Not only did Sen. Specter pack Trout Auditorium, there was also standing room only for the simulcast in the Langone Center (where I was). The Williamsport Tea Baggers were out in force, but there were also plenty of pro-reform, pro-Obama people there as well. I heard that 25 of the 30 questions had a slant to the right (I didn't hear them all myself.) A typical question was What are you going to do to protect freedom and keep us from falling into total socialism?
In terms of policy clues from the senator's comments, he said that he wouldn't vote for any bill that adds to the deficit, and that he would like to see universal health coverage.
He didn't offer much insight into how to do both at once. He distanced himself from the House plan, and said that he wouldn't vote for any bill that included stuff like that. Given that the CBO estimates a cost of 1 trillion dollars over 10 years for the current House plan, it will have to change a great deal to get Sen. Specter's support, I gather.
When asked about whether doctors or bureaucrats should decide who lives or dies, he said that doctors should make the medical decisions, but that neither doctors nor bureacrats should get to decide who lives and dies. (I think he repeated that answer three times as the questioner repeated the question.)
I was surprised how a good part of the audience laughed derisively when a questioner stated that global warming is real and caused by human burning of fossil fuels. Clearly, these voters aren't having any of it, so there's no real ground to have a conversation about how to address the problem.
He suggested that there would be a health plan that covers abortions and one that doesn't--for those who don't want to pay into a plan that covers abortion. That didn't go over well, at least as I read the crowd response. Several questions came from young people asking why they should have to pay for the deficit that this generation is running up.
Any other impressions, comments, or ideas? Apparently, those first in line got first chance to ask a question. Overall, I was impressed by Arlen Specter's willingness to hold town halls and face the voters. There's obviously some good reasons why he's in politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Loren, excellent post! Great minds think alike... I hope you don't mind me posting on a similar theme.
To answer your question about the balance, I kept score, and slightly over half of the 30 questions came from conservatives (17) with the others being split between liberals/progressives (6) and people whose orientation I couldn't glean from their question (7).
Also, Loren, I think you may be falling into the common trap of confusing "cost" with "deficit." The CBO says the bill will "cost" $1T but it includes provisions (like tax changes) to help pay for itself. I don't know if the "net cost" is quite 0 yet, but my understanding is, it's not going to "add $1T to the deficit...."
I'll admit I don't know if any of these specific plans are in the current bills, but to my last point, here's 3 proposals of how to fund the healthcare bill:
http://www.ctj.org/payingforhealthcare/pa.pdf
Jove, you are correct about "cost" vs. "deficit. I looked back at some sources and the CBO cost estimate is $600B for the HELP bill and another $400B+ for Medicaid changes. These costs would be offset by savings in various places.
Still, I think we are a long way from claiming that this is deficit neutral in any of its current forms. In light of the trillions already spent on the Iraq War, Wall Street bailout, etc., this looks like money well spent, but the money is going to have to come from somewhere, and a lot of the savings are projections and can't be taken to the bank. In the end it may take an act of faith to enact a new system--over time it will be worth it if it leads to better health and a more flexible economy (e.g., people wouldn't be trapped into a job because of the health care benefits).
Agreed. I just wanted to point out the distinction.
Post a Comment