healthcare

I have argued for a while that Repubicans need to pick up the mantle of transparency. It is useful tactically and strategically. On the tactical level, the guys in leadership always play "hide the ball with what they are doing". This gives Republicans a morally secure high-ground to attack whatever the Democrats do. Strategically, it gives us an issue that can both rally our base and makes good sense to independents and many Democrats.

On Friday, House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement on transparency. The key passage:

It’s just common sense: Americans should be allowed to read the text of major bills before Congress votes on them.  Previous Congresses, including Republican ones, failed to live up to this standard.  But never before has the failure been as blatant as it has been in the past nine months under Speaker Pelosi.   Things have to change.

There are two key parts to this. First, he grabbed the policy issue and framed it in the adult and serious way "Americans" (not "Members of Congress", which seems like only a populist argument, although some in the media have grabbed the straw man to give the Democrats aircover) should know what Congress is doing so that we can hold them accountable.

The second part is, perhaps, more important. John Boehner has now explicitly rejected the way that he ran the House, said "we have learned", and established a new line in the sand. Furthermore, one of the reforms that he advocates, in this case, a waiting period before legislation can be acted on, actually may impact many of the wasteful spending concerns that actually helped drive him out of office. 

What is so fascinating is the rejection by Senate Democrats and the silence of lefty advocacy groups other than the Sunlight Foundation. In an effort to get a public copy of the healthcare bill before a vote, John Kerry said:

"This is fundamentally a delay tactic," the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate said. "I mean, let's be honest about it. The legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don't read the legislative language."

That's right. But people who are interested do. People who are experts or people being impacted do, or they hire people to.

And this gets to the final point. Where is the press? Huffington Post is being sent around by Demcorats, because they are giving cover to Democrats. But they aren't really press. But where is the Fourth Estate demanding that they have the information to tell the American people what the debate is about.

Crickets.

You would think that John Boehner repudiating how Republicans ran the House would be worthy of news.

Crickets.

You would think that John Kerry giving cover to the Senate acting without even having legislation (I'm not talking about reading the bill here ...) would be newsworthy.

Crickets outside of Fox and the Washington Times.

Why Pragmatism cannot win the Healthcare Debate

The debate over healthcare has raged for generations.  It has toppled at least one Congress, and threatens to topple another.  Through all of this, the pragmatists have been largely victorious, which means: They have sold us out again.  Healthcare remains a difficult issue for politicians, because of economic and moral questions that must be factored into any debate.  The first failure of 'pragmatists', and the worst, in fact, has been their unwillingness to deal honestly with the American people.  This has led to the abominable side-show of senior citizens, demanding in sincere indignation: "No government Healthcare! Keep your hands off our Medicare!"

From the moment one sees this abortive reasoning put forward, one very quickly becomes aware of the fact that somebody, somewhere in this argument, hasn't been playing it straight all these years with the American people.  To the assembled multitude, I shall now endeavor to do so, and almost nobody will like it, but none will be able to claim I've been anything less than truthful.

There are a few concepts we must cover before we can even begin to untangle healthcare.  The real question in healthcare, in the US, is not about the quality of the care, but instead how it is to be funded.   No other place on the planet offers so many healthcare options.  There is no place else on Earth to go if you cannot be made well in the US.  One can cite some exceptional procedure or treatment here or there, but these are merely the exceptions that prove the rule.  Let us not linger on the care itself, but instead turn to the meat of this issue, as it is and has been for all of the life of its public debate.

Healthcare will be rationed.  This is an explicit fact.  You can run circles trying to disprove it, but by any measure, healthcare, like toilet paper, or gasoline, or food, is rationed.  The question is, however: "Rationed how?" Or, "By what mechanism?" or "According to what standard?" Herein lies the real argument, the true crux of the matter, and it is a tempestuous thing for politicians, because it leaves them no wiggle room. For 'pragmatists' this is certainly uncomfortable ground.

Up until the advent of the 'Great Society' programs of the late 60s, the mechanism for rationing had remained what nature decreed: The free market.  The free market allocates resources in answer to only two questions, and they are interesting to consider: Who is providing a supply, and who is demanding how many units of care?

My argument, to which I will return in due course, is that this had been the most thoroughly moral thing about American healthcare financing until it was supplanted.  However, let us first examine the mechanisms then created in order to set aside the natural rationing provided by the free market.  Medicaid and Medicare were created to provide the mechanism for re-rationing some portion of the available care to those to whom the natural market would not provide it: The elderly, beyond their earning years and unable to afford it, just when they would need it most, and the poor, who couldn't afford it much at all.  The argument was successfully advanced that the rest of us should dedicate some portion of our earnings to pay for the care of these two classes.  More, the argument was successfully made that we should be compelled to do so.  Herein lies the ugly nature of government programs:  Coercion is the prerequisite for their enaction.  This is another fact from which pragmatists readily flee.  They will say "some coercion is necessary," painting the matter in terms of a necessary evil.

Suffice it to say that the concept of a 'necessary evil' is a deadly contradiction in terms, and while I shall leave that subject for another day, it is necessary that you understand the premise behind my argument here: If a thing is necessary, it means there was no other alternative.  In the absence of alternatives, the only available course of action becomes amoral; questions of morality are only in play where choice is possible. No choice? No morality. No morality? No evil. This then leaves you with a solitary and much easier question: Is there no alternative, in fact?

So here we have the moral plea of leftists, and other statists, along with their 'pragmatic' friends at the center stripe: "What should be done about the poor, the elderly, and the infirm?"

This, they leave you as your sole choice, but what have they craftily ignored? They have established a premise that in the name of morality, something must be done.  Really? According to what moral standard? By whose moral authority? The answer? By theirs.

You see, it was never asked if there was any moral authority to club you over the head for your wallet, or at least threaten to, on behalf of somebody who needed a bandage, an aspirin, or a hip replacement.  No, it was presumed from the outset that you exist solely to serve the needs of your fellow man.  Presumed by whom? Why, them, of course.

It would not have been so bad had they only decided to brow-beat you, to implore you like the ringing bell of a Salvation Army's kettle Santa, but instead, they took up arms against you, and leveled the guns of government and said: "Pay, or else. Besides, you'll feel better about it."

This is the same ploy that is being used now, as they push for some form of entrenched governmentally-redirected healthcare cost shifting.  The question isn't whether we should have some form of universal care, but only what particular form it should take.  In the end, they are still going to redistribute the wealth of some Americans at gunpoint, to the advantage of some others.

From there, it's a lose-lose for freedom, and the American people at large.  It is the avoidance of this question that makes the so-called 'pragmatists' dishonest.  It is their sell-out on the first moral premise that dooms us to failure.  By accepting the statists' view of that first premise, the outcome becomes one of inevitability and certainty.  They will get their way, with the help of the pragmatists, and it will be their morality that defines it.

Once you've let them get away with any claim to your wallet, by whichever moral standard, you've thrown open your wallet to all comers, with you as the beggar for your own means.

This is where the rubber meets the road in the debate over healthcare financing, and it is here we must fight it.

In Northeast Washington, DC off Minnesota Avenue a neighborhood sits tucked between the entrance ramps to 295 North and South. The four story buildings line a one way street that loops around in a circle. Residents of these buildings call the complex "Paradise." But in reality, this area is another liberal fallout zone. Instead of Nuclear disaster areas like Chernobyl in Russia, liberals in America have created desolate areas where the harm from their bombs (social programs) manifests itself as crime, hopelessness and generational poverty.

In an article written over 20 years ago Time magazine touched upon an issue that seemed epic at the time during the era of crack cocaine:

"...No one seriously thought the inner city could be transformed overnight. But few were cynical enough to envision what actually happened: an entire generation would pass as life in the black ghettos of a rich nation went from bad to almost unimaginably worse.

‘You tell me what went wrong,' asks Jonas Walker, 33, at the end of another long summer's day of hanging out on a street corner in Liberty City, a ghetto north of downtown Miami. ‘We got civil rights, we got welfare,' he says. ‘But look around here.' For emphasis, he kicks at a pile of empty beer cans littering the sidewalk."

The emphasis added in the quote is mine and America's current crisis is interrelated with the plight of urban area. The current situation in America's poor neighborhoods illustrates the perpetuity of this downward spiral.

Johnson's "Great Society" included historic civil rights advances but history has shown that Democrats have a tendency to attach riders to any attempts toward racial progress. Welfare and other social programs like subsidized housing created a dependency on the government that has crippled the ability of these urban areas to survive.

For instance, subsided housing provided by the government - commonly known as the "projects" - sprung up all over America after civil rights advances. Poor minorities were told where to live, how many to a household while the government doled out just enough money to keep some of the building from falling apart. During this same period a number of organizations inspired by the Cloward Pivan Strategy sprang up with the intent to add even more people to the welfare rolls.

"Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.

The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the 'crisis strategy' or the 'flood-the-rolls,' bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants - more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism."

As the health care debate rages on across the country, American are waking to the realization that the same people who tested those social programs on minorities and the poor are now poised to unleash their new "test to the system" on a national scale. Bill and Hillary Clinton allowed their activist connections to influence their decisions on the Community Reinvestment Act and Universal Health care in the 90's. Now, the first community organizer to become President has employed strategies and tactics that can be traced to the early organizing of the welfare movement.

If the state of America's urban areas is any indication, most of the money for these so-called social programs never reached the people it was intended to help. This raises the question as to why, after 40 years of attempts to fix one sector of America's population, do liberals think that more failed programs are the answer? The answer may lie in the fact that the opportunity that liberals see on the horizon only comes once in a generation, and they are attempting a drastic social change.

Poverty is big business and a predicate for class warfare intended to perpetuate political power in the masters of that big business. In the current climate special interest groups are writing bills and influencing votes amid a huge liberal spending binge. People have tolerated the blighted urban areas; some lived there, while others drove by. But can America afford a fallout area that covers most of the country? Can we bounce back after the failed public healthcare system joins the graveyard of welfare, social security, cash for clunkers and so many others?

Issue with the cause or effect?

Context means a lot, unless of course you're involved in politics.

Congressmen retreat home during the month of August every year, so they can campaign for re-election. When they’re not serving the interest of their campaign, they just so happen to serve in their official capacity – our representatives on the federal level.

Often times they host townhalls to ‘hear the concerns of their constituents.’ There’s recent lodges against, largely isolated events in which, senior citizens are increasingly vocal and against the proposed legislation pending many of the most powerful committees in House and Senate. The Chairs of these committees, mind you, happen to be the most scandal-ridden members of the Democratic supermajority that have earned their tenure positions by being elected in politically safe, single ideologue bound districts.

Money matters, but all too often it’s wasted. Unfortunately, I like many consultants know this from experience. On a recent project, I watched as layers of management teams and multiple consulting firms each tasked with a different aspect in the day-to-day operations of this particular project prevented field staff from achieving any meaningful successes. Our benchmarks consisted of smiling for those writing the checks. We had a client, not a cause. Money was pouring out the ears yet at every turn there were two managers for every one task. To compound the problem, the managers usually had no idea what was going on.

I’m not saying astroturf does or doesn’t work. I’m asking, even if, what’s your problem?

Cause or effect, which one is the big deal? After they're done yelling "astroturf," I'm left wondering...

Does the Democratic supermajority take issue with the organizing itself or the effectiveness of this style of petitioning? After all it was the total lack of an articulated agenda coupled with astroturf protests (some legitimate) against President Bush that led to a Democratic victory in Washington. Does the corporate mainstream media believe that citizens who raise tough objections have any less warrant to oppose a radical shift in healthcare if email blasts went out from organizations that inform like-minded citizens with what’s going on in their congressional district? Again, this is even if it’s astroturf.

This is a game of fear. Yell “astroturf” loudly and throw it on the screen with a graphic done by an intern trying to work his/her way up and you can dismiss the dissent by labeling them radical.

We’re filled with distractions, labels, and rhetoric that’s not befitting in our great society. I would only tell advocates of the healthcare system overhaul to tread lightly. By trying to convince independents that any dissent, any opposition, organic or otherwise, is “erratic,” a threatening “mob,” or even “un-American,” you risk getting caught.

Even worse these individuals gathering, not knowing that most Americans share their very legitimate frustrations, are the independents. They won’t take kindly to being labeled.

Organic is effective and that’s where the issue is. If you can’t beat them, smear them. It’s politics after all. 

Oh, it’s a sound byte. If you’re going to change something, change the narrative.

[Author's Note: I wrote this a couple of days ago, waiting to post. There's an excellent article that's shorter and better articulated in the Op-Ed section of the NYT: http://bit.ly/alinyastro by Ryan Sager.]

In HR 3200, 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)', there is a section that is called 'HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.'. This is section 404. There are several problems with this section that would allow for minor and major indoctrination efforts of unknown child raising methods. States could enact legislation that requires enrollment in the federal home visitations to qualify for access to State programs of any kind. The type of education is not specified. If you don't do as the "well-trained and competent staff" require, you could be penalized. The funding increases by $50 million yearly, allowing for the growth of the number of  'home visitation child education experts', possibly until every family has their very own indoctrination specialist.

HR 3200. section 404, is a provision to finance grants to states to "(ii) employ well-trained and competent staff, maintain high quality supervision," and the "purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children."

Source - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111wVbHWS:e989688:

States can apply for the grants so long as they meet the requirements, one of which is "the number, quality, and capacity of home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children in the State;" Once the states begin the programs, to renew their grants or to increase their program size, they will need to increase the number of families in the program. States can enact requirements in any other programs they have that would require enrollment in the home child rearing education to qualify for access to the other programs like food stamps, cash assistance, public housing, public schooling. This would keep enrollment in the 'voluntary' home child rearing education visit program growing so that the state can continue to apply for more and more of the grants and swell the numbers of 'experts' to visit homes.

The type of child rearing education these 'experts' will teach isn't specified. They could be teaching any number of methods. You may or may not agree with how they want you to raise your children. They can require how you punish a misbehaving child or how to reward a child who excels. They can indoctrinate your child with ideological points of view you do not agree with.

If you don't do as the "well-trained and competent staff" require, you could be penalized. Charges of child neglect could be brought if you do not agree with the methods or principles they are teaching. Then you have to try to defend your ability to parent in front of a judge. And if you fail to prove your case, your children are taken away by the state.

To start with, $50 million is available the first year, and an additional funding increases of $50 million yearly ($100 million second year, $150 million third year, on and on). This would  allow for the growth of the number of  'home visitation child education experts', possibly until every family has their very own indoctrination specialist. Imagine how many 'specialists' the program will have after 5 years and it is spending $250 million a year and growing and growing.

To keep those 'experts' employed and enough families being visited, the 'government option' for health care could one day require enrollment in 'home child rearing education visits'. This would be part of the long term strategy of the Progressives to control you and imbue your children into their ideology. One day, an Obamabot will be visiting you in your home to tell you how to raise your child, and teaching your child how to snitch on you, their parent if you don't do as the Obamabots require. Health Care Reform, a perfect program to sneak in some education indoctrination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KY2nYf7pFs

(Yes, I know that electric trains generally only have a powered third rail. I'm just extending the metaphor.)

One of the most tired phrases in politics is "Social Security is the third rail of American politics."  The problem is that it's true - Bush figured that out by squandering all of his political capital trying to reform it back in 2005.  It turns out that old people vote and they can be easily scared when the spectre of taking away their government checks is brought up.

We face a similar problem with health care.  It's obvious that the system doesn't work, and not just for people with pre-existing conditions and those who lose coverage.  It costs too much and isn't portable.  The lack of a true national market and the employer coverage model is a failure.  Too many people lack coverage and those people stick hospitals with huge bills for admissions that could have been solved with a visit to the family doctor, if they had one.

That being said, there are a lot of solutions better than Obamacare.  We've heard them before on this site and others and they aren't the point of this post.  The problem is that if Obamacare is defeated, no politician in their right minds will touch the healthcare issue with a 10-foot pole.  In persuing the worthy goal of defeating one specific bill, the issue has been demagogued to the point of insanity with threats of "death panels" (Sen. Isakson (R-GA), who put the provision nominally at issue, thinks this is nuts), "keep government away from my Medicare (note: WTF?) and all sorts of hyperbole about the continued "existence of the republic."

And don't think for a minute that every accusation about killing grannies and such lobbed against government can't be lobbed at private insurers.

So instead of a debate on what to do, we have people holding up pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache shouting down elected officials before they can answer questions.  We have liberals convinced that people who oppose Obamacare are foam-at-the-mouth dittoheads and birthers organized by lobbyists.  And they're partially correct - many (not all) town hall shouters have spouted a lot of nonsense and many are making this personally about the president and anger at losing the last election.  It's embarrasing to people who have real issues with Obamacare who want to and make something work instead of yelling until they're red in the face.

The window for reasonable debate has closed by conservatives who want to make this Obama's Waterloo and liberals who are circling the wagons against a perceived onslaught of crazies.  The next reform proposal from either side will fall into the same pattern.  Eventually, everybody with power to do anything will throw their hands up.

Now healthcare is a "third rail," just like Social Security.  There are other, smaller, third rails to contend with.  Our primary system is rigged to prevent any serious talk about ethanol.  Serious agriculture subsidies reform is stymied because the committees that make ag policy are filled with congressmen from districts that feed off the USDA teat.  We can't have a serious discussion about Israel for long without someone getting called an anti-semite or a zionist likudnik stooge.

The problem?  You can't cut the size of government with all of these third rails in the way.  Everything has to be on the table.

Healthcare isn't just a sixth of the U.S. economy, it's a very big chunk of government spending.  The problem with the deficit hawkery I've heard recently is that it's small bore.  Spending freezes avoid the difficult choices about what exactly we want to cut.  Pork appropriations, non-military foreign aid and arts funding seem like ripe targets for popular cuts, but they make up a vanishingly small part of the budget and won't change the overall fiscal picture.  Survey after survey shows that people think government is too big, but they don't want to cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security education, defense or anything specific beyond the amorphous "waste."  The only real solution is to slow and reverse the growth of healthcare costs while still providing the care people demand, and we are in the process of blowing it for the next several decades by turning a deadly serious issue over to the loudest, angriest, least reasonable wing of the movement, destroying any hope of comprimise a la Wyden-Bennett.

In the zeal to stop a bad new policy, we have guaranteed decades of the bad old policy.  Good job guys.

A lot is being made of the town hall meetings held by Senators and Congressmen regarding health care, and the anger being expressed by many of the crowds. What the far left fails to realize is that they are causing much of this anger, not as much through their proposals, but by manner they treat people with differing opinions. This started during the presidential campaign when the left and a complicit media summed up McCain supporters as 'down-scale', angry, uneducated, hicks. The campaign is long over, personally I've been called worse, and would be completely willing to let this go if it weren't for the fact that it is a tactic that is being put into use again against citizens who challenge the administration's health care plans. Now the left is again trumpetting any opposition as being 'mob-like.' An email sent from the Democratic Party calls out the "Anti-reform Mobs", and tell the reader how scared these angry mobs are...

People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. These crowds are being riled up by anti-reform lies being spread by industry front groups that invent smears to tarnish the President’s plan and scare voters. But as the President has repeatedly said, health insurance reform will create more health care choices for the American people, not reduce them. If you like your insurance or your doctor, you can keep them, and there is no “government takeover” in any part of any plan supported by the President or Congress.

First, this is insulting. People who don't want government run health care, or this version of health reform are being characterized (like during the campaign) as simple-minded, reactionary, idiots. Second, the proof that these people are intellectually challenged is that "the President has repeatedly said," that this is a good thing. So anyone who questions the President is clearly dim-witted (or forgot to drink their Kool-Aid). The great thing about this country isn't the political parties, it's the political debate. Talking down about those that disagree with you is nothing new in politics, but its being taken to a new level by either the administation or the administration/party operatives. People are angry, some are over-the-top inappropriately angry, but most are rightfully angry that they are not being heard and are being belittled for being thoughtful concerned citizens that are demanding a debate. Finally, the Senators and represenentatives that are continuing to do town halls knowing that they may face a hostile reaction deserve kudos. I may not agree with their policy, but I appreciate their backbone, and that they are doing their job and listening to their constituents. Cause for Anger

The Whitehouse has posted a request for their "brownshirts" to start snitching on their neighbors and friends. On August 4th 2009, the Whitehouse posted a request for information on anyone spreading opposition information on 'Government centric healthcare', meaning anyone opposed to government controlled healthcare.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

They are calling on all of their Obamabots to become snitches and tattletales and informants on their neighbors and friends who simply oppose an Administration policy. This is what they called brownshirts in other administrations of the past.

Do you know an Obamabot? Be careful what you say around them, or you may end up on a Whitehouse list. If you spread the 2003 quote from Barack Obama regarding his ultimate plans for government control of health care :

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

You could be targeted by the 'brownshirts' amongst us for spreading 'disinformation'.

They don't say what they will do with the information gleaned from their Obamabots. You can picture it now, Obamabots lurking around groups of friends, neighbors or co-workers, listening and scurrilously writing down names. Gleefully slinking to their computer to email flag@whitehouse.gov with every sordid detail.

Dear Leader ZerO has been using the Marxist tutor Saul Alinsky method where overloading the welfare system was the surest way to bring down capitalism and bring about socialism. By adding more people to the all ready broke and broken government health care plans, the system would be overloaded and a pure socialist solution could be proposed. This is why he wants a plan that is deficit neutral and thus underfunded, to increase it's load and hasten it's implosion.

Now he calls forth another tactic of up and coming Dictators and asks his Obamabots to inform on his opposition. Well, let's use some Alinsky tactics. Overload flag@whitehouse.gov with the kind of information they deserve. Do your duty America. Send an email to flag@whitehouse.gov. Some sample content would be telling them about the pile of excrement your neighbors dog has deposited in opposition to the Health Care plan, or some simple ASCII art like :

Remember, Dear Leader ZerO has asked you to be a good citizen, email flag@whitehouse.gov with your report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAwjEaXWXs

I received a copy of this request -- from UHCAN Ohio to promote government healthcare reform -- we must communicate our opposition!!!!

Request for Proposals for Targeted Media in Southwest Ohio UHCAN Ohio and the Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage is engaged in a campaign to inform the public about the importance of federal health care reform and reduce the fear that is being created by opponents of health care reform who are spreading misinformation. We are looking for a media/communications consultant who can secure for us earned media opportunities to spread a positive message on health care reform and inform the public on the many areas that are rife with confusion. Our target market is the eight counties of Adams, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, Highland and Warren. We desire to mount a media campaign over the next three months that will cross print, broadcast, cable, and internet media. We are looking for opportunities to reach a broad swath of the public and of interest groups, such as business or religious constituencies. The pace of federal health care reform efforts has dramatically accelerated since early June 2009. If meaningful health care reform is to happen two needs must be met:(1)   Voters need to remain positive about reform, even as contentious debate arises over details of reform (such as the public health insurance option and the financing of reform) and as opponents of reform undermine public support with fear mongering.(2)   Federal legislators need to hear from voters that they want to see federal action on health care this year and that they care about affordability, quality, and health care security for all Americans. For voters to remain positive about health care reform, they need to receive positive messages and reliable information that reinforces the benefits they will derive from health care reform.  Meeting the Need for Clear Messages that Reduce the Fear Being Engendered by the Opponents of Health Care Reform.  People get most of their information from broadcast, cable and internet media, as well as people (family, friends, co-workers and others) who repeat to them what they heard in the mass media. The opponents of health care reform are spending millions of dollars on persuading the public that health care reform will result in a “government takeover” and “get in between them and their doctor.” The proponents of health care reform need to find ways to gain earned media to let people know that health care reform will protect and improve their choices.  We are looking for a PR consultant local to Southwest Ohio who will secure opportunities in Southwest Ohio across media types for UHCAN Ohio and Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage staff and partners to discuss health care reform.  We need a PR consultant to secure for us these opportunities:1.      Appearances on radio talk shows2.      Appearances on “drive time” radio programs3.      Appearances on broadcast and cable TV4.      Articles in daily and weekly newspapers targeted at the general public5.      Articles in specialty newspapers, such as those targeted at religious communities or the business community6.      Connections made through social networking sites including the blogosphere Time Frame:·         This will be a three month contract taking place between August and October.  Contractor Responsibilities:·         Contractor will pitch stories and potential interviewees to the media. Contractor will identify blogs that discuss health care (among other topics) that have a readership in Southwest Ohio and refer Client to those blogs.  Client will be responsible for furnishing the person(s) to be interviewed, and for developing messaging around health care reform. Client works with a communications organization in Columbus, and has some outside technical assistance from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on messaging. Client primarily needs a consultant who has local connections and can secure media exposure.  Please submit a brief proposal to UHCAN Ohio stating(1)   Your history of securing media for small groups and not-for-profit groups(2)   Your history of handling communications that are part of a campaign(3)   Your history of working with health care professional or advocacy groups(4)   The plan you would undertake to secure significant earned media coverage in the next three months in Southwest Ohio on health care reform (including how you track media hits)(5)   Your fee. Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage is a consumer-based coalition seeking fundamental health care reform benefitting consumers. It is staffed by UHCAN Ohio. Information about UHCAN Ohio and OCHC can be found at their web sites:www.uhcanohio.orgwww.ohioconsumersforhealth.org Proposals should be submitted no later than 5 PM

David Wu melted down at a townhall in Oregon when asked why he won't read the health care bill or the cap and trade bill. Watch it here:

Congressman Wu meets Samurai Mom from WashCoGOP Oregon on Vimeo.

Wu managed no coherent response. That isn't totally unusual for him. I was in the House chambers for the Medicare vote, when I worked for Nick Smith. There were many strange things that night. But one of the weirdest was Wu's behavior. David Broder reported (pdf) that a fellow member of the House described him as "almost catatonic."

But hey, why be able to read or explain a bill that he thinks is one of the most important ever, right?

H/T NWDigest.