rssTown Hall Attracts Array of Protesters
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm
- 18 Comments
Pro- and anti-health care reform activists gather outside a town hall event in Reston, Va. (Photo by: David Weigel)
Related Photos: Reston Town Hall Attracts Protesters
RESTON, Va. — Gathering outside of the South Lakes High School in this well-heeled exurb of Washington, more than a hundred supporters and opponents of health care reform–or health insurance reform, as it was rebranded in blue-and-white signs passed out by Organizing for America–carried a sense of valedictory. The long and bitter month of “town hell” protests was wrapping up. Progressives who favor a Medicare-style “public option” had gotten their act together and shown up in force. Conservatives who had been turning out for weeks expressed shock, then bemusement, at the sudden arrival of their rivals.
Image by: Matt Mahurin
“Pick up your pre-made signs!” said Mike McLaughlin, a retired foreign service veteran and opponent of health care reform, who stalked around the area in front of the school with a booming megaphone. “Pick up your astroturf!” Other conservatives grumbled to reporters that they hadn’t been let in, and some mocked liberals for holding signs provided by Health Care for America Now or by Organizing for America, instead of putting together their own placards.
This particular town hall meeting, led by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, was destined to get out of hand. The extra star power was combined with a proximity to the beltway press corps and to professional conservative activists. Randall Terry, the omnipresent anti-abortion rights protester, made his way into the town hall itself and screamed about “killing babies” before being unceremoniously dragged out. Mary Ellen Burke, an organizer for Americans for Prosperity, met and greeted protesters against health care reform, talking about other AFP campaigns and the upcoming September 12 march on Washington organized by FreedomWorks.
There were remnants of the conservative groups that had been criticized in August for ginning up anger at town halls; an AFP sign that said “Socialism Isn’t Cool,” a batch of leaflets for Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty handed out by volunteer Erik Holmgren. (“As you know, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve?” Holmgren said. “You start to wonder if they’re driving down the dollar for a reason. Are they getting us ready to join a single North American currency?”)
But there was conservative unity against the liberal groups who had showed up to support Moran and Dean, and there were angry arguments about ACORN, “union thugs,” and chants that the conservatives thought were programmed. One of them tried to derail a pro-reform chant by adding editorial comments in between the breaks.
“Health care now!”
“You pay!”
“Health care now!”
“Free stuff!”
“Health care now!”
“Read the bill!”
Steve Brown, a physics teacher who held up a faded Bush/Cheney ’04 sign, said that he’d been getting nothing but compliments and comments from people who missed the ex-president. “I’m worried psychologically for the country,” said Brown. He had a good health care plan, but he wasn’t sure that his job was secure. “They didn’t raise our salary this year, because there’s no money.” Brown’s suggestion to turn the economy around: “Cancel the stimulus bill, put the money toward paying the deficit.”
Many of the people outside the school had come knowing that they wouldn’t get into the meeting, wanting to see the spectacle and, in some cases, have substantive conversations about health care. “Where else are you going to find so many informed people like us?” said Bill Campeni, with a hint of sarcasm as an angry argument broke out nearby between people on whether it was offensive to compare President Obama to Adolf Hitler.
“I’ve met a couple people on the other side who made good points,” said Jim DiAngelo, who put up a cell phone to let his wife listen into the chants. “I also started the chant that made these people crazy.” That chant was “Sarah! Sarah!,” a reference to the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.
DiAngelo turned and argued with a woman who said she supported health care reform because her mother couldn’t get coverage; DeAngelo told her to “be a woman, go shoot some wolves like Sarah.”
“Oh, she’s so tough,” the woman sneered. “She quit! She couldn’t take the pressure.”
DiAngelo turned red. “She’s not tough? She brought a child to term! A liberal woman would have told her to abort it! Yeah, you bet your ass she’s tough!”
Supporters of cult political figure Lyndon LaRouche stayed away from the action and largely outside of the town hall itself, setting up a booth decorated with the signs comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler that have become notorious since one of LaRouche followers was berated by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at a town hall meeting. LaRouche’s compound in Leesburg, Va. is only 19 miles northwest of Reston; the people handing out literature and engaging in loping, confusing conversations about the British monarchy and its role in health care reform said they’d been with “Lyn” for years. But they were largely ignored by conservatives who didn’t want to be associated with them and liberals who reeled at their imagery. The LaRouche conspiracies about a “Nazi” health care system were shared by some protesters–one sign gave Obama “Joker” face paint and warned of a “National Socialist” health plan–but they had other things on their mind.
“It’s really a stretch, the Hitler business there,” said Kim Langley, who had printed out the “Obama Joker” poster that surged in popularity after being promoted on The Drudge Report, and went on at length about moves Obama was taking that made him worry about the future of his country.
“I’m a student of revolution. I was a special forces officer, right? My job in some cases, back in the day, in the 1970s, when I was in the special forces, was basically to create unrest, to create overthrow of the government. Our job was to help guerrillas, insurgents, overthrow bad governments. My particular group was oriented toward central and South America.”
Langley wasn’t ready to go much further with his analogy. “There’s certain key milestones that I would consider… if he was to start to infringe the right of free speech, with newspapers and things like that…” Langley trailed off. “It hasn’t peaked yet to where I’m really scared.”
As the school emptied out, the activists who remained, more than a hundred of them, crowded around the door and formed cheering sections. Health care reform supporters smiled and shook their signs at the crowd, and got a mix of cheers and boos. Reform opponents did the same thing, with the same reaction. Some of the people leaving the event simply expressed confusion at how a surging, angry crowd had assembled outside of a town hall meeting.
“We’re going toward a one party system,” said Ron Kirby, holding a giant Gadsen flag that he’d gotten at the state GOP convention earlier this year. “Pretty soon, you know, you’ll have to be a Democrat to get a job.”
Follow David Weigel on Twitter
18 Comments
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
“Our job was to help guerrillas, insurgents, overthrow bad governments. My particular group was oriented toward central and South America.”
Not too often people are willing to discuss their involvement in atrocities. Wow…
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 1:21 am
I wonder if the woman with the “government off my body” sign realizes she's advocating for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
It's interesting that everyone perceives OFA signs as designed to look pre-made. Is it possible that maybe we only have so many official OFA signs and have to make the rest by hand? Have you been to a protest where some group or another was not handing out signs to people? If not you should really go to some better protests.
Neither group at that protest was astroturf in itself. What makes the opponents of health care reform astroturf is the fact that groups behind them, like Americans for Prosperity or Conservatives for Patients' rights (run by Rick Scott, implicated in the greatest Medicare fraud scheme of all time, whose United Healthcare paid $1.7 BILLION as settlement) all stand to profit either fiscally or professionally from their opposition to health care.
Organizing for America stands to make no profit. I'm not getting paid and I'm a Regional Data Manager as well as a Communications Coordinator. Also, the leadership of these groups is predominantly composed of Republican operatives, former Republican congressional staffers, right-wing talk show hosts, and Republican PR/Marketing executives.
Don't believe me? Check out the American Liberty Alliance. They're the ones sending Joe the Plumber on a cross-country bus trip. Examples:
-Corrine Williams, Communications
corrine@americanlibertyalliance.com
* http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corrine-williams/9/…
* former Policy Analyst at House Republican Policy Committee
* former Senior Policy Analyst at the American Medical Association
* Former legislative asst. for Congressman Adam Putnam
-Amy Hagerstrom, Director of Operations
amy@americanlibertyalliance.com
* http://www.norc-us.org/
* 'Leader' at North Oakland Republican Club (Michigan)
* PR Manager, Azure Strategies
* founder of the Michigan chapter of Americans for Prosperity
* Worked for Ron Paul campaign
With respect,
Alex Brant-Zawadzki
Organizing for America
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the congress can pass a bill that gives universal/single payer/government run health care. just read Art. 1, Sect 8, — and before you give me the “… general Welfare of the United States.”, that refers to the federal government's functioning and not womb to the tomb hand holding. The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness is NOT a guarantee of success!
p.publius@yahoo.com
http://www.amconparty.org
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Wow. This has been on TWI's front page for a couple days, and all it's gotten is four comments, including this one. I guess Soros needs to buy ads on other sites in order to get some visitors to this site or something.
Meanwhile, here's my take on the meeting.
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
That's some high caliber arguing going on there…
“I want health care for my sick mother”
“Then go hunt wolves!” *high fives buddy*
But fun to read the reporting on it.
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 1:33 am
Last year alone 22,000 Americans died because they didn't have healthcare. That number rose by 4,000 from the previous year because the premiums continue to rise as well. Where is the outrage? If 22 people get shot on a campus, the outrage is everywhere, but when 22,000 die from cancer or some other disease that could have been detected early and treated cheaper and easier, no one notices or cares! Where's the outrage? The GOP and thier conservative bretheren simply see healthcare as a privilege and not a right! That is the disconnect! If healthcare were passed today, about 100,000 more Americans will die before it is put in place! Ironically I guarantee many Republicans will be among them!
Comment posted August 30, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Wake Up America! The stimulus hid ominous healthcare provisions. Information technology providers from ambitious startups to the behemoth GE have been waiting for the opportunity to grab a big piece of the health care dollar in America. They found their perfect partner in the federal government this year. In the innocent guise of cost savings, the Obama Administration has plans to use computerized health information to gain federal control over all of health care. This is no hyperbole. This very significant health legislation was hidden, placed quietly within the stimulus bill (rather than including it in other health care reforms being discussed). This was a reckless and dishonorable move, in my estimation. See if you agree.
The legislation compels physicians and other healthcare providers to adopt information systems which must be comprehensive enough to satisfy ill-defined future standards of the federal government. If providers don’t do this, they will be fined incrementally until they do. As a “carrot”, the legislation suggests a general goal of partially reimbursing physicians for computerization costs (in several years) if they meet an arbitrary “meaningful use” threshold for computerization. The vagueness is no doubt intentional. In fact, the government clearly states that it plans to tighten the standard over time until all aspects of care are computerized. With the federal government already being involved in payment of over 46% of healthcare funding, changes in government standards will soon apply to all health care in this country. The law acknowledges that all Americans will be affected. Our government will claim and receive unconstrained access to our personal health information. Once this standard is set, the private insurance sector will utilize it and take advantage of the power of personal data collection. One breech of such a system could compromise private information for millions of us. And, as some have already experienced, there is no recovery from a breach of health information.
Given the boldness of the Administration, certain that the computerization of health care is necessary (especially with the inherent security risks), certainly there must be excellent evidence that such pressure should be put on health care providers to computerize all of our personal health care information. Well, take a look at the conclusion paragraph of the “Meaningful Use Workgroup” report to the Health IT Committee of the federal government as recently as June of 2009 (long after the stimulus bill with health IT provisions was passed).
“In identifying potential criteria for “meaningful use” of an electronic health record, it became apparent that there are considerable gaps in EHR-generated measures available to monitor key desired policy outcomes, (e.g., efficiency, patient safety, care coordination). While these measures will not be required for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments until 2013 , the Workgroup is seeking feedback on how to best frame these measures including measurement of key public health conditions, measuring health care efficiency, and measuring the avoidance of certain adverse events. These comments will be used to help revise the recommended measurement strategy to include more extensive and refined outcome measures for “meaningful use” in 2013 and beyond.”
In fact, they have no idea if or how this huge undertaking will benefit our health care. Essentially, the message is, you are required to give us your health care information…we don’t know whether we need it, or if we can use it, but don’t forget we can also do what we want with your information later (if we decide it is for the greater good). They make no mention of any serious potential drawbacks, risks, or potential unintended consequences of this regulation. Nonetheless, be assured, healthcare providers will be spending their own money (costs passed on to us, of course), putting our health information, mine and yours, on a centralized IT network in short order.
We have all heard the big selling point on health care computerization that it will save money.
The Congressional Budget Office, the most trusted entity for objective government spending predictions, projects that these new health provisions will result in INCREASED cost, not decreased. Dr. John Halamka, Chief Information Officer at Harvard Medical School and supporter of computerization said in an NPR interview that this will require at least 200,000 new IT jobs (adding cost to our health care). Now that’s stimulus!
Earlier in the same report cited above, the stated priorities being used to form the “framework for meaningful use” of an electronic record were the following:
… Among these priorities were patient engagement, reduction of racial disparities, improved safety, increased efficiency, coordination of care, and improved population health.
Cost, the most obvious and urgent need of our health care system is not emphasized at all. That’s because objective opinion is that costs will go UP. No statistics or actual evidence of the claimed benefits of this project are mentioned in the report. Instead the report speaks in general terms about its utopian “north star” (or ultimate goal) of improved access, elimination of disparities, real-time access, and tools to help insure the quality and safety…. We all want to have fairness and to reduce disparity in care. This and reducing cost are the obvious and urgent needs of our health care system in this country. Unfortunately, that’s not what this legislation is about.
You will want to look at the most shocking and unconscionable plans of this administration. Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD, the brother of Rahm Emmanuel (President Obama’s Chief of Staff) is Obama’s “Special Advisor for Health Policy”. It is reasonable to believe that his opinions and advice are close to those of the President. Dr. Emmanuel is not silent on his opinions.
Emmanuel recently authored an article in the medical journal Lancet describing how health care can and should be rationed. The article is, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” He makes no bones about the fact that he believes health care should be rationed not on need and consent, but rather based on what has been called the “complete lives system” (already sounds like a euphemism, doesn’t it?). He believes scarce resources for health care should be rationed based on principles such as:
• Young adults get priority for scarce or expensive treatments.
• Those with a good prognosis (the healthiest) get priority for scarce or expensive treatments.
• Others should receive scarce or expensive treatments based on a lottery system.
• Resources should be used to save the most lives possible.
To call this socialized medicine is generous. He acknowledges that we are not quite ready to follow these principles, suggesting that with coming changes in the health care system, this policy of rationing is desired and recommended. But, since when are humans fit to make the judgment that one man at age 35 is more valuable than one at 65? How does one judge disabled people against those who are not. What about people who are high functioning with multiple medical problems? Should they have less access to necessary treatments? The results of such rationing will necessarily result in arbitrary and bad decisions causing physical harm and demoralization to many and a collective crisis of conscience for our society. In the future, no doubt, we would regret ever having started such thinking. In fact, were this principle to be suggested in Germany (even being a rather liberal society itself), surely eugenics and the Nazi years would come to mind and prevent any consideration of this scheme whatsoever. This is plain lunacy. Social engineering presumes that humans can and should control the destiny of those who may not be useful for the goals of a society. Who of us will be the undesirables and who has the audacity to start this ball rolling down this slippery slope. Apparently your present government, that’s who. Political leaders; you are intelligent, you are attorneys, you are educated. History tells us, this is NOT a good idea.
So, to where does all of this lead us. Well, for sure we are headede for a computerized health care system where all information, all diagnoses, all vices, all family history (eventually all genetic information) will be accessible in seconds to those deemed authorized to obtain it. Given this access to data, as I remarked, The Special Advisor for Health Care to this Administration clearly states that we should ration care in a way which does not respect the dignity of individuals. The government will decide for us who we will let down. The unintended consequences will be unimaginable (and unpredictable) today, but necessarily we will see a devaluation of some segments of our society in all aspects of life. I don’t think any of us will want our children to have to live in that world. It’s as simple as that.
Most of us surely believe that we should pursue tirelessly the availability of healthcare for all. In fact, in our new President, Barack Obama, we have hoped for him to have proposals he promised which could serve to cover all of us and better contain costs. Unfortunately, without communicating with the people, without debate, serious (and likely irreversible) health legislation was passed, placed with quiet calculation into the stimulus bill. The urgency of the banking crisis was a perfect distraction for sneaking through this significant health legislation. Few of us were aware that this had occurred. For whatever reason, major media sources have also clearly dropped the ball on this story.
Wake up America! Control of your health is slipping away from you, your family, and your doctor.
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 6:52 am
P_Publius,
Good point, but nowhere in there does it say that Congress can't.
Mark,
Why the novel? Just say you don't want it. It's irrelevant anyway. H.R.3200 is dead on arrival. Your worst fears are about to be realized- public option or single-payer is the way to go. The Obstructicans have forced the hand. You'll see.
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am
P_Publius has no good point at all. Here's the text of the Preamble to our Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Nowhere, as is claimed, are the words “general Welfare of the United States,” and it's quite clear, at least to me, that the Preamble refers, repeatedly, to people (We, the People, ourselves, our Posterity), and not to any government except that which the Constitution means to establish.
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 2:32 am
In Canada we have universal health care. It isn't perfect but 80% of Canadians like it. Abortion is legal & the govt. doesn't ration or tell us what procedures we can get. That is decided by our doctor. It's curious how the crazies at the town halls want govt. off of their bodies. I'm glad that you progressed to giving women the right to choose an abortion.
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 2:39 am
Even though I live in Canada, I studied The Constitution many years ago. In The Constitution the people in Congress are supposed to represent Americans – not insurance companies. Please come visit us in Canada where we have universal health care. Our economy is small but our recession is over. At the end of The National Anthem is, “Land of the free and home of the brave.” There's nothing brave about letting American become sick & die without health insurance. I love American history.
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 2:43 am
Think about a family of four. Think about what they're paying for health insurance. Think about the money they save even with universal health insurance. Put that money into the malls across the country. Now that's a stimulus plan I like. The fact that I have universal health coverage has enabled me to invest in stocks in your country as well as mine. Who says a govt. program can't be capitalistic?
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
wtaguy,
I should have clarified, it was article 1 section 8 I referred to. Of course the Preamble lays it out clearly, that's why I said that there wasn't any reason why Congress can't pass a bill. It's all desperate legal sophistry.
woonsocket,
“Who says a govt. program can't be capitalistic?” Our healthcare Insurance Industry. They cry “no competition”, but that's exactly what they DON”T want. Their monolithic system is all that matters. What's so heinous is they spend 1.4M. every day, to crush the reform movement. Imagine if they were to spend THAT on the patients they're allowing to suffer and/or die here. Of course, you know this already, having a system that brings respect and dignity to those who most need it.
Comment posted September 3, 2009 @ 3:19 am
monkey99,
Thanks for the clarification. I've had so many conversations with people who refuse to consider even the possibility of this interpretation.
woonsocket,
Thank you, too. I've been to Canada several times over the years (starting with Expo '67!), and I've never been disappointed.
Comment posted September 3, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
wtaguy,
After reading it again, I did find something in Article 1, Section 8 that actually does say something that possibly bolsters the Preamble argument, unless I'm reading it wrong. It says: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department thereof”.
It's the “and all other powers vested by this Constitution” part that interests me. What do you think?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
