Chicago Republicans

Last night I attended my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky's, townhall meeting. The Tribune today said that the meeting was "heated" but I beg to differ. Although at times a little excitable, it was quite civil which may have been due to the smug assuredness of the many supporters that were bused in to take all the early seats and the calm collectedness of the "well-dressed angry mobsters" who managed to get there early despite being told to come later. I think my favorite staged presence were the supporters wearing white lab coats (to look like doctors) with "single payer option" buttons on the lapel where a real doctor's name would be. I only witnessed/experienced two ugly incidents, both conducted by supporters of the government option bill Jan is supporting. One lady complained about the Republicans standing in line in front of her who had saved places for each other (myself included) and the other was an otherwise attractive lady giving an opponent of the bill "the finger" repeatedly every time the woman tried to make a comment. Very grown up. Originally, upon looking over the people in line and upon entering the auditorium, I was disheartened by the inordinately high number of folks with "Reform Healthcare Now" stickers (provided to them in line by some interested party) and all of the SEIU members (in their T-shirts) carrying nicely printed, uniform signs. They clearly outnumbered the random individuals who had made their own signs, all opposed to the proposal. But kudos to Jan, who entered the hall gracefully after a glowing, fawning introduction by a Niles Township School Officer, looking poised, confident and in control. The meeting was well controlled and it became clear as it went on that many of the questions were not plants. Ms. Schakowsky actually called on real people. What the Tribune did not report was that more that half of the questioners (almost two to one) and at least half of the attendees did not support H.R. 3200. It made the following very clear: everybody, even conservatives, support some type of health insurance reform, however, most people want to fix what doesn't work, they do not want a complete overhaul of the health system, they do not want government to take over, or even participate in the arena, and they do not want all the bill's extras like granting the IRS and SSA access to individual private information. They want government to prove they can fix things by fixing Medicare/Medicaid first and by easing some of the costly regulations and restrictions on insurance companies to provide for portability and pricing flexibility for pre-existing conditions, healthy lifestyles and coverage choices. That is pretty much it.

What I learned is this:

1. Ms. Schakowsky can mislead with equal grace. She quickly brushed off conservative arguments against rationing and increasing the deficit by calling them myths. When asked about abortions under the bill, she pointedly said, twice, that no federal money would be used to cover abortions, not a dollar. Can we even say this is true today? What about all the current indirect means?

2. Democrats across the country have the same talking points and are using statistics to debunk the claims that we have the best system already and that looking like Canada or Europe will destroy this. Using World Health Organization rankings seems to play well, claiming that we are way down on the mortality and infant mortality lists. It doesn't take much to peel these apart and realize that these are based on factors that make us look bad, like excluding the effects of war or actual live births. Figures will lie and liars will figure...

3. Liberal Democrats from liberal districts are confident and fully intend on voting for the most extreme, dramatic legislation possible, including the public option. When asked if she had polled her district, she answered she didn't have to, she knows how the district feels generally and all her voters know how she feels. She came just short of daring people to vote her out. The liberal playbook, I predict, will be, vote for it, pass it and in time, your voters will forget or not feel the real impact until much later on, after re-election. They are willing to take that gamble.

4. Get ready for the new mascot: A woman next to me had a cute, blue Teddy bear with a sign on it that said "I Love Teddy Care". Awww. I actually hope they name HR 3200 after him since, like other events, it may sink and drown this country.

The title liberal is not well meant.  Let’s get that straight from the beginning.  By liberal I mean someone lacking personal convictions, willing to flap with whatever breeze best suits their needs at any given moment.  Let’s also be clear that I wish him no harm – I wish him, as improbable as it may be, a complete recovery; this isn’t personal.

In May 2008 Senator Kennedy announced that he suffered from a malignant brain tumor.  Since then his medical care has included surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy.  I can’t help but wonder whether, as a 77 year old man, presumably near death, he would receive such treatments under ObamaCare or if he’d be given a pain pill instead because of his limited, remaining Quality of Life Years.

For those of you who may not know, ObamaCare, in its current form, includes QOLYs (pronounced qua-lees) as a determining factor for who gets healthcare and who doesn’t.  Basically, an elderly person would be less likely to receive life improvement or even life saving care because of the expense relative to the amount of time left in their life to enjoy the benefits of said care.  A panel of government employees would make the decision about funding treatment, for a specific patient – this is one item in ObamaCare that has lead to the term Death Panels.  I digress.

Since last year Senator Kennedy has spent most of his time resting at his Hyannis Port estate.  Last week the Senator wrote letters to Massachusetts state leaders urging them to pass a law allowing for the governor, Deval Patrick (D), to appoint a replacement should he be unable to serve.  Current Massachusetts law requires a special election which may take five months to carry out.

The Senator claims this would allow for a speedy replacement so Massachusetts citizens wouldn’t have to wait for representation.  Illinois’ Senator replacement issues aside, most states employ the model Ted Kennedy requests.

All of that is fine and dandy until you realize that Massachusetts did use that method until 2004.  Five years ago the Senator urged state officials to change the law to allow for a special election, changing the mode of replacement to that from direct gubernatorial appointment.  “Why?” you ask.  If Senator John Kerry had won the 2004 Presidential election, then Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) would have selected the replacement.  He almost certainly would have appointed a Republican.

To his credit (major credit, if you ask me), Governor Romney signed the bill into law under the belief that a special election would be more fair.  However, now that there’s a Democrat in the governor’s office, general anti-Democratic party feelings are seen all over and polls show Dems lagging behind Republicans everywhere, Senator Kennedy wants it switched back.

What a sleaze-ball – I mean, honestly.  Here we see another example of a liberal using whatever rationale best suits them to get what they want.  First it was “fairness” now it’s “speedy replacement for representation” all based on what suits the Democratic party, politically, at that moment in time.

On a final note, how many of you think Senator Kennedy will soon head to Canada, France, Great Britain or Cuba for his health care since our system is so bad?  Yeah, I don’t think so either.