An unbelievable statement by President Obama's point woman on the health care "overhaul" from an editorial in today's Washington Post:

"President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring."

We can't let the details distract us? Oh, those pesky details - like cost, and who gets heart surgery, and who gets to pay for all this. Until these fools in the administration and in congress can explain those pesky details, we should all be badgering our elected representatives to explain themselves on this issue. When they pass it, it will be too late.

Originally Posted by collie1228

An unbelievable statement by President Obama's point woman on the health care "overhaul" from an editorial in today's Washington Post:

"President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring."

We can't let the details distract us? Oh, those pesky details - like cost, and who gets heart surgery, and who gets to pay for all this. Until these fools in the administration and in congress can explain those pesky details, we should all be badgering our elected representatives to explain themselves on this issue. When they pass it, it will be too late.

The next time she goes to her physician with an ailment and starts to give her history the doc should say, "be quiet, i don't want the details to distract us from the huge benefits that my care will bring to you"

You guys bite on things so easily that if you were a fish, you'd be looking down at folks thru glass eyes.

Cripes! If your quote was accurate, the woman didn't suggest that details weren't unimportant! The media are all over these people in droves, yelling questions, demanding answers, changing the subject, trying to "get" a soundbite that will "sell".

Remember what happened to Sarah Palin? She had the added disadvantage of never facing anywhere near that kind of media attention in Alaska. Add in a campaign staff that didn't prepare her well enough, and Katie Couric made her look like a world's leading dum-dum.

Palin is a bright woman who was made to appear really, really dumb and inexperienced. Secretary Sebelius has somewhat more experience with the press as a Governor of another small state, but the press got what they were after--a salable soundbite.

And you guys bit!

I guess I bit the last time the Congress came up with a 1,000 page bill that nobody read before voting for it - let's not sweat the details, huh?

Originally Posted by collie1228

...let's not sweat the details, huh?...

No, the details will take a lot of sweat. But it won't happen with Congress diddling with the words in the bill. The bill will contain some clear direction, but the details on how to get there are going to have to be developed by government bureaucrats who will turn the law into organizations, policies, procedures and work flows. Guess who most of those bureaucrats will work for? Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services.

Sibelius wasn't appointed for her ability to maneuver thru press gauntlets. She was hired because of her ability to "sweat the details".

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

No, the details will take a lot of sweat. But it won't happen with Congress diddling with the words in the bill. The bill will contain some clear direction, but the details on how to get there are going to have to be developed by government bureaucrats who will turn the law into organizations, policies, procedures and work flows. Guess who most of those bureaucrats will work for? Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services.

Sibelius wasn't appointed for her ability to maneuver thru press gauntlets. She was hired because of her ability to "sweat the details".

Having been one of those "government bureaucrats" who wrote, revised, interpreted, critiqued and swore at regulations which had the purpose of placing Congressional "intent" language into operational specifics, there can be a world of difference between the lofty verbiage in statutes and the supposedly "clear and detailed" operational language within regulations.

The fun occurs when the regulations and the administrative agency actions have to defend themselves before Congressional committees and various staffers months and years after the Statute was enacted, with Congressfolk now whining that the agency (and the regulations) are not mirroring what Congress wanted. That, coupled with having to deal with "Congressional inquiries" supporting constituents who are running afoul of the agency for violating regulations, all relate to "vague statutes" devoid of those nasty details which give the statute the necessary clarity for the Executive branch to do the right thing.

So, the situation is like the old Fram Oil Filter Commercial, where the mechanic looks down at an engine being overhauled due to oil changes not being done, and says "You can pay me now [for the oil change and new filter] or you can pay me later [for the engine overhaul.]"

Do we really want to pay and pay and pay later for Congressional laziness now? They will praise themselves for a job well done, but when the Pachyderms and Jackasses have left the circus ring, the bureaucrats will follow with many brooms and shovels to clean up the mess. However, no matter how much sweeping and shoveling is done, there will be plenty of stains and stink left that will be expensive problems for a long time, unless........

I agree totally with SteveZ's position. Tis far, far better to do the job and verbiage correctly the first time than to rush the job through and have thousands of Americans suffer the consequences later.

I certainly am not in any hurry to institute socialized medicine, which has already been perfected in Canada, England and Australia as a total failure and certainly not in the best interest of "legal" Americans.

Incidentally, I learned of www.gradegov.com, a web site where you can grade your federal representatives A, B, C, D, F, and send them a letter explaining why you graded them as you did.....and you can urge them to use their votes and influence for or against certain issues.

Originally Posted by GILMERMURRAY

I agree totally with SteveZ's position. Tis far, far better to do the job and verbiage correctly the first time than to rush the job through and have thousands of Americans suffer the consequences later.

I certainly am not in any hurry to institute socialized medicine, which has already been perfected in Canada, England and Australia as a total failure and certainly not in the best interest of "legal" Americans.

Incidentally, I learned of www.gradegov.com, a web site where you can grade your federal representatives A, B, C, D, F, and send them a letter explaining why you graded them as you did.....and you can urge them to use their votes and influence for or against certain issues.

The only grade that matters is the one every two years - the vote. They all get an "F" and should be expelled.

Originally Posted by collie1228

An unbelievable statement by President Obama's point woman on the health care "overhaul" from an editorial in today's Washington Post:

"President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring."

We can't let the details distract us? Oh, those pesky details - like cost, and who gets heart surgery, and who gets to pay for all this. Until these fools in the administration and in congress can explain those pesky details, we should all be badgering our elected representatives to explain themselves on this issue. When they pass it, it will be too late.

I think it is unbelievable how rowdy and nasty the town hall meetings have become. It seems that all political discourse has to be a shouting match and nobody can hear anything.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

The only grade that matters is the one every two years - the vote. They all get an "F" and should be expelled.

And, we should call their mothers.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Originally Posted by cologal

I think it is unbelievable how rowdy and nasty the town hall meetings have become. It seems that all political discourse has to be a shouting match and nobody can hear anything.

I think it's unbelievable how nasty our government has become.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Originally Posted by Yoda

I think it's unbelievable how nasty our government has become.

Geez, it's like the 2008 Presidential campaign re-visited. If you don't have a better idea, I suppose they think it's more effective to simply "engage and enrage" the public with emotional rhetoric. What's amazing is that the public is dumb enough to permit it to work.

Do you think that maybe both sides use Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? Does this conduct from the town meetings that have been covered by the media sound familiar?

• RULE 3: Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
• RULE 5: Ridicule is the most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works. Create anger and fear.

And the public is dumb enough to buy it. Shame on us.

Senator Specter, the wishy-washy guy from Pennsylvania, was surprised the other day when he was booed at a town meeting when he expressed his opinion that the details of the health system "improvements" were unimportant. I agree that the discourse in this country has become too unruly, but then again, if anyone deserves to be booed, it's Specter. More people need to stand up to their "representatives" and tell them in no uncertain terms where they stand.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Having been one of those "government bureaucrats" who wrote, revised, interpreted, critiqued and swore at regulations which had the purpose of placing Congressional "intent" language into operational specifics, there can be a world of difference between the lofty verbiage in statutes and the supposedly "clear and detailed" operational language within regulations.

The fun occurs when the regulations and the administrative agency actions have to defend themselves before Congressional committees and various staffers months and years after the Statute was enacted, with Congressfolk now whining that the agency (and the regulations) are not mirroring what Congress wanted. That, coupled with having to deal with "Congressional inquiries" supporting constituents who are running afoul of the agency for violating regulations, all relate to "vague statutes" devoid of those nasty details which give the statute the necessary clarity for the Executive branch to do the right thing.

So, the situation is like the old Fram Oil Filter Commercial, where the mechanic looks down at an engine being overhauled due to oil changes not being done, and says "You can pay me now [for the oil change and new filter] or you can pay me later [for the engine overhaul.]"

Do we really want to pay and pay and pay later for Congressional laziness now? They will praise themselves for a job well done, but when the Pachyderms and Jackasses have left the circus ring, the bureaucrats will follow with many brooms and shovels to clean up the mess. However, no matter how much sweeping and shoveling is done, there will be plenty of stains and stink left that will be expensive problems for a long time, unless........

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Geez, it's like the 2008 Presidential campaign re-visited. If you don't have a better idea, I suppose they think it's more effective to simply "engage and enrage" the public with emotional rhetoric. What's amazing is that the public is dumb enough to permit it to work.

Do you think that maybe both sides use Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? Does this conduct from the town meetings that have been covered by the media sound familiar?

• RULE 3: Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
• RULE 5: Ridicule is the most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works. Create anger and fear.

And the public is dumb enough to buy it. Shame on us.

Some could say the public has already bought into a whole load of dumb, and the sales force is trying to peddle more of the same while the mark(et) is still vulnerable.

When you tell everybody that....
- the government is broke,
- the economy has tanked,
- retirement funds have evaporated, and everything of what folk thought had decent value (like houses) are now worth 2/3rds of their value of three years ago,
- the last remaining major manufacturing industry is crashing, and the government has to go deeper into debt to keep them afloat, and
- to save us we need to double the debt and spend even more money that we don't have,
.......is it any wonder folk are now getting scared when the government says its going even deeper in debt with more new programs which will take more money out of peoples' pockets (higher taxes) at a time when every dime the average family has is going to pay existing bills and feeding families.

Our multi-millionaire First Family, VP, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader and others DON'T FEEL THE PAIN, so they don't understand. To them it's just words on the teleprompter, as they aren't being mortgage-strapped, going crazy trying to balance family budgets day-by-day or worrying about whether their job is next to go. And the folks who are hurting are beginning to realize that they are just the pawns on the chessboard. Yeah, they are mad, upset, and are going to be heard!