I offer below my long-delayed report on Rep. Gary Miller's "Health Care Listening Session" from this past Tuesday night at the Richard Nixon library here in Richard Nixon's old district. I was going to call this report "Rumblings From the Belly of the Beast," but when a crowd starts booing a 60-ish woman who has spoken about the problems she has had getting insurance as a cancer survivor -- well, that sort of has to go into the title.
I want to ask y'all one favor before I report on the events.
After Gary Miller left out copies of his detailed criticisms of the House Plan for people to take, he was prompted by one of his savvier constituents to post it on his website. He did so. I then copied it to a new DKosopedia page on H.R. 3200 so that we can generate our criticisms of each bloody point collectively. So, sign up with DKosopedia if you haven't and help up work up a proper rebuttal to this document, which is now being e-mailed around. I'd like to thank Rep. Miller for making our doing this so easy!
Now on to the events of that day:
Update: as noted below, this isn't the complete story. If and when you finish this, Part 2, "CA-42 health townhall: the speech they didn't let me give," is is here!
I took good notes on the very one-sided presentation and so will describe the presentations in some depth. First, let me set the stage.
The town hall meeting was held in the opulent East Room of the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda. The East Room is described as a replica of the East Room in D.C. -- and it is appropriately grand. The Nixon Library had for years been a de facto reactionary think tank, churning out defenses of the Nixon legacy, but it has been taken over by more scholarly leadership and is now reputed to be much more dispassionate.
Gary Miller may look like a death's head in this official government photo seen at right, but he is much more suave and folksy in three dimensions. If he were a cable commentator, he would be closer to more muted Joe Scarborough than to a Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Beck. He projects an "aw shucks, here's what's going on, you can decide what you think about it" softer sell than some of his House Republican colleagues, at least in front of an audience that he knows will largely be eating out of his hand.
The more than 500 participants at the event, who judging from the questioners were largely from the southern part of the district around Mission Viejo, had to have tickets to enter. Miller made a great point several times of how they had given away the tickets to anyone who called his office and asked for them. His mostly incurious audience seemed satisfied with that, not wondering whether a district that went only 53%-45% for McCain -- and for that matter, went 60%-40% for Miller himself -- was truly being represented by over a 10:1 margin of friendly to unfriendly questions. (Questions like: "did Miller or his agents contact some groups and ask them to get tickets or advertise their availability where they would be more likely than others to learn about them?", or "what sort of person calls Miller's office at all, knowing that he will not listen to progressive constituents on issues?" (I certainly don't bother) went unasked. But Miller and his supporters were convinced that this was a fair representation of the district, and that delusion probably only hurts them in the long run.
Various ribbons of health reform advocates were striped through the audience. The row in front of me, on the left side of the hall, had former Obama delegate from the district David Walsh on the aisle; he took the videos that I'll present here, including the one of the cancer survivor being booed. A friend of his sat next to him; next to that was a man with a head the size of a washing machine, blocking my view of Miller at the podium. Our row had a wingnut woman (chosen to ask a question) on the aisle, then Koster and potential CA-42 candidate Ron Shepston and his wife Belinda, then me; next to me was a man who had written out a question about his son's medical care that was so heartwrenching that I thought that I might have to give up my spot as a questioner to him if my number was called. More progressives filled the rest of the row; another group was in front of us across the aisle and we could hear some people on the other side of the hall. The rest of the crowd seemed like pure and highly agitated wingnut.
Miller started out with a folksy talk to the overwhelmingly anti-reform audience. The local paper, the economic libertarian Register, offers both a story and a video of Miller's intro and speakers here. It's worth a look at the video to get a flavor of events. The contents include, if you'd like to illustrate my comments below:
- Miller's intro
- his first guest speaker (noted below), a doctor
- the cancer survivor being booed for supporting reform
- the "mock and ridicule them!" man from Mission Viejo being egged on by Miller
- the second woman supporting reform
- the "Obama Administration is in chaos" woman
- Miller's second guest speaker, an elderly doctor who had worked in Canada
Miller said that he had never experienced as much anger at what the government was doing until this issue. He presented his support for the "reform pledge" that no bill should be voted on if it hadn't been posted for 72 hours of the internet -- "process concerns" were a common theme. He noted that he didn't see any Nazis in the audience -- raising the question of how he would know -- and made a cryptic remark about some people thinking too highly of themselves. He thanked the Blue Dogs (!) for blocking the initial plan so far and said that he hoped that they would not become "lap dogs." He then went through about half of the 31 items on his list in the document I'm asking that you help to rebut.
The main figures Miller bandied around were -- $1.6 trillion in ten years, but really only six years because it doesn't start until 2013, $818 billion in new taxes, and $500 billion in cuts to Medicare in 2010. He also mentioned that he was for certain reforms: "Association Health Care Plans" (not defined, but sounded like co-ops), "1-stop shopping" (which sounded like Obama's "exchange"), mandating portability and pre-existing condition reform, trans-state plans, and "innovation."
Miller invited two guests to speak, both doctors, both visible in the Register's video. The name of the one reading the Hippocratic Oath was something like, and I realize that I must have this wrong, "Bill Maher." Bill May (per cany's research.) He painted himself as a patient advocate who dislikes the public option because it has led in other countries to rationing of health care, interposing bureaucrats between patients and doctors, and lines. He stated the U.S. has "the best medical care in history," and that if we spend more than others it's because we can and doing so supports free-market innovation. If we "destroy the free-market system" -- just go along with the premise for now -- there would be "no reason for innovation." Imagine that: outside of for-profit medical care, no one is apparently innovating. That seems like the sort of thing one could check.
The second guest was identified only as "Dr. Levine." His position was also that a public option meant rationing and interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. *(It was as if none of the speakers had ever heard of the role of insurance companies in our present system!)* He informed us that young people were stupid to support a system where they would eventually be denied care when they got old. And he practically shouted the great evidence for the superiority of the U.S. system: the wealthy from all over the world come here for treatment! Now, indeed, we were getting somewhere.
The questions then began. I counted 36 of them. People could ask for a ticket to take part in the "lottery" to ask questions; again, this was not well-announced beforehand; I almost didn't take a ticket. They put the ticket numbers in a bowl and fished out the winners. I had two tickets because I gave an entrance ticket to an elderly woman who was without one and she gave me her lottery ticket in appreciation.
The first nine questions
The first speaker was anti-Obama (and exercised about the stimulus bill, the first tranche of which Miller had supported. The second was anti-Obama but focused more narrowly on health care. The third represented the tendency of those in the audience to engage in cockamamie Constitutional speculation, in this case because the public option violated the takings clause. (See you in court, sucker!)
The fourth speaker was the first one to support reform, a 60-ish woman who had had cancer in the 90s, has been cancer-free for many years, and now could not get a policy due to her pre-existing condition. The audio for this is only fair, and since David was filming from the progressive ghetto in the audience you get an exaggerated view of how much the audience supported her. The snippet in the Register video lets you hear the booing and catcalls loud and clear:
As you'll hear, she supports the public option as empowering consumers, lowering costs by enhancing government negotiating power, diverting premiums from profit and administrative expenses, and reducing the 80% of bankruptcies that result from medical costs.
You can see Miller's response through David's filming from the cheap seats --
or, if you're willing to give a click in exchange for much better quality, from a conservative blogger who appears to be filming from the second row, which I was told was reserved for Miller's handpicked few.
Again, let it not be said that Miller isn't smooth, even though his supporters are rough. He says that doesn't want to ruin the whole system just to help a deserving few who can be helped by his mumble-mumble reform.
The fifth speaker was the first of many to complain about the use of the bill to eliminate so-called "conscience clauses" that allow medical workers to opt out of abortion services. The sixth said that we needed to get rid of the $700B waste in welfare rather than raising taxes, that we had a false sense of urgency, and that health reform proponents were being overrepresented by the media covering these events. (Judging from the Register video, he had a point about this event, although the proportion of questioners matched the 2008 popular vote in the district much better than it did the tone of the questions.) Questioner 7 was the wingnut woman sitting next to Ron -- the only reform opponent in our aisle, picked randomly! -- who argued that we should move slowly, do pilot programs, and essentially kill reform through delay. Questioner 8 was a Deather concerned about mandatory end of life care. Questioner 9 was also concerned about Medicare fraud by doctors, but in a benign way.
So, of the first nine speakers, 1 favored reform, 7 opposed, 1 unclear.
The second batch of nine questions
Questioner 10, who is visible in the Register video, is a piece of work. She was the "Administration is in chaos!" woman. The hilarious part was that she denounced the lack of civility in the debate, and said that she was happy to be among friends who would not lynch her on the way out of the hall. This was interesting because it was the first loud sounding of self-pity from the anti-reform forces. Not exactly "we surround them," although in that room they did!
Questioner 11 blamed the media for saying that we need a bill and complained about people who said that they needed health care but still had cable TV. (Quick: which one is more expensive for a person above 50?)
I considered Questioner 12 pretty much neutral: he expressed no position and simply wanted to know what Miller's plan was. Miller's response was that the Republicans do have a plan, he's seen it, it just wasn't out yet, but he'd provide it, you betcha! David got this on video. Worth a look!
Questioner 13 was a bit chilling -- she's on one of the videos as well -- in that she started out saying that she had written every Blue Dog about H.R. 3200, the House tri-committee bill. (Hey, are we doing that? Lets!) Questioner 14 was a well-dressed young man who was even more chilling. He stressed that we were in a civil war. He said it several times, in fact. He also encouraged people to quit the AARP over their supporting reform. Miller did not comment on his foreboding repetition of our being in a civil war.
I think I may have seen Questioner 15 in a video: she felt like she was losing her liberty and freedom and that what she did now didn't matter because she felt so outnumbered. Miller said "just wait until 2010 and 2012!" to thunderous applause. So, that's how they're keeping their spirits high. Just think of what we can do if they lose ground.
Question 16 was delightfully self-contradictory. "It says 'we the people,' not 'we the Congress!'" The speaker opposed reform, but also wanted Miller to check into lengthening the extension for COBRA. Indeed. Questioner 17 was concerned about Obama's "czars." Questioner 18 asked how they could influence Blue Dogs' votes -- again, admirably on point. Miller said that they are playing nice ads in their districts. I don't remember hearing about that specific targeting; it's worth knowing.
So, after a virtual Republican shutout in the second batch of nine, the score stood at 1 reform supporter, 15 reform opponents, and 2 neutral questioners. "Fair and balanced," indeed!
The third batch of nine questions
The third batch started out strong for our side. David caught Questioner 19 on tape.
The speaker pointed out that there is rationing now, that corporate bureaucrats had a vested interest (viz. profit) in denying coverage, that the top 7 health insurance CEOs by themselves made $110 million per year combined, and that at age 60 her coverage now cost her $450/month -- which would be one hell of a cable bill. (Guess which one of these led to outrage from various questioners for the remainder of the evening? That's right, her having the temerity to question CEO salaries.) Miller responded by supporting "optional federal charters." The uncomprehending crowd was pleased.
Questioner 20 opposed reform, but noted that Medicare was a bigger problem and that we couldn't just add millions of people to Medicare without adding more doctors and hospitals. This is a fair concern: so lets add more doctors and hospitals. Or do we truly want not enough doctors and hospitals?
Questioner 21 wanted Miller's support for Rep. Dean Heller's (NV-02) plan to end government health insurance for officeholders, if I heard it correctly. I think Miller said he supported it.
I loved Questioner 22, because he said that H.R. 3200 inserts the government between insurers and the insured and therefore violates the Contracts Clause. Constitutional scholars out there are rolling your eyes at that, but the good news is that Miller agreed! I will expand on the Contracts Clause in a later diary. For now, I say: sheesh.
Questioner 23 complained about the government running GM, firing the President of GM, and supplanting private industry at all. He said that Carl Karcher, deceased Orange-County based founder of Carl's Jr., was a great man. Perhaps, although possibly one born without taste buds. Questioner 24 complained about Obama flying around on vacations, apparently having slept through the G. W. Bush Presidency.
Questioner 25 was another pro-reform advocate, though one speaking in more subdued tones. The volume is bad, but David has the video.
He noted that his doctor favored single-payer. He favored cooperation and respect between parties on the issue; a Republican had given him his ticket. And he mentioned that when his grandson had a compound fracture -- that's where you can see the bone -- he had had to spend 7 hours in a hospital emergency room on morphine waiting for treatment while the health insurer tried to have him moved to a less expensive hospital. He would get catcalls as well. Miller's response: let's move on to the next question.
Questioner 26 asked if they could just lay out this information clearly so that average voters could see it and learn to oppose Obama. He also mentioned Constitutional issues -- I tell you, crackpot lay theorizing about the Constitution is a virus here -- and asked if it would be challenged. Miller said that he was sure that it would be. Miller also added that one of their tools in the battle, to make sure that the GOP plan was heard, would be the Motion to Recommit. Thank you, David Waldman; I was probably one of a handful in the room who knew what he was threatening and how it would work.
Questioner 27 was my hometown Mayor, Tom Bauman, who thanked Miller, summarized what both sides were saying (need to support the uninsured versus concern over cost) and complained about our ability to afford such a plan. My Mayor is wrong about the costs of various options, but at least he was polite. Less polite was about to come.
This was the best batch for proponents, getting two of nine questions. The running score was now 3 questioners favoring reform, 22 opposing with various levels of crazy ranging from Brea's Mayor all the way up to Rancho Santa Margarita's, 2 neutral.
Final nine questions
Questioner 28 wants us to read Mark Levine. I am not going to link to him. He informed us that Big Government is the problem. He railed against the cuts in Medicare -- my irony meter doesn't even register that contradiction anymore. Miller responded saying that a private plan can't compete with the government. I had been waiting for him to say this: it meant that I could now ask him a question about why he didn't just favor price supports! Would I get that chance? Oh, I'll end the tension here: no. No one I knew (that I know of) got to speak.
Questioner 29 was in full campaign mode. He was either the Mayor or a City Council member from Rancho Santa Margarita, near Mission Viejo -- the ones who wrote that rotten letter to Obama that Ron diaried about despite their own receipt of government-paid health care -- and he is clearly aiming for higher office. His pitch, delivered in fiery tones: Obama is a revolutionary bent on transforming America into a socialist country. He sympathizes with those with medical problems, but the government is not the solution and Obama's plan is not the only option. We are America -- we value ingenuity! Just because Republicans have made mistakes in the past -- mistakes like supporting Medicare (and oh, how I was aching to speak in front of this largely elderly audience when I heard that!) -- we should not repeat those mistakes and should cover the uninsured in other ways.
By the way: by my calculations, Ted Kennedy died either during or just before this rant, in the latter of which case it might have been the first thing he had to hear in the afterlife. Thanks, Margarita Man.
Questioner 30 was an anti-abortion Democrat from outside of the District -- who therefore had not been invited to this -- worried about the government having to pay for abortions and about negative effects on Medicare recipients. He asked us not to give up on Grandpa and Grandma, because they still have a lot to offer. My offer: go back to West Covina and we can talk long-distance.
Questioner 31 introduced himself as "Mr. Grumbles" -- surname, I think, rather than honorary title, but descriptive either way -- who went after the woman who had mentioned CEO salaries. "They deserve what they make!" He said that the salaries paled next to government waste. He then lit into Miller himself, grumbling that he was not doing enough to fight the bill, that he wasn't circulating that talking points memo. Miller protested that Senate rules did not allow him to hand out more than 500 sheets of anything, even though he could just lay some out where people could pick it up. Mr. Grumbles said to e-mail it to all voters. A cooler head suggested that it just be put on the web page. Miller agreed to put it on his website -- and that is how it got into DKosopedia. Thanks, Mr. Grumbles!
Questioner 32, from Brea, was also one of the previous speakers, now using his wife's ticket. He just wanted to come up there to encourage us all to read or watch -- not that he was saying that this was actually what was literally going to happen, but just because he thought it would be an eye-opener -- Soylent Green. Dear God. I am a vegetarian, but if the opportunity ever arises to eat this man, I may have to consider it. (Note to the uninitated: SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! IT'S PEOPLE! Now you can skip the film.)
Questioner 33 opposed reform but asked a reasonable question: if the bill passed, who would write the regulations? Miller said it would be the Commission established by the bill. This was considered scary, I suppose because it has never happened before that Commissions write regulations, with the exception of "often."
Questioner 34 is monitoring Obama for America lists of events -- she said that over 11,000 had been posted -- and wondered why opponents don't just go into elementary and high schools, put the bill on the blackboard, and discuss it until our voices were heard. I want to see this woman write the entire bill on the blackboard in chalk. If she finishes it within an hour, let's discuss it.
Questioner 35 complained to Miller that the town hall wasn't advertised on his web site and asked about affordability, saying that the bill is a nightmare. Miller noted that the government sucks up all of the capital when it competes.
The final question was challenging, but not so much about health care and not from a progressive perspective. He wanted to know why Miller missed 153 votes this year and why we needed a stimulus plan if TARP worked. Miller said that both he and his wife had had surgeries; his shoulder and assorted other areas surgery had put him out for something like 4-6 weeks. The questioner would have none of it; he had had the same surgery and gone back to work the next day. I felt a pang of sympathy for Miller. Miller said that he had had to vote for the first $350 billion TARP bill because the economy would have collapsed, but that he opposed the second $350 billion one because that had been government waste. His inquisitor asked whether the GOP had a published plan now. Miller said that they had a plan, but it was not published. We can all look forward to that happening. I am still calling this one anti-reform from the tone, though.
So, with a clean sweep for anti-reformers, the final score is:
3 pro-reform questions, 31 anti-reform, and 2 neutral.
Conclusion ... of part 1
I've gone into such detail in part to give you a flavor of what it is like to live in Orange County, where the questions ranged from mainstream fiscal conservatism (mostly from northerners) to psycho jabbering (mostly from southerners, in my opinion.) Luckily, these people are not representative of the district; just as luckily, they think that they are.
I had written out a reply to various aspects of the goings-on in case I was asked to speak. Then, at the end, with just a few spots left, I wadded that up and started composing a different speech, which I also didn't get to give. I'll include both of them in tomorrow's diary. (UPDATE: part 2 is now published!)
Thanks for reading down this far! Do consider registering for DKosopedia to help with that project!