Passionate boos, cheers mark Eshoo meeting

Did MPPD send anyone to videotape the crowd?

Since this was held in Palo Alto at Gunn High School's Auditorium, I saw the PAPD there, as well as lots of media (including Channel 2 videoing).

It as a full house (900+ people), in fact if you didn't get there by 7pm you had to wait for someone to leave in order to get in. So there were about 50-75 or so people outside

Though there was a vocal minority of "anti's", the vast manjority clapped for a public option, and Anna did a good job of clearing up misconceptions about the bill.

Anna read the questions people whote out on card to help avoid the "back and forth" and name calling" potential, but there were some dispruptive people nonetheless. She was respectful of all and tried to keep it as civil as possible.

The comment above is way baised about "vocal minority" and "vast majority". My perception is that the noisy members of the crowd were about equally split between both sides, and the cheering or booing was louder, by both sides, on the more controversial issues.

Rep. Eshoo clearly knows what (some of) her constituents think on this. But I don't she was there to listen or have her mind changed; I think she was trying to convince us all why her view is right.

Anna is a long term politician who has never been challenged. Her seat is safe for life so she does what SHE wants, not what constituents want. Tort reform was never mentioned once by her, as well as breaking down the state to state barriers of buying your health insurance in any state you wish. Both of these options would massively bring down health insurance costs as well as written 'exclusion" of any health care except life threatening care, to the illegal aliens. The Dem's will tell you "Oh this bill does not include illegal aliens" but the mere fact that IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE them in writing means it is definitely including them. Washington is not nor will it ever be under Repubs or Dems able to enact any tort reform. The Trial Lawyers are too powerful and most of our "so called leaders" ARE lawyers. Both Clinton's and both Obama's are, and most of our congressmen/women and Senators. So we may as well forget about any meaningful health care reform and accept our fate of single payer government run rationed health care for our bleak future.

We have a public option in the US Postal Service. Let's scrap that and we can all mail our letters using UPS and FedEx. Just think what would happen to the cost of delivery of a letter!! The Anti's logic is simple, we don't want to pay any taxes at all! The irony is, most call themselves Christians...LOL! They are greedy, heartless, self-centered conservatives. Like the ones that were against the Revolutionary War, Social Security, World War I and II, Civil Rights, Women's Rights. They also fought the American's with Disabilities Act, and so on. I don't consider them Americans and I really don't think we need these people or their lock-step politicians in order to inact a just, single payer health care system....just like the Post Office, it will keep the private sector insurers from completely scalping us. As far as who should run America's Health Care System...look what the private sector insurers have brought you. There are tens of millions of us that will pay our premiums and use the service sparingly, while I notice (look carefully!) most of the nay sayers look unhealthy, are overweight and appear to be careless about their personal heath. Maybe that's why they're afraid...they might have to actually pay the actual cost of their healthcare, which I suggest they are all using heavily due to their poor health. Healthy people are clearly more positive about the public option, as they don't intend to overuse the system as many overweight retirees do.

Michael Moore's comment is almost as good as the man with his name who produced SICKO about our health care, and he also thinks like he knows what it is supposed to be like to be an American.
For the amount of people who showed up at the postponed meeting, which was just to probably gather some backup attornies to punch holes in ideas which were not appealing. When it comes to health care
the republicans are hopelessly disinterested in what counts for the people.....hackneyed observation, but true.
America can no longer be run without some control of the government and the fact there are no arguments here, shows that the people who came to the meeting are changing their minds.
It would cost more for me, but I accept making this work for all people and not just the fortunate minority.
I find that this area is a perfect example of what has prevented the US from practically coming to a dead halt....does anyone recall when we acted together? The news of the amount of American construction teams making billions and partying in the Mid East has done nothing to discourage you from the past political leaders? GREED IS STILL #1

WOW! You guys are so busy patting yourselves on the back and taking cheap shots at those who disagree with you.

First, "I Was There"...you were wrong. Even the article said that it was a even split of the "antis" vs your team. I was there too and so was David B. Wishful thinking does not make it the truth.

Second, Dear Michael Moore, so now anyone who disagrees with a socialist health insurance plan is, to quote you "greedy, heartless, self-centered conservatives. Like the ones that were against the Revolutionary War, Social Security, World War I and II, Civil Rights, Women's Rights. They also fought the American's with Disabilities Act, and so on. I don't consider them Americans and I really don't think we need these people or their lock-step politicians in order to inact a just, single payer health care system" And all healthy people support the socialist health care plan?? Wow, the arrogance oozing from you is off the charts. I am far from any of those negative things you listed and very healthy and in great shape health wise. But I am also someone who has read up on the socialized systems out there and have relatives in the UK. Those systems have MAJOR problems in providing services. I really don't know where you all get your visions of utopia from. It must be nice to live in such a fantasy world.

Third, R Gordon, the fact that no one posted here against these unsubstantiated claims proves nothing. Your cause is losing ground. Check the polls. The folks against nationalized medicine are the majority and will stay that way.

Fourth, why do all of you have such a hard time getting your heads around other forms of health care reform? Dogwalker suggested 2 means of reform. There are several other ways - for ex, regulation of the health insurance companies; regulation of the drug companies, tax credits to allow the uninsured to afford insurance, etc, etc. Why are you all in love with socialized medicine? It doesn't work in Canada or the UK. Is this your idea of fixing the problem? Bringing to the US an idea that is mediocre in other countries? Private insurance and medical care works great in Japan and Germany. Why don't we look to those countries to get ideas on how to fix things.

Sheesh. The liberal elite strike again....

I was there. I noticed that there were several "quietists" on the congresswoman's side who simply raised their thumbs when they agreed--no yelling. Me, not so much. When one guy came out with, "We want the government out of our lives!" I couldn't help yelling back, "Yeah, except when your house is on fire."

After all, those firefighters battling that inferno down in SoCal are all on the government payroll. How come nobody wants to privatize the fire departments? Or privatize the biggest socialist monster of them all: the U.S. military. They get free dental and health care, plus free or subsidized housing, subsidized PX/BX, etc. etc. It's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, everybody is going to want to get a wound treated without having to run it by their insurance company first. Then where would we be? We'd be in SOCIALIST HELL, is where.

Meanwhile, here's what's happening down there among the reel 'Murcans in Enron country:

HOUSTON — President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening

The uproar over the speech, in which Mr. Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has been particularly acute in Texas, where several major school districts, under pressure from parents, have laid plans to let children opt out of lending the president an ear.

Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.

“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

What do you think? Radiation in the soil, maybe?

I reiterate: A socialist is an uninsured libertarian whose kid needs an organ transplant. Or a Texan who lets his kid listen to what the president of the United States has to say about staying in school.

Dear Ethan,

I really don't see what any of your points have to do with the heaith care debate. What do any of your points have to with the fact that socialized/nationalized medicine hasn't yet worked in ANY country and the majority of us don't want that disaster brought to the US? And what nationalized medicine we do have is a mess (ie Medicare)?

Are you trying to say that because we have some governement programs such as firefighters, that everything should be nationalized? That is ridiculous beyond anything I have yet heard. So what we have some government run things? That doesn't mean that everything should be govt run. Complete nationalism has never worked. Name one socialist country that has succeeded? If you want, I can list all sorts of examples of countries that nationalized insustries only to later have to unwind them. Having firefighters and a post office and policemen and an army has as much to do with nationalized health care as the man on the moon. Care to make any other ridiculous comparisons?

Or is your point that because there are some crazy right wingers who are ridiculously tossing around socialism accusations all of ther place therefore makes all of us who are against nationalized health insurance crazy? Again, I don't follow your logic. Poll after poll after poll after poll show that the majority of Americans do not want a nationalized health care plan. We didn't want it in the early 1990s when the Clintons tried to push it through and we don't want it now. It is not just the fringe right wing that has objections. And our reasons are do to the fact that the last thing we need is yet another bloated federal program - especially one that doesn't even work properly as shown by experiences in other countries. Nationalized medicine doesn't work. It never ceases to amaze me to see people keep insisting on pushing this failed system. Is that your goal for America? Mediocre solutions for our health care problems?

By the way, speaking of Pres Obama's appearance on TV on Tuesday - why does our President spend so much time on TV? An interesting article was written recently pointing out how much advertising dollars are lost to the TV stations ever since the Gifted One started his TV fireside chats since no TV ads are shown while he hogs usually prime-time TV. No other president seemed to think it was necessary to go on TV so much. I would think during a recession, he would allow the TV stations to try to earn needed revenue instead of having to constantly put aside good time to hear him plug his ideas over and over and over.

What happened to the President Obama's campaign promise that we would get the same health insurance that Congress has? I have asked this question over and over; it is ignored.

Or, you could ask the question: Why did our last president spend so little time answering questions and talking to the nation? I suppose FDR's fireside chats were a colossal waste of time, too?

I think that the health care debate/hysteria is more about being obstructionist and preventing ANYTHING from getting done during the Obama administration than it is about health care.

None of the bills in Congress propose nationalizing health care into a single-payer system. The president is not proposing it. It's a moot point, so all the hyperventilating about what does and doesn't work in Canada or the UK or Japan is pointless.

The real point is that the current American system benefits only a few people who profit when an insurance company makes money.

The rest of us, if we are lucky enough to be able to afford a health care plan offered through our jobs, are spending an increasing percentage of our incomes on premiums, deductibles, co-pays and drugs, while our coverage gets worse and worse. And there is little recourse if our insurance companies decide to drop us because we're too expensive.

American medicine may be innovative in some areas of treatment and research, but other countries' citizens enjoy longer lifespans and lower infant mortality rates, two key indicators of the quality of health care. There's a lot of room for improvement here in the USA.

Dear DogWatcher: Anna repeatedly mentioned tort reform, contrary to your assertion. She agreed that there is a problem and pointed to parallel legislation to address it.

Dear Ruth: Anna pointed out that the health insurance reform in this bill was patterned on what all federal workers (including members of congress) now get -- a cafeteria of choices including a wide range of different insurers.

So if you want to see what Obama said during the campaign become reality, seems like you would want to see something like what is coming forward from Congress now, recognizing that the choices before legislators are constrained by what they can get the votes for, and Obama can't sign into law a bill he doesn't get.

Dr Acula,

Pres Obama himself (and Barney Frank and Rep Waters) said that the nationalized health insurance plan he is proposing is a "first step" and that the "goal would be for a univeral single payer system", but he admitted that it "would take probably 10, maybe 15 years to fully transition". The "first step" is indeed in the Bill. Not sure what Bill you are looking at? So, unfortunately, it is far from a moot point.

And where are your sources for your statement that other countries have longer lifespans for their citizens? Canada has a 10% higher death rate from colon cancer. This is probably due to the fact that it takes on average 8 months to get a colonoscopy.... Also, a recent statistic came out that said that the US and Japan (another country with evil private health insurance...) have the fastest growing number of people surviving to over 100. Our death rates are affected by all the violent deaths from gang warfare, hand guns, drugs, etc - problems that do not exist in most countries. So, an overall death rate is irrelevant. Show me the death rates from various cancers, heart conditions, strokes, ALS. Parkinsons, etc.

As for FDR, he made his fireside chats during the major crisis of the Depression and WW II. His talks, therefore, were not a waste of time. We are not in a Great Depression or a WW. However, if Pres Obama keeps spending money at the rate he has been doing, we will end up in a Depression!

And yes, there is a lot of room for improvement. I really don't know why people keep saying that those of us who reject nationalized insurance don't want any reform. We can get a great deal of good changes that protect the people you mention in your post by regulating the health insurance companies and drug companies. We regulate other industries. We should regulate these also. For example, bar them from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. Make it much harder for them to drop people. Limit the profit margins. etc, etc. Also, increase competition by opening up state borders. Right now companies can't compete across state line. Basic Economic theory tells us that increased competition lowere prices and increases services. Also, increase govt drug spending so that one company does not own the drug patent. We had more govt funded research prior to Reagan. Bring it back. Also, we could increase competition by giving more tax breaks to not-for-profits (maybe in the form of credits) so that more not-for-profits like Kaiser would pop up. I have more ideas, but I think that I have made my point that I too desperately want health care reform. But I want it done wisely.

But for heaven's sake, let'd not simply follow the UK and Canadian pied piper off the cliff.

Worried Voter: I appreciate your reasoned and temperate response, but I beg to differ on a few points.

We are in the midst of a major economic Depression, and we are involved in two foreign wars. I don't think I need a citation for that.

Japan has universal health care coverage, as well as the longest healthy life expectancy in the world. Web Link and Web Link

Here's a life expectancy ranking put out by our very own CIA -- the US is #50,and Japan is ranked #3. Web Link
For another conservative source, here's a 2007 Fox News story about the US slipping down in life expectancy. Web Link

As for infant mortality rates, the US is #180 out of 224, behind Cuba, the Czech Republic, Canada, the UK, etc. Web Link

And one last thing -- Canada has no national health care. It varies by province and territory, with some better than others. Web Link

Dr Acula,

I do agree with you about the difficult times we are in currently. But I still think Pres Obama spends too much time in front of the camera. At one point, he was on every week. It was only due to critism from different sources that he decided to slow down the frequency. But it is not a major issue. There are much bigger issues for us to worry about unfortunately. We should be so lucky to only have to worry and debate about what the approriate number of TV appearances are! :)

But according to my sources, actually 80% of Japanese citizens have private insurance. I will try to dig up my cite, but I believe it was in a recent book from TR Reid? But I do agree with you about the longest life expectancy.

But again, I want to mention that the US expectancy rate is an irrelevant factor in the health care debate unfortunately. I say unfortunately since, as I state above, Our death rates are affected by all the violent deaths from gang warfare, hand guns, drugs, war, etc - problems that do not exist in most countries. I have read that all these factors do indeed skewer our expectancy rates. So, an overall death rate is unfortunately irrelevant. Show me the death rates from various cancers, heart conditions, strokes, ALS. Parkinsons, etc. These are the numbers that will indeed show the success (or lack) of our medical system.

As for infant mortality, we also happen to be a country with the highest rate of teen births. That effects the infant mortality rates. Also, I think that those uninsured mothers are effecting the rates. That is all the more reason to cover the uninsured. But that does not mean that we should go to a nationalized program. We can accomplish the same coverage with tax credits and/or subsidies to private insurers.

So, until we can compare apples to apples with expectancy rates, the WHO, CIA, etc ranking is not a relevant set of statistics. We need to compare the death rates from specific diseases country by country. You wouldn't happen to have that info, would you? I have a few numbers, but I would love to find a long list disease by disease.

As for the Canada distinction, it is still a govt run insurance program and it still doesn't work. My point is not federal vs state vs city, but rather govt vs private choices.

And thank you very much for this calm logical discussion. I am hoping that we are teaching other new facts that will ultimately help form our final decisions, even if it is to confirm our current positions.

Dear I was there.

I was there, too. However, as President Truman said, "The buck ends with me. We elected President Obama to be a leader; I hope that he can do the job.

"Americans will be able to have the same health care as Congress is what we heard before he was elected. What we are hearing now is not the same.

Dear I was there,

To add to my prior comment. "Patterned on what Congress has" is not the same as having the SAME plan that Congress has.

Another question, why don't we just ask Congress to accept the plans offered to the American people? Would someone ask the President and Congress that question?

If they would agree, perhaps the protests would stop?

Could someone ask the President and Congress that question?

Worried Voter has all the reason to carry that monniker and get all of the contemptuous socialist medicine having failed in every country so should be rejected to be immediately rejected, BUT he also doesn't point out that there is NOTHING left in our coffers.
EVERYONE forgets that NEVER has this "great nation of ours" been deeper in the shedhole and has nothing is close to an agreement and THEN we have to spend the rest of Obama's first term on problem II unemployment.
I, as a pretty extreme liberal, think that since we are going to end up borrowing another three trillion, ought to just get the health care thing over and MOVE just a bit....I WOULD welcome ANY decision at this point.....While nobody is paying attention, medical bills and paid for subcriptions for the elderly are being juggled making pharmacists CRAZY and the doctors who aren't already on drugs, soon begin taking them..some are acting whacko and not getting paid for six months a visit and have aged in the past two years.
The major drug NEXIUM has pulled out of medical plans which are high maintenance health drugs, and have NO SUBSTITUTE for heart victims who have had bypasses,so they may as well croak. MEDCO has enterred through the side door.....maybe it is the intention to let heart patients die who do not qualify for Medicare.
This is the way it is folks and nothing is going to make it work unless we start somewhere.This is where paranoia and PANDEMIC now enter the scene in order to knock off half the world's population.It COULD work.

Dear R Gordon,

I am an extreme moderate :), and I agree with you. I am worried that everyone is going to get bogged down arguing against or for the nationalized health insurance and nothing will get done. Some members of Congress had talked about doing health care reform in "phases". That way, at least the stuff everyone agrees on would get passed. I think all reasonable people agree that regulations are needed for those with pre-existing conditions and for those who get dropped when they become too ill. And there are a few other regulations along that line that also need to be passed. Why isn't Congress focusing on doing at least that? Obama would look like a hero, people would be getting help. Then the tougher issues could be battled over later. I am also worried like you that nothing will end up getting done.

I think a lot of us would be glad to ignore the socialism issue if the right would stop using it as a tactic to derail any sort of healthcare reform that actually manages to reform something. It's the Red Scare all over again, only without the Reds.

If in fact Medicare for everyone is socialism, then those now receiving Medicare, Medicaid, and various other forms of government healthcare benefits, including military and federal retirees and all members of Congress (even the ones from Texas), are a bunch of de facto socialists. I think that's something like half the U.S. population. The commies aren't 90 miles away, they're here among us!

As for "reforming" the insurance companies by requiring them to cover preexisting conditions: What's to keep the insurers from offering those policies but pricing them so high that virtually no one will actually be able to buy one. Of course those prices would come down with government subsidies, but in that case guess who is really being subsidized? That sort of half-witted reform is going to be a gold mine for insurance companies, at taxpayer expense. Just more of that good ol' socialism for the rich and free enterprise for everybody else.