| The auditorium seated maybe somewhere between 800 and 1000. It was full; there were people in the hallway outside milling about; and another couple hundred in the gymnasium across from the auditorium, where they had piped in an audio feed.
The bulk of vocal members of the audience looked to be middle or upper-middle class, was clearly white, was 40s or 50s, and was loud and unwilling to listen.
People asked Eric to explain "the bill"-- I'm assuming, HR3200-- and Eric did, patiently and dilligently. But whenever "the hall" disagreed, they began yelling over him.
Eric was polite to a fault. He was the picture of calm, cool demeanor under fire. He never lost his cool, often tried to lighten the proceedings with small quips, and defended the right to speak of everyone with the microphone (most of whom disagreed with any reform whatsoever).
Now, the extreme members of the audience-- who were probably between one quarter and one third of those present-- might not feel that way, because he also admonished them to be polite and allow the person with the microphone their say. But I was in complete awe of his ability to remain calm, and cool, and polite.
Perhaps "polite to a fault" is the correct term. Many of the speakers came with the lies and cannards that are being spread by the extremist radio hosts (Limbaugh and his wannabes). Eric always listened politely, attempted to gently correct some (but not all) of the incorrect statements, but never wavered from an appearance of a respectful discussion.
I don't know that Eric could have done anything differently. He is a public servant, elected by the people, and needs to be respectful of them. But at what point when people are saying things that are bold faced lies should they be told "you are either lieing yourself or stupid for believing the lies pushed by Rush and his buddies"?
He never did. They called him a liar. They called him a communist. They said that he was trying to force them, kill them, destroy them. And he never more than nodded and responded politely.
When he attempted to explain that "the bill" wasn't socialized medicine, they screamed and yelled and booed. When he tried to tell them what socialized medicine was, they called him a liar. When he tried to tell them how money savings could be realized, they screamed and yelled and booed some more. When he tried to explain that the only real socialized medicine in the US is the VA-- and that every discussion he has with constituents about the VA has the constituents asking for more money for it-- they yelled him down.
I have a sense that the partisans who oppose the bill are building a narrative that goes something like this: "people who are advocating healthcare reform are bad/evil/communists. They are trying to force socialist medicine/communist/liberty removing change on me. By doing that they will destroy healthcare/kill me/kill my children." Next, they start thinking "by opposing the bill, I'm a patriot/liberty fighter/true American. Anyone who tells me otherwise is a communist/liberty hater. The more they try and tell me lies about it not being communism/socialized medicine/killing grandma, the more true my beliefs are."
You can't reach people who are thinking like that. You can't persuade them. You can't talk truth to them because they have essentially walled themselves off from listening to reality. They've decided on their mindset and demonstrated today, with their behavior towards Eric, that they will refuse to listen at all.
I think that those of us who believe that health care reform is necessary-- including the President-- are foolish to believe that any compromise is possible.
HR3200, from what I can tell, is a bill so watered down that it is next to useless. Specifically, without a true public option, it will not do enough to contain costs.
Nevertheless, the opposition to any reform is throwing every ephitet at it they can. In essence, we could be proposing something three steps to the left of 3200 (one step: true public option, two steps: single payer, three steps: British socialized medicine) and they would have no different arguments to use.
If we don't gain any bipartisan, compromise support by going with 3200, then why do it? Why not put the best bill out there possible and push it?
Previously, I suggested a compromise involving a true public option, simplifed to being an extension of Medicare.
Why do that? There won't be a compromise. There won't be bipartisan support.
Democrats in Congress need to pass something or else they look impotent and risk 1994 all over again. Why pass a poor bill that will cost more and provide less in the name of bipartisanship if they will receive no credit for bipartisanship from it?
It's time to consider whether the better plan moving forward is to pass a single payer, Canadian style system. Will they get heat and flack for it? What has become clear to me is that they will take no more fire than they would if they pass HR3200-- which has become the gold standard for the minimum possible bill that can pass. So why not pass a bill that will actually benefit the country, instead?
My minimum standards are this:
- True public option
- All premiums in both the public option and private insurance are set by community and age alone-- no discrimination in pricing or refusal to cover based on pre-existing conditions
- The public option must have full lattitude to negotiate prices with all providers-- no Medicare D provision forbidding negotiations of pharmaceutical prices
- There must be subsidies to low income individuals
And it should be named the "Edward Kennedy Universal Health Coverage act of 2009".
Or better yet-- keep the name and put it on a true single payer bill. |
