Town hall meetings are today's civil war

Left: A video from CNN affiliate KNXV shows a man carrying an assault rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix, Arizona. (KNXV)







Two days ago I told a friend of mine that the heated town hall meetings on healthcare reform could be this era's version of a civil war, and that had this "battle" taken place in the 60s or 100 years ago, people would be shooting each other.

Little did I know that weapons had already made an appearance in a couple of demonstrations last week.

One Rambo-wanna-be man, for example, showed up at a protest in Phoenix--where Obama was addressing veterans--carrying an assault rifle and a handgun.

He mindfully took it with him to what he knew would be a dangerously heated encounter with "the enemy." Like a dozen others carrying weapons that day, he paraded his rifle allegedly to exercise his right to bear arms. Fine, but that was not his only motive, if you ask me.

He relied on his weapon to intimidate those on the other side of the argument, to shut them up lest they get shot. He chose to draw power from a fire arm instead of the strength of his position on the debate. How convenient, how lazy, and how lame.

He also took the rifle to the rally because he thought he might need it, because he thought he might use it.

Police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said the group carrying weapons was "interested in exercising the right to bear arms."

"I'm exercising my rights as an American in Arizona," Rambo, who refused to give his name, told KNXV.

Um...he shows up with fire arms at a protest against the president of the U.S., claiming it's his right, walking around like a tough guy, but he hides his name? Coward. No wonder he needs guns.

I'm not questioning his right to carry arms; I believe in that right. I'm questioning his judgment.

If exercising this right was his only purpose, why not carry the guns while walking his dogs, why take them to protests bursting with people on the edge of violence?

"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," Rambo said. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."

I don't buy it.

The man added that he was unhappy with some health care reform proposals. Exactly. Here we go...

"I'm absolutely, totally against health care, health care in this way, in this manner," he said. "Stealing it from people, I don't think that's appropriate."

And that's why he's carrying the rifle.

Plus, what about the angry person likely to lose control while standing inches away from an armed person during one of these crowded meetings or protests? What if someone there feels like exercising his finger with a trigger?

Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons, so despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made, CNN reported.

Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn't require a license for open carry.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said, "Of course not."

Of course not?

The individuals would never have gotten close to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, Donovan said, explaining that a venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and that weapons are not allowed on a federal site. The men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking, Donovan said.

"We pay attention to this obviously...to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law," he told CNN.

He's downplaying the issue because that's what he's supposed to do. We don't need to trigger yet another national debate on Second Amendment rights--not now at least.

But here's the thing: given that many opposers of healthcare reform are gun-proud Republicans, chances are more goons who evidently can't rely on their intellectual abilities to debate this issue will show up armed at town hall meetings and protests.

Someone is going to get shot.

Sources: CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

How do healthcare proposals compare?

(photo source unknown)

President Obama is traveling to Montana today for yet another so-called town hall meeting to explain what his healthcare reform plan is all about. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to post the following information listing what each of the plans under debate propose.

If you ask me, there are too many unknown variables in all of the plans because there's simply no way to address each and every possibly scenario in healthcare and insurance coverage. And given people's resistance to change, fear of the unknown, and the wild notions Republicans are spreading about healthcare reform--that it will turn the U.S. into a socialist country, among them--I can't see how any of these plans could ever get a fair chance.

Furthermore, when I think about the notoriously lazy legislators who vote on bills without reading them (being thousands of pages long probably doesn't help), and considering the complexity of the subject, I can't help but wonder how any of them could possibly fully understand any of the plans enough to cast an educated vote.

FACTBOX on healthcare reform as published by Reuters

When Congress returns Sep 8, lawmakers will continue work on an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system. There are three different plans in the works, all containing changes that would be phased in over a number of years.

In the House of Representatives, three committees have each approved changes to one House bill. The changes will be melded by House leaders into final legislation before a floor vote expected in September.

In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has approved its version and the Senate Finance Committee is working on a separate healthcare overhaul bill.

The following is a comparison of major points in the various proposals.

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS

All bills include the following:

• Bar discrimination based on gender or pre-existing medical condition.
• Coverage is guaranteed and benefits could not be rescinded after coverage is issued.
• No annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments.

Senate Health Committee and Finance Committee

• Premiums could vary only on family size, geographic region, tobacco use, age and benefits provided.
• Coverage is guaranteed and benefits could not be rescinded after coverage is issued.
• Insurers must provide financial incentives for quality and preventive care.

House bill

• Would eliminate co-pays for preventive care.

COVERAGE

Senate Health Committee bill

• Individuals are required to obtain coverage or pay a penalty of up to $750 per year. To help people pay for it, credits would be available up to an income of $88,000 a year for a family of four.
• Employers are required to pay 60 percent of coverage for workers or pay $750 per year penalty. First 25 employees are exempt.
• Health and Human Services Department would decide what is in a basic insurance plan required to be offered to all.

Senate Finance Committee bill

• An individual mandate is likely. No employer mandate is expected to be included but employers whose workers obtain subsidized coverage through an insurance exchange would have to cover some of the cost of those subsidies.

House bill

• Individuals would be required to obtain coverage or pay a penalty based on income.
• Employers would be required to contribute 65 percent of workers' family insurance premiums or pay an 8 percent penalty. No penalty for small businesses but competing versions define small business as either under $250,000 or $500,000 annual payroll.

INSURANCE OPTIONS

Senate Health Committee bill

• Insurance "gateway," or exchange, would serve as a clearing house for private insurers and a new public insurance option run by the government to sell policies to those who do not have coverage elsewhere.
• New government-run insurance system would negotiate with providers for payments not more than the average of private insurers in the gateway system.
• Those who have insurance would be permitted to keep their current plans and health insurers could sell policies outside the gateway system.
• Health and Human Services Department would set out essential health benefits and minimum coverage for individuals.
• Temporary aid for employers to cover retirees between ages 55 and 64 until the gateway system is in place.
• Dependents would be covered until age 26.

Finance Committee

• Expected to provide for non-profit co-operatives rather than a government-run insurance plan.
• Establishes state insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals without employer-sponsored insurance.
• The proposed new government-run plan or co-op insurance plans would be offered through these exchanges.

House bills

• Would set up a public insurance option similar to the Senate Health Committee bill.
• State insurance exchanges would offer individuals and small businesses insurance from private insurers or the government-run plan.
• Insurance co-operatives would be allowed.

INSURANCE SUBSIDIES

Senate Health Committee and House bills

• Provide various forms of individual subsidies on a sliding scale up to 4 times the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four).
• The bills provide for some form of premium credit or tax subsidy for small businesses.

Senate Finance proposal

• Expected to provide refundable tax credit for individuals up to 3 times the poverty level.
• To provide a small business tax credit.

MEDICAID

Millions more people would become eligible for state Medicaid health plans for the poor.

Senate Health bill

• Expansion to those with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level.

Senate Finance

• Expansion to be determined. Federal government would bear added costs for a number of years, expected eventually to shift those costs to states.

House bills

• Expansion of coverage to 133 percent of poverty. Requires states to enroll those newly eligible.

MEDICARE

All bills include provisions to improve quality of healthcare in the Medicare program for the elderly. Payments to be designed to encourage quality, not quantity of services.

House bill

• Requires government to negotiate prices with drug companies.
• Eliminates the drug coverage gap over 15 years.
• Will cover the cost of voluntary discussions with healthcare providers on end-of-life care.

(Compiled by Jackie Frank and Donna Smith, editing by Eric Beech)

To read the House bill, go here.

To read the Senate bill, go here. (The document does not specify which of the two bills--Health or Finance committee--this is.)

Sources: Reuters, CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Welcome to the summer of hate

Left: People protesting proposed health care reform outside of the high school where President Obama was conducting a town meeting on Aug. 11, 2009, in Portsmouth, N.H. (Robert Spencer/Getty Images)

Following is a column published on Aug 13 by NPR and written by Laura Lorson, host of All Things Considered for Kansas Public Radio in Lawrence.

It's kinda funny, but it makes a point--one I tend to agree with as you can see from my healthcare reform Town Hall meetings updates.

It seems like there's some kind of impulse for people to just get together and DO something. Forty years ago, long-haired, incense-burning baby boomers were subjecting us to "The Summer of Love," and they got all worked up and piled into VW micro-buses and drove out to upstate New York, rolling around in the mud and taking drugs, and generally alarming their parents with the threat of — I don't know — communes.

Now, it's 40 years later, and gray-haired, incensed boomers are subjecting us to what I guess you might want to call "The Summer of Hate," to judge from the pictures of people's faces contorted with rage, calling each other names that they used to reserve for "The Man." Now, instead of the peace and harmony, make-love-not-war thing, they're getting all worked up and piling into tricked-out minivans and driving out to their congressional representatives' offices, rolling around in their Medicare-provided scooters, yelling about the cost of drugs and generally alarming their parents with the threat of — I don't know — health care.

Now, I know that I'm shooting fish in a barrel, here. I mean, I'm a Gen-Xer, and what we do is snark on everything, especially baby boomers. We grew up hearing over and over again how their generation had ideals! And goals! And relatively easy access to a wide variety of hallucinogens! My generation? We had drug-abuse resistance education, McGruff the Crime Dog, and Depeche Mode. We ridicule, therefore we are. But seriously — that's hilarious! From Woodstock to apoplectic rage, in 40 short years. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

You know what I think is really at the heart of these protests? Why the turnout is large, and the momentum building? It's that people like to take a road trip. What they're road-tripping FOR doesn't actually make much difference. I keep seeing footage of people camping out in front of these Senators' offices, and mentally, I'm getting a picture of Woodstock, just cleaner, and with more clothes.

I keep expecting some fella to go up to a podium and announce, "Hey, everyone, the brown Maalox that is circulating around is not too good." Then they would all listen to "Sugar Magnolia," accuse each other of being fascists, and go home. Anyway, it looks alarming, and maybe not as much fun as three days of peace and music, but it's still kind of reassuring to know that you might take the people out of the '60s, but you can't take the '60s out of the people.

They still get together and declare, in no uncertain terms, what they want. I don't claim to know who's doing what, who's financing what, all I know is that people can be united in anger and opposition, or united in peace and togetherness, and either way, it's really something to see.

Source: NPR

Healthcare reform Town Hall talks go on

Now happening at a Town Hall near you--
(skip the first minute)



Source: YouTube

US Town Hall meetings on healthcare reform

In a nutshell...



Source: YouTube

Healthcare reform tough without legislator reform

Health and healthcare happen to be up high in my priority list, yet, as you can see, I haven't been posting much about the reform, which no doubt is a critical issue in this country.

Why?

Because it's a clusterfuck.

It's gotten so complicated that it's not only overwhelming to try to understand but also nearly impossible to explain--and that's a bad sign, if you ask me.

Why is it such a clusterfuck?

Because of special interest groups (insurers and healthcare providers) lobbying the crap out of spineless legislators who are more interested in what they can get from these groups than in doing their jobs.

Surely there's a simpler way to approach universal healthcare--there has to be. But that would lead to reduced profits for most of this heath-caring (not!) people.

One of the most contended aspects of the reform is the $1 trillion price tag. Well, I think that's probably twice of what it would cost if these fuckers weren't out to get obscenely rich vs. seeking to make a decent living, even be wealthy.

Furthermore, how many millions (ahem, billions) of dollars to we send to other countries disguised as "aid" to advance geopolitical agendas, among other things...? Sometimes the so-called aid enables some of these foreign governments to provide basic services, such as healthcare, to their people. Charity starts at home.

In addition, it is acceptable to spend $12 billion a month of taxpayers' money to fund a pseudo-war in Iraq (launched by the Bush administration based on a series of lies) that has done absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life in this country, but it's not acceptable to allocate that kind of effort and resources on the healthcare of Americans.

I think the best system would be one without insurance companies.

You think I'm oversimplifying things? Fine, but I think it is that simple.

Clusterfucks are notoriously present when a bunch of irrationally motivated people are set on getting their way above all else, unwilling to cooperate among themselves to reach a compromise that serves everyone's needs to a certain degree vs. catering either exclusively or disproportionately to one or more groups at the expense of others.

Case in point: Last week, South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint told fellow legislators that "if we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Does it sound like this distinguished (not!) member of Congress is interested in anything other than his and his party's political agenda? Nope.

While the Obama administration labors to find a way to make decent healthcare accessible to all--rich, poor and in-between--Americans, this asshole is stuck on how to "stop Obama."

"Think about that," President Obama said Monday during a visit to Children's National Medical Center in Washington in response to DeMint's remark. "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses, and breaking America's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time. Not now."

Here's the thing: DeMint can dedicate his precious energy and resources to this irrational cause because either he's healthy enough to do so or, when he's not, he's got a killer health plan--paid by you and me--to cover his ass.

I'd like to see what he would do if illness Waterloo-ed his life and he didn't have the so-called "Cadillac plan" he's entitled to as a congressman to get catch him when he falls.

Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved