The politicians are not asking their constituents, “What should we do about healthcare reform?” They are saying. “This is what we plan to do and why.”

[mawilson 2,133]

Democratic members of Congress are taking the case for health reform to a series of

“town-hall meetings”. In many cases these have turned into brawls—and so far as most

reporting is concerned, rage rather than the substance of the issues is now the story.

Many protesters are hoping not to debate but to shut the meetings down. They carry

posters of politicians with devils’ horns, or of Obama with a Hitler moustache. They claim

the administration wants to bring in euthanasia, among other things. It is all very ugly.

There are valid and invalid criticisms of the protesters. A bogus criticism is the Democrats’

complaint that the protests are “orchestrated”. No doubt they often are. But what is wrong

with that? Democrats have been known to orchestrate a thing or two. Progressive groups

turn up for regular strategy consultations in the White House. What is that about, if not

“orchestration”? Also, directed or not, the passion of the protesters is not synthetic. They

are against these bills, and they are entitled to say so.

I’d go a little further in defending them. These town-halls are not really an exercise in

consultation. The politicians are not asking their constituents, “What should we do about

healthcare reform?” They are saying. “This is what we plan to do and why. Any questions?”

The Democrats, after all, had hoped to get the whole thing done by now, no consultation

required. This recess is an inconvenience not an opportunity. In that sense, the town halls

are mainly for show. The politicians are not there to learn anything. I can understand the

view that shouting at them is the only way to get their attention.

Of course, the notion that the administration plans euthanasia for sick retirees is insane—

can anybody seriously believe this? And there are many other instances of deplorable and

outlandish misinformation. But this does not mean that the proposed reforms give no

grounds whatever for concern, as many liberals seem to believe.

In particular, the fear that standards of care for the elderly might fall has some justification.

If stricter tests of cost effectiveness in health care are to be brought to bear—as they should

be, in my view—spending unlimited sums on one or two low-quality end-of-life years will

likely fail them. And the stricter rationing of treatments for the elderly is not a malicious

fantasy of the conservative right. In systems like Britain’s NHS, it is standard operating

procedure.

These are difficult issues. They have to be faced. What a pity this cannot be done in a civil way,

with tolerance and mutual respect. In the US today, this is asking the impossible. The two

sides don’t just disagree. They loathe each other. They would literally wish to see each other

destroyed. It is hard to see how you get from here to any kind of consensus.

link

About the Author: I have been the FT's Washington columnist since April 2007. I moved from

Britain to the US in 2005 to write for the Atlantic Monthly and the National Journal after 20 years

working at the Economist, most recently as deputy editor. I write mainly about the intersection

of politics and economics.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Obama platform was described in full during the primary debates last year. Maybe you missed it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Agreed - they were quite clear on what they intended to do. That's what's supposed to happens when you cast your vote - that the politicians enact the campaign platform that they were elected on.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Right. All the bitсhing right now is from the people who lost the election.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or people who voted without properly scrutinising what they were voting for...

[mawilson 2,133]

The Obama platform was described in full during the primary debates last year. Maybe you missed it.

Obama still hasn't explained the details of his health reform proposal.

Probably because he doesn't have the details himself yet.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Obama platform was described in full during the primary debates last year. Maybe you missed it.

Obama still hasn't explained the details of his health reform proposal.

Probably because he doesn't have the details himself yet.

He has explained many times what he wants to see in the final bill.

As you know, we won't have a final bill until all the committees produce their versions, both chambers vote on a version and then the two versions are reconciled.

You know this.

[mawilson 2,133]

Right. All the bitсhing right now is from the people who lost the election.

If that was the case, the health care bill would have already been passed before the August recess with no debate.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Right. All the bitсhing right now is from the people who lost the election.

If that was the case, the health care bill would have already been passed before the August recess with no debate.

Not entirely true. There are many Congressional Districts around the country which send Democrats to Congress but lie in states that gave their electoral votes to McCain.

Again, you know this.

[mawilson 2,133]

He has explained many times what he wants to see in the final bill.

He hasn't explained how much it's really going to cost us and how he's going to pay for it.

I've heard lots of proposals - a federal VAT, tax on millionaires, "fat tax" on soft drinks,

tax on cosmetic surgeries, full or partial tax on health care benefits - lots of fluff and

"options on the table" but no actual details.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

He has explained many times what he wants to see in the final bill.

He hasn't explained how much it's really going to cost us and how he's going to pay for it.

I've heard lots of proposals - a federal VAT, tax on millionaires, "fat tax" on soft drinks,

tax on cosmetic surgeries, full or partial tax on health care benefits - lots of fluff and

"options on the table" but no actual details.

Wait for reconciliation.

Once that is done, you'll have a final bill. The final bill will have those details. The final bill, once out of the reconciliation committee, will have to be voted on again by both chambers. There will be LOTS of time.

The value of the current debate is that it is influence lawmakers thinking on how to reconcile. It is influencing committees on what they should and/or should not produce in their versions.

This is all very good.

[mawilson 2,133]

So what's this BS about opposition coming only from those who lost the election?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So what's this BS about opposition coming only from those who lost the election?

Republicans... and Democrats in districts with lots of Republicans (we call them Blue Dogs).

[mawilson 2,133]

So what's this BS about opposition coming only from those who lost the election?

Republicans... and Democrats in districts with lots of Republicans (we call them Blue Dogs).

I call them Democrats with Brains.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So what's this BS about opposition coming only from those who lost the election?

Republicans... and Democrats in districts with lots of Republicans (we call them Blue Dogs).

I call them Democrats with Brains.

Thank you for sharing.