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
Jerry - If you think it’s constitution, please show me where. I can point to several things that were once legal that were later proven unconstitutional. Poll taxes, literacy tests, segregation, discrimination. Just because something is currently “legal” doesn’t make it constitutional.
If Medicare is unconstitutional, how did the bill pass? 10th Amendment is an open door to send it to the states but I don’t think all states could handle it on the same level. Some could provide an excellent healthcare system where others might not be able to provide for the elderly or totally disabled. Good healthcare at that point would determine what state you happen to live in.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I throught no bills could be passed if they were proven to be unconstitutional.
Guido - I got the joke Anon was making. Come on, you really took that seriously?
The real question still stands. I can’t find it in the Constitution where the federal government is responsible or otherwise empowered to administer a health care plan. As best I can tell, this is (per the 10th amendment) a state’s issue if the states wish to tackle such things.
Guido,
You mean Hawaii is really a state. This will be news to some deeply troubled Republicans in North Carolina.
Posted by ( Anon ) on August 13, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Randy,
There are only 13 constitutional states. The rest are imposters and should be ignored.
This is my nominee for the ‘Constitutional Ignorance’ award for not reading article four.
The prize is disenfranchisement. Turn in your voter registration card immediately.
Randy,
There are only 13 constitutional states. The rest are imposters and should be ignored.
Jerry - Is it? I don’t see Medicare is Constitutional, do you? If you do, where is it in the Constitution? It’s not enumerated as best I can tell which sends the responsibilities for such things to the states, by virtue of the 10th amendment.
So Medicare is not constitutional?
It’s my position that government administered healthcare isn’t even constitutional - so, why is this even a discussion to begin with? 10th Amendment, gang, this matter belongs to the states, if it is even a government matter at all.
VA Taxpeyer,
According to the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government is to secure our rights.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.“
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