« Iraq: U.S. combat forces out, ExxonMobil, Shell, CNPC, BP in. | tpmgary's Blog | Enforcing journalism. »
Ever wonder why Republicans aren't holding live town halls on health care?
You hear leading Republicans say that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
They say that at press conferences.
They say that during interviews on cable news networks.
They say that to the Washington Press Corps.
But will a Republican dare say that in front of their own constituents at a live town hall?
Imagine a 53 year old woman stands up and says her husband died of cancer last year. She says he had limited coverage but couldn't afford the out of pocket costs for treatments that could have saved his life. Now she has cancer and her insurance company just rescinded her plan. She's too weak to work now. She asks "Senator Shelby, what am I going to do?"
Would Senator Shelby have the spine to tell her what he's been telling everyone else in the media? That the U.S. has the best health care system in the world?
Would Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell fare any better at a live town hall? Imagine a recently unemployed steelworker in Kentucky stood up and said "I've got three kids and our family has been denied health care since I got laid off last year. Senator McConnell, have you ever been denied health care?
What would Senator McConnell say? "Well, no, my government-funded plan guarantees that I have health coverage for the rest of my life, even when I'm no longer a Senator. But trust me, you don't want the government involved in your health care."
The fact is, Republicans cannot talk to Americans about health care. They can talk a big game to the press. They can recite pre-fabricated think-tanked talking points on the Senate floor. But their bluster would shrivel away if they dare come face to face with real Americans. This is why they stay well inside the safe confines of the DC bubble where they are protected from engaging in an honest dialogue about the health care atrocity in America.
President Obama, on the other hand, does not have to dislocate himself from Americans. He's out there holding town halls and answering the tough questions. He's face to face with people who are dying. With people who are under-insured, not insured, or facing bankruptcy because of the outrageous contemptible cost of taking care of a loved one.
It's important to recognize, especially in times of crisis, just who has the courage to talk honestly and directly to Americans and who does not.
I understand that there are plenty of Democrats, not just Republicans, who are cowering in the face of a public option. And we really need to exert unrelenting pressure on these Democrats to support legislation that would not only pass--that would not only be a step in the right direction--but would represent the kind of leap in reform that every American can count on, in good times and in bad, in sickness or in health.
They must demonstrate a commitment to Americans before Americans will demonstrate another commitment to them.
They say that at press conferences.
They say that during interviews on cable news networks.
They say that to the Washington Press Corps.
But will a Republican dare say that in front of their own constituents at a live town hall?
Imagine a 53 year old woman stands up and says her husband died of cancer last year. She says he had limited coverage but couldn't afford the out of pocket costs for treatments that could have saved his life. Now she has cancer and her insurance company just rescinded her plan. She's too weak to work now. She asks "Senator Shelby, what am I going to do?"
Would Senator Shelby have the spine to tell her what he's been telling everyone else in the media? That the U.S. has the best health care system in the world?
Would Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell fare any better at a live town hall? Imagine a recently unemployed steelworker in Kentucky stood up and said "I've got three kids and our family has been denied health care since I got laid off last year. Senator McConnell, have you ever been denied health care?
What would Senator McConnell say? "Well, no, my government-funded plan guarantees that I have health coverage for the rest of my life, even when I'm no longer a Senator. But trust me, you don't want the government involved in your health care."
The fact is, Republicans cannot talk to Americans about health care. They can talk a big game to the press. They can recite pre-fabricated think-tanked talking points on the Senate floor. But their bluster would shrivel away if they dare come face to face with real Americans. This is why they stay well inside the safe confines of the DC bubble where they are protected from engaging in an honest dialogue about the health care atrocity in America.
President Obama, on the other hand, does not have to dislocate himself from Americans. He's out there holding town halls and answering the tough questions. He's face to face with people who are dying. With people who are under-insured, not insured, or facing bankruptcy because of the outrageous contemptible cost of taking care of a loved one.
It's important to recognize, especially in times of crisis, just who has the courage to talk honestly and directly to Americans and who does not.
I understand that there are plenty of Democrats, not just Republicans, who are cowering in the face of a public option. And we really need to exert unrelenting pressure on these Democrats to support legislation that would not only pass--that would not only be a step in the right direction--but would represent the kind of leap in reform that every American can count on, in good times and in bad, in sickness or in health.
They must demonstrate a commitment to Americans before Americans will demonstrate another commitment to them.
Advertisement
I think they are speaking in a kind of code Gary.
Scarborough dismisses the fact that 47 million have no coverage at all. He will say, the glass is 85% full.
Of course, he ignores the fact that most probably 90 million have horseshit coverage--half of those not even knowing it until they find out that their sons early onset of diabetes is going to cost them a mint.
Good point.
w used those pretend town meetings or whatever the fuck he was calling them....everybody was screened...signed loyalty oaths.
Hell, Hitler had 'town meetings'
I am touched by Obamas open meetings. If it is all a big lie, well...they are doing a good job of foolin me. Ha
Great Post Gary.
July 1, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks DD. For anyone to claim that we have the best healthcare system in the world is astonishingly naive. Which is why it's hard to imagine someone would say that in front of uninsured and under-insured American citizens desperate for reform.
July 1, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He's out there holding town halls and answering the tough questions"
- I love the part about the tough questions.
"In the stage-managed event, questions for Obama came from a live audience selected by the White House and the college, and from Internet questions chosen by the administration's new-media team. Of the seven questions the president answered, four were selected by his staff from videos submitted to the White House Web site or from those responding to a request for "tweets."
The president called randomly on three audience members. All turned out to be members of groups with close ties to his administration: the Service Employees International Union, Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America, which is a part of the Democratic National Committee. White House officials said that was a coincidence."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070100950.html
July 1, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your boy Bush - he took "the tough questions," did he?
You truly are pathetic. And you smell bad.
July 1, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You smell worse, old fart, but I don't mind you one bit.
July 1, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
all you have is criticisms. What do you have to offer, or do you even acknowledge that it is not good for our country or its citizens that 45,000,000 people have no health insurance, and for those who do, once they get too sick to work, they will also lose their coverage.
I'm all ears. Of course if your answer is the standard republican response:
-- if you are worthy, you already have good health care
--if you aren't worthy, you deserve what you get
then I will not be surprised, and I also will continue to work for universal health care.
But if you have something constructive to add, I would love to hear it.
July 2, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{crickets chirping}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
July 2, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. As mentioned here, I agree there is a problem with access, driven by cost. My point is that we going to pick the most costly option imaginable to give everyone access and the quality of our health care will go down.
As for solutions, I already gave a couple in a comment to another post. You and your chicken friend are welcome to dump chicken sh*t all over it there, because it's clear as day that everyone's mind has been made up a long long time ago.
July 2, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you consider the "most costly option" the one that doesn't have profits, an advertising budget, stockholders, and myriad layer of paperwork with people lined up all along the way?
You consider the "most costly option" the one that has no middle-man, and includes the entire population; sick and well, young and old, without anyone skimming off millions for absolutely no benefit regarding health care?
I am still waiting for specifics. Give one example of any industry, or country, or ANYTHING that is more cost-effective when money is siphoned off for profits as opposed to using it to provide a service.
So far you haven't given any examples, which is what I asked.
July 2, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote about it for a good part of the day on various blogs. It's easy to find every single one of my comments. The last one was on Gregor's new blog. If you really that interested, move there.
July 2, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is gone. It doesn't matter what he did. Try to live in the present. Two wrongs don't make a right
July 2, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill - it does matter. Bush orchestrated his media events and the media was outraged. Obama continues Bush policies and orchestrates his own media events - and the media is largely silent. They love a smooth operator more than they love substance and consistency.
July 2, 2009 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether the questions were screened or not, the substance was there. Show me some one example of a difficult question posed to Bush, and you cannot use Jeff Gannon, and there might be some substance to your indignation that Obama screened the questions. I'm glad we did not have our time wasted with stupid questions.
Random examples of questions that might have been in the pool:
"Where's the Birth Certificate?"
"If you are really a Christian, why is your middle name Hussein?"
"Why do you hate freedom?"
"Are we finally going to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran?"
July 2, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pre-screened or not, answering a question from someone who is dying from cancer and can't get health insurance is not something I can imagine Sen. Shelby, (or anyone else who boasts that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world), would ever have the balls to do.
July 1, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you obviously have enough imagination to insinuate that republicans want to deny health insurance to someone who's dying from cancer and doesn't have one.
July 1, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that is defacto what they are doing. Gary's point is that they don't have the balls to say that to their constituents faces.
I'm fairly sure you don't either.
July 1, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have the balls to say that instead of reforming the "oligopolistic (tm J. Mashall)" insurance industry that currently decides what gets covered and what doesn't, we will have the oligopolistic de-facto Government monopoly decide it instead.
The cost of replacement of one monopoly with the other is going to paid by this dying patient's children and grandchildren, and the system still won't cover everyone.
But it won't matter, because the orchestrated parade of dying cancer victims and planted questions from Friends of O will create just the right amount of melodrama to force this crazy-amazing system on the country.
July 1, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 1, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguel, I hadn't seen that quote before. Wow. I have to read more about that, thanks.
July 1, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to something someone else posted, you perhaps, regarding the truth about pharmaceutical companies. A little off the main point here, but certainly relevant to the health care crisis.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
July 1, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's an astute observer of our 'healthcare system', and I wish more people heard what she and just about any health economist has to say about it. Thanks for the link. I hadn't read it before. It must have been somebody else who linked to that Particular article, though I do remember you commenting on a link I posted to this article by her.
July 2, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
:)
Yes, that's the article. I guess I got the two confused. It's a nice little link exchange we have going on, here, thanks.
July 2, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point! Not half as bad is good enough if the government provides it.
July 2, 2009 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL dude. Got any alternative?
July 2, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I can imagine a lot.
The country is suffering from a (terminal, if you only read TPMCafe, but only somewhat serious if you havee a broader sense of the news and nation) case of "Grass is Always Greener" syndrome.
I'll be the last one to defend the current system, but I'll be the first (here anyway) to note for the record that it could be a lot worse. And it may soon be a lot worse.
July 2, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagination can be useful in problem solving. As a method of comparing reality to woulda, shoulda, coulda scenarios it amounts to little more than a parlor game. I suppose a "broader sense of the news and nation" would lead me to be concerned about a lot of things, Michael Jackson not being the least of them. The cost of our healthcare 'system' has been the focus of economists for decades now, and universal healthcare aside, the latest projections show us pricing ourselves out of the world market within the next 25 years if we allow it to continue. How that system gets fixed is the question here. A robust public option may help defray some costs in the system, but in the end, I don't really see anyone in DC addressing the underlying issues of that escalating cost. So, yeah, I agree with your last sentence. It may soon be a lot worse.
July 2, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of whining why don't you provide example how the current system could be improved to where the government wouldn't be needed to interfere? That's what we so called "liberals" are asking. People need health insurance and many are finding out their companies are either cutting back on coverage or pushing people out of company plans due to costs to the business. And once people shop around, they're shocked at the high out of pocket costs for monthly premiums and the high deductibles they have to pay for services when used.
July 2, 2009 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was rather obvious and Mr. Marshall himself pointed to an obvious issue - the regulated quasi-monopolies of the health insurance companies.
July 2, 2009 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, all OECD countries, with the exceptions of the US, Mexico and Turkey have some sort of universal health care run by the gov't. All of them work pretty well, some more than others maybe, but those countries are still working on it. All of them offer much better access and basically the same quality of health care as the US. So what is your problem with the government running health care?
Do you also have a problem with the government in charge of the country's defense?
July 2, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the "pretty much the same quality" is a serious argument. The WH could not name any country where healthcare is run by the government and has same or better quality.
I think the issues of access and quality are two separate things and I think it's wrong to get access at the expense of quality - which is the Obama plan. It's impossible to have any other outcome under the government option because of the same monopoly factor that we have at the moment.
Your argument on access has been blown to pieces by the CBO and WH who confirmed that the new government plan still would not cover everyone. Your central argument is essentially gone.
We spend more on healthcare just as we spend more on everything else - we are bigger and richer than any OECD country.
July 2, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Your argument on access has been blown to pieces by the CBO and WH who confirmed that the new government plan still would not cover everyone. Your central argument is essentially gone."
do you mean this CBO report?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/01/new-cbo-score-health-care/
"We spend more on healthcare just as we spend more on everything else - we are bigger and richer than any OECD country."
This quote only shows your ignorance, does the phrase "per capita" have a meaning in your world?
July 2, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I mean that report. If you look behind the catchy feel-good lines maybe you'll see it too. But given how ignorance is your favorite word, I doubt it.
July 2, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe you should read more closely this report contradicts your opinion.
July 2, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read the report, not the spin. Read also the "employer mandate provision" proposal.
Suggest you do the same.
July 2, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. [...]
The [employer mandate] provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.
July 2, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Further up in this thread, Lalo replied to me saying, "I don't believe the "pretty much the same quality" is a serious argument," in response to my claim that the OECD countries with universal health care offer basically the same quality of care as the US.
Well, Lalo is right. It turns out that in multi-year studies of 5 countries (later 6 when Germany was added), the US comes in last or next to last every time in quality of care. This is in spite of spending the most, even when ESAW (Estimated Spending According to Wealth) is factored in. In other words, we still spend 147 times more than our peer countries even taking into consideration our wealth compared to the others.
The only indicator where the US consistently ranks first in the quality category is in preventive care, meaning screenings for breast, prostate and other types of cancers and diseases.
Just yesterday, OECD.org released OECD Health Data 2009 – comparing health statistics across OECD countries. Some highlights for the US, other than in spending, confirm studies that show poor quality of care in the US.
I would have thought that without universal care in the US, we would have the most doctors practicing medicine. Turns out that's not true either.
July 2, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice statistics, the only problem I have with most of them except infant mortality is that they have nothing to do with quality of health care.
Things like amount of physicians and hospital beds have to do with access & resource availability - not quality! Why did you choose not to mention that we have more nurses per capita than other OECD countries?
Obesity and life expectancy have to do with lifestyle and consumption habits - not quality of healthcare, and they are rising fast in other OECD countries.
OECD groups these statistics into resources and health status - not quality of healthcare!
You may have a perfectly valid point when it comes to access, but sorry, again - not quality. And my issue is that we're about to pick the most expensive and least optimal solution to provide access.
As for infant mortality - different countries have different definitions of "live birth" and OECD actually warns against head to head comparisons that you just made because if the US system of infant mortality would be recalculated using German system, our rates would drop.
Otherwise - nice try.
July 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The actual number is 101,000 annual preventable deaths.
July 2, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our disagreement is about the best way to provide access (i.e. reduce cost), not whether access is a problem or not.
July 2, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
right.
Lame.
July 2, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better than anything you said, so far.
July 2, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whining is what Lowlife35 does. And all he does.
July 2, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As long as it is someone that is getting paid bonuses for denying coverage it is absolutely wrong.
If the government is not gonna pay someone bonuses to deny care I am all for the government option.
July 2, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The government will decide what will be covered and what won't be, which will include both medical conditions and medical tests and procedures. The government, just like the insurance industry, will use a cost/benefit formula to make these decisions.
The goal of the public option is force coverage for everyone, those who want it and those who don't. Unless you want to bankrupt the country, you will be forced to control costs by trimming and slimming the options while raising taxes at the same time.
And the latest accounting trick, also called "employer mandate" shifts the burden of costs on the employer. Which will result in re-balancing of ration of full-time and part-time jobs.
The employers will switch to the lower cost providers and trim coverage packages they offer, in an effort to reduce these costs.
And because the private insurance market will remain regulated as it is today (how clever!), the national option will have a slight cost advantage.
The end result of this is craziness will be a high quality, high cost health care for the rich; and the food stamps equivalent for everyone else - until private healthcare is banned in this country.
July 2, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The government is "we the people" and we can change it, or at least, we have a much better chance of changing our politicians then we do of changing the CEO of any private institution. Okay, let's say the probability of changing our gov't insurance program is 2% under the new program. Well, it is zero in the private sector.
Those are the goals of a profit-seeking enterprise. This is a public service enterprise. We, the people, will be involved in the trimming and slimming. We, the patients, will know what the policy is and changing it will be made in the open, by people that we have some power to influence, rather then by some Committee within a private organization against whom any complaint can be forwarded to their legal department.
That's happening right now. No difference.
LMAO. Seriously, that's a fantastic leap. Would NEVER happen.
Is that a tin foil hat your hiding under your stove pipe hat?
July 2, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your response boils down to "we the people" will be doing it to ourselves as opposed to insurance companies doing the same thing to us now.
Ridiculous non-argument.
In a competitive market, business obtain profit from selling products people want to buy and are willing to pay for. Our health insurance market is not competitive, it's regulated into a collection of monopolies. That's not going to change under the public option except for installing competition into a fixed regulated market.
Your belief that you will have the freedom to have extensive policy changes under the power of "we the people" is so naive, it's not worth commenting on.
As for employers, I think when they realize what's coming, it will get much worse - and we still don't know what small business will be required to pony up.
As a former business owner, I can tell you that I would employ less people, shop for the cheapest "minimal" option I can find and raise my prices to deflect these costs.
The private option will be banned eventually, if public option is introduced - because of two classes of health insurance that will be created. And the liberals will lead that call under the familiar theme of class war, blood suckers, and all the other age-old tired populist tricks.
July 2, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ridiculous non-argument." "not worth commenting" "naive"
So says you, who provides much criticism and no viable alternative. We the people do change things. It ain't easy, but we do. Against the private corporation we have no meaningful voice, but against our government, we do. It ain't easy, but we do have a voice there.
July 2, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I do, you're just not willing to listen. Access to healthcare is hampered by cost of insurance in a monopolistic insurance market. That's a simple answer right there. Just doesn't fit the ideology and the desire to get a chunk of votes in perpetuity.
July 2, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I'm listening and we are disagreeing. HOw do you propose we "break" the private monopolistic insurance industry? Do you think there are any viable competitors to challenge them? I suspect when any grow to any threat, they are bought by someone, or driven out of business.
July 2, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I responded in your new post.
July 2, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of like the MO republican who thinks kids should go without school lunches because hunger is a positive motivator?
July 2, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks gary.
Speak truth to power
Thanks.
July 1, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey bwak:) good of you to stop by.
July 1, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I understand that there are plenty of Democrats, not just Republicans, who are cowering in the face of a public option..."
*cough* FEINSTEIN *cough*
July 1, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
*cough* McCaskill *cough*
July 1, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
no need to say them under your breath, burnedoutdem:) I've actually listed the names of the wavering dems several times in comments and various posts, just wasn't the main point here.
July 1, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. I haven't seen Obama take any tough questions in public about cap-and-trade. Has anyone seen him take a question from a coal miner that's going to lose their job because he wants to shut down coal plants?
July 2, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCB,
Apparently you missed the video question from Michael Burgess, MD.
Oh Burgess also happens to be a GOP congressman from Texas.
July 2, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
We were talking about healthcare, but if you want to talk about questions from coal miners, the guys buried in the collapses brought about by illegal mining practices that ignored safety standards are not asking any questions, for some reason. Oh, because they died a needless death predetermined by the profit motives of the mine owners who did not want to spend the money to do things right, even though the gov't, we the people, had already determined what was "right" or safe. We call these laws, and we expect our gov't to enforce those laws, but the lawless Bush ignored them and look what happened! People died! Now who saw that coming?
July 2, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am happy to stick to healthcare. The original post was really disingenuous because nobody is talking about leaving healthcare alone. Everybody is trying to reform it.
July 2, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I'm listening and we are disagreeing. HOw do you propose we "break" the private monopolistic insurance industry? Do you think there are any viable competitors to challenge them? I suspect when any grow to any threat, they are bought by someone, or driven out of business.
July 2, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, MCB, this belongs to Lalo's above post.
July 2, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In answer to your question. No, not really.
They have figured out how to increase their power with lies and intimidation and so far they have no intention of backing down.
July 2, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
tpmg,
There is NO way to defend the position of being against a public option because in will invariably begin with "If we do that it will hurt the private insurers" and that argument will get someone beat in a primary.
We must make sure that these DINOs realize that millions of dollars will be spent telling the people they serve know they favored the interest of corporations over PEOPLE.
I will be calling my Congressional critters and ask them if they will refuse the government provided health coverage until all Americans have access to health CARE. Then I will let them know that their answer will be get massive publicity.
July 2, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my states Reps did turn down the Fed insurance, Joe Courtney.
July 2, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
They do hold townhalls. Peter Roskam (IL-06) held one yesterday with 150 handpicked doctors most of whom expressed concern about Obama's plan cutting into their income.
Thirty of us met with our congresswoman Judy Biggert (IL-13) on Monday afternoon where I presented her with 800 signatures on 57 pages of petitions we collected from people over the weekend who want a real townhall to discuss our support for a strong public option with her.
Her response was to complain about a Campaign for Better Healthcare email encouraging people to show up. I guess she was under the impression she was meeting with a special interest group in secret, no constituents invited. She rejected our proposal for a big townhall on a weekend where voters could tell her what we want. Instead she wants her staff to organize a potemkin "summit" with a panel of experts (industry shills), of which we get to pick one, who will lecture us about how "we have the best healthcare in the world" and the "dangers of reform".
No thanks. We want a townhall on a weekend in July before the vote in the house. In a room big enough to hold as many who want to come, at least 1000 seats. No panel to filibuster us to death so Biggert can avoid answering our questions. We want everyone who has a story to tell, or info to provide to have a chance at the microphone.
Everybody ought to pressure their reps and senators to vote for a public option. Grassroots pressure works but only if you as an individual make it work.
July 2, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
cool, good to know.
July 2, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do Senators opposed to the public option hate the American people?
July 2, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Ever wonder why Republicans aren't holding live town halls on health care?"
Because they aren't the ones with snake oil to sell. Why would they hold town halls on an issue that they don't have a bone to pick about? Town halls happen when a party wants "everyman"-looking public events to sell bad policy to stupid people via empty rhetoric. That's what they're for.
"Why do Senators opposed to the public option hate the American people?"
I don't know. Possibly they just love fiscal solvency, and don't hate anyone at all.
I agree that the fate of private insurers ought not to be a public policy issue; but where the heck were you people complaining that Obamna was considering this when he spent four trillion dollars in four months bailing out financial firms, GM, and the UAW? You couldn't speak up about corporate welfare then?
One might think you were protecting only those firms that donate to Democrats.
July 2, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where the hell were you! There was a ton of complaints about the bail outs. BUt most thought it was unavoidable unless we wanted the whole industry to collapse.
"love fiscal solvency" to the exclusion of any other consideration. You're right, they do not hate people, they could simply care less as long as prfitability is maintained. If people die, get injured, lose their jobs, their homes, their health, their whatever, that's a shame, but we had to be profitable, and we are, so it was all worth it.
July 2, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"BUt most thought it was unavoidable unless we wanted the whole industry to collapse."
- Delicious!, especially considering the size of unions in private health insurance industry...
July 2, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem whatsoever that the providers of healthcare are well paid. I do object to the shareholders and executives far removed from the actual work obtaining inordinate salaries. Somehow, even though the executives abhor paying the providers high salaries, they have no restraint when it comes to their own.
July 2, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point was your claim that it was concern over an industry that forced the bailouts.
I find a similar lack of concern over insurance industry quite revealing. Instead of de-regulating this industry to lower costs without saddling everyone with backdoor taxes, you're willing to let it die.
So let's be honest with each other. It was concern over union votes that forced the auto bailouts. Nothing else.
July 2, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So let's be honest with each other. It was concern over union votes that forced the auto bailouts. Nothing else."
That is a very simplistic answer. We all know you are opposed to organized labor, but you forget to consider that a union job, or a non-union job, is still employment. Take off the blinders, my friend. Love them or hate them, these are American jobs. It was estimated the country would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs if the domestic automakers folded. Not only the employees of the automakers, but the employees of the small-business support industries, and it would likely percolate to service industries for those who cater to these automakers. If they're not working, no ones hiring carpenters, plumbers, or going to the mall, or out to dinner and a movie.
July 2, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, Republicans are getting away with whitewashing the current system. Even more depressing, they're not being forced to come up their own plan to undergo scrutiny.
July 2, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have come up with their own plan Carl. It was the same as Bush's and McCain's before them. That's why you've heard nothing about it. It's not worth talking about.
The only people stopping healthcare reform at this point are those of us who wring our hands and do nothing. Call your senators and congressmen and then call somebody's else's and demand a public option. You have no one to blame but yourself if you let the lobbyists get away with writing the bill. If they don't hear from you they think you're satisfied with the status quo. Are you?
July 2, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I meant a health care proposal with numbers in it- also, important facts like how they're going to pay for it and how many people it will cover. As far as I know, they don't have a health care plan that would exceed the space limitation of a brochure.
My own senators and representative are for the public option, but I have written to other senators. Just wrote a post about it, actually.
July 2, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't hard to figure that republicans are reluctant to meet, face to face, with Americans. Everybody knows, including republicans, that republicans have totally screwed up everything.
To have to face up to a screw up, the likes of which republicans have made, can't be so easy. That none have honestly done so tells us how hard it is.
Some will likely never come to grips with how badly they have hurt America. And many will continue to do so totally oblivious of the fact they're sociopaths.
If this was Japan many of them would already be dead by their own hand. The only thing preventing that is they're all cowards without a spec of honor. And just to keep the books straight there is a fair number of democrats that need to clean up their act as well.
July 2, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink