Blue Commonwealth Logo

Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Become a Supporter
Like Blue Commonwealth? Want to help keep it running?
Contribute Today, and help keep our blog ad free!




Blog Roll
7 West
Albo Must Go
Anonymous is a Woman
Anti-BVBL
Article XI
Assembly Access
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blacknell
Blue Ridge Data
Blue Virginia
Blueweeds
Byrne-ing Up the Internet
Central VA Progressive
ChangeServant
Coarse Cracked Corn
CobaltVA
CvilleDave
The Daily Dogwood
Dem Bones
DemocracyUpsideDown
DemRulz
Equality Loudoun
Fairfax City Dems
WaPo - The Fix
Fred2Blue
Getting Around
Great Blue Heron
The Green Miles
Heartland of Va
Leesburg Tomorrow
Left of the Hill
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Penning Thoughts
Powhatan Democrats
Renaissance Ruminations
River City Rapids
Rule .303
RockDem
Shad Plank
Sisyphus
SlantBlog
Southeast Virginia
Star City Harbinger
Tokatakiya
Too Progressive
United States of Jamerica
VB Dems
VB Progressives
Virginia Dem
The Virginia Democrat
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll
xcurmudgeon

(VIDEOS) Health Care Town Hall: Congresswoman Donna Edwards Leading on Reform

by: Rusty5329

Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 10:38:24 AM EDT


( - promoted by KathyinBlacksburg)

originally posted at Sum of Change

Oh, and I totally owe slinkerwink for posting this spreadsheet of town halls.

We at Sum of Change, attended a health care town hall last night, hosted by Congresswoman Donna Edwards. The Congresswoman gave a brief speech, and then opened the floor for questions. The town hall was heated, which should come as no surprise. Not only were conservative groups organizing to get people out to these town halls (with detailed instructions about how to act and talk), OFA 2.0, several Unions, and liberal bloggers pushed progressives to turn out as well. The debate was vigorous, but not disrespectful. If anyone came there with the intent of disrupting the town hall, they failed miserably.

We'll go through a round of the Q&A's. I strongly recommend watching these all the way through, the Congresswoman knows how to finish an answer.

Rusty5329 :: (VIDEOS) Health Care Town Hall: Congresswoman Donna Edwards Leading on Reform
We shall start with the big, scary end of life care question :

Ladies and gentleman, that is how it's done.

How about the 'our health care system isn't broken' question (which, as it turns out, isn't a question):

Buddy, my mother is a cardiologist, in Maryland too, with a private practice, who deals with plenty of Medicare and private insurance patients, and makes a damn fine living at it. She voted for President Obama in large part because she believes our health care system is a disaster. She loves her job, and her patients.

And on health care as it relates to undocumented workers:

The Congresswoman takes a question from a military wife:

And here is our quick interview with her: (since the room was so loud we have provided a transcript of this interview for those that have difficulty hearing it):

Q: At the progressive press conference last week, the progressive caucus press conference, you touched on progressives ceding single payer if, and only if, there is a public option.

EDWARDS: (aside) Thank you...

Q: And you touched, briefly, on why that's important for progressives to do. Can you talk a little more about why it is important, and why, for the blue dogs, why the compromises end at the public option?

EDWARDS: Well, you know, it's hard for me to speak for where the blue dogs are going because a number of the provisions that they have proposed actually increase costs. And, which is amazing from a group a members, frankly, who've said that they want to decrease costs. What I can share with you though, is that we are, out of energy and commerce, we got a commitment that we are gonna get a stand alone vote on single payer, which I think is important to set a marker. But we also cannot abandon the public option, sort of take our eye off of that prize because we run the risk of not being able to preserve anything going into a battle with the United States Senate.

Q: Okay, and one last question. A lot of people have talked about the demons of socialized medicine and obviously we all know the military is on the government run option. Have the opponents of health care, has anyone proposed giving the military a better health care system? Or do they think that the military gets the best health care we can buy?

EDWARDS: No, I mean, I think that, I mean, I come from this experience, because I grew up in the air force, I know the military system. And know that, that it works, and I also know that it's government provided. And so, I always just share with people that, for those people who are so against government being involved in health care, look at our military, look at our veterans, look at Medicare, so many of us are actually already engaged in government provided health care.

Q: But, as far as you know, no opponents have, have suggested changing that?

EDWARDS: No.

Q: Do they think, they don't think there's a better system for the military?

EDWARDS: No. I mean, it's a good, the military system is a good system and it serves, but it serves a particular purpose. Whether that's something that we could then, sort of, translate into the public sector is a different question all together. It's something that has to do with just by the way they can provide service, just because of the (inaudible, contiguity?) of having everybody located on a duty station or something like that, that may or may not be appropriate for the broader public.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Public Option = Military System analogue?
Q: Do they think, they don't think there's a better system for the military?

EDWARDS: No. I mean, it's a good, the military system is a good system and it serves, but it serves a particular purpose. Whether that's something that we could then, sort of, translate into the public sector is a different question all together. It's something that has to do with just by the way they can provide service, just because of the (inaudible, contiguity?) of having everybody located on a duty station or something like that, that may or may not be appropriate for the broader public.

I see no reason that the "Public Option" cannot differ depending on the locality.  In urban areas such as DC and NYC, a U.S. military style healthcare system would seem to work well.  People who are sick under a public option, as in the military system, need to go to the nearest "base" (or public facility) for initial treatment.  To reduce costs, employees at these facilities would be paid a salary for their services.  Also, as in the military, copays could be required for some services, and some premiums may need to be paid, depending on income.

If a public facility is overwhelmed, or if more specialized care is needed, a referral can be made to a private provider who generally works on fee schedules such as that currently used by Medicare.  This is also similar to the military Tricare system.  

Such a model would not work well in rural areas; however, to save some money on a public option, a jurisdiction could arrange for traveling clinics by salaried employees.

To those who would scream "socialism" at such a situation, consider the example of public education.  Surely a public health care option is less socialistic than a public education option.  A public education is available to all children, regardless of income, and even the wealthiest can attend with paying a dime.  On the other hand, a public health care option can be means based, requiring copays and premiums from the wealthier participants in the system.  

And, as in the area of education, private providers would still exist, and likely even thrive.

Comments would be much appreciated.

 


Regarding Richard's Comment
You are right, Richard.  And I really should have added some commentary.  Most of her responses were excellent.  But I think the weak part of entire set of comments by Edwards is the very one you mention.  I disagree with Edwards here for two reasons.

First, the House bill does not include government health care.  It is a government insurance option which the House bill includes.  There is a huge difference between a government insurance option (choice from a similar menu of insurance options that Congress gets).  And government actually providing care.  There are many reasons why military families must depend on its system of health care, not the least of which is security and reliability of treatment when military families are deployed.  Getting care from the same institution while stateside ensures continuity of care.  

Second, there is NO plan to socialize delivery of medical care.  To go on trying to make analogies concerning socialized medicine is focusing on a red herring.  It's not only a waste of time, but also muddies the waters.

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


[ Parent ]
I would say this falls more on...
the questioner (myself). While you are both completely right in your comments about the proposed health care plans, I was asking her in regards to single payer. It is no secret that she, ideally supports the single payer system (my first question was why she felt it is important for progressives who support that system to compromise for a robust public option). I could have, and should have, been more clear in my phrasing of the second question.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the clarification, Rusty n/t


"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

[ Parent ]
Recent Comments

Blue Commonwealth is a community forum for the discussion of political issues of interest to Virginians.
The opinions expressed by users of this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Blue Commonwealth or its editors.
Powered by: SoapBlox