George,

The Tom in Your Town rolling healthcare circus came to Fluvanna County last Monday evening. Parking lots filled up early, and well before the scheduled 6:00 p.m. start people were streaming into the Middle School having parked along side roads and in nearby grassy stretches. The event was originally scheduled for the school board office a few miles north in Palmyra, but was moved when organizers got a feel for the likely actual turnout.

Although I live east of Fork Union, less than ten minutes away, I had spent the day in Charlottesville and only got to Carysbrook at a quarter to six. Tables outside the entrance offered signs one might wave for the cameras -- and perhaps change the opinion of some in the other camp (not likely). Representative Perriello was near the entrance being interviewed by a crew from Channel 19 in Charlottesville, his staffers were buzzing around and the cafetorium was already packed--every seat taken, standing room almost filled and the doorways nearly impassable with people trying to decide where to settle. Unprecedented in Fluvanna.

There did seem to be two camps represented, with a preponderance for change, judging by the signs being waved throughout the evening. To my eyes, the nicely printed "Health Care Reform Now" and "Support Single Payer" type of signs were held by a cross-section of the attendees, while the "No to Socialism" and other hand-lettered signs of opposition were waved by a consistently older group. I am of the opinion that the idea of hand-lettering, as well as the content, were directed from outside, but one woman I spoke with assured me that the ideas were her own. Her sign opposed socialism, cap-and-trade and card check, while endorsing tort reform. Go figure.

There were also people who actually wanted to hear the questions and Tom's answers, and probably some for whom an event that came in the context of so much cable news ballyhoo was a good night out in a very quiet community.

The announced format was an hour for public comment and an hour for one-on-one conversation. Promptly at 6:00 our congressman started the evening by saying that, in light of the heavy turnout and obvious interest, there would be no opening remarks, and let's start the questions.

This made me uneasy--I very much hoped he would start with a detailed framing of the subject, explaining the need for change to the healthcare system, a presentation of the president's stated priorities for legislation, and an overview of the bill being shaped in the House. Ten minutes or so. Lacking that frame, people's questions and statements and Tom's answers were just dappled splotches making a confusing picture. Give him his due--maybe he sincerely wants to hear what people have to say.

But I think it would have been helpful to separate the categories of reform--private insurance and payment options, improved outcomes and provider-side issues, what is and what might be--and to have kept those distinctions going as people stood at the microphone.

The overall tone of the evening was quite civil -- as if people were conscious of wanting to not be seen as anything like the unruly mobs of elsewhere. Applause, cheers, boos and occasional catcalls all quickly subsided.

Dozens lined up to speak, all were respectful and quite a few were thoughtful. There was a little bit of the "I want my country back" and "I want your assurance that illegal aliens won't be covered." And there was the occasional fact--"we spend twice as much ..." and "$1,200 of your premiums goes for health care for the uninsured now." A dominant theme among the aginners was keeping government out, which to me is simply bizarre and easily refuted.

More difficult to refute are arguments against proposals that would raise taxes or increase the debt. Perriello repeatedly insisted that any bill that he would support should be revenue neutral. Perriello mentioned several times that he is a "no" on any of the bills now being hammered together in the House--because of the down-the-road impact on federal budget deficits.

He returned frequently to the notion of increasing competition in the marketplace to drive down costs, as well as a mechanism to provide coverage for the uninsured, requirements to cover pre-existing conditions (a theme in many personal tales of distress) and he did refute several expressions of concern about death panels for the elderly.

A question that arose in this forum and I learn has been asked at others as well is, Tom will you pledge to vote the wishes of your constituents? Now, without false modesty, I know the fifth district pretty well, having traveled it on behalf of Meredith Richards in 2002 and Al Weed in 2004 as well as keeping up via email as one of the county chairs. And I will state flatly that the notion of a consensus on this or any other contentious issue of public policy is absurd. Tweedy academics in Ivy and the hunters of the fox in Keswick live in the same congressional district as the camo-wearing, AR-15 toting deer hunters from the James to the Dan.

Another moment stands out--a concise answer to a questioner, "Will you assure us that our tax dollars will not pay for abortion?" Perriello pledged that if a bill came before the Congress that contained funding for abortion he would vote against it. Loud applause.

Yet during last year's campaign, in an interview with the downwithtyranny blog, Tom said "I firmly believe that abortion should not be criminalized, nor can we allow any action that seeks to coerce women by reducing access to care or making the process less safe." So is he weaseling on choice? A topic for another time.

Dave Sagarin (August 19, 2009)