At Public Square, calm crowd discusses need for health-care reform
Alternative content
Public Square: Health Care Reform
Watch Rep. Eric I. Cantor, R-7th, and Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-3rd, discuss health care reform and take questions from the public.
BOB BROWN/TIMES-DISPATCH
Rep. Eric I. Cantor, R-7th, spoke to participants during a forum on health-care reform yesterday while Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-3rd, (right) listens.
Published: September 22, 2009
SLIDESHOW: |
On the way from the town hall to the public square, a polite and bipartisan conversation began about the future of health care in the United States.
Civility reigned in a 90-minute Public Square forum yesterday at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The forum featured two local congressmen on opposite sides of a political fight over health-care reform that grew nasty at town-hall meetings across the country last month.
"This today I think can serve as a model," said Rep. Eric I. Cantor, R-7th, who pushed a different brand of health-care reform than Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-3rd. "We need bipartisan discussions outside of Washington."
A capacity crowd of 225 people watched the discussion at The Times-Dispatch's offices in downtown Richmond. More than a dozen asked questions of the congressmen, who showed they can agree on some principles for reform while voicing clear differences on how to achieve it.
"Public Square is all about having a civil public conversation," said Thomas A. Silvestri, the newspaper's president and publisher, who praised the local audience for proving it could be done.
The two lawmakers opened the forum by making brief presentations on the House of Representatives' version of a health-care bill and their different takes on it.
"Eric and I agree on 80 percent," Scott said at one point. "Unfortunately, you can't do the 80 percent without some of the 20 percent. That's where the rub is."
Cantor, who as minority whip is the No. 2 Republican in the House, agreed that the system needs to provide more people with affordable health-care coverage, even if they have pre-existing medical conditions that make it difficult and expensive to get insurance now.
Cantor also agreed that the cost of health care is becoming unaffordable for the public and the government.
"We ought to be able to provide something to effect positive reforms," he said.
Their biggest difference is over a proposal to include a "public option" -- run by the government but financed with insurance premiums -- that would compete with private insurance plans in a new exchange market for people who don't already have adequate health-care coverage.
The public option is part of a Democratic proposal in the House. Scott says the provision is essential to control the price of health insurance and make it affordable for more people.
"We will guarantee choice by having a public option in the bill," he said.
The danger of a public option, Cantor said, is that it would drive consumers away from private insurance plans and let the government take over health care. "I am not a supporter of the public option because I believe it would become the only plan in town," he said.
People attending the Public Square had mixed reactions to the idea of a public option. Some called it necessary for meaningful competition. Others decried the concept as a business that government should not be allowed to run.
"I am in support of a public option or some form of alternative to have stiff competition," said the Rev. Makeba D'Abreu of Chesterfield County.
Mary Evans had a different perspective. The Richmond resident is a patient-services counselor in a local emergency room, where she helps patients who mostly rely on the federal Medicaid program for the poor.
Evans said she sees more people coming to the emergency room with nonemergency concerns because they can't get timely appointments with doctors who see Medicaid patients.
"If the government can't fix Medicaid . . . why should we turn this over to them?" she asked, referring to a health-care overhaul.
The forum featured security from police on horseback, plainclothed and uniformed officers, Times-Dispatch company security, protection for Cantor and a fire marshal. Members of the audience remained peaceful and sometimes expressed disapproval by shaking their heads.
The event offered one of the first opportunities for the public to question Cantor on the issue face-to-face. He has held three telephone town-hall meetings, and he invited constituents to a political advisory council meeting Aug. 17. Scott has held three forums -- in Richmond, Newport News and Norfolk -- on the topic.
Contact Michael Martz at (804) 649-6964 or
.
Contact Olympia Meola at (804) 649-6812 or .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
For coverage of what really went on at this town hall meeting, see this http://thehill.com/homenews/house/59687-cantor-pressed-on-lack-of-gop-healthcare-plan-
and http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/22/cantor-uninsured-option/
drhoagie: Your comment of 7:43 this morning, directed to me, says, “That would be a question the simple minded would ask.“ Please note that I did not ask a question. I made a statement of my point of view. If your mind is so incredibly complex that it cannot tell you the difference between a question and a statement (hint: a question is usually, if not always followed by a question mark(?) and a statement tends to be followed by a period (.)), then perhaps you should refrain from addressing anyone directly in your comments. Also, no one has suggested that public-option insurance coverage be “free”—not me, not President Obama, not anybody in these comments, and not anyone who supports a public option that I’ve heard speak on the subject. Your inappropriate comment, and your Fox news talking points, show which of us is most likely to be suffering from simple-mindedness.
George Soros gives his old clothes to David Koch?? Koch is, according to the forbes list, the 19th richest person in the world. George Soros is currently the 29th richest person in the world. I think you meant to say David Koch gives his old clothes to George Soros.
WaltW61: The real number of uninsured is around 9 million. The 49 million includes people who can afford insurance, but choose not too and also people who are in this country illegally. This number is backed up from several non-partisian think tanks. Should the country be pushed into bankruptcy for less than 3% of the population. This is roughly the same people that the American taxpayer currently pays for their housing and their welfare and in many cases, a free cell phone. When are people going to be accountable for themselves and not a burden to the tax paying people of this country? On the other hand, illegal immigrants WILL be included in Healthcare reform and will be paid for by the over burdened taxpayer. Obama is fully aware of this. So yes, he is liar, but that is another arguement. There is roughly 40% of the population that does not pay taxes and is supported by the other 60%. I do think that there needs to be reform, but this is the same government that is unable to get anything done without going deep into debt. Caping insurance profits at a reasonable level and being able to buy insurance from companies in other states. Also, all arguements are moot without tort reform which adds a HUGE cost to a doctors visit. This bill does not do anything but cost the taxpayers in this country much more money we cannot afford. Obama says this is not a tax, but clearly the bill states that it is. I think it is morally wrong for people in this country to bleed money from others.
Please stop claiming insurance companies operate in a free market. According to a nationwide survey by the Government Accountability Office, the median statewide market share of the largest insurer selling coverage to small employer groups increased to 47 percent in 2008 from 33 percent in 2002. In a separate matter UnitedHealth agreed to pay $400 million to settle multiple suits alleging price fixing and other anti-competitive behavior. The attorney general of New York, Andrew Cuomo, stated that this was, “a huge scam that affected hundreds of millions of Americans [who were] ripped off by their health insurance companies.” Numerous other insurers were implicated in the same scheme, including Aetna Inc., Cigna Corp. and WellPoint Inc. Data from the American Medical Association shows that in each of 43 states, a handful of top insurers have gained such a stronghold that their markets are considered “highly concentrated” under Department of Justice guidelines, often far exceeding the thresholds that trigger antitrust concerns. The study also shows that in 166 of 294 metropolitan areas, or 56%, a single insurer controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization (HMO) and preferred provider networks (PPO) underwriting. That’s particularly true in North Dakota, where the state’s Blue Cross Blue Shield provider has, by various estimates, a roughly 90% share of the market, said Insurance Commissioner Jim Poolman. In addition, the study found that in 95 percent of markets, a single insurer had a market share of 30 percent or greater, and in 56 percent of the markets, a single insurer had a market share of 50 percent or greater.
Have the hysterical hecklers finally run out of gas? Or is Virginia just a lot more sophisticated than other parts of the country?
I’m not sure which is correct, especially since Richmond had the second largest July 4 Tea Bagger, after Atlanta.
Hopefully enough people learned, despite the din, that H.R. 3200 was not the final bill - only a small part of the process. Hopefully even Eric Cantor understands that adopting something like the Massachusetts Solution makes a handful of health insurance companies the “Godfathers” of our country’s economy.
The solution has to have teeth, either a layer of strict government oversight or some kind of a competitive alternative. Those are the only two choices.
Here’s how the so called private option works. You own a family bakery which has been a community staple for generations.
Several other bakeries exist in your community, but you are the best, most popular and most profitable. The marketplace is big enough for all of you to compete.
I decide to buy the storefront directly across the street with the intention of opening a bakery.
But I have no profit motive and I can print my own money. Heck, I am just going to bake muffins and give them away for free to anyone who walks through the door. Free bread for all as well.
How long will your family run bakery remain in business?
And when I realize my operation costs are 9x higher then I projected (just like Medicare), I won’t care. I print my own money.
How fresh and plentiful will my muffins be a year/5 years down the road when all of my competition has been eliminated?
The so called private option is a scam. A free market fosters competition. IF (as Anon claims) Blue Cross is the only option in some states, allow people to purchase private insurance across state line. Anon just unknowingly illustrated how government regulations interfere with choice. Government is not the solution, it is the problem according to Anon.
It’s morally wrong to leave 50 million Americans uninsured, one illness away from financial ruin. Wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also—found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
I thought maybe Evans was speaking of the same sort of people that my uncle, a PA in ER tells me about, young to middle-aged Medicaid (not Medicare) patients who come to the ER rather than wait for a Medicaid doc appt. to get pregnancy tests or v.d. tests (they see the same people over and over for that one) rather than elderly people.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement