Congressmen planning town-hall meetings
Thanks to an early and extensive tour of his sprawling district during the congressional recess, freshman Rep. Tom Perriello, D-5th, is the first area member of Congress to brave the fiery health-care debate at a series of town-hall meetings.
Now several of his fellow congressmen in the region are suiting up.
Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-3rd, and Sen. Mark R. Warner, D-Va., plan to schedule meetings later this month but have not yet released the specifics.
Across the country, town-hall meetings about the Democratic push for a health-care overhaul have been the scenes of heated and sometimes angry demonstrations.
While Democratic lawmakers appear to be taking the brunt of protests, some Republican lawmakers also are hosting forums where constituents can discuss the issue.
Rep. Robert J. Wittman, R-1st, will hold meetings in Newport News on Aug. 31 and in Fredericksburg on Sept. 1. He also plans to conduct a telephone town hall.
Rep. Eric I. Cantor, R-7th, the House minority whip, is scheduled to host a job fair next Monday at Clover Hill High School in Midlothian, but he is not planning any town-hall meetings during the recess.
Cantor traditionally does not hold town-hall meetings during the August break, but he conducts regular telephone town halls and plans some for the fall, a spokeswoman said.
In addition to his as-yet-unscheduled meetings, Warner is taking questions on health care through Twitter and his Web site, where he will answer the most frequently submitted questions via video. He also has conducted telephone town halls with constituents, the last of which drew about 4,300 people, Warner spokesman Kevin Hall said.
Warner's office fields droves of e-mails and phone calls on the topic.
"Health care specifically, we've been responding to about 1,000 a week," Hall said.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., is on a two-week trip to Asia, and his office says it will decide how to proceed when he returns.
Scott, who was in Richmond yesterday for an event at the Vernon J. Harris Medical Center, said that while he has not yet held any general public meetings on health care, he has met with doctors and other groups to field concerns. He is scheduled to meet with a group of senior citizens in Hampton Roads today.
Scott said he's hearing from uninsured people who want to have affordable coverage, people with pre-existing conditions who find it "virtually impossible" to find health care, and those who say co-pays and deductibles make accessing health care problematic.
He called President Barack Obama's proposal a "good outline," but Congress still is discussing several plans.
The cost of health-care reform is just one of the concerns Perriello is hearing on his tour.
Through the end of August, he has 15 more "Tom in Your Town" meetings sprinkled throughout the district, which stretches from Charlottesville south to the North Carolina line. The closest are in Charlottesville tonight and in Albemarle County on Aug. 27. They run from 6 to 8 p.m.
The meetings, designed to be open-topic forums for constituents, have taken on a health-care theme.
"There's definitely been passionate folks at all the events we've done so far," Perriello spokeswoman Jessica Barba said.
Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-4th, has not scheduled a town-hall meeting yet, but he has had an extensive conversation with constituents about health care through blogging and a survey on his Web site. He held two teleconference calls with constituents last month, press secretary Jessica Mancari said.
He can be seen reading the 1,000-page-plus health-care bill in a picture on his Web site.
Contact Olympia Meola at (804) 649-6812 or
.
Staff writer Tyler Whitley contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I agree wholeheartedly with Randy’s concept of a small,limited federal government.There is obviously no mention of healthcare in the constitution.It would take a fairly broad interpretation of ‘promote the general welfare’ to capture goverment health insurance.
But Congress has the power to pass bills into law after a prescribed legislative process.Thats where we get Medicare,Social Security, helicopters, etc. AFTER a proper debate.
Thats where Obama is trying to skirt the constitution.He doesn’t want debate OR dissent.He provides no details.He hasn’t described exactly how he intends to CHANGE our healthcare system.Nor has he truthfully explained how he intends to pay for it.He didn’t even want Congess to have time to read and understand the bill..just sign it before the August recess.Jerry’s right when he says there isn’t even a final bill to pass yet.What were they gonna sign?
I don’t think a properly vetted,debated, and legislated bill regulating healthcare would be unconstitutional.I think most people want lower costs,premiums, and eliminate denial for pre-existing conditions if done carefully and thoughtfully.But they dont want ‘goverment run healthcare.‘
So if Obama rams a public option down our throats against the will of the people with a 51 vote majority in the Senate(Reconciliation)you have a whole other issue.Then the word ‘despotism’ comes into play when you technically have less than a Senatorial majority (60)passing a bill into law.THAT would be unconstitutional and subject to being ‘cast off’ by individual states if not overturned by the Supreme Court.
Randy, if you could just convince them to repeal the 16th amendment, that would stifle the power grab.I’m right behind you.
The government underestimated the popularity of a program that gives citizens $4,500 for cars that are “clunkers” - you know when that much money is “free”, people will line up to take advantage of the program. The fact that they didn’t know that it would be wildly popular should give us a HUGE moment of pause before we trust them with health care. Heck, did you see the stampede that took place a few years ago in Richmond when they made laptop computers available for an obscenely low price? People were trampled on. How could the government screw this up so badly and then expect us to trust them with health care?
Jerry - Unfortunately, the constitution is a document which limits, not expands the role of government. If government administered healthcare was in the calculus, (a) the constitution would say something about it and (b) it would have been established at the time our country was founded.
Promoting the general welfare is not providing for the general welfare, otherwise, it would put the government in a position of providing everyone with a home and with food. I daresay that Social Security is also extra-constitutional and shouldn’t have been started. The government is not fundamentally responsible for keeping people out of poverty and that’s not found in the constitution either - I have no idea where you got that notion.
The government needs to think small here. They need to make it easier for doctors to work without having to carry $200K worth of insurance just for starters. A government option is not constitutional and there’s no track record of success that is compelling enough to hand health care over to the government - they simply have not demonstrated competence in handling programs such as this.
“Obama’s folks have overestimated the stimuls(sic) money (but won’t give it back to taxpayers) and underestimated the cost of the cash for clunkers program.“
***************
I don’t understand your first point at all, but I’d like to nitpick your second point for semantics. Congress didn’t underestimate the cost of CARS, they underestimated its popularity. They expanded the program because it proved to be wildly popular among car drivers. I think it’s likely that an overhaul of our broken health insurance system will be just as popular.
Well, okay, I guess it’s my turn.
Your quote: - Since the program is administered by the federal government, I’m asking if it’s the constitutional duty of the federal government to provide health care at taxpayer’s expense. - My answer: Yes
I believe helping the elderly with this Medicare system has everything to do with the constitution pertaining to the words “promote the general welfare”. That’s a very broad statement and can be interpreted as providing for the “general welfare” of it’s citizens whether it be healthcare, retirement, or the ability to live in this country without living in poverty. It can be taken in many contexts. Take away this Medicare system and the elderly have no where to turn unless they are wealthy. From what I hear of the wealthy in this country, that only means about 5%.
I believe your debate of the constitutionality of medicare could also be paralleled with where in the constitution does it say the government should be involved in providing a retirement system for all Americans as well. Like Social Security.
I do not see myself getting back, even with interest, all the social security tax I have paid into the system. There are plenty of Americans who pay Social Security and die before they are eligible to collect it. That’s a little unfair. But the government pays these social security funds to the eligible at taxpayer’s expense, no matter how uneven the distribution might be. Depends on how long you live, or don’t live.
I personally don’t believe you have an argument regarding whether the government should be involved “constitutionally” to provide healthcare to it’s citizens whether through Medicare or otherwise. The same can be said for the “retirement system” which has been going on since 1934. This bill was brought about due to the millions affected by the Depression in order to allow to take care of the “general welfare” of its citizens. We are now in an ever growing crisis of affordable health care in this country and reform is a must.
My point is….I disagree with your idea that the constitution could be a tool to stop all attempts at health care reform via the government. It is not unconstitutional for the government to try to look after the “general welfare” of its citizens.
I don’t have to agree with Obama’s plan and just maybe I don’t, but I do agree reform has to happen and I prefer both parties and Independents get together and work this out.
Randy: Excellent rebuttal. Handing decision making of any kind to the government immediately adds red tape. The result: it takes more people over a longer preiod of time (better hope you don’t have cancer) to get anything done. And despite what Obama promises, it comes at a much higher cost.
So far, Obama’s folks have overestimated the stimuls money (but won’t give it back to taxpayers) and underestimated the cost of the cash for clunkers program. What makes anyone think their promises and projections regarding health care are at all realistic?
Changing the subject here. The really frightening news is that, if nothing is done about the cost of healthcare, in about 10 years Medicare will not be able to pay all its bills.
If you get sick during the first half of the year, you’re covered. If you get sick during the last 3 months, you will be told to wait till next year. That’s a calendar-based form of selection that is confronting the do-nothing approach.
We need constructive engagement here. Solutions have to be found.
The health insurance industry knows this, but is gambling that they can finesse a “Universal Mandate - No government option” law out of Congress. This guarantee them 48 million new customers. KaChing!
Jerry - I don’t have a problem helping the elderly at all. Framing this as a “helping the elderly” argument misses the point by a mile. The question is, “Is the party helping the elderly the appropriate party to be doing so?“ Since the program is administered by the federal government, I’m asking if it’s the constitutional duty of the federal government to provide health care at taxpayer’s expense.
I know you’d rather me prove it’s unconstitutional since you cannot prove it to be constitutional, but, if you insist - the constitution is a document which limits the powers of the government - not expands them ad nauseum. The constitution is not an open ended document for the government to do whatever it can dream up. By virtue of the fact that government administered health care isn’t even remotely enumerated in the constitution defaults this proposition to the states as to whether or not they want to offer it or not.
Should a government bureaucrat make the decision that a cancer patient cannot get a hip replacement because it isn’t cost effective? Would you like to put yourself in the position to make a call like that? Could you look someone in the eye, who you don’t even know and tell them YOU made that decision to deny the hip replacement? Please, no more lectures about caring for the elderly.
At this point, it’s your turn. Please make the case that government administered health care is constitutional.
If it was as cut and dry as “it falls under the 10th Amendment unless it is specifically enumerated in Article 1”, then we wouldn’t be having debates over it, still. The Constitution is complex. It says nothing in the Constitution that Congress may build nuclear fueled aircraft carriers or tilt-rotor helicopters, but it can be argued that it follows from “raise and support armies” and “provide and maintain a navy”.
This is why the Necessary and Proper clause was included at the end of Section 8.
Likewise, Congress is charged with providing for the general welfare under the same section. Given that, it is not entirely clear that government run health care programs are unconstitutional. We can debate what is meant by “providing for… the general Welfare”, but it is certainly not as cut and dry as “health care is not an expressed power”.
Fred, I’d rather you prove to me that it is unconstitutional. You seem to have a good grasp of what the constitution says, however, you’re locked in to the 10th amendment which only allows it could be furnished and controlled on a state level.
My elderly mother has contributed to Medicare practically her whole life and is well served by it for her medical needs. I do not wish to see her lose it. Why do you have a problem with helping the elderly?
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