Well, I agree with the first part:
"One of the issues with the health insurance bill is the hysterics of the opposition to it. It’s not tyranny. It’s not comparable to Nazis. Sure, I don’t like it. But I’m not going to call everyone a bunch of commie symps and throw bricks through windows (real helpful, Mike). I’m going to voice my opposition and vote the bums out. Except that I can’t really do that because my bums opposed the bill. But you get the point. Ratcheted rhetoric is not how you win."
Amen to that. This isn't tyranny. This isn't some communist plot to enslave us all to Lenin's ghost. You may not like it, but some of the voices sound like the war protesters screaming that Bush should be hanged for war crimes. Fanaticism sometimes comes full circle.
As to the part about creating a dependent class, I'm not sure I agree completely. I can certainly agree that some people will willingly become dependents (out of laziness, character flaw etc), and that some people in power plan on abusing those people for their own gain. The question I have though, is are they the majority or a minority? I'll tolerate a few bozos if the majority benefits. That is as good a public policy as you're going to get in an imperfect world.
Government exists to serve the people. There are things we can't do by ourselves and we get together and provide government the power for these select things. Furthermore, as I see it, government also exists to protect our natural rights and arbitrate when one party infringes them for another. Its obviously a contentious issue on when/where government steps in to arbitrate, but I think healthcare is one of those things that we can do better together than we can do apart.
And what of the bill before us? Its a mixed bag, but it does do some things right. Our entrenched mechanism, and this is coming form someone who has 100% of his healthcare provided for by his company, isn't right for many Americans. A healthcare insurance system that is based on your employment, especially in such a transient age, is an anachronism.
Now I understand that there are some who believe our government is completely broken. They claim it can't can't manage anything, nor do anything right, but that is such a poor generalization that its hardly worth repeating. Government does some things right, even as corrupt and broken as ours currently is. And society as a whole often benefits from the positives.
Note that the same people that often argue the government can't do anything right are the first to give the nuke keys to the department of defense...
I personally think we live in a society that has been completely corrupted. Our leaders don't really serve us - they serve their ends and we get the table scraps. The D&C (a book of revelations from Joseph Smith) opines on man's tendency to abuse power thusly:
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise cunrighteous dominion.
Ain't that the truth.
But there are well meaning, upstanding people in government too. And they do good things on occasion and I celebrate them for it.
Did you notice the dichotomy there? I'm an optimist by nature, but a pessimist by experience. Its hard to reconcile the two, believe me, but in the end I've resolved that the best I can do is take care of my stewardship (my wife, my kids, my job, my community) and hope for the best. I exercise my rights as a citizen as best I can and continue on.
Oh look, I've wasted another good shooty moment blabing about politics.