Rep. Hoyer gave a very informative presentation on the healthcare reform issues. It was very obvious that there was a relatively small contingent of people who opposed the healthcare reform, especially when they stood up with their noisy opposition. Compared to the total attendance at the meeting, they were in the minority. The supporters were very prominant in their applause to show their support. There was a panel of four people who had some involvement in healthcare. The opposition people were very disrespectful. They did not want to hear them. They wanted to hear the questions. In spite of that, the panel members did speak. Surprisingly, the questions that were asked by the people with red tickets were very thoughtful. That section of the meeting went well, even though some of the questions were from people who do not support “the government control of healthcare”. That was their interpretation of the healthcare reform initiative.

I was in the “nose bleed” section of the bleachers and had a bird’s eye view of the event. The interesting observation to me was the action of the media. They were lined up with their cameras along one side of the audience and across the back between the seats on the floor and the bleachers. People in the opposition group who arrived early sat in chairs on the floor in the section closest to the media. When they started their noisy outbursts, the media along the side then moved and swarmed around the noisy part of that section. Some of the opposition even left early. The media interviewed some of them.

When the town hall meeting ended, my assessent was that there was more support than opposition. People with open minds received good information to help them understand the problem and what was being considered. People, who were supportive of the public option and asked questions, presented examples of why the public option is needed. One man had a son who finished college and has a job that does not provide healthcare. He pays $500 or $600 (I don’t remember the exact amount) per month, with a $5,000 deductible. A woman talked about healthcare providers (like nurses) who take care of the health of others but can not afford healthcare for themselves.

I apologize for making this comment so long; however, it is to make a point. A friend who went to the town hall meeting with me got feedback from her family about the coverage on the local TV station. Surprisingly, it was negative. It focused on the small opposition contingent and the booing by them. Anyone looking at the TV coverage would come away thinking that Rep. Hoyer’s town hall meeting demonstrated the lack of support for the healthcare reform.

Today, there is an interesting article on the Washington Post website, “The Real Town Hall Story”

It talks about how the media has been biased in reporting on the town hall meetings. One Congress person who held a town hall meeting was even told by a stringer, for the media, that his instructions were to cover the boistrous activities at these events. Therefore, town hall meetings that were civil got no coverage.

That is what occurred in pennsyltucky last night as wingnut Pat Toomey and Democratic upstart Joe Sestak squared off in Allentown. Toomey was boo’ed for stating that Medicaid had “high rates of infant mortality.”

The concept of a “public option” has nothing to do with how it is paid for. It is simply a government-administered insurance company. It will be paid for by premiums paid by its subscribers, It is likely that some of those subscribers will receive subsidies from the government. It is equally likely that some of the subscribers of private insurance plans will receive subsidies from the government.

Subsidies are one part of health care reform, aimed at making universal coverage possible. The public option is a different part of health care reform, aimed at reducing the overall costs of health care by providing a model of efficient insurance.

Conflating the two, as by saying “[U]ntil Senator Begich sees how a public option is proposed to be paid for in the final bill that comes before the Senate, he is not committing to supporting a public option” indicates either intellectual incapacity, or a willful intent to obstruct meaningful reform.

Thank you.

WIN TEAM REASON!