Harry Reid is so “Chicken sh*t” on this that instead of a real town hall, he is running a “tele-town hall”

Even the Democratic Las Vegas Newspaper commented on it:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/07/reid-plans-town-hall-meeting-over-telephone/

Other’s take on this.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/20400188/detail.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/09/harry-reid-will-only-do-telephone-town-halls-media-mum

http://americanglob.com/2009/08/09/coward-harry-reid-wont-meet-with-his-constituents-face-to-face/

The leader of the Senate is afraid to meet the voters face to face. Doesn’t sound to good for that next election.

His opponent Republican candidate Danny Tarkanian, will be announcing his own PUBLIC town hall on the issue:

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/20393604/detail.html

Tarkanian said he wants to hold the event because as he said Reid won’t.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Dc: You nailed it perfectly. It’s very similar to what I read here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/11/the_great_american_oh_yeah_97842.html

I’ll post more on that soon.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Any time you try and address a nationwide issue or problem by using a targeted, segmented groups positions and keypoints to do it with you are going to have problems! EVERYBODY, not just democrats, have issues related to healthcare they feel strongly about, that impact their lives directly, that they want to see addressed or at the very least..represented. Drug companies and private insurers have their own interests. The uninsured (both legal and illegal) have their own interests and supporters, etc., who lobby gov and representatives. We all have our own “pet” issues within the larger issue of healthcare reform. But, in between all that is a wide area of common ground: ie…what the issues really are that impact everyone. These are the key issues that are going to get everyone on board, garner wide support for the bill, etc.

Given the choice of the President and congressional leadership to form this bill and ram it through without divergence from it’s targeted essence, the question on most people’s mind is..why is it necessary to create an entirely new system of healthcare to address the issues/concerns that we all have with the existing one?? And why is it necessary to ram this bill through without talking about it further? That “is” what they tried to do. They suggested the debate was over, it was time to act, etc. Now they say “we” are stopping debate (debate they previously declared closed). No…we stopped the bill from passing before recess. And are awaiting answers, statements and attitudes that bring us into this in a way that we feel comfortable supporting it. When a used car salesman tries to get you to act quickly and buy something without looking under the hood…its not really necessary to know exactly what is wrong with the car or not…to say “no” …and assume the pressure is because there is something that potentially could affect the outcome of a negotiation or sale. Used car salespersons have that rep. And so do politicians! (even moreso than used car sales”persons”). So, “just trust me”, isn’t going to cut it. And pointing out the shiny paint, and new tires…isn’t going to cut it either.

What are the reasons, primary drivers, behind why medical care is so costly and continues to rise?
Pelosi says…the “evil” private insurers. If you had “no” insurance..and simply paid for the same primary care…it has exploded in cost. Why? And what can we do to address this? And why is it necessary to create an entirely new/different system to address it? I’m quite sure that the private insurance sector would WELCOME lower cost medical supplies, treatments, drugs, etc. Why are “they” being locked out of this debate?

Why is a new system needed to stop some private insurers from dropping people with preexisting conditions? Why cant’ congress work with private insurers to come up with some kind of legislation to address this in the system we already have? What is the reason this can’t be done?

Why is a new system need to continue coverage or carry it with you unrelated to your job? You can already do this. That’s not the issue. The issue is “cost”. And the cost of insurance is directly related the astronomical rise in the cost of treatments, supplies, research, drugs, technology etc.

This is how people are asking the questions….ie.. why do we need this and how does it address the issues.

That’s primarily because they are also just as concerned about how this new system is going to impact the choices (past and future), that they may live under right now

What isthe point of this new system? To simply to add more people who can’t pay, or want to buy healthcare at subsidized rates…to the system?? To lower “insurance rates”, but not to lower the cost of the treatments, drugs, research, techonology, etc. that all provide the level of care we currently enjoy? The reason insurance rates go up, is because the cost of treatment, supplies, technology, research, equipment, treatment etc., is all rising. How does subsidizing insurance “rates” to people who can’t afford it change any of that for the rest of us? And what kind of “change” is that going to be?

What this bill looks like…is simply another liberal spending bill that does nothing to address the real issues and problems underlying it (eg., the Porkulus bill) , but simply is to reallocate somebody elses money and resources (a favorite passtime of liberals the world over) to the people they feel are more deserving of it as a “right” than you are.

What impact is that going to have on the private sector? And the answer is they don’t really know. But, most assume that it will have “some” negative impact. Obama himself, when pushed on this issue….admitted in his own press conference that…they could not guarantee that some people would not loose some of the things they already have. But, that covering more people, and getting free health care for those who cannot afford it..was more important in the long run to lowering cost. Perhaps they should have let Bush fix Social security and Medicare back in 2006???

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley: Well I agree with you 99.8% of the time. And I am sure you will work hard to close that gap

Like or Dislike: 0  0

ah yes, Mike. Not to mention utterly confusing on how Lewin Groups numbers and figures become *my* numbers and figures to cook. huh?

Actually, Lewin’s is even skewed as they still have the admin costs wrong for Medicare, using just the HHS numbers and not the total apples to apples cost. So it’s not even an entirely conservative friendly analysis, IMHO. LOL

But then, as Fit believes, (and as he said on my post about the recession just beginning) if I don’t agree with everything in sources I cite (even on different subjects, as the author of the recession piece to his opinions global warming/peak oil opinions), I must be cherry picking.

I don’t know there is a person on the planet that I agree with 100% of the time… except myself perhaps. LOL

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley: That is pretty amusing that Nit Wit would accuse you of “cooking numbers.” This comes days after the Obama Administration announced that hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their jobs in July but the unemployment % went down.

And of course we all know that their budget projections are sheer fiction.

Obviously Nit Wit is accusing you of doing something that his fellow Dems do all the time.

When will he learn that not all of us are as corrupt as he is?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Fit fit
Fit, you’re not a kool-aid drinker, but let me splain this to you. Chuck sites the whole section, and the part you’re talking about starts at page 837.

PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

If you get busted with some mary jane for the first time, the judge may tell you that the charges will be reduced to a misdemeanor if you submit to voluntary drug counseling and voluntary drug testing. It’s voluntary only in the sense that you don’t want to go to jail. I’ve stated before on this blog that my wife worked at DFCS. They will help you get foodstamps and welfare, and often times to receive this benefit, you might need to submit to voluntary home visits by a social worker.
So let’s draw this out to its logical conclusion. Although you state private insurers will still be out there, any time the commisioner decides your company doesn’t offer the required benefits, you’re on the public plan. As such, if a couple on the public plan finds themselves expecting a little bundle of joy, said couple would almost certainly be required to submit to voluntary home visitations.
That is the way our government works.
And I told you not to dispute Chuck. When an episode of Walker Texas Ranger was aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fit: With your penchant for cooking numbers, I certainly wouldn’t trust you to do my books. Your right, the number of defectees is dependant on the details of the plan, with as little as 10 million up to a industry crushing 143 million.

I see… so the Lewin Group called me, personally, to provide the data for their analyses? My my, did I get a promotion or what.

*I* cooked the numbers? Interesting distraction, Fit. Too bad it don’t fly in reality, eh?

Now talking about “cooking numbers”, we might want to talk about the prime purveyor of that skill, the Obama WH. They seem to erroneously assume only the uninsured will opt in to a public plan, and discount those that may move over from private plans to take advantage of cheaper premiums.

Consider that the estimated population of the US is just over 300 million. Of that population number, the current generation of seniors is already on a public plan that costs the private enrollees and insurers on Medicare (outside of the additional public plan they want to create). As I have pointed out, the vast majority of the 78 million baby boomers will also end up on Medicare in order to preserve their SS retirement checks.

If Obama adds his 30 million to a new public option, add the 35 million currently on Medicare, the 78 million of baby boomers, and the 65 million in Medicaid programs *and* the 10 million that are eligible for Medicaid but haven’t signed up, that puts about 218 million out of 300 or so million people on various public plans that under pay providers.

Conversely that leaves about 82 million in theory still on private plans… if they can exist with those numbers… to support the providers by overpaying.

So how long do you figure before all the public plans go bankrupt, Fit? And who do you think will go bankrupt first… the private insurers, or the public plans?

Fit: I’m not a big fan of anything anyone’s proposing right now. I’d like to see the whole thing (Medicare, VA, etc) scrapped and we start from scratch on a variation of the Singapore or Swiss system.

Fine… give me back my four plus decades of cash that has been absconded from me to pay for what you want to casually eliminate. Steal my cash quietly for a lifetime of work? Not a chance.

But then, giving it back would be difficult, yes? They already have every working person paying for VA/Medicare/Medicaid for a small percentage of the population… ala a Ponzi scheme… and it’s still bankrupt. What makes you think adding more people to the taxpayer funded health system will work any better?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata,

With your penchant for cooking numbers, I certainly wouldn’t trust you to do my books. Your right, the number of defectees is dependant on the details of the plan, with as little as 10 million up to a industry crushing 143 million. Obama’s plan outlined during the campaign was projected to take in around 30 million. It would definately cut into the profits of health insurance industry, but is not designed to kill it. The majority of Republicans proposal just make insurance more profitable (big surprise) with the hope that they might pass some of that on to consumers.

I’m not a big fan of anything anyone’s proposing right now. I’d like to see the whole thing (Medicare, VA, etc) scrapped and we start from scratch on a variation of the Singapore or Swiss system.

Aqua,

This is a good example of fear tatics in place of actual debate. Read page 832. It’s about a voluntary program.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Fit fit

Fit, I take it the fact that every democrat leader, including the messiah, has stated the end game of healthcare reform is single payer. That means nothing? They didn’t mean it when they said it? They meant it, but now they think this is a better option? Lastly, they meant it, that is their intent, they just can’t come out and say it because the people would revolt? I’m going with the last one. Libs fight a 100 year war. They openly acknowledge that their plans can’t be put in practice wholesale, everything must come incrementally.
Here’s a little side note for ya, courtesy of Chuck Norris: Dirty Secret #1 in Obamacare

It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

And don’t dispute Chuck Norris. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

Like or Dislike: 0  0