Perriello gets an earful at his 18th town hall
U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello
At yet another town hall meeting Thursday night in Albemarle County, U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello got an earful about health care reform.
“All I’m asking is: Let us have our choice,” implored Dave Flynn of Fluvanna County. “Let me keep [my health insurance coverage] and not have to pay for somebody else’s.”
Thursday’s town hall meeting at Walton Middle School was the 18th such forum that Perriello has held during the August congressional recess, apparently more than any other congressman in the country.
Perriello told the crowd — which was widely and vocally against the health care reform proposal before Congress — that he does not yet support themeasure, but he would if the final version holds the line on the federal deficit and reduces health insurance premiums.
“I’d really like to get to a yes on health care reform,” Perriello said. “I believe that the status quo is bankrupting us.”
On several of the proposal’s most controversial points, Perriello said he has not yet made up his mind.
One such point, he said, is the question of a health insurance mandate. Should employers be required to cover employees? Should individuals be required to purchase coverage for themselves? Should things stay the same?
“This is one of the big questions that I’ve, frankly, been on the fence about,” he said.
Higher premiums already?
The status quo, Perriello said, is “essentially universal health care” because everyone — particularly the middle class and small business owners — are paying for the health care of the uninsured via higher health insurance premiums.
“The strongest argument for an individual mandate,” he said, “is that we’re already stuck paying for other people’s insurance.”
Perriello added that he’s “not real crazy” about a mandate that requires businesses to cover employees.
The freshman Democrat also did not advocate strongly for a public health insurance option or the health care co-op idea currently being floated. Yet Perriello said that he likes the idea that an “exchange” where those who are currently uninsured can buy quality, affordable insurance has merit, as he believes it could increase competition and drive down premium costs.
“One of the biggest problems in the health care industry, I believe, is a lack of competition,” he said.
Several people told Perriello that they do not trust the government to run any form of health insurance. The idea, they said, is simply a plan by President Barack Obama to erode the health care system and eventually implement universal health care.
Jason Buyaki, a resident of Stony Point, said government has shown that it cannot effectively operate the U.S. Postal Service, Medicare and Social Security. Why, he asked, does anyone believe the federal government could manage handling health care?
“I have no faith in the government,” Buyaki said. “Now we’re going to have government run health care? I don’t think so.”
Call for more competition
Perriello said he does not support a government takeover of the private health insurance industry. He supports, rather, allowing private health insurance providers to compete to cover the uninsured.
“To me, this is not whether the government is trying to take over health care, though I know that’s a concern for some,” he said. “To me, it’s about whether we can fix some places where market failures have been.”
The crowd at Thursday’s forum was not entirely against the idea of a government-run public health insurance option.
Several people shouted out their support for a single-payer system that covers everyone.
As attendees entered Walton Middle’s auditorium, they had the opportunity to sign a large banner with messages to Perriello.
One supporter wrote: “I’m proud that we got you elected. Please support single payer legislation for health care. Please support a strong public option at the very least.”
An opponent wrote: “Tom — who wrote this Bill? Why are communists working in Our Gov’t? Please represent US not Washington.”
Another wrote: “You’re a Jerk!”
Forum gets raucous
Perriello thanked the crowd for coming out and said his plethora of town hall forums have been largely “intense, substantive and civil.”
“It’s been wonderful to see how engaged the public has been,” he said.
The crowd grew fairly raucous at times Thursday night. Opponents drowned out Perriello’s responses to questions at several points.
One man in the back shouted “Impeach Obama” a couple times.
When Perriello tried to answer a question about his support of the cap-and-trade legislation, he was drowned out by chants of “Drill, Drill, Drill!”
Several others angrily dressed Perriello down, saying that he is not representing their interests in Congress.
Floyd Artrip, an Albemarle County resident and owner of an electronic equipment manufacturing company, said Perriello received numerous letters, faxes and e-mails against what Artrip calls the “cap-and-tax” bill, but Perriello still voted in favor of the measure.
“I don’t refer to you as congressman or representative because you do not represent your constituents,” Artrip said. “My question is: What part of the word representative don’t you understand?”
Several people said they believe the health care system needs to be reformed, but do not support the proposal currently before Congress.
A few of these speakers called for tort reform, which they said could limit medical malpractice damages and reduce health care costs. They also called for deregulation of the health insurance industry in such a way that would allow providers to compete across state lines, thereby increasing competition and lowering prices.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
JC—there IS NO SUCH THING as Obamacare. That is an inappropriate cliche used to divert fruitful debate. Unlike Hillary, Obama did not shepherd the process—instead,he has chosen to be a cheerleader. Agreed that it (the composite of several proposals in flux) has his radical fingerprints all over it, but more so it looks like something cobbled together by disperate interests suffering from collective Mad Cow disease.
As is your use of exageration and hyperbole—“nearly 100 years”—really, 100?
But to answer yor question, and I guess Gordie’s latest query at the same time, the current tack will neither reduce costs nor break the cycle of the Federal Government both spending beyond its means. Worse, it sets the stage to justify unnecesary and inappropriate (my view) interference in a large segment of the market economy.
To the later, that is a most disturbing trend, particularly coming on the heels of an all out effort to “rescue” the auto industry through ill-advised bailouts and truly stupid, wasteful programs (aka Cash for Clunkers), as well as an all out assault on Wall Street in a clumsy attempt to fix what aint broke and reward the corrupt and the inept. Geithner, Bernake, now Immelt? What next? Disgusting.
Surely there are straight arrows and competent practicioners who can and do support Obama’s philosophy—why the dregs? A tax ceat, a bumbler, and a crook.
...
...
Now, to the former—Gordie, it is somewhat dishonest to say “Since you did not address it, I must assume you believe the same thing.“ Especially when one can point to countless posts to the contrary.
In what sense, now, are we claiming that a larger pool results in a lower cost system?
Adding younger, healthier people, all other things being equal, will lower the average costs per person in the system. By itself, the overall impact on total resources consumed and possibly the amount paid for them will absolutely increase.
Does this give an expanded Medicare system more pricing power, and therefore reduce total healthcare expenditures? That’s a tempting thought.
First, I’d argue that Medicare already has near absolute negotiating power in setting prices with all but the drug companies. The only option right now is for a provider to opt out of the network and/or refuse Medicare patients. There have been previous attempts to force participation, but those have been killed in Committee under previous administrations. I’ve not seen it on the table now.
Instead, the strategy appears to be to “buy” support, and leverage, with select players on the other side, most notably the AMA, the AHA, the PhRMA, and the AARP—which directly undermine the credibility of the proposals’ biggest fan: the Obama administration.
How so? Well, so much for transparency—these deals, being select, were cut behind closed doors. “So what?“, you say. If your read the fine print, in each case some aspect of the plan is compromised—which should make proponents madder than Hades. Can you spell “sellout”? And somehow, the free market is evil, but dealing with the worst among them—lobbyist and special interest groups—that’s OK.
Problem is, its the worst kind of backroom dealing. Instead of dealing with the guys in the white hats, you sit down with the bad boys. The aforementioned players are big players, no doubt, but ‘big’ measured more by their contributions and presence on K Street, than their interest in Main Street. They are cutting their “losses” in return for huge guarantees—and they paid for their seat at the table.
The media is near silent—with the only voice of protest coming from the far left. But its no secret—read the NYT, the WP.
This is all about the STATUS QUO, dear Gordie, NOT change. This is the Senate Finance Committee wielding its considerable power to broker a deal, for the sake of brokering a deal, folks like you and me be darned. Not cynicism—realism.
The rhetoric accompanying this charade is pathetic. Dishonest. Shamefully so.
second, and this is important, Medicare as it stands now is SUBSIDIZED. Contrary to public perception, it is not pay as you go. YOU (the individual) don’t get out what YOU put in. On average, you get more—much, much more.
And the Medicare checkbook is balanced in two ways. The first is taxes. The other, gets back to the price setting (price fixing) authority of Congress—balancing the budget through “cost reductions” achieved by a simple reduction factor in the reimbursement formula applied to all Medicare payments.
When Medicare pays out less, as a self-entitled discount, someone else is footing the bill.
Unless Medicare brings new efficiencies, all other things being equal, reducing total expenditures will result in rationing.
Could an expansion of Medicare result in efficiencies? Doubtful, at best, in my view. The current system is being gamed by bad apples. There is something to be said for being stingy and tight about reimbursement—a trait of private insureres—over loosey goosey, maybe we’ll catch something after the fact in an audit—a trait of Medicare. The argument that Medicare has lower administrative costs—as a percentage of dollars spent, dead on—on a per capita basis adjusted for acuity, dead wrong. No where in the proposals is there a single change that suggests cost savings. In fact, there are “cost savings” initiatives that are proposed and fiunded to the tune of $Billions to study the efficacy of various procedures, treatments, and protocols. Yet that information already exists! using Medicare data, no less! Any hospital worth its salt (and many are not) benchmarks itself and can identify where they fail, as well as who does well. Physicians, usually with the aid of the hospitals, too have access to quality and outcomes data compared to peers—some fight it, the best learn from it.
Nope, I don’t believe that Medicare for all is close to a viable solution. Precisely because it is not designed to lower costs. I don’t care which pool it swims in.
No one has taken the time to explain to me how Obamacare will somehow buck the trend of close to 100 years and halt overspending of astronomical budget busting entitlement programs. Obama’s track record of quadrupling deficits to record levels is not a good indicator of his ability to cut virtually any sort of spending. Why subject 1/6 of the economy to some misguided experiment?
Scottie you said: “that is why cutting waste in medicare is a big part of the proposal” do you really believe this? Come on this is absurd, Obama hasn’t seen a spending cut that he doesn’t puke on.
Obama will not stand up to the far left and he is therefore an accessory to the failed and wasteful programs being purported and theft from future generations. Also the USPS has not been profitable for years, why don’t they eliminate those no work administrative jobs. Next you’re going to start defending Amtrak as an example of why the gov’t should run more private businesses. Obama and Pelosi have no problems standing on the throats of their own democrats, particularly Blue Dogs.
Perriello claimed with no basis that the meeting attendees were not his constituents. Of course TP says that the crowd is not representative b/c they are pushing him against the directives and commands from his party. If they are not representative of his constituents then who is? It is outrageous to discount seniors and others who are genuinely worried and very upset about the potential deterioration of their healthcare by a minority viewpoint from the party in power. You can repeat over and over that the demonstrators against the Obamacare debacle are small groups until you believe it but it is not supported by the polls.
People are sick and tired of Obama, joined in lock-step by local politicians like Perriello Rahming through an unpopular agenda of overspending programs that voters do not want. These deficits are serious and Obama may be laughing about it now but it is going to be a real problem in the next several years. If you are not forward looking enough to see that then you are not making informed decisions. We cannot afford this massive program particularly now from politicians who are afraid of even the smallest of spending cuts. The whole far left ideology of, “haha, we got your money, now we’re going to spend it.” is not sustainable and should repel people make them fearful of the democratic party for decades like Jimmy Carter did.
Gordie you continue to ask for facts and claim others are lying but never offer anything to back it up. Is that you just “feel” that people aren’t being factual or do you have something to contradict them? Most of the gov’t program and blown budgets entitlements (like that of the future of Obamacare) are from concrete examples. Let’s call a spade a spade and understand that for pre-existing conditions, it is not insurance but basically paying someone’s current or forthcoming medical bills. There are ways to approach this but it is not insurance when some one is already sick. You are not insuring against an illness when the illness is already there or imminent. So you are talking about a program where people pay others people’s bills through higher premiums, which is what you have been complaining about in the first place. Just saying oh it’s alright the gov’t will pick up the tab is not a solution.
The most telling truth that has come out of the democrats inadvertently slipped out of Howard Dean’s mouth. While dems have been trying unsuccessfully to say tort reform is not useful in cutting costs, the real reason was made clear when Dean fumbled the ball and said in Va., “the reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers.”
Engineer: It is hardly credible to glaringly omit that the seeds of the credit crisis were born under Clinton. He not only sparked the free money, free mortgages for everyone era he poured gasoline on it. Secondly, claiming that is a right that we all have health insurance supposes that everyone is willing to pay for insurance, not likely. Also your thoughts about pulling the plug on healthcare benefits for seniors it pretty strange. They have paid in for these benefits for years and deserve to receive what they have paid into. This is unlike the system you desire where no one pays for it and we just borrow from the Chinese until they own us. I love all of these plans where someone else (who doesn’t really exist) pays the bills. How did this kind of false ideology even come to exist in the U.S.?
Yes, antiboyd I know and appreciate your stance on Medicare for who ever wants it.
The question was that a large pool would bring down costs. Since you did not address it, I must assume you believe the same thing. That a large pool would bring down costs.
So do you have a choice as to which large pool you would endorse?
You also brought up the topic of employers who are self insured. My employers was totally self insured, including fire insurance with their own fire department.
Legacy costs prove that is not a good practice in the long term, yet that was a large pool of people.
Do you have an insurance preference that will allow companies to compete against companies where their Governments pays for the health care for all their citizens.
Since I worry about American company survival, it does not seem to be a fair business practice that one company has to buy insurance for employees and the other their Government buys the insurance.
If you have answers could you please separate them.
I agree. COBRA is not a particularly attractive option, having had that “choice” more than once, and bagged it. For some it may be the only option, but it is stopgap, and it is expensive—perhaps deliberately so.
Gordie, you already know where I stand with that Medicare for all approach. For me its not ideological. Someone would have to go to great length to explain the economics, in some detail—I am well past “hoping” it works, and the accompanying rhetoric.
derekoppen I agree with you entirely that a large pool of people in a program can bring down costs.
That is my main reason for wanting the age barrier removed from Medicare and open up Medicare for anyone, any age, who wants to join.
Should the young with less illness be allowed to be part of Medicare it has to be a benefit and finacial stability for Medicare.
While I say all of this I do realize that there is much reform needed in the medicare program. Especially in the payments to the medical profession and the fraud in the system needs to be weeded out.
Making my statement again I sure would like feedback to make my statement more productive. But haven said what I did, I expect nothing but insults to follow built upon misrepresentation and an ideology that is differant then mine.
Being in an employer self insured program for 33 years I found it to be great. But after years of building such a program to entice good and educated employees, what happened was a system that after much downsizing the legacy cost became unberable for the employee and bankruptcy followed.
When the downsizing began in 1980 there were 110,000 employees plus another 30,000 already in retirement. By 2003 when the bankruptcy was filed there were 18,000 employees trying to pay the legacy costs for around 80,000 who were still on retirement.
Medicare for all who retired but still too young for the medicare program is the answer, in my opinion. Most of those retired with out insurance have some type of illness already which prevents them from getting insurance.
Had there been a good Government plan, most of the companies that have gone under in the past would not have happened. It was basically the legacy costs that also killed the auto industry along with poor management decisions.
Actually when I look at the auto industry and the recent bail out, I put as much blame on the American people for not standing up for a better health care system. Basically some type of Government program other then COBRA.
derek writes: Whoever said there is no group car insurance has never heard of car rental companies or corporate fleets!
Oh good grief. So do the employees of Avis and Hertz get discounted car insurance? Even it that were true there are very few people who have that opportunity.
Schuyler,
Thanks for taking the discussion to heart—we don’y need to demonzie one another, nor the government per se.
There are other choices for the self-insured here in Central Virginia than Anthem, though your point is well-taken There are only a handful of companies that provide individual insurance. (I don’t want to advertise here, but if you e-mail me at freebird5453@yahoo.com, I’d be glad to refer you to my business).
Yesterday I spent 7 hours with a couple reviewing proposals from three private insurance cos., each of which offered multiple plans and options—it is a crazy business.
Higher cost plans offered by employers are getting so expensive (you may not see this, completely, if your company is subsidizing the premium cost in whole or in part) that they may just go away. Many large companies have gone to ‘self-insurance’ where their health plans are administered by an insurance co., they are charged the cost of claims plus a capitated fee, and there is usually some stop-loss provision. Some really smart companies are working in collaboration with health systems to lower their risk exposure through plans that incorporate health and wellness initiatives. These are some of the more progressive and successful “private” solutions out there—if the overall objective is, in fact, assuring wellness and insuring illness.
Unfortunately, we have stalled out on this issue for decades. The partisan battle is old—perhaps you heard recently a replay of the failures of every administration since Roosevelt to find consensus—it has made no difference who held the Presidency, or which house of Congress. This is the time for a new approach. Real change.
The tying of health benefits to jobs is largely a historical result of the New Deal only being taken so far, and the onset of World War II and the aftermath, where attracting workers was a priority, and providing health benefits (along with others) was one way to do it.
I am not so old as to remember when benefits were not a dirty word, but a primary means of competing for skilled and/or educated workers. Those who did not, ended up with less qualified and/or motivated employees.
As companies shed benefit costs, these responsibilities have come home to rest in employee’s laps—how to protect one’s income, how to fund priorities, how to survive financially let alone plan for the future, are huge issues for every employee and their families—and your employer really doesn’t want too much of that burden.
Financial companies—insurance companies—really have not figured out how to respond. Some are taking the old “Ford approach”, one size-fits-all, you can have any color you want as long as its black—some are taking the “Cold Cereal approach”, where you have so many “choices” but few options that are good for you. And, heck, health care is complicated.
Tough to compare property and casualty insurance with health care insurance, as people are wont to do. Your Sate Farms can, and do, charge you individually on the basis of where you live, how you drive, your age (and some degree, health), the make and model of your vehicles, the number of them, how much you drive. If you never have a claim, you don’t expect a refund (though you do often get a discount). And, we, the public understand it, expect it, and accept it.
But health care? God forbid that might be handled the same way. We pitch a fit over co-pays, co-insurance, pre-existing conditions, OOP expenses, network providers, formularies—even about being held accountable for materially misrepresnting our history in the application process.
We don’t want competition—really—we want free healthcare, unconditionally, guaranteed.
And I doubt that is possible.
What can happen, and is possible, and is reasonable even, is putting the pieces of the puzzle we have now together in ways that make both good economic sense and good sense in terms of welfare. That may not be ideologically satisfying for the fringe, but its doggone pragmatic, and affordable.
Forget the last eight years. This has been a problem stalled for more than sixty eight years, and calling it a crisis and cramming down ill-concieved solutions—or, alternatively—stone-walling and shouting down and killing every attempt to push the ball forward—is INSANE.
Peace
BTW, for what it is worth, I am self-insured. And, like Schuyler, I am paying for my family, plus every uninsured family, plus every senior. And, like Schuler, I would like to see a solution that adresses everyone’s needs (whether they like it or not—LOL).
Whoever said there is no group car insurance has never heard of car rental companies or corporate fleets! The point is that the larger the pool of people insured, the less costly it is per individual.
Firstly, I agree with “antiboyd” that the primary reason nothing gets solved in this country is that we spend 99% of the time arguing and insulting each other instead of actually trying to address the problems.
I represent one of millions of people who seem to be unrepresented in ANY of these public discussions - those of us who are self-insured.
We hear all about those with no insurance and everyone else who are lucky enough to have employer-paid health insurance (they are also lucky enough to have JOBS!)
There are millions of us who are self-employed - those who were downsized for the last 20 years, those who were employed and their jobs were turned into “independent contractor” status, those who are in private practice, etc.
I was a Sr. Vice President at a global conglomerate. While I did earn a low six figure income (while working 80 hours a week), I never earned the wild executive salaries you read about now. I am a single woman, with no family, who literally devoted her life to my work.
During many of the past corporate consolidations, my job was morphed into “consultant” status. That was 16 years ago. Thankfully I was always frugal, never lived beyond my means and have been able to make it thus far. As the economy has gone belly-up, so has any work or income for me.
This same “independent contractor” status applies to millions of people who you may not realize are self employed - the cable TV guys, the phone man who comes in an Embarq truck, everyone who works construction, plumbers, electricians, etc.
However, here in VA, there is only ONE choice for us for healthcare - Anthem. I am charged as much monthly as my mortgage payment. When comparing my benefits to my friends who have employer care with the same Anthem, KeyCare, etc., they get more than 4 times the benefits I get, they have free preventative care (like mammograms), while I do not, they pay $5 for the same drug prescription that I pay $75. For me to get an annual check-up with a blood test, while the doctor visit is $20 (for them its $5), the blood test and all the lab results are insane. This goes on and on.
My premiums are raised monthly about $150 every year. I am only in my early 50s and in great health, never smoked, don’t drink, etc.
At this rate, my premiums will be beyond comprehension by the time I would qualify for Medicare.
As we see millions lose their jobs, it is only a matter of time that some of you may also become “self-insured” - if you are lucky enough to be able to pay these exorbitant fees for yourself.
All any of us are asking for is that we be allowed to have a CHOICE - that if the gov’t can force some competition for the likes of Anthem (as well as forcing the drug companies to reduce their insane rates), those of us who have no choice, would finally have some. Anthem would likely not wish to lose customers and rather bring their costs back down be competitive. Or I could go to another company! I want the same choice of care that my Senators, Congressmen and those whose salaries MY taxes pay are allowed to have!
If I could control the changes in health care, personally I do not feel that employers should even be involved in this issue. It should not be a burden on a business, a perk of a job (your salary is your perk!), and frankly I think its bizarre that employers have their nose stuck in the middle of the most private issue of an employee - their physical health!
While that doesn’t seem to be even a consideration for change at the moment, at least everyone should have access to the same choices at the same prices.
I do not see how bankrupting people like me, forcing us to lose our homes while ailing alone will help our community.
Wake up. Health care should not be a partisan issue.
Advertisement