Politicians on health care transparency: Put up or shut up!

Everyone talks about the 2,000-plus health care bills, but much of the talk is not factual.

For example, President Obama wants a half-day, nationally televised summit on health care, yet Kentucky small businesses would get hit with significant premium increases if they employ young people. Young people get big increases even if they don't want insurance.

If Congress and the President would clearly communicate, the good the bad and the ugly in their 2,000 plus pages of edicts – which they could do if they wanted to – Kentuckians could handle the facts and come to objective, reasonable conclusions.

Harry Reid could summarize all the edicts in the 2,000-plus page bill passed by the Senate. Nancy Pelosi could do the same for the House’s legislative beast.

Then, President Obama could put a green check mark next to each edict in each bill that he says is non-negotiable. And Republican leaders could put a red check mark next to each edict in each bill that is not acceptable.

Next, Reid and Pelosi could document all the special deals they cut to get their bills passed.

Finally the check-marked edicts and special deals would be posted on the Internet for all of citizens to see and analyze.

Then, a summit might be helpful, but only if President Obama and congressional participants LISTEN to consolidated, polled and documented feedback from “We the People” after looking at the details of the positions and posturing.

Politicians in Washington claim transparency is a priority– even on the health-care issue. It’s the politically correct thing to say, but it isn’t happening.

Transparency? Put up or shut up!