Eric Massa

How is it a sad day when a politician risks losing his seat to take a principled stand on an issue? In light of all of the other lemmings on both sides of the aisle, I find Massa's comments refreshing.

Political courage sometimes means voting against the wishes of a majority of your constituents, which is how legislation like the Civil Rights Act got enacted.

Rep. Massa is a Democrat. A major part of the 2008 Democratic platform was healthcare. The voters in Massa's district chose him knowing what the platform was.

What are you having trouble understanding Peter?

Posted by Dennis Jay on August 18, 2009 - 12:08pm
How is it a sad day when a politician risks losing his seat to take a principled stand on an issue? In light of all of the other lemmings on both sides of the aisle, I find Massa's comments refreshing.

Political courage sometimes means voting against the wishes of a majority of your constituents, which is how legislation like the Civil Rights Act got enacted.

Right on, Dennis.
I'm glad this was posted. It shows that political courage isn't dead.
He may very well lose in his district but he will go down with his convictions intact. As you said, it is refreshing.

Right, I'll refer you back to my original post.

He's just bluffin to show support for the all out marxists power grabbing agenda.

If there wasn't so much money, vested interest and political action lined up against health care reform, the issue MIGHT get a fair hearing. Offering a legitimate alternative to the status quo would not only disenfranchise a highly motivated industry from its huge profits; it would immediately expose the shortcomings of our dealer-rigged health care system. How anyone can espouse (with a straight face) that having an insurance adjuster between patient and doctor is preferable to having a public employee between patient and doctor is evidence to the magnitude of the insurance industries con job.

Twice now we have had presidential elections determined largely by an electorate dedicated to health care reform (Bill Clinton's first term and now, Obama). In both cases a sophisticated and premeditated campaign was launched to squash the effort. In both cases the electorate was made to look schizophrenic in light of the election night mandate visavis the post-industry-damage control campaign against health care reform.

If the health care industry has the financial where-with-all to TWICE accomplish such a reversal of mass opinion, keep at least 50% of the congress in their back pocket and still come up with spare change to own branding rights on most of the arenas in the United States- Do ya think - maybe- they might be taking advantage of the American public on a daily basis???? Talk about gullible? Death panels? Socialized medicine?

EG: When I first met with my father's lawyer and the nursing home representative: the two subjects at hand were #1 getting Dad up to speed with Medicare and #2 sign the DNR (Do Not Rescusitate order). Is the whole country on crack? Can a moron like Sarah Palin really control mass opinion? Does anyone really know what's going on - or better yet, what the hell they are talking about?

Czars? Do you think that word is 'scary'?

Where were you when:
Bush Appoints Interim Drug Czar - Posted in Chronicle Blog by Scott Morgan on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 11:56pm

Bush Appoints Dinty Moore Avian Flu Czar - STARVE A COLD, FEED A FEVER
November 3, 2005

Bush appoints Lute "war czar" over Iraq/Afg
Breaking news per CNN. 5/15/07

Bush Appoints Piracy Czar
XBIZ News Report - Tuesday, Jul 26, 2005

Bush Appoints New Bioethics Czar
by Aaron Atwood 09/12/2005 citizenlink.com

The 'czar' position has been used by every President since Nixon. 'Czars' exist within the Executive branch of government and are therefore checked by the Legislative and Judicial branches.

To say they are unconstitutional borders on the ridiculous. Do you believe that Cabinet positions are unconstitutional? How about staffers and aides? The President's secretary?

Health Care Reform is what President Obama set out to do. It's the reason people voted for him. Are you saying that all those who voted for President Obama are socialists?

The purpose of the writer appears not to be to engaged in coversation that would lead to something useful, but to personally destroy an opponent. You can see a lot of these attacks: President Obama has been variously labeled a "socialist" (the writer above), "terrorist" (Palin), "nazi" (various town meetings), "muslim" (the nice lady in the retirement community near here is convinced of this, she listens to Christian radio), "other" (ask any racist), or "foreigner" (ask a 'birther'). Never mind that all of these are a mess of contradictions when you bring them together, but the point is not a logical one, the point is to destroy the president personally. Throw enough manure against the wall, and some of it will stick - the desperate strategy of the party of "no" and its fellow travelers. My mother always taught me that when people resort to name calling they have finally demonstrated that they have nothing substantive to offer.

But maybe I should try this in my town? Next town meeting when taxes come up I'll just start screaming "socialism", and accuse each board member of being a socialist. How could they possibly defend themselves - they are on record as authorizing and collecting taxes! I'll destroy each one of them in the eyes of the public, and then the other good citizens will acclaim my wisdom as I lead them to a no-tax paradise - no health care, no schools, no roads, no government. We won't have anything except the high wall around each of our homes with motion detectors and AK-47s, but we'll rest peacefully at night knowing that we are not socialists. Who's with me?

'Czar', by the way is just a term coined in 1973 by Time magazine in reference to the director of the Federal Energy Administration. It has become a part of the political vernacular and is used in reference to appointed Government officials.

Peter? ...Know why Obama doesn't control Ford, too? Ford charges $13.00 apiece for galvanized shackle-spring bolts. Any company that can screw its customers with over-priced bolts has to survive.

I bet Ford calls its CEO- Czar Executive Officer.

Czar actually means King, and was the head of government in Russia until their revolution around 1920. It's been used to describe people with unchecked power and those whom generally do not belong in the position they are in.

"Obama controls GM and Chrysler. He control many banks"...and Peter's mind. Peter may well be the youngest grumpy curmudgeon in America.

I bet Massa thinks most of the people in his district support him. They very rarely want to be voted out of office and will do everything they can to stay.

Obama is a socialist and he appoints socialists czars like Browner. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-…

Chelsea, I was explaining the word in context. If you want to have an etymology contest I'd be happy to oblige.

The word 'Czar' or 'Tsar' actually originated from the Latin 'Caesar' which was the term used to identify the Roman Emperors from Julius to Hadrian. Caesar in Latin translates roughly to 'the hairy one' and was, in fact, simply a family name belonging to those of the Julio-Claudian bloodline. The last true 'Hairy one,' was Nero being the grandson by blood of Germanicus (Germanicus was never Emperor, but he was father to Gaius and brother to Claudius.) Although all subsequent Emperors were not decended from the Julio-Claudian line Caesar became just another title that the Emperors of Rome claimed for themselves along with Imperator and Princeps Senatus.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 18, 2009 - 1:09pm
Nice try Bea. Bush is not the subject at hand. Czar is the term used to describe them because they have unchecked power. I didn't create it. Why do you assume I support everything Bush did?

Peter, with all due respect...
I mentioned the Bush administration czars because it is as off the wall as you bringing in the topic of czars in the first place.
It has nothing to do with the political courage shown in the clip.
I am curious, though, how careful you would be to bend to the will of your constituents if they didn't 100% agree with your views of politics and government and let you know that they expected you to vote with the majority and not your own convictions.

Wow, and I thought I was arrogant. I'm all for politicians having a back bone and a pair of kahookies, but if the clear majority of your constituents tell you something, you should also have the back bone to stand up and say "OK, I get it. I was wrong."
I think we get political courage mixed with up political smugness.

A lot of people forget how a representative government is supposed to work.

You don't vote for the person who will take opinion polls to find out how he should vote. You elect a person whom you believe has courage and backbone, shares your values and aspirations and will vote according to his character and beliefs. He or she won't switch a vote just because it might be unpopular with constituents.

As you've heard, this is a republic, not a democracy, so majority doesn't always rule. If you don't like the way your representative votes, it's your right to vote against him in the next election, but it's ridiculous to think he should vote just as you think he should, or on majority whim.

One problem with majority whim voting is that the majority is often wrong, swayed as it is easily by those who would "manufacture consent" (as Walter Lippmann discussed in Public Opinion 90 years ago). What we need are leaders who stand up to majority whims and stick to the principles they articulated while campaigning.

I for one don't even think candidates should campaign on issues. Rather they should campaign on, and be elected because of a clear set of principles that will guide their decisions.

Well said Howard.

Peter said: "Then I went on to explain what Comrade Hussien already has control of"....my mind. Peter, you provide a conduit for discourse and I can't fault you for that. Actually, I can applaud you even though I disagree most of the time. I'm sure Bea agrees, don't you dear?

Posted by Howard Owens on August 18, 2009 - 3:43pm
A lot of people forget how a representative government is supposed to work.

You don't vote for the person who will take opinion polls to find out how he should vote. You elect a person whom you believe has courage and backbone, shares your values and aspirations and will vote according to his character and beliefs. He or she won't switch a vote just because it might be unpopular with constituents.

As you've heard, this is a republic, not a democracy, so majority doesn't always rule. If you don't like the way your representative votes, it's your right to vote against him in the next election, but it's ridiculous to think he should vote just as you think he should, or on majority whim.

One problem with majority whim voting is that the majority is often wrong, swayed as it is easily by those who would "manufacture consent" (as Walter Lippmann discussed in Public Opinion 90 years ago). What we need are leaders who stand up to majority whims and stick to the principles they articulated while campaigning.

I for one don't even think candidates should campaign on issues. Rather they should campaign on, and be elected because of a clear set of principles that will guide their decisions.

Howard,
I sincerely wish I had your talent for words. Perfectly stated.
Thanks

Howard, then why have town meetings, lobbyists, call-in numbers to officials offices, letter writing campaigns, etc.? If the elected official has the answer, we can relax and stay home.
I think that your idea makes more sense 100 years ago when information wasn't as immediate and plentiful as it is now. Elected officials would be in Washington and couldn't get large amounts of input from their constituents instantly. Now, the public is as informed as the official, and sometimes more so.
I'm not saying that the majority of American's don't want President Obama's healthcare plan, because I know there are many people out there like Bea. BUT, to say that if 80% of the public he comes in contact with wants to head east, and he still heads west (using our money and our votes)- then Congressman Massa doesn't have courage, he has arrogance.

Peter -

"Comrade Hussein??"

Sounds like you need to take a break from watching Fox News and reading FreeRepublic.com. :)

Sean, this may sound like a hedge, but it's an aspect of being a principled leader that I didn't get into: We don't want to be represented by an ideologue.

Let's say you run as a progressive and win, so as one of your core beliefs, you believe the government has a role is solving most if not all civic and societal problems (a libertarian, of course, holds the exact opposite view). So when it came time to health care reform, you would believe that government should solve the problem. If you campaigned on the progressive principle, nobody should be surprised if you supported some form of government intervention into health care costs. Even if it turns out that most of your constituents believed the government had no business in health care, you have an obligation, I believe, to be consistent with your principles and support a government-centric position.

Now to say that the solution should come from the government is only half the answer. There are numerous details that need to be addressed, and that's where the public hearings and other forums come into play. The process should be designed, nor expected, to sway a principled man to stay from his firmly held beliefs, but to help him arrive at a more nuanced and considered conclusion.

And the voices of libertarians should be considered by a reasonable progressive as well as those who take the progressive track, not so that he might compromise, but so that he might temper his considerations.

There needs to be a process by which all voices are heard -- we do not live in a dictatorship -- but I will continue argue that no leader should bend to the whim and will of the majority just because that is the loudest voice he happens to hear on any given day.

We make a grave error when we criticize our leaders for "not doing what their constituents want." It's up to the constituents to change leaders if they're unhappy with the decisions being made, but constituents betray their own best interest and subvert the process when they make unreasonable demands for a leader to go against his principles and his character.

Howard, using your defining guidelines for a representative's obligation to constituency; how should George Wallace (his oft quoted lines from his 1963 Alabama gubernutorial inaugural address: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.") have behaved in confrontational situations (University of Alabama, the Selma/Montgomery march) he clearly understood to be unlawful and unfair? He was a moderate judge prior to being governor, yet he ran an anti-integration, anti-voting rights, anti-civil rights campaign to the cynical end of being elected governor ("I was out-niggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be out-niggered again.'").

Clearly, Wallace lacked principle, and was bending to the needs of majority whim rather than standing on principle. He would have been a more honorable man to stand on his principle and lose an election than pander to a majority he may have felt immoral. He had an obligation to educate, rather than pander.

Looks like Massa has some backbone and principles. Only the worst politicians watch polls and change their minds on big issues just because a few wing-nuts show up to a meeting.

Charlie,
Masa can do what he wants. He will either win or lose his next election and I am sure he gave that some thought.

But those “wing nuts” you slam are the ones worried about health care rationing as in England, long waits as in Canada, mandatory government collection of health records, cut backs in Medicare and Medicaid, and mandatory medical care for illegal’s. Nobody knows yet what will come out in this bill.

Obama saying he will cover more people, with more care, for less money worries some.

John makes a good point. Government Health Care has has been a disaster in Canada, England, or any other country that has tried it - so why is it even being considered in the US.

John, No. Wing-Nuts are people who scream and yell during civilized meetings or who now carry guns to those meetings to intimidate people. I never much cared for people on the left who have used the same tactic of disruption for years; those people are called different things.

All of these types of people are trying to stop the information from being spread and are part of the problem with our country regardless of the position they take.

I don't go into this "socialist" thing so much ... that's a buzz word and lacks nuance and displays a certain disrespect for political opponents.

I think there are two primary colors to the political pallet, with lots of hues in between.

There are basically progressives, who believe the best way to solve an ill is to turn to a government body or agency; and there are libertarians who believe that people should be free to live their lives free of government interference, so tend to reject government solutions. We used to call these points on the spectrum liberal and conservative, but those words long ago lost any real meaning.

Progressives do have a lot in common with socialist thinking (in varying degrees), but they are not necessarily socialist. I don't believe Obama is a socialist. I believe is is well entrenched in progressive thinking and his first natural impulse is to believe it takes a government to raise a child, run a farm, cure an ill or save an industry.

I simply disagree with that line of thinking, but progressivism goes back 100 years or so with a pretty rich tradition. Some of the accomplishments of progressives might even be judged to be beneficial.

Of course, if you know your Marxist theory, the progressive impulse is part of a continuum that leads to socialism, which ultimately leads to communism, the Marxist dream. But I don't believe the average modern American progressive has that as a goal or even considers it a possibility. But that was part of Karl's point -- it's a natural evolution of history. I hope he's wrong.

Peter, I just checked Article I of the U. S. Constitution. I fail to find language indicating that "The HoR was supposed to be respondent to the whims of the constituents." Could you please reference the section of the Constitution that applies to your statement?

C.M., I'd settle for a quote from the Federalist Papers (though I'd rather listen to the anti-federalists on any point, but the Federalists won, mostly).

Howard,
I have read all of the Federalist papers and nowhere do they say any member of the HOR is to "be respondent to the whims" of the constituents. There was a real fear at that time they would, which is why the Senate was set up as it is.

Howard you hit the nail on the head with your last statement....."Of course, if you know your Marxist theory, the progressive impulse is part of a continuum that leads to socialism, which ultimately leads to communism, the Marxist dream. But I don't believe the average modern American progressive has that as a goal or even considers it a possibility. But that was part of Karl's point -- it's a natural evolution of history. I hope he's wrong."

I hope he's wrong also..The more we depend on Government(local ,state,federal)for our survival we risk losing our freedom..The more money we have to give to support all these government agency ,the more intrusive they will become in our life..

Mark says:

"The more money we have to give to support all these government agency ,the more intrusive they will become in our life.."

I've always found it interesting that conservatives and libertarians are so concerned about government intrusion, yet they have little or no concern about the immense control that large corporations have over the political process, and thus our lives.

There ought to be adequate checks and balances on both big government and big business.

Peter,
The part of Federalist paper #52, written by Madison, you quote was part of the justification for having frequent elections, and how often they should be held. It can not in any way be interpreted as telling a member of the HOR that he must “be respondent to the whims” of the people the way you are trying to make it sound

Dennis, I'm guessing you haven't read some of the anti-conglomerate remarks I've made ...

(I use the word conglomerate rather than corporation because "corporations" can be one-man shops ... it just a word that means incorporated for tax and legal purposes.)

Howard - I guess I haven't read such remarks by you, but I was speaking generally, not just posters to this forum.

By the way, your posts certainly provide a voice of reason. I'm always impressed by what I read by you. Peter, on the other hand . . . :)

Anyone who believes that representatives depend on sympathies toward their respective constituencies (constitutencies being every voter in an elected official's electoral district) had better take another puff at the pipe.

Even those politicians who conduct opinion surveys using mailing lists do not poll every member of their district, nor do they sample opinion in a manner conducive to independent viewpoints- they cull opinion by asking specific questions with leading answers.

There can't be many elected officials who independently attain office. A candidate not endorsed by either the Democrats or Republicans can't even get news coverage. To get elected one must buy into a political agenda and to get re-elected, one must have stuck to it.

Find a politician that acts according to the "whims" of his/her constituency, and I'll show you my collection of hen's teeth. I doubt that legislators even read the legislation they vote on. The party sends down voting instructions and a list of talking points so the poor slob can sound intelligent while spouting out sound bites if/when asked. That's why all the bills are identified by numbers and nicknames. Ask a legislator about the content, and he/she'd merely stutter.

Peter,
Read #52 again. The argument was for frequency of elections, not because of frequency. That is why he kept referring to England and the Irish elections or lack of them. Remember, while the Constitution had been written, it was not yet approved. Many people, like Gov. Clinton, of New York, fought against it. The Federalist Papers were written to show why it should be approved.

@peter "The Constitution is the single greatest government design ever written. It provides freedom and security in a perfect balance. I was made to be very difficult to change for a reason."

I agree, but it would have been better if the anti-federalists had won.

The reason you have angry people turning up at town hall meetings; those people have been encouraged to disrupt such meetings by various anti-reform political groups. Most of them don't even know what they're mad about.

C.M.,
Some might be there for the reason you give. But most just might have looked at the bills and saw something not right.

What about the ones who read right from the bill, only to have their Rep. tell them what they just read is not there? That may be enough reason to shout.

Lies, distortions and misinformation are fueling many of the protesters who aren't going to town halls to debate health care reform. They are going to disrupt, shout down and agitate. What's next? Violence? Why in the world are people carrying guns to town halls on health reform? This isn't a 2nd amendment debate. It is time for rational debate between the rational sides of an issue that is vitally important for millions of Americans. It is clearly becoming a debate for some on the fringe right that centers on obstructing and defeating every aspect of the Obama administration.

Debunking Health Care Lies
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1162-Debunking-Health-Care-Li…-

Lorie,
One guy had a legal gun, in plain sight, not in his hands, across the street from a "town hall" meeting, not "people". No violence like what happened when Bush spoke.

As for lies, there are some on both sides. The right lied Death Squads and the left lied about this not leading to rationing or higher taxes.

But how can you say somebody is lying when they are reading from the bill?

If only we could lock up all the pundits, exaggerators, obfuscators and liars for a single week so some level headed, open minded folks could get together and have a debate.

There are valid points on both sides of the health care argument.

Yes, there are millions of uninsured Americans who need access to decent and affordable insurance.

Yes, there are serious cost concerns associated with the current versions of the health care bills.

Yes, legislators should take a serious look at tort reform in relation to certain types of frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of doctors' malpractice insurance.

Will the benefit of a public option outweigh the cost?

What sort of formula should we use to assign a value to the benefit?

Aren't these issues enough to spark spirited debate between legislators with different philosophies? Why distort the truth? Why argue about non-issues? The nonsense, sensationalism and general foolishness that spew forth from both sides of major policy debates in modern America need to come to an end sooner rather than later.

Policy matters should be taken seriously, debated with dignity and carried out in a manner befitting the greatest country in the world.

The voice of the constituents have been referred too often on this post as the "whims" of the people. This is not funding for a bridge or legislation to save and endangered mouse. This legislation represents a major and historic shift in government participation in the lives of it's citizens. And Howards point about our having the right to oust our officials in the elections if they act contrary to our outcry is well taken, however the people are up in arms because this legislation, if passed, would be in place before any election cycle and too late to turn back from. Regardless of the next election, the damage would be done.

Peter, your looking to take up arms against my country? That didn't work out so well for those who tried it in the past.

John, I am not talking about all the protesters or all the folks attending the town halls -- but it is obvious that there is a fringe element that is bent on obstructing and drowning out civil discourse.

And as far as "carrying" -- while legal -- don't ya think it's making a strong statement that can be perceived (by some) to insight violence? Especially when the one protester was also carrying this sign --
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/guy-with-gun-sign-town-hall.jpg
Three gun issues at Presidential Town Halls this week. You don't find this alarming?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/17/third-gun-incident-in-one-week…

And finally, how can you say the "Left" is lying? There is no bill yet. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/08/10/102872.htm

I know you and I can debate this civilly. I am concerned about those that could take this debate to a place where violence is being advocated. We need the debate -- I believe in the debate. The bill will be better with the debate, but we need civility, too. I hope that people on the other side can at least agree on that.

this is a comment from the Drudge Report regarding bringing weapons to a town hall meeting,
"Not to be paranoid, but with the level of confusion and anger emanating from the right coupled with the blowhards that distort reality on a daily basis in the media, the question is starting to look like: when?"
This is a good question.
According to one pundit this morning, people bring weapons to protect themselves from the government. Do they honestly believe that President Obama is targeting them, with a weapon, as he stand up to speak?
When, might be the better question.
I wonder how many on this board will applaud and defend whomever gets that shot off?
Scary thought.

Lorie,
There are at least 3 bills in the HOR. Bill HR 3200 is one of them, so they are around.

People have been seen on TV, reading sections of it at town hall meetings, then being told what they read was not there, after they just read it.

That could make anyone turn red.

That one guy, with a gun in a holster, in full view, across the street from a town hall meeting was making a gun rights statement. And it worked. By the way, he had police watching his every move and he knew it.

Ok, there is no one who seriously believes that bringing a weapon to a protest is sane. If you’re looking to make a statement you don't do it with a gun. Defending people who bring guns to a political rally undermines your message and brands those who do it as Wing-Nuts as well.

This does bring up something I have never supported before as well, gun control. People should not be able to bring a gun to a political rally. Doing so should be construed as an act of rebellion and they should be treated as such.

As long as those that bring guns to one of these protests has that gun legally..Meaning he or she had a back ground check , why not....At least those people have been checked out by the government ..The ones without the guns i would worry about..What about security guards,they carry guns at public events..Thats OK..But don't let a private citizen carry a gun..

Their sole purpose is to intimidate other people. They are making a political statement that they are willing to take up arms against our country. If you want to fight our country, don’t play games, just do it.

Then I can cheer for the tanks. As the Wing-Nuts like to say, Love it or Leave it!

Posted by Mark Potwora on August 19, 2009 - 5:26pm
As long as those that bring guns to one of these protests has that gun legally..Meaning he or she had a back ground check , why not....At least those people have been checked out by the government ..The ones without the guns i would worry about..What about security guards,they carry guns at public events..Thats OK..But don't let a private citizen carry a gun..

Mark, I am one of the most ardent advocates for those who want to legally own and carry firearms.
However, given our past history with people who wish to do the leaders of our government harm (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy killed while in office) as well as attempts on Ford and Reagan, one would think it reasonable that firearms not be allowed in places where our government leaders (of either party) are speaking.
They are not carrying a weapon to protect themselves from the government, the statement they are making is that they are at war with our government.

Charlie,
Fact is he was not at the rally/town hall meeting. He was across the street, on private property. The gun was legal, it was in a holster, and in plain view. Neither he, or any of the protest group he was with were violent; nobody was arrested. I am not sure he even saw Obama and was never a threat to anyone.

He never had it in his hand. He was making a point and from the comments here, he did.

Peter seems to have you thinking everyone who owns a gun is ready for a revolt. You know something we don't?

By the way, where did you get your new saying, "wing nut"? You have used it a lot today.

The gun was merely a visual silent protest to openly exercise a constitutional right and to illustrate Jefferson's famous statement in support of the 2nd Amendment. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.

Sorry, showing me your gun is a threat. Showing your gun in a protest of my government no matter where you stand is an act of treason at the very least. I don't want to hear about the constitution and your rights when you are holding a gun.

Dick,
With all due respect do you believe that those who brought guns (and knives) to town hall meetings feel that this is their last resort in their country?
Do you feel that you have reached that point?
I believe that bringing a firearm into a public building where the leader of our government is speaking is irresponsible.
In one instance, William Kostric, did contact local authorities before he came with a firearm (not concealed).
But, in other cases, people attempted to smuggle in firearms and knives. Were they at the point of last resort too? We can only speculate on their motives.

He was not protesting his government, you made that up, but a pendig policy he thinks might hurt him.
He was not "holding a gun".

It's not your government, it's ours.

You don't want to "hear about the consitution", which has the right to "bear" arms (in this case, in a holster). Are you trying to set the terms of when people can talk about their rights?

What is it with you today and "treason","taking up arms","act of rebellion"? Peter jerk your chain?

Charlie,
Congratulations.
Charlie’s son, Matt, has his picture in the sports section for being on the Tennis Team.

John, I was talking about the guy in Lorie's link. The man is holding a gun in the middle of a protest. There is also another story of a criminal getting caught with a knife and an unregistered gun near a different rally.

Peter didn't jerk my chain. He made a bad argument that hurt your viewpoint. No one on the other side of this issue has bothered to give ground on this point and I’m pounding that home. A small tactical retreat would work. Not doing so is leaving your side exposed to a common sense argument that you DO NOT take up arms against your own country or protest with a gun in your hand. This is America, not some third world country and we don’t handle our problems with firearms.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/guy-with-gun-sign-town-hall.jpg

and yes Matt is the athlete, that’s when he can stay healthy. :-)

Charlie,
Where is this "taking up arms" theme coming from? That sounds like the “black helicopter” coming to get you in the dark. A bit paranoid.

This started out about Massa and then became about one guy, and one guy only, who did nothing illegal (that Charlie, is why he was not arrested).

A criminal carrying a weapon, gun or knife, is different and you know it. It has nothing to do with the guy we are talking about; that’s just blowing smoke. Nobody supports a criminal carrying a weapon. And somebody carrying an unregistered or illegal gun should be dealt with.

But they are not the issue. The guy, who was near where Obama was speaking in New England, had a legally owned gun, was across the street, on private property and did not have a gun in his hand. It was in a holster and never in his hand at any time.

And you don’t want “to hear about the constitution”; because he was doing what the constitution allows him to? That's something to worry about.

Posted by John Roach on August 19, 2009 - 8:00pm
Charlie,
Where is this "taking up arms" theme coming from? That sounds like the “black helicopter” coming to get you in the dark. A bit paranoid.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 19, 2009 - 3:07pm
I think the guns are appropriate. This issue is enough for me to join a revolution.

When approve of guns (notice no mention of whether they were legal or illegal) being appropriate at town hall meetings where our elected officials are speaking, and begin talking 'revolution' it sparks further discussion. Not paranoia.

It should be fine to carry a registered handgun to a townhall rally since it is perfectly fine to stand outside a polling place with nightsticks on the night of a presidential election and then get a pass from the Attorney General. And for legal purposes a handgun and a nightstick are both considered deadly weapons.

Bea,
Peter trying to sound like a tough guy is a big jump to a revolution, and I doubt he went and signed up.

Jeff, I must lead a sheltered life. I have never encountered anyone with a nightstick at a polling place...not here in New York, Pennsylvania or California.
Not saying it doesn't happen, I just never witnessed it.

As I stated before, I believe that people have the right to own and carry firearms. But common sense goes a long way. The health care issue is not related to the gun control issue. Using health care as an excuse to claim that you are now armed to protect yourself from your own government is an extreme move.

We are not a third world country. We are suppose to be a nation of intelligent people who can discuss our differences without using a firearm as a prop.

In my lifetime I have seen one president killed and two attempts on presidents' lives. The memory is haunting.
The very thought of someone bringing a firearm (legal or illegally) into a public venue where elected officials are speaking and get the applause from so many is beyond comprehension.

John, you don’t see this one because, you support the guys who are carrying the guns this time. I remember from history groups from the far left side in the 60’s and 70’s that did similar things to make those on the right downright scared to death, to push their social agenda.

This is a simple point; you don’t use weapons to push a political agenda in America. You don’t show them to people who disagree with you and you certainly don’t threaten to use them. The only groups that I know of that parade with weapons do so with hoods over their heads in Middle East. People who disagree with the health care agenda are not terrorists so; they should stop acting like them.

Charlie,
I never said I approve of what this one guy did, or that I would do it. You just made that up.

You also talk about "guys", I am talking only about one, and again, you know that. That's called blowing smoke.

What I said was that he did nothing wrong or illegal. My approval does not matter, he did nothing wrong. But you said you "don't want to hear about the Consitution". To me, that is dangerous.

Bea, all of America witnessed it when members of the New Black Panters stood outside a Philadelphia polling place openly intimidating prospective voters in the Nov. presidential election. They were videotaped doing so and after being charged, Eric Holder AG dropped all charges. Just another clear example of the double standards in this government. I think those who brought firearms to rallies exercised both their rights and questionable judgement at the same time. It is the hypocrisy that burns me.

Oh, John with your last sentence you are doing what you accused me of doing. Taking my words out of context. Take a look and read what I said.

It sounds like from what you just wrote, we don't disagree on the root of the issue and that's enough for me tonight, good night.

Posted by Jeff Allen on August 19, 2009 - 8:57pm
I think those who brought firearms to rallies exercised both their rights and questionable judgement at the same time. It is the hypocrisy that burns me.

We could go on and on discussing the questionable tactics on both sides at polling places. I was speaking from a personal level. I have never been harassed at any polling place.
I'm glad we agree that it was questionable judgement.
The point, after this long circuitious route, I was trying to make.
Thanks

Bea,
I never tire of debating with you, others...well... You are always classy. Thank you

John, All the folks around the guy with the gun, on the private property, across the street from where our President was speaking, are holding anti health care and Nazi signs. The guy with the gun is holding the Thomas Jefferson Liberty sign from the Revolutionary War. This is what Timothy McVeigh was wearing on his T-shirt the day he blew up the Murrow building. The crowd was all revved up. I guess that sign could have a couple of meanings -- one might be revolution - which is scary stuff. Then again Peter advocated revolution a few comments up thread legitimizing that people right here are actually thinking like this.

I wonder if the real protest isn't more about the perception of the President's legitimacy by so many of these people and that health care reform is a catalyst fueling the fight. With 1.4 million dollars worth of insurance and pharma lobby money pumped in per day to soundly try and defeat reform there certainly is a rabid crowd to feed their misinformation to. This vocal group are the same people that are part of the "Birthers", some of the "tea baggers", the people that believe the President is a Muslim, use his middle name to insight fear, use the abominable swastika symbol over the President's image and have the image of Hitler imposed over his image.

And John, it wasn't one incident -- there were three gun and one knife incident reported last week alone at the President's town hall meetings. One gun was illegal.This is a tinder box waiting for a spark. I just read an article from Time magazine by Mark Thompson. A former Secret Service agent voiced his concerns. A snip from that article follows --
Most critical, according to Petro, author of Standing Next to History: An Agent's Life Inside the Secret Service, is the message the guns send. "These guys aren't going to shoot the President," he says of the protesters. "But it's putting the idea in some nut's head that maybe he can get a gun and try to shoot him." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917356,00.html?xid=news…

When I left for work at 1:15 pm, Peter had advised, "We are discussing the design of the government and how it should be based on design. Not reality." I return from work, 10 hours later, and Peter is recruiting bands of revolutionaries. What did I miss? Was some health insurance CEO coerced into paying benefits for a cancer patient whose condition was pre-existing? Did a hospital emergency room forget to check for coverage and treat an uninsured gunshot victim? Or maybe some Acorn canvassers registered a new Democratic voter...

Lorie,
I wrote about one guy and one guy only, who did nothing wrong. Not any other incident. You might not like what he was doing, and I would not have done it, but it was legal and he was not arrested.

I was not writing about nuts like Peter.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 7:28am
I don't have a concealed carry permit yet, but you can bet I will have a request for one filed before October. Luckily you don't need a license for a rifle or shotgun.

Interesting.
Who will be your first target?

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 7:53am
I have no target. But when the revolution comes I know what side I will be on. And the only way they are going to get my gun is prying it from "my cold dead hands".

I know the government isn't going to just let us dispose of it without a fight. But I will not fire, until fired upon.

You are a shining example of what would make me change my mind about gun control.

Careful Peter - advocating a revolution is pretty serious stuff!

Carrying a pistol without a permit is a Felony, and has very serious consiquences. Law enforcement take this very seriously. You dont pass go, and you dont collect $200, you go straight to Jail. People who threaten to brandish a gun are also arrested. Food for thought..

Ok Peter, just so we're clear here, you are advocating open and violent rebellion against the government of the United States of America?

Ok Peter, just so we're clear here, you are advocating open and violent rebellion against the government of the United States of America?

The 'death panel' has been debunked so many times that it now a running joke on the late night shows.
There is no 'death panel'. There is, and has been for many years (in fact, introduced by a Republican), the counseling for families of patients near the end of their lives.
What medications are no longer effective and no longer needed.
What will make the patient most comfortable.
Is the family aware that the patient is an organ donor.
Is the family aware that a DNR was signed by the patient.
Information that is important to the family and decisions that will ease the passing of a loved one.

If you have not gone through this process you may not be aware that it is an important part in decision making.
This is YOUR opportunity to ask questions; get answers; and make the informed decisions necessary.

There is NO death panel. No one is out to kill grandma!

The people at Hospice are wonderful godsends who take care of terminally ill people of all ages. Speaking from experiance, they are well trained in helping people pass on peacefully. I dont know what we would have done without Chris Pearson when Pat M. died after, a 1 year battle with cancer. They are compasionate, great people Peter! Shame on you!! I hope you never need them.....and I guess you have never seen someone die from cancer. Thank God for Painkillers. Ever hear the death rattle Peter?? Some things you just cant look up online. Heartless......

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 9:12am
If Obama wasn't going to ration care then why did he say this?

"I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that we are gonna provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uh, not having the surgery but taking, uhhh, the painkiller."

Sorry but I listen to what he says and it scares me. If you aren't scared by the above statement at your age Bea, then I hope you enjoy Hospice.

I am comforted by that statement, Peter.
Unlike you, I know what he is talking about.
At a certain point, toward the end of life, further procedures (surgery, tests, etc.) are uncomfortable for the patient, will really do little to prolong life, and certainly not enhance the quality of what is left of that life.
At a certain point, pain killers may be the best alternative.
That is the point of the counseling. A doctor will not stop costly treatments (and at a certain point, useless treatmetns) without the consent of the family.
That isn't giving grandma a death sentence...death, at that point, may be days or hours away.
It is accepting the ultimate outcome and making decisions on what will make grandma most comfortable.
Sorry, but Obama was absolutely right on this one.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 8:26am
You are a shining example of why we need a revolution.

Peter is finds end of life counseling 'scary' and something to fear.
I think I have something far more threatening to fear.

What, Peter, is your definition of 'defending yourself?'

At what point exactly will the government have 'pushed too far?'

As far as Eric Massa, he will do what he wants, and could care less what the majority wants. Plain and simple.

Karen, he SHOULD do what he wants, regardless of what the majority wants. That's how representative government works. If the majority doesn't like it, they can vote him out next election. And if he's going to do something against what the majority wants, then the majority has nobody to blame since themselves, since they elected him in the first place.

Exactly Howard

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 9:55am
Karen,
Read what I wrote again. I said nothing bad about Hospice.

Oh, but you did.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 9:12am
Sorry but I listen to what he says and it scares me. If you aren't scared by the above statement at your age Bea, then I hope you enjoy Hospice.

Why would I fear hospice and why would I fear what he said. It was perfectly clear. Your innuendo was that hospice was something one was sent to as a result of Obama's statement. Wrong!

Bea,
The government has no right to be making those decisions at all. That is what is scary is that they will tell you when you have lived long enough to not warrant a chance for a better life regardless of how long that is.

Would you consider painful procedures, that may prolong life for a few days a better than making the patient as comfortable as possible, and pain free, for their last few hours? Counseling (you call it death panel) gives the family (and the patient, if lucid) the ultimate decision.
Just out of curiousity, Peter, have you been at the bedside of a loved one toward the end? Were you part of the counseling process? These are not easy decisions, but important...and they aren't all black and white.

Chris,
When they pass legislation that causes care to be determined by a bureaucracy, that will be too far.

I'm sure Chris will answer this, but it is apparent that no amount of logic is going to change your mind. No one, no bureaucracy is going to determine who is given care and who isn't.
The care will be there, but the FAMILY will be afforded the information to make decisions that are best for the patient.

Boy, Peter! Is your watch slow? The death panel assertion was debunked two days ago. Anyone following the evolution of health care bills on the hill would know that provisions for terminal care counseling were left out. You need a new banner for your revolution.

While you're shopping the rightwing hotbeds for straw dogs, why not consider this...

You seem to operate under the assumption that a majority of Americans are against health care reform. If a majority of Americans voted for Obama (he did win the election). If a majority of Americans voted in the Democratic majority. If the platform of Obama and the Democratic Party included health care reform (it did). Shouldn't it be fair to assume- the majority of Americans are in favor of health care reform. Maybe you and your like-minded comrades represent a MINORITY opinion... Considering that health care reform has a popular mandate, which representatives are abbrogating duty?

The surgeries that you refer to as "backed up" are elective surgeries, Peter. As in non-life threatening procedures like face lifts, orthopedic and breast implants. I doubt anyone has died from not getting a boob job on time.

The problem is no one even has any clue what the "Public Option" is or is going to include. No details have been developed or even talked about. At this point all the dicussions and agruments at all levels are about a stupid 20 year old ideological concept that the government should control health care. Just another government administered welfare program.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 10:24am
Bea, look at the examples in Canada and the UK where health care is either so backed up people die waiting for a procedure or they are told no you can't have that done.

What does terminal care counseling have to do with Canada or the UK. We are talking about people who are at the end of their life. People who should be made comfortable and not be subject to further tests and procedures.

Sorry this is the road to single payer and once that occurs then costs will rise beyond budget and cuts will need to be made.

You are backing away from your original discussion which is care for the terminally ill. The death panel, remember. Everyone else pretty much knows it is a myth, but you.

Will it be you, a senior, on assistance, who needs a hip replacement and is towards the end life, or me after a car accident with more years before me then behind that will get the budgeted procedure?

If it is at the end of my life and some doctor wants to do a hip replacement, I would hope my kids would have the intelligence to say, 'no'!
No worry about you, Peter. You will keep your expensive private insurance. You will get whatever procedure they agree to let you have.

My comment about hospice is based on the above. You may need a life saving procedure but the government see it as too expensive for the few years it may buy you. So off to hospice you go.

The government wouldn't have a thing to say about it. At the end of my life, I would expect my children to make the decisions they know I want. No unnecessary surgery to prolong life for a few hours or days.

Sorry I don't trust the government to spend my money wisely, let alone make decisions about my care.

That is your right. I guess we'll see you armed and prepared for some sort of battle to prevent the millions who voted for health care reform from seeing it come to fruition.

You're right, Richard. And the town halls that were designed to get the details out have been systematically interrupted by persons deployed to make sure the only news is disruption- not details on the plan. That's the real story, how efforts to reform health care have been subverted by a conspiracy of fraud. The people's health has been subordinated to insurance company profits.

CM there simply are no details none its a buzz word thats all.

Richard,

I agree with you to a point. Specific details on the 'public option' are tough to come by but not for the reasons you stated. the 'public option' has become a catch-all term for the many different versions of reform bills that are floating around Washington. Some have it as an option for individuals to buy-in to Medicare at 5% of their income, others create a new government insurance system separate from the current programs. Occasionally we'll hear the new coop idea referred to as the 'public option.'

I think the point that C.M. is trying to make is that representatives are out all over the country attempting to explain these different bills and state their support or opposition to certain versions but they can't get past the initial argument about non-existent death panels, killing grandma, and the infinite other obfuscations and blatant lies.

I stated earlier in this thread that I want to see a debate about the real issues at hand, cost v. benefit, where would the money come from if reform legislation is passed, tort reform, employer mandates, preventitive medicine and wellness care etc...

Maybe I'm crazy but I believe very strongly that all of these topics would make a wonderful and spirited debate. Ideologues be damned, we need rational discourse in Washington again.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on August 20, 2009 - 10:52am

I'm sorry that you feel envious of my health insurance.

I'm not the least envious of your health insurance. I am just stating that your private insurance is one of the optioss on the table. You have it, you can still use it. No problem, no debate.

Chris brings up far more important issues to discuss.
Cost v. benefit, where would the money come from if reform legislation is passed, tort reform, employer mandates, preventitive medicine and wellness care etc...

Why not give some postive insight than the incessant whine of 'I don't trust the government'.
If you don't trust the government, and can only perpetuate the "non-existent death panels, killing grandma, and the infinite other obfuscations and blatant lies" that Chris mentioned, then why are you here? Why not find a government that you can trust?

Fight away, Peter. Keep perpetuating the lies that fuel your anger against the government and our country.
If your first shot is aimed this way, at least I'll know I went down as a patriot.
Are you planning to be the ruler of your new government?
Interesting to play on a video game, a little harder when it is real.

Bea,
At this time, Tort reform and insurance reform (like allowing me to buy from an out of state company) are not on the table at this time.

"People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people"

You're right John, and they should be.

When did the "death panels" get "debunked". The language for mandatory end of life counseling is still in HR3200. It was removed from the Senate version after an unemployed hockey mom from Alaska made reference to it on her Facebook page. Why do we need a MANDATORY end of life counseling? Is there a sudden rash of Drs refusing to give patients options as the end approaches? Are there people complaining that they had no idea hospice existed, or that they could sign DNR's and no one told them? Any Dr. will advise his/her patient of their options when medical answers are no longer sufficient. Why then do we need another layer of bureaucracy making it mandatory and costing unecessary dollars?

It has been on the books since the Republicans had the majority. This was nothing but extending what was already there.
note from media matters:
REPORT: The media have debunked the death panels -- more than 40 times over
August 15, 2009 12:13 am ET — 27 Comments
Numerous media outlets have now debunked right-wing claims that the House health care reform bill would encourage euthanasia of the elderly, including Sarah Palin's claim -- forwarded by the conservative media -- that the bill would create a "death panel" and the related claim -- initiated by Betsy McCaughey -- that the bill would "absolutely require" that seniors on Medicare undergo end-of-life counseling "that will tell them how to end their life sooner." Indeed, Media Matters for America has identified more than 40 instances of media reporting that these claims are false.

Jeff, it is mandatory that the counseling be available, not mandatory that you use it.

"A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill."

Again, something that most if not all Drs. already do, and then allowing them to bill for it, and create another unecessary layer of governmental oversight and bureaucracy that amounts to more wasted taxpayer dollars with what result???...terminally ill patients getting something they already get. So what is the real motive for spending the money? I'm not touting the euthanasia line, just need someone to convince me of the need to spend the dollars.

Why might Peter cite Florida as a benchmark for anti-health care reform:

Maybe because 3 million of Florida's 18.7 million residents are seniors, the densest concentration of elderly folk in the country. Seniors represent the lion-share of social security/medicare dependent citizens. Certainly they would be hyper-sensitive to any change in medical benefits.

Maybe because over two-thirds of all Cubans in the United States live in Florida. This demographic would be prejudiced against government programs having taken refuge from a repressive government.

Maybe because the estimated illegal resident alien population in Florida is the fifth largest concentration of illegal aliens in the country. These residents would not be interested in being catalogued and identified by government programs.

Maybe because Florida is establishing itself as the tax refuge state in the union- repealing the tax on intangibles has influenced a high concentration of wealth flowing into the state.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reform Act of 2001 established a gradually increasing federal estate tax exemption, which will culminate in temporary repeal of the tax in 2010. Those trying to avoid estate tax flood into the state as permanent residents to avoid taxes. Florida's homestead protection laws assure that if a person moves to Florida to protect his or her money from creditors, even with the purpose to defraud (with some exceptions), his homestead is still protected. (Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Hill, 790 So.2d 1018). Any government funded program is anethema to the anti-tax mentality.

Maybe because Florida is second to California for populations with assets ranging $1.5 million or greater.
Such demographic does not recognize health insurance as a priority, having the resources to pay out of pocket for doctor bills.

Florida is not a Rust-Belt state dealing with millions of out-sourced jobs and displaced workers who cannot afford health insurance or have had their benefits interrupted by layoffs.

Florida is NOT a fair representation of the health insurance burden for the average U. S. citizen.

The death panel issue was debunked when congress noted that the provision for terminal counseling was not included. In any event the issue is moot. This very counseling is common practice whether in or out of the proposed health insurance reform package. Have you never heard of a Do Not Rescusitate order? Are you unfamiliar with proxy laws, hospice and living wills? Turning end of life ethics into a tool to derail health care reform is sleazy.

Howard,
C.M. brings up a good idea for a poll.
How many people have a Health Care Proxy?

...and how would it be an added cost? If the counseling is provided and billed for- it is merely a question of who pays for it.

Mr. Barons, Congrats on the release of you Novel "In The Midst Of". The 70's, in Upstate Ny holds alot of great memories for me as well. You were a great teacher, and always gave your students your best. I cant wait to read this new novel.
P.S. sorry to get off the subject

Health care reform is dead. My health care is fine so leave it alone. Why doesn't any one call it what it really is - welfare. Steal money from hardworking successful people and corporations and give it to lazy moochers.

John, it would be a good poll.
I have a health proxy (my daughter).
Although, I will admit, the night she and I sat together to fill out the paper turned out to be more than I expected.
We ended up doing my funeral plans at the same time.
None the less, she is very well aware of what I would expect her to do in the event that I couldn't make decisions on my own.

Bea, I am also my parents healthcare proxy. The paperwork was complicated, but worth it. I had a wonderful lady from The Office of the Aging visit my parents, and help us understand all the ins and outs of what is to come. They were very helpful.

C.M.,
The question of cost is legitimate.

Obama wants the cost of the counseling to be paid for by Medicare. That would be ok on the face of it, but Obama also said he was going to cut Medicare funding to help pay for his health care plan.

Now, if you are for or against the Obama plan, you have to wonder how you can add a new cost to Medicare when you are also cutting the plan. Something someplace is not going to get paid for to make up for the new benefit and the program funding cuts. What will that be?

Posted by Karen Miconi on August 21, 2009 - 11:08am
Mr. Barons, Congrats on the release of you Novel "In The Midst Of". The 70's, in Upstate Ny holds alot of great memories for me as well. You were a great teacher, and always gave your students your best. I cant wait to read this new novel.

I just read the reviews of the book. It is certainly something I will get for fall reading.
Quite impressed with Mr. Barons' background as well.
It is his background that gives credence to what he has to offer to this site.

Thank you Karen and Bea for the kind words regarding my novel (and myself). I'm humbled... It would be my pleasure to sign a copy for each of you!

As to health insurance: I have not indicated support for anyone's plan or any specific plan. I have only argued that for many people private health insurance is not an option, whether due to economics, existing health condition, age or other extenuating circumstances. The vast majority of uninsured people are not "moochers." I hope that comment was intended to fuel ire- it certainly is not based on fact. Anyone resigned to a part time job can attest to the frustration of not being able to secure health insurance. That does not make them moochers or lazy.

The unwieldy portion of our GNP that is tied up in health care underscores the urgent need for reform. Health insurance premiums in the last 20 years have increased as much as 200%. When I was part of a study committee reviewing insurance options for a previous employer; that group's premiums went up 30% one year and 60% the following year- 90% in two years! That is not reasonable. Especially when one considers the amount of PAC dollars that the same industry is paying congressmen to fend off regulation (or a govt funded alternative).

I have no comment on the Canadian health care system. I do not know anything about it other than what I have garnered from the movie "Sicko."

As I have said repeatedly, I do not know why those who post against health care reform seem so sympathetic to private insurers wracking up profits at the expense of the working class. I have no sympathy for those who extort money so I can afford a doctor and have the audacity to tell me which doctor I can see and what procedures will be covered (or not covered). Yet the anti-reform posters here seem to feel that is the prerogative of lezze faire capitalism and any efforts to mediate the situation to the advantage of the patient's health is the beginnings of the road to Communism.

It seems that the only acceptable health plan is one that provides profits for corporations. What's wrong with a plan that makes no profit and provides for anyone choosing to use it? You folks act as though you would be ripped off by the government. You're already being ripped off by the insurance companies and the health care system. For some reason it's okay to be ripped off by insurance companies and health care providers. I don't get it!!!

All I can say is, "I hope none of you- so smuggly confident in your employer-funded HMOs ever have the misfortune of being deprived of the health services you or your families require." BC/BS won't bend no matter how pitiful your plea. ...Not even if you show them excerpts from your posts throttling health care reform!

Well put C.M.

We have spent the afternoon and evening with my husband's cousin's here visiting from Manchester England. Anne is employed as a Psychiatric Nurse for the dreaded NHS (scary). Even the acronym sounds frightening. And her husband is an IT engineer for a private company. They are not without health issues themselves, but have no worries about where the money is going to come from for their care and prescription drugs. No fears of bankruptcy or losing their home. Or when or if a for profit insurance company will deem either of them with a pre-existing condition or reaching their lifetime cap that could shut them out. In fact they are so free from worry that they are flying off to Australia for another "holiday" after they leave us.

I decided to ask them both a few questions about their scary, dreaded, government run, slippery slope, socialized system that's been in place since right after WWII. Long waits for treatment, rationing, inability to choose your own doctor were just a few of those frightening rumors that we hear so often about their system.

Here is their brief descriptions and answers to some of my questions about the NHS and it's services.

* approved prescriptions carry no charge, no co-pays. You simply go to the Chemist with your prescription. There is a body, like our food and drug administration that approves new drugs for safety. Those pesky government regulators -- how dare they keep people safe.

* Choice in Doctors -- the government does not choose their doctor -- they do. In Manchester, a city of 1 million, they choose a health provider in a practice, which usually includes 8 or 10 doctors. They request the doctor that they prefer when they need to see the doctor. The government does not interfere with their choice of a doctor. The government does not ration any procedures that may be ordered by that doctor. Like our private, for profit program, some popular doctors fill up their practices and can't take new patients if they reach their limit. Tony has type 2 diabetes. He wanted another opinion on the care and instructions that were provided by his primary physician. He didn't have to get a referral or approval from the government. He just made an appointment to see another doctor -- with no wait.

* Waiting time for procedures. He used cataract surgery as an example. It would generally be a two week wait to see the specialist, then a consult with the surgeon would take place, and at that time surgery would be scheduled. Tony told us that the entire process from specialist to consult to surgery would maybe cover about 8 - 10 weeks for a non life threatening procedure. Maybe the waits are longer in the rural areas.

*Electives like face lifts and breast implants require the purchase of private insurance or requires the patient to pay the entire cost of the procedure.

* There is no charge for any health care that is not an elective. Hip replacements and knee replacements are not considered electives after a diagnosis from a doctor is made and the treatment is deemed necessary.

They also told me that if you didn't want the public health care there are private insurers and any Brit can opt for that route if they so choose, but they said that most are very happy with the public run plan.

When we told them about our families deductibles skyrocketing to $2000 per calendar year and our personal decision to self ration (the heal thyself route) to keep those costs under control, they were shocked. When we told them about my son, who works at two community colleges teaching as an adjunct and has a weekend gig at Sylvan -- none of which offer any health care insurance -- they were shocked.

Our British relatives cannot fathom why this is not deemed a moral issue in the US. He also said that the lies and misinformation that the opposition to health care reform are feeding the public has become big news in their country where Brit's are in the position of now defending the system that most of them covet like our seniors do Social Security. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090814/health/us_politics_health_britain

Posted by C. M. Barons on August 21, 2009 - 8:07pm
Thank you Karen and Bea for the kind words regarding my novel (and myself). I'm humbled... It would be my pleasure to sign a copy for each of you!

lol, I'm holding you to this!
I'm getting my copy in a couple of weeks.