Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just came back from the Gaston Day School Town Hall meeting "conducted" by Sue Myrick. At the beginning, Rep. Myrick stated that the purpose of the meeting was to give folks a chance to express themselves and she would listen. She did state certain aspects of health care reform that she was in favor of such as removing the denial of health insurance due to pre-existing conditions and the purchasing of insurance over state lines, but stated the country did not need to do such a massive overhaul as was being contemplated now. In fact, not doing anything for this year was fine, too, she said at one point.
I'd say the audience definitely skewed 55 and older. There were lots of older white-haired attendees. Some signs, but they didn't seem to be waving them excessively. Wow, was I surprised at the police presence. There must have been at least twenty police there along with flashing blue lights in the parking lots.
And with that, people could line up at the two microphones to speak. Some people stated they were afraid this country was "going socialist and they were scared" while others read from the Constitution. One man made a comment that President Obama was appointing death panels. When Rep. Myrick said nothing, a woman in the audience called out for her to refute it. Only at that point did she do so. Throughout the meeting (I was there about three hours), Rep. Myrick listened as people blantantly said untrue things. Her most common response was "thank you for coming out tonight". Two women asked her to speak up when untrue comments were made and that seemed to take her aback.
At no time did I see Rep. Myrick or her staff of approximately eight people take notes. It did appear that they were recording it, but I'm not absolutely sure.
Many times, Rep. Myrick did not seem to know what the health care bill included or was cognizant on other issues. Her staff was consulted regularly to help her.
One man was escorted out by police for stating that "Obama needs to be taken care of".
Lots of booing and hissing for the handful of people who expressed opinions counter to the majority of the audience.
As a resident of this area for a decade, it seemed to me to be representative of citizens of Gaston County.
Anyone else attend?
Lori
I think you make a few really good points which unfortunately show the reality of the current debate on health care.
Some of those who are opposed to the plan have good reasons to be opposed. I might not agree with those reasons, but I can understand why some people may have disagreements and concerns from it based on philosophy. What annoys me is when people will throw out every lie and myth they possibly can come up with about the proposal (the death panels among other things) and those who know better (such as what Myrick should know) just sit there and than the person for their comments. It seems to be like she as well as others feed off the lies, the myths and misconceptions about the plan in order to help build support for their opposition. Perhaps this is because knowing that legit concerns (no matter how valid) might simply not be enough to justify their opposition without relying on the falsehoods and myths.
I think you make a few really good points which unfortunately show the reality of the current debate on health care.
Some of those who are opposed to the plan have good reasons to be opposed. I might not agree with those reasons, but I can understand why some people may have disagreements and concerns from it based on philosophy. What annoys me is when people will throw out every lie and myth they possibly can come up with about the proposal (the death panels among other things) and those who know better (such as what Myrick should know) just sit there and than the person for their comments. It seems to be like she as well as others feed off the lies, the myths and misconceptions about the plan in order to help build support for their opposition. Perhaps this is because knowing that legit concerns (no matter how valid) might simply not be enough to justify their opposition without relying on the falsehoods and myths.
Well, the thing is . . . I have heard even correspondents on TV give incorrect info. The "death panels" fiasco was blown into a ridiculous discussion b/c it was Palin who said it and everyone was so quick to discredit her. But if you read the bill (the last version available - HR3200) it clearly outlines that a person will be counseled about end of life issues and a doctor can write an order as to your care. Now that leaves a lot wide open to interpretation. I laughed when I heard this stuff about "death panels" but when I finally took the time to look it up, I not only read it, but contacted a healthcare attorney and she agreed - the way it was written, it did appear that a doc would rescind an individual's choices on end of life care, i.e., Do Not Resusciate Orders (DNR) for example.
Not trying to argue about it! Just giving an example of how both sides went off the deep end on this one - those who were turned off by Palin's term "death panels" (very bad choice of words!!!!) and those who were certain that the bill allows docs to over-ride a patient's decisions.
I could point out maybe five different areas off the top of my head where both sides have been screaming that the other is WRONG - and the discussions have all occurred b/c of very difficult to decipher language, or b/c of references to other bills/codes.
So I agree with you - we should have been able to rely on our Reps to give us the actual MEANING of a lot of confusing aspects of the legislation. However, any time you are dealing with a bill this huge, there are gonna be a lot of questions. I get the feeling that for most Americans, they had never even attempted to read a bill before this one.
Sue Myrick sucks. I recall 3 or 4 years ago when she was talking about the illegal alien problem in Charlotte....Guess what ? She ant did SQUAT .we are still being over ran with them.
Well, the thing is . . . I have heard even correspondents on TV give incorrect info. The "death panels" fiasco was blown into a ridiculous discussion b/c it was Palin who said it and everyone was so quick to discredit her. But if you read the bill (the last version available - HR3200) it clearly outlines that a person will be counseled about end of life issues and a doctor can write an order as to your care. Now that leaves a lot wide open to interpretation. I laughed when I heard this stuff about "death panels" but when I finally took the time to look it up, I not only read it, but contacted a healthcare attorney and she agreed - the way it was written, it did appear that a doc would rescind an individual's choices on end of life care, i.e., Do Not Resusciate Orders (DNR) for example.
Not trying to argue about it! Just giving an example of how both sides went off the deep end on this one - those who were turned off by Palin's term "death panels" (very bad choice of words!!!!) and those who were certain that the bill allows docs to over-ride a patient's decisions.
I could point out maybe five different areas off the top of my head where both sides have been screaming that the other is WRONG - and the discussions have all occurred b/c of very difficult to decipher language, or b/c of references to other bills/codes.
So I agree with you - we should have been able to rely on our Reps to give us the actual MEANING of a lot of confusing aspects of the legislation. However, any time you are dealing with a bill this huge, there are gonna be a lot of questions. I get the feeling that for most Americans, they had never even attempted to read a bill before this one.
I really don't think it leaves that much for interpretation. It was modeled after the same counseling services most Private Insurance plans offer (according to Johnny Isakson, the Republican Senator from Georgia who came up with the proposal)
As far as the DNR's go, nothing in this bill suggests that the doctors could override a patient's decision or limit their choices. Its simply giving the patients all the possible options and allowing the patient to make the decision for themselves.
I do agree that any time we have a bill this huge many people are going to have a ton of concerns and many questions. Some of them are legit concerns, some might be based off myths and lies. Regardless if they favor the bill or are opposed what our Reps should do is try to separate fact from falsehood in this debate. Its true different people will have different opinions of what the facts are, and that is fine and to be epxected However, their are certain things which really can't be disputed, and are complete facts and/ or falsehoods.
It appears not only did Myrick turn a blind eye to things she knew was blatantly false, but she is using the misconceptions in order to help build support for her opposition.
I really don't think it leaves that much for interpretation. It was modeled after the same counseling services most Private Insurance plans offer (according to Johnny Isakson, the Republican Senator from Georgia who came up with the proposal)
As far as the DNR's go, nothing in this bill suggests that the doctors could override a patient's decision or limit their choices. Its simply giving the patients all the possible options and allowing the patient to make the decision for themselves.
I do agree that any time we have a bill this huge many people are going to have a ton of concerns and many questions. Some of them are legit concerns, some might be based off myths and lies. Regardless if they favor the bill or are opposed what our Reps should do is try to separate fact from falsehood in this debate. Its true different people will have different opinions of what the facts are, and that is fine and to be epxected However, their are certain things which really can't be disputed, and are complete facts and/ or falsehoods.
It appears not only did Myrick turn a blind eye to things she knew was blatantly false, but she is using the misconceptions in order to help build support for her opposition.
I think you partially missed my point. The language in the bill DID indeed suggest to those who did not understand that language that a doctor could write an order that over-rides a patient's final wishes. If it couldn't be read that way, then WHY DID PEOPLE READ IT THAT WAY?
This is one of the problems with the discussion. Anyone who disagrees is immediately dismissive! I am saying . . . YES, the bill certainly COULD be interpreted as saying that. I am NOT saying that folks manufactured these concerns, which is the problem. Pelosi and Reid as attack dogs have been very condescending to anyone who QUESTIONED or GOT UPSET about what they were reading. Instead, good leaders EXPLAIN. Folks didn't get explanations - they got called names and put down instead. There is a big difference in open discussion and snotty dismissal. And having folks like Palin use terms like "death panel" just escalated the emotional responses.
Until someone comes forward and calmly discusses healthcare reform - such as Sanjay Gupta - someone neutral and informed - there is no way either side is gonna listen to reason.
I think you partially missed my point. The language in the bill DID indeed suggest to those who did not understand that language that a doctor could write an order that over-rides a patient's final wishes. If it couldn't be read that way, then WHY DID PEOPLE READ IT THAT WAY?
This is one of the problems with the discussion. Anyone who disagrees is immediately dismissive! I am saying . . . YES, the bill certainly COULD be interpreted as saying that. I am NOT saying that folks manufactured these concerns, which is the problem. Pelosi and Reid as attack dogs have been very condescending to anyone who QUESTIONED or GOT UPSET about what they were reading. Instead, good leaders EXPLAIN. Folks didn't get explanations - they got called names and put down instead. There is a big difference in open discussion and snotty dismissal. And having folks like Palin use terms like "death panel" just escalated the emotional responses.
Until someone comes forward and calmly discusses healthcare reform - such as Sanjay Gupta - someone neutral and informed - there is no way either side is gonna listen to reason.
That was my point.
I don't think people exactly 'read it that way'. I do agree that the bill is a bit complex and someone who doesn't understand all the language may have concerns and even those who understand the language may have concerns. However, I think the misconceptions of the bill in part come from people feeding into what they hear on Fox, or Limbaugh or posted on some blog somewhere. Basing it off a sentence or two (or even part of a sentence) they might see somewhere, without knowing the context of the sentence they see. So basically basing their views on the bill based off what someone told them about the bill (which was usually taking a sentence completely out of context) and that is what the opinion is based off of.
Anyway aside from all of that, which has little to do with my point is at the town hall Myrick heard claims she knew were false, claims she knew were myths about the plan, claims she knew were lies about the plan. Regardless if those claims were based off people simply misunderstanding what they read or people buying into claims they heard elsewhere (without reading the bill for themselves) it shouldn't matter. She should have at least attempted to set the record straight on claims she knew were false instead of letting them go and basically using the misconceptions to her advantage in order to build support for opposition to the bill.
This is one of the problems with the discussion. Anyone who disagrees is immediately dismissive! I am saying . . . YES, the bill certainly COULD be interpreted as saying that......
Assisted suicide and murder are still illegal in this country. No doctor is going to even come close to putting himself in a situation such as that by writing an order to "off" someone because he thought the money spent on the care wasn't worth it.
Unless there are very specific terms in a living will that the patient has written, this simply isn't going to happen. Aside from that, I don't even know why a doctor would have the incentive to do something such as this. It simply doesn't make any sense.
Interesting Op-Ed, although I don't agree with the conclusion. I just think that this whole concept of spousal impoverishment is flat-out immoral.
I agree, to the point of impoverishment is too much to ask. In our own family there is talk of attempts to shuffle even small assets around so it can be left to the next generation rather than be required to be used for elder care later on (although I don't really think they know what they are doing) . This is also shameful. If you have money to pay for care you should pay for it rather than hide it. I don't want a penny of 'hidden money' as an inheritance.
I wonder, when it comes to catastrophic illness, when a family would be left impoverished, if some formula to calculate the family's expected contribution could be developed. They have the FASFA for students, why not something similar for medical needs? Certainly a family should pay what they can....but they shouldn't be left in the poor house.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
