Edwards discusses health care

By Matt Smith/msmith@trcle.com

Editor’s note: This is part one of a two-part question and answer session with U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards. Part two will appear Thursday.



U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, visited the Times-Review on Tuesday to discuss health care legislation and the debate surrounding it.



Q. Initially you planned a town hall by phone, then decided to add three regular town halls. What changed your mind?

A: First we planned the telephone town hall so that we could reach citizens from all 12 counties. That was planned to provide maximum possible outreach. I then planned a series of meetings with doctors, nurses, hospitals, business, small business owners and everyday citizens throughout the district. We planned 19 of those this week.

I always wanted to do public town hall meetings, but initially I had some concerns that a handful of people were more interested in disrupting the town hall than having a good discussion. But, having thought about it, and since there’s strong interest in this issue across the district, the overriding principle to me was that citizens have the right to have access to their elected representatives. That’s especially important when it comes to key issues such as health care.

Is there still a chance some would like to disrupt town hall meetings, to make a spectacle of them? Yes. But I decided I wasn’t going to let the possible disruption by a few inhibit the access of thousands of others to have direct input on health care.



Q. Did you feel any pressure to change your mind based on criticism or feedback from TEA Party members, Republicans or others?

A. I think what influenced me the most was just the broad interest from everyday citizens to express their views and ask questions about health care reform. That’s what influenced me to move ahead with town halls.

Again, I was initially concerned a handful might be disruptive and try to intimidate other citizens, but I just concluded that while that could happen, the threat of that should not stand between the vast majority of my constituents and me.



Q. Do you think there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there on the health care proposal? And does part of the fault lie with President Obama and Democrats for not getting their message out sooner or more clearly?

A. First, I would say there are a lot of legitimate concerns and questions about the bill and I share many of those. I am not going to commit to voting for any bill until I’ve read it and analyzed it from page to page and have had a chance to listen to people from all walks of life throughout our district. I’m going to purposely stay undecided until I’ve had a chance to hear views on it.

I think a lot of concerns are based on legitimate questions. How will it be paid for? How extensive will the government’s role be in the process? Will it limit choice of doctors? Those are all legitimate concerns, and I respect those and share a lot of them.

I think it is not helpful that there are some who, through the Internet and talk shows, are perpetrating absolute myths. For example, there is no way in the world Congress is going to pass a bill with a death panel in it providing for euthanasia of seniors. And shame on anyone who would try to terrify senior citizens into believing that their health care is going to be taken away from them and there will be a panel to cut off their care and euthanize them.



Q. Some claim the proposal would fund abortions and health care for illegal immigrants.

A. Illegal immigrants will not qualify for any of the benefits under this bill period. I cannot repeat that enough. The issue of illegal immigration is a serious one, and we need to do much more to solve that. We’ve already doubled and tripled the number of border-patrol agents, built fences, put in new technology along the border. But we have to do more.

Does the illegal-immigration problem contribute to the cost escalation of health care? Yes it does. And that’s why we have to address that problem.

And there’s a misnomer that illegal immigrants qualify for food stamps. That’s not the case. It’s against the law for illegal immigrants to receive any food stamp benefits.



Q. Abortion?

A. Abortion, I think it’s important we make it clear what’s in the final bill. My understanding that this bill just continues present law. It is prohibited to spend any federal funds for abortions, with the exception of the Hyde Amendment exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother.



Q. Any opinion on the public option?

A. I think the goal should be to provide more competition for insurance companies in order to help lower costs and improve health care benefits for citizens and small businesses. I would not support any public option that had the federal government subsidizing health insurance for a government plan because ultimately you would completely eliminate the private sector. And I think the private sector has to be a critical part of the future of health care.

One option would be private co-ops that could be put together. Don’t want to say which I’d prefer until I have a chance to study both options.

I think insurance reform has to happen. I made two conclusions. One, I won’t vote for Candadian-style, socialized health care system of one size fits all. That won’t work in America.

On insurance reform, small businesses should not be punished because one employee has a serious health care issue.

I talked to a small business owner in Waco on Saturday. He had one employee that had a kidney problem. Because he’s a small company, he’s facing a 18 percent increase in health premiums over that one incident. And it wasn’t his fault.

And small businesses and families ought not to be discriminated over health care issues that weren’t their fault. I’d like to see portability. I would support ending the annual and life time caps for coverage.

I met a teacher in Glen Rose who is facing the threat of reaching the life time cap for his daughter who has a brain tumor and is now blind. We ought to find a better way to provide catastrophic coverage for families without making them go into bankruptcy or dramatically increasing the insurance rates at the companies where they work.

I disagree with Nancy Pelosi when she says insurance companies are evil. They’re not evil. They’re providing a service that society needs. And if they weren’t doing that they wouldn’t be in existence.

But I do feel we need insurance reform to make the playing field more fair, bring in more competition. From 2000 to 2007, insurance companies bought up a lot of their competitors. And interestingly, during that same time period, their profit rates went up 428 percent. How many businesses in our district had there profits go up that much?

Text Only