@jas-I don't know what his reasons are for not having a town hall meeting in each one of our areas. IF it's because of all the disruptions that one group has been encouraging people to do, I think he ought to make clear that if people don't act with some semblance of courtesy, the disrupters will be escorted out.. But not avoid them entirely. He's not an outsider, he's from Corpus Christi, and his father in law is a minister in Waco. I happen not to agree with him about a lot of areas, some I'm sure I do, and I want the chance to both speak my mind, hear others do the same, and his replies.

"...our texan way of life..."??? Which Texan? You, me or the other guy?

ps: by the way, you can always email, write or call Mr. Edwards with your point of view, as I do. 

@Steve. Just love it when people post clichés with no backing, full of baseless insults. Posters on this site include Democrats (Republicans and Independents, too) and those who are of that party are certainly not *another* coward(s). Edwards has not forgotten the people of his district or he wouldn't have won the seat every year. We already HAVE socialized medicine-Medicare and Medicaid, maybe your grandma would like to see that done away with? Saying that if you want to throw around some insults, how about back them up with examples from, say, speeches, or bills, or voting record.

On Town Hall meetings in general versus only using email/calling/writing in and this applies to ANY politician. I regularly express my views to my elected officials, if only to get in on a counter of  how many for what (I remember reading once where KBH said "I didn't get any phone calls about that issue"-didn't help that her phone line was always busy with no voice mail option). Inevitably, I am told that I will get back a reply via postal mail and indeed, I do. But I believe that whoever the representative is from whatever political sector needs to find time and ways to meet en masse with the people he or she represents and those people need to be able to express, in an orderly and civil manner, their concerns, plaudits, and/or complaints. After all, Edwards finds time to meet with various groups for whom he has gotten earmarks or to receive awards, etc-in other words, the public meetings should not, in my view, only be when there is a favorable publicity angle to be had.

@Big Mike. Having someone say something that doesn't follow the crazy conspiracy line is what freedom of speech is all about.  And everyone, whether a view is popular or *politically incorrect* deserves to be able to air their POV... and TO their elected officials.

@salon

@Steve-you must be new to Chet Edward's voting record. In fact,one of the beefs I have had about him is how often he votes with Republicans. It's naivety to think that he blindly votes with them. Let's also get this straight-I'm liberal, proud of it, and am amused at attempts to demonize people on the basis of a label. I also have quite a few conservative tendencies, but find the conservative label to be odious to be marked with. One can equally say the same thing regarding Liberals and Power to Conservatives and Power- in fact, that applies to quite a few in Congress regardless of party affiliation.

On your post #7. Sources? Otherwise, it's just rhetoric.

@salon,

at least you are honest and don't try to hide behind misnomers like "Progressive" like your left wing brothers.

@Steve. Of course I am honest. I also don't consider those that want to be called *progressive* (which I do not) as not being honest, any more than I think all conservatives or right-wingers are not honest. Some are, some aren't.  And, the whole reason I have repeatedly called for Chet Edwards to have a town hall meeting (if you look, you'lll see plenty of incidents of this on this site) is because I want him to have one. Otherwise, I would not have written this. I will say again that I think anyone that is elected needs to get an *earful* from the public, but I believe it must be in some semblance of an orderly process and not one that brings in people to deliberately disrupt and shout down. I believe a lot of people don't agree with their elected officials but the small right-wing faction that I have read about isn't those who happen not to agree but those who are using disruptive tactics. This isn't fair to the process, not fair to those who come to hear and speak up, not to hear a shouting match.

I don't agree with you about Cindy Sheehan. It was her right to go out and protest against what she believed was an illegal and wrong war, just as it was the right of those who didn't agree with her to also show up in Crawford. Who is *The Left* you say discredited her? I"m sure there were some that did, and she's never been on the top of my favorites list, but there isn't some unified group called The Left where everyone agrees and walks in lockstep, any more than there is a "The Right" or "Moderates" or "Centrists" group that all think and act exactly the same way.

@steve- I believe before trashing him for this, we all deserve to hear the reason why he is not holding town hall meetings.

And yes, I will parse your *labels*, because I believe that people are not made of black and white opinions, or all cookie cutters of each other. I happen not to like runaway politicians who spend my money unwisely and I believe that party or left vs right affiliation has nothing to do with it. If it's the right, they're spending like drunken sailors on war or corporate welfare. If it's the left, they're spending my money on bailing out corporate crooks. At a local level, I don't like the 14.5 mllion dollar CO that the county okayed last year, and one of the leading Republicans and I are in perfect agreement about this. We don't agree on some social issues, but we don't have to because this is America and it's still, at least in theory, a free country.

Oh, and I almost forgot. What I WOULD encourage people to do is CALL up Chet Edwards office, preferably the local office in the area (ours is Cleburne in Johnson County) and both express that we want him to hold town hall meetings and ask for the reason why not.

@salon

@steve-No, I couldn't have said it because then I would be your mouthpiece and not speaking my own thoughts and words. And yeah, I think that people who go specifically to town hall meetings NOT to voice opinion or anger (justified or not) but because they are deliberately attempting to disrupt are thugs. I've been to Chet Edwards town hall meetings where the majority of people were angry and didn't agree with Edwards, but nobody stood up and shouted him down, wouldn't let him speak, called him names, or otherwise (as I've said repeatedly now) prevented civil discourse from taking place.

@steve-not posting your last comment as you have apparently mistaken this blog for a personal chat room or email conversation with your grandma.

@human,

First of all, if you people really want to know why Edwards has not scheduled a town meeting here, why don't you call him and ask?  Secondly, the World Health Organization lists the quality of health care in America as 37th in the world. We are the only developed country in the world whose health care is dependent upon Corporate profits and the agenda that benefits their shareholders first. Chet Edwards does not support bold reform of health care and this is hugely disappointing to me. I'm bored to tears with all this left/right/liberal/progressive/conservative crap and truly believe it is a discussion that has become obsolete. I want solutions based on reality and it seems to me many Americans have developed amnesia or just don't really inform themselves properly. Just where do you think all these disasters came from? Which party, before the last election, was the dominant party in power for all but 12 out of the last 40 years? I'm disgusted with the Democrats, too, but some of you folks out there are in total denial about what's been going on in this country for decades. And now that you're finally beginning to notice what many of us have been watching for years, all you can do is place your anger on our current President. He didn't create this mess. And just what solutions does the other side have to offer?

Inform yourselves. Just watching Fox news (God help us) or MSNBC is simply not adequate. Edwards a liberal? Surely you jest.

I don't see where the economy can stand an overhaul of the health care system at this time. If they would just open up free enterprize in pharmaceuticals, it would lower cost tremendously.  As I've stated before my medication is $155 per month is US, in Canada it's about $40.  Why can't they take this a step at a time, maybe that's to simple, seems government don't like simple.

I found something that I think we can all agree on... the elitists in Congress are out of touch with the people!

Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.

James, the economy cannot withstand NOT overhauling health care. Pharmaceuticals? There is no more powerful lobby in this country. They also have one of the highest profit margins of any industry. They own Congress, this is the real problem. Read this:

from an interview on Bill Moyers Journal:

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (Senate floor, May 2, 2007):Since 1998, the pharmaceutical industry has spent over $900 million on lobbying activities; $900 million since 1998. That is more than any other industry in the United States of America. It is hard to believe, but there are now over 1,200 prescription drug lobbyists right here in America, many of them right here on Capitol Hill. That amounts to more than two lobbyists for every member of the House and the Senate. They have us all well covered.

https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06012007/transcript1.html

full disclosure please.... Bernie Sanders is an open Socialist

Steve, I've posted a number of good links regarding the HC reform debate. The WHO's ranking is NOT an evaluation of competency of our physicians and nurses. It's a comment on the delivery system. Corporate health care has already taken away the power of the physician to treat; it offers NO free market competition because it is a monopoly. It's need to satisfy its investors (Wall Street) compels it to insure fewer and fewer people. Many physicians and nurses support the single-payer system.

From the California Nurses Association (80,000 members in 50 states):

The CNA argues that all Americans should be covered under a similar, government administered plan, and is backing HR 676 — commonly known as the "Medicare-for-All Act" — to expand and modify Medicare. This type of plan, in which one non-profit organization pays all medical bills, is often called "single payer." Proponents of a single payer system argue that by putting everyone into one big pool, a non-profit plan can achieve the three benefits enummerated above as well as cut down on administrative costs, balance risk and ultimately cost less than what they refer to as the United States current "corporate bureaucracy". The CNA summarizes their arguments for a single payer system here.

Also, check out Physicians for a National Health Program @ https://www.pnhp.org/ 

@steve-you do love those labels, don't you? Please be precise about why you beieve Sanders as a socialist is a bad thing. With references.

@steve post 21- Yup, can agree. Here's the reference - I notice that both a Democrat and Republican were in on this.

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is the junior United States Senator from Vermont, elected on November 7, 2006. Before becoming Senator, Sanders represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives for 16 years.

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot.

Yes, Sanders is a self-described socialist (not a communist). So what? Does this alter the facts he has quoted about the corporate buy-off of Congress by the HC industry? It's clear, Steve, you're not really interested in debate of the issues. 

Actually, Sanders describes himself as a 'social democrat' which is at the extreme right of the many different positions the term 'socialist' is used for. Again, so what? I fail to understand how any citizen could not be questioning the unregulated practices  of Corporate American and Wall Street that finally brought all of us crashing down last Fall. I've said this before, we don't have a free market in this country.

@steve. No, you misunderstand. Why does it matter to you if Sanders is a socialist or not? In other words, not just references that say that he is, but why do you think that merely uttering the label is a bad thing?

@humanbeing - Post 21 "Pharmaceuticals? There is no more powerful lobby in this country. They also have one of the highest profit margins of any industry. They own Congress, this is the real problem."

Quick reference for phrm.org from sourcewatch, phrm being the lobbyists group for Big Pharma.

JDavid, no one is proposing to take your Corporate HC insurance away. If you want to continue to pay 30 cents on every dollar for inefficient administration of your plan and each year continue to receive less coverage for more money while the profits from your premiums keep the administrators in private jets with gold-plated dinnerware and leather seats, that's just fine by me. I did check your link to phrm.org and it was hopeful, although what Big Pharma does is still peripheral to the discussion of HC reform.

I'm not clear at this point (is anyone?) just what the current 'bill' in Congress will look like after the frenzy ends. And it's really too bad that the budget surplus GW Bush inherited was used up so irresponsibly that we have no economic comfort zone to deal with our own country's critical problems. But, as our President has said, doing nothing is not an option. And a majority of Americans like me want a single-payer option. 

Here is some excellent reportage that you might find interesting: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/view/ and www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

One more thing, JDavid. I currently work for one of the largest, if not the largest, health care systems in N. Texas. GRMC is not alone in its march toward financial insolvency as all our hospitals in this country are beginning to tank from the monthly losses incurred from uninsured patients. This absolutely must change or we will all be in the ditch.

I'm only taking issue with one thing for now, the World Health Organization hasn't done a "ranking" since 2000, then we were ranked 37th out of 191. The ranking was based on a wide range of issues, we did well in some areas. Arab countries did well, population vs income, and a lot others were countries with very heavey taxes.

@steve-Elitist? Who uses those words? Bwahahahah. I find myself amused with how label-oriented you are.  Surely you are not attempting to imply that because I would like to have a converstation in which you explain why you use certain terms is an *elitist* thing to do. Heh.Another term that is kind of meaningless unless it has some definition and context.

On socialism. I'm not a socialist, but I think we have some elements in our country that embrace socialsm, to begin with Medicare/Medicaid, the income tax, public libraries, police protection, VA, national parks, ... the list goes on. Here was Ronald Reagan on socliazed medicine (ie, Medicare, etc).

I"m not a Ronald Reagan fan but if you're against socilalized medicine (ie, socialism) then your first attack needs to be against Medicare, etc. For me, I think that we have a personal responsibility to help those less fortunate in society, as long as we can make a strong determination as to whether those individuals are deserving. If having government programs like the post office, social security, the VA, Medicare/Medicaid, public libraries, etc are socialsm, I have no problem with it. I think those who are against *socialism* need to rail against ALL public taxpayer funded programs (and to include corporate welfare programs) , because socilallsm is not a cute and dried, black and white, yes or no proposition in this country. We are not purely capitalistic, nor socialistic, but a mixture. I also agree with HB's point about whether, regardless of how Bernie Sanders self-identifies, you agree with his ideas.

I think better of people than to believe that people will or won't worship God on the basis of the economic system they support. Capitalism seems pretty godless to me, but that doesn't stop people from espousing it as the system they prefer AND continuing to worship their god as they see fit.  I don't think any government can stop people from worshipping as they want-persecution fuels religious intensity.

I haven't said much about health care because I'm waiting to study the bills, which have been changing daily. I don't know that a government bureaucracy would make healthcare worse-that's an opinion, not a fact. In the countries where they have universal healthcare or something close to it, it's my understanding that their taxes pay for the healthcare, but again, I haven't exhaustively looked into this.

I agree with you that I don't like the idea of some kind of giant Ponzi scheme, where my money goes to support takers without any controls. I felt that way during the Reagan administration's Savings and Loan scandal, which stuck Texans with a baiout bill we're still paying (and Bush the First was VP then). What did that teach people about personal responsbility (consider-what happened to Neil Bush over this?)  IO feel that way now on the whole Too Big To Fail scenarios which were brought about, I believe, in large part by the previous administration and a willing Congress on both sides to kill oversight and regulation on the financial markets. It's just not a simple discussion, however, when you have our government supporting tax shelters for corporations who take jobs away from America and send them, for example, to Mexico, like Ford did,, or where, in Texas, we give big chunks of welfare to business entities like Luminant and lessen their responsibility in case of nuclear disaster.

If every problem could be solved by simply sahing "Socialsm Bad! Capitalism Good" then we'd had no real need for brain power.

Heard a rumour that he may do some kind of phone call thing. Entire unsubstantiated, his office in Cleburne has NOT called me back. If anyone calls up any of his offices and finds out that he is going to do ANY communication with his district, please post here with the time and date and place.

Update: Sigh. He wants to do one big gargantuan marathon phone call for the enitre district. Whose bad idea was that?

Incidentally, not posting any more of these simplistic "He's a socialist" type comments. You want to make those kind of comments, go to a right-wing site where they eat up name calling by erroneous knee-jerk labels.

Well, let's get on the telephone!

The only "disruptions" at town hall meetings are when union thugs beat up the opposition.

@Kyle-you have a source for that assertion?

Oh. Must be this guy-the one with no health insurance.

Media Matters

Read this this morning, like it.

One has the sense that lawmakers are just stunned that ordinary citizens would have the temerity to speak up. Spending most of their time with staffers, lobbyists, and fellow legislators (i.e., sheltered from real people) and soaking up the talking points from their leadership, they simply never encounter people who disagree so bluntly and so loudly with them. Until now, the average town hall was a lightly attended snooze-fest where a few seniors came to complain about late checks and a question or two came up about a local pork-barrel project.

But then citizens got the idea that they could come out—in droves—and give their representatives a piece of their mind. It is all quite a culture shock for the lawmakers, who seem blissfully unaware that somewhere in just about every crowd there is someone with a video camera or a cell phone recording how they respond to criticism. And so far, it’s not a pretty sight

As I've said, I'm all for people speaking up on diverse opinions and we sure do NOT all agree. Just keep the thuggery ouf of it, no matter where it's coming from.

I see Rob Curnock is trying to capitalize on this. Too bad he's a Republican. Can I just say that I'm sick of people trying to hold up Nancy Pelosi as the boogieman (woman) for all ills they don't like? How about talk about the IDEAS or ACTIONS you don't like and not just the person?

Have to add one more thing. I have said previously, and I believe this, that technology needs to catch up to how things work here. And I certainly don't blame any representative for cancelling a meeting where he or she fears for life or injury (although I think it would be better to bring in cops and do screening if it was that bad- Imean, there's a machine that our local courthouse uses for courtroom activity and I wager to bet that every other county has 'em too). But having ONE district wide telephone call is a BAD IDEA. It would be somewhat better, as an aberration, if it was AT LEAST a phone call held with EACH COUNTY!!!! I mean, how hard that can be and how much time would that frigging take up out of Edwards day? He could still be parked in DC in his office or at some place that has a phone and arrange to do a phone town hall every day or twice a day. I'm offended by the fact that not only does he usually not even show up here unless it's to get a photo op for some earmark he got or to discuss HOW he can get earmark money for somebody, but that now he wants to lump every single person in the ENTIRE DISTRICT on ONE long phone call. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

Now, I don't agree with TJ Gray that he's a liar. My beef with Edwards has always been that he votes with Republicans on Republican issues-it's entirely laughable that he is called a Nancy Pelosi liberal and shows the ignorance of those who pay attention to rhetoric rather than his votes.

i am amused however by the dummy routine. And again, while I am NOT one of the knee-jerk Death Panel Killing Grandma folks, I continue to want us to have actual face to face representation from those we elect.. and not just if we happen to hear about him coming to town to actually visit somebody else.

One question that keeps coming to my mind is just where were all these concerned citizens the last eight years while the rest of us were watching the ship sink? What did they think was happening here in their country?

Bruce, your story about your son and your attempt to provide him with the care he needs, is a perfect example of why we need Health Insurance reform in this country. Unfortunately, those of us who support this reform are not only battling Corporate America and their agenda to produce profits at our expense for their investors, but also a kidnapping of the discourse by the skin-head/racist groups in our country and those on the right who see an opportunity to make our President look bad. These people are losing their power and will not let go easily. 

Update. He's going to hold a 90 minutes phone call on Thursday. for 200,000 people. That are on a public list. that he calls.