I Went to a Townhall Meeting in Iowa

Okay. Before you get started on this blog post, I will tell you that it will be long. But I do think you will enjoy it. So read on.

You have been hearing all the media bashing and hype about the "blowing of a few gaskets" and "overheating the engine" of some rather angry and non-contrite citizens taking place at these townhall meetings all around the country this past month. Senators and Representatives have been scouting out their territory (selectively so at times) and finding a variety of responses depending on who has or has not decided to attend.

Rural Iowa is a good testing ground for these sort of things. Traditional values, conservatism, aging population, small communities, small-town media, agricultural - well, you get the picture. And yes, Iowa does have that annoying gay marriage law - what with all this other value-laden stuff. Be that as it may, it was time to show up at one of these things.

This I did. Today at 12 noon I climbed in my car and nosed it to a townhall meeting just 15 miles from where I lived. It was held in a museum (with a gathering room that had space for 100 chairs). I quit counting heads when I reached 275. I didn't have a chair - but squeezed in between a couple of people with a polite, "excuse me."

Senator Chuck Grassley led this thing. Yes, that Senator from Iowa who is a Republican and a key negotiator in the quest for bipartisan health-care reform. He's all over the news and sometimes misaligned. He entered the meeting with some nice applause from the constituents.

Among other things that he said as a prelude to this townhall discussion before the "unplanned" questions was this important remark, "The outpouring of anger at town hall meetings this month has fundamentally altered the nature of the debate and convinced me that lawmakers should consider drastically scaling back the scope of the effort." Maybe that's good news - we'll see. And he added that he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to "a government takeover of health care."

It's in the news that he's been besieged by protesters all over the state. There were none that I saw and it was actually a quite civil townhall meeting. Grassley said that "It's not about getting a lot of Republicans. It's about getting a lot of Democrats and Republicans. We ought to be focusing on getting 80 votes." He also made it clear that he remains committed to pursuing a health-care bill, provided it does not "make things worse" for people who are happy with their insurance or add to swollen budget deficits.

He noted his yellow legal pad he had with him saying that this was where he was making his notes of the questions and concerns being expressed all around Iowa. I might add that it looked fairly tattered and worn to me. He had a lot of stuff in that pad.

He said he would not respond to statements, but only questions. And this he did quite well, I might add.

I pulled out my little 4 inch spiral bound memo pad I had in the back pocket of my shorts. And yes, I had my Blackberry on my belt, so I could update my status so the whole world of my nearly 650 friends would know where I was, if they were paying attention. And some were. More about that later, though.

The first "question" by a senior adult female actually turned into a statement of five minutes. Frankly, I never could get it figured out where she was going, because she was mildly being "shouted" down about 2 minutes into her "ranting speech." Momentarily it got a little noisy and Grassley stepped back from his podium (she was 3 feet away from him facing the crowd). Bev, his helper, who was choosing the people who wanted to ask questions, had the lady pegged and got her interrupted long enough to set her down. Aw, such relief for the rest of us.

The next questioner (a senior adult male) had something to ask about the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, former governess of Kansas. If she is such a proponent of abortion, how was she going to be handled in all this debate on health care? And will this bill have a provision for government funded abortions? Grassley made it clear that he had a long-standing pro-life record and in no way was seeking a change in healthcare that would allow for use of federal funds for abortions - in violation of the Hyde Amendment that prohibits such.

Question 3 had to do with that conflicting debate about insuring illegals in this country (I'm using her descriptive term). How will we know whether or not we are insuring them? It was made clear by the Senator that "illegals" do get services (like emergency care that can't be legally refused). And in some way they slip under the radar and continue to find ways to get services. Existing law doesn't allow for them, so no health-care bill should change the law. How do we know? Well, he just simply said it's not our intent to cover them.

The next one came from a gentleman standing hardly 3 feet from me. He at one time had excellent health care coverage with his job but in due time he developed health problems until he was re-categorized regularly into a different risk group, thus creating higher premiums. He finally couldn't afford to pay, so now is on state health insurance. What's going to be done about companies re-grouping people and collecting higher premiums because of health conditions? was his question. Grassley's basic response was that he seeks to make sure that reform takes place in the private sector that will not preclude pre-existing conditions - charging higher premiums is inexcusable.

One question came through on cap and trade and how that will affect our utility bills.(For those who don't know what it is - it's a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, oil company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade.) In short, Grassley didn't have much of an answer to offer on this - whatever he said, which wasn't much, was quite forgettable - I didn't even make a note in my memo pad on it! I don't know - maybe he doesn't know what a utility bill is.

One gentleman stood up and mentioned a Senate Bill 2099 - which would require the registration of firearms on IRS tax forms. Response of the Senator? It's dead and isn't going anywhere. A collective sigh of relief in the room there was.

A lady stood to her feet and talked shortly about a son who had testing over an extended time done for a cancer illness that was supposedly covered by Blue Cross. When all the claims were in, Blue Cross refused to pay one treatment procedure done multiple times in the amount of $53,000, suggesting it was experimental, although it's been around and used by doctors for years. The family hired a lawyer for $2,000. Grassley interrupted with a comment about hearing this kind of story before and did they pay up? Yes, they did, but only after we had to pay $2,0000 to hire a lawyer to get them to pay. Grassley's response was quick and to the point - send my staff a detail about this and I will personally write a letter to Blue Cross and to the Insurance Commissioner of this state!

Then came my turn. Yes, that's right - it was my turn to ask the question. A little background on this. While I was listening to others, I punched into my Blackberry Facebook that I was at this town meeting. Within minutes came this comment to my status - "Tell Senator Grassley Health Cost Sharing Ministries need to be protected with any legislation. It is the biblical solution to healthcare costs. As the bills now stand they will be outlawed." The story has it that this gentleman who commented thus was interviewed on CNN just recently about the health cost sharing ministry he runs out of Ohio. He happens also to be a good friend of mine (last time I checked!). I might add that there are millions of people enrolled in this kind of program. As I commented to Grassley, I reminded him that I, at one time, was enrolled in such a program with my family and it worked in a great kind of way - at one time to the tune of over a $35,000 hospital bill being paid by "neighbor helping neighbor." So it would be nice to have these protected - a side of the health care debate you probably hadn't heard about. What will you do to see that these sharing ministries are protected and not outlawed? - is my question. Grassley was taking notes with his head down while I talked - then looked to his staff member against the wall inquiring about Dodd's bill outlawing this. In the affirmative was the response by the staffer. Grassley, in no uncertain words, made his public statement to the 275+ assembled there - in the bill that I help write through the Finance Committee they will NOT be outlawed. They deserve to be included and must remain as an available option for healthcare. I won't vote to outlaw them if it's a provision in a bill. Thank you, Mr. Grassley! You actually answered my question with clarity and no doubt.

Grassley's next response to a questioner was in defense of the recent townhall meeting he held that was splashed across the media screen. It had to do with the so-called "death panel" provision and "unplugging Grandma" as was stated to say. To his defense, Grassley made it clear that he did not make a response to the inquirer at that town meeting that would inflame - but he did see the point of those who are concerned because they are trying to connect several dots in the current provisions of bills being considered. End of that story was that Grassley believes that these end of life decisions should be left to family and any hint of government intervention should be abandoned. It's not acceptable.

A vocal gentleman inquired about whether or not Grassley would denounce publicly people carrying guns to these townhall meetings (as has been done in some places). The inquirer noted that he was a long-time member of the NRA and a 2nd Amendment rights guy, but that Grassley should note that he didn't carry his gun to this meeting, but his umbrella. Grassley was amused and simply said, "We need a more civil society and we need the kind of civility that Jesus spoke about when he used the word agape - interest and seeking the highest good and welfare of the other person."

There followed then quite an exchange from a gentleman who said he had read the entire proposed health care bill - all 1,036 pages of it - and that it was very clear that there will be rationed health care - the bill clearly states it. Grassley seemed taken back by this, arguing that there is not a provision for rationing. This exchange of "yes there is, no there isn't" went on for a bit - and then the fine Senator acknowledged that an outcome could be rationing - and he couldn't clearly speak to it as he hasn't seen that provision.

Which led to the next question - why can't this bill be written in language common people can understand instead of legalese that nobody reads and nobody understands. Grassley simply replied that one of the things legislators depend on is the committee report which acts as a summary of the entire bill and even that report can be quite lengthy but it is put in layman's terms. Advice from the Senator was for all you citizens to just research and get a copy of the same report on the final bill that he will see. It's out there - go get it, sir!

Finally, we are coming to the end. It's announced there is time for one more question. Leaning against the wall on the side opposite of me was a senior student from a local high school. He said he was looking to join the army after graduation and understood that the oath military personnel and inductees take he had heard would be perhaps changing from "defending the Constitution of the United States" to "defending the President of the United States." Well, said Grassley, the President has the Secret Service to defend him and doesn't need the military. The sworn oath should be for national security and nothing else.

And on that, the townhall meeting I went to in Iowa ended. Just like that, clear and simple. And yes, there was a quiet exit of all citizens of this fair USofA. No protesters, no signs, no yelling, no cursing - and no law enforcement officers anywhere around that I saw.

One more thing I might add. As I was leaving that citizen assembly this simple little thought invaded my cerebral cavity - only in America can we do what we just did with a certain sense of great civility. And yes, this one will not make it on CNN or FOX as the Grassley and health-care bashing forum - but it will be a reminder that the debate continues.

It's still the land of the free and the home of the brave. May it continue to be thus.