Healthcare Town Halls
I think that the purpose of the recent town halls is probably part of the problem with the protesters shouting and showing outrage.
I thought town halls were genuinely about listening to constituents, but these town halls run by the Democrats are not about making the legislation better or listening to voters, but rather about trying to convince voters of a plan that already seems solidified despite its flaws.
Take for instance the legitimate outrage expressed at the end of life provisions. The outrage was real and the legislation was poorly worded. So instead of listening and fixing it, the Dems waited for several weeks claiming that Republicans and Palin were distorting the truth before finally capitulating and changing their bill.
The second major stumbling block that constituents are justifiably pissed about is abortion being a covered service in the new healthcare bill.
If Dems were listening to Moderates and Conservatives, they would realize how controversial these provisions are and if they were interested in bipartisanship, they would have left these controversial provisions out of the legislation. How do you as a Conservative or even Moderate that is pro-Life support a bill that is going to fund end of life care in the way it was worded and how do you support tax payer funded abortion?
And these are just medical ethics questions that were unnecessary to include. That is before the cost of the program or fiscal responsibility or taxes come into play.
So why are the Dems out trying to tell people that they should support taxpayer funded abortions instead of listening to the people that overwhelmingly are against it? Is a town hall about pushing your agenda or listening to constituents? How disconnected is Washington that these legislators that are rarely in their home states and only come back to campaign not stay in their dumpy apartments? When you return to your home state and the state you represent, but spend so little time there that you have to stay in a hotel for your campaigning, how can you claim to be listening to your constituents?
More listening and less telling us rubes what we should think.
I thought town halls were genuinely about listening to constituents, but these town halls run by the Democrats are not about making the legislation better or listening to voters, but rather about trying to convince voters of a plan that already seems solidified despite its flaws.
Take for instance the legitimate outrage expressed at the end of life provisions. The outrage was real and the legislation was poorly worded. So instead of listening and fixing it, the Dems waited for several weeks claiming that Republicans and Palin were distorting the truth before finally capitulating and changing their bill.
The second major stumbling block that constituents are justifiably pissed about is abortion being a covered service in the new healthcare bill.
If Dems were listening to Moderates and Conservatives, they would realize how controversial these provisions are and if they were interested in bipartisanship, they would have left these controversial provisions out of the legislation. How do you as a Conservative or even Moderate that is pro-Life support a bill that is going to fund end of life care in the way it was worded and how do you support tax payer funded abortion?
And these are just medical ethics questions that were unnecessary to include. That is before the cost of the program or fiscal responsibility or taxes come into play.
So why are the Dems out trying to tell people that they should support taxpayer funded abortions instead of listening to the people that overwhelmingly are against it? Is a town hall about pushing your agenda or listening to constituents? How disconnected is Washington that these legislators that are rarely in their home states and only come back to campaign not stay in their dumpy apartments? When you return to your home state and the state you represent, but spend so little time there that you have to stay in a hotel for your campaigning, how can you claim to be listening to your constituents?
More listening and less telling us rubes what we should think.
