
Once again Constituent calls about the proposed health care legislation were raining into the office. Today was the day that I was scheduled to shadow the Congressman for the day, but due to a frequently ocurring shift in the Congressional schedules (a mark up of a Bill being moved from Thursday to today) our office scheduler courteously informed me that he could move me to another, and hopefully varied day.
To be honest, the callers that I received today that seemed to be the most impassioned on both ends of the spectrum all appeared to not be Constituents of the Third District. I guess if they have the 'dedication' to call every Congressman, or at least every Congressman they believe to be in a key influential position, to express their concerns about a bill because they are "constituents of the United States of America and whatever Congressman (XXXX) votes on will affect them", then I can at least listen to their concerns.
One of the most important things that I've learned, and developed an opinion about throughout my internship experience, is that if you are going to call into a Congressional office you must try to keep an open mind about rumors or supposed 'facts' you might have heard. Because there does appear to be a considerable amount of inaccurate information being circulated (especially around such a hot topic as health care legislation is) I know that the commitment our office makes to be accurate and focused on the actual facts. We are all trying very hard to be professional, patient and polite as we try to make sure that we are diffusing myths that have been spread.
Such as in the health care bill, there are two portions of the proposed legislation that have been completely misinterpreted and mangled to the point of becoming devoid of the facts. Among several examples, one is found on Page 16, which has been referred to by some in the media and other influential figures as a clause that will end all private health care insurances. Another example is on Page 425, which is supposedly a provision to either discuss end of life practices with health care bureaucrats or be a form of government sanctioned/encouraged 'euthanizing' (yes some of the out-of-state callers literally stated that we were 'euthanizors'). Finally another claim is that that the Bill itself endorses and promotes abortion.
To be absolutely clear,the section of the Bill where callers 'reference' the pro-abortion stance of the legislation is on Page 16. It's true that that section is titled "SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE", but abortion or ending pregnancy is never mentioned anywhere in the entire Bill. I suspect that the use of the words 'protecting the choice' has been singled out as being 'code' for protecting abortion. In actuality, this statement is about allowing individuals to keep their current private insurance coverage.
On Page 425 the section starts off with the language "advance care planning consultation" meaning discussing between the "individual and a practitioner" to discuss different methods of treatments. It is important to note that the option that page 425 offers is already being provided by most private insurance companies to elderly people and is also completely optional.
Oh and one last thing, I had a caller yell and get confrontational with me by stating that I was lying when I told her that I was looking at the Bill as I tried to explain the above referenced sections to her. She shouted that its impossible to read this Bill and/or no one has read the bill and/or you would have to have lawyers there to be able to read it.
I'm heartened though, that the facts are completely and easily accessible because Thomas.gov has the entire Bill online, and more importantly as a service to the Constituents of the 3rd District of Kansas, Congressman Dennis Moore has the health care Bill on his website, as well as a complete section by section summary of every piece of the proposed legilsation. I also don't understand how this caller, and the others who are repeating the same misinterpretations, could be telling me what is in the Bill if they, or "no one" had been able to read it.