I've been following the health care debate with a great deal of interest since the beginning. I grew up poor with no insurance and I'm only now finally correcting some of the damage that was done to my health over the intervening years. This experience has imbued me with a deep distrust of capitalism which has only been confirmed - repeatedly - over years of social and financial interactions. So I jumped on the chance to get involved in more a direct way by attending the town hall with Eric Massa slated for this evening. I apologize in advance for the length of this entry - I took detailed notes and would like to make a proper recording for my recollection, so I am including literally everything that happened. I will include a brief summary at the end for those who want something quicker to read through.
I left work early to meet a friend of mine (who had also never been to a townhall) to make it on time. The event started at 5:30 PM, and was being held at the Victor High Shool auditorium (about a half hour drive from where I work) after being moved from its original outdoor location due to the threat of rain. We ran into an immediate snag with rush hour traffic, followed by construction which forced us to turn around almost to the beginning and try a new route. Consequently, we didn't arrive until a few minutes after 5:30.
There were two or three tea-baggers standing at the head of the driveway into the school, and two more with a big 4-foot flag that looked like just the blue field portion of the American flag that they were waving around. Many other people had small signs as they walked towards the school, and you could see everybody surreptitiously checking each other's signs out to see what side we were all on. I had two signs - "Who Would Jesus Deny? Pro-Life Doesn't End at 9 Months - Health Care For All Americans!" and "Gov't Health Care = Socialism! (Until You're 65. Then It's Totally Cool. Yay Medicare!)" - although I only used the first one as I didn't want people to get confused about where I stood if they only saw part of it (and, to be honest, because I find Christians opposing health care for sick or poor people to be mind-boggling, so I like confronting them about it). And my friend Justin had a "Health Care is a Human Right!" sign as well, which would also come into play (and would be seen on a couple other signs as well).
The flag-wavers confronted me about the Jesus sign, saying that he didn't want government to help people, he just wanted people to help people (to which I responded "exactly - and that's what we're doing, asking we the people to help each other," which would be a point I'd make to several folks over the course of the day).
There was a large line of people waiting to get in to the capacity-filled auditorium. Everyone was being very civil and there were several deep conversations going on. It seemed that the people by me in line, with a few exceptions, were all largely pro-healthcare, though I think this simply indicates that we were later getting there and so more of us were trapped outside. One lady did come by peddling "The Obama Deception" and claiming he was a puppet of the "international bankers," which everybody sort of laughed at until she went away.
We were told that they'd be letting people in as other people left, so several people took off at that point (it was around 6 by now). Got into a debate with a lady talking about how "if we go socialized, where will Canadians go for health care?" So I challenged her on that. She spouted off some anti-Canada lies about hip replacements - apparently if I need a hip replacement and my gramma needs a hip replacement at the exact same time, I'll get a hip and she'll only get pain pills. Which is ludicrous. Unfortunately for this lady, I spend three out of every 7 days in Canada, where my fiance lives - I am the wrong person to lie to about Canada. I called her out on her assertions several times, to which she could only look incredulous and then say "well google it," because of course the internet knows better than I do what happens in the country my future wife lives in. My advice to people confronted with Canada lies - remind the aggressor that there is nobody clamouring for change in Canada's system, and that they have had a balanced, positive budget - no deficit - for over a decade, with single-payer health care for all ( http://www.ctv.ca/... ).
After a few more minutes of waiting (around 6:15 or so) we were brought into the school gym, across the hall from the auditorium, where speakers were being hooked up. A staffer for Massa was asked what was going on and he said he didn't know, the police were organizing this movement, so it seems that this was largely a crowd-control issue - up until then, the line was blocking the hallway out which was definitely a fire hazard. Quick thinking on the part of whoever thought to get speakers rigged up though.
The crowd filed in and there was a small sampling of signs - one young man (who I later spoke to and who was not affiliated with any group) had brought a number of pro-health care signs which he was passing out, and somebody had fashioned "Health Care Now!" into a hat made out of balloons. :lol: Again I got the sense that the pro-reform numbers were quite a bit bigger out here in this segment. By this time Massa had moved on to the question and answer session. It was difficult to hear the speakers in the gym - after a few moments people started murmering and at one point somebody stood up and shouted "When do we get to speak! When is it our turn!" and stormed out, to a smattering of applause - but I tried to record the questions I heard.
- I didn't hear the question because the speakers came on mid-answer, but Massa was addressing cost control, specifically regarding advertising for prescription drugs and medical malpractice. He had VERY solid points on the advertising, especially regarding how we are essentially subsidizing that advertising (as they can write it off as a business expense) and that there was more money spent on advertising than on research last year.
- Massa was asked to please explain the bill. One trend I would notice all night would be people asking very similar questions after rambling on to make their own points in the lead up - both sides did this. There wasn't a single question asked that wasn't part of a long essay-like introduction making the person's own points. Massa explained about the health care exchange, the pre-existing conditions limitation, and limits on premiums. Then he went off topic a bit (possibly in response to a shouted question - you couldn't tell from our room because of the speakers, but people were occasionally yelling things at him) and addressed the length of the bill. Yes, it's a thousand pages - triple spaced, in font size 14, with about one paragraph per page, for readability. Broken down to normal text, that's about 300 pages - or as he said, about half the size of Harry Potter.
- This was a very disjointed question, something about democracy and fear being present in the room. This person did start getting shouted down near the end of her question, but we never heard if she finished it or if it got an answer because it became apparent that more people were getting in the main room, so we went out to the hall to wait for that.
While out in the hall, another person confronted me about Jesus and the government, asking me to quote even one bible verse where Jesus said we should use the government to provide services. I suggested "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's," to which he responded "that's about taxes and services." Which of course is exactly the point. I explained that in a democracy, "we the people" ARE the government, and I have trouble believing in a God who is going to write people off if they can't afford health care. This person was very calm throughout the conversation - in fact most everyone was very polite and rational, though I don't think much real convincing was going on, both sides were sure they were right. We almost got sidetracked twice - once when he threw in illegal immigration, and another time when he said "Jesus has no business being in government," which I instinctively wanted to jump on as setting up a great church and state battle, but it would have been off topic. At one point he claimed that charity can take care of most everyone and anyone can get health care if they want - at which point somebody losing health care due to expense jumped in to explain that she was going to get sick and die without it and wouldn't be able to afford it much longer, which pretty much ended that point for him.
After about a half hour (it's now about 6:50) we finally got into the auditorium in the midst of an answer that must have been fairly controversial, because there was a lot of murmuring and occasional shouting going on. Massa would simply wait for shouting to die down, the way some teachers will just wait until people run out of steam before resuming, although occasionally he'd make a comment like "would anyone else like to shout out a non-sequiter?" I would wager the auditorium held about 300 to 400 people, including several along the sides (aisles were kept clear by police officers and ushers). A non-scientific analysis of the crowd (based on watching who gave standing ovations about which questions) would lead me to conclude it was about 40/60 pro/anti.
Massa was using numbered questions, so from here on out they will be labelled based on his numbering, with the understanding that I may have missed one or two of the shorter ones.
- Where in the Constitution does it say the government can provide health care? Massa: "Let's read it now." He pulled out a Constitution and read the part about providing for the general welfare, making it specifically legal, Constitutionally, to do that.
- This person had a pre-printed sheet of paper (he was sitting directly next to me) with very specific questions. He said that on page 59 of the bill in question was a portion giving the government complete access to your bank account; and on page 65 was a section on subsidies for unions, community organization groups, and ACORN. This question sounded like bullshit on the face of it, but you could hear the crowd react with a movie-like "Oh!" when he said bank account access and an even bigger one when he said ACORN, as though he had just struck a huge blow to Massa. Massa reacted like a champ; he took it very seriously and said "what were those page numbers again? Hold on, I'm marking them down." Then when the guy had finished, he said "ok, let's read those pages." And he did. And there was absolutely NOTHING about ACORN or unions on page 65, and page 59 dealt with hospitals that accept medicare being required to accept credit card payments and etransfers to maintain records, NOTHING on government access to bank accounts. It was absolutely excellent, hearing him read the bill directly to people. And then, just to head it off, he read page 425, the "death panel" page, and cleared that up. And nobody asked a single question about a death panel all night.
- If we add 47 million uninsured Americans to government plans, won't that necessarily lead to rationing due to all that extra money being spent? Massa gave a very wonkish answer which was nuanced and intelligent. Currently ALL Americans access care at some level or another, and currently we are spending, as a nation, over $7,000 per capita for health care. So we are already paying for these people. The trick is to bring them into an insurance plan so they are paying for their fair share. He also described some cost cutting measures regarding the primary-care crisis currently looming, including a 24-hour outpatient clinic staffed by RNs for minor emergencies (the flu or some such) that are less time sensitive but that nonetheless people go to emergency rooms for.
- What do we do about the $550 billion in uncompensated health care every year, to which he responded similar to the previous question, which was essentially the right answer to both.
- This question was very angry - why won't Congress go on this health care plan if they pass it? I had been asked this in line by somebody as well, and I said that they would, but she refused to believe me, which made this enjoyable. Massa replied that not only would they, but that he had submitted a bill with several others REQUIRING Congresspersons to be subject to ANY health care bill that passes, so they would ALL go on it. The person sort of rambled on in response, but his point had been blown and he became confused and so was requested to let the next person speak.
- This question was brought by an 18 year old kid; nonetheless, he did the same thing everyone else did and went on about what he wanted to say before framing the question - "what tactics will you use to get people to understand that this isn't going to be the government coming in to take over your health care?" It was clumsily done, but it was exactly what we need to start doing - lobbing softballs to set our reps up to score points, and to demonstrate support. By its very nature, asking a question comes across as a subtle form of opposition, so we tend not to because we support health care - which means the vast preponderance of questions come from people who DON'T support it. We need to address this. I'm going to put some thought into it, and I hope you do too.
- Why can't the people have what Congress has for care? And of course, that's essentially what we're trying to do, though Massa didn't answer it that way. He explained about cost but I felt this was a rather fuzzy answer designed to give him a bit of cover.
- How do we control the "czars"? This off-topic Glenn Beck question got several people - including the guy in front of me with a "Hitler = Obama" shirt on - riled up and excited and led to a lot of shouting at first. Luckily Massa was either prepared for it or really does know his Constitution that well - he whipped it right back out and explained EXACTLY how the "czars" are under the control of the Secretaries of the departments, and how the Constitution specifically allows for their appointment, and read the entire section to us. He then asked "I hope that answers the question," because it clearly did, though Obama=Hitler dude shouted "No!" because he is clearly beyond reason.
- This was a great one, and it was very well designed to rile people up against the insurance companies. The question was essentially irrelevant as it was the lead-in which set it up - the guy said he had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, a "non-profit" collective, and he had had it for years. And he saw them building a new building instead of using their perfectly good old building, but figured hey, new buildings probably save money in the long run, they last a long time. And then he saw that they kept raising his premiums, but figured well ok, it's non-profit, it's surely for a good cause. And then he saw their name show up on a sports arena, and he started to think "hey, wait a second..." and then he saw that their CEO made $20,000,000 and thought "ok, that's enough." The question then was "what other options are there?" which is pretty irrelevant. Massa's response: fix the "doughnut hole," better evaluation of what defines "non-profit" insurance companies, cross-state competition and TV ads again, and work off debt from med-school by subsidizing positions in underserved locations.
- This was a guy who had a two part question. First was "Is health care a right?" which led to a ton of cheering from their side. Massa simply said "yes," which lead to just as much cheering from our side (I admit I yelled a bit here, I was excited to hear it). The follow up was about 50% ofpeople in this country not paying income tax, so how is that fair for the rest to pay for them? I admit to having trouble believing half the country doesn't pay taxes, but that wasn't addressed. Massa returned to his theme of insurance for all, and also couched in language suggesting that it's a choice issue - does somebody, say a 26 year old healthy person, have a right to choose not to have health care? And if so, and he then gets in a car accident, should he still get coverage? Which is a legitimate and complicated issue, which was essentially Massa's response - "complicated."
- On what legal grounds is health care a right? Back to the Constitution again, same as last time this was asked in a slightly different manner.
- This was a retired doctor who said that medical bankrupcy is virtually unknown outside of America but here is brutally common, as he'd seen over 29 years of medical service. He felt that single-payer was the only proper solution. This was all lead up to his question (and it's a good one, because it's a legit question but allows precisely the sort of positive framing that he led up to it with, especially coming from a doctor) - do you see the Dems acceeding to reality (I liked that line and so did the rest of the progressives) and running over the Repubs with reconciliation in the Senate AND what do you think the chances are in the House of a public option passing? Massa's disappointing response - "no and none."
- Doesn't the 10th Amendment supercede the broad interpretation of the "general welfare" clause? Massa pulled the Constitution back out and read it to him (while also saying "this is the owner's manual for the US Congress - if more Congressmen read it, we'd be doing a hell of a lot better). Essentially - no, because yes unclaimed powers devolve to the states, but ALSO to the people.
- A Vietnam vet who was talking about money out of medicare to fund universal health care - Massa said that payments to providers will be reduced, which is what that actually meant, but not money actually being taken from medicare. The guy indignantly said "well do you think that's fair?" and Massa said "No. I don't." Which shut the guy up - he was looking for a fight. He also said "people fearing the government is tyranny, but... but... well we want freedom! Who wants FREEDOM!!!" and lots of yelling ensued. I do sort of want freedom but didn't bother clapping for it.
- This never quite made it to a question - the lady said we clearly need some health care reform, but not a public option because of deficit spending, and "when I heard Obama would require veterans to buy private health insurance to save money for the VA, I was appalled" - at which point Massa said "hold on, I have to correct that NOW because I was in the room for this." And he explained that Obama wanted to count all veterans and see how many we had, and then count all the veterans with health care on top of the VA, and then count and see how many were using the VA services and then found that when it came time for the private insurers to reimburse the VA, they were stiffing it, and THAT is what needs to be stopped. The lady was reassured and didn't have any further question.
- I'm afraid I missed writing this question down and have forgotten it.
- This was a LONG rant that started out about illegal immigrants and then went on to "how do we change the debate to restricting government instead of giving government more power," while hitting tons of the teabag talking points, including FDR bashing (such as how "FDR packed the courts - that's history! It happened!" which, of course, it didn't.) Anyway, because he needed a question, he eventually settled on "how do you interpret the Constitution this way instead of the way which empowers government over people?" To which Massa replied "Well, I don't interpret it at all. That's not my job." And explained about the Supreme Court's job - also taking time to correct the FDR "court packing" assertion. We all have our interpretations of the Constitution, but it's up to the Supreme Court to DO it - and this has already been decided.
- Entitlements are wonderful and meant to be compassionate, but like any ponzi scheme they are BAD unless you get in first! And so on. We left at this point because it was getting quite late, we had a long drive ahead of us, and I have to work tomorrow morning.
The takeaway: Massa is an intelligent and reasonable person who played this beautifully. He's voting against the bill because it's not progressive enough, which was a complete win for him with this crowd - the teabaggers were thrilled he was against the bill, and we progressives all sort of agreed that this bill wasn't really progressive enough. I feel that Massa is a lock on his next election if he can handle all his crowds this well. As for the policy debate, Massa was actually highly informative - I consider myself a high-information voter and I still learned a lot. And this was a polite crowd that was willing to learn, by and large. The shouting was sporadic and there was only really one exchange where a guy wouldn't be quiet. When we left Massa clearly had every intention of staying til the last person had asked their question, which is a huge show of dedication. As I said above, I'd rate the crowd an unscientific 40/60 pro/anti ratio. What I didn't see was anybody who was really undecided - every question had a clear ideological point from the outset. This is something we need to master - getting more questions asked. It's tough to show support for something while questioning it, so this is going to bear thinking about.
The people themselves were generally civil, though I confess some people did take issue to my sign dragging Jesus into it (ironic, I felt, for Republicans to be upset about Jesus being involved in a government dispute). And of course there were some batshit crazy people. Despite the general civility, however, I don't think there was any real convincing to be done. The people who were going were going because they had already decided and wanted to show support or resistance. Nobody went to be informed. The trick is going to be getting this good information out to regular people who don't care as much as these crowds did, and that's a harder thing. At one point I witnessed one lady quoting Ed Schultz to another lady quoting Glenn Beck or Limbaugh; neither one was making any impression on the other, and neither one had any original points, just repitition. Whenever I would confront somebody who made a Canada reference with actual real-life experience - my frigging fiance is from Canada, I'm there literally every weekend - I would simply be referred to Google or a TV show for more information. Real life facts didn't make a whit of difference. My takeaway is that the Beck-style "your country is being taken from you" rhetoric is working on the Republicans and they've stopped trusting anybody else because we're now the enemy. I don't think the townhalls are really going to serve much purpose besides show, and I think they're past their sell-by date in terms of media coverage anyway.Hate to say it, but as interesting as tonight was, it was an irrelevant sideshow. The fight has moved on. I may go to another one, but I doubt it - I'm going to focus my efforts on following the advice coming out of http://firedoglake.com I am now convinced that their strategy - directly influencing the legislative process through fundraising, petitions, local group resolutions, and siezing media cycles - is the ONLY option currently on offer for making a difference.
Keep at it, everyone - this battle is not over yet.
*UPDATE* According to dmac in the comments:
The auditorium held 928 seated plus about 50 standing. Overflow in the gym was close to 400. Official police estimate 1400 plus
Quite a bit more than my initial estimate, but I confess I am terrible at estimating crowds, so this is entirely plausible. I would encourage you to go by this estimate.