A recent editorial in the Richmond Times Dispatch brings up the provision in the now passed house health care bill that regulates snack machines.
The snack machine provision certainly does characterize not only this bill, but the general condescending attitude that our leaders have towards science and evidence.
( there is no empirical link between snack foods and obesity i.e. health, while there are claims of a scientific consensus about global warming there are NO SCIENTIFIC forecasts supporting it, we just passed a stimulus package that flies in the face of 60 years of macroeconomic research)
It is one thing to attempt to help the less fortunate, but it should not require 111 new boards, commissions, and bureaucracies to provide people the means to pay for health care.
It is naive to think that these boards will not have a field day with the 1900+ pages of ambiguous language, and construe it to mean anything that serves their ends. It doesn't matter if the language 'death panels' is absent, it doesn't matter what president Obama, speaker Pelosi,or Sean Hannity says the bill means, what matters is the wild interpretation made of the 1900 pages of ambiguous language some judge makes 10 years from now.
Just look at the wild interpretations made of the commerce clause and 'general welfare' in our 'Iron Clad' constitution! Why we would want to grant congress 1900 more pages of leeway to run our lives is beyond me. It is obviously not about healthcare, it is about control.