Last Thursday, U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop had a town hall on health care, standing room only and people turned away for lack of room. Even with the location, the majority of the people present were against the national health care plan.
Following in the footsteps of the president, Bishop tried selling it as a moral requirement rather than on the merits or lack of. What came across to many was the hypocrisy. Bishop opened with a prayer, and less than two minutes later said he was pro-choice.
He quoted from the Bible and said morally we were required to be our bothers keeper — and this from a man who votes to keep prayer from schools. Being my bothers keeper is an individual choice and not the government’s.
Morally speaking, we need to provide health care and we do Every person can walk into a hospital, and they are required to be treated, wither they can pay or not, legal or illegal.
Bishop did say he was going to vote for health care reform regardless, just that he’s not sure which one. Well, there’re only three in the House, and there’s not much difference between them. So we know where he stands — not with the majority of his district.
Even if we replace Bishop in November 2010, it’s become obvious,Washington is broken and not much will fix it. We need to be looking at the state and local levels and putting people in office who are willing to stand up and take back the rights given to the states in the Constitution. It’s time to take a good hard look at who’s running in 2010.
Michael Sabot
Leesburg
I also attended this Town Hall meeting. I witnessed it very differently, however. The clear majority of those present were in favor of Reform, despite efforts to filibuster the supporters’ time at the microphone by those who opposed it. One lady had to be physically removed by Security for her terrible behavior in refusing to allow the meeting to proceed. It was sad to watch so many grown adults throw tantrums like children who don’t get their way. There is a responsible and dignified manner in which to conduct oneself and there were just enough tea-bagger types unfamiliar with how to do it, to make it seem like the size of the opposition was bigger than it really was.
Sabot’s assessment that Bishop tried morals OVER merit when addressing those present is patently false. Congressman Bishop used BOTH, and with equal enthusiasm and effectiveness. Once again, Mike is demonstrating a “truth deficit disorder” when he claims Bishop has VOTED against prayer in school. Prayer in public schools was stricken down by Federal Courts NOT by Congressional Acts.
Finally, Mike Sabot’s exaggerations culminate when confusing the three versions being considered. There is tremendous difference between them, although it’s easy to see Sabot would lump them all together since he prefers the “Do Nothing Option” to any action at all. The one I personally most favor is the single-payer version. (End the age discrimination of Medicare, since we all pay equally into it; we should all equally receive benefits from it.) There was another that included a public option. The one that eventually was signed into law had neither, so I’m also disappointed with Congress, but not nearly as much as I am with the lack of credible information contained in the letter to the editor above.