| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Crowd jams Sen. David Vitter's health care forum in Elmwood |
| 2009-08-11 |
| Constituents packed into a health care forum hosted by Sen. David Vitter today in Elmwood, where Vitter took audience questions mostly criticizing President Barack Obama's reform push and stated his own opposition to the plans. "I think there are problems and issues with the health care system that need improvement," Vitter said during the forum. "I want to focus specifically on those problems, and I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. I completely and unalterably oppose the Obama administration plan." Vitter said Obama's reforms - creating a new government health plan option that competes with private insurers - would drive companies out of the health care business, raise costs and result in government officials making health care decisions for people. The heated subject attracted such a crowd that all the seats were full, and people stood along the back and sides of the Jefferson Parish Council chambers at the Joseph S. Yenni Building. An overflow crowd even amassed outside the doors of the building and remained there throughout the session, holding a peaceful demonstration. Vitter began the forum by encouraging people to fill all available spaces in the room and apologizing for the lack of a larger venue. He said at the end that he would provide more opportunities for people to speak out. The Republican senator read audience questions submitted on speaker sheets and repeatedly agreed with questioners who raised numerous concerns about the reforms advanced by Obama, a Democrat. Similar forums hosted by Democratic legislators around the country have prompted fiery and controversial demonstrations. The audience at the Vitter event was spirited, but not protesting against the senator. Signs people held up outside the building also aligned with Vitter's views. Vitter said the proposed reforms will drive the number of uninsured or underinsured people even higher than current problematic levels by pushing some people out of private insurance plans or cutting existing Medicare programs that are serving them well. He said current counts of uninsured Americans often are exaggerated because they include illegal immigrants and young people who choose not to acquire insurance because they view health issues as remote problems. "If there is any so-called government option," Vitter said, "I believe it will be a very uneven playing field." Instead, he said he favors allowing small businesses to band together for group insurance at better rates than they currently receive, allowing people to obtain less expensive prescription drugs from other countries and cutting down on unnecessary and costly lawsuits. "Let's start cutting costs which have no benefits," he said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 Here is a video of Crowder getting the sh*t kicked out of him by the MOBS OF HEALTHCARE HATERS: (h/t Michelle Malkin) |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-08-11 14:27 |
| #3 Data released yesterday shows that 51% fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. Thirty-two percent (32%) favor a single-payer health care system for the U.S. while 57% are opposed. From the Rasmussen Presential Tracking Poll. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-08-11 12:56 |
| #2 We basically pay for the develop costs, both bearing the defrayed costs in our market and R&D tax write offs, of pharmaceuticals that other countries don't. However, that is the business plan by the companies. If you allowed Americans to freely import those same drugs from Canada, the companies would either cut the supply to Canada, bitch and moan to their owned and operated Congressmen to stop it now, or start spreading the cost to all customers [thus marginally reducing the costs to Americans]. So far, they've opted for plans one and two. Which gives those who want socialized medicine political influence in dealing with the 'evil' drug companies. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-08-11 08:54 |
| #1 small businesses to band together for group insurance at better rates than they currently receive, allowing people to obtain less expensive prescription drugs from other countries and cutting down on unnecessary and costly lawsuits. I agreed with that, until yesterday, when I read Steve White explain (I think) that Canadians do not pay for the development costs of drug? Did I get that right? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-08-11 06:53 |