Congressman Pascrell Displays Arrogance, Fuzzy Math at Town Hall Meeting (Part 1 of 2)

I attended the town hall meeting held by Congressman Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ) in Montclair, New Jersey the afternoon of September 3, 2009. The following are my personal thoughts and observations regarding several aspects of this event (note: these comments represent part 1 of 2):

* Pascrell’s people handed out sheets of paper stating that “No one will be forced into a government-run plan.” Pascrell also showed a video with text stating “Myth: I will be forced into a government-run plan.” But Pascrell is not telling the full truth in several respects. For example, any so-called “public option” — of which Pascrell is a vocal supporter — will immorally force tens of millions of Americans into the plan, in the important role of those who will pay for it. Perhaps Pascrell doesn’t consider this worthy of consideration due to his disdain for hard-working taxpayers. A congressman who truly values his taxpaying constituents would not have held only one in-person town hall meeting — and starting at 4 PM on a Thursday at that, when many taxpayers cannot attend because they’re working.

* Those sheets of paper in general touted “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.” As I’ve said before, people who support so-called “affordable” health insurance schemes out to figure out how so-called “affordable” housing turned out, and ask themselves what makes so-called “affordable” health insurance any different.

* In the “I am not making this up” department, Pascrell’s handouts don’t merely say that the move toward socialized medicine will lead to lower costs and higher quality — they say HR 3200 will “GUARANTEE BETTER STABILITY, LOWER COSTS, HIGHER QUALITY, AND GREATER CHOICE.” (CAPS in original document.) To briefly comment on just one of these socialist propaganda points, socialized medicine… guarantees lower costs?!? As political commentator Robert W. Tracinski notes, “The defenders of the health-care bill claim that it’s going to lead to all sorts of savings, not by actually cutting any services or denying care, but just by finding ‘inefficiencies’ that will save money. [Pascrell’s handout: “Health reform will lower costs by promoting more efficient delivery of care.”] Do you think this is remotely plausible? When has anybody ever said, ‘This project has to be lean and efficient — let’s get the government to do it?’”

* The video playing before the official 4:00 PM start time displayed a lot of curious comments, one of which was “Three-fourths of 17-year-olds have at least one decayed tooth.” This may very well be a good reason for the parents of 17-year-olds to peacefully obtain dental insurance for their children. It is not a good reason for the parents of 17-year-olds to enlist the federal government to force me — and the other tens of millions of taxpaying Americans — to pay for their children’s dental insurance.

* Another false statement in the video was “TRUTH: There is nothing in health reform that will deny seniors or any individual needed medical care.” Pascrell seems proud of his part in writing this bill (HR 3200). Perhaps Pascrell wouldn’t be so proud if he understood that pages 284-288 of it mandate rationing, as explained by Duke University professor Dr. John Lewis at the following link, “The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’ Says”:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5619

On the other hand, perhaps Pascrell is proud of rationing, since it gives government that much more tyrannical control over citizens’ lives. Perhaps Pascrell knows this bill mandates rationing, but simply fears the political consequences of stating the truth.

* Before the meeting’s official 4:00 PM start time, I handed out 300 copies of “20 Questions for Your Congressman” by Robert W. Tracinski. I was hoping to hear at least one of these 20 questions read out loud. Unfortunately, with roughly 70% of the attendees there in favor of socialized medicine, it may not be surprising for you to learn that none of those 20 questions was asked of Pascrell, at least not word-for-word (or close to word-for-word). Nevertheless, these questions are excellent; I’d encourage any individual who plans to attend a town hall meeting anyplace to bring a copy of these questions, so that one (or more) might be asked of their congressman:

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1126

* Pascrell significantly shaped the political mix of attendees at his only in-person town meeting. For one thing, he did not communicate via either his official House of Representatives website or his official campaign website that the town hall meeting was taking place until several days after AARP New Jersey was sending out e-mails telling its members to attend the town hall meeting to support Pascrell’s anti-liberty version of healthcare reform. For another thing, the meeting started at 4:00 PM on a Thursday — a time and day of the week when many taxpayers are working. As such, Pascrell made it very difficult (and in a lot of cases impossible) for individual taxpayers to attend. Furthermore, Pascrell held the event on the campus of Montclair State University. Like a lot of universities, Montclair State is leftist in nature, which made it easy for several of the campus leftists to attend. In addition, Montclair State’s campus slopes to a meaningful degree (it’s semi-hilly), making it difficult/impossible for many senior citizens to get to the site of the meeting. (When my 60-something mom and 70-something dad were on campus about two months ago, both found it exceedingly difficult to walk around.)

* Pascrell brazenly claimed that “The point of the matter is Barack Obama does not believe in socialized medicine.” But on July 30, 2003, Obama said this: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program… A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see.” Obama even admitted at the time that a gradual, Trojan horse approach might be necessary: “And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.” And here’s Obama on March 24, 2007: “My commitment is to make sure that we have universal health care for all Americans… but I don’t think we’ll be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” Pascrell should be ashamed for trying to play his constituents for fools. I encourage folks to check this all out on YouTube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU9vh6dy95g

* The best comments/question of the meeting was from Scott Webber of Livingston, New Jersey. He noted that the so-called “public option” is “un-American,” and pointed out that “in America, there is no such thing as the right to products and services created by the efforts of others.” The pro-liberty attendees represented perhaps 10%-20% of the whole crowd, their cheering as Webber spoke was surprisingly nearly as loud as any cheers heard at any time from the anti-liberty attendees.

* Pascrell claims that “Our current health care system is broken, and all sides… can agree to that.” Actually, many folks on the right-hand side of the political spectrum, including myself, view the U.S. healthcare system as the best in the world. (Note that the actions of many world leaders, who — rather than receive medical attention in their own country, come to the U.S. to receive medical care — show that they agree with me.) Improvements can be made — such as meaningful tort reform and the repeal of all laws preventing citizens of one state from buying health insurance in another state — but the American system is still the best out there, even if no such free-market reforms are made.

* Much anti-liberty support for a “public option” was based upon the premise that collectively, the U.S. spends too much on healthcare. (For example, Pascrell clearly views it as a negative that, in his words, “We spend more money than any other country on healthcare” — to which one audience participant rightly yelled out, “So what?”) To the extent individuals freely choose to spend whatever they want on healthcare, it is none of government’s business, no matter how much or how little any one individual chooses to spend.

* Pascrell notes that “just in New Jersey since 2000, it’s [the cost of health insurance premiums] grown five times faster than our wages.” The anti-liberty crowd cheered loudly. Many of these folks must be ignorant of the fact that harmful New Jersey state laws are a big part of why health insurance costs more in New Jersey than it does in 48 of the other 49 states. Naturally, Pascrell didn’t blame government for what is government’s fault.

* Pascrell often fell back on the a “two wrongs make a right”-type argument. For example, when one questioner asked him about how socialized medicine will cost too much, he justified it by saying “the system that we have now is costing us too much.” A video showing this is located on YouTube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH8MVHwJkgI

* Pascrell was asked about the socialized medicine bill and under it, “How could you possibly not have rationing?” A big part of his arrogant, “two wrongs make a right”-type response was that under the current system, “Read my lips: We have rationing now.” (Note that this isn’t true in any meaningful way for the part of our health insurance system that remains capitalist in nature.) When the questioner responded “you’re going to support increased rationing then,” Pascrell objected, saying he never said so. But his answer implied that rationing is OK since we (allegedly) already have it. This should send shudders down the spines of all those who anticipate needing medical care in the near future. Pascrell’s arrogant “read my lips” remark and subsequent comments are shown on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk3hA_DWE2Y

* Many anti-liberty attendees — not to mention Pascrell himself — said that one reason for the so-called “public option” is that health insurance costs have increased at a rapid rate lately. Not a single one of these people brought up the notion that government is to blame, as a result of existing government meddling in the health insurance industry. (As one of many examples of this, New Jersey — like a lot of states — does not permit its residents to buy health insurance from out-of-state. Of the other 49 states, 48 of them offer lower health insurance costs in general. As such, the New Jersey state government deserves a lot of blame for artificially keeping health insurance costs high here in the Garden State.)

* Pascrell was asked why he and other congressmen won’t be enrolled in the so-called “public option.” Pascrell’s response? “I decided when I became a congressman I could pay for myself, that I would take Blue Cross Blue Shield, of course Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 48% of the insurance market in New Jersey, we don’t have competition in New Jersey.” First, Pascrell completely avoided answering the question as it pertains to other congressmen. Second, Blue Cross Blue Shield has earned 48% market share — if it makes bad business decisions, it will find out that it controls none of its market share, just as General Motors has found out the hard way that it controls none of its market share. Third, no competition for any company means that they have 100% market share. If Pascrell thinks 48% market share means a company has no competition, then I understand better how he buys into a lot of the fuzzy math that the anti-liberty side embraces. Pascrell’s fuzzy-math remarks can be found on YouTube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dAKVyPxMM

I plan to post Part 2 of my comments within the next several days.

– Mark Kalinowski
North New Jersey Tea Party Group
Liberty, Free Markets, and Individual Rights

By the way, I encourage ALL liberty-minded folks to “friend me” on Facebook,

and also to join the official Facebook page for the North New Jersey Tea Party Group