Moore defends call to avoid large-scale town hall forums

Reminds me of "the dog ate my homework."

Make all threats public from these liars. What a lame excuse.

Finally exposed in spite of the lies of The Star and The Sun. Now that we have a socialist president Moore has come out of the closet ( or temporarily stopped trolling the DC bars) and is working to destroy America's health care system. Down with Moore, Obama's Kansas lackey.

After lying through their teeth about who Dennis Moore was for years The Star is now moderating the comments on his video about why this coward won't come out and meet his constituents. Always the bias. Just once it would be great if kansas City had a real newspaper instead of this Der Sturmer look alike.

He won't even talk to his constitutes and face the music . This guy needs to go , what a Coward go run and hide your time is up in 2010 .

This is exactly the kind of c__ that is killing your paper. Shouldn't an elected official have to face the public. He works for us. He needs to be reminded of that. He's forgotten it and apparently you on the editorial board have also.

This man is a coward.

What a chicken. He's ducking his constituents because he knows damn well that the vast majority of people are against this boondoggle.

"vast majority"
I don't think that means what you think it means

Voted for Cap & Tax.
Favors socialized Health Care.
Okay with tax increase to pay for ObamaCare.
Nope, no conservative Blue Dog.
More like a liberal Pelosi Lapdog.

of Americans are opposed to the behaviors of a very small minority who are using the media coverage to appear more significant than they are.

If these folks were relevant, they'd stop the histrionics, roll up their sleeves, and present ideas and options regarding health care reform.

That's where the energy needs to go right now...into reasoned thought.

I welcome them to stop yelling and start discussing the issues.
Unfortunately, I don't think they will because I don't think they can..

or just an opportunity to scream at a legislator? Claire's sure was effective (Not). I don't blame Moore at all for not participating.

Dennis Moore, you are a very weak man. Whatever! Do what you gotta do, but us voters will observe how you vote and will remember this for 2010. It is just around the corner.

At this time, this is the only public venue that you will be able to meet with
Rep. Dennis Moore
Tuesday, September 1st
Cleveland Chiropractic College
10850 Lowell
Overland Park
9:30AM to 11AM

They say you should RSVP for this one because space is "limited." Maybe you could RSVP at 913-621-0832 and while you call, ask about a better time in a larger venue for the citizens of the 3rd Congressional district in Kansas to be heard.

Currently they are giving priority to Seniors so be sure to bring an elderly person with you.

jmdayks

I am a big supporter of Dennis Moore. Always have been. He has done some great things for the kids of Kansas. However, I'm not in agreement with No Town Hall. Why? I bet if it were an election year, you would be GLAD to have a Town Hall about the upcoming election. Dennis, you are disappointing us. I'm sure there are funds for security to be handled at these town halls. Come on, be more like Claire... stand up to the hecklers. It will be voting time again!

Pusscake.

I don't know anyone who is in favor of government run health care. Or government run health insurance.

Not anyone with any sense or an IQ higher than room temperature, anyway.

Guess that tells us who the Obama voters are.

You're right, Deathweezel. No one likes Government run health insurance. That's why no one uses Medicare.

if you associated yourself with others you would find some who are in favor of it. Harvard professor Dr. David Himmelstein, for example, wrote an article in the NEJM about how effective single payer would be in the US.

I would wager calling him dumb would be an incorrect statement.

sounds like the people who saw a man get shot on his front porch and won't come forward... anyone who votes again for this career politician is an idiot!
in all aspects of our lives,EVERYONE needs to stand up...and if something happens tell JESUS you died a hero to help the greater good, for crying out loud.

From Heritage.org April 12, 2005
The Top Ten Reasons for Medicaid Reform
by Nina Owcharenko
WebMemo #718

Medicaid is in dire need of change. Medicaid is a welfare program, enacted in 1965 as a safety net for the poor and the indigent. But the program has grown to care for over 46 million Americans at an estimated cost over $338 billion, for FY 2006, in combined federal and state expenditures.[1] In reforming the welfare system in 1996, Congress established a process to move people out of dependency and into work, enabling them to participate in the mainstream economy. Medicaid reform should track the success of welfare reform, mainstreaming beneficiaries, wherever possible, into the private health care system that covers their fellow citizens. The result: a modernized and improved Medicaid program to better care for those it is intended to serve.

There are many reasons why the Medicaid program needs change. Consider the top ten:

* Medicaid’s mission to the poor has been compromised. The Medicaid program has grown to cover an extremely broad and very diverse group of individuals. It provides care to over 46 million children, parents, pregnant women, disabled, seniors, and even some childless adults. It also increasingly provides long-term care services to middle-class Americans. Such a diverse group makes the program’s one-size-fits-all design inadequate to meet the needs of very different enrollees. Policymakers should reevaluate the purpose of Medicaid and consider ways to better address the needs of these various populations.

* Medicaid’s benefit-setting process is outdated. Under Medicaid, states must provide certain benefits to all enrollees. States may also provide additional benefits above this mandatory level.[2] The line dividing mandatory and optional benefits, however, is no longer realistic. For example, prescription drugs are considered an optional benefit, though few would consider prescription drugs optional. Policymakers should remove these distinctions and allow flexibility in creating benefit packages that meet the specific needs of groups of enrollees.

* Medicaid limits access to quality care. Due in part to Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates and burdensome bureaucracy, fewer physicians are agreeing to accept Medicaid patients. A 2002 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) survey found that “approximately 40 percent of physicians restricted access for Medicaid patients…”[3] Policymakers should consider integrating market-based solutions, such as modified Health Savings Accounts for enrollees, into Medicaid so that participating physicians can receive full payment at the time of care. This would encourage better physician participation.

* Medicaid rations treatments and services. In order to control spiraling costs, many Medicaid programs restrict access to treatments and services. This is particularly visible in how states ration access to prescription drugs within Medicaid. States have devised a variety of approaches, such as restricted formularies and monthly limits, to impede enrollees’ access to prescription drugs.[4] This can be especially problematic for enrollees with multiple health problems. Those with mental illnesses, for example, may find that the limited formulary restricts their ability to find the best choice for them within a class of similar drugs. Policymakers should find ways to give enrollees, and their physicians, greater control over treatments and services.

* Medicaid is less desirable than private coverage. The vast majority of Americans take advantage of private health care coverage. It is not surprising that most Americans would prefer private health care coverage to Medicaid. A Commonwealth survey found that 65 percent of Americans, whether insured or not, would prefer private coverage, where only 10 percent would want Medicaid or Medicare.[5] Policymakers should help Americans get the private coverage they want instead of tinkering with inferior government programs; and they should promote ways, such as premium assistance, to allow those eligible for Medicaid to purchase the private health insurance of their choice.

* Medicaid discourages long-term care planning among the middle class. Medicaid is quickly becoming a welfare program for middle-income families. With cleaver estate planning and asset protection schemes, individuals can qualify for Medicaid and receive long-term care services at taxpayer expense. Research has shown that Medicaid dramatically undercuts the demand for private long-term care insurance.[6] Policymakers should strictly enforce current laws on asset transfers and close loopholes that make it too easy to qualify for Medicaid. In conjunction, policymakers should create incentives to encourage individuals to plan and save for their long-term care needs. Moving away from long-term care for the middle class would allow Medicaid to return to its proper mission: providing a safety net only for those who truly need it.

* Medicaid encourages improper state financing gimmicks. The open-ended federal match states receive for their Medicaid spending encourages them to game the federal government. States use a variety of tactics to leverage federal matching dollars, many of which have been found to be inappropriate or deceitful.[7] Policymakers should clamp down on these gimmicks to bring accountability and credibility to Medicaid.

* Medicaid is quickly draining state budgets. Most states must maintain a balanced budget, and many are facing serious and worsening fiscal problems. Medicaid consumes an increasing portion of state budgets and is squeezing out other priorities. For the first time ever, Medicaid surpassed education as the largest part of state budgets in 2003, according to the National Governor’s Association.[8] That year, Medicaid consumed 22 percent of state budgets.[9] Policymakers should consider slowing Medicaid’s growth by giving states the flexibility to make changes to their programs beyond what is currently allowed.

* Medicaid is contributing to federal budget problems. Entitlement programs, including Medicaid, consume a growing portion of federal spending. As the Medicaid program grows, the cost to the federal budget increases. In FY 2006, Medicaid will cost the federal government $193 billion, according to projections, and from 2006 to 2014, Medicaid is expected to grow at an annual rate of between 7 to 9 percent.[10] Policymakers should take steps to bring these spending trends under control, starting with eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in the system.

* Medicaid is creating huge, long-term budgetary problems. Without reform, Medicaid will consume an even larger share of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the major entitlement programs—Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—account for approximately 42 percent of federal spending.[11] By 2050, Medicaid and Medicare alone could account for between 11.5 to 21.3 percent of GDP.[12] Policymaker must take serious steps today to regain control of these looming fiscal problems. The longer policymakers wait, the harder the decisions policymakers will have to make.

Conclusion

It is time for policymakers to address the Medicaid crisis. Policymakers should make reform a priority and take serious action this year. Specifically, Congress should work with state officials to create consumer-driven options within Medicaid and to mainstream low-income Americans into private health care coverage. This could be accomplished with refundable health care tax credits and by bringing consumer-directed and innovative care management to the populations that depend on Medicaid. In this way, Medicaid could be made to better care for those it is intended to serve, while improving its overall performance.

Nina Owcharenko is Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

I meant "MEDICAID!"

Do I owe someone a carbon credit or something?

between Medicare and Medicaid.

Such a surprise.

Can't tell the difference?

This once again proves people who support the public option can't defend it, that is why Moore is hiding!

Anyone who said anything negative about Iraq was called "Un-American" by the Bush administration. Reporters were forbidden from taking photos of military coffins.

NOW the Republicans have their shorts in a knot because Congress wants to spend money to help the American people who can't get health insurance because the insurance industry has a monopoly. I'd like to know how many of the people screaming at the politicians at these town halls have been shut out from buying insurance due to pre-existing conditions. They've probably all got employer-paid coverage & don't want anyone to mess with their status quo. Oh, but comfort is only temporary. What if they lose their jobs? They'll wish they had supported a healthcare bill.

Stop the screaming & threats and add something constructive to help pass a bill to end the bankruptcies due to medical bills.

Once again liberal moron chimes in lacking facts. President Bush never called anyone who disagreed un-patriotic, unlike Nanacy Pelosi, Taking pictures of coffins was a policy initiated by the Clinton administration, Bush just kept it going. If I lose my job, I pay my cobra payments like a responsible person, and don't cry for a handout like you loser!

have perfectly fine insurance, you have great jobs, your children have gone through good schools and you just can't imagine not having enough.

Consider yourselves blessed.

Why don't you want others to possibly have that choice as well ?

Go to your church soup kitchen some time and see the people who show up. They look like the people who stand next to you at the drivers license bureau, or buying clothes for their children at the Penney's outlet, counting their change at Taco Bell.

Want to find out how the Medical plans will work out - me too. I am lucky to work for a local medical facility and have great insurance but the people who fill the emergency room, or who don't have enough money in the cafeteria line, or have clothes a little too short or too old don't really have a whole lot of representation at the table compared to the Insurance/Medical industry.

So somehow you are going to crap on their health and future.

That is might white of you ( I am kind of guessing on this last one ).

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

If I recall correctly, I think this was said in a very loud voice too.

Dennis, we have questions. You owe it to us to make yourself available to hear our questions. No matter how loudly we ask.

President Bush never called anyone who disagreed un-patriotic, unlike Nancy Pelosi...

Actually, Pelosi never said that anyone who disagreed with her is un-American, what she said was this: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American".

It's easy to twist these words into something like saying that those who disagree are un-American, as Boehner does here.

Before someone jumps on me, I'm well aware that the Democrats do the same thing. It would behoove us all to take a deep breath and debate such a complex issue in a calm, cool and civilized manner. I realize it won't be easy.

I pay my cobra payments like a responsible person...

Just FYI: when I lost a previous job, I found that I could get a health insurance policy through the company that holds my home and auto policy for a lot less than what COBRA would have cost me.

That's just hilarious...how is an industry a monopoly? Must have the same economic understanding of the big o. Thinks monopoly money will work for healthcare.

faqEqYcJ kiKcGmW

KUfOujI FHjjtdv