Attended my first town hall meeting this morning.

[Jimbo S]

Rep. Sensenbrenner held one today in Brookfield. I knew I would be outnumbered, but not by a 10-to-1 ratio. About 300 attended. Overall, a civil event.

It was a Q-and-A session and not a bitch session. Since I didn't have a specific question, I had nothing to say. I didn't stand up and comment because I felt my emotions would have gotten to me, being surrounded by tea-baggers and all.

About half the questions regarded health care. One question from an Obama supporter asked Sensenbrenner what common ground exists between the two parties. He replied that it was at 80%. Both sides of the aisle agree on portabilty, covering pre-exisiting conditions, and preventing cancellation of policies. Disagreement regarding public option and tort reform.

[undeterred]

1. I've haven't heard of anyone who is against tort reform.

Obama mentioned it in his speech. What I don't understand is why the Republicans think that it would make much of a difference to health care when its such a tiny percentage (like .1%) of the total cost of health care in this country.

Good to hear from Sensenbrenner that agreement is 80%.

[postulater]

2. I just opened up his constituent newsletter.

Two articles.

One: Cap and Trade Brings Economic Cost without Environmental Benefit.

Two: The Wrong Prescription for America

His points on Insurance Reform:
1. No bureaucrat should get between you and your doctor.
2. Any new program must not create a delay in you receiving care.
3. You should be allowed to keep and maintain your current benefits.
4. We need to know how much we're spending and how to pay for it.

Now, really, who would want to be the one standing between Jim and his prostate exams?

And how can he complain about cost? Didn't he vote to blow a few trillions in some stupid wars?

He's also worried that when private insurance doesn't cover the specified list of benefits required, people will be forced to get a new plan or pay a tax.

I think he doesn't understand why he isn't a committee chairman anymore.

[mojowork_n]

3. 80 percent?

It makes my head hurt to try and guess if Sensenbrenner was being honest, or just pulling a plausible-sounding number out of his big (and mercifully, pin-stripe covered) butt.

Art Kumbalek was more accurate, in the Shepherd, a couple of weeks ago:

...But God bless the private health care industry. Without it, how else would fat-ass white women in Waukesha County have employment as paper-shufflers and designated coverate-deniers so as to provide their household with a second income that they can afford the tuition needed to send their kids to good private Christian schools...

Any real solutions for the current mess would require dismantling some of the for-profit/coverage-denying incentives our current 'health care' providers enjoy. So their heels are dug in.

...Never mind that the U.S. has the highest cost pharmaceuticals on the planet, or that our health care outcomes rank below Slovenia's, at more than twice the cost, per capita.

A Medicare-for-all single-payer system would take a much bigger bite out of everybody's payroll check, BUT:

"...Medicaid, the program that pays for medical care for the poor, and is funded by federal and state taxes, would be eliminated, saving $400 billion a year.

Veterans’ care, currently running at $100 billion a year, would be eliminated.

Perhaps two-thirds of the $300 billion a year spent by federal, state and local governments to reimburse hospitals for so-called “charity care” for treatment of people who have no insurance but don’t qualify for Medicaid, would be eliminated.

Individuals and employers would no longer have to pay for private insurance.

Several hundred billion dollars currently spent on paperwork by private insurers would be eliminated.

Car insurance would be cheaper as there would no longer have to be coverage for medical bills.

Federal, state and local governments would no longer have to pay to insure public employees..."

From a Dave Lindorff article, at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09222009.html

Anyway, Thanks for the report.