At the town hall in Pennsylvania Senator Specter finally tells the truth about Washington by making the statement that he didn't have to be at that town hall and he was under no obligation to meet with his constituents.
So what he's really saying is that he's doing the people of PA a huge favor by actually listening to them. I guess I must be reallly naive because I was under the impression that the Senators worked for the people.
His statement that he was under no obligation to listen is the perfect reflection of what's going on right now, but it also reveals how these town halls are perceived by the legislators. If they don't think they are obligated to listen, then they won't, and these town halls are all for show. They will do what they want to do and what the people think about it matters not a jot.
Finally, somebody tells the truth about how the politicians view the people.
Showing posts with label Health CareTown Hall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health CareTown Hall. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Creating Terrorists
We've been repeatedly advised that our behavior in going on the offensive against Islamic Jihadists has created even more terrorists instead of reducing them; that the harder we attack the more vehemently they oppose us. Why then are the Democratic leaders not following their own advise when dealing with irate Americans?
We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?
Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?
By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.
The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.
My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?
We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?
Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?
By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.
The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.
My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Disabled Debbie From the Town Hall
I didn't watch much of the Health Care town hall meeting because I was actually working, but one thing has caught my attention. That is the woman, Debbie, who spoke about how she can't work, has no insurance, and a new tumor.
Let's set aside for a moment that this woman was placed there as an Obama supporter. She's actually a volunteer for one of the organizations working toward health care. I can see her being a volunteer due to her situation, but as somebody who deals with insurance, her situation raised some questions for me.
Obama answered her situation by saying a nation this rich should be able to take care of people in her situation. My question is, don't we already? If she is really unable to work isn't she on SSI Disability? And if she is, then guess what, she qualifies for Medicare if she has paid into it. If she hasn't, then she's eligible for Medicaid. So our current socialized health care programs actually cover her situation.
So why isn't she on Medicare or Medicaid then? Could it possibly be that SSI Disability has a policy of denying every claim on it's first submission and only reconsidering on appeal? But wait a minute, this is a government program. Isn't it only the evil private insurers who would do something so diabolical? And she did say that SSI has denied her claim saying renal failure is not a qualifier for disability. This is the government program folks. This is the people we plan on putting in charge.
She also said she doesn't qualify for Medicaid because she has to be on disability. And Medicare eligibility occurs for renal failure, but only once you've started dialysis.
This is why Debbie is disabled but not already covered under that umbrella? My deepest sympathies go out to her for the health issues she is going through, and I hope her issues are resolved soon, but sadly, this is more of a condemnation of our government insurance programs than our private ones.
Let's set aside for a moment that this woman was placed there as an Obama supporter. She's actually a volunteer for one of the organizations working toward health care. I can see her being a volunteer due to her situation, but as somebody who deals with insurance, her situation raised some questions for me.
Obama answered her situation by saying a nation this rich should be able to take care of people in her situation. My question is, don't we already? If she is really unable to work isn't she on SSI Disability? And if she is, then guess what, she qualifies for Medicare if she has paid into it. If she hasn't, then she's eligible for Medicaid. So our current socialized health care programs actually cover her situation.
So why isn't she on Medicare or Medicaid then? Could it possibly be that SSI Disability has a policy of denying every claim on it's first submission and only reconsidering on appeal? But wait a minute, this is a government program. Isn't it only the evil private insurers who would do something so diabolical? And she did say that SSI has denied her claim saying renal failure is not a qualifier for disability. This is the government program folks. This is the people we plan on putting in charge.
She also said she doesn't qualify for Medicaid because she has to be on disability. And Medicare eligibility occurs for renal failure, but only once you've started dialysis.
This is why Debbie is disabled but not already covered under that umbrella? My deepest sympathies go out to her for the health issues she is going through, and I hope her issues are resolved soon, but sadly, this is more of a condemnation of our government insurance programs than our private ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
