Oh, please, the names of those who demand their first amendment right and then shout down those with whom they disagree. They should apply for citizenship in China for a reality check.

The people who show up and shout at these town hall meeting have no idea what they are mad about.......I mean, come on!...The goverment is going to tell you that you can't take a pill???....People need to stop believing eveything they see on Fox News Channel......

Hmm - perhaps they need to stop believing everything they see on ANY news channel. Seems to me this "debate" is about something very few (including our representatives) really know anything about or understand. Especially considering nobody knows the detail because there are several "bills" in progress. So who really knows what is being proposed. So what people are reacting to is:
1. The concept of a Gov't run healthcare system that potentially drives private insurers out of the market.
2. The addition of another mulit-billion or trillion dollar "entitlement" program.
3. The thought that a "single payer" system like Canada or UK is where the Democrats are ultimately leading us. This initial program is only the foot in the door that will allow it to expand.

These are NOT unreasonable concerns or fears. Look at Social Security - another huge social program that is approaching bankruptcy.

And yet - the GOAL of these programs IS in fact noble and something which most folks want to support in some way. But not at the expense of what they have now or of additional huge deficits.

As for those shouting down others - I agree with you Kate. BUT where was the outrage at the protestors "shouting down" others when vocalizing their objections during the Iraq War? Seems to me there is an awful lot of hipocracy on this. (Not by you Kate - but in general.) It's ok for Acorn and other left leaning organizations to get vocal and angry in their protests, but heaven forbid that right leaning protestors use the same tactics in their protests???

Yeah, Bill, I have been out of the loop for a while, work and just getting by consume a lot of my time lately - hmmm, sounds like I need to prioritize a little better. And I hate missing this stuff. It is hard to make an educated decision with incomplete info, but one thing makes me wonder - I know several people that have travelled to Canada for medical procedures because it was prohibitively expensive here. I wondered, how is it that these folks can get a procedure done there so fast and inexpensively and yet here at home it is almost impossible without insurance. Can you imagine a Canadian trying to get a covered procedure here for a decent price, without comprehensive insurance coverage? I don't get it.

Why would anyone think that a government Healthcare option would put private health insurance companies out of business? Federal Express and UPS both are doing fine despite the US Postal system! So are the current insurance companies despite Medicare and Medicaid (both government run). This claim is a veiled attempt to prevent affordable coverage for the millions of uninsured. Look at the successful private/public healthcare system in France, which rates #1 in healthcare quality and compare to the US at #37.

Catherine -

The reasoning being put forth is that if there is a cheaper "Public" option then the majority of companies will simply no longer offer more expensive private plans, or will shift more of that cost onto their employees thus making those private options no longer viable. Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me given the drive to lower costs. No?

I will agree that there is plenty of posturing and fear mongering on all sides of this issue, and let's face it - for the 85% of Americans who have coverage change in and of itself is a concern. The fact is that too often politicians put poorly thought out plans into place only to find out after the fact that the law of unintended consequences takes over leaving folks stuck while they try to straighten it out. THAT is really the big fear of any major shift on healthcare.

We don't need a more direct or immediate example of which direction health care in this country is headed, without decisive intervention, than the Cornwall/St. Luke's hospital evolution, which is playing out concurrently with these town hall meetings. The corporate medical/industrial complex--with its drive for ever-greater profits--will decimate any semblance of balance or affordability that existed before pharmaceuticals were marketed like pop-tarts, and before medivac helicopters replaced those quaint ambulances of old. In fact, one of the most prominent new features of Dr. Stillman's new-and-improved Cornwall Hospital is its front and center heli-pad. The word "unsustainable" comes to mind.

Well said, Rick. I find it curious that so many have issue with socialized medicine when we have several socialized institutions already-the post office, our libraries, schools...for those for and against this issue, I implore you to read the legislation-especially those parts that have been discussed in the media. I learned long ago to avoid the news and make my own decision based on primary sources-FOX news and CNN are NOT primary sources of information!

Chuck: I understand that you fear change - but that is not reason enough to prevent badly needed reform. Since other government run programs have not eliminated competition from the private sector there is virtually no reason to fear that a public option would put private health insurance out of business.

There are many private schools despite the wide availability of public schools (and private colleges as well). There are still bookstores despite the wide availability of libraries. And I've already mentioned Fedex, UPS & DHL despite our excellent public post offices.

Healthcare reform is overdue by about 30-40 years. Those who profit from the status quo have been successful in creating fear in people for too long. Now is the time - well actually years ago was the time, but better sooner than even later!

Hmm - so Jeffrey - what exactly ARE your primary sources? In this case there is the bill itself but most folks don't have the skill or time to read 1000+ pages of legalese. My thinking is that there is NO unbiased source out there. Some seem a little more balanced that others and we probably won't agree about which are which. But virtually ANY source has a point of view or a bias left or right in this day and age. My take - is to take input from a variety of sources - Fox, MSNBC, WSJ, NYT, CNN, USA Today, NPR etc. Granted I can't keep up with all of them all the time but at least I get a smattering of input on the same issue from various perspectives.

Jeffrey and Catherine - As for the issue with "socializing" medicine - my mind is not made up. I can see definite problems with the current situation - though I think the uninsured numbers have been skewed - illegal immigrants, younger workers who refuse insurance, etc. I am not convinced that our current "public" institutions are doing all that great and at an added cost of Trillions of dollars - adding the MOST expensive of the lot to the Federal Gov't raises huge concerns. Surely you don't think that it is unreasonable to be at least a little worried about this? Take a look at Soc Sec which they say is heading for bankruptcy far faster than expected. Thanks to GOV'T (of both parties) dipping their hands into the pot to fund other initiatives. I do NOT trust Gov't to keep their hands out of the cookie jar because they've exhibited NO self control in the past.

So my thinking is why not attempt to correct some of the most aggegious Private model concerns (pre-existing conditions, portability, cross state competition, etc.) through legislation FIRST, before heading down the path of creating another HUGE entitlement program in a "Public Option"? Is that REALLY such an unfair and fear mongering question?

Yep - and it isn't so much fear of change alone that I am concerned about... rather fear of incompetant change, or change for the sake of change without reasoned and thought out debate over the options. I am not completely opposed to some sort of change, I just don't want to see it rushed and be so sweeping that we don't really know what we're getting or without thinking through and planning how it will all be paid for.

As JFK said about civil rights, and which applies equally to healthcare, "We are confronted with primarily a moral issue." Healthcare is a human need that everyone should have access to - and what kind of civilization is it that does not recognize this? What kind of moral order allows people to eschew the welfare of their countrymen while striving ferociously for their own benefit?

Bill Moyers spoke about the moral message that health care reform represents, which is that "we are in this together."

"I don't want to live in a country where I am on a hospital floor getting an operation, and two floors above me someone is being denied that same surgery because he or she has no money. What kind of a civilization is that?" Moyers said.

Universal healthcare is representative of a deeply moral society - how can we be fight to prevent bringing this to such large number of our countrymen - as so many people have done for so many years? By "moral society", I mean a society that cares for "the other".

Everyone who has means may have to give up something to make sure that everyone has healthcare - no one has to give up too much, so that we all can rise to be the kind of country that leads the world again - not just in weapons, but in ethics and principles.

Laws are made to prevent bad people from doing bad things, but they are also created to require bad people to do good things - civil rights is one of those laws and universal healthcare is another. Without the laws, bad people will continue in bad behavior that withholds access to basic human rights and needs from a segment of our society (people of color or people of low wealth).

Well said, Catherine. Labels are such limiters. To brand this healthcare initiative as 'socialist'(derived from the same root as 'society') is a pejorative that stokes fear and stifles justice. We should do a perspective check, and ask ourselves why there was no equivalent town hall meeting, attended by 120 residents, to debate the possibility of invading Iraq back in 2002. It boggles the mind to think what that great surge of American power could have done, if directed toward the health and welfare of our own people.

Hmmm, this is really not as simple and straight forward a debate as some would make it seem. To paint any questioning of a Gov't run healthcare system as somehow "immoral" (the presumed opposite of Catherine's "deeply moral" society) is unfair. Those who question the current proposals are not heartless unfeeling capitalists who only care about money. I agree with you Rick - use of labels - by either side of this debate is highly limiting. As with any troubling issue of our times (war, abortion, healthcare, etc.) there are great arguments on BOTH sides. When one side can't seem to win decisively with logic and fact - they resort to labels and highly charged rhetoric (distorion, propeganda, outright lies) to paint the other side out as completely evil. This is why politics (at all levels) in this country is so very frustrating. Nobody has time to really deal in facts (a 1000 page bill - in DC legalese???), and messy grey areas of conflicting rights. So ALL sides resort to sound bites, spin, and name calling. With the result that very little actually get's done on highly contentious issues.

Now - purely philosophically I would question the notion that healthcare is a "right" (on the same level as civil rights as posited by Catherine and Rick). The consititution and the bill if rights protect and guarantees every US Citizen the "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does NOT guarantee them anything beyond the legal freedom to pursue those objectives in any way they see fit within the bounds of the law. Many would argue that sezure by the Gov't of their hard earned pay to redistribute to someone else to pay for their healthcare is in fact a "socialist" style governmental act. And they would not be wrong.

Would it be nice to welcome ALL people in the world to US with open arms and no restrictions? Of course. Is it sustainable? No. Would it be nice to provide ALL residents of the US (legal or illegal) with universal healthcare that covers ALL procedures anyone wants at anytime with no restrictions? Absolutely. But at what cost? Catherine posits that "everyone who has means would have to give up something ... (but) no one has to give up too much." In that statement is where much of the distrust and concern lies. Once this Gov't starts a social program (welfare, Soc Sec, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) look at how the size and cost have tended to skyrocket. Or how the "Gov't" dips into the kitty to fund other programs leaving the intended program's coffers unsustainable. Soc Sec is the biggest Ponzi scheme EVER and that bubble is just waiting to burst. So where does a line get drawn?

This country's current economic situation is unsustainable with massive debts that are skyrocketing from BOTH parties mismanagement - both past and current.

Is it any wonder many are now questioning the sanity of taking on yet another MASSIVE Gov't social program? No household can survive forever on deficit spending, and neither can a country. I would argue that there is no RIGHT to healthcare - it is a priviledge of a just and moral society who can afford it. That said - if the system can be altered to reduce the abuses of insurance companies, the medical community, the legal community, etc. who ALL have a hand in skyrocketing costs - then yes, I am for it. But I question the wisdom of rushing headlong into handing over to the Gov't the potential for a total takeover of healtcare.

Gotta wonder - Obama made a pledge of "no new taxes" on those making less than $250k a year. Most projections I have seen are questioning whether that would be possible with the new healthcare system.

The flaw in Mr. Trelia's argument is his assumption that Healthcare reform would be expensive and the status quo would not be. That is erroneous. What we have now is not working and has not been working for years.

His fear of "rushing headlong" into reform is laughable since this is something that has been needed for at least 30 years now and those who profit from the status quo have managed to prevent any reform by getting people to fear "rushing headlong".

What is being proposed is nothing near a "total takeover of healthcare" by the government. That is a red herring and a distraction from the facts.

I agree with Bill Moyers, who has stated that healthcare for all citizens is a deeply moral issue. No one is talking about providing healthcare to the world (although I do think that is something that society will eventually address). We are talking about healthcare for US citizens.

Like Mr. Moyers, "I don't want to live in a country where I am on a hospital floor getting an operation, and two floors above me someone is being denied that same surgery because he or she has no money. What kind of a civilization is that?"

The flaw in Catherine's post is in ascribing to me "assumptions" that I did not make. I never stated that this healthcare reform "would be expensive" I only questioned her assumption that "noone has to give up too much". I cited examples of the Federal Gov't consistently underestimating costs and overestimating what can be accomplished (Iraq anyone? Or this administration's estimates of the deficit?).

I do NOT think my concern over rushing into reform is anywhere close to "laughable" considering how often bureaucrats do just that to disasterous results.

I agree that the healtcare in the US has serious flaws and currently costs too much. I have NO problem with "reform" - where it is well thought out and targeted (costs of Medical education, costs of malpractice insurance, unethical insurance co's pulling every trick to avoid paying claims, etc.). What I (and seemingly a LOT of other Americans) have problems with - is blindly trusting a president and congress to save us all with a new Gov't run and tax funded program for all the reasons stated above. I see little if any evidence to inspire ANY level of trust that this will stay contained, stay within cost projections, and NOT TURN INTO yet another massive "entitlement" program that they can keep solvent without devastatingly high taxes. I am NOT saying that is a certainty - I AM saying that it is highly likely given past Federal performance by either party, and therefore we are absolutely right in questioning and fearing where this might lead.

Perfect example: In the early or mid seventies New York put into place a policy that paid money to people who lost their homes to fire in NYC. This was seen as a compassionate means to help disadvantaged people who where left homeless. Sounds great right? Nice and moral and caring. What happened? Arson skyrocketed. The law of unintended consequences took over due to poorly conceived and executed public policy decisions that had the most laudable of motives. The program had to be scrapped.

Sometimes - "crises" are used as an excuse to make massive changes where smaller more focused adjustments would have sufficed. Healthcare may or may not be one of these situations - but I don't think the American public is unwise to say to congress let's slow down a little and really think this through. If it hadn't been for people standing up and saying "wait just a minute" this administration and congress would have simply crammed this down our throats.

Healthcare Reform has been "in the works" in earnest for over 15 years. Mr. Trelia's desire to postpone doing anything out of fear of getting it not quite right is typical of those who enjoy the status quo at the expense of the sufferring.

Enough procrastination. Follow the lead of the countries who have successfully implemented universal access to healthcare for all citizens. Recognize that the expense imagined will not be greater than the expense we will have if we do not take steps towards reform.

There you go putting words in my mouth again Catherine. I did not say that I desired to "postpone doing anything" - I simply am asking for a fair and equal and TRULY bipartisan effort on this bill rather than the Democracts in Congress shoving through provisions and blocking amendments in such a one sided manner. (such as those that would ENFORCE preventing illegal aliens from getting benefits, or those truly preventing the possibility of tax funded abortions, etc.)

I do NOT believe that this President nor the Democrats controlling Congress have given deep thought to the potential costs and have been less than honest about how the costs will be contained and paid for. They just want to shove ANYTHING through that gives the foot in the door for a Public Plan knowing full well that once there it will have the potential to knock private insurers out of the arena. There is nothing in the bills currently to prevent a company from NOT offering private insurance to their employees instead of the Gov't plan. So where is your "choice" if they decide to only offer the public plan?

And how EXACTLY does the President expect to find the money to pay for the "majority" of the $900B estimated price (over 10 years) from Medicare savings alone without sacrificing at least SOME quality and availability? Surely there isn't $500B (over 10 yrs) of pure waste in the program. And IF there is shouldn't we be going after that NOW irregardless of this health plan????

Does this sound to you like a well thought out plan? If so - then by all means call John Hall and Schumer and Gillibrand and urge them to support this. But if not - I'd strongly suggest you should make your feelings known. NOT that we don't want ANY plan - but one that actually makes sense.

I am behind much of the intended goals of this bill - but not with all the gaping loopholes and problems in it currently.

btw - in case you think I am making up my concerns and objections or that I am distorting - see for yourself what the non partisan factcheck.org has to say regarding Obama's speech and the Bill: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/

You will see that there is PLENTY of reason to be concerned and to keep the pressure on to REVISE this bill. In the absence of corrections to these problems - I think most people will object to its passage.