Happening now: Health-care forum jams 34th DDs’ meeting

We are at The Hall of Fauntleroy along with a HUGE crowd. The buzz started as soon as the 34th District Democrats announced that U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott would join their scheduled forum on health-care reform, during the regular monthly meeting. Outside the hall and inside, we’ve seen sign-holding demonstrators touting various positions in the debate – from “single payer” to “government stay out.” So far, it’s been peaceful although spirited – including a loud ovation for Rep. McDermott as he walked in (some boos, but they were all but drowned out). We will post updates as this happens. Not only is this “standing room only,” it’s “sitting on the floor” room only. Dr. Lisa Plymate is introducing the Congressmember now. Follow our Twitter feed for in-a-flash photos and updates too.

7:25 PM UPDATE: Rep. McDermott is speaking. He says, “This is a war … a war over whether the American people can have health security and economic security.” He says the opponents are the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and he says their profits are the reason why. Many people here in the hall are murmuring “Yes!” as he speaks, something like a rollicking evangelical church service. He says he believes a bill with a “good public option” will emerge from the House of Representatives (he supports what’s known as “single payer”). Now he’s taking questions.

7:43 PM UPDATE: Still lively but not too much tension. Rep. McDermott has blamed insurance and pharmaceutical companies for “the opposition you’re seeing around the country,” and one man in the back yelled THAT’S A LIE! He also said that the House may not abide by the “deals made in the White House” with those industries. One woman asked, “What can we do to get single-payer back on the table?” and McDermott said, “I wish I had a good answer for that.”

7:56 PM: Rep. McDermott is done speaking. Now a rep from Washington Public Campaigns is speaking about publicly financed campaigns. Some of the crowd is dispersing now that McDermott’s portion of the health-care discussion is over (we can hear much discussion happening out in the hall and spilling out onto the sidewalk outside the hall). McDermott says he’ll have an “open meeting” in the area in September. The public-campaign advocate is tying health-care reform to campaign-financing reform, saying publicly financed candidates can “stand up” to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

*The meeting continues – we will only update if anything major happens – otherwise, watch for our full writeup later.

31 Replies to "Happening now: Health-care forum jams 34th DDs' meeting"

  • Cami August 12, 2009 (8:02 pm)

    Thanks for the coverage, Tracy!

  • J.S. August 12, 2009 (9:01 pm)

    It would be nice if Mr McDermott would be willing to stand in front of a crowd that will ask him tougher questions than he probably got tonight. Blaming insurance and drug companies for the “protestors” is a copout pure and simple! I don’t agree with this healthcare proposal. I don’t work for either industry. I’m just tired of having another unwanted, expensive program forced on me at the speed of light! Doesn’t anyone else care that our “government” has spent or promised to spend TRILLIONS of dollars over the past 7 months already???? Our country can’t continue to support this deficit spending, which is even greater than the prior administration! So many questions, so many angry people around the country, and yet there’s this rush to get it done ASAP. It seems like they’re thinking “let’s get it done before “they” figure out what we’re doing”. Mr. McDermott, take a time out!

  • JanS August 12, 2009 (9:14 pm)

    This administration, JS, is cleaning up what the previous admin. screwed up. Unfortunately, that takes money sometimes. Do I like the hole that we’re in? NO. Do I hear anyone even saying anything about how the previous admin. screwed up this country? NO. Where were you then? These are tough times , for sure. I haven’t given up on our president or our country. We will come back from this, and it will be a better country because of it.

  • JamminJ August 12, 2009 (9:26 pm)

    “I’m just tired of having another unwanted, expensive program forced on me at the speed of light!”

    well, I’m tired of paying for tax cuts for the rich, tired of paying for unwanted wars, tired of paying for higher insurance rates for less service. “forced” – I sure don’t remember voting for several wars. We had an election last Nov., remember that, and what was promised was reformed health care, and people voted for the person and congress to make it happen, its not forced, it was voted on last year by the people of this country.

    And as far as ASAP, how many more decades are we going to deal with this topic? ASAP my a$$, couldn’t come quick enough.

  • JanS August 12, 2009 (9:32 pm)

    JamminJ…thanks :)

  • Trick August 12, 2009 (10:43 pm)

    heheheh…JamminJ has my vote.

  • flossdaily August 13, 2009 (12:00 am)

    It’s disgustingly convenient how Republicans sit idle for 8 years while a President bankrupts our great nation and starts an illegal war. He digs the country into a financial quagmire, and 8 months into our new President’s term they fly out of their seats blaming him for our nation’s state of the union.

    The health care debate’s a great excuse for Republicans to protest and let loose their battle cry – “smaller government!” or “less spending!” – it’s sadly hysterical because Bush grew our government to unprecedented proportions (and Republicans stayed quiet). Moreover, Bush spent our money uncontrollably with his 6-year rubber stamp congress (and Republicans stayed quiet).

    Somehow Republicans have THE NERVE to blame it all, everything, on Mr. Obama? Seriously? And comparing him to Hitler, and our country to Nazi Germany?? 8 months into his term it’s his fault (conveniently forgetting it was Bush who started the bailouts).

    I digress, let’s pass health care and pass it now. Anyone who’s been without health insurance knows how critical this is – we can’t let our fellow countrymen and women keep dying in emergency room waiting areas, and receiving sub-par care which results in lives devoid of quality and mired in pain.

  • Danno August 13, 2009 (12:00 am)

    So, JanS,

    Just exactly what did the “previous administration” do that needs fixing in the health care arena that warrants this ‘we must do this now, or else’ approach. BTW we had an election, which BO won by not much, but there was not a vote on this subject, so just because he got elected does not give him carte blanche. So if the anger of the real silent majority bothers you, then too bad, do something real about it.

  • JamminJ August 13, 2009 (12:27 am)

    “what did the “previous administration” do that needs fixing in the health care arena that warrants this ‘we must do this now, ”

    NOTHING, that is what the previous administration did (or didn’t do), when it came to health care for its citizens.

    “which BO won by not much”
    Electoral vote O:365 M:173
    sorry, but thats an a^^ kicking when it comes to current politics.

    “so just because he got elected does not give him carte blanche.”

    sure doesn’t, but he ran on health care reform and the majority of this country desires and wants this change. The minority, republican,s had a chance to address this when they were in charge, but they were satisfied with HMO’s profit and the lack of care to the US citizens, so people made a choice, time for change that the previous administration was unwilling to do.

    “real silent majority”????? where were they last Nov???

  • Freind ODingus August 13, 2009 (4:35 am)

    And can you only imagine the state of affairs we would be in if the Republican plan for privatizing Social Security had been allowed to pass? We must have health care reform now, and it must include at the minimum a public option for coverage. Let’s make it happen!
    Oh and WTG Jammin. I love your thoughts on this one!

  • Ken August 13, 2009 (4:42 am)

    It goes back to Nixon: Bush canceled any effect the “free market” might have had on prescription drug prices by not allowing medicaid to negotiate like every other government on the planet for lower prices.

    John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”
    President Nixon: “Yeah.”
    Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”
    President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”
    Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”
    President Nixon: “All right.”
    Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”
    President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
    Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
    President Nixon: [Unclear.]
    Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
    President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
    Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
    President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”
    Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”
    President Nixon: [Unclear.]
    Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”
    President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]
    Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”
    President Nixon: “Not bad.”

    The preceding transcription is from the University of Virginia for the clearest possible presentation (pathway discovered by Vickie Travis). Check – February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm – 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c

  • Smitty August 13, 2009 (7:10 am)

    1) 47% of the country voted against BO.

    2) The D’d have 60 votes. Pas it, and live with the consequences.

    3) Bush NEVER proposed “privatizing” social security. Ha wanted to allow workers under a certain age to invest a “small portion” into the market. People say it as though all ages would have been 100% “all-in” the market.

    4) ‘Tax cuts for the rich” is a lie. Income taxes were MORE “progressive” (a liberal favorite) under Bush after his tax cuts were implemented. Look it up.

    5) Why was protesting Bush policies “patriotic duty” but protesting BOs is racist or bigoted? Code Pink rules.

  • Danno August 13, 2009 (7:55 am)

    Right on Smitty

  • JamminJ August 13, 2009 (8:46 am)

    “47% of the country voted against BO.”

    You’re point being? 48% voted against Bush in 2004. And Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Yet Bush touts that he had a ‘mandate’ after winning his second term. 10M more people voted for Obama in 08, there’s your mandate.

  • Kayleigh August 13, 2009 (9:07 am)

    Okay, all of you who are against health care reform can give up your rights to Medicaid or Medicare right now. Forever.
    .
    And give up your rights to any health care program touched by the government right now. Forever.
    .
    And you can roll the dice with whatever insurance program your employer may or may not offer (which is guranteed NOT to be enough coverage.)
    .
    Don’t have an employer? Buy pathetic expensive private coverage, if you can get it.
    .
    Can’t afford private insurance? Tough luck–you’re on your own.
    .
    Now can the rest of us have a reasonable discussion as to the best solution?

  • JamminJ August 13, 2009 (9:36 am)

    “‘Tax cuts for the rich” is a lie. Income taxes were MORE “progressive” (a liberal favorite) under Bush after his tax cuts were implemented.”

    People earn money by more than just wage income.

    “President Bush’s tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.”

    “Congressional Budget Office estimated that making the investment tax cuts permanent would cost the government $197 billion”

  • lg August 13, 2009 (10:06 am)

    well put, Kayleigh & JamminJ!

  • KSJ August 13, 2009 (10:35 am)

    It’s all fine for people who are healthy and employed with good insurance to think that we shouldn’t have anything to fix here. But wait until you get sick, seriously sick, and then take away your insurance and see how you feel about it.

    Right now insurance companies can deny you for preexisting conditions. That needs to change. People who don’t have insurance are waiting to go to the doctor because they can’t afford it while their illnesses get worse – that has to change. There needs to be an easy and affordable way for everyone to have good insurance, and it needs to include wellness care, not just critical care. The USA should not be among the worst insured countries in the world, that is backwards and unethical.

  • OP August 13, 2009 (11:04 am)

    well, I’m tired of paying for tax cuts for the rich,

    You don’t pay tax cuts for the rich. Your taxes—and the poor’s taxes—decreased under the Bush tax cuts.

    …tired of paying for unwanted wars

    Nobody wants a war, but sometimes wars comes to you. And if you want to piss and moan about how the Iraq War wasn’t necessary, fine. But that argument was over 6 years ago, and now our troops are slowly being brought home from it or put into action in the “real” war in Afghanistan Oh, and BTW, those wars a mere pittance compared to the current drunken-sailor spending spree of Prez O.

    …tired of paying for higher insurance rates for less service.

    Shop better.

    I sure don’t remember voting for several wars.

    You never get to vote on those for good reason. And it’s two wars, not several. And I thought you libs “approved” of the Afghan (front) war.

    …remember that, and what was promised was reformed health care, and people voted for the person and congress to make it happen…

    Get it straight, please. Everyone wants reforms in health care—yes, even we evil, heartless Republicans. But each of the 3 outlandish, detail-less and financially ruinous proposals do nothing—nothing!—to reduce the cost of health care, let alone create the conditions for better overall health care. Oh, and none of the proposals are “deficit neutral” by a long shot.

    For JanS:

    This administration, JS, is cleaning up what the previous admin. screwed up.

    Bull. Obama isn’t cleaning it up; he’s making it worse. He’s quadrupuled the deficit; increased gov’t spending; and innreased taxes under “cap and trade” eco-scam that will eventually hit the middle class in the form of an indirect and hidden energy tax—unless you believe the eneergy companies will just suck up the losses and not pass along the costs to you the consumer. And if HR 3200 is passed even remotely in its present form, it will virtually guarantee taxes will increase across the board. All of it hindering growth, retarding job gains and slowing the recovery.

    And while we’re busy passing blame around—of which the Bush Admin. deserves plenty for its very un-conversative spending and for not more adamently pursuing its financial regulation proposals—let’s not conveniently forget two big players: Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Sen. Chris Chris Dodd, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. These two hapless chuckleheads with deep ties toe Fannie and Freddie, played key roles in the financial crisis. They repeatedly resisted or ignored the fact that F&F were overleveraged and resisted attempts to regulate them like other financial insitutions. And it wasn’t until 2008, a solid 3 years after Dodd threatened a filibuster on the legislation, and with help from Frank calling F&F “financially sound” and ‘not broke’ and further hindering the bill, did the regulation finally pass. All too damn late. And where is the call for their heads? Hmm? Tell me. I’d really like to know. Or maybe you’d just like to live in the same little fantasy world that Obama does and still pretend “it’s all Bush’s fault.”

    BTW: When exactly does it becomes Obama’s economy and not Bush’s? When things get better? Now wouldn’t that be convenient….

  • JamminJ August 13, 2009 (11:38 am)

    “Everyone wants reforms in health care—yes, even we evil, heartless Republicans.”

    uh huh, thats why there were all those proposals when bush and congress had control.

  • JamminJ August 13, 2009 (11:54 am)

    “played key roles in the financial crisis. They repeatedly resisted or ignored the fact that F&F were overleveraged and resisted attempts to regulate them like other financial insitutions.”
    .
    oh please, it wasn’t Fannie and Freddie that caused the mortgage disaster. Compared to the private institutions they carried only 24% of the sub-prime mortgages, enough to cause them trouble, but only a small part of the overall meltdown. Their sub-prime holdings actually decreased during the sub-prime mania.
    .
    “resisted attempts to regulate them like other financial insitutions”
    .
    LOL, what regulations on ‘other financial institutions’??? Almost all of the sub-prime mortgages were being lent by private institutions (not govt. backed companies like F&F). There was NO regulation dictating underwriting of all the sub-prime mortgages being sold. In fact, F&F had to deal with more regulation than those counterparts in the private sector.

  • PlaneGuy August 13, 2009 (3:56 pm)

    I *heart* 34 Double Dees

  • WSB August 13, 2009 (4:04 pm)

    I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that joke. Certainly open to suggestions for alternative abbreviations. Maybe 34th Dems and give up the district …

  • Eddie August 13, 2009 (4:08 pm)

    Are there any other 12 year olds that snicker when they read that Dr. Lisa Plymate introduced the 34DD’s?

    I mean, really.

    Trader Joes.

  • WSB August 13, 2009 (4:11 pm)

    You’ll be here all week.

  • OP August 13, 2009 (4:51 pm)

    What we have here is a reading comprehension issue, JamminJ—specifically yours. I said “played a key role”, and they undeniably did play a key role—even more specifically, a key role in the subprime lending fiasco.

    As for your 24% number, that number represents F&F’s growth between 2005 and 2008. And they still owned nearly HALF the mortgages in the US. If your number is equating to something else, provide a link. (My source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626_2.html:

    Their sub-prime holdings actually decreased during the sub-prime mania.

    Bull. Again, read the link. They only slowed down when it was too late (2006, when the “only” purchased” $90 billion in SBSPL; prior to that had purchased a half trillion in SBSPL) By 2008, F&F were knee-deep in the shit, owning $5.1 trillion in residential mortages—nearly half of all US mortgages.

    LOL, what regulations on ‘other financial institutions’???

    First, don’t be naive and flip and act like regulations on banks and lending instutions somehow don’t or didn’t exist prior to this. Second, F&F received tax incentives from the fed to purchase mortgage backed securiteis and did so with impunity and without regulation. Thrid, F&F are not subject to state and federal taxes UNLIKE private institutions. As for regulating F&F, well, they had scant few to account for until 2008. Again, too late.

    In fact, F&F had to deal with more regulation than those counterparts in the private sector.

    No, F&F had to deal with and meet federally mandated “requirements”. But requirements are NOT the same thing as regulation.

    There was NO regulation dictating underwriting of all the sub-prime mortgages being sold.

    True. And who’s resposnisbility is it watch the housing market and recognize and be aware of potential problems? that’s right: House Financial Services, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. And what did they do about it? Filibuster regulation and make excuses.

  • What? August 13, 2009 (7:00 pm)

    My favorite repeating incident, … and I’m being sarcastic;
    When you have a job with health care, you have a stroke, or heart attack, it doesn’t kill you. In two months when you can come back, the job fires you. You loose your health care. I’ve seen this happen to 15 people at my job. Then because you have a “Pre-existing condition” you can’t get ANY health care of any kind until you do jump through hoops and in a year, you might get to be Medicare. Fun huh?
    We don’t need any reform?
    I guess it’s fine just the way it is.
    Don’t change a thing one way or the other. Just keep it exactly as it is now. It’s working so well eh?

  • J.S. August 13, 2009 (9:34 pm)

    I like all the discussion and passion (and stupidity) my first comment generated! Of you fans of the current health care reform bill, how many have tried reading the 1,100 page bill????? I assume most of you haven’t. Well, here’s a link to it: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf. After page 20 I was amazed at what they’re proposing! This will create another federal agency, like the IRS, with a “Health Choices Commissioner” appointed by none other than Obama himself! Budget neutral? Right! Who thinks the IRS is efficient? Who over 40 that knows better thinks the VA Healthcare is efficient? Who thinks ANY government agency is run efficiently? And know you put your trust in THEM to provide YOUR healthcare? Are you awake? If you’re older than 17, what federal program have you EVER trusted? Don’t you trust yourself more than the Federal Government????? Take responsibility for yourself!

  • EC August 13, 2009 (10:36 pm)

    There is a lot of bashing of government here, which is not surprising because government is an easy target, however the current financial crisis is another failure of private banking. Most economists believe that the government bailout, as unpleasant as it seems, prevented the crisis from becoming much worse that it was.

    I also like the irony of OP blaming the crisis on lack of government regulation, because I’m sure OP has always supported more govenment regulation.

  • I love Karl Marx August 14, 2009 (11:52 am)

    Che loves big government! Therefore, us ObamaBots want what Che wants!

  • OP August 14, 2009 (3:00 pm)

    I also like the irony of OP blaming the crisis on lack of government regulation, because I’m sure OP has always supported more govenment regulation.

    Don’t present strawmans as you have NO idea about my views on gov’t regulation and de-regulation.

Sorry, comment time is over.