Sweeping healthcare changes discussed peacefully at forum

IRIS SMOOT/Acorn Newspapers CONCERNED CITIZENS—Moorpark resident Stuart Wing asks a question of panelists during the healthcare reform debate at the Simi Valley Library on Aug. 19. The Simi-Moorpark Democratic Club sponsored the debate, but folks from both sides of the issue showed up to express opinions. In town halls and living rooms across the country, Americans are debating healthcare reform. The hot topic was all the talk in Simi last week at an event hosted by the Simi ValleyMoorpark Democratic Club— though without the disorder and rancor present at other local discussions.

Even though picketers outside the Simi Valley Public Library protested peacefully and without yelling, each side got its message out loud and clear.

Simi resident Dave Kuska said no reform is better than what Congress has proposed, hence his picket sign: “Dump the Bill.”

IRIS SMOOT/Acorn Newspapers DIFFERENT OPINIONS—Charles P. Rosen, left, listens to fellow panelist Robert L. Hacker respond to a prepared question about a public option in the proposed healthcare bill during last week’s debate in Simi Valley. “I think that the country is in the process of going down the tubes under the current administration,” the 62yearold Republican said. “I thought that by being here, at least if the country goes down the tubes, it won’t be because I stayed home.”

Wearing a hardhat and holding a sign that read “Working Americans Against ObamaCare,” Simi resident Bob James said he’s against a single-payer system and doesn’t want the country to turn into a “socialist situation.”

“This is truly against what this country was started for and it’s bad for the country and bad for the people in the long run,” the smallbusiness man and Independent said.

His wife, Mary, agreed.

“The government is going to have decisions over everything in your life. They’re going to decide basically whether you live or die. I don’t think that’s anything that the government has a right to get involved in,” she said.

But Newbury Park resident Carol Keavney said she’s for a single-payer system that will provide healthcare for all because everyone deserves a chance to grow up healthy.

“We were all taught to take care of each other,” said Keavney, a member of the Democratic Club of Conejo Valley. “This is a country that’s supposed to stand for justice for all. Part of that justice is having access to healthcare.”

Close to 100 local residents representing both ends of the political spectrum gathered inside the library’s community room to hear two panelists flesh out the issues.

Robert Hacker, a hospital administrator, said that at the heart of the healthcare reform debate is one question: Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

“I believe it is a right for everybody in this country to have healthcare,” said Hacker, a regional director for Providence Health and Services.

Charles Rosen, an insurance agent and financial advisor, spoke against the current administration’s plan, although he agreed that the system is in need of an overhaul and that healthcare should be more accessible and affordable, particularly to those with preexisting conditions.

“Those who can afford it should be able to sign up. Those who can’t should be able to get it subsidized,” he said, adding later that citizens should also be able to shop around and compare. “People need to have the option to pick the plan that’s right for them.”

However, his advice to lawmakers is to proceed with caution.

“Whatever reform that comes about we need to do carefully,” Rosen said.

While there seems to be some common ground on both sides that change is needed, exactly how much change is where the controversy kicks in.

During the two-hour debate, Rosen and Hacker covered a variety of issues, including the role of pharmaceutical companies and the private insurance industry, the effect of baby boomers and the uninsured on the system, the high cost and number of malpractice lawsuits, profit in healthcare, coverage for illegal aliens and Medicare.

Ted Chavannes of Thousand Oaks has been on Medicare for 10 years and points to it as a reason for not supporting a government-run healthcare system that dictates which doctor you can go to.

“What’s better than the relationship between a patient and his doctor? I don’t want the government involved,” the 75yearold conservative said. “They bring nothing to the table. . . . I don’t want to give up my access to my physician of choice.”

But Sue Broidy says she knows firsthand the benefits of a national heathcare system because she was raised under one in Britain. Now a resident of Ojai and Region 10 director for the California Democratic Party, Broidy said there are many false assumptions about the plan proposed by the administration.

“People seem to think that the government is going to get between them and their doctor,” she said. “Right now, what they don’t seem to appreciate is that the insurance companies are already getting between them and their doctor.”

She added that it is “obscene” that insurers are making so much money off of those who are ill and said the profit aspect should be taken out of healthcare.

And unlike Chavannes, she considers Medicare a “godsend,” stating that people her age no longer worry about getting older because once they are 65 “they can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that part of their medical bills will be paid.”

Both panelists agreed that the bills on the table aren’t perfect and that the administration shouldn’t push through a bill without bipartisan support.

“We have to come to some kind of consensus on both sides of the aisle to bring meaningful healthcare reform,” Hacker said.

Thousand Oaks resident David Faubion, 55, said he doesn’t like that President Obama is allowing Republicans to “water down” his singlepayer plan but he understands sweeping changes aren’t likely to come all at once.

At this point, Faubion thinks the public option is the best the administration can get. But the selfdescribed progressive Democrat said Americans still need more time to talk it over.

“It’s going to take a lot of discussion to alleviate fears, to dispel myths and to stop the fearmongering,” he said.