Iowa Town Hall Tamer Than in (Kiss My) Massachusetts

I attended a health care "Town Hall" meeting yesterday morning on the University of Iowa campus in Iowa City, led by local US Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-IA). In fact, you may have spotted me afterward holding the door for Mr Loebsack as we exited MacBride Hall (where the event took place) and stepped out into the beautiful Pentacrest section of campus. (Sure, we didn't talk, but it was still the closest I've come to rubbing shoulders with a "major" politician since shaking hands with the now-disgraced John Edwards in 2004.)

While leaving the meeting, I overheard an older gentleman remark that the forum was "more raucous" than he expected. In contrast, I found the atmosphere to be considerably more civil than I anticipated—an impression undoubtedly colored by footage I'd seen from a similar Town Hall held last Tuesday in brumepelstiltskin's home state of Massachusetts (led by US Rep Barney Frank, D-MA). Take a look at the video:


Besides this Daily Show segment (and a similar YouTube clip), I also caught about 30 min of unedited coverage replayed the other night on C-SPAN. (That's right, I was watching C-SPAN for fun. Do you wanna fight about it?) What struck me most about the MA Town Hall were that the audience's questions (at least the ones that I saw) almost invariably revealed skepticism, fear, and/or opposition to health care reform; and also the frequency with which audience members booed or otherwise interrupted Mr Frank while he attempted to respond to said questions.

In comparison, the atmosphere yesterday in Iowa City was less charged, presumably in part because the local community is predominantly sympathetic to health care reform. That said, there were certainly some fireworks in MacBride Hall, mostly in the form of audience members of different persuasions yelling at each other during questions. But while there were plenty of derisive hoots—and at least one rather spirited cry of "Socialism!"—I didn't spot any pictures of Barack (or should I say Adolph?) Obama sporting a Hitler mustache, and Mr Loebsack was for the most part given polite deference when speaking.

In regard to the meeting's actual content, I felt that Mr Loebsack's tone fostered a positive dialogue, and that his responses effectively addressed many of the misleading/false claims circulating about issues like euthanasia (the bill would neither set up "death panels", nor mandate end-of-life counseling sessions for seniors); a "government takeover" of health care (a public option would not replace private insurance); health care "rationing" (he cited an American Medical Association statement that "the bill would not ration care"); and the bill's potential effects on small businesses (an amendment proposed by conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats would exempt companies with payrolls below $500K from paying for government-sponsored health care).

To be critical, there were instances in which Loebsack's responses could have been more transparent, including his reply to the first audience question, which asked whether reform would entail government funding of abortion services. Loebsack's reply (that nothing in the bill would "mandate" coverage for abortion) echoes similar comments by President Obama, but according to the non-partisan website Factcheck.org (article here), Loebsack's and Obama's statements only convey a sort of partial truth:

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president [and Loebsack are] right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.

Loebsack also lacked detail when replying to concerns about how reform would be paid for (to paraphrase, he basically said that a public option would initially be paid for by taxpayers, but eventually by individual premiums—similar to private health care plans). Out of all the opposition I've heard voiced about reform, it's the concerns about how to pay for it that strike me as by far the most compelling. To help restore lagging public support for reform, the President and Congress would be wise to better target unease about the price tag.

Lastly, dear readers, if you have anything to say about the issue, please share your thoughts!