What questions loom ?

I haven't finished working up my argument for why there's a healthcare crisis in this country, but I wanted to go ahead and talk about what I think needs to be said to get the snowball rolling downhill towards getting a fix. Indulge me, please.

I personally think the main questions that the President and lawmakers have to answer are:

1. why do we need this healthcare overhaul ?
2. how is it going to get paid?
3. is this just a trick to get us all into one plan?

Local and national radio shows are pushing the idea that the multi-option plan is just a ruse to get everyone into one plan. They say that hidden in the bill is language that says if you change jobs or lose your plan or your plan changes, then you lapse into the main government option, never to return. (For the record, I'm still researching that.)

The President has to come out and explain if this part of his plan. And dont just speak generally, find the language on the page in the bill (whichever version) and refute this idea SPECIFICALLY!

I'm afraid things are worse than I'd previously hoped. The problem is, as I heard one of the town hall people explain, is that you can have the President say the exact words they want to hear, but people still wont believe him. I mean think about that for a moment. I get that you don't trust the opposing political party. I even get that you distrust your government. But we're in a dire state of complete breakdown if you sincerely believe that the President is explicitly LYING about what's in the bill.

And what's more...if you wont accept him at his word and you interpret the words of the bill (remember there's not one, final bill right now, but a few in the House being pushed) differently, you'd just made debate and information giving WORTHLESS. Seriously, what's the point of coming out and discussing things if you're not going to believe any of what's said?

PLEASE BELIEVE, I am not saying that you should believe everything that anyone says just because it comes out of their mouth. What I'm trying to get across is that if you don't refute things specifically, you're not advancing the debate.

Prez says:
On page 23423432, there's a passage that says "Snargledyfarb"

Protester should say:
You're reading line #342 of page 23423432?

Prez says:
Yep.

Protester should say:
Can't you see that line #342 of page 23423432 could be interpreted as "Sniggityfab" ?

Prez gets to respond.

What we've had up until now has been generalities thrown back and forth that have frothed people into saying "Amerikkka is becoming Russia!"

This is your chance people, to get lawmakers on the record as to what they're going to enact. After it's enacted and you can compare what they're saying is in the bill with something different that actually got enacted, you can call them a liar and boot the bums out. But if you don't listen and engage lawmakers directly (shouting LIAR~!! doesn't work), then you're simply using brute force to win the day...and that just invites brute force from the other side.