Pelosi' HR3962 Is Worst Socialist Legislation - Ever!

If you're looking for more deficit spending and higher taxes for everyone, increased costs for insurance coverage, rationed care (particularly for elderly and the sick), a long waiting period for coverage under the new healthcare plan for those with pre-existing conditions, and "creative" (if not illegal) Congressional accounting, then The Pelosi healthcare bill has it all! The health bill she unveiled last Thursday (and which President Obama quickly proclaimed a "critical milestone") is probably the worst piece of socialist legislation ever introduced and, quite frankly, forced upon Americans.

Rumor has it that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said to her fellow Democrats that she is "all in" and prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it will take to pass ObamaCare. Well, if that's the case, I say let her's be the first one to go! (No single person should have as much power as she THINKS she has. She's got the representatives in the House by the -- well, she'd got them literally dominated!)

The Democrats under Pelosi's dictatorship leadership are no longer even making the pretense of wanting "bipartisan" support for this bill. Instead they are using pure political power plays to shove through what is probably an unrepealable middle-class entitlement that will continue to expand over time and raise taxes steeply. This ObamaCare will expand government control of healthcare, and that means that all medical care will be administered through the Congress - what kind of healthcare, how much healthcare, who gets it and who doesn't, how much it costs, etc. Do you really want some other Congressman or Senator from some other state having a say in meeting your health care needs?

It is almost beyond comprehension that the Democrats have begun such a purely political power play, especially with the unpopularity of their own agenda. People from all political positions are expressing great concern over this governmental seizure of this large portion of the nation's economy. But the goal of these liberal (and wimpy moderate) Democrats is to ram through this part of Obama's overall income-redistribution plan. It's all about gaining more CONTROL in every aspect of American lives.

Congress claims that HR 3962 is "universal coverage" - but keep in mind they have admitted that it's still NOT going to cover everyone. The actual result if this is passed will be destruction of the world's best healthcare system, of our country's fiscal stability, of private industries, of opportunities for prosperity, and ultimately, the personal freedoms fo every American.

This proposed legislation that Pelosi is ramming through the House with super-sonic speed costs considerably more than it was supposed to. It costs even more than the HR 3200! And again, it doesn't even offer healthcare to everyone - as the Obama campaign promised. It does NOTHING to change the things that are wrong with the present system. Instead it creates the framework for even more problems -- in spades! And further, as we have seen time and time again, the estimated costs of government programs are always only a portion of its actual costs. This bill was supposed to come in at around $900 billion or Obama wouldn't sign it. But it's now well over $1 trillion at this writing and he doesn't sound hesitant at all in his praises of this bill! (Some have calculated that over 10 years, this bill will have a price tag of $2.4 trillion!)

(Note: Remember how Obama used the "Republicans/Bush's deficit" as a talking point in his campaign and how he was going to turn it around... well, instead he has created a mountain of debt that makes the Bush deficit look like a tiny blip on the deficit screen - and he isn't through - the Cap and Tax is working its way through the Senate now!)

"House Call" on Washington

Tens of thousands of people marched on the House on Thursday at noon to protest this healthcare legislation. (Interesting how no one will give a solid estimate of how many people there really were, but it was literally a sea of people encompassing the Congressional buildings. But if Code Pink were to stage a protest, they'd have a pretty good headcount and post that amount (times 100 - or 1000!) Regardless, the message from these people is that this bill is a piece of crap! If you asked people in that group if they believed that we need healthcare reform, most of them would say that we do. However, they don't want an overhaul. They would tell you, "Let's fix what is wrong with the one we have!"

Sure our present system has flaws - that is something that no one disputes. But we have identified where the problems are and everyone in Congress knows where they are. The FIRST flaw is that we don't have a cap on non-economic compensation when there is a malpractice lawsuit. Everyone also knows that the lobbyists for trial lawyers have paid off most if not all of our lawmakers. Suspiciously, this is the one segment of professionals that have had absolutely no comment or been seen taking a position during this hotly contested debate, but if we really fixed what was wrong with our present healthcare system, they certainly have a dog in the hunt.

Like Rats From a Sinking Ship! (After the public spoke in NJ and VA!)

The voices of the "tens of thousands" is being heard, though. The Blue Dogs saw what happened in Virginia and New Jersey last week. On the heels of that demonstration, they saw how quickly a very large group of people could be called to and attend a march on Congress. Now, they're considering their options. Some are wring their hands moaning, "What to do, what to do." The question is are they more afraid of Nancy Pelosi - or their constituents! Will they "walk the plank" for Ms. Pelosi and the trial lawyer lobby?

Not only are the Blue Dogs in a quandary about which side they're willing to commit to, the members of AMA (American Medical Association) who Obama proclaimed again this week supported his Obamacare, are now saying that the AMA should not be supporting the House's health care plan because the issue of endorsement hadn't been formally approved by the membership.

Actually, it was a board of trustees for the AMA that made the endorsement without taking an official vote among the members of the organization. This week, there's been some developing outrage among AMA members who feel like this endorsement was made against the general consensus of the AMA’s members. So, in a few days, probably on Monday, the members will cast a vote on a resolution that could officially reverse the AMA's Obamacare endorsement. (Note: If Pelosi gets her way this weekend, though, it's too late in the game to be withdrawing a much-publicized endorsement and would be nothing less than a token gesture. Where have the AMA members been all this time??? Have they, too, seen the handwriting on the wall?)

Social Security Sucks You Into Gov't Healthcare

Brian Hall is a senior citizen. He is suing the government over its current mandatory healthcare practices.

Huh?! We don't have a national healthcare bill passed yet, but he's got problems with government-run healthcare already? You betcha!

When Brian turned 65, even though he had private healthcare insurance he wanted to keep, he was forced by the government to enroll in Medicare. That meant he would have to give up his private health insurance which he believed was better than what Medicare offered. He contacted the Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration and was told he could not opt out of Medicare.

Actually what the Social Security Administration said was that even though he paid into Social Security for his entire working career, he cannot opt out of Medicare without giving up his Social Security. So, he consulted with his own attorneys and he's now suing the government for what he rightfully deserves - his Social Security check.... without the strings of Medicare attached.

We know that Medicare and Social Security are virtually financially broke or soon will be. Actually, Social Security will pay out more in 2010 than they take in. Medicare will be bankrupt within five years. So why are these government's entitlement programs forcing seniors into their healthcare program?

If seniors have the ability to pay for their own hospitalization coverage through private insurance, from a financial standpoint, doesn't it make better sense to let them do it and get them out of the money pit of Medicare? Why won't the government allow seniors to opt out of their most costly portion of their program, Medicare Part A which covers hospital insurance?

The answer is because with each person who opted out of Medicare, it would require the government to give up a small piece of power, and that would put a crack in their universal healthcare plan. They do not want anyone to be able to exercise their legal right to pay for private insurance if that's what the people prefer. So, if you ignorant enough to think that your private insurance will survive if a public option (of any version) gets into healthcare reform, think again!

Just so we're clear, there is no law that says any Social Security recipient must subscribe to Medicare, but some "backdoor" administrative measures which were adopted back about 16 years ago by these entitlement programs are what they are using to push seniors into enrolling in Medicare Part A -- under the threat of losing their Social Security. This current policy is a violation of the individual's right to make their own healthcare choices; and further, it violates both the Social Security and Medicare laws.

So, if this is a foreshadowing of what is to come under the ObamaCare or BaucuSCARE, then even if a "private option" remains on the table along with the "public option", policies have already been put into place that can be adopted across the board which will eventually eliminate the option to chose private insurance or to opt out of Medicare, thereby forcing you out of your private insurance coverage into a governmental plan for health care coverage.

This slight of hand, this political mumbo-jumbo (is it a public option or is it a co-op?), these scare tactics cannot be allowed any longer. Call it what it is. And if you talk to people about the issue, point out the deceptions.

People must be allowed their basic life and health choices rights without governmental blackmail. Go get them Brian Hall!

Obama and Congress Preaching to the Choir on ObamaCare

Apparently, our President has a habit of not listening to the citizens of the U.S. In fact, he would rather "preach to the choir". And this practice applies equally to both parties in Congress as it does to the President. Here are some examples of what I mean.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walks up to a podium to speak (other than her press conferences), she has some of her entourage/puppet-congressmen standing behind her, as well as staff members to the side and left-leaning media in front of her. So, no matter what she says, she has a pro-message audience to preach her propaganda to.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does the same thing with his cronies, staff, and media, as does John Boehner and most, if not all, of the others in Washington. It's a modus operandi in Washington to surround yourself with "yes" people and even to plant some in the audience for Q&A so you can get at least a few questions to answer to promote your agenda. Obama did the same thing during the campaign, and since he's still campaigning (because that's all he really knows how do to), he's is continuing that practice as of today when, as an example, he invited 150 doctors to the White House to discuss healthcare reform. Well, it was reported that these doctors were handpicked, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these physicians are mostly likely pro-Obamacare. Otherwise, if history teaches us anything, their voices would be ignored.

He did the same thing with some nurses' association representatives not long ago. Well, most healthcare providers, those who are practicing, do not support the ObamaCare plan. And as we learned last week, NY medical caregivers, primarily doctors and nurses are opposed to the mandatory inoculation - just as their peers in other states do as well. So, logically, we can assume that AMA (which represents only a small minority of doctors, and most of whom do not practice medicine) and ANA (American Nurses Association)  do not represent these medical professions as a whole. In fact, polls show the opposite - just ask your doctor and nurse.

So, if this meeting Obama has planned today with the doctors is for "show and tell", it's obviously another ruse. If he brought them to the White House truly not knowing where they stood on the issue and is really seeking to listen to their input, then count this as one of the campaign promises he made that he's really adhering to - and that is to listen to serious debate. Even so, I wonder what he constitutes as "serious" debate. The American people have been trying to debate his issues for months now and he's done his best to not hear what they're saying.

The problem with the issue of preaching healthcare to the choir is that if the preacher turns to preach to the choir, it's obvious that he has his back turned to the congregation. Look for Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, as well as others, to continue to preach to the choir over the next couple of weeks.... but the choir isn't the congregation. They've stopped listening to a message where cost numbers don't add up, where answers about maintaining quality of care are not direct - much less honest, and discussion on issues that would give incremental reform without trashing everything that works are evaded. There is no open and honest debate from The One who is preaching to the choir!

Obamacare - Penalties for Non-Insured - UPDATED!

Tom Barthold is Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. On Thursday, he sent Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) a handwritten note on JCT letterhead which confirmed that those who fail to comply with the mandatory healthcare coverage would face a penalty of up to $1,900. He noted that anyone who chooses not to purchase health insurance under the Obamacare plan could also be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty. Barthold signed his note "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold." How sweet - not!

UPDATE!! Here's Senator John Thune's (R-SD) response at one of his townhall meetings.



Any small businesses that doesn’t offer health insurance to its employes becomes a victim of a “pay or play” mandate that requires a penalty of up to 8% of its payroll tax to be paid to the government. A small business who files on an individual income tax return, will be charged a 5.4% surtax added to their top marginal tax rate. Further, an individual who doesn’t buy insurance under this mandate will be assessed a 2.5% tax as a penalty.
Question: This healthcare reform will not increase your taxes one dime - where have we heard those words? Can you say, "You lie"?

In other words, you're about to get hammered, and you won't be able to continue running your own life and making your own choices as free Americans have done for over 200 years. You know, the freedom to choose your own healthcare or even have it. I always thought that if I didn't have insurance, then any expenses I incurred would be my responsibility - no one else's. If I choose not to be insured, then I must be prepared for the consequences. That's because I believe in freedom, not a free ride. How about you?

The freedom of choice, as the example of this government healthcare reform confirms, will be just an illusion. Mandated coverage for everyone is Socialism Step One. Socialism Step Two - beware!

Let Congress hear your outrage!

"Cadillac" Healthcare Plan Under Attack!

There was a time when the Cadillac was the automobile of choice among the wealthy and influential. In this healthcare debate the term “Cadillac” has been applied to some current healthcare plans. At first, it seemed the term was used primarily to refer to the healthcare plan that is only available to our Congress, the President, and fat-cats on Wall Street and offered the ultimate coverage possible with no out of pocket expenses. However, as the debate has continued, the so-called "Cadillac” plans appeared to change to pertain to expensive policies that some people have – which it turns out are blue-collar workers. It’s these plans are under threat of being taxed at a high rate some have estimated at 30%.

Since it was getting confusing, I wanted some clarity as to what a "Cadillac healthcare plan" was and did my own research to see what I could find out.

A "Cadillac" healthcare plan, sometimes called a "gold-plated" insurance plan, is one that can have expensive coverage where the insured may might have low deductibles and high benefits and even provide coverage for the most expensive treatments, but more often it is defined by the total cost of those premiums rather than what it might cost the insured for healthcare. Premiums for the "Cadillac" plan can be high for reasons other than cost of benefits. Some of these factors include the age, gender, and overall health status of the individual as well as regional healthcare costs.

In my research, I found that in employer-sponsored healthcare plans, the premiums paid by employees are based on the pooled risk. Risk means that there are older employees, or many employees who may have chronic illnesses, or a predominantly female workforce, or the company could be located in a region where healthcare costs are just more expensive. In these “risky” cases, people might pay "Cadillac" rates but have "clunker" coverage. So, some people are paying higher premiums for their health insurance simply because of where they live or who they work with.

Washington's answer (as it is with most issues) is to impose a tax on the premiums of healthcare coverage. But that would hurt millions of people: small businesses, those who work in small businesses, and those who are self-employed. If healthcare premiums are taxed, the working class, the majority of whom already live modestly, would be hit the hardest.

These proposed taxes on premiums is supposed to penalize the insurers, but as everyone knows insurers will likely “trickle down” those taxes to consumers in the way of higher deductibles or less coverage or a combination of both in order to recover the additional taxes they are required to pay. But taxing premiums is only one option being discussed. Some lawmakers are pushing to tax benefits, and a few are wanting to tax both. And should you wonder why – those healthcare taxes would raise billions upon billions of dollars for the government.

As healthcare costs have risen over the last several years, of course people have had to pay higher deductibles and higher premiums. The Kaiser Family Foundation says that this year, the total cost of the policy for an average family of four offered by employers was $13,375 annually.

As an example, let’s consider a blue-collar employee who has the opportunity to have healthcare coverage through an employer-sponsored plan for the employee and spouse only. The employee could choose a plan with low co-pays and low deductibles if they wanted to, but because their health is very good and the premiums among the lowest offered, they opted for a high deductible plan. That means that prescriptions and doctor visits will be paid out of pocket until a maximum out of pocket amount is reached … so basically, the policy covers “catastrophic” needs... at an annual cost of $12,168. This is certainly no “Cadillac” version.

However, under Senator Baucus' bill which sets the minimum threshold for taxing premiums at $8000 annually, assuming the “trickle down” theory comes into play, this couple would have to not only “absorb” the out of pocket expenses for prescriptions and doctor visits until their maximum out of pocket threshold is met, but as provided under the Baucus plan, they would incur an additional out of pocket expense of more than $1,400 annually in the taxes conveyed into increased deductibles or less coverage – or premium costs – oh, no! So, how will this help the working class? (The assumption here is that the approximately 1/3 of amount which exceeded the $8,000 minimum for the above example will be due in taxes and that will be passed on to insured.)

Companies who "self-insure” would be required to pay an “excise tax” which means they would most likely have to pass that tax on to their workers in the form of either higher premiums or lower wages. Employers who presently pay or contribute to “Cadillac” premiums and who have a sicker workforce may see costs go down since all of the proposals in Baucus’ bill prohibit insurers from charging higher rates based on health status of the workforce. But I wouldn’t count on that! More than likely regardless of “Cadillac” or “clunker” policy, it’s going to cost the working class more so that those who aren’t working can be covered. How’s that helping the majority of the population, the working middle class?

The goal of the Senator Baucus’ plan is twofold. One is to generate revenue to help pay for covering the uninsured (that would be those who aren’t working?) and the other is to make the more expensive plans less desirable. The minimum tax thresholds would increase as inflation rates goes up. Historically, health insurance costs generally increase faster than inflation. So, more plans, not just the “Cadillac” versions, but modest healthcare plans as well could end up being taxed. Again, how does this help the working class?

I haven’t taken up Obama’s policy of penalizing those who do not get and keep health insurance coverage. I’ll leave that for another time because that’s a huge can of worms. But I will say that after researching this healthcare reform issue, I'm wondering about one thing: the term “Cadillac” in reference to healthcare reform that our elected officials are using. Does this mean that the governmental plans for reform in healthcare will go the way of the reform in the automotive industry?

Obama Looks for Healthcare Breakthrough

It still is amazing to me how totally out of touch with the American people our elected officials in Washington are. It is as if the town hall events which took place during August and the huge numbers of protesters who marched in Washington in September just didn't exist to them. It's as if there weren’t major poll results on critical issues that document people’s opinions which are opposing the proposed healthcare and expressing grave concern about the budget deficit. (Check out Rasmussen's latest polls at http://tinyurl.com/ly4hb3.)

But the Obama administration and Congress are not recognizing the validity of the voices of the majority of Americans who have said "No" to Obamacare. It's obvious that Obama hasn't heard the people. This fact was evidenced in the content of his media blitz this past Sunday. In spite of losing ground in the healthcare debate, President Barack is pushing even harder for his reform by appearing on five major networks in one day, spouting much of the same rhetoric as he has all along. In one of the interviews, Obama said that his message is sometimes not “breaking through.” He said, “I think there have been times where I have said, ’I’ve got to step up my game in terms of talking to the American people about issues like health care.’”

Well, his position on healthcare reform been stated many times, and in many ways - sometimes with public option and sometimes with government run co-ops instead. Congress doesn’t appear to be listening either. Well, that's not exactly accurate. Nancy Pelosi seems to have heard something - even if they are the old voices in her head from the past! But the American people are informed. They have read the information for themselves in the HR3200 and Baucus bills. The result is they just don’t want it.

When Obama was asked by the interviewer if he had lost control of the health debate, Obama said, “Well, not so much lost control, but where I’ve said to myself, somehow I’m not breaking through.” Oh, no! I think he's wrong. I believe he got through alright - months ago! The American people have heard, and the American people have been speaking. His message has been rejected. But he isn't listening – to the people!

Further, he doesn't want to hear. He and his minions have their own agendas they are going to push through regardless of what the masses say. And, yes, they are playing the game of politics, and it’s well known that Democrats own the ball, bat, gloves, and they are even threatening to inappropriately apply obscure rules so they can “win” the game while ignoring the voices of any opposition.

The mandate to the President comes from the people; the President and Congress are not supposed to mandate what the people should do or have. That isn’t constitutional; it’s not democratic. It sounds more like the foundation for a dictatorship (especially when people who are not elected or constitutionally vetted are given policy making powers, but that’s another topic).

But apparently people-mandate isn’t the way this group in Washington operates. They all still appear to be going on with their business as usual, pushing their agendas through with no regard to the majority of the American people who have made their positions abundantly clear.

If I’m wrong, then I guess I obtained a skewed understanding of how things are supposed to work or was incorrectly taught during my government-run education, but I believe that when the American people speak, whether in town hall meetings or in protest rallies or express their opinions in polls, it's the responsibility of their elected representatives to listen. And in a democracy the majority is supposed to prevail. All of our elected officials are supposed to listen to the majority voice of the people – and our “elected officials” means the House, the Senate, and the President!

Obama Healthcare Plan - With Sugar Coating

When I was a child, my mother gave me some really horrible home remedy "medicine" for a childhood ailment. It was the most bitter, vile-tasting liquid on earth. So, her method of delivery was to put a few drops of it in a spoonful of granulated sugar and make me take it under the threat that my father would hold me down and force my mouth open if I didn't comply. Holding my nose because it also had an indescribably bad smell, I ultimately gave in and swallowed it. But even though there was much more sugar than liquid, it still was horrible tasting, and the sugar made it only a little easier to swallow. Why she felt her treatment was better for me than what the doctor would have prescribed was known only to her and a few others who believed in that type of home remedies.

This reminds me of what is going on with the Obamacare issue. There are portions - the drops of liquid - of the healthcare debate that are non-negotiables to the liberals in this proposed healthcare legislation. (And these are laid out in HR3200 which is a "pattern" piece of legislation from which everyone else is developing their own plans.) HR3200 spells out exactly what the far left is wanting to see in this healthcare reform package. So, it doesn't matter how much sugar-coating is done, it still has a very bad taste. I don't care how Obama shrouds the "liquid drops" of his universal healthcare in his carefully selected words, it still stinks. My real-life example may actually be a metaphor for what we will see if the Democrats proceed with the Ratification process.

I'm not against healthcare reform. I believe there are things that need to be changed about the healthcare system. I just differ with our legislators on what it is that needs to be changed. It makes more sense to me, as it does to many others, to reform the areas that are not working rather than dumping everything including the things that are working well in favor of a totally new healthcare system at a huge cost - regardless of what politicians say. I’m smart enough to see that if the “upfront” costs for the new plan don’t come directly from out of pocket expenses and insurance premiums, we still will have to make up the difference wherever cuts have been made. There’s nothing free in this world. Everything costs something!

There are legislators and doctors in Canada and in the UK who are saying that America's healthcare system is the best there is. To adopt the healthcare systems similar to these two countries is to go down the wrong path. They will tell you that this type of healthcare has failed in their countries. So, why are our politicians hell-bent on pushing this through. Simple answer. It's greed! It's a way to line their pockets, and a way to gain favor with the few at the expense of the many.

Below are some oversimplified suggestions that will lead to the kind of reform that I believe most Americans would prefer to see. At least it’s a place to start and which can be implemented without totally dismantling our present system. If these suggestions do not become part of the legislation, and Congress does create a new healthcare system, we can be assured we’ll have a socialistic plan that is of less quality than 90% of Americans presently have now

1.  Stop frivolous lawsuits and absurd settlements and jury awards.

2.  Shorten the patent terms for drug companies and open market to generic drug competition.

4.  Require an open playing field for health insurance companies across state lines.

4.  Make it possible to have affordable insurance offered on an individual basis rather than through employers.

5.  Establish fair parameters for covering people with pre-existing conditions.

The real problem with our healthcare problems is unadulterated greed, plain and simple. It’s not that we don’t have adequate quality care. In fact, 90% of Americans have good or excellent healthcare.  Here’s a thought: perhaps the other 10% could be considered "a group" and offered affordable group healthcare insurance for at least catastrophic coverage.

And again, why do you suppose our legislators don't listen to those who have experienced the type of healthcare that is being proposed when those people are saying it’s no good?  It’s called graft. It’s what is putting money in the pockets of our legislators and is what keeps them in power.  Washington, DC is never going to do anything about it on their own. Therefore, it’s up to the citizens to expose it and to keep attention on it until the pressure affects change.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(Side Note: Americans didn't like the new Coca-Cola either! Remember what happened? If we who do not want this socialistic healthcare, we must stand strong and we will prevail!)

Devaluing the Devalued Dollar

While we're being distracted by the hugely important issue of healthcare reform, and the raucous townhall meetings, the present administration is taking yet another gigantic leap in weakening the US on a different front. This time it's our dollar - again! And they're doing it on the sly. Here's what has happened last week while we focused on the townhall meetings:



Isn't that scary? And sneaky?

I wonder... what happened to the promised transparency? I haven't seen a single instance of it in this new administration, not one instance.

I must say I believe that the simultaneous bombardment on many fronts that is being perpetuated by the present administration has been strategically designed to push through changes which are intended to bring down this great country. But why?

Why would anyone who proclaims to be an American and who says they love this country want to see it brought to its knees? It's not just one man's insanity or evil as it was with Hitler or Stalin. It's one "front" man who is backed by liberal legislators, championed by the liberal media, surrounded by left-wing activists, leftist extremists, and out-and-out criminals (these people are called czars, now).

If this great country falls, it's not to the benefit of anyone... not to anyone on the right or on the left. So other than having the "power" of being able to interject their liberal philosophies into our government as a replacement of our Constitution, I cannot see any advantage to any of these who are doggedly perpetuating this national sell-out.

I can only pray that this country can hold on without permanent damage until those who seek her destruction are removed from office and positions of power and those who love the country and want to restore her to greatness can be found and put into office in place.

What About All This Health Care "Chatter"

I've been watching the reporting on several media outlets on these townhall meetings. The reporting appears, of course, to be a bit slanted depending upon which media outlet you pay attention to. So, rather than give comment on either of the various reports, I'll speak of what I saw and what I think about what I saw.

Time was that the townhall was used as a place where the people had a chance to tell their representatives what was on their minds and to ask for clarification on issues being discussed in the US Congress and get straight answers! But more recently, townhalls have become successful stumping grounds for political candidates in putting forth their political agendas prior to election. Thus, because that was so successful, townhalls have become a place where the well-entrenched politicians can come and tell us what they're doing and spin their actions such as to either confound their constituents further or to make "an appearance" of being a real representative for what is best for their constituents.

These more recent healthcare townhall meetings started with Arlen Specter and Kathleen Sebilius.... the first thing I noticed was that what came out of Specter's mouth was the excuse about not having time to read bills due to the rush put on them to pass the legislation, and then the same old rhetoric that has been spouted by healthcare proponents in the halls of Congress in Washington DC. At that point it became very clear that he and Kathleen were going to present the same old "blah-blah-blah" that had been spouted by all the healthcare reform supporters, and that's when those in attendance who are fed up with the same ol', same ol' began forcefully speaking out.

Yes, it was loud... and why? Because Specter and Sebilius had the microphones and they didn't, and they were determined to make their points. They saw that these two people came to present the same old propaganda with which they disagreed, and that these two standing in the front of the room really had no true answers to the legitimate questions the people had. So, their hopes of hearing something different, something to which they could ascribe, were dashed immediately and the result was that their frustration quickly grew.

I don't blame them. I've sent messages to my senators and representative and all I get for my effort is a thank you for contacting us form letter. There is no genuine statements of concern or that they were affected by my or anyone else's misgivings, nor did they give direct answers to my questions. So, if we call, email, or write letters and receive no real acknowledgement, is there any wonder that we're frustrated to the point of "getting in their face" just to be heard?

Today, I watched another of Arlen Specter's townhall meetings. Approximately 200 people or so were allowed into the hall and of those only 30 were allowed to draw numbers to ask questions. I applaud his attempt to control his meeting, but actually I found myself watching political "dodge ball" in some of the exchanges, meaning that I heard some pat "political non-answer answers" to a few of the questions to which he knew he'd get the most pushback or those he didn't want to directly box himself in on. I did hear a few promises made to not vote for certain provisions which were of concern to the audience members. Whether he keeps those promises is yet to be seen. After all, he abandoned those who put him in office, didn't he? All in all, it was a fairly respectful exchange with some passionate and pointed statements and questions. But I was still left with the feeling that Arlen Specter wasn't changed in his position by the concern and types of questions he was being asked. Rather, I feel that he was just relieved that he made it through this townhall meeting in one piece!

I feel it is really important to state that in the first townhall, I noticed the absence of what appeared to be an organized demonstration. I saw no pre-printed placards, I saw no group T-shirts. The only "union" I saw was when someone made a point that was shared by others in the audience, they stood up and applauded. For the most part they remained in their seats and a few stood to make their point before sitting down again. In the second one, I noticed the presence of law enforcement.... still no printed placards, no group T-shirts... no angry fists pumping in the air... just really concerned citizens. (But that's not what the far left and liberal media is claiming happens at these meetings.) Rather than troublemakers, I saw people who looked to be uber-mainstream... though somewhat older than those you normally see in a rowdy demonstration. No one advanced on the podium, no one shook angry fists in the speakers face, though there was some pointed fingers driving home their points. They were determined that this meeting was was not going to be a "just sit there and listen while I tell you what it is that's best for you," but the people in the smaller second townhall audience were more respectful and thanked him for showing up.

The atmosphere in these townhalls was charged no doubt, but they certainly weren't threatening. If the senators and representatives and cabinet members felt threatened, it must have come from within, knowing that what they were trying to sell wasn't a "genuine" product. And it wasn't until the White House called for their "paid grass roots" people - who are stupid enough to wear identification in the form of apparel and pre-printed placards - to attend and make their presence known - and were given preferential seating in the halls so as to present a more favorable appearance to the media - did there appear anything resembling violence. That's how they've been trained in these community organization camps - to disrupt through civil disobedience if necessary which means they can be violent, they can smack people around, they can shove and push, injure, and intimidate, etc. They better watch out, though. I've heard that little old grannies and old vets can be forces to be reckoned with!

I'm now watching Obama's townhall meeting and listening to him restate himself on some things he already said he wanted his healthcare plan to do. Standing behind him on stage are about a hundred obvious Obama supporters. The first several rows in the audience appear to be more of the same. Certain people are being selected from the audience to give their questions. In spite of the insistence that this isn't staged, it has all the appearances of an orchestrated townhall where he can relive his campaign glory days in a loving atmosphere and regurgitate his "charming" rhetoric to the viewing audience in an attempt to reset the tone and regain support for his healthcare/insurance plan.

I'm not the only one who's noticed a change in some of the terms he's using now. I'm not sure if it's due to the pressure he's feeling from some of these outspoken townhall attendees.... or a just reaction to the polls that are moving more and more to the negative. In an effort to win back those who have grievances against the original plan as published by the House of Representatives in their bill HR3200, Obama is now shifting from calling it "healthcare reform" to "insurance" reform.... just like he did when he changed the term the "stimulus" to "recovery". And why was that? Because the effects of the "stimulus" have not been evident. Recovery is a prolonged and less quantifiable term.

So far, the House and Senate leaders are sticking to their guns, though, and calling it healthcare reform. Some of these terms and other "volatile" terms continue to come out of the mouths of the House leadership. They're not following Obama's precedence. Perhaps Obama's Communications Director (or Czar or whatever) needs to communicate with the Senate and the House of Representatives about what the "term of du jour" is because they aren't saying the same things...

And it also appears that no one in Washington has actually read HR3200, or if they have, they don't know what actually is or isn't in it. You can tell that by the blank stares or excuses they're getting when asked about specific passages in the bill. Even Obama doesn't know what's in it and has said as much. No one has been able to answer what the actual cost of this legislation will be and where the funds to pay for it will come from. In fact, they want to pass it way before they know this information. That seems an asinine move. Would you commit to making a major purchase without knowing the cost and how you're going to pay for it? So I ask, are we surprised that we are somewhat confused about what is contained in this bill, what effect this healthcare/insurance plan will have on us, and what it's going to cost us not only in the immediate but down the road???

Regardless of what this piece of legislation is called it doesn't change the content of the bill and the things are that the townhallers are incensed about. I can't help but wonder. The majority of the people do not want this particular bill in either version. What they do want is tort reform, changes in insurance companies' control over cost and coverage, and they want affordable insurance premiums and healthcare. Why then are these congressmen embracing all these other things that are in this bill? Well, the answer is that's Washington. Slip whatever you can in under the radar so that you get what you've been paid for or repay those to whom you owe favors. I heard a report that pharmaceutical companies struck a deal with the White House within the last few days. Hmmm. There's only one answer for that I can think of.... lobbyi$t$!! What do you think?

I can only assume that Congress really doesn't care about how it affects everyone else because it doesn't touch them in a personal way. Well, hopefully those things are being watched more closely by the citizenry from now on, and those in the Senate and House will be held more accountable after this. Not only do we need to keep pressuring our representatives with questions for clarity on the healthcare issues, but we need to hold them accountable for all the promises they have made in their campaigns and in these townhall meetings.