Two days ago, using the at FireDogLake, I discovered that my Congressional Representative, Kathy Dahlkemper (D PA-03) was having a town hall in the town of Warren, PA, in the eastern side of her district. At the urging of slinkerwink, I decided to attend, though it was not clear to me what I would do there. Ultimately, I decided to keep my mouth shut, but to express support for those pushing for a public option.
Warren is in a very conservative part of the state (in the Alabama part of PA), and I was expecting a screaming mob. Well, apparently, they're refining their techniques, because, while there was no shortage of wingnuts, they weren't screaming. Furthermore, they were not an overwhelming presence; I would estimate that they were no more than about half the audience. Nonetheless, the wingnuts tried their best to argue their points, but in each case, their arguments resulted in failure. What's more is that the wingnuts are in lock-step with the Republicans in Congress: it's not that they want a different bill; they want NO bill.
For details, make the jump.
Let me begin by stating that Kathy Dahlkemper is a self-proclaimed blue dog. This might seem depressing at first, but fortunately, her blue-dog tendencies have non-typical effects. While she was campaigning she said that she had been a pregnant woman without health insurance, and hence could understand the plight of the uninsured. She promised to work to find a way to address the health crisis in this country. As such, she strongly supports the public option. This was clear in the response I got from her office after I e-mailed her urging her to support the public option. This is reassuring. Whatever her blue-dog flaws, denial of the need for the public option is not one of them. It also meant that I did not have to challenge her position, but instead to support her.
I got to Warren an hour early, and decided to walk around the downtown area. I was surprised at how nice everything looked. The economies of small towns in Pennsylvania have taken a pummeling in recent years, but there was little trace of economic crisis. In the six or eight blocks of the business district I saw, there were no more than three empty storefronts. All the Victorian mansions were in good repair. Warren is no Corry or Meadville. But still, I know for a fact that in the countryside there is great poverty and despair. There have been significant job losses in the area, and families are hurting.
I went into the public library and found the meeting room for the town hall about a half hour before it was scheduled to start. The room slowly filled, and most people participated in friendly conversation. I did not detect the presence of any free-floating rage among the attendees. Though I am nearly 50, I felt like a youngster; I don't think there were more than 4 or 5 people in the room younger than I was, and most were well past 60.
When Dahlkemper entered the room, there was spontaneous applause. That surprised me. It also surprised the couple behind me. The husband said to his wife, "The decks are stacked." So, I knew where they stood. They were to provide further entertainment later during the meeting.
Dahlkemper began by giving an overview of the bill, what is contained and what it did not contain. From the outset, she dispelled the myth of "death panels," stating that bother her elderly parents had terminal cancer, that they had made out living will, and she and her siblings were doing their best to hold to their parents wishes. It's clear that there would be no tolerance for "death panel" nonsense. She also asked the attendees if any of them wanted to get rid of Medicare or the V. A. health care system, both being government run systems. No one did. She couched her support for the public option in terms of its ability to help small businesses to provide health care to their employees.
The first question came from a priest. (You know what's coming, right?) He wanted to be assured that tax money would not be spent on abortions. Dahlkemper defines herself as "pro-life," i. e. anti-choice when it comes to abortion rights. But she defines "pro-life" more broadly than this, incorporating her support for healthcare reform in general and her opposition to the Iraq War under this terminology. In the interest of full disclosure, I did not vote for her in the primary specifically because she is anti-choice, but frankly, any Democrat who wants to win in this district is probably going to have to be anti-choice, at least for the foreseeable future.
Dahlkemper satisfied the priest stating that she was collaborating with a group of lawmakers to write an amendment to the bill that would not allow tax money to fund abortions, but that the bill would have to get out of committee first.
A couple of the questions had to do with possible ways to reduce the cost of the plan, offered by relatively sane conservatives. One individual asked if allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines might bring costs down. (I did not know this, but in Pennsylvania, health insurance is a virtual monopoly controlled by Blue Shield.) Another questioner suggested that some kind of tort reform could also reduce the cost of the bill. Dahlkemper responded that these were both good ideas that she would consider.
A question came from a clear ally (who introduced his question by stating that he had read the bill, and then complemented each portion of it, to the annoyance of the wingnuts present) on the meaning of portability credits. Dahlkemper said that this is money issued to an individual to help pay for insurance after losing when, say, an employer no longer provides it.
Then things started getting weird. A 62 year old man who had opted to go on Social Security early when he got laid off said he wanted to be "bought out" from Medicare (i. e. given the $50K he had put into the system, plus interest) so that he could find private insurance. He was worried that the changes the bill would bring to Medicare would degrade the level of care. He also called Lyndon Johnson, who signed Medicare into law, a "socialist" Democrat, whatever that's supposed to mean. (There was a lot of murmuring throughout the room about "socialism." I also had to wonder how long did this guy think he was going stretch $50K to be able to buy health insurance for the rest of his life. Not all cylinders were firing on that one.) In any case, Dahlkemper assured the man that one of the objectives of the bill was to keep Medicare solvent, so that it would continue to provide care for the elderly for generations.
The the woman behind me stood up to ask a question. Her first words were "I'm not a mobster." (No, hon, you just play one on TV.) More: "This is our country. This is a republic. If this health care bill passes, we're going to lose our freedom! Our liberty! The government is going to control our health care. I don't want the the government to intrude in my life!" It was at this point that the wingnuts really came to life, with their applause. After her speechifying, she did finally ask a question. Her point was that the bill rations health care, and she referenced a page in the bill that she interpreted to mean that in one year, the plan would pay in benefits just $5,000 per individual, or $10,000 per family. Dahlkemper pounced. She said "You have to read the entire bill, not just a page or two." Apparently those figures were the out of pocket expenses, not the benefits! Madame Wingnut had it exactly backwards!
Things got a little noisy for a short while during this period, as wingers started complaining about how the government can't do anything right (e. g. the Post Office). In order to describe the need for health care reform, Dahlkemper described a conversation she had had with a constituent who needed a heart transplant. The hospital wnated a $100K down payment. Madame Wingnut behind me said "This is bullcrap!" At that moment I wanted a file of every "Murder by Spreadsheet" diary by nyceve, and every U. S. health care horror story diary published by every kossak in hard copy so that I could dump them on her head. She may be impervious to facts, but she's not impervious to matter.
One particular exchange struck me. It went like this:
Wingers chorus: "Keep the government out of our health care!"
Dahlkemper: "So, do you want to get rid of Medicare?"
Unison: "NO!"
I would have thought some of them would need a neck brace after that ideological whiplash.
Another question, quickly dismissed, had to do with government access to citizen checking and savings accounts. Apparently, someone was still clinging to that canard.
The last question came from an elderly man who had fallen through the donut hole in Medicare Part D. He had to delay necessary procedures because he couldn't afford it. Dahlkemper expressed sympathy and stated that Part D must be changed.
She then wrapped up the meeting. Myself, I think Dahkemper did a good job of keeping the wingers at bay. If she has this much support for her positive position on healthcare reform in Warren, she is certain to support it in a floor vote.