Pueblog USa
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Now That You Mention It — 090827
Blow-back on the Loretta Sword article in the Pueblo Chieftain, i.e., a ‘fisking’.
I attended the Public Forum on the proposed health care reform legislation working its way through Congress, last Monday evening. I also read the article in the Chieftain from Loretta Sword about her observations of the forum.
As I had some thinks to say to Juan Espinosa earlier this month about his ‘reporting’ of a Tea Party event about the legislation, it would be ‘sexist’ of me not to give Loretta the same ‘attention’.
Sooooo…...here ya go, ladies and gentlemen…..
RE: Civility
Two sheriff’s deputies stationed in the parking lot outside Monday night’s public forum on health care reform punctuated the emotional nature of the debate, in Pueblo and across the nation.
Despite pleas for civility, emotions were running high.—Loretta Sword
Heh….I’m not particularly appreciative of people ‘misrepresenting’ thinks. Either by ignorance or some other reason. Let telling alone outright lies.
I think it’s rather ‘incivil’ of people do do such. So the question becomes, who broke the rules on ‘civility’ in the first place?
More on that thought later…..
RE: The ‘Set-Up’
The forum was sponsored by the Pueblo League of Women Voters and Health Care for All Colorado, a citizens group.—Loretta Sword
These groups REALLY disappointed me as to this public forum.
We had six panelists and a moderator.
FIVE of the six were people FOR or representing people FOR the proposed legislation HR 3200. There was only ONE person for the opposition.
This is the classic ‘stacked deck’. Stacking in support of a particular agenda as opposed to an honest open discussion of the matter at hand.
I used to think well of the League of Women Voters. That opinion has been seriously degraded by this event.
As for the Health Care for All Colorado….
....well, their allegiance has been known from the get-go. They are not REALLY interested in honest debate. Otherwise, they’d have had an evenly balanced panel in the first place.
Indeed, in the weeks of discussions I’ve had with various people in various venues, I’ve not found ANYONE of the ‘progressive’ persuasion who is willing to engage in ‘honest debate’.
In my honest opinion, the League of Women Voters has done itself serious harm to it’s ‘credibility’ as an unbiased group by associating with the other group to bring forth last Monday’s event.
RE: Name Calling???!?!
But many in the audience didn’t follow a deputy’s plea before a panel discussion began to refrain from yelling and calling names.—Loretta Sword
I do recall some yelling. Indeed. I did some of it myself. More on that later.
But I don’t recall hearing anyone calling anyone else ‘names’, as in foul-language.
I have to wonder what Loretta ‘heard’. Or maybe THOUGHT she heard. Then again. Maybe it was someone closer to her than I was that said something. But I didn’t hear anything like someone calling someone else 57-varieties of ‘sorry’.
RE: True
At least 100 people crowded into the Pueblo County Conference Room, and all agreed that reform is needed. But opponents of various public options being crafted in Congress made it clear there are options they want no part of.—Loretta Sword
And the majority of them were people who would be the first to be impacted by the proposed HR 3200.
RE: Our Elected Officials Presence.....Er….Absence
State Rep. Sal Pace and representatives from the local and Washington, D.C., offices of Democratic U.S. Rep. John Salazar and Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall tried to explain that the option would provide health care for more than 46 million Americans who have no health insurance. No one would be forced to give up their current insurance company, but anyone could join the plan if they are dissatisfied with their current coverage, they said.—Loretta Sword
Sal Pace, state house of representatives (CO-D-46) was there in person.
The only reason I could think of why Sal was there was because he’s tired of working at the state-level and wants to move on to the ‘Big Time’ of Congress.
As for the others, from the federal level: Senator Udall, Senator Bennet, and Congressperson Salazar…..
....they were all absent. They sent their mouth-pieces instead. And even THOSE were severely limited in what they could and/or could not say on the matter at hand. All of them read from a prepared statement. But only one was, in my opinion, smart enough not to put their foot into the bear-trap.
I’ll credit Senator Bennet with having his own Town-Hall meeting earlier this month. Much more courageous than Senator Udall or Congressperson Salazar.
I’m particularly disappointed with Salazar. He’s been MIA (Missing InAction) since the recess began. I submitted his name to a web-site that is collecting the names of what they term ‘Milk-Carton Politicians’. You know. Like the kids on the side-panels of milk cartons in the grocery store….“Have You Seen Me?”
This is too important an issue for our elected representatives to skip-town on.
To add ‘insult’ to our ‘injury’ on this matter, Congressperson Salazar’s staff, when I’ve called them on this matter…or any other, of late….have repeatedly said, “The congressperson has not made any decision on this [or that] matter.” Or words to that effect.
One has to wonder if, when it comes to the final vote, he just sits there and flips a coin. For all WE know, based on his staff, that’s as good an explanation as any.
Personally, I’d like to know what he thinks of a piece of legislation BEFORE he votes on it, rather than holding my breath and reading about it AFTER the fact. It would be even better to know WHY he thinks the way he does about such a matter, before the vote. Might help refine the discussion. But he, like so many others of his ilk refuse to talk to his constituents. Or so it seems to me based on past experience.
RE: Let the Disinformation/Ignorance Become Manifest
A public option also would provide competition for private insurers whose main motive is profit for CEOs and shareholders, not paying for members’ health care, they told the audience. —Loretta Sword
If Loretta means that the ‘public option’ would CONSUME the private insurers, then I guess you can call that ‘competition’. But the competition would be which private insurance company would go out of business last.
The way HR 3200 is written, as I’ve understood it at this time, the politicians ARE telling the truth, after a fashion, when they say you “can keep your private insurance”. However, what they are NOT telling you is that if you ever decide to CHANGE your insurance, in any way, shape or form, you MUST go to the government ‘public option’. You cannot change your insurance company or your policy options within your current company.
There’s a ‘classic’ form of ‘disinformation’. And proof of my favorite axiom….
What they are telling you can be important. But what they are NOT telling you can be vital.
Politicians seem to thrive on keeping their constituents ‘ignorant’ with such half-truths. And as Benjamin Franklin put it…..
Half a truth is often a great lie.
RE Sheldon Heard
Sheldon Bloedorn, representing the Southern Colorado Tea Party and the only spokesman for opponents of a public health plan, countered that free enterprise has created the best health care system in the world, and that health-care reform should focus on making insurance more portable and on tort reform. “Profit is not a four-letter word. Loss is,” he said.—Loretta Sword
RE: The ‘Hush’
One man in the audience created a hush after explaining his question, formulated on the basis of Thomas Jefferson’s theory that any service made available by the government to some should be available to all.
“How is it fair that certain segments of society get care at reduced costs, or free, but I, who have a job and insurance, have no public option?” the man asked.—Loretta Sword
The ‘hush’ was only to hear what he had to say. And the room was already quiet in the first place.
But after the man said his piece a number of voices were raised discrediting his opinion.
In point of fact, the man’s position reminded me of the way the Athenians lost their freedom…..
In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.—Edward Gibbon
This fellow was calling on the government to give him ‘security’ that he was unwilling to gain for himself.
RE: Some of the Loudest
Even some of the loudest dissenters nodded their heads, and nearly all were silent until Bloedorn replied: “Medical care is not mandatory . . . I’m paying into the system without reaping any rewards.”—Loretta Sword
Not really, about the ‘loudest dissenters’. At least as far as I could discern.
RE: The Bottom Li[n]es
As I stated earlier, it cracks my jaw when I hear what can only be identified as total ignorance or much, much worse, coming from representatives of my elected officials and/or so-called ‘professionals’.
I can and will speak out when I know from fact that they are misrepresenting facts on the matter. Here are some of the examples of what I heard and understood to be disreputable misrepresentations.
RE: Cases [of misrepresentation] in Point
Case in Point #1 — You Can Keep Your Private Insurance
As I pointed out above, this is a classic half-truth.
You CAN. But only up to the point that you want to change anything. Then you MUST go with the government program.
Case in Point #2 — There Is No ‘Mandatory’ Advance Life Care Counseling (ALCC)
One of the questions I submitted was called by the moderator.
It asked if someone would explain how Advance Life Care Counseling was not “mandatory”.
Our congressperson’s rep at the forum said, for all intents and purposes, “It was not ‘mandatory’.”
However, the bill reads as follows:
Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.—HR 3200 @ pages 424-425 [Note: Emphasis added….]
The point here is that this bill reads to the reasonably prudent individual, in plain English, that individuals are REQUIRED to do the ALCC session once every five years. There is no ‘may’ mentioned about it in the legislation. It is ‘mandatory’.
The question becomes WHY is it that our rep from our congressperson’s office said it isn’t ‘mandatory’? Ignorance? Or something worse?
Case in Point #3 — Canada As a Good Example of What We’ll Have
This from the doctor on the panel. Doing a comparison between the British National Health Service (NHS) system, the Canadian system and that he would like to see implemented with US.
He seems to think poorly of the British NHS. But he thinks well of the Canadian medical program and it’s ‘single government-payer’ systems. Or so I understood him.
However, apparently he’s not heard that his admired Canadian system apparently cannot afford to pay for some 6000 surgeries this year in Vancouver, British Columbia. And that’s just ONE city.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.—FROM THIS ARTICLE.
So, whereas a LOT of people would like to think that a government-run ‘insurance’ program would be infallible, I see evidence supporting MY contention that such a program would put budget considerations ahead of caring for patients.
Case in Point #4 — Medicare Covers Everything
RE: Other Points Not Addressed….
....in the forum….
Point #5 — The ‘Advance Life Care Counseling’ (ALCC)
The didn’t get to any questions relating to the nature of the ALCC. Although one was in the deck of cards the moderator was dealing with.
As I pointed out above, my reading of this legislation requires people over the age of 65 to consult with a government official on their health care once every five years.
The reason I am interested in this passage is that in this section it reads that this government official can write “orders” on what medical care can and, more importantly, CANNOT be given to the individual.
It is interesting that the government official is required to sign said orders. However, I have yet to see where the individual for whom these orders are written signs them. Maybe I missed it in all the jumping around the way this document is written. So if anyone can show me where it requires the signature of the individual, I’d appreciate knowing where to find it. Please cite page and line. I ask because if the individual, or their legal guardian, isn’t required to sign the ‘order’, anyone could write anything about their care….one way or another.
Point #6 — It’s Not Just for Seniors
Portions of this bill, if passed into law, could be contorted by a clever lawyer to make it mandatory for people with serious conditions to be ordered to attend on a government bureaucrat.
Here’s the passage…..
An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.—HR 3200 @ page 428
Point #7 — So Many ‘Bills’ (Part 1) In the House
Our rep from Congressperson Salazar tried to throw dust in our eyes by saying there are a number of bills in the House being considered at this time.
My reply is, “big deal.” HR 3200 is the one that is on everyone’s mind right now. Address IT.
If you want to throw [other legislative] stones into the pool in order to muddy the water, identify the stones—by bill ID number—and let’s see what is being proposed in them. Don’t use them as a smoke-screen to obscure the discussion.
Point #8 — So Many ‘Bills’ (Part 2) In the Senate
There was a comment made by one of the reps for one of our Senators that there are bills addressing health care reform in committee in the Senate.
However, after searching the official US Senate web-site for active legislation, I can’t find them. Seems to me if the Senate is looking at such a bill, they’d have it available for the rest of US to read.
Next entry: Those Damn Dams Previous entry: Milk-Carton Politicians-
So glad to read that someone else took on Ms. Sword’s reporting of this event. I did email her with several of the same points brought out in this blog. Her return email indicated that this crowd was one of the rudest she had ever witnessed. Her “name-calling” reference was to Gordon MacAlister referring to Congress as “clowns.” Ms. Sword did not take me up on my offer to send her links which could provide her with more detailed information about HR3200.
Also worth noting is that Mr. Sheldon Bloedorn was the ONLY one to have received a standing ovation following his presentation.
As for the League of Womens Voters, one only has to look at their web page to see exactly what direction politically they have gone…and it has nothing to do with presenting both sides of the issues!
Please tell me where I can read about what was said to Juan Espinosa! It would be interesting to read what someone else thought of his article. I emailed him with my take on his perception of the event…no response.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/27 at 10:03 PM -
TO: Jennifer
RE: Loretta Sword’s Thoughts #1 — Rudest CrowdHer [Loretta’s] return email indicated that this crowd was one of the rudest she had ever witnessed—Jennifer
She must lead a VERY sheltered life. The rudest crowd I ever encountered was a bunch of ‘progressive’ rioting kids on the streets of Washington DC during the May Day Riots of 1971.
Then again we have more progressives at the Tancredo event at UNC last year. Or what happened at Columbia University.
RE: Loretta Sword’s Thoughts #2 — Clowns
Her “name-calling” reference was to Gordon MacAlister referring to Congress as “clowns.”—Jennifer
“Clowns”? She considers THAT ‘name-calling’? How very odd. Again. She must lead a VERY sheltered life in the insular confines of the Chieftain’s ‘news’ room. And I have to wonder how many times she’s used far worse terminology about those who disagree with HER.
RE: Loretta Sword’s Thoughts #3 — Learning the Details.
Ms. Sword did not take me up on my offer to send her links which could provide her with more detailed information about HR3200. —Jennifer
I’m not surprised. Everywhere I’ve gone over the last month and a half, and engaged people of her ilk with facts about HR 3200, they have run for cover. That includes former State Senator Ken Gordon’s web-site where HE has been trying to promote this atrocious piece of legislation. Either that or they start {HORROR!} ‘name-calling’.
These people don’t like facts. And because of that Loretta gives ‘journalism’ a bad name. All they do is propagandize. As if they are graduates of the Goebbels School of Journalism.
RE: The League of Women Voters
As for the League of Womens Voters, one only has to look at their web page to see exactly what direction politically they have gone…and it has nothing to do with presenting both sides of the issues!—Jennifer
I was beginning to get that impression. But I’ll have to visit their web-site to confirm it.
RE: The Juan Espinosa Item
You can find my fisking of Juan’s article HERE!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out….].(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/29 at 04:39 AM