| Opening Statements
Tracey Brooks opened up the night with the first opening statement, a well practiced intro stump she uses at all the forums. Of course, Tracey's introduction was modified to fit the health care theme. Her most recent work as regional director for Senator Clinton and Congressman McNulty. She was quick to add "I'm very proud to stand here tonight to say I have the support of his family." Brooks said her door-to-door campaigning leads her to hear that voters are hungry for change, and that she's the candidate who "represents real change." She then introduced herself again, repeating almost exactly what she says in her recently aired television ads. Tracey then moved to an introduction of her health care platform, saying that she'd worked with several area health care facilities in her capacity as aide to Senator Clinton. "My focus...is on the type of comprehensive care our community has," she said, and added she wants every American to get the same coverage as Congressmen. She twice mentioned she's "I've had the opportunity to work side-by-side with Congressman McNulty," with hospitals, on Medicare wages, and getting children health care coverage, saying children are "the easiest and the first group to insure." After adding that closing the Medicare Part D donut hole was an priority, she enthusiastically asked audience members to join her campaign. The audience gave its first round of applause after closing "A vote for me in September and again in November will ensure a vote for real change."
Darius Shahinfar, as mentioned, was not present. While he missed a good debate, that can't be as great as the birth of your daughter. Dr. Fropp read a statement by Shahinfar that apologized for his absence, but the the audience was certainly forgiving and charmed by the news. In his statements, Shahinfar writes: "With 47 million American's uninsured, and 25 million underinsured, it is imperative that our next Congress pass the neccessary legislation to ensure that all Americans hav access to affordable healthcare." He then reiterated his recent pledge to refuse Congressional health care, if elected, and mentioned specifically the "burden placed on property taxpayers, seniors, and our families." He closed by emphasizing his campaign theme, Renew America's Promise, and added: "If we want to change Washington, we need to start by changing the type of people we send there."
Phil Steck began his opening statement by defining single-payer health insurance. He explained that the system being proposed was akin to the way Medicare should have worked. "Medicare was a single payer health insurance plan for the elderly. The concept is to extend that to the entire population." Steck explained that payroll taxes would fund the measure, as proposed in HR 676. He then went on to say, "We have Democratic candidates here who are all going to say they support single-payer health insurance. But the question becomes 'Why don't we have single-payer health insurance in this country?'" Phil Steck suggested that polling data was the true reasoning for his opponents positions, but cited Darius Shahinfar's statement in agreement. "The question is who is going to be the most likely person to advocate for this in Washington." Steck's answer came in the form of pointing out that his campaign had started before polling data was out and his single-payer advocacy in the Albany County Legislature, as also said "What we need to do is send someone to Washington who is not controlled or influenced by lobbyists who are going to oppose single-payer health insurance." He added "I have absolutely no ties to those lobbyists. I don't work for a lobbying firm like Tracey Brooks, nor have I taken thousands of dollars from health insurance companies like Paul Tonko." This lead into his closing by saying "It's not just a matter of saying it, it's a matter of working really hard to achieve it." to which the audience clapped as well.
Joseph Sullivan had arrived late again, and said, "Phil, I always hate to dissapoint you, but I'm not going to support single payer health insurance." The audience gave a chuckle to this, and Steck and the other candidates as well. "All Democrats are virtually the same on this campaign except me." Sullivan said that health care was a good thing, but too elusive. "I'm on Medicare right now, and I'm not particularly happy with it." he said. He announced his opposition to HR 676 by saying "The government is so dysfunctional, it can't make anything better." He cited money being "raided" from Congress and the body's 9% approval rating. Sullivan told audience members to Google "lonerangeralbany" for his website for his national health care plan, which was actually, he said "all about Homeland Security. Because if we're not safe, none of these other issues that we're talking about are going to matter." Sullivan ended by saying he wouldn't support any health care legislation that would raise taxes. He also decried Medicare as worse than Medicaid, contrary to the consensus among other Democrats. He sat down just after saying, "And I don't want to see abortion in there either. I don't think we should be funding death of infants and the unborn in our health care system. It's a contradiction." Respectful applause followed a moment of silence.
Paul Tonko then rose to give his introduction. In thanking audience members for being there, he said "it takes community dialogue and investment from all of us" to solve the health care issue. He mentioned his many years in the Assembly up front and said, "I will continue to promote my reputation as an agent of change." He explained thie reputation as a combination of his work with people and his analytical approach to the legislative process as an engineer that he had "put to work for the people." As a specific example, he cited his largest victory in the Assembly, Timothy's Law, on mental health parity. "That track record proves the ability to get things done." He said he also supported a universal, single payer plan, and for many reasons. He listed the tight budgets of working families and the high costs of employers. "They are asked to compete in a global market place. Their competitiveness is dulled by the inordinate amount of health care that they try to provide in order to recruit better opportunities." Tonko said that administrative costs of 35% was another reason for universal health care. "There's a lot to be said, I think, for stewardship in a larger pool," said Tonko, of conatining costs, but also added "We need to look at the whole picture." He indicated that many more issues relating to health care would be addressed and stopped speaking, to applause, as soon as his time was up.
Steven Vasquez, the lone Republican at the forum, opened with a well rehearsal opening of his own. "I'm Steven Vasquez and I'm here to represent you," and he rolled off his qualifications as an engineer as well and a successful businessman. "The question to be asked is how did we get here? Why is it that Americans pay two and a half times more than any other industrialized nation and recieve less?" Vasquez specifically cited HMO's as "government funded monopolies...created by the Nixon administration" as the number one reason for the problem. Vasquez then declared "Single-payer is not an option." He used Government Accounting Office data to argue that Medicare should not be extended to all because it will be bankrupt in a decade. He connected this to his usual prediction that the government is in debt to the tune of $400,000 per househould and that the entire government will be bankrupt because "Congress loots" taxpayer's money. As a health care solution, Vasquez supported HR 6110 and it's $5,000 tax credit to purchase insurance from other states and prescription drugs from Canada. He claimed the measure would take the money out of the hands of the government and the HMO's as well as vastly reduce property taxes. Vasquez closed by saying his plan would "bring the power back to the people. The fact is that you know who can make the best decision for your family is yourself and that is you." The round of applause he recieved indicated that some Republcians had in fact attended the debate.
Question One: We spend more in this country on health care than most other countries, yet fall way behind when it comes to comparing results. Why do you think this is so? How do you propose to change that?
Phil Steck was the first to answer. The reason for a costly system, he explained, was high administrative cost, including the need to supervise both applicants and doctors in the Medicaid system. He also pointed out that Mr. Sullivan was "very mistaken" about Medicaid. Steck pointed to HMO's spending "forty cents on the dollar trying to figure out ways to deny people coverage," versus Medicare spending "three cents on the dollar on administration because it's simply a system of making payments." Steck also explained that a single payer system would reduce costs for worker's compensation and from injuries sustained in car accidents where the victim has no auto insurance. Phil Steck's time was up, but indicated he had a list of eight ways single-payer would save costs.
Joseph Sullivan responded by saying "we have the finest health care system in the world" and that people were coming overseas to America because "their single payer systems have failed." He dismissed the other candidates positions in support of single payer as saying "everybody's jumping on the gravy train. It's big bucks." Sullivan went on to say that Americans weren't taking care of themselves, relating his concerns about his grandchildren loading up on sugar.
Paul Tonko said that for the $2.3 trillion on health care, "there has to be a better outcome in my opinion. I believe the will is there, but we have to determine the means by which we're going to be much more successful." Tonko claimed that about one third of that money goes toward's "paper shuffling and administrative costs. That is not what people want to see out of the product." He threw additional ideas out there like emphasizing preventative care and providing incentives to practitioners for this, as well as resource pooling. "We should use the strength of those numbers," in pooling resources, "to drive down costs, stretch our dollars, provide better service, and be more responsive and responsible to the consuming public."
Steven Vasquez again derided HMO's as destroying "true choice" and too many federal regulations as well. "We've created monopolies," Vasquez said. "That is not right in a free market capitalists system that have made this country great. We're moving away from our basic principles of this country." Steven also said "the lobbyists have control of what gets done." He reiterated that the best decisions are made "by you and your family."
Tracey Brooks also indicated that administrative costs were too high. "If we cut that forty percent, we would be covering the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance." She added that it was important to remember that 15% of people accounted for 70% of the cots in the current system. "We can also help people be more compliant with thier heath care," Brooks said, outlining an idea for increased home-based health care. Tracey recalled early success by offering asthmatic children health care coaches that not only helped the children, but saved $157 million on costs despite the program covering only 36 children. She agreed with the approach former Assemblyman Tonko had outlined as well.
Question Two: What is your assessment of the role of private insurance companies in our heath care system? Should that role continue in the future or should it change?
Joseph Sullivan advocated for the status quo, saying "I'm pro-choice when it comes to health care...we're going to have to keep private insurance with us for some time. You're not going to be able to make an immediate transition by passing a magical bill that's going to disrupt everyone's lives." He said he like his insurance and wanted to keep it, and was no fan of HR 676. "I'm running for this Congressional seat, but I don't trust the government," Sullivan declared.
Paul Tonko answered that private insurers role was "to provide comprehensive coverage" that included both preventative care and responded to catastrophes. But, he said, "There is a serious concern about how well that's being done." Tonko also said he'd recieved a lot of testimony, and that we all knew someone ourselves, about patients denied health coverage. He asked voters to consider HR 676 as "looking at a different scenario that would contatin those costs, guarantee the coverage, require the pooling of resource, and I think there's a benefit than can befall the American public by so doing."
Steven Vasquez proclaimed "Today, we do not have true private insurance." He said if there was a real private market, there would be lower costs in health insurance and life insurance. "Wouldn't it be great to see a little gecko on an ad that says 'I just saved $3,000 on my health insurance?" He reiterated he wanted to give "you control, not the government."
Tracey Brooks said "I think the role of private health insurance is somewhat limited at this point." Brooks again said that too much of the money here was going towards administration. She related the story of her brother-in-law waiting for two years because private insurance companies won't covering preventative screening. "At this point in time, I believe that the insurance companies have definitely reached their limit in how than can be effective and helpful. So we need to be reforming our health care system and providing comprehensive health care coverage for every American."
Phil Steck said "Under the single payer system, the role of private insurance companies would be largely eliminated and confined to providing any supplemental coverage that would not be available in the single payer plan." He likened the measure to Social Security, as "probably the most popular government program in history." Phil Steck also mentioned again the HMO's were a Nixonian part of the problem. "HMO's are not a natural thing," said Steck. "The way HMO's make money...is by not covering legitimate claims." Steck added they were interfering with doctors. "Physicians are forced to hire all kinds of people to fill out all the insurance forms, to keep track of what the insurers are required...and that's very wasteful and costly to the system. Physicians want to practice medicine, not health insurance."
Question Three: Do you think it is beneficial to force everyone to be insured?
Paul Tonko first asked the videographer whether candidates should sit or stand, as they had been doing either one or the other rather randomly thorought the night, adding some light humor to the audience. He then explained that the benefits were very strong. Tonko cited especially the complicated high-needs cases. Tonko said that without a health care guarantee, "There is a drastic sense of woe. I'd almost say it's an embarassment that every year, half a million Americans file for bankruptcy based on medical expenses. I think is grossly difficult to admit that in this nation of plenty, of tremendous resources, has that curse."
Steven Vasquez answered by saying "Absolutely not. We live in America. We have freedom. We have liberties." Vasquez said the program would "fall trap" to the same Congressional looting experienced by Social Security and other programs. "If Congress was a corporation, they'd be arrested for fraud. Can we truly trust the government?" he asked several times. Vasquez said single payer system would destroy freedom of choice and would go bankrupt in ten years as well anyway. "These aren't my numbers, they're from the Government Accounting Office."
Tracey Brooks said "If we have one American who is uninsured, we have a health care crisis." She again cited the need for "comprehensive health care coverage for every single person in the United States." Brooks said there were several resources already available, including new technolgy and electronic medical records, that could be implented immediately to cut health care costs. "There are a number of places we can work together to bring the cost of health care down," she said. "One person visiting our emergency rooms without health care coverage continues to keep in jeopardy our health care providers."
Phil Steck pointed out that his potential Republican opponent Steven Vasquez had raised an important issue. "If someone doesn't have health insurance coverage and they go to the emergency room, who pays? Everyone in this room." he said. Steck also raised the problem of people's life savings being depleted after being forced to go into a nursing home. "They have spent a lifetime to save. That is wrong." said Steck. That wouldn't happen, Steck said, under the single payer system. A final reason Steck said "as another we need, we need single payer coverage" was the waiting period for health benefits to young couples, even during maternity and child birth. "That can mean economic devastation to that family for a very long time, if not forever. So we absolutley need a system a system, such as single payer, that provides universal coverage."
Joseph Sullivan appeared to wake up from a catnap when being passed the microphone and asked if he'd answered the question. "I actually did you the answer in my other answer," we said. He then asked, "Where's the American flag in this? Is this a mosque?" A portion of the audience was audibly appalled at this. Sullivan was asked the question again and he loudly shot back, "No. To force people? No. This is America." He said the government intruded on people too much, and rattled off a list of regulations. "Next their gonna tell me I can't drink my gallon of porter and my bottle of Tullamore Dew every week."
Question Four: Here's a tough question: How much money have you taken in campaign contributions from the insurance and drug industry?
Steven Vasquez smiled and said "That's fantastic. That's an easy question: zero." Vasquez asked "What are the allegiances of those that represent you come from. Do the represent you?" He said the only way to fix things in Washington was to get power back into the hands of the people and back to the founding principles of the Constitution.
Tracey Brooks answered that she hadn't taken any such money that she was aware of. "We have taken any, um, I have the largest number of individual donors in the campaign. We're very proud to have over 1,500 supporters supporting my campaign. We've done an oustanding job raising money and we're very excited about the momentum that's brought to us. Many of you enjoyed the wonderful television commercials." Brooks contineud that campaign finance reform was also an important issue. Tracey even went so far as to encourage everyon in the audience to contribute five dollars to whatever candidate they liked best. She concluded by saying "So we're very excited to have the largest number of individuals, that we have the largest percentage of those individuals and that money coming from inside this district. and I'm very proud of the campaign I'm running."
Phil Steck said firmly "The answer is none. I also have total support for public finance of elections." Steck said the issue was more complicated than it seems and that many "lobbying firms" have given money to the 21st primary candidates, but not to his campaign. "Those lobbyists are working for interests in the health insurance industry. This candidacy that just spoke to you, she is affilliated currently with a lobbying firm that has interests in the health care industry. So the issue is not so simple as whether you take contributions from health insurers.' Steck added that corporate contribution wre prohbited by federal law and that campaign filings are public information. "You gotta look and see where did they take their contributions from, whether they're running for County Legislature, as I did, or State Assembly as Tracey Brooks and Paul Tonko did, and see if in those campaigns they took contributions from health care." Steck concluded. "So, the answer in my campaign is aboslutley none in any time in any way."
Joseph Sullivan scolded the audience's clapping for Phil because "we're supposed to be counting votes." After rambling about this, he said "I don't believe in it. If you want campaign reform, here I am." He said, "if you don't money, you're not considered a serious candidate." He then cited a recent Times Union op-ed concluding that candidates should not get equal coverage. "What arrogance!" he said. "All the media have to do is give all of us equal space, tell people about our websites, all people have to do is read it. People that don't have computers, they can make a nice chart and summarize all the candidates. That's camaign reform."
Paul Tonko answered by saying "After 24 years of service in the Legislature, I can tell you that there were some donations in that capacity. However, in the vast majority of the funds I've raise, primarily they were raised by five, ten, twenty-five, fifty dollar contributions. People that you represent totally believed in the work you were doing and the manner of the professionalism in your job." Tonko also exlained that he worked on campaign finance reform in the Assembly while "under attack" from money from South Dakota. "And until the system is changed and your trying to do the good work, its unfortunate, but your trapped in that situation. But look at the record: I think you can see it balances. There might have been dollars contributed, but more importantly: look at the record." Tonko again related his success with Timothy's Law while fighting the insurance lobby as a major part of that record. "Today I'm proud to say, because of that tenacity, and that vision, and support of a great coaltiion, people who are mentally ill or who struggle with mental health disorders have the hope of mental health parity insurance coverage, so, look at the record."
Audience Questions
A few more questions were asked by the candidates around the same time I lost audio. A discussion of how to finance changes to the health care system lead to supplemental information from the candidates on how to do so. One of the best things about this forum was the wealth of literature available on community efforts to get universal health care passed.
A copy of HR 676 was even availbe for audience members. A rather redunant yes or no final question of whether the candidate's support that measure ended the official questions. It was at that time that the floor was opened to the audience and the candidates faced the voters directly. As the moderator did not give a specific order to answer the questions, and with frank and passionate language, the debate took a much more unpredictable turn.
The first audience member spoke about his recent experience in Taiwan, where health care is a human right, and wondered why we haven't had a system that ensures health coverage for so long. "Why are we still a third-world country?" he asked to audience applause. Steven Vasquez fielded the question first, answering that those countries did not have a thieving Congress. Paul Tonko showed empathy by saying "I hear the urgency in your voice. I share it." Tonko outlined steps he'd taken in the Assembly as far back as 1992 to address the issue. He added that the nation had also dragged it's feet on energy policy, and that being "forceful and vigilant" would be his M.O. in Congress.
Joseph Sullivan evoked more laughter by saying "I don't think Taiwan is so great. I wouldn't want to live there." Phil Steck gave a much longer answer by saying the influence of lobbyists and special interests, especially in "dysfunctional" state government, was one problem. "The second thing is that we have this irrational view that private enterprise can solve all problems." He also added that "I think America hasn't alwas had respet to other nation. That shows up in our foreign policy as well. I think we need to learn sometimes from other countries." Tracey Brooks agreed with much of what Steck and Tonko said, saying that the first effort to get universal health care in the early 1990's failed because we had gotten "distracted." She said the country was ready for comprehensive coverage.
The second audience member insisted on knowing what provision in the Constitution the candidates would cite as authority for creating a health care system, clearly believing no such clause existed. Steven Vasquez declared she was absoluetly right. He noted the 10th Amendment saying that all issues not specified in the Constitution were to left to the states. Tonko disagreed, citing that the Constitution's preamble to provide for the general welfare. "I think it's a right in this country to have access and to affordable quality health care," he said, to much applause.
Sullivan quickly delcared that "We're playing games. Where in the Constitution does it say it's OK to abort the unborn?" Another audience member insisted Sullivan answer the question, and the beared, self-described Lone Ranger candidate demanded that he tell the audience what the answer was, to stop playing games, and to "grow up." Of the original questioner, he said "I don't support 676...you haven't been listening."
Phil Steck, by contrast, cited the commerce clause and that he knew Constitutional law as a civil rights and labor attorney in private practice. Steck explained the history of the programs of the Roosevelt administration being challenged under freedom of contract arguments, but prevailing on the commerce clause in the Constitution. "It has been used to support a whole host of beneficial government programs and regulations that I'm sure everyone in this room would support."
Asking the next question was the President of St. Mary's Hospital in Amsterdam, one of the four or five major cities in the district. He wanted to know about the relationship between state and federal responsibilities in getting the millions of Americans without insurance covered. Steck answered "The primary issue that I'm concerned about is that the most efficient way to provide health coverage for every single American is a single payer system." He tied this to the county portion of the county property tax burden and that 90% of it went to paying for Medicaid, which would dissapear if such a system were put in place.
Because the moderator had been seeking out as many questions as possible, none of the other candidates were invited to answer, and another question was accepted. A woman pointed out that none of the proponents of the single payer system had explained how to pay for it and that only Steven Vasquez was talking about our massive deficit. Steck, with the microphone still in hand, said it was a great question. Of the payroll taxes that the single payer system would raise for funding, Steck said "I can assure it would be far less, far, far less, than what our business currently pays to provide health insurance to its employees." He did add as an important point that business that currently do not provide coverage would be hurt by the plan, saying "WalMart is gonna be hurt, because they're going to be forced to pay for their employees." This was meant with another round of applause.
Paul Tonko took up the question as well, again citing his state Assembly experience with mental health parity. "It all comes into an economic model that...has proved itself to bring cost savings," said Tonko. To the earlier question, Tonko wanted to look at the big picture and examined the way Massachussettes requires insurance but doens't have even services availble. He said the state needs to take up efforts to recruit more professionals to make basic service widespread once everybody is covered. Once Tonko had finished, Steven Vasquez again reminded us of the impendening bankruptcy of the federal governmnet, health care programs included.
Tracey Brooks agreed specifically with Paul and Phil's statements. She explained that the bill, HR 676, was "cutting the fat" in terms of administrative costs to save real dollars. "The adminstrative costs of health care right now would more efficiently and effectively utilized." Brooks ended "It pays for itself."
The next questioner again brought up Taiwan, as his son as been there for two years. They spend 5% of their GDP on health care, he noted, and the audience gasps when he described the amount of health care he'd recieved for only three-hundred dollars. "What is wrong with us? This is not rocket science. Please. Everyone. Just think about." he said, and the audience applauded. None of the candidates answered, as it wasn't a question, just a good statement.
So another audience member got a chance, and asked about the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. Brooks fielded the question by explaining the cost-savings of electronic medical records. Steck replied that "What happens in a single payer plan, since all that care would be covered under that plan, you wouldn't have to have attorneys litigating to determine how much to pay to the health care plan." Tonko added "I agree that that would probably be the outcome." Tonko also added that state regulations connected to the single payer plan could help ensure safe outcomes for patients.
The next person to ask something of the candidates introduced himself as a former physician of 20 years. He rebutted Mr. Sullivan by name that personal responsiblity was simply not the problem, and that "simple pieces of paper" denied people. He wanted to know what the single payer plan would mean for medical professionals. Brooks answered that the insurers has put too much of a strain on physicians and the single payer bill would free them up from that, making it easier for their profession. "My number one priority," she said "is to make sure that the coverage we're providing under the single payer care is as good at least as that health care coverage provided to our members of Congress."
Sullivan assumed he was talking about beauracracy and again said government didn't get anything right. He said it wasn't likely to happen right now and that "streamlining" was the first step. He then changed the subject by giving his "The Troops Aren't Coming Home...Get Over It" stump speech, dismissing the entire conversation as "academic" if there is a disruption in the oil supply. "Get your priorities straight," said Sullivan as he sat down.
The next audience member made a thinly veiled swipe at Sullivan, the former chairman of the Albany Republican Party, by posing his questions for Democrats "who aren't going to change their party affiliation next week." He pointed out that the Democratic Party's national platform did not adopt a single payer health care plan. The question was what the future Representative would do to move the Democratic party's platform towards support of single payer.
Paul Tonko answered first saying that building coalitions was one the biggest part of representing people. He explained a strategy of convincing the national party to move towards single payer by relaying constituents concerns by networking with like-minded Democrats. Tonko got another laugh when he almost passed the microphone to Steven Vasquez, the only Republican on the platform. Steck agreed with Paul that coalition building was important. He cited his experience in building such coalitions with unaffilliated and Republican voters as Colonie Democratic chairman to elect the first Democratic government in the town. Steck said the fact that the single-payer system would cover everybody, despite the tax burden, was akin the opportunity that Social Security had to build a coaltion in support. Brooks pointed out her skills in bringing people together, again saying she had worked side-by-side with Congressman McNulty and Senator Clinton. She added "We also need to make sure that we are working with people who don't agree with us right now. And I have been able to bring people together in the totality of my career, who don't agree, and come together, and find a resolution."
The second audience member looking for Constitutional authority for a single payer system then stood and demanded Miss Brooks answer her question. "I believe the commerce clause," said Brooks. It took a moment for the lady with her U.S. Citizens guide to sit again. "It's on the record!" she declared. A final question was then asked by a former military man reagrded the poor health service he recieved, mentioned Walter Reed, and how this new system could be expected to be performed any better.
While Joseph Sullivan empathized as a Navy veteran who had experience being shut out of the VA. "My country promised me I would always have healthcare. Bull." Sullivan said. But he was more eager to answer the charge of changing parties, saying he wasn't happy about being pointed out as a former GOP chair in Albany. "All of Dan O'Connel and Corning's people were Republicans before they were Democrats...Republicans are people too." said Sullivan. "There are only two political parties," he declared "those that are in power, and those are aren't in power. And they call themselves different things in different times in different places."
After some confusion about who was to speak next, Phil Steck again pointed out that Medicare was a successful program, and that it regulates doctors far less. "I think the proof is in the pudding: we've had a successful Medicare system for a long time," said Steck. Brooks answered by saying another Walter Reed scenario would not be acceptable. "We need to move forward with a system that streamlines their payment," she said. "We are committed to ensuring comprehensive health care coverage for every single American." Paul Tonko again noted the number of people who file bankruptcy for medical expenses. "There's got to be a better way," he said. "And I think that the effort to come up with that better is before us. We can adjust it as we go, but let's go forward the 676."
Soundpolitic Blogger's Note
That was the final word from the candidates as the forum ended to even more applause and plenty of chatter in the crowd. Nowhere else have the candidates gathered to explore an issue so thoroughly or in such an impromptu manner in one place. I left feeling bad for those who couldn't have made it. This was due only to the amount of information available, but that seeing a few strong Democrats make their case on the issue of getting a universal health care system with a touch of eccentricity and the unexpected made this one of the best debates of the season. |
