maxiep
RIP Dr. Jack
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,321
- Likes
- 5,920
- Points
- 113
Before I elaborate, I need to give you a little background. In Denver, my house is on E. 7th Avenue, which is a small historic district within the city. It is an area that is known as a place where prominent Democrats have congregated. Don't take my word for it. Here's an article was recently written about the phenomenon: http://glendalecherrycreek.com/t,news_template/m,news_detail?id=119
Instead of a town hall meeting, Michael Bennet--the person nominated to serve out the rest of Ken Salazar's term in the US Senate--came up with a clever alternative. He had The 7th Avenue Historic Association call a neighborhood meeting at Good Shepherd Catholic Church where Sen. Bennet would speak. No cameras, no press. Since one must be a member of the Association to attend, he thought he was guaranteed as docile audience. He was wrong.
He started off with a presentation on what's occurred in Washington since President Obama's election--the economy, the stimulus and omnibus packages, foreign policy and health care. Pretty standard stuff.
He then tried to take the temperature of the room by asking through a show of hands who were Democrats, Republicans, Independents, who we voted for in 2008, etc. It should be noted that I was one of the few people who wasn't a Democrat. I think there were two Republicans in the crowd of 40 or so people. Most of the room voted for President Obama.
He then started taking questions. Almost every question was on health care. The tone was thoughtful, genial (if you called him "Senator" he'd correct you and make you call him "Mike") and respectful. However, the questions were quite specific.
Sen. Bennet, excuse me, "Mike" gave the typical talking point answers. These answers weren't enough for these people. One person actually said, "We're all of the same mind here, we don't need to hear the script written by the DNC, we want to hear the real skinny." His consistent fallback position was, "there are several bills out there, there's reconciliation and I don't know on which one I'm voting for". It was pointed out to him that he didn't say "voting for OR AGAINST".
He was asked about cost and the CBO projections. He admitted the Congress wouldn't "get it right the first time" and said the CBO was probably close. He also admitted that the costs, based on past performance, would likely go higher than projected. However, the key was to get SOMETHING done that the Democrats could build on. His goal was to remove profits from insurance companies and to control costs. He feels a public option is critical to this end.
He was asked about how to treat all these new people and enact preventative care given that our current system is strained to handle the healthcare we have. He said doctors would have to see more patients and much of the load would be pushed onto nurses. He also acknowledged that fewer nurses would be on shifts at hospitals to lower costs.
He was then asked about whether or not doctors would be forced to see patients on a public program and how they would be compensated. He replied that the current thinking in the Congress was that for a physicial to be licensed, the requirement would be that they had to be open to all patients, i.e., that they couldn't opt out and only treat patients with private insurance. Compensation would be the same as Medicare.
It turns out that "Mike" was talking to a physician. This physician then proceeded to educate him for the next few minutes on the reality of being a doctor in America. He said that he had been sued twice in 32 years of practice, yet his malpractice insurance is over $40K a year, which has doubled in the past five years (when he hadn't been sued at all). The reason for the increase? The cost of medical lawsuits. He then asked if "Mike" would support tort reform. That doctors did occasionally make mistakes and that people needed to be made whole, but that the punitive damages were simply out of control. It wasn't good for the system that a mistake by ONE physician results in the insurance company that's crippled, but that mistake is spread across ALL physicians. The solution? Cap punitive judgments and make the physician who continues to make mistakes to get booted from medicine. "Mike" didn't see the need for tort reform. It turns out he's an attorney.
He tried to shift the discussion to fiscal responsibility and that we had to watch the national debt "for our children". It was pointed out to him that he voted for every spending package proposed.
He then talked about the "47MM uninsured" and the moral component of health care. Someone broke down the numbers for him and asked if it didn't make sense just to cover the people who truly couldn't afford it. He said the only way to control costs was to put the government in control of how much healthcare costs. In that vein, we needed healthy people, so he supported mandating health care.
The final question of the evening was the most brutal. He was asked a two-parter: 1) would you pledge to read every single page of the final bill before voting on it?; and 2) if you vote "yes", would you commit to leaving the Congressional health care plan and joining the new one? He replied that he couldn't commit to either. At that point, a couple of people actually booed him.
I can't even express how surprising the change in mood was from the beginning to the end of the meeting, and as I said before, the room was overwhelmingly Democratic and filled with Obama supporters. I don't meant to say that the meeting
When the meeting was over, my wife and I found ourselves walking along side of him (it turns out he lives a block from our place). He is genial, but he has zero vision on this issue. He asked me how the meeting went, and I replied that people seemed more frustrated than I thought they would be. He agreed and said he was surprised people would be so up in arms as the talk in Washington was all about how the system is on the verge of collapse and something must be done immediately.
I asked him which country he'd most like to model our healthcare system on and he just said, "None of them. Ours will be different." When I told him that he appeared to support a hybrid of the Canadian and British system and that both were in real trouble, he just shrugged. I also mentioned that essentially expanding Medicare would cause the same budget problems that program has, but on a much larger scale. We then shifted gears and talked about DC (the wife and I both used to live there) and our kids. A very nice guy, but he has no business being in the US Senate. I know my wife won't vote for him in 2010 (I vote in Oregon).
Anyway, I just thought the board would be interested in what the viewpoint seems to be in Washington.
Instead of a town hall meeting, Michael Bennet--the person nominated to serve out the rest of Ken Salazar's term in the US Senate--came up with a clever alternative. He had The 7th Avenue Historic Association call a neighborhood meeting at Good Shepherd Catholic Church where Sen. Bennet would speak. No cameras, no press. Since one must be a member of the Association to attend, he thought he was guaranteed as docile audience. He was wrong.
He started off with a presentation on what's occurred in Washington since President Obama's election--the economy, the stimulus and omnibus packages, foreign policy and health care. Pretty standard stuff.
He then tried to take the temperature of the room by asking through a show of hands who were Democrats, Republicans, Independents, who we voted for in 2008, etc. It should be noted that I was one of the few people who wasn't a Democrat. I think there were two Republicans in the crowd of 40 or so people. Most of the room voted for President Obama.
He then started taking questions. Almost every question was on health care. The tone was thoughtful, genial (if you called him "Senator" he'd correct you and make you call him "Mike") and respectful. However, the questions were quite specific.
Sen. Bennet, excuse me, "Mike" gave the typical talking point answers. These answers weren't enough for these people. One person actually said, "We're all of the same mind here, we don't need to hear the script written by the DNC, we want to hear the real skinny." His consistent fallback position was, "there are several bills out there, there's reconciliation and I don't know on which one I'm voting for". It was pointed out to him that he didn't say "voting for OR AGAINST".
He was asked about cost and the CBO projections. He admitted the Congress wouldn't "get it right the first time" and said the CBO was probably close. He also admitted that the costs, based on past performance, would likely go higher than projected. However, the key was to get SOMETHING done that the Democrats could build on. His goal was to remove profits from insurance companies and to control costs. He feels a public option is critical to this end.
He was asked about how to treat all these new people and enact preventative care given that our current system is strained to handle the healthcare we have. He said doctors would have to see more patients and much of the load would be pushed onto nurses. He also acknowledged that fewer nurses would be on shifts at hospitals to lower costs.
He was then asked about whether or not doctors would be forced to see patients on a public program and how they would be compensated. He replied that the current thinking in the Congress was that for a physicial to be licensed, the requirement would be that they had to be open to all patients, i.e., that they couldn't opt out and only treat patients with private insurance. Compensation would be the same as Medicare.
It turns out that "Mike" was talking to a physician. This physician then proceeded to educate him for the next few minutes on the reality of being a doctor in America. He said that he had been sued twice in 32 years of practice, yet his malpractice insurance is over $40K a year, which has doubled in the past five years (when he hadn't been sued at all). The reason for the increase? The cost of medical lawsuits. He then asked if "Mike" would support tort reform. That doctors did occasionally make mistakes and that people needed to be made whole, but that the punitive damages were simply out of control. It wasn't good for the system that a mistake by ONE physician results in the insurance company that's crippled, but that mistake is spread across ALL physicians. The solution? Cap punitive judgments and make the physician who continues to make mistakes to get booted from medicine. "Mike" didn't see the need for tort reform. It turns out he's an attorney.
He tried to shift the discussion to fiscal responsibility and that we had to watch the national debt "for our children". It was pointed out to him that he voted for every spending package proposed.
He then talked about the "47MM uninsured" and the moral component of health care. Someone broke down the numbers for him and asked if it didn't make sense just to cover the people who truly couldn't afford it. He said the only way to control costs was to put the government in control of how much healthcare costs. In that vein, we needed healthy people, so he supported mandating health care.
The final question of the evening was the most brutal. He was asked a two-parter: 1) would you pledge to read every single page of the final bill before voting on it?; and 2) if you vote "yes", would you commit to leaving the Congressional health care plan and joining the new one? He replied that he couldn't commit to either. At that point, a couple of people actually booed him.
I can't even express how surprising the change in mood was from the beginning to the end of the meeting, and as I said before, the room was overwhelmingly Democratic and filled with Obama supporters. I don't meant to say that the meeting
When the meeting was over, my wife and I found ourselves walking along side of him (it turns out he lives a block from our place). He is genial, but he has zero vision on this issue. He asked me how the meeting went, and I replied that people seemed more frustrated than I thought they would be. He agreed and said he was surprised people would be so up in arms as the talk in Washington was all about how the system is on the verge of collapse and something must be done immediately.
I asked him which country he'd most like to model our healthcare system on and he just said, "None of them. Ours will be different." When I told him that he appeared to support a hybrid of the Canadian and British system and that both were in real trouble, he just shrugged. I also mentioned that essentially expanding Medicare would cause the same budget problems that program has, but on a much larger scale. We then shifted gears and talked about DC (the wife and I both used to live there) and our kids. A very nice guy, but he has no business being in the US Senate. I know my wife won't vote for him in 2010 (I vote in Oregon).
Anyway, I just thought the board would be interested in what the viewpoint seems to be in Washington.
