The din of the debate over national healthcare reform reached a fever pitch in Santa Barbara Wednesday night as Congressmember Lois Capps (D-CA) held the first in a series of town hall meetings regarding HR3200 - America’s Affordable Health Choice Act. The controversial healthcare legislation has undergone several significant changes as it has wended its way through Congressional committees, but Capps defended the current version as something that addresses everyone’s needs. “One thing we can all agree upon is that the system cannot continue how it is,” she said, adding that the number one cause for bankruptcy in the United States is uncontrolled medical debt. While many people in the audience were audibly supportive of HR3200, nearly half were opposed to it, and continually voiced their displeasure with shouts, catcalls, and hisses throughout the meeting. “I championed that legislation. I read it, I was engaged in it, I participated in parts of it, and it’s a good bill,” she reassured her detractors.
Held in the social hall of the First United Methodist Church in the heart of downtown Santa Barbara, the City Fire Marshal was strict about the number of people admitted, allowing only 210 of the several hundred people who showed up to enter. The shouts of the angry crowd of people denied entry - which stood at about 100 even an hour into the meeting by several accounts - could be heard from within the hall, forcing police officers to keep all but one of the doors of the sweltering room closed. With attendees vigorously fanning themselves with pieces of paper, the scene took on the character of a Southern revival meeting as Capps went through the details of the legislation.
“If you like the plan you have now, you can keep it, and our plan will help you lower your costs,” Capps reassured her detractors, saying that with the current plan, the government will go broke from the costs of inefficiency and corruption, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office pegged this year at more than $500 billion. Capps promised that by closing loopholes allowing corporations to operate in offshore tax havens, among other tools, HR3200 would be deficit neutral.
Capps said that a reasonably priced public insurance option, which she stressed would never be required for people who wished to maintain private insurance, would stimulate competition between private companies, whose administrative costs would be limited to 15 percent of their entire budgets. “I believe that a robust public insurance option is the only way to ensure true competition,” she said, adding that the bill includes a provision to phase out the current “doughnut hole” that leaves many seniors without adequate prescription medication coverage, as well a guarantee that patients will not be dropped from insurance policies due to preexisting conditions. The main goal, she said, was to change the procedure-driven insurance billing standard currently in place to one that encourages doctors to focus on a patient’s outcome and overall wellness. By eliminating co-pays for preventative healthcare measures, Capps said that costs for more advanced illnesses can be reduced.
Joined by Dr. Ned Bentley, an area gastroenterologist and head of the County Medical Association, and Joyce Lippman, the senior advocate for the Area Agency on Aging, Capps held a lengthy question-and-answer session during the meeting’s second half. Moderated by former Santa Barbara mayor Hal Conklin, there was much criticism regarding the manner in which the questions were submitted, with meeting participants writing their questions on note cards, then read aloud by Conklin. “It was kinda rigged,” said Santa Barbara resident Mike Creegan, who voiced his concern that too much of the bill had been formulated in Congressional backrooms. “In a lot of ways, this was a real sham in that at least 40 to 50 percent of the audience was against the bill. But the questions were all softball pro-bill.”
While the format of the meeting prescribed on huge wall placards was observed for most of the night, one man finally shouted enough to be allowed to ask his question verbally. Clad in a green baseball cap that said “Border Patrol,” he angrily inserted that concern for the uninsured should not affect people who are already covered. He declined to comment further to The Independent, but plenty of commentary was offered by Capps and panelists concerning the 148,000 uninsured residents of Santa Barbara County. “I think it’s shameful. A caring, affluent society such as ours ought to be able to provide healthcare for all of its citizens,” said Bentley.
In addition to questions, many whose cards were read offered suggestions, running the gamut from revamping medical liability all the way to going with the type of single-payer or nationalized system currently seen in Canada and the U.K.“I believe strongly that we are not ready for such a major change from what we have now,” said Capps in response to someone who asked why Congress wasn’t going the single-payer route. “We need a bill that can be passed and signed into law.” She did, however, support the Kucinich amendment to the bill, which would allow each state to determine whether or not to go with a single-payer model.
Much of the presentation portion of the meeting was dedicated to dispelling myths Capps said have been propagated about HR3200. Chief among these explanations were her promises that the so-called death panels are a fallacy - she said that under the bill’s provisions, patients make their own end-of-life care determinations - and that undocumented workers and their families will not be covered. Furthermore, she said, the plan calls for federal employees, including members of Congress, to have the same coverage as everyone else, and offers incentives for medical school graduates to go into primary care roles - an effort to eliminate a system that Bentley said is top heavy with specialists.
Although HR3200 will move tenuously forward through congressional debate over the next several months, it still faces Senate review. Capps said that it is her hope that it will be signed into law sometime before the end of the year. “What’s the hurry?!” someone blurted out toward the end of the meeting. “The cost of inaction is too great,” she replied. “That’s my opinion, but it’s been substantiated by numerous studies.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
My congrats to Ben Preston for a measured news account of last night's townhall -- so different from the broadcast media reports focusing on the disruption and dissent at similar events around the nation.
I suppose the crowd should be thanked as well; the impression I have is one of strong opinions kept in check by an abiding (if grudging) civility and effective meeting organization.
This experiment in democracy may just work!
binky (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the balanced reporting. I am so tired of hearing over-hyped media coverage of rowdy and contentious crowds without mention of the discussion and information during the meeting.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Was there any simple show of hands, because on the sidewalk before the doors opened I saw mostly pro reform signs, very few anti signs, and the only real kook was passing out some screed with Swastikas on it, for which he was rightly shunned and criticized.
You're saying 'nearly half were anti reform' doesn't match the signage at least, and this is the tactic, and the result:
the media: you Ben, perhaps see many more anti reformers because the disruptive tactics have had the desired effect of shifting and distracting the focus.
It can also result in a false equivalency in the reporting and the public's mind.
This is not to say criticize people with real concerns and questions , just the people yelling and disrupting.
E.J. Dionne on town hall-generated legislation:
Health-care reform is said to be in trouble partly because of those raucous August town-hall meetings in which Democratic members of Congress were besieged by shouters opposed to change.
But what if our media-created impression of the meetings is wrong? What if the highly publicized screamers represented only a fraction of public opinion? What if most of the town halls were populated by citizens who respectfully but firmly expressed a mixture of support, concern and doubt?
There is an overwhelming case that the electronic media went out of their way to cover the noise and ignored the calmer (and from television's point of view "boring") encounters between elected representatives and their constituents.
It's also clear that the anger that got so much attention largely reflects a fringe right-wing view opposed to all sorts of government programs most Americans support."....in the WashPost 9/2/09
Well, I wasn't there, you were, I was shut out.
But thanks for your report, and what the heck were they thinking having this is such a small space?
JohnSalyer (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lois Capps' press secretary, Emily Kryder, attributed the choice of venue to cost. I asked her why they didn't just have the forum at the Earl Warren Showgrounds, to which she replied that it would have been prohibitively expensive.
benjamachine (Ben Preston)
September 3, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought I was early when I arrived at 5:30, only to find that my daughter and I were shut out. Why did they choose the smaller parish hall rather than the main church hall?
At my church, when a meeting attracts more attendees that the chosen meeting space, we move to a larger space when one is available. I can only assume that it was a conscious decision not to move the meeting from the parish hall to the main church sanctuary which would have had at least twice the seating capacity. Was Lois' staff afraid of the crowd?
Personally, I am hoping for reform to pass and take effect soon. My first choice would be a single-payer system like the one that our state legislature has twice passed here in California, only to have it vetoed by the Governator.
ljp93105 (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why did they choose a such small venue? Because they don't want to hear from you (unless you agree.) You have to ask?
The questions were vetted by the liberal League of Women Voters, and it was frankly a waste of time. You didn't miss a thing... just more indoctrination about an 1,100-page mass of power grabs (do they read it?) which contains no mention of cost-cutting tort reform or opening up insurance sales to real competition across state lines...
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reduce Health Care Costs by 80% While Improving Care:
1) Open up Med Schools,
2) Distribute More Responsibility to Nurses and PAs,
3) and Pay Doctors by Salary Only
Completely missing from the healthcare debate is the substandard performance on the part of doctors driving costs to unsustainable levels. Firsthand horrific experiences aside, this profession has no real oversight from those they 'serve' and often arrogantly dismissive of patient input. But patients are not only disallowed from having input into their own health care and health maintenance, but are scoffed at when the topic of internet research is raised.
Doctors are not gods. They're highly fallible humans who too often prescribe pills to placate symptoms rather than provide intelligent diagnoses for permanent cures and are either ill trained, or too focused on pay while stacking long lines in waiting rooms.
More nurses and Physician's Assistants, more responsibility for those folks will solve a multitude of horrendous problems that Doctors are creating. Stop allowing greedy Doctors to stuff patients into waiting rooms, pay them by salary only. And open up Med Schools to supply the industry with more physicians.
Indep2010 (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2009 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Capps Brings Healthcare Debate to Santa Barbara"
Since when is a completely controlled and closed "presentation" classified as a debate?
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is aggravating to see these threads about health care day in and day out with everybody talking about how we need to further control health care without admitting that the real problems we have with today's health care stem from government control.
The reason the insurance companies have to go out of the country to tax havens is because they are being taxed too much and that is raising the costs of insurance for their customers.
Why can't we elect a representative who understands economics?? If you want to lower health care costs, lets start asking the right questions:
Why is health care so expensive? Is it the doctors? No.. there are plenty of people who want to be doctors and we should all know how supply and demand work for different labor types. Is is the medical services that cost too much? YES!! Medical services cost too much. We need to lower their costs. Government cannot lower costs. If they subsidize it, it comes out of our tax dollars and the price goes up. Or they borrow the money and put us into debt and make us pay interest. Or they print the money and the dollar is devalued and prices on other things go up. In fact, in the 1970s the government corporatized medicine by giving tax breaks to companies for offering employee medical coverage. This turned out to be a disaster as the tax benefits soon dissapeared and now everybody is over-covered by government mandated and subsidized health insurance. I don't WANT to have full coverage, I am young and healthy and never go to the doctor. I want catastrophic cover in case something bad happens.. but that type of insurance costs about the same due to government subsidy and so I get full coverage.. So when I DO go to the doctor instead of finding one who charges a reasonable amount I end up going to the one on my plan, and my insurance company pays whatever they charge.. Maybe $110 for the visit and $80 for my prescription.. If people actually paid instead of the deep pockets of the insurance companies, these prices would come falling down out of the sky.. We could cut medical costs by a third if we just let the free market work... Uh oh, there's that bad word "free market", that free market was the cause of our economic collapse, right?? WRONG!! We didn't have a free market, we have had a market manipulated by the banks and by the government since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created!! They caused the depression and they caused our current economic blight by artificially lowering interest rates which inherently causes bad investments and bubbles. The government creates the problems, then they offer solutions which only create more problems!!
(cont..)
loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go to youtube and listen to Peter Schiff for God's sake people. We have this whole thing completely ass backwards and the people who are running the show in Washington DC are the medical industrial complex, the military industrial complex and the international bankers. They are the ones writing our legislation through lobbyists. They are always going to win because they have a lot more money due to the Federal Reserve's policies. The answer is in the Constitution. If we want a single payer system here in California, go for it. If it gets that bad then we can change it back or move out of the state until they change it. If it works well then more people will move here. But DO NOT do this at the Federal level!! I do not want to have to move out of the country when this fails.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I heard Lois Capps on the Nick and Paul show immediately react negatively to a Single Payer proposal, when asked by Nick. I also heard from a potential attendee, at the aforementioned forum, who could not get in, that people were walking alongside the line, striking up conversations with the people, in the line; it seemed to this person that they were trying to influence opinion, outside the forum. One has to keep one's wits about them, in an open society, when one decides to attempt to attend such a forum, now doesn't one? I would expect that those people trying to influence opinion, in this manner would probably be the kind of person who would do what the photos showed those contractors doing, in Afghanistan; the pictures speak for themselves
macatack5 (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent, measured reporting Ben, thank you for a clear view of this meeting.
Capps assured us the passed House version of healthcare has nothing to do with death panels or with illegal immigration - healthcare bill critics really haven't had any ideas beyond tort reform. The most critical part was when Capps stated, "I believe that a robust public insurance option is the only way to ensure true competition." In a rigged marketplace dominated by overcharging insurance companies, it IS ironic it will take a PUBLIC OPTION, a government single payer insurance plan, to force Wellpoint etc. to drop rescission and to lower their premiums. For all those who shout "socialism" I shout "competition!" Too bad the government has to do it, but modern democratic socialism works well in Germany and France. England's National Health Service is fantastic and offers better health care for much less money. The leader of the British Tories, David Cameron, is a strong supporter of socialized healthcare in his country, remember, he's a conservative, albeit a thoughful one.
We have to support Pelosi, Capps, and the House Democrats to keep the strong public option as a core of their healthcare reform legislation. Forget bipartisanship with the Republicans (OK with Olympa Snowe) and observe how they won't really agree with anything that cuts profits of the gigantic healcare corporations (including Anthem). We need to get this legislation passed by this Congress before December and while we still have about 60 votes in the Senate.
The upcoming scrap over the dismal War in Afghanistan looms and will soon take most of our attention.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
do hundreds and hundreds of people show up when lois capps comes to town? probably not the norm. so why use taxpayer money to pay for a larger venue when historically, not many folks participate?
and, if you did not get to voice your concerns, have you written or called her? those are also powerful and valid means for expressing your views.
matilija (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, likely no one will see this as the story is a bit old. But, here goes.
I was at the meeting. I got in line at 4:00 pm., so I was among the first. In all that time, I did not see anyone from either side with a Swastika.
The signs in the line were mostly pro-Capps, but since signs were not allowed in, I saw many anti-HR 3200 people taking their signs back to their car. I can say from the voices in the meeting itself, the voiced support for both sides were about equal.
As far as organized protesters or supporters, I really didn't see much of that at all. There were some small groups from Planned Parenthood, etc., but really nothing out of the ordinary.
The meeting itself was DESIGNED not to allow any anti-HR 3200 voices to be heard. First, no one could ask a question directly. So, you had no idea of how strongly a questioner felt about the issue, for or against. Second, you had to turn in your question on a card before the meeting started, so no chance for follow up to your question. Thirdly, the questions were hand picked (even though I was told it would be random), and the questions asked, with one exception, were all cream puff, pro-HR 3200 questions. So, as noted in the article, it was rigged from beginning to end.
Many people were quite angry toward the end when it dawned on them that NO opposing questions were going to be asked. I felt fine about the meeting until I had the same realization.
I should note that I mentioned this rigged nature to the KEYT reporter and he said, "Don't think we didn't notice."
It was really a complete sham and cowardly act by Capps who did not want to hear any opposing views. You could tell that she just did not accept that there could be a legitimate opposing view (polite baloney talk of 'lets all be heard' aside).
I have always admired Ms. Capps even though I don't always agree, but my opinion turned 180 degrees after this meeting and it left a very bitter taste in my mouth about politics and "democracy."
You could also tell that she no longer has the "citizen legislator' type of outlook anymore. She is pure politics, and you could tell it had gone to her head. She is not the same person I saw maybe 4 or 5 years ago.
MikeC (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you want some REAL information check out this clip. (sorry about brief commercial preceding it)
Congressman Tom Price (a former orthopedic surgeon-that's right, a doctor!) speaks up for CONSTITUENTS (Lois are you listening?) suggesting the alternate bill HR 3400: which includes TORT REFORM, insurance portability, eliminating pre-existing condition clauses, etc.
Price notes that THE PRESIDENT says "if you like your plan you can keep it."
PRICE: In fact that's not what the bill says.
Obama says "the government won't be making medical decisions."
PRICE: In fact that's not what the bill says.
Obama says "it doesn't have anything to do with the treating of individuals who are here illegally."
PRICE: That's not what the bill says.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/?playerI...
ALSO NOTE:
Price has also sponsored HR 3400, which contains actual bipartisan compromises that address the elephant in the room: lawsuit abuse. One of the key indicators of what a total partisan scam ObamaCare was is that it avoided any reforms whatsoever against frivolous lawsuits (trial lawyers make up a huge part of the Democrat base), which drive up costs to unbearable levels and complicate every step of the health care system.
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As one of Shakespeare's characters (notably named 'Dick') remarked: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II, "Henry VI")
A new talking point enters the healthcare debate, easy to mimic, readily draws a sympathetic crowd, but unsupported by pesky facts:
Tort Reform!
Studies of the medical malpractice liability (there are many!) depict a system that is stable and predictable, that sorts valid from invalid claims reasonably well. The system reveals problems, however, including its procedural costs, the snail's pace at which claims are processed, and a failure to compensate patients injured by medical negligence as fully and as often as it should.
It is possible to reform the liability system to address these shortcomings, but tort reform proposals like caps on non-economic damages and attorneys fees will not do so -- the ultimately cynical goal of such proposals is to reduce insurance prices by making the system less remunerative for claimants.
If implemented, these measures will predictably worsen the problem of under-compensation, and weaken providers' incentives to protect patients from avoidable perils.
As noted in this abstract last updated April 13, 2008,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf...
tort reform may uncover a small benefit toward cost reduction for a limited number of insured groups, not the righteous realignment of wankery and greed as anticipated by right-leaning bootstrappers, nor the sense of fairplay which appeals to the good in all:
::: " the evidence suggests that limitations on punitive and non-economic damages do not affect private insurance coverage, while caps on total damages, collateral source reform, and reforms to liability and payment structure are associated with increased private insurance coverage for price-sensitive groups.
::: "Accordingly, we conclude that some tort reforms are effective in reducing healthcare costs. The magnitude of the effects on price sensitive groups suggests that some tort reforms can reduce health care costs by as much as TWO PERCENT."
Worthy, but not determinative.
binky (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Binky Winky -- why are you so committed to such a flawed plan? What is your REAL agenda?
Be honest (unlike Capps) and let it all out...
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PS Binky Winky: your abstract is written by two professors from two law schools... that's an unbiased source? Of course they don't want tort reform, talking about the geese killing their golden egg! The American people are not that dumb, which has a lot of political boors (a great many of whom are lawyers) worried. GOOD.
VOTE THE BUMS OUT. Let them create real jobs in the small business sector, so they'll feel the heat like the rest of us...
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Happy to help you with your question, maximum.
I can't say how "unbiased" a source would be, (seems to depend on your personal vantage), but I will share with you that most social science and science research is conducted by:
1. Institutes of higher learning or advanced study
2. Experts in the field on which they report.
So the idea that law school professors would conduct research on the impact of laws and the legal system shouldn't surprise you. You'll find medical research is often completed by medical schools as well, and most pure science research gets accomplished on campus.
Here's a page displaying hundreds of research papers on tort reform, and not surprisingly, they are mostly provided by law schools and law professors:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.c...
+++
By the way, your BBF Rep. Price has already been debunked after his visit to Fox news (During a September 4, 2009 appearance on Fox News, Rep. Tom Price repeated tired Republican falsehoods about Democratic health insurance reform proposals):
If You Like Your Coverage, You Can Keep It
[link are here: http://mediamattersaction.org/factche...
Section 102 Of H.R. 3200: "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage."
PolitiFact: "The Legislation Wouldn't Require Anyone To Switch Health Insurance." According to PolitiFact.com: "The legislation wouldn't require anyone to switch health insurance - though, in most cases, plans would eventually have to meet minimum benefit standards. The bills don't require anyone to join the federal plan. The House bill also has a provision that allows those who purchase their own insurance (those who don't get insurance through an employer) to keep their plan as long as they'd like, as long as the insurance company keeps offering it." [PolitiFact.com, 8/18/09]
House Bill Allows For Continuation Of Current Coverage. According to PolitiFact.com: "The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage." [PolitiFact.com, 7/22/09]
[more at link provided]
binky (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gag me with Media Bias.
Really, Binky Winky, can't you stop cherry-picking your links and "facts?"
From the Media Matters link:
"The legislation wouldn't require anyone to switch health insurance - though, in most cases, plans would eventually have to meet minimum benefit standards. (DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT YOU DON'T PLAY THEIR WAY, YOU CAN'T OFFER INSURANCE. SOUNDS LIKE GOVERNMENT CONTROL TO ME:) The bills don't require anyone to join the federal plan. (YES, THEY DO REQURE NEW EMPLOYEES TO USE THE PUBLIC OPTION!) The House bill also has a provision that allows those who purchase their own insurance (those who don't get insurance through an employer) to keep their plan as long as they'd like, as long as the insurance company keeps offering it." (WHICH WILL BE UNTIL THE PRIVATE INSURER GOES OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T "MINIMUM BENEFIT STANDARD" SET BY THE GOVERNMENT. AHEM.)
Not to mention employers will get BURNED by having to pay an additional 8% on payroll if they don't "purchase" the Public Option.
And pullleeeezze - can we just agree that the SPONSORS of Politfact.com aren't exactly NEUTRAL?!?
Oh, you'll fool a few. But in the meantime (despite the MSM and the kind of "fact" sites you've provided) the American people are catching on.
And google some of the Van Jones' news if you want to see the kind of "advisors" Obama hires. You want people like THAT running your healthcare???
For folks who are sick of media bias, esp. regarding healthcare reform, here's a petition you can sign.
http://mrcaction.org/538/petition.asp
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOS ANGELES (Los Angeles Times) - Van Jones, the onetime Marxist whose controversial statements about Republicans and 9/11 have made him a distracting lightning rod as Barack Obama's environmental jobs czar in recent days, resigned tonight.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House environmental policy adviser who specialized in "green jobs" resigned on Sunday after an uproar over his previous affiliation with a September 11 conspiracy group.
Van Jones, special adviser on green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, apologized on Thursday after videotape surfaced of him using a crude epithet to describe Republicans and amid revelations he had signed a petition suggesting U.S. government involvement in the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) - President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.
Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.
EVEN THE BIASED MEDIA CAN'T IGNORE THIS... Put that in your peace-pipe and smoke it, Binky Winky, Dr. Dan, and all insipid "followers" of "The One."
America is catching on:
VOTE THE BUMS OUT!
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Maximum but not only are you the tiniest ideological minority in this county; you've also become a rapidly shrinking ideological minority. Yell and scream all you want, but its your bum ideology that is being continually voted outta office and debunked.
EZK (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
2010 is coming... and though we may live in a bubble in this liberal bastion... we are not the majority... keep on givin' us Van Jones... keep in spending our hard-earned money... and we'll see who gets debunked, EZ.
maximum (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2009 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whether you're on the Right or the Left, I think most of us can agree on the following:
-Public opinion surveys show a majority want health care reform of some kind and most are not opposed to a public option.
-One of the benchmarks for grading any health care system is access to care. Rationing now occurs in the form of insurers denying care.
-Anyone with even the best health care insurance is at risk of financial insolvency if they become seriously ill.
-Tort reform should be enacted for the sake of reducing costs throughout our society, including health care.
-For-profit health care seems destined to continually result in high costs, poor value and a very inefficient system.
-Both the Democrats and the Republicans are far too controlled by corporate interests and in many ways no longer serve the people honestly or effectively.
-Campaign finance reform is the only place to start to bring good representation back to our political system.
-Medicare generally works very well and the real reason it and Social Security are insolvent is primarily due to government "borrowing" funds from them, a practice that should be stopped.
-Spending enormous amounts of money on "end of life care" is usually a bad idea and too expensive with little benefit.
-Unnecessary and expensive tests are a significant driver of runaway costs in our health care system.
-A single payer system or a blend of public and private health care will ultimately be adopted in the U.S. and serve us better than the system we have now.
-Big pharma and health insurance companies cannot be trusted and require regulation and strong oversight.
My point is that to debate health care in an informed and adult manner it would appear necessary to keep party affiliations out of the discussions over the fundamental challenges and questions at the heart of this issue. Anyone agree or disagree on this approach?
emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)