Spokane7
60°
August 20, 2009 in City
Reform talk draws protest
McMorris Rodgers’ health discussion closed to public
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers speaks with the media Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2009.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)
While U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers travels across Eastern Washington discussing health care reform, one of her only stops in Spokane was a closed affair Wednesday in a Browne’s Addition church with invited members of two special-interest groups.
Across the street in Coeur d’Alene Park, nearly 200 people, organized by the liberal political action group MoveOn.org, rallied in support of a public health care option that McMorris Rodgers opposes.
“It is the biggest leverage we have to change private insurance practices,” said family nurse practitioner Hope Busto-Keyes of the public option, a proposed government-run insurance program, like Medicare, that would be open to anyone.
Busto-Keyes said she and her physician husband, both in private practice, pay about $1,300 a month for health insurance.
McMorris Rodgers spoke at All Saints Lutheran Church to about 50 people representing the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association and the AARP, the national advocacy group for people 50 and older.
Although the media were not allowed to attend, a few people who did said afterward that health care was the primary topic of discussion and that a woman in the audience who spoke in favor of the public option received the loudest applause.
MoveOn member Cynthia Hamilton questioned McMorris Rodgers’ decision not to hold an open meeting in the biggest city in the 5th Congressional District.
“I think she’s nervous about it. Everything on her Web site is right out of a Frank Luntz memo,” said Hamilton, referring to the conservative consultant who has advised Republicans on fending off health care reforms backed by Democrats.
In a news conference after the meeting, McMorris Rodgers said she favors health care reform but not government-run health care, which she believes would result in people fleeing private insurers by the millions.
She said Democrats are offering a “one-size-fits-all” plan that would come at the expense of Medicare.
As far as the 47 million uninsured in America, McMorris Rodgers said that number includes illegal immigrants and 18- to 35-year-olds who can afford insurance but just don’t bother.
One of those who attended the McMorris Rodgers event was Susie Seher, of Colbert, who recently lost her job with a small Spokane business that did not provide health insurance for its employees.
Seher said even after being laid off she managed to afford catastrophic insurance coverage for $175 a month. But after Group Health raised her rate by 43 percent, she had to drop it. Now she’s uninsured.
“That’s why I want a public option,” she said.
In a meeting with The Spokesman-Review editorial board on Wednesday – her other Spokane visit – McMorris Rodgers said she is often asked about health insurance provided to members of Congress. The federally funded system offers several choices. McMorris Rodgers chose Blue Cross/Blue Shield and pays $400 monthly for health coverage for herself and her 2-year-old son, and another $200 monthly for dental and vision care. She said she received better coverage when she was a member of the Washington Legislature.
Rights panel poorly understood 
Ninch on August 20 at 8:23 a.m.
Dental and vision care at $200/month? That is $2400/year. It would be smarter and cheaper to put that amount in a savings account.
BTW: Why are not Move-on demonstrators considered “astro-turf?”
schn6935 on August 20 at 9:14 a.m.
I am a conservative who attended this meeting and I was very surprised at the number of conservatives there who are in favor of the public option. At least half the room (remember all these folks received personal invitations because they love McMorris-Rogers) was very vocal in supporting the public option. There were a couple of folks from the rally across the street who got in, but she only called on the folks who were well-behaved. Eventually chaos broke out when it became clear that her own supporters were in an uproar about her stance on this. I have felt for a while that this is actually a conservative issue… we are in debt and our deficit will increase if we do not do something, so we need to reorganize our debt… refinance it if you will. We are paying for all of these exorbitant expenses for the uninsured and underinsured, so if we MUST do it, let’s do it SMARTER. Why do the Republican politicians not recognize this? This is SUCH a conservative ideal. Stop wasting our money. Period. Publicly fund an insurance option so that the premiums are affordable and then all of our costs will go down. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to pretend it is a government takeover or that it is the beginning of a nazi regime with death panels? No one sane really believes that, right? I hope the representative I have supported for so long will listen to what her own loyally Republican constituents want or I fear she will be voted out and I will be sorry for it. For the most part, I think she is a very conscientious representative and I have been proud to defend her. This time, though, she needs to stop listening to the RNC and start listening to us.
Dazzeetrader11 on August 20 at 10:09 a.m.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Postal service, etc.––> broke and insolvent. Do we really want the Government to manage a new health care program with it’s success rate?
It’s NOT a Republican or RNC issue. It’s an American issue. With the evidence at hand as to the success of the above listed agencies AND looking at Obama’s management style ( Government takeover of banking, GM, etc) is there any reason why we should support this poorly defined, unfinished health care plan?
I’m surprised that so many people are willing to trust the government plan when nobody has defined it. At least 3 different versions and each is changing quickly. Apparently some would sign a bill few have read or understand. Does this make sense? The devil you know might be better than the devil you don’t know.
jmay4767 on August 22 at 10:43 a.m.
In Kevin Graman’s column yesterday, I read how Coeur d’Alene Park was covered in astro-truf. Haven’t these “Move On” people been listening to what is actually in the House Bill? They’re only listening to the President and their union bosses, because they think they’re going to get something for nothing.
Everybody is hurting for money, but Rep.Henry Waxman (D-California), who wrote the medical insurance “reform” House bill, is going to save employers money on their health insurance if they opt into the government health plan by not taxing them 8% of their total payroll. What business is going to want to carry health insurance if it can dump the cost onto us, the taxpayers? Are you satisfied with your health plan? Too bad. The government plan is the only option after you loose your coverage because the proposed law won’t allow you to choose another private insurance company. Whatever happened to “freedom of choice” or even “freedom”?
If the elderly are the biggest users of health care, the government plan will save money by not treating the elderly. It makes sense. The picture with Graman’s article is very curious, because in saving money under Waxman’s bill, the government bureaucrats will assess people like the ones depicted in the photo according to their value to society (the productive years they have for the benefit of society), before the bureaucrats decide if they’re worth treating. This is just like the system your friendly neighbors to the north have where the survival rate for breast and prostate cancer is considerably less that in America. Besides, if we have government run health insurance, you’re going to loose a lot of revenue in medical tourism from Canada.
Some people are concerned that our nation is swimming in debt, and we should “refinance” our debt by using the government run health care to lower our total payments. This is cost cutting? Have you noticed how stamps get more expensive, yet the Post Office still can’t float on its own? Is Medicare or Social Security solvent? Some people should realize that this is a very bad “investment.”
People are angry when their private health insurer gives them the run-around, or cuts off their treatment, or raises their premiums. They’re angry at the cold, unresponsive insurance bureaucracy; and rightfully so. For now, however, there’s more than one insurance company whence to take their patronage. When the Single-payer Sugar Daddy gives its health dependents the short sheet, where are they going to go? Who they gonna call? Ghostbusters? Think freedom, liberty and independence!
There is so much more wrong with this legislation and the people behind it. Upon our path is the same tragic cowpie that Australia, Canada, Britain, and the rest of the European socialist governments stepped into. Pray that Providence and good common sense help us avoid it.