Random Mormon Poll #7: Healthcare Debate

Photo credit: USAToday

Photo credit: USAToday

In a recent OP/ED published in USAToday, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, D-Calif., and Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader, D-Md., said that ‘‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate.

This week’s poll focuses on the so-called uprisings at recent health care town halls around the country.

M* is interested in your thoughts and opinions on the health care debate. Be sure to register your vote in the poll and share your comments.

52 thoughts on “Random Mormon Poll #7: Healthcare Debate

  1. I don’t think she’s talking about just dissent. She’s talking about burning people in effigy, shouting politicians down so they can’t be heard, calling people ugly names, threats of death and violence, putting rhetoric over reason and being just plain rude.
    Of course, whether or not those things are good (and I don’t believe they usually are), they’re not un-American, anymore than, say, loudly and obnoxiously opposing a war is un-American.

  2. I’m going to have to agree, more or less, with Tim: they’re not talking dissent and opposition. And whether or not shouting down and burning in effigy is unAmerican, it’s clearly anti-democratic. And dumb; those people will be the first names on the new healthcare deathwatch thingy.

  3. Obama and Pelosi and Reid tried to push the health care bill through without any of them having read it before the August recess. The point was to stifle all debate. THAT is un-American. Now that people are starting to read the bill, they are showing up to meet with their representatives to express their opposition (a minority at the meetings is in favor). I agree with Tim that is dissent was patriotic against the Iraq war it is certainly patriotic to dissent against the tactics being used to push through a bill before it’s been vetted.

  4. One of the reasons people opposed two of our more recent wars — Vietnam and Iraq — is because our government lied to us about the reasons for going to war. In the case of the current health care debate, it is some of the opponents to the President’s plan who are lying about what is in the plan. The plan is there; everyone can read it. Too many, unfortunately, are getting their facts from dubious sources. Some of the opposition to the Obama plan seems to be aimed more at slapping the president down than in really debating the issue. Now I don’t know what the best solution is to our health care problems, but the way things are going, not only are we not going to solve them this year but I fear we are poisoning the well for any meaningful reform for years to come.

  5. As far as I can ascertain none of the protesters who oppose Obamacare were paid to attend the town hall meetings. On the other hand the SEIU paid for out-of-district rabble rousers to attend some meetings and bussed in. And the Democrats loaded the first 10 rows of one of the town hall meetings with supporters, and the SEIU thugs muscled those opposed to Obamacare out of the hall. I think Nancy Pelosi should be critiquing the “community organizers” such as ACORN and SEIU. But isn’t her boss an “ex-community organizer”?

  6. Partisan attacks and politics are not going to win anything but discord and strife. Our representatives are supposed to be our “leaders,” and I suggest they lead by example. I suggest one of two options; ObamaCare isn’t slated to take effect until 2013, therefore, we have time to test this out.

    1) Take one “blue” state (i.e., CA, NY, or MA) and put the whole state under this proposed healthcare plan for the next few years.

    2) Require that ALL government employees (especially those in Congress and the Senate) be insured under this plan for the next few years. Lead by example! If anything, each member should promise to be held under the same standards as the rest of the American people – no speacial healthcare favors for them.

    During the few years we can document how things are progressing and see if it would really work. Simple math can tell us how much it will really cost the American taxpayer. Then, let’s take this to the polls under a referendum vote and see if Americans still want this.

  7. Sometimes it’s hard to tell if we’re discussing real issues that affect people’s lives or professional wrestling. It amazes me how people (see R. Biddulph above and countless others on both sides) can reduce their opinion or party as absolutely, unalterably correct and the other side as either deviosuly worng or stupid.

    We’re doing ourselves a disservice in this country by talking past each other on healthcare. There is so little discussion of the actual issues. Meanwhile, I watched my father slowly die last year after over 40 years of working hard in a factory. My parents came close to losing every thing they ever worked for. Luckily, my mother was able to maintain her employment while traveling 2+ hours each night after work to be at his side in the hospital. Shortly before his illness her company was very close to closing shop. I also watch as many of my self employed friends struggle mighitly to keep their children covered.

    I don’t know what the answer is, but something is broken here. Painting people as villains does not address the issue at hand and the person most hurt in the end could be you.

  8. I just watched live a town hall with Sen. Arlen Specter held on Aug. 11. I saw a lot of questions, a lot of cheering, a lot of opposition to the health care plan, and, frankly, a lot of very good answers from Sen. Specter. I didn’t see any signs of un-American behavior.

  9. Oh, puh-lease. You call this a poll? If your standards for drafting poll questions are so low, and if you are so interested in asking leading questions, for your next poll, may I nominate the following:

    Question: Is it a good idea to kill babies?

    Option A – Yes, anyone who disagrees is just an idiot. Oh, and Barack Obama is the messiah.
    Option B – No, not killing babies is one of the bedrock principles of our wonderful and blessed republic. God bless America!

  10. Hunter: My standards are actually much lower when it comes to poll questions.

    If you would like to discuss the issue at hand, please do so. Otherwise, I’ll have to start charging you for poll consulting fees.

  11. I personally refused to take the poll because it is misleading. I agree with the second answer that dissent is a principle that helped found America. True dissent against government is a requirement in a Republic like ours.

    But these uprisings are not true dissent. A town hall is a place for a representative to talk candidly with his or her constituents. It’s meant to be a civil method of people to talk directly to the person in power. To learn and to teach. But the angry mob mentality of the right-wing fanatics has erased all of that in favor of yelling, screaming and misinformation. They have effectively shut down the representative’s ability to talk to the people he or she is supposed to serve. How is that not un-American and anti-democratic?

    But even this extreme tactics could be somewhat excusable if it was just blamed on a few scared people. But that is not the case. There have been death threats (Congressman Brad Miller, a Democrat of North Carolina “The call to the D.C. office was: Miller could lose his life over this.”), lynching in effigy (Congressman Frank Kratovil, a freshman Democrat from Maryland), and far too many threats of violence. Not to mention the horrible use of Nazism to defame their opponents. These tactics are inexcusable! They are far, far over the top and should not be condoned by anyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. If the Republicans actually stood for what they used to believe in, they would speak out against this vitriol.

    But instead they are behind it. These so-called ‘grassroots protests’ are being organized and largely paid for by Washington special interests and insurance companies who are desperate to block reform. For example: Americans for Prosperity is a beltway organization with significant corporate funding. They‘re staffed by experienced Republican campaign strategists. Americans for Prosperity has churned out a number of what appear to be grassroots organizations. This is what they are good at: they were also behind the ‘grassroots’ organizations against the stimulus earlier this year. They have created subgroups with names like Patients First and Patients United Now. And these groups are formed to oppose health care reform and to get people to pack these town hall meetings about health care. Which in and of itself would be fine, no problem.

    But these groups direct people to town halls. They give them talking points to use there. And they try to get them fired up and angry. A memo from a right-wing organization called “Right Principles” details how protesters should behave in town hall events. It says, quote, “You need to rock-the-boat early in the representative’s presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the representative’s statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses, call him on it. Yell back. And have someone else follow up with a shout-out. The goal is to rattle him.” Also, quote, “When the formal Q&A session begins, get all your hands up and keep them up. The balance of the group should applaud when the question is asked, further putting the representative on the defensive.” That memo was written by Bob MacGuffie. Bob MacGuffie is affiliated with an organization called FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm run by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey.

    So yes, R Biddulph, the protesters aren’t themselves being paid to protest. That’s quite true. But the Republicans who are organizing the protests are being paid quite well, I’m sure.

    But even if we discount the horrible practices of people in these town halls, we also need to address the amazing amount of disinformation there is out there, generated by the GOP. For example, take Sarah Palin’s now famous Facebook quote: “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama‘s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide based on a subjective judgment of their level of productivity in society whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

    Not true. There will be no death panels. Neither will there be forced plans pushed upon us. Neither will there be any of the other fear-mongering “socialized healthcare” idiocy. If you want to know what is in the plan for the health care, then read about it instead of listening to the hate-filled anger-jockeys who are deep in the pockets of the giant health care industry. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

    And definitely don’t listen to that clown Glenn Beck who was recently seen on his show drinking wine and pretending to poison Pelosi. I wonder what part of the last General Conference he got that idea from? (Sarcasm; just in case it wasn’t clear.)

    And people wonder why congressmen are getting death threats…

  12. Ha! Good one. Made me laugh, Brian Duffin.

    Of course, I’m too lazy to actually intelligently discuss this issue. So, what James said (below).
    @Brian Duffin

  13. James: I’m curious, were you this upset when Sarah Palin was hung in effigy?

    I do not see where the federal government has a constitutional right (power) to create a medical care plan for American citizens. That is sufficient reason for me to object. If someone can indicate what Article in or Amendment to the Constitution provides them with this power, I’d be happy to look at it in more detail.

    I agree that people should be polite in conversation and that shouting down your opponent is not an effective debate technique. That said, I think some of this vitriol is coming from the fact that you can only have a debate if both parties are open to reconsidering their position. Perhaps this is another indicator that many Americans are getting fed up with being told one things by their representatives at home, and watching them do the exact opposite in Washington.

  14. Well if this isn’t the most intellectually dishonest poll I’ve ever seen. Straight from the Fox News website, is it?

  15. Brian Duffin :
    James: Feel better now?

    Actually, now that you mention it, yes I do. 🙂 Thanks for allowing me to vent my frustration.

    Doug D. :
    James: I’m curious, were you this upset when Sarah Palin was hung in effigy?

    Believe it or not, yes I was. I consider myself to be more of a centrist and so I loath it anytime either side uses horrible tactics like that. It is uncalled for, no matter which side it comes from.

    As for it being unconstitutional to create an option for health care, or to regulate it? If you are actually going to argue that then there are dozens of other very beneficial things that are also “unconstitutional” that the government provides for us. Such as roads/highways, etc. Would you also remove these? The plan set forth at the moment for healthcare is only to provide an *alternative* option for those who wish to take it and to provide a reasonable amount of regulation to our broken system. That’s it in a nutshell. It is not a government take-over, nor it is “socialized medicine” despite the false right-wing talking points, and nor is it going to take away or replace your existing coverage if you don’t want it to. Yes, it has some problems (what idea out of Washington doesn’t?) but all I’ve seen so far is a fairly reasonable, left of center idea and not the “Fascist takeover of America” that the GOP is selling.

  16. James: I just wanted to check on the Sarah Palin thing. As far as roads go, I believe they fall under the interstate commerce clause. They also occasionally get justified as necessary for national defense, another Constitutional requirement for the federal government. That said, your point is valid there are many beneficial things provided by the federal government that are not an enumerated power in US constitution for them. In answer to your question, yes I would like to get rid of them. The only other option in my mind would be a constitutional amendment that gave the federal government power to provide that particular service, whatever it may be. (Education comes to mind).

    I object in principle to the federal government providing another option for health care. First, the federal government is not in the insurance business and does not have the mandate to be in it. Second, this will not be a zero cost business to the rest of us. People will be subsidized under this system just like Medicare and Medicaid. That means money will be removed from my pocket and put in to someone else’s pocket. That is also not a mandated job for the federal government.

    I prefer to have an option in my charitable giving, rather than have the government remove the money from my pocket without my consent. Read as taxes, you either pay them or go to jail. (At least in theory.)

  17. Doug D. :
    In answer to your question, yes I would like to get rid of them.

    Well I guess that’s where we differ in opinion. I don’t want an overbearing government, of course. But where government can help people, I believe it should.

    But on the other hand I agree with a few points from people who hold similar thought to yours has put forth. In some cases there is decidedly too much government. Some of the laws passed by Democrat lawmakers are overbearing and too invasive into our lives, and I believe they should be repealed. What I’d like to ask, though, is why do our choices need to be at the extremes of the spectrum? The liberals call for far too much regulation and the conservative/libertarian side call for hardly any at all. I don’t believe either side’s non-partisan answer to the problem is right. That’s why I’m a centrist. Extremism is hardly ever the right answer to complex questions such as these.

    As for taxes, I don’t mind them. I see them as a useful annoyance, although I really think the organization needs to be gone over and rehauled to make it more efficient and fair. As for removing money from my pocket to put in someone else’s pocket? Assuming that other person actually needs the money, I’m also ok with that if it will help them. But on the other hand I’m not for just giving out money to every John, Sue and Fred. If they are hurting, yes I’m all for giving them a hand up. But if they are just looking for a handout and don’t need the money, then I’m very much against it.

    Given that this is an LDS blog I’ll bring up the Law of Consecration. If we were to actually live under that law we would give up almost everything we have to our brothers and sisters. Compared to that I’m more than happy to give up a few bucks (taxed or otherwise) to help someone who really needs it to have health insurance. The critical thing is not if we should or should not have better health insurance. It is instead determining who actually needs it and who is just riding on the government dole.

    And it still doesn’t excuse the fear-mongering from the GOP.

  18. I don’t like the current health care reforms, but I think the wording of the poll is agenda-driven.

    Re. comment #1: Even a limited survey of U.S. history shows that “burning people in effigy, shouting politicians down so they can’t be heard, calling people ugly names, threats of death and violence, putting rhetoric over reason and being just plain rude,” are as American as baseball and apple pie. 🙂

  19. @Mike Parker

    I’d love to hear what you think that agenda is. My only agenda was to put together a quick post to elicit some discussion on the health care debate.

    I think it is interesting that James Carville is out after the Hoyer-Pelosi OP/ED with attacks against those who disagree with the Democratic health care plan. He claims sour grapes is driving the opposition. For me, a McCain win would have been just as big a loss as an Obama win. I was not enamored with either candidate.

    I welcome open and honest debate on health care. Let’s dispense with the rush to reform health care.

  20. rush to reform? Some of us have been desperate for reform for at least a couple of decades.

  21. Hunter, we were named one of the top Mormon blogs by a Christian Mommy-oriented organization. So it’s kind of an inside joke.

  22. @Bill

    While you and others may have been waiting decades for reform, it does not justify rushing passage of the first reform bill through Congress. Have you read the 1,000+ page bill? If we pass that bill, we will have to wait decades before we can reform the new health care disaster. It is very difficult to turn back new entitlements.


    Ok, try this one on for size: For many liberals, any and all war is rushed.

    Disagreement and debate is healthy. I don’t disagree with the need to reform health care, but let’s allow public input and debate. If the Democrats had their way, the health care reform bill would have been passed (without debate and input) before August. Thankfully it was not.

    I believe that we all need to take a step back from the demonizing language used by both political parties, put all of the issues on the table and come to an agreement that works for everyone.

  23. Btw, Hunter, lest there be any misunderstanding, I think we do rush into war far too often. Let’s not make the same mistake with health care in America.

  24. Brian Duffin :
    I believe that we all need to take a step back from the demonizing language used by both political parties, put all of the issues on the table and come to an agreement that works for everyone.

    Very well put. I’m in full agreement with that idea. I’m also not happy with it being rushed so fast. Far too many mistakes can happen when a thing is rushed like this.

    I’m assuming it is being rushed because they believe the longer it takes the better chance the Republicans have to kill it completely. But I have no idea if that’s true or not. It’s just a theory.

    But in the end I believe even a flawed reform is better than the disaster we have now.

  25. James, I’m not subscribing to an extremist point of view. I’m simply suggesting that we live by rule of law. The US Constitution outlines what each branch of the government is responsible for and what all of the federal government’s responsibilities are. I’m not against taxes, I pay my fair share and have no issues with it, when they are used properly. When my taxes go to pay for things the federal government has a Constitutional mandate for, I’m fine with ponying up the cash.

    I think where we differ is that I am not okay with the federal government doing something it does not have a Constitutional power to do, even if it’s a really nice thing and helps people out.

  26. Brian, while I agree that for many liberals, any and all war is rushed, I also think that you probably need to cast that net a little wider in order to be accurate with that topic. For example: “For nearly everyone on the political spectrum except for the so-called “neo-cons”, any and all war is rushed.” But I digress . . .

    As for the health care debates, I think one of the things that sticks in my craw is that there is no actual debate going on. The Democrats are floating a bunch of ideas, but most Republicans are not offering anything as an opposing choice. Instead of following the late Justice Rehnquist’s advice that you shouldn’t just tear down the other guy’s idea, you need to propose a *better* solution, many Republicans are acting the part of the kid in the corner with a scowl on his face, hands crossed, screaming, “I don’t wanna!” Instead, they should propose something better, and not resort to all this crap about Hitler, and death panels, and other fantastical lies.

    By the way, I think these Republicans are acting in this way with good reason. That is, they are beholden to big business (which is every bit as nefarious as big government or big labor, in my book). So, while I don’t say it’s right, I do recognize that these Republicans have a stake in this – their campaign contributions.

    There. Was that inflammatory enough?

  27. @Hunter

    I have actually heard an alternate proposal to let the public use pre-tax dollars to pay for health insurance. This proposal, they argue, would help drive free-market competition and lower costs for many Americans. This is just one of the proposals I have heard about coming from Republicans. Of course, they can make proposals, but utlimately the Democrats control the legislative agenda and the make-up of the bills. I was reading a report on ABC news where Orrin Hatch lamented Ted Kennedy’s absence from Congress. He said that the bill would have been more bi-partisan had Kennedy been involved. (Here is the link to the ABC news story).

    Btw, I find your comments to be sufficiently inflamed. Perhaps you should see a doctor about the inflammation? They have drugs for that kind of stuff, ya know?

  28. Thanks for the ABC news link. It sounds intriguing.

    In the end, Republicans are ultimately losing the debate because they don’t seem to be, well, engaging in much of a debate. Short term there’s the shock value of all the shouting and the baseless Twitter messages, but long term what’s left? They need a strong leader to come out in favor of a plan that doesn’t just favor big business (current) or big government (Obama). Where’s the opposition?

    Doug D:
    “Constitutional mandates” and “constitutional powers” are two drastically different things. Which are you against/for?
    Truth be told, I’m no fan of greater federal control/involvement in this arena, at all. Talk about a royal mess. But at the same time, just because I disagree with the Democrats’ plans, doesn’t mean that what they are proposing is automatically constitutionally suspect.

  29. Doug D. :
    James, I’m not subscribing to an extremist point of view. I’m simply suggesting that we live by rule of law.

    In theory I agree with you. But this Pandora’s Box concerning government was opened a long time ago and it’s going to be next to impossible to put everything back the way it’s supposed to be. I’m not saying no one should try, of course. But realistically I think it’s a lost cause because the momentum for “standard operating procedure” is far too entrenched at this point.

    I’m also very upset about how, as Hunter said, “[politicians] are beholden to big business (which is every bit as nefarious as big government or big labor, in my book).” I would love to see big business forced out of politics, but that’s also never going to happen. And there are also many other major problems with our government (such as the abuse of the 24/7 media) that I’d love to see changed, but I harbor no illusion that they ever will be.

    I might be a defeatist, but I see myself more as a realist. This is what we have to work with so I think we have to do the best we can with what we have. Fight the battles that we can win.

    I was also wrong in calling you an extremist. I misunderstood your position. I apologize for my mistake. I had assumed you were part of the “drown the government in the bathtub” extreme Libertarian crowd and acted from that assumption. I personally think that the people who wish to remove almost all government from America are extremists. Not because they’re shouting and causing problems like the extreme GOP factions, but because their ideas are way out of the mainstream. (I’m not talking about Libertarians in general, but instead the extreme ones who want to severely reduce government to almost the point of non-governance.)

    I’m all for severely reducing the bloat and the invasive laws in our country. But from what I’ve heard from that corner of the spectrum, they want to go way far beyond that and remove even beneficial programs and organizations. In theory some of their ideas have merit and I actually agree with a few of them, but their plans for how to go about it are overboard. Using a very old saying, they want to “throw out the baby with the bath water.”

    Personally, I like babies. 🙂

  30. The plan is there; everyone can read it.

    Umm. What? Congress hasn’t even finished writing the bills. (And there are several competing ones)

    I think the big mistake was making a big 1000 page + omnibus approach to healthcare rather than separating out the Medicare reform (where supposed cost cutting will take place) from the larger compensation issues and laws regarding pre-existing conditions.

    What’s funniest is that the conservatives protesting health care are protesting because they are worried Obama will cut benefits even though most conservatives were, until recently, constantly talking about needing to cut benefits in medicare to control costs. I’d say it’s a topsy turvy world but I think far too many Republicans are just cynically using the issue regardless of any consistency with their own world view.

    Of course Obama’s strategy in all this (or lack thereof) really made it terribly easy for Republicans to do this. And there is a lot of FUD out there but a lot of very real fear. I consider myself pretty informed but I’d have a hard time saying what will actually happen. Other than being sure that “socialism” really isn’t in the cards.

  31. To add, what I wish someone would propose (preferably a Republican since most Democrats appear to want a Canadian styled single payer system) is the following:

    1. no denial for pre-existing conditions
    2. all members insured by a single insurance company pay the same rate (i.e. akin to what happens when a business buys insurance)
    3. eliminate the insurance tax break for business (i.e. push it to the individual)
    4. put in a six month “grace” period for when people switch insurance. (i.e. so insurance that covers say pregnancy isn’t picked up by people when they get pregnant)
    5. don’t do anything about medicare but make that a separate bill.

  32. In the end, Republicans are ultimately losing the debate because they don’t seem to be, well, engaging in much of a debate.

    Republicans are doing two things. (1) activating their base – including the wacky but helpful extreme portions of the base. (Necessary for doing calling and so forth) and (2) preparing the stage for when things aren’t working well 2 – 4 years from now so they can say they were against it.

    They know the bill will pass. Right now it’s all posturing. Moderate Democrats are putting up “opposition” so they can go to their voters and say they made things better. But they’ll still vote for things. Republicans are doing the same, but for their base. But the end game is in the cards. The only thing that was really up for serious debate was the single player plan prep but no one ultimately wanted it. (Although maybe there will be a miracle and it’ll end up in it afterall – but I seriously doubt it) All the rest is more pork horse trading that is typical (and structurally necessary) within congress.

  33. I don’t accept the whole premise of the health care reform argument. There is no health care crisis in this country. The current health care system has problems to be sure, but it works for 80-90% of the people out there. The outliers and sad stories definitely pull at the heart strings, but if this reform goes through, ultimately what we’ll end up with is socialized medicine — bringing the overall quality of health care down. Some people will be better off, but overall it will spread the misery.

    I found the Law of Consecration line of reasoning quite interesting, and quite flawed. Under God’s plan, the Law of Consecration is entered into willingly…something called free agency. Choices allow people to grow and develop; to perfect themselves and become more like God. How is it that compelling people to live a “higher law” helps them develop? Why not tax people 50% of everything to help them understand how good it is to be generous and God-like? I know of a plan that would have saved all souls, but the tradeoff was free agency. If I recall correctly, it was rejected by a 2/3 vote.

  34. Clark, I can’t speak for Skaught, but 84 percent say they are happy with their health care:


    That 47 million uninsured number is completely bogus. Depending on how you want to count it, the true number is probably between 5 and 15 million.

    See here:


    So, you can’t say 80 percent of the country is happy with the current situation (the math is vague), but you can certainly say a majority is if you take 84 percent happy minus 5 to 15 million of 300 million. So, Skaught’s figures are not that far off.

  35. Right, but that’s not a helpful figure since most of that 84% aren’t really stressing their health care. When you are healthy of course you’re happy.

    The other figure I’ll have to check on.

  36. Hunter: You are correct that a constitutional mandate and a constitutional power are two separate things. I should have been more careful in my terminology perhaps. In either case the federal government certainly has no constitutional mandate for health care, and I don’t see a constitutional power either. As I’ve said before, I would be very happy to look in to one if someone could point it out.

    James: If we don’t work against expansion there is no hope of every getting back where we should be. :o)

  37. Doug D. :
    James: If we don’t work against expansion there is no hope of every getting back where we should be.

    That is very true. However for myself, personally I don’t see it ever happening and so I focus my energy elsewhere. But if you and others believe it can happen, then I applaud your efforts. I would only ask that those who wish to do this don’t become embroiled in the extremism that I’ve seen in that camp.

  38. There are very few people that are burning Congress people in effigy. To point out the few radicals as representative of the majority of those concerned is a straw man.

    Congress had the opportunity to put this out for people to consider, but didn’t. Pelosi has tried to ramrod health care through as they did on the “stimulus” package. No wonder people are concerned, because the people in Congress who should have been looking out for Americans are using these bills to pay off their “constituents.” I mean Cap and Trade has been whittled down so that 85% of it has been given away to their favorite supporters. Why should we think health care is any different?

    In reality, Medicare is on the brink of bankruptcy. Instead of using this opportunity to truly fix the system, and fix all the problems with it on all sides: insurance, drugs, insuring all people, AND getting law suits under control, etc,; they are only focusing on a few pet issues and ignoring the rest. They will not begin to create a Canada-style health care program, because they are not willing to truly fix the inherent problems already in the system. Remember the Bible story of building on sand? That’s what they are doing, and it will still collapse when the storms come.

    Most Americans understand this. Most are concerned about the vast amounts of money being tossed around carelessly by Congress, and when they hear the current House bill is 1000 pages long, hasn’t been read or explained clearly to voters, WHY should we trust it?

  39. I have been shocked to see my government demeaning those who disagree with them over something so important. It isn’t uncommon for college students to shout down those who disagree with them and even drive them off the podium but I wasn’t prepared to see government officials doing or trying to do the same. I’m just wondering what they think that accomplishes when the majority does disagree or at least have serious concerns with what they propose.

  40. Is it un-American to scream incoherent idiocy about unrelated topics at a town hall meeting, drowning out any attempt by the politician to actually talk about what the meeting was about (along with the other unhinged activists you all rigged to be at the meeting)?

    No. It’s a very “American” activity.

    Moronic, yes. Boorish, yes. Unhelpful, yes. But quite “American.”

Comments are closed.