Berkley tries to quell rumors about health care reform

In tele-town hall, she vows more work on ‘not such great parts’ of legislation

Friday, Aug. 28, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Shelley Berkley

Harry Reid, John Ensign approval sinks as health care debate continues (8-24-2009)
Republicans want to make Reid’s town hall the issue (8-21-2009)
Berkley talks to Obama about health care (6-9-2009)

More stories about politics

Politics: The Early Line

Washington — More than 2,700 Las Vegas residents joined Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley for a telephone town hall Thursday evening, firing off about a dozen questions on the health care bill making its way through Congress. The exchanges between Berkley and her constituents provided a glimpse at concerns about the legislation. Here are a few exchanges:

Frederick wanted to know whether the proposed government-offered health care plan would be as good as the care he receives through Veterans Affairs.

Berkley replied, “This legislation will not affect the health care you are receiving from the VA system.”

Erica said she supports expanding health care to the uninsured, but is worried about longer wait times. “Will you make sure we can get in to see the doctors we trust?”

Berkley said Nevada faces a doctor shortage, but the House bill includes grants for medical student to encourage “the next generation of doctors.”

David asks, “How are we going to pay for this? One of the things I keep hearing is we’re going to save all this money. Why don’t we try to save the money first?”

Berkley replied “If you are a middle-income wage earner in this country, your taxes will not be going up to pay for this. There have been a lot of rumors. Tax on soft drinks? Not in the bill. Tax on the middle class? Not in the bill.”

Richard asked whether she had read the entire bill.

Berkley said yes.

This was Berkley’s third tele-town hall. She promised to have a live meeting this fall.

“There’s good parts of this bill, there’s better parts of the bill and there’s not such great parts of this bill,” she said. “We’re going to roll up our sleeves, get back to work.”

Discussion: 20 comments so far…

By DessertSun

8/28/09 at 2:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

No offense, but I really do not believe Shelly Berkley at all when she claims she read this bill. In fact I really don't believe anything she says. Government Run Health care is a disastrous mistake. Rushing it through Congress is also a mistake. Shelly Berkley is just part of the out-of-control Congress. She needs to go!
By ElRavioli

8/28/09 at 3:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Don't trust her at all. And ask her why she defeated Dean Heller's bill on illegal immigrants.
By Gregory

8/28/09 at 3:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

The citizens who rant and complain about the federal government today are no different than those who opposed Social Security and Medicare decades ago, on the basis that government is further intruding into their lives.

Meanwhile, we continue to lose jobs to more competitive companies overseas, where universal care is already in place, and Americans go bankrupt for illness-injury.

The country has been around since 1776, so there will be no perfect first bill in 2009. But, there will be a bill, and it SHOULD include a public option. The overhaul is a first increment towards the future.

Many Americans get health insurance through their employer, which lacks healthcare expertise and really does not want to pay big costs from company retained earnings. And those costs have been going sky-high for several years! So, strategies result, and it (often) becomes a revolving door as to who executes-imposes those strategies for the company. Sometimes those cost-saving strategies are contracted out, so you have more than one party to grind you down.

So, if you get sick to the point you cannot work, you lose not only your job, but your benefits as well, when you need them most.

I don't know about most Nevadans, but I would rather go select the public option, if my employer gave me a hard time on approvals, delays or plan disclosures and paths, rather than battle and grind with them at a time when additional stress was not needed. Or I would rather choose the public option, post separation, before having to make hefty Cobra payments. In fact, I might even choose the public option before taking the employement.

If you are driving to work on the freeway and someone comes across the median (without having whooping full collision medical vehicle insurance) hitting you head on at 65 mph, and you wind up in the hospital for weeks or months, with more outpatient home care following, maybe you should check the fine print on your employer plan, starting with maximum benefits and exclusions. Good luck.

Under a public option, you will not be destitute from medical expenses. And your past employer, or next employer, if you become able to return to work, will not be concerned about you becoming a healthcare liability for them, so long as you remain with the public option.

Another big concern for Nevada labor should be getting hurt on the job! Workers comp is a pandora's box in Nevada. Check the new adds playing in Socal trying to lure new business to Nevada because of (1) no corporate taxes, (2) no personal state tax, and (3) low worker's comp rates. Quality California employers know better!

It's right for Americans to be concerned, with the prospect of something new and different, with less paperwork. But wholesale rejection, when other countries are doing the public option with better preventative care and less cost, which our leading providers are already doing (Mayo, Cleveland Clinic), is plain stupid.

NV=50, US=34
By Future

8/28/09 at 4:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

In his radio address on 8-22-2009, Obama implored critics to stop "phony claims" but Obama failed to debunk in his words the "more outrageous myths" of the healthcare proposals. Obama needs to stop whining and start leading.

The more disingenuous Obama's lies (about phony claims) are the more liberals and conservatives distrust Obama and Congress. Referring to Democrats Obama said that in August, Washington often gets "wee-weed up" over some change in the landscape.

While Nancy Pelosi (Republicans are Un-American) and Harry Reid (Republicans are Evilmongers) have six different bills in Congress with unintended consequences.

Obama has backed away from them to make his "myth claims", by referring to His unwritten "proposal". Obama is distancing himself specifically from the House leadership's bill (H.R. 3200) which with inept, broad, vague, open to interpretation word can be read to include coverage of illegal, abortions, and prevent keeping your current plan and Doctor.

Based on H.R. 3200 it is not stretch to realize that the Obama bureaucrats writing the rules and regulations and the subsequent court interpretation will cover the claims that Obama is denying.

For Obama to dismiss critics as if Obama's myths are completely implausible is actually quite offensive.

Here is the critic side on a myths.

On Abortion;

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortio...

"The truth is that bills now before Congress "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. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

Democratic Rep. Lois Capps, The Capps amendment states that some abortions "shall" be covered by the "public option" plan"the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered.

It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing" abortion services.
By Future

8/28/09 at 4:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

On keeping your Insurance Plan:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-yo...

In fact, under the House bill, some employers might have to modify plans after a five-year grace period if they don't meet minimum benefits standards.

Under H.R. 3200, Businesses would have to meet the new "minimum benefits standards" requirements that will be decided by the Health and Human Services Secretary, and would have just a five-year grace period to do so under the House bill.

Insurance companies could react in different ways, perhaps modifying any plans that don't meet the standards or dropping those plans as an option. We can't predict that. It's unclear which or how many businesses would possibly be affected by this. Part of the dilemma concerns the proposed federal health plan and how much cheaper it might be, or not, than private insurance.

End of Life Care:

One only needs to look at the Department of Veterans Affairs guide, called "Your Life, Your Choices," was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the Obama. One section titled, "What Makes Your Life Worth Living?," offers a checklist of scenarios -

- the person filling out the form is asked to rate whether life would be worth living under each of them. Tammy Duckworth, the assistant secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs, said, "it was one of many options for injured veterans", calling it "simply a tool."
Interviewed 8-23-2009, on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Mr. McCain said "that the language in some bills would have created boards to decide what procedures would be allowed for the terminally sick and dying. "Doesn't that open the door to the possibility of rationing?" McCain asked.
By Galfromvegas

8/28/09 at 5:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Congresswoman Berkley has been on the right side of this issue before it was popular. She has demonstrated a deep sense of compassion and courage in her fight for health care reform to which most politicians only aspire.
The lies most of you posters are spreading on the reform bill only serve to protect the profits of big insurance corporations at the expense of sick people---you are their shills.
By atdleft

8/28/09 at 6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thank you, Shelley Berkley! It's good to see that she's not scared of the birthers, deathers, teabaggers, and all the other right-wing extremists who are trying to silence support for health care reform. I hope she keeps up the good work.

And btw, non-partisan web sites like snopes.com and politifact.com have the REAL facts on HR 3200. Even factcheck does, but "the usual suspects" are twisting them to "confirm" all the usual Beck-Limbaugh-Palin scare tactics.

Here's another good site providing REAL FACTS on why we need health care reform-

http://www.familiesusa.org/health-reform...
By robert_lv

8/28/09 at 7:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sure, Berkley read the bill. She used her speed reading skills while on one of her flights to Israel.
By Birdiedreamin

8/28/09 at 7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

is it just me or...
have the retarded republicans finally been exposed for being...
well...
retarded!!!
By NLV-Indep13

8/28/09 at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Reform yes, but HR3200 no!

HR3200 is simply a disaster waiting to happen, and anyone who believes the tripe coming out of the Dems on how it won't raise taxes on the middle class, or end up rationing care, or provide care for illegals, or support abortion, or encourage end of life "counseling" to save money, is living in lala land. If Berkely & the Dems were honest and really wanted to help the people, they'd PROHIBIT the objectionable parts and include TORT REFORM. But they're not and they won't -- this is a power grab intended to reward their core constituencies and to create a public dependency on their program of creating a socialist welfare state (keeping them and their core in power indefinetely). Once the system is changed, it won't be able to change back -- at least not until it collapses into fiscal chaos first.

The Dems need to start over and come up with a plan that will not only work but that isn't rammed down the public's throat the way TARP was. I think socialized medicine is a a bad idea, but a politically corrupted and incompetently administered one would be 100 times worse. And that's what HR3200 is and what Berkely supports.

Reform yes, HR3200 no!
By Bertsos

8/28/09 at 10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

What is the republican't lie of the day today? I just got into the office and haven't heard the boss limbaugh talking points lie of the day for republican misinformation.

Anyone know what todays GOP lie is ?

I'm hoping for the: Obama is really an alien, and he wants health care so people will be in better health when they all get hauled of to the alien cooking pots !!
By LarryVegas

8/28/09 at 10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ah... I just got reminded why I am an independent voter... Shills, retarded, lie of the day and just plain lies...
By ElRavioli

8/28/09 at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Many of you are too young to remember this, but Shelly was tapped to play Cindy Crabtree (daughter of Jerry Van Dyke a.k.a. Dave Crabtree)in the hit NBC-TV show "My Mother The Car" in 1965. "She was perfect for the part," said MMTC creator Allan Burns in a 1991 interview, "but we couldn't get her to get rid of that accent. It was a shame, she could have gone far in TV."

SPORT'S!
By lvsunreader

8/28/09 at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

When Shelly and her husband (an M.D.) sign up for this government plan, then I am in! Until then, Congress had better "roll up your sleeves" and really get to work and produce a decent bill.
By CarsonNewshound

8/28/09 at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nevada: Land of the poor, home of the stupid! Those who would think with nothing more than what Fox or Limbaugh gives them over the tv or radio has crap, literally, coursing through their veins.
By CarsonNewshound

8/28/09 at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

In fact...Nevada frequently needs to be saved from itself.
By NLV-Indep13

8/28/09 at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Actually, we need to be saved from the extremists on the loonie left and the (self) righteous right. The majority, irregardless of race, religeon or sex, agree on most over-arching goals. What we tend to disagree on, usually because we don't fully understand them, are the various proposals being pushed that supposedly will enable us to reach our over-arching goals. The invasion of Iraq (natl security), TARP (economic security), and Obamacare (quality healthcare for all) are all proposals that were pushed or are being pushed without the requisite public discourse. And we know what happened with the first two. Both parties seem to suffer from an arrogance of victory, believing that having won an election they can do no wrong, and inevitably the arrogant in a democracy fall.

PS -- You can be left and not be loonie, or be righteous and not self-righteous. I think it comes down to how hard you push your beliefs on others and how willing you are to listen to dissent.
By DessertSun

8/29/09 at 12:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

She's just another Democrat, telling the people that their too dumb to know what they really want. As far as I'm concerned, she's no better than our moron Senator Harry Reid. You vote Democrat and you get poor representation in Congress. Oh, and don't forget about new taxes and spend, spend, spend like there's no tomorrow.
By mikegino

8/29/09 at 11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

carson: So we need saving from ourselves? And I guess you and your fellow lefties are the ones to save us, right? Thanks, but no thanks.
By jsayler

8/29/09 at 2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

The point of healthcare reform is to make health care afforadble for everyone! The government is not out to create a profit center. The government is promising to LOWER out of pocket expenses--how much more clear can that be?

Is there really a doctor shortage or is the way our country provides care wrong? Does a doctor really need to see a patient who has a small laceration that could easily be sutured up by a nurse or other practitioner? We are already on track with the mall "clinics" popping up everywhere. We can make them even more affordable by removing the profit-motive and allowing only not-for-profit companies to operate in the public's best health care related interests.

Even those with "chronic" conditions don't necessaarily require a physician at every visit. Taking a lab test should be a call away. A patient feeling in the need for one or a physician who may be requesting that a patient have one, does not need follow up to be in person if the lab result is negative unless there is reason to retest and even then a protocal could be easily worked out between the patient and the physician.

It seems that we will probably be receiving care that is at least as good as our current care. Personally, I would like to see the level of care become comparable to that of the Eurpeon nations which have a much higher success rate and lower mortality rates.

We should be ashamed of our current system and so should the government. The FDA has not served the public well in the past and must be totally revamped to ensure independance from outside profit influences of industry. The FDA currently limits the options of individuals in very dire needs that are is a clear victimization of the insurance companies and big pharma.