers and law journals from constitutional experts, law professors and several state’s attorneys general (among the 32 who aren’t participating in the current lawsuit) who have pointed out the seemingly frivolous nature of the pending court challenge. They all make note of the decades of Supreme Court precedent that have upheld Congress’ authority in this type of matter. And it must be pure coincidence that all of the attorneys general involved in the lawsuit are Republican and many are running for higher office.

Socialism may be the most ridiculous charge. All of the expanded insurance coverage falls into private insurers’ hands with the exception of a slight expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, those who worry about the United States becoming a socialist nation seem to forget who’s been running Medicare/Medicaid for all of these years, in addition to the health coverage of active and retired armed service members. Interestingly, the two largest socialist political parties in the United States are both opposed to the current law (and don’t favor Barack Obama very highly either).

Finally, there is the cost. Many people seemed completely unaware that rather than being an expensive nightmare, the current law will actually reduce the federal deficit by more than a trillion dollars over the next 20 years, as analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office. The law pays for itself. Opponents have not been able to cite any rigorous economic studies that contradict this finding.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments that can be had over health care. Muddying the waters with hyperbole, nebulous logic, or false information does not advance the dialogue in any meaningful direction. Surely we can do better.

Cameron Peters

Poulsbo