Tea Party rally objects to health care plan
Megan Lovett/The Daily Progress
Members of the Jefferson Area Tea Party rally outside the Charlottesville office of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Ivy, in protest of what they see as bigger government and bloated spending — specifically related to health care.
Published: July 18, 2009
Updated: July 20, 2009
After about 30 minutes of impromptu speeches by area residents and at least one small-business owner Friday, police dispersed a crowd of about 75 protesters from U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s Charlottesville office.
The Jefferson Area Tea Party supporters left quickly and quietly after the arrival of the police. But not before letting everyone in earshot of the congressman’s office know that they are against proposed national health care reform.
Participants carried signs proclaiming, “health care needs less government not more!” and “freedom isn’t socialized.”
“It’s [this] conversation that makes our country great,” said Keith Drake, chairman of the Albemarle Truth in Taxation Alliance.
The protest was the Jefferson Area Tea Party’s fourth rally in Charlottesville. The group’s previous event, on July 4, drew more than 1,000 people, organizers estimated.
The most impressive part of Friday’s rally was that it wasn’t only Republicans present, but Democrats as well, Drake said. The Tea Party is a grassroots movement of the kind Drake said he hasn’t seen in his 20 years in state and local politics.
“[The Jefferson Area Tea Party] has a hell of a lot more staying power than anything I’ve seen before,” Drake said.
Neither Perriello, D-Ivy, nor a representative could not be reached for comment Friday evening.
Apparently Perriello’s office is located on private property, said Ben Marchi, state director for Americans For Prosperity, who dropped by the rally. Americans For Prosperity is not involved with the Jefferson Area Tea Party, but is hosting its own rally at noon today at the Omni Hotel Charlottesville. He said someone in the office called the police to have the protesters dispersed. (UPDATE: U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s office did not contact police about protesters gathered outside his Charlottesville headquarters, according to emergency communi-cation center records.)
The rally was blocking in at least one car of a person working in the office.
While Perriello was not on hand for the rally, Bill Hay, chairman of the Jefferson Area Tea Party, said he thinks Perriello will hear about it.
“You don’t usually see conservatives gathering like this, which is a good sign,” Hay said.
Hay’s wife added that it’s “too frustrating” to listen to talk about health care reform and not be able to speak out against it. Bill Hay went on to say that he knows Perriello has taken notice of his organization because Hay now gets calls from people on Perriello’s staff, not just e-mails.
Perriello has established an online forum, “Your Health, Your Voice,” where his constituents can discuss national health reform. It can be found at http://www.perriello.house.gov/healthcareforum.
President Barack Obama has made overhauling health care a top domestic priority and has pushed the House and Senate aggressively on the matter, with a goal of signing comprehensive legislation in October.
“Don’t be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can’t change the health care system,” Obama has said. “We have no choice but to change the health care system because right now it’s broken for too many Americans.”
About 50 million of America’s 300 million people are without health insurance.
To finance the overhaul, a bill unveiled by House Democratic leaders Tuesday would create three new tax brackets for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.
The plan would honor Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. But it would break an Obama pledge that no one — including the wealthy — would pay higher taxes than they did in the 1990s. The pledge, as listed on Obama’s campaign Web site: “No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.”
Democrats argue that high-income families fared well under President George W. Bush’s two terms as their taxes dropped and their incomes soared, giving them the ability to absorb higher taxes. Republicans argue that the tax increases would hurt small business owners who typically pay their business taxes on their individual returns.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Hate to break it to you Al, but the difference in productivity between a deadbeat drone working for the government and a highly trained and motivated (aka greedy, evil) associate in a private enterprise can easily be 2 or 3:1. And, I truly understand why those who can’t cut it, are perfectly happy taking early retirement by working in the public sector. Not to say that all public employees are deadbeats, nor goldbricking – that would be the worst kind of generalizing, and grossly unfair to public servants – but altruism aside, productivity in the public side is not at all like the private side. And it doesn’t take a consultant’s study to validate that.
“I would argue to the counter, I know several doctors and nurses who, with a guaranteed job and paycheck, would be very happy to be in a situation where all they need to worry about is treating their patients.”
This totally confuses me. I do not know of any decent docs or nurses in this area who are going without a guaranteed job and paycheck. I’ve worked with the homeless, served meals at the shelter, and so far I’ve bumped into a few former social workers and engineers down on their luck, but…
THE BIG LIE: That individuals who use their creativity, innovate, problem-solve, demonstrate people skills, show leadership, exist only in a non-profit enterprise; that individuals who profit from their own labor are motivated by greed; that folks in a non-profit enterprise are “happier”, “free of stress”, “free of boredom”, etc. Just aint necessarily so. I’ve worked both sides of that street. In fact, I have the privilege of doing both right now, at the same time. Not to mention volunteer work.
“So if working for the federal government is so bad, why isn’t there a dramatic shortage of federal workers?”
Actually, Al, in healthcare, there is. Push it, and you’ll be pleased to see more.
“As for the facilities, yes they’d be owned by the government. True, there would be one-time transfer costs, and if necessary, imminent domain can be invoked. And yes, there will be additional maintenance costs associated with it. But maintenance costs are trivial compared to other health care costs.”
Something tells me that isn’t in the plan. That it is not even affordable. And, imminent domain, in the case of physician offices, would not be likely. That can happen in Venezuela, but not (yet) in the US. Any idea what buying up all those offices (or building them) might cost? I am guestimating somewhere between $150 and $200 billion. I know that is chump change for Barrack. Keep in mind, though, before you whip out that checkbook, that’s just for the Primary Care Physician offices – not the specialists, not the hospitals, not the Urgent Care Centers, not the Ambulatory Care Centers…
And, why stop here? Instead of owning just the car companies AND the care companies, let’s go all out. You missed the evil pharmaceutical industry. Why bother negotiating, let Uncle Sam own the whole lot! Folks have a right to housing, don’t they? Let’s buy up all the homes, and eliminate all for-profit homebuilding. People need to eat. Let’s make all the farms and the food industry public. What about the print and TV media? Oops, I forgot, already have those.
Something tells me you are not being serious.
At least, I hope not.
Help. I need an interpreter.
“With the federal government in control of the health care system, then everything would be covered”
What is meant by government control of the health care system? Based on earlier comments, I assume that the BigAl approach is all inclusive: from facilities to providers, primary through tertiary care, cradle to grave. If so, then I have to say that I had thought some of the advertising spots I’ve seen were a bit over the top, prone to overstatement and exaggeration, spoofing a straw man proposition that no red- (or blue-) blooded American could “believe in” – but apparently that joke was on me.
What does “everything would be covered” mean in this context? The inference is unlimited coverage. For my part, IF we were ever insane enough to go this way, I want to find a doc who will prescribe me medical marijuana, a private room, and a personal nurse with the bedside manner of Annette Haven. Seriously, though –no system on earth has unlimited resources, and no other healthcare system in the world covers “everything”. At some point, we surely run out of anal probes.
“but more importantly, levels of care and staffing can then be tailored.”
I am sure Barrack Obama knows exactly what you mean by that. I don’t.
“The fundamental hang up is with the inavailability [sic] of primary care.”
I believe that you mean to say we may have a shortage of primary care [facilities, physicians, Pas, NPs, staff]. That, of course, depends on this system design you envision. After Big Al and Gordie put their collective heads together, maybe we need exactly 1.5 family docs per 1,000 73-year-olds. Using the Shwing Divisor (SD) and Scattered Multiplier Effect (SME), that translates to a need for 227,333.33 primary care physicians— lo and behold, exactly how many we have now. This assumes, of course, that the Smalley Act passes, which permits laid-off autoworkers to retrain as geriatricians on an accelerated 6-week program.
“And part of the problem, is, as you point out supply and demand. So let’s look at supply. Well when you have more doctors who are specialists than are primary care practicioners [sic], you end up where we are now. Under this federal system, the balance will be adjusted to a pyramid system more applicable to screening first and then referring to specialists (say 2/3rds of doctors primary care, 1/3rd specialists).”
Oops, 2/3 to 1/3, eh? Not the other way around? Then we are short, ahem, 227,333.33 primary care docs. No problem – Cut them in two! A name change here and there – Dr. Long becomes Drs. Short. Who knows, maybe family docs are like Paramecium.
“As far as the pay goes, the 1.5x median income was just thrown out there, but would be a topic for discussion. Take Charlottesville, for example with a median income around $37,000. Is a reasonable salary 2x ($74k), 3x ($111k), or how about where it is now, around $150k, or just over 4 times the area median? Medical professionals are skilled and highly trained individuals and they should be paid more than the median, but it’s a question of how much. And with the government setting the pay scale, lower pay can be offset with other benefits (say paying off med school debts, special permits that allow them to park anywhere, a bigger house, etc…)”
This argument really gives credence to the claim that to some people, this is really just a game of Monopoly. I’ll trade you a family doc for $74,000, two get out of jail free cards, and a house on Park Place. Four years of Medical School, three years of Residency and Internship, and “it’s a question of how much”. Actually, that question is being answered, now, in the marketplace. The average salary in the US for a Family Physician is $185,000 (I guess Charlottesville is getting off a tad cheap, big surprise there). Less than half of the residency spots available in Family Medicine were filled last year, even with foreign imports. We can kind of guess how well price controls will work in stimulating further supply (eyeroll) as demand grows ( a projected shortfall of 50,000 in 10 years). I wonder how many student loans would have to be written off, and “bigger houses” it would take, to fill that hole. And, let’s get real, NOBODY gets a free parking space at UVA.
By the way, do you know what the average Intelligence Analyst in Charlottesville? Look it up. Then ask yourself, did we get our money’s worth on that search for WMDs in Iraq? How ‘bout them aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment? I hear those boy’s got promoted right up that GS scale for their “performance”.
check massachusetts.
I hear Pennsylvania has some sort of socialized health care plan they think works pretty well.
Maybe we should all go there? That should work about as well as the new scheme will work with open borders.
Let me explain as brief as possible that “bunk”. The reference to taking off the wrong leg, and to swapping babies at birth, are two of several REAL cases to have occured at UVA, where because the government could not be sued, UVA hospital tried to avert liability. I believe that ultimately both of those cases were settled—not without lawyers. The point is, without any legal recourse, how are patients protected? I guess it helps to “be educated” as to what you mean by tort reform. The implication of your statement was that by government owning and running the system, they were free from all liability. I think that would be, to use your words (to “quote” you) bunk.
In both those instances, a government administered, not-for-profit system f-ed up. Faulty systems, staff errors, combined to create the situation. Fortunately, those errors are rare. They happen.
If you want to pick on my words, be careful. More than once I’ve acknowledged that docs, nurses, and other health professionals—as all groups—run the gamut. Yes, I think highly of them. I find it ironic, given the obvious disdain expressed toward health professionals by several of you, that you don’t get your medical treatment elsewhere. Clearly, there is a bit of a disconnect.
As to the
Well that sure is grown up of you. Is that your way of saying that you have nothing to back up what you say?
Polls- “A clear majority of Americans—72 percent—support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds.“
That was a few weeks ago. Probably the numbers have dipped since then but it is a far cry from your “They dont’ like what they see”. BTW How does that translate into poll numbers? Oh, I forgot, you don’t work that way. You traffic in rhetoric.
Certainly the Democratic Leadership was in a hurry to get something passed in July although no one expected to have the two versions reconciled before fall. Historically big pieces of legislation are done in the first year (esp. the first half) of a new president’s tenure. But your hero George Bush didn’t sign his biggee- NCLB- until Jan. of 2002.
But now that Harry Reid has said that there will be no Senate vote before Aug recess, nothing will happen in the House either. So while there may have been a rush, that is old news. Do you know who Harry Reid is?
Do you have anything else to add to the debate?
I hope you are just pretending to be ignorant.
“The” polls? Got one that says the respondents “don’t like what they see”.
Nothing will be brought up before Sept. Why is that a rush?
The polls show that.
Who is rushing? Are you serious? You don’t know who is trying to rush this through (before its debated or even read)?
Lib- what do you mean “the public doesn’t like what they see”. How do you know that? And who is rushing? There won’t be anything done before August recess. But you probably won’t like it any better in Sept.
Advertisement