re: There is no doubt town hall agitators are paid stooges

quote:

---

Why is anyone holding a town hall in February 2017?

---

It's pretty typical for them to host town halls when there is a Congressional recess. They're not just election year or campaign events. They just never get much national coverage unless there's a contentious subject. I went to one 4 or 5 years ago and there were maybe 20 people there. It was boring.

quote:

---

It is not unreasonable to think that people are coming from outside those districts or states to cause havoc for those town halls.

---

Other districts, sure. I doubt many, if any, are coming from out of state. There is a large swath of people in this country, on both sides, that probably can't even tell you who their House Rep is, especially around urban areas where district lines can get a bit messy.

Rep Marsha Blackburn had a town hall the other night where she restricted attendance to citizens in her district. It turned out about the same as all the others have. People that have seen the benefits of ACA are HIGHLY motivated to let lawmakers know, just as those opposed to it were in 2009 and 2010. In many districts, they are probably a minority opinion on the issue, but their voices are at least being heard.

think about what these loser protesters were doing during Hurricane Katrina, while Kennedy was setting up a medical clinic for flood victims. I know of at least one of these agitators that high tailed it to Alabama and DID NOTHING to help flood victims, then came back home and wanted everybody else to fix his shite, get his power back on, etc.
my point is, these protesters usually don't do shite for their community, they're useless; they're goatee-sporting baristas,right? Then they have the nerve to want to hold Cassidy's feet to the fire!!! the nerve, the hypocrisy.

quote:

---

Is being a constituent of the senator or representative a requirement in order to attend?

---

Most often it isn't. It should be. Interestingly, Dems did begin checking ID to confirm constituency at townhalls during the ACA fiasco.

quote:

---

if someone disagrees with the repeal of the ACA, what should their primary goal be when attending?

---

First off, the politician MUST MAKE IT CLEAR that continuing the ACA is not an option. Not because of opposition, but because of the program itself.

When a loved one is on his or her deathbed, we can disagree with the inevitable, we can deny the inevitable, but the inevitable will still occur. Obamacare is on its deathbed. It is in its deathspiral. Its death is inevitable. We have to forward another plan.

After that is made crystal clear for someone who disagrees with the repeal of the ACA, that someone should enquire as to what comes next and provide input as to what is needed.

quote:

---

the politician MUST MAKE IT CLEAR that continuing the ACA is not an option

---

But it is an option. One that polls increasingly well.

quote:

---

But it is an option. One that polls increasingly well.

---

Ask losers who get subsidized insurance or morons like you, sure it polls well.

Ask the people whose rates have shot up and deductibles are so high the coverage isn't usable, not so much.

The latter are the people paying for the former. You might want to listen to the people footing the bill.

quote:

---

sure it polls well.

---

Broadly well.

quote:

---

Ask the people whose rates have shot up and deductibles are so high the coverage isn't usable, not so much.

---

Approx. 3% of the population are in the individual exchanges without a subsidy, so would fit your definition. Let's make the law better for them, instead of ripping insurance away from 10% of the population.

quote:

---

You might want to listen to the people footing the bill.

---

I do, and they like it.

quote:

---

First off, the politician MUST MAKE IT CLEAR that continuing the ACA is not an option. Not because of opposition, but because of the program itself.

---

These guys aren't doing that though. Why would that be?

If true, seems to me that would be the first thing said out of the gate to their constituents. It also seems like it would be a standard answer to every person who stands up at those town hall meetings and relays a personal story of how the ACA is keeping them alive or has kept them alive.

quote:

---

quote:
Ask the people whose rates have shot up and deductibles are so high the coverage isn't usable, not so much.


Approx. 3% of the population are in the individual exchanges without a subsidy, so would fit your definition. Let's make the law better for them, instead of ripping insurance away from 10% of the population.

quote:
You might want to listen to the people footing the bill.


I do, and they like it.

---

A small fraction get said subsidy.

The rest of us pay more for ours so they can have it. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have it.

You aren't listening to those people at all. We frigging hate it, that's a big reason why Donald Trump is now president.

quote:

---

And a smaller fraction are on the individual exchanges without a subsidy. Which is paid for by taxes on the rich (oh nooooo)

---

I would ask if you're really that stupid, but we have ample evidence over the years indeed you are.

But I suppose you think everyone who pays their own bills is rich.