Health care reform was the focus of Tuesday night’s town hall meeting that featured U.S. Congressman Michael Burgess (R-Lewisville) at Trietsch Memorial United Methodist Church.

More than 1,600 people attended the event, which filled the sanctuary and spilled into the hallways.

Burgess fielded several questions and took comments from the audience, which overwhelmingly showed disapproval for the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) that is being proposed, which many call another example of a government-controlled system.

“The best way to represent us is to kill the bill,” one man told Burgess.

Burgess told the crowd that he voted against the bill on July 31, which drew applause.

“I can’t imagine it changing enough to get me to vote on it when we come back in September,” Burgess said.

Feedback from the audience included questions, passionate opinions and personal stories, such as a nurse who said she has treated a patient who still faces a $48,000 monthly co-pay with insurance.

“We have an obligation to 10 million people with pre-existing conditions who paid their premiums but lost their insurance because the insurance company said that they don’t have enough to cover them anymore,” Burgess said. “We can do that without this.”

Burgess said the forum was important for both him and the public.

“It’s anyone’s guess when you walk into a venue like this with 14-, 15-, 16-hundred people about what you’re going to get,” Burgess said. “Was I pleasantly surprised that the crowd largely seemed supportive of the positions I’ve taken? Yes. But I also know that we’re not going to agree on everything.”

He added that people have actually changed the course of events this summer, referring to the nationwide outpouring of opinion at events like this.

“People in Flower Mound, and I know others came from farther away from Flower Mound, certainly the people in the district, whether they were supportive or not, all of it was important,” Burgess said. “And it was important for me to hear.”

The following are three of the many questions asked to Burgess during Tuesday night’s town hall meeting, followed by his responses as sent to The Leader.

What can the federal government do to reduce the size of the cost of health care?

“One of the main drivers of cost is defensive medicine, where doctors order more tests and procedures than necessary, for instance, in order to protect against the possibility of a lawsuit,” Burgess said. “A very successful way to combat this is medical liability reform, like the reform Texas passed in 2003. I also believe more emphasis on preventative care, wellness, and also doing things to incentivize healthy behavior, would be a successful way to bring down cost. Finally, increasing the federal government’s role in the delivery of health care, which the Democrats’ plan does by increasing the Medicaid population and the creation of a public option, will only increase the amount of money the federal government spends on health care, not save money.”

What will the reform do to address the cost of pharmacy drugs?

“Under the House bill, Medicare Part D beneficiaries would see part of the ‘donut hole’ filled in, but for all other Americans, nothing would change,” Burgess said.

Do you think private insurance will be able to compete with public insurance plans if private insurance drastically cut expenditures, and if that’s not enough, what restrictions might be placed on public option that would help private insurance allow public option to form?

“If a public health insurance option is created, I think the time will come fairly soon when private health insurance ceases to exist or exists only for a very small, very wealthy population,” Burgess said. “Since the federal government sets the rules for the health insurance industry, if the federal government also gets into the health care insurance business, this will be like the umpire being on the payroll of the home team. Furthermore, the federal government does not have to follow any sort of business model during the creation of the public option or throughout its tenure, like all other health insurance companies, or all other companies, for that matter. I had several amendments that would truly level the playing field – one would have prevented the public option from using taxpayer dollars as start-up money, and another would have prevented the public option from using the U.S. Treasury as its Capital Reserve Fund. I also had an amendment that would require the federal public option to also abide by state laws, just like private insurance companies must, and another amendment would require open accounting and bookkeeping, which is required of all other companies. But the bottom line is, the federal government would not play by the same rules.”


To view the original article click here.