×

Protesting in Dunkirk

Reed gets earful regarding House’s healthcare vote during visit

Rep. Tom Reed entered Saturday’s town hall meeting to jeers and exited an hour later to chants of “vote him out” as the overwhelming majority of attendees in the packed room at Dunkirk’s Fire Station No. 1 remained unpersuaded by Reed’s explanations for his support of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which narrowly passed by the House of Representatives (217-213) this past Thursday.

Unlike Reed’s colleague, Rep. Chris Collins, who had admitted on CNN that he did not read the AHCA before voting on it, Reed not only assured the vocal crowd that he had read the over 200 page document, “I brought a copy with me.”

Reed told the audience that part of the reason for holding these town hall meetings — he held two more following the one in Dunkirk — is to correct what he called “misinformation” about the AHCA, especially regarding state waivers for preexisting conditions, a controversial element many have reported will result in millions losing health insurance coverage.

“There’s nothing in the law that removes the preexisting condition reform,” Reed insisted. “There’s nothing in this law that does that.”

Under the Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as Obamacare — which the AHCA seeks to replace) insurers are required to charge people the same rates, regardless of preexisting conditions and health status. Reed emphasized repeatedly that the AHCA will keep those same protections, and that they will not be affected by state waivers.

If anything, Reed said, the waivers allow states to improve on health care and health coverage.

Among other things, the waivers allow states to define “essential health benefits” and “preexisting conditions” separately from the federal government, reportedly allowing states to charge sicker people more for insurance coverage gaps.

Rather than weakening healthcare, Reed insisted such waivers will give individual states the opportunity to “come up with innovative new proposals that deal with preexisting conditions that show they can do it better. The essential health benefits are still in the legislation.”

Waivers won’t be given out simply upon a simple request, Reed said, but must be approved by the Department of Health and Human Services with such approval only being granted if the state can show improvement over the federal design.

“They have to demonstrate that they’re doing it better, that they’re doing healthcare better for their people in the state,” Reed said.

When asked about the criteria for a state to be granted waivers, Reed said “(States) are to show that they are driving premiums down, that they are providing health care to more folks and they are doing it in a way that’s going to provide more access to care, not less access.”

Despite his support of the waivers, Reed said, “I don’t envision New York state doing this, nor do I see any state doing this.”

“Then, why have it?” many in the audience shouted in unison.

Reed replied by iterating the importance of state’s rights. “We have always supported having the ability to give flexibility to the states and the local districts. If South Carolina can address your issues better, why not give them the flexibility? Then you have the freedom to move to South Carolina.”

Reed’s statement triggered an immediate negative response from the audience, prompting one gentleman to ask Reed if he believed that healthcare is a human right.

Reed confirmed that he did, in stark contrast to Obamacare, which he noted is due for an increase in premiums.

“Healthcare is something we should champion, and promote and this is something that we should provide as a right to all Americans. How do we deliver healthcare to make sure that it’s here in American in perpetuity? The status quo does not achieve that as we speak. There is going to be a 40 percent increase to insurance premiums. That’s under the ACA, be prepared for it.”

A woman in the audience who identified herself as a college professor from Austria silenced the room as she described the differences between health care in Europe versus the United States.

“Healthcare providers in the U.S. charge outrageous amounts of money for healthcare,” she said. “People die in this country. It’s just a joke. It’s a joke how this rich country lets people die.”

When Reed asked the woman how healthcare is funded in Austria, the room erupted with the echoes of one distinct phrase: “Single payer.”

“We completely disagree with a single payer system,” Reed said. “That’s too much power in the government’s hands. I want more power in your hands.”

As for concerns raised about Medicaid recipients and small local hospitals, Reed assured the audience that the AHCA will continue to serve “our Medicaid patients and our sensitive populations. They get an enhanced reimbursement rate that’s scheduled to be cut under the ACA. We repealed that under our legislation. That was something very important to me, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars that were there.”

When asked about his position on women’s health, Reed began by criticizing Planned Parenthood.

“I have always been and continue to be someone who has not supported Planned Parenthood funding,” Reed said, explaining that he is a pro-life congressman. “That is why in the bill, we have put enhanced funding into healthcare providers, federal health centers, that we do have care in the district, and this funding will hopefully go to provide for women’s healthcare.”

Perhaps the most significant moment of the town hall meeting, in relaying the overall attitude of the crowd towards the AHCA, occurred when a woman in the center of the crowd stood up, drawing all eyes to her as she spoke with emotion and conviction:

“I am a type one diabetic, I am a cancer survivor. I pay one thousand dollars a month just for my insulin if I lose my insurance. We stood up at the start of this meeting and we said the pledge to the flag of the United States of America. Why should it matter what state I live in?”

She continued to speak but was completely drowned out by the extended applause from the crowd.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today