Town Hall Chaos

I've stated previously I am 100% against a federal government takeover of healthcare. I feel it is intrusive in that it is taking away rights that we as Americans have always enjoyed. I do believe in healthcare reform. I believe that pharmaceutical companies have made money hand over fist for far too long. Same thing for insurance companies. There should be reformation of both. However, a single-payer public option costing 1-2 trillion dollars is not the answer. Throwing money at a problem is not always the answer, contrary to what quite a few Democrats may believe. There has to be another way. Americans are turning against "Obamacare" more each week as they are able to read what is actually in the bill. We can do better than this.

Having said all this, I am disgusted with what is going on at one of the iconic symbols of freedom in this country; townhall meetings across the nation. I mean this for both opponents and advocates of healthcare reform. The screaming, interruptions and belligerent behavior by those who oppose Obamacare (as I do) only hurts their cause. This is not what a townhall meeting is about. It is an exchange of ideas. It is about listening to the other side. It is voicing your opinion, your position. I realize a lot of the anger is due to fear. There is fear that we are losing some of our rights to an overbearing federal government. It is a fear that Medicare is going to be drastically reduced, cut and slashed by President Obama. There may be some merit to those fears. The money to pay for his healthcare reform has to come from somewhere.

Just as disgusting, if not more so, are the union thugs of SEIU, the vote fraud specialists from ACORN bullying people at the townhalls meetings. There were no acts of violence until SEIU and ACORN showed up at these meetings. These people are an impediment to freedom of speech, something that should be condemned by the President of the United States. Yet, he seems strangely silent on these thugs from SEIU and ACORN. That is very, very disturbing. By ensuring the townhall meetings are filled with advocates of healthcare reform, they are making it appear as if there are as many, if not more, people who support the President's plan. It is a fabrication of the worst kind, much like President Obama's "townhall meeting" in New Hampshire.

We are all Americans (well, most of us, anyway). Trying to stifle freedom of speech is not now or ever will work in this country. Shouting down a U.S. Senator or Representative is not going to make people more attune to what you advocate. Bullying and physically attacking innocent people isn't going to work either. Both examples are an ugly side of an America I did not expect to see in this discussion. Both groups should be ashamed. Even more shame should be placed on Congressional "leaders" who have exacerbated the situation with name calling and innuendo. It's a sad time in America.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Great post David! I agree with you.

Right on.

1st: There is no "government takeover". The gov is not purchasing hospitals, nor employing doctors. That's a huge part of what is wrong with this debate. The falseness, and exaggeration.

2nd: Exactly, which rights are being taken away? Not one is listed. Another false accusation that muddies the water.

3rd: "Throwing money at the problem" is a gross simplification. If, literally, millions of Americans get to go to the dr. for an annual exam, or for a problem, the money is not wasted.

Case in point: At a previous company I worked for, they paid us $500 to go for an annual visit. My friend, Jerry (who had not been to the dr in yrs), found out he had thyroid cancer. It saved his life.

A testimony to what a simple once a yr visit can do. It can be life-saving.

4th: Reforms are badly needed, which was conceded. The practice of recension needs to be outlawed, along with preexisting conditions, and unaffordable Rx's.

Last: The only legitimate argument I hear...is the cost. And we, as a smart, innovative nation, can and should find a way to pay for it. If we can't find a way (when other countries can) only speaks to how selfish we are.

As a nation, I am embarrassed by the outrageous behavior. As a person, I'm angry at the selfishness and lies.

I lost my job in April. I've been on unemployment for 4mo, and am negative every month in bills. I cannot afford healthcare.

We have an "employee-based" system, that's not even affordable for all that are employed.

What is the answer?

Find me on Twitter!

1st, You could not be more wrong. You have a very, very narrow definition of what constitutes a government takeover. Practically no one, not even the most extreme liberal or conservative, has even mentioned purchasing hospitals (for most part, which are privately owned anyway). What is a government takeover is the government deciding how much they will pay your doctor through Obamacare. It is deciding what treatments are necessary for you (page 83 H.R. 3200). It is deciding what benefit surgery will do if Medicare will not cover (pages 88-89 and 94-95). THAT is a government takeover of healthcare. But, honestly, does it really matter to you if the government takes over? Do you really even care? The liberal concept is one of selfishness...stealing money from people who can barely get by in today's economy. That is my definition of selfish behavior.

2. How about the rights to choose what doctor you want? What procedures you may want or need? You would have to wait on a government health panel. That is not a false accusation. READ THE BILL. How many times have you heard that lately? You apparently have taken the talking points from the spinmeisters and going with it. Think for yourself. Do you want rationed care? you are going to get it. Why? With 30-50 million "uninsured," where are the doctors and nurses and medical staff to treat these people? They don't exist. You want to find out what is wrong with whatever ailment you may have? How about waiting 2 months to find out? Is that what you want?

3. Yes, it's always so simple, isn't it? Social Security is apparently going to go broke in about two years, according to reports today (8/18/09). Medicare is right behind. So, what is Dear Leader and his minion doing? They are going to add 1-2 trillion dollars to an already growing deficit. You want that?

The anecdotal evidence you supplied is enlightening. It also gives an example as to why socialized medicine is a disaster. That friend of yours would have had to wait countless weeks and months to have tests. By then, it would have been too late.

4th. Yes, I concede that insurance companies have been raking in the money, right along with drug companies. But, why not open insurance companies to competition? Right now, they are restricted to whatever state they originate now. Competition drives down cost. It always has, it always will.

As for cost, look to Canada. Their government run (and if you do research, you will see the Canadian government does run it) healthcare system is in a shambles (http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor). Medicare, Social Security all need to be worked up first. They will not be there whenever you retire if they aren't. So, what does Obama want? He wants a 1-2 trillion dollar healthcare system in which no one knows how they are going to pay for it. Instead, lets pass the bill, then worry about the aftermath later on. The IQ level must drop when you enter the White House.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that states the government must provide healthcare for its citizens. Defense and universal means of communication is all that is guaranteeded. If you want to stomp on the Consitution, you are free to do so. Embarrassed? I am embarrassed because we have so many people who want the federal government to take care of them....from cradle to grave. I'm sorry you have lost your job. I mean that. But, there are millions of other Americans facing the same plight as you. I wish you well.

"you could not be more wrong"...personally attacking me?

i wrongly assumed you would be more mature! not to mention HONEST.

...yes, you are apart of the problem!



Juli, are you joking? Saying someone is wrong is a personal attack? you are either hyper sensitive or...well, I am afraid to say. I might offend you. There is no honest debate, apparently. I have given you page and verse in the bill. I answered each item with more than just opinion, I gave you information. You responded with a perceived slight.

I was hoping for better. But, I understand. Truly, I do. Ok, two can play this game. I was offended when you said it was a "gross exaggeration" when I said throwing money at a problem is the Democrat way. In other words, you are calling me a liar. So, where is the honest debate now?

If you disagree, then state so. It is unnecessary to say I couldn't be more wrong (as a poinst of debate, I could be more wrong. I've been wrong many times. And I am not afraid to admit when and where). So, that is an untrue statment. And yes, that is a personal attack.

Do you know how to debate the issue or not?


Point of debate 1: Gov will decide what procedure you will have.

Question: How is this different than one's insurance company deciding?

Point of debate 2: Rationed Care

Question: How is this different than the system now? If you do not have money, you do not get treatment. So, care is rationed to those that have insurance, yes?


P.S. about my 'narrow' view of what constitutes a gov takeover. Is is possible that you have a "very very broad view" ?


Juli, apparently you are more sensitive that I thought. Telling someone they are wrong (even the way I did) is not a personal attack. A personal attack is I were to say something about you personally. I don't know you at all. So, even if I did make a personal attack, why would it bother you so much? I assure you, if you are this sensitive, you would want to stay away from town halls for a while.

1. I don't know what you insurance company you had. But, my doctor decided what procedures I needed. The insurance company would usually go along. If they did not, they have to give reason as to why. That is the case with most people.

2. Rationed care. I assume there are no free clinics in your area? There are no hospitals that will take people without insurance? Of course, you know it is illegal for a hospital to turn down someone without insurance.

"Do you know how to debate the issue or not?"

Would you call that a personal attack if I said that to you?

Well then, Mr. David...YOU could not be more wrong, about me being wrong. I may have thin skin, but I also know verbal karate!


Point 2: Hospitals can turn down people with out insurance. It is only emergency care they are required to give.

If you have cancer, and don't have insurance, probably don't have they money to pay for treatment. When you do go to the ER, it's stage 4, and too late.


Can we drop the...is this a personal attack stuff? I said my 2 cents. I think you said yours. Let's move on?


Point 1: Just because one's Dr says...they need this, does not mean the insurance company will pay for it.

So yes, the insurance company decides what is covered.


I'm sorry to say this, but you are wrong again. Hospitals are required to admit people if it is determined by ER physicians it is required. That goes for cancer patients as well. I worked in the health care field from an administrative position of 14 years. It is a federal law all people must be treated for illnesses that require hospital stay.

BTW, this is a personal attack ".as a point of fact, i could be more wrong. so stop being an ass. if you can't engage in honest, respectful dialogue, f*** off!"

I expect this. It is the last resort of the liberal to engage in ad hominem attack when you present them with facts they can't refute. I expected more from you.

The insurance company (BC/BS) always pays unless they have a valid reason. If they don't, they can and will be sued. Sorry, but those are facts.

Point of debate 3: Selfishness (by webster's terms) is the act of only caring for one's self.

So, how did stealing get involved? Who is stealing? and who is doing the stealing?

Is this just more inane rhetoric?

How is this debating the issue?


No, Mr. David, you are wrong. Hospitals turn down non-emergency care all the time.

I just love it when people are told...this verbiage bothers me, and they go use it again.

You love to push buttons and piss people off, don't you?


I see you're just not smart enough to state..."that is untrue" instead of using the "you" pronoun.


Apparently, you feel debating the issue is when people come into agreement with you. That is not the case here.

Stealing is taking 13% of the pay from people who have to work for a living to pay for this boondoogle called Obamacare.

Yes, I called you an ass. Mea culpa. I am guilty!

"you" in a sentence is a control mechanism. I avoid it. But when people use it on me, it sets me off. I am human.


If hospitals in your area are turning down emergency patients, they are in violation of federal statutes. You should report them.

Not trying to piss you off (although that does seem rather easy to do). I present facts from someone who has worked in the health care field. And you don't like what I am presenting to you. It doesn't mesh with what you fervently believe.

Are you telling me what I feel now?

Are you not smart enough to state what you think?

Perhaps it's you that doesn't know how to debate. Look in the mirror my friend.


oooh...report to the authorities, when it was stated

NON-Emergency care.

If one has an on-going chronic ailment (diabetes, cancer, lupas, MS), and one loses their job...you have to be literally on the death bed before the ER is required to treat you.

Is this the system we want?


Well, you are going back into attack mode now, I see. I'm not smart enough to tell you how you feel. But, you seem preoccupied with telling me how to debate, about honest debate. Every time I refute whatever you bring up, you get upset. Do you want to continue or call it a night? Look, I'm not trying to change your mind. But, as a former health care professional, I know what I am talking about.

Completely untrue. Hospitals are required to give indigent care. That means to the best of the ability of the hospital, regardless if it is Lupus, cancer, Hodkins or whatever.

Point 3: so...paying taxes is redefined as stealing?

How is this a debate?


Juli, perhaps we should define debate. Is debating to you when someone agrees with you? I need to know.

I don't apologize for telling people it's wrong tell me what I feel, or what I think.

So, if you get to tell me what I feel, I get to tell you, you're not that smart.

It amazes me that some people don't know how to use "I" sentences, or passive verb tense.

I am just throwing back at you, what you are throwing at me.

Doesn't feel good, does it?


So, now we are going to debate grammar, punctuation? What else?

Debating...includes leaving out "you're wrong"

Can we agree to that?

Can we use sentences like..."I disagree" or "that is not true" or "I think..." or "I feel..." ?

Can we agree to leave out "you think..." and "you feel..." ?


Are you afraid to clean up your act?


Clean up my act? you mean like "as a point of fact, i could be more wrong. so stop being an ass. if you can't engage in honest, respectful dialogue, f*** off!"

I have not called you any names or told you to **** off. Not one time. You are coming after me about things I don't understand. I thought we were talking about healthcare instead of personalities. Do you understand that when people disagree with you, they are not personally attacking you? If you say you can't, then we need to stop now. I see no point in continuing.

A) I already said I was sorry...so you're bringing up the past.

B)You said I was wrong, you did not say you disagreed. HUGE difference.

That's where it got off track.

Do you understand?


Ok, I'll stop saying you are wrong if you stop trying to tell me HOW to debate. Deal?

In fairness, I did not know telling someone they are wrong could be perceived as a personal attack. I'm still mystified by that. But, I understand everyone is different. I need to go eat now or my GF will dehorn me. Can we continue tomorrow?

Hello David,
I have decided not to continue the debate.

I did some mud-slinging, so I am not without excuse.

However, I feel that you also have engaged in mud-slinging, and are unapologetic for it.

It "mystifies" me that you are "mystified" ??? Truly.

How can one not understand the difference between ego and esteem?

I feel that you play a double game...I have this "very very narrow view" on what constitutes a "government takeover" ...but you are unwilling to concede that you have a "very, very broad view" of the same concept.

It is a "government overhaul" of the healthcare system. Plain and simple.

The government is not going "run" the healthcare system. Insurance companies are going to continue to exist, private hospitals are still going to exist, dr's are still going to be employed by private companies.

And using the term "stealing" is just pandering, ill considered, and simply inane.

How is one to debate "stealing" on the topic of a government overhaul of the healthcare system? This is nonsensical.

And since there seems to be resentment that I point these items out, it's all futile.

I was really hoping to stick to the facts...like one cannot get 12 weeks of on-going chemo-treatment in an ER, therefore if one does not have the money, one does not get treatment.

The clinics require payment before services are rendered. That is a FACT. So, if one does not have payment or insurance, one does not receive service. That is just the plain and simple truth. The TRUTH. The TRUTH. The TRUTH.

And it frustrates me to no end that you refuse to acknowledge this; instead, conjuring up some fantasy world that hospitals are good Samaritans, and help (excludes life/death) the needy.

My close and dear friend...No, they do not.

That what I am talking about when I ask "where is the honest debate".

Using words like “stealing” is not honest. Not acknowledging how clinics operate is not honest.

If one does not care that people go untreated, and it is a world of "survival of the fittest" and will fight tooth & nail for no tax increase, then state so. Don't hide behind ridiculous accusations that "our rights are being taken away" or "they're stealing our money". I’ll join Barney Frank in stating arguing these are analogous to convincing a dining room table. Pointless.

If one already has employer-based healthcare...NOTHING CHANGES.

Just state it like it is...I'm not concerned if you cannot afford healthcare, and the status quo is fine with me, and that's all that matters to me. IF that is your view.



I could counter each point that you brought up as a passing salvo on this discussion. But, since we are diametrically apart on this issue, I see no point. I have 14 years in the healthcare field and I know a little of what I'm talking about.

I have learned that telling someone they are wrong is a personal attack. I mentioned that to some friends (two who support President Obama) last night and they thought *I* was joking. Be that as it may, I see no point in us both getting upset.

I will say that I have learned over the years that liberals (or progressives, if you prefer) do not want debate on any of their hot button issues such as universal healthcare. They want conformity. When someone presents a differing opinion, the patented liberal ad hominem attack ensues. I expected that from you and was not disappointed. You say continually you want "honest debate." But, honest debate to a liberal is when we see their points and agree with them. I simply don't agree with you. I'm sorry, but I don't.

And I always bring up one thing to people who say that it is patriotic to pay taxes; point to the U.S. Constitution and show me where it specifically states this. That is "simplistic" to liberals. If you want to offer up an amendment to bring taxation for any reason, then start the drive to do so. My point is this; as long as the federal government intrudes upon the very lives of private citizens, how can we say we have freedom? I don't have a compelling need for the federal government to take care of me. I've been doing that quite well all by myself.

I wish you well in your endeavor to find employment. I honestly did not realize you would be offended by my telling you were "wrong." If I had known that before we started, I would not have said it. I do apologize for any slight. But, I did not cuss you or use any vulgarity to you. I do believe you will get your wish for Obamacare. But, be careful of what you wish for...

Goodbye Juli.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...