At Public Square, calm crowd discusses need for health-care reform
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
I asked this question 4 or 5 months ago.
If you knew you could get away with it, would you kill the CEO of your current health insurance company?
People like their plans, until the first time they need real medical care. Then their world turns upside-down.
Let’s get this straight: Eric Cantor is against the “public option” because he fears it would “drive consumers away from private insurance plans”, meaning it would become the plan that most people want. So Eric Cantor is against the plan he “fears” most people would want. An interesting point of view from someone supposedly elected to represent and uphold the will of the 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