Republicans Petition Himes to Derail Health Care Reform

Himes shouldn't be scared of a bi-partisan debate... (4.00 / 1)

Me, I'm glad he's going to the fourm, and I hope the media will report his positions fairly.

Jim will win this one easily, on the merits, and if he has to do the bipartisan dance to win re-election in Fairfield County, so be it.

Personally I'm much more concerned about Rosa DeLauro and John Larson, and their failure to join the Public Option or Bust coalition. They're the ones who should be leading the CT Dem coalition forward, not Himes.

Furthermore, this is all about the Senate, and not the House. So let Himes posture.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 02:59:44 AM UTC

Leaders Wanted! (4.00 / 2)

Leaders don't wait for others to lead. Like Teddy Kennedy, they do their homework and then take the initiative! Followers are a dime a dozen.

With the exception of Senator Dodd, Connecticut's Congressional delegation appears to be walking a tightrope on health care; if our representatives don't step up, some of them might just fall off that high wire. . .  

This is a Blue State, and yet we seem to have elected a bunch of closet Blue Dogs who may be well suited to perform in the circus this very serious issue has become; but they surely aren't listening to constituents or watching polls that ask citizens whether they want a CHOICE about their insurance options.

House Members, in particular, appear to be far more concerned with accumulating special interest dollars to fill their campaign coffers for 2010. A pox on the lot!

 

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 13:09:45 PM UTC

Why in the world would Jim Himes want to distinguish a Republican gathering designed to derail health care reform with his presence? (4.00 / 1)

Why?  Those Republicans will never- repeat: never- vote for Jim Himes or any other Democrat.  So why try to ingratiate oneself with that group?  The demographics show a multi-year trend toward greater Democratic registration in this region, this state, and in New England, with independents voting more strongly Democratic as well.

Is Jim Himes revealing that he is much closer in temperament and policy inclination to the Republicans than we knew?  Does his attendance at this Republican anti-reform meeting on health care, combined with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that right-wing anti-reform Billy Tauzin's PhRMA group spent on Jim, tell us that Congressman Himes' support for real health insurance reform isn't what we believed?

It's time to ask the question.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 13:59:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Because he is talking to his constituents.  He represents the entire District, not just those who voted for him.  And, if the take-away from those meetings is that Himes' stance on health care reform is closer to the GOP than to the progressive view point, the voters can act accordingly.

---

by: Mr. Clean @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 15:45:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ummmm..no (0.00 / 0)

Politicians from one party simply don't attend the other party's meetings.  Elected officials attend all manner of gatherings with myriad memberships.  But they don't attend the opposing party's meetings simply because the objective of the opposing party is to elect their own members and defeat elected officials from your party.  It is silly to attend the other party's meetings, unless one is sending a message that one is thinking of changing sides.

It just isn't done.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 00:38:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, if it just isn't done...... (0.00 / 0)

Heaven forbid somebody does something that just isn't done.  We can't have any of that, can we?  What would the world come to?

---

by: Mr. Clean @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 02:42:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ann (0.00 / 0)

Stop blaming the small potatos.

The reason we are having to fight so hard is because the POTUS himself either wants it that way or has already decided he had his fingers crossed when he made that promise to Ted Kennedy.

Glenn explains it pretty well today

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

If Obama wants the Public option he can make it happen with a snap of his fingers and the entire Ct Delegation will be 100% behind him.If it doesn't he deserves to be a one termer.

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 00:46:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is Plenty of Blame to Go Around! (0.00 / 0)

It takes alot of potatoes to make a potato salad; and my disgust with the CT Congressional delegation in no way suggests that the President also can be absolved of responsibility for holding a naive belief in the possibility of bi-partisanship. I think we'll know soon enough who is prepared to step up and save health care reform, and who is not. The public wants to see whether Obama, with a Democratic Congress, can fulfill the promise of Change We Can Believe In.  

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 02:52:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did you read the link I provided (0.00 / 0)

Pres Obama does not have a "naive belief in the possibility of bi-partisanship".

The conversation taking place is exactly the one he wants taking place.If we end up with no Public Option it is because thats what the administation wanted or was willing to bargain away in order to keep the corperate money flowing their way.

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 12:43:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Himes Wasting his Time in the Lion's Den (4.00 / 1)

I just don't see any good that can come out of this forum for Jim.  He's going to be subjected to an endless deluge of right-wing misinformation and lies, and he's not going to get anything for his efforts but a sore neck. It is a terrible use of his time, and does nothing to advance the cause of health care reform.  

As for debating State Senator Debicella on health care, I think I did a good job of demolishing his utter know-nothingness on the subject here...  

http://www.allbusiness.com/ins...

When you enter into a "debate" on health care, with these arrogantly ignorant characters, you don't add to anyone's understanding of the issues.  You just invite hostility and give them a platform to mouth their nutty, BS-filled diatribes about "socialism" and "pulling the plug on Grandma" and other feverish, fact-free assertions.

And don't count on the media reporting Jim's positions fairly.  When you enter into a "debate" of this sort, the truth never wins out.  Just the shouters and the screamers capture the headlines.  Unless you're Barney Frank (and Jim is no Barney Frank!)

---

by: billg @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 18:29:16 PM UTC

Doesn't matter one bit (0.00 / 0)

The fact Jim agreed to this shows he takes hearing  ALL views of his constituents seriously.

Jim is attending a RTC event and the decorum in which it is operated will reflect on Ridgefeilds Republicans.I Believe and  expect Ridgefeilds Republicans will demand their meeting be conducted respectfully.

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 20:53:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Question (0.00 / 0)

Keith,

Why is it that Jim gets a commendation from you while Obama is criticized for what you yourself describe as similar behavior?  Are you a paid advocate for what you call small potatoes?

No one is suggesting that Jim, or anyone else, shouldn't be willing to hear all views. It's his refusal to clarify where he really stands, even when having been asked repeatedly and directly, that is of concern to many of us who worked so hard to elect him.  And if it has been reported correctly (which may not be the case) that he was more candid with Republicans than he has been willing to be with Democrats, then I would suggest that Jon's concern about a purple cow might be more apt than your description of small potatoes.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 13:16:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I found these comments purportedly from Jim Himes on the Ridgefield RTC's website (0.00 / 0)

I came across this by one Keith Miller.  This is Miller's synopsis from the letter that Congressman Himes wrote Miller in response to his letter:

"Mr. Himes shared my concern for trillion dollar deficits and added the biggest problem was forty trillion in unfunded runaway Medicare costs.

"We quickly found common ground.  When I suggested that Washington should first get Medicare under control before trying a new universal healthcare entitlement, Mr. Himes enthused, "I'd vote for that every day of the week." He related how he'd been talking to New York Congressmen to fix Medicare before tackling Universal Health Care.  Encouraged, I suggested one way to reduce Medicare costs and prove Congress was not controlled by lawyers, was to tackle Tort Reform.  Mr. Himes had some thoughts on that as well.  If the government defined a number of tests for a diagnosis, and the doctor ran those tests, then that Doctor deserved protection from lawsuits.  Such a change, he explained, would obviate the need for multiple and unnecessary tests done more to protect Doctors from lawyers than provide patient care.

"Perhaps this is a reasonable compromise.  Please write Congressman Himes and encourage him and his colleagues to fix Medicare and Tort costs. Congress must first prove it can manage these programs before considering a trillion dollar plus Universal Healthcare entitlement paid for by an historic and massive tax increase on American families."

BY KEITH MILLER

---

by: thomashooker @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 00:37:24 AM UTC

What's funny (4.00 / 1)

... is that this is the exact kind of quiet sign of commitment that so many progressives had been seeking from him during this healthcare debate. Only the hat he tipped was in the other direction.

I could muse on how well "protect doctors from lawyers" is going to go over, complain about how long my questions have gone unanswered, or go on about the absolute madness of going to the Ridgefield RTC (if Shays had agreed to come to the Silver Star DFA, we'd all have been rolling on the floor laughing about how stupid he was.)

But if Himes sent an ironclad commitment to hack up Medicare to a Republican Town Committee in his district we may as well just call the election for Will Gregory right now. Richard Duffee could thrash him in a midterm election with nothing more than enough bus fare to get to the senior centers in the district.

"I'd vote for that every day of the week"? Holy Jesus. If that's for real, there's nothing anybody can do for him. "The economy is fundamentally strong" will look like pattycake.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 02:04:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Unnecessary tests" (0.00 / 0)

I wonder how "unnecessary" Congressman Himes would think a test was if he found himself with terminal cancer that would have been curable if his doctor had discovered it two years earlier by doing those "unnecessary" tests.  Or if he'd had a severely handicapped child because the ob-gyn failed to do one of those "unnecessary" tests.

Medical treatment isn't "one size fits all" and each patient should be treated as an individual by his/her physician.  There is no "defined number of tests" checklist that covers all individuals in order to come up with a proper diagnosis.  If there was, we could get our healthcare from robots.  

Or from members of Congress.    

This isn't just about healthcare.  It's also about people having free access to our judicial system on a level playing field where no group is protected.  The right has mounted a cynical attack on the judicial system and "tort reform" is just one tactic in a war to dismantle the American system of checks and balances.  And Himes seems to be drinking that Kool-Aid.

I'm disgusted with the Congressman.  Absolutely disgusted.  

---

by: chele @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 03:10:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In fact, there is no evidence of "unnecessary tests" (4.00 / 1)

Tom Baker, the former director of the Institute of Insurance Law at University of Connecticut's School of Law, writes in his 2005 book "The Medical Malpractice Myth" that there is absolutely no evidence or proof that doctors prescribe numerous unnecessary tests in order to avoid malpractice law suits.  None.  No studies- nada.  So just as the Republicans' push for "tort reform" is based on fiction, the notion that we need to free up doctors from the threat of lawsuits in order to bring down medical costs is also pure fiction.  As Professor Baker points out, it is not at all certain that a doctor prescribing a test in order to avoid a lawsuit isn't doing precisely what is in the best interest of the patient.  

And let's be clear about one thing: If all medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed, which led to the elimination of malpractice insurance and the need to pay a single penny in insurance premiums, that would reduce medical costs in the United States by---ready for it?--- one half of one percent.  That's right, barely a half of a percent.  And if we did that, would we be better off?  In fact, Professor Baker makes a powerful argument that it is precisely the threat of malpractice lawsuits that has reduced malpractice.  He goes into depth about anesthesiologists, who as a group were sued much more regularly than any other medical specialists in the early 1970's.  Yet as a profession, they decided to do something about it.  They went through their procedures to identify those that were problematic, made changes to make them safer, demanded better equipment from producers, then went out and made sure that the word about safer procedures got around to all anesthesiologists.  As a result, they are sued far less than other specialists today.  And those reforms were brought about by malpractice lawsuits.  Today both the doctors and their patients are far better off.

So, just as is the case with most Republican/Conservative positions and beliefs, this one is bogus, too.  Let's hope Congressman Himes discards this notion quickly.

---

by: thomashooker @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 14:01:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagree about tort reform (0.00 / 0)

A New York anesthesiologist pays about $60,000 per year in medical malpractice insurance. Ob/gyns pay more -- triple or four times as much.

That money goes primarily to insurance companies (them again!) and, if there's a suit, a good chunk goes to lawyers. All of it is added to EVERYONE's cost of health care.

The British and Canadian health care systems -- the ones that progressives often hold up as models for national health care -- make it impossible to receive multimillion dollar claims for medical malpractice. Canada has a cap of around $300,000, I believe, and in the UK, they force you to jump through hoops to sue -- and if you lose the suit, you pay all legal fees!

One reason the UK and Canada can pay out less in claims is because health  care is free in those countries. You don't have to award damages that pay for a lifetime of health care because nobody pays for health care!  

In looking to reform the health care system, it would help to examine ways to improve the medical malpractice racket too. For instance, maybe allow patients who suffer as a result of medical malpractice to be eligible for free health care for life -- through the national health insurance program. Doctors guilty of medical malpractice should have to go through some form of retraining, or probation, leading to more severe penalties. Definitions of "malpractice" might need to be better defined too.

Insurance companies and lawyers -- who care nothing about a patient's health -- prefer the malpractice system just the way it is. That should tell you something.

But as Britain and Canada prove, you don't need multimillion dollar lawsuits to get excellent medical care.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 15:54:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

as you say... (4.00 / 1)

"One reason the UK and Canada can pay out less in claims is because health  care is free in those countries. You don't have to award damages that pay for a lifetime of health care because nobody pays for health care!"

Healthcare is not free here, and a child born with severe multiple damages, who will never walk, who cannot swallow, who will have to be fed through a tube throughout her life, who will require constant suctioning so she doesn't aspirate, who will require multiple surgeries throughout her life... the list goes on and on and on, and doesn't begin to address the stresses on the family which must care for the child 24-7, missing work, vacations, etc.
These things aren't "emotional" arguments -- they are the financial reality for families who have been victims of malpractice.    

"Doctors guilty of medical malpractice should have to go through some form of retraining, or probation, leading to more severe penalties."

Using the term "racket" is pretty offensive, btw.  Do you think a quadraplegic mother asked for that misplaced epidural needle as a way to get money?  

Doctors have fought these things tooth and nail, and have been successful.  Complaints about CT doctors made to the CT-DPH are investigated by their peers within CT.  The DPH doesn't have the resources to use out of state physician experts to evaluate whether or not malpractice has occurred. Surprisingly, doctors are rarely reprimanded, much less put on probation.  

---

by: chele @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 16:11:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You offer no solutions. What if health care were free? (0.00 / 0)

Yes, medical mistakes can be tragic. And we as a society should try to figure out a way to prevent them.  Instead we blame doctors for not being perfect -- and have a system of dealing with those imperfections that mainly rewards lawyers and insurance companies. (Other countries have excellent medical care without million dollar claims.)

What if, as part of health care reform, we made it possible for malpractice victims to get all future medical treatment for free? Then, how much extra should it cost for causing a patient to end up as a quadriplegic?

If you were driving a car, and due to your negligence, caused an accident that led to someone becoming a quadriplegic, what should happen to you? What should the victim get?  

The system we have now is ineffective, and I don't believe those "reports" that say malpractice insurance doesn't cost anything. Link to one -- and let's see who sponsored it.

Even Dr. Howard Dean, one of the staunches supporters of national health care, says the reason we don't have tort reform isn't because it's a bad idea, but because trial lawyers would oppose it.

 

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 19:10:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"blame doctors" (0.00 / 0)

No, we don't blame doctors. If we had a system where malpractice was punished by imprisonment or revoking of licenses, you'd probably have a lot of people satisfied that justice was served without large non-economic damages.

The jury-decided amounts are a market-based disincentive to careless medical practices. Malpractice insurance is a market-based measurement of the industry's overall error rate. And trial lawyers provide a market-based service that allows the poor, indigent, and in many cases newly-crippled plaintiffs access to the legal system.

Of the three components of what you might call the "medical accountability marketplace", I'd be inclined to try to reform the professional codes that allow error-prone doctors to continue plying their trade and the insurance practices that cause insurance rates to track the NYSE more closely than the slowly-evolving fields of specialty medical practice before I'd want to prevent a class of citizens from accessing our legal system.

There's a line out there someplace that if you can't sue for your rights in a court of law, you never had that right to begin with. If you want the medical industry to be an utterly un-regulated libertarian no-mans land, an Autobahn without lanes where you take your life in your hands whenever you go for a checkup, then I guess I'd respect your opinion even while I disagree with it. But if the government is going to regulate the medical field in any way, then there are going to be lawsuits and trials and judgements forevermore -- and that means that there will continue to be working lawyers earning a salary out there.

If you were driving a car, and due to your negligence, caused an accident that led to someone becoming a quadriplegic, what should happen to you? What should the victim get?  

Your insurance would pay them a lot -- probably not enough to cover their long term care. You'd probably have to sell a lot of your assets. And you might, depending on the circumstances of your negligence, spend some time in prison.

The system we have now is ineffective, and I don't believe those "reports" that say malpractice insurance doesn't cost anything. Link to one -- and let's see who sponsored it.

Sure it costs something. A half of a percent of the 16% of our GDP consumed by medical care is still a lot of frigging money. But is it unreasonable? How much of the cost of owning a car is the cost of the insurance, compared to the cost of the car itself, the gas, regular maintenance, and repairs? How much of a municipal budget is in the fund balance to insure against unforeseen disasters?

If you are claiming that the total portion of medical costs eaten up by malpractice insurance payments is more than a half of one percent, find a stat and offer it up here for us to discuss. Maybe you can convince us that 2% is an unreasonably high cost. Or maybe you want to be arguing that victims of malpractice shouldn't have access to relief in our legal system.

All I can tell now is that you aren't fond of lawyers, and if that's the sum of your argument, then I'm not buying it.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 21:25:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

.. (0.00 / 0)

If you were driving a car, and due to your negligence, caused an accident that led to someone becoming a quadriplegic, what should happen to you? What should the victim get?  

Your insurance would pay them a lot -- probably not enough to cover their long term care. You'd probably have to sell a lot of your assets. And you might, depending on the circumstances of your negligence, spend some time in prison.

You also would probably lose your license. Plus, car insurance rates are strongly correlated to the zipcode where you live -- I suppose your car accident would cause the insurance rates of your neighbors to rise.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 21:31:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually Professor Baker points out that... (0.00 / 0)

deaths and injuries from medical malpractice far exceed deaths and injuries from auto accidents and workplace accidents.  Yet medical malpractice premiums comprise a fraction of the premiums collected for auto and workplace insurance.  According to Baker, total malpractice premiums divided by the 900,000 working doctors in the U.S. comes out to only $12,000 per doctor.  Though some specialties pay considerably more, he contends that doctors are not overcharged for malpractice insurance.  Indeed, he contends that many more injured patients should be compensate.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 00:52:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The goal should be improving health care (0.00 / 0)

... and NOT providing a market-based system for punishing doctors and hospitals for mistakes.

We have a market-based system for health insurance. How's that working?

The cost of medical malpractice is $24 billion (2004). Not sure how that translates into a percentage of whatever number you're comparing it to, but $24 billion can buy a lot of improved medical care. Why should trial lawyers and insurance companies get that money?

Seems like you don't like the fact that doctors and hospitals are not adequately punished for malpractice, or bad practices in general. I'm saying health care reform should do this -- as part of the reform measures. You disagree?

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 11:23:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

$24 billion (0.00 / 0)

accounts for 1% of healthcare spending.

The CBO report you linked states that:

Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 16:37:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Matt, the system ain't working (0.00 / 0)

We spend $24 billion and get nothing for it. We could spend that money in a way that would allow hospitals to increase staff, or better train nurses, provide compensation to more victims of malpractice, or just save the money.

I have a someone dear to me who works in hospital administration and sees first-hand how this racket manifests itself. The system is a mess. Dr. Howard Dean is well aware of it, too, Canada and the UK don't have this system, and yet progressives in the U.S. are blind to the problems. In this instance, you're defending the profits of insurance companies and lawyers for ideological reasons -- the right to sue -- even though (a.) most people don't get to sue, and (b), you can set up a less expensive system to make claims through other means (think OSHA).

By the way, I also have a nephew who, because of difficult birth, was left severely handicapped. So, I know the other side of the argument too. The goal should be better health care delivery, and our tort system doesn't offer that. And you offer NO solutions.

I'm happy to continue this conversation with you over a beer sometime.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 18:27:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks like it's working to me (0.00 / 0)

And you don't illustrate why it's not. Show me how a 1% increase in money available to medical providers is going to provide better accountability than the legal system.

Let's say that 1% of children are born with severe disabilities. But that 10% of the children born in one particular hospital are born with severe disabilities. The system we have addresses that kind of problem. How does what might amount to a 2% increase in doctor salaries bring that in line? And if there's no consequence (you don't like my alternative solutions of imprisoning error prone doctors or revoking their licenses) to screwing up, are you confident that your promise of free healthcare for life for damaged patients won't wind up costing more than an additional 1%?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 18:55:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then why are there so many malpractice deaths? (0.00 / 0)

The system ain't working for those folks.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 20:21:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because of poorly performing doctors (0.00 / 0)

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 23:12:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

Seems like you don't like the fact that doctors and hospitals are not adequately punished for malpractice, or bad practices in general. I'm saying health care reform should do this -- as part of the reform measures. You disagree?

Right now, our legal system determines whether they're adequately punished for malpractice, as well as whether or not malpractice has in fact occurred. A jury made of members of the community where both the doctor and the patient reside decide the outcome. I have no opinion of what is "adequate" punishment, and I don't think I have any need to worry about what is adequate in general or in specific cases until I happen to find myself on a jury.

We're elections people around here, and tend to think of problems as being solved by legislation or by executive branch programs. And we're progressives, which means most often that we look for systematic solutions to problems. But the judicial system seems well-suited to resolving medical issues that are highly contingent on the specifics of particular patients, particular doctors, and particular practices.

Of course there are frivolous lawsuits -- if a lawsuit is frivolous, a jury will say so, the plaintiff will get nothing, and the trial lawyers will lose a lot of money. And, importantly, the cost of insurance doesn't go up!

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 16:50:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

A New York anesthesiologist pays about $60,000 per year in medical malpractice insurance. Ob/gyns pay more -- triple or four times as much.

That money goes primarily to insurance companies (them again!) and, if there's a suit, a good chunk goes to lawyers. All of it is added to EVERYONE's cost of health care.

Those are anecdotes. The question of how much is added to everyone's cost of health care has already been answered, and it is not very much.

Should the insurance for someone who applies chemicals to shut down the bodily functions of (but not kill) hundreds of medical patients per year be 20 times the cost of car insurance? I can't say that particularly bothers me.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 17:03:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

anesthesiologists (0.00 / 0)

"Should the insurance for someone who applies chemicals to shut down the bodily functions of (but not kill) hundreds of medical patients per year be 20 times the cost of car insurance?"

http://www.menshealth.com/cda/...

---

by: chele @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 18:03:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... answered by whom? (0.00 / 0)

Link -- where's the report and who sponsored it?

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 19:17:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thomashooker (0.00 / 0)

upthread. Ask him for a link.

But you didn't offer any sources or citations for your claims, either.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 20:58:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Baker presents detailed reference about anesthesiologists (0.00 / 0)

He goes into their experience in great detail, and chronicles the specialty's concerted efforts to reduce deaths and injuries and claims that their premiums have dropped precipitously compared with other specialists.  

I heartily recommend the book to you.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 00:54:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will have to take issue with this (0.00 / 0)

Numerous studies have concluded that only a very small percentage of all patients who have been injured or killed by medical malpractice or their survivors actually file lawsuits.  The estimate is anywhere from one in seven injured to barely one in twenty five.  So too many patients never file suit.  Second, lawyers are loath to bring lawsuits because they understand how expensive it is to file suit.  Professor Tom Baker estimates that at least a thousand people in the state of Connecticut are killed every year through medical malpractice.  It's further estimated that another thousand die due to preventable infections acquired in hospitals.  Yet since 1995 less than four hundred lawsuits are filed each year.  So far more people go uncompensated.

I will also point out again that all spending on medical malpractice premiums comprise just one half of one percent of medical spending in the United States.  It's tiny.

NB Professor Baker's parents are both doctors.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 00:45:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're proving my point (0.00 / 0)

1. Only a small percentage of people actually sue for malpractice -- due to the fact that lawyers only take cases they think will be "worth it" to them. (Where's the justice?)

2. Lawsuits don't improve medical care. They enrich lawyers, and they help only the small percentage of people who actually sue, and patients who sue receive only 46% of the settlement.

3. The risk of being sued for millions continues to keep insurance rates high. The cost of medical malpractice insurance and settlements is about $24 billion annually.

How about some solutions? What solutions does Prof. Baker, who is a lawyer not a doctor, have for improving the system and lowering costs? Suing people doesn't seem to be improving health care -- as he makes pretty clear.

Since you won't offer any solutions, I will:
1. Give malpractice victims free health care for life, or for as long as their condition requires it.
2. Pre-establish rates of compensation for various types of damages. This would eliminate the risk of a juries granting unreasonably high awards.
3. Define malpractice clearly.
4. Penalize hospitals and doctors for bad practices, require retraining where necessary, reward hospitals for good practices.
5. Create a system that allows smaller malpractice claims -- the ones lawyers won't touch because they're not "worth it" to them -- to be heard in a small claims court.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 11:10:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, Baker lays out a comprehensive solution in his book (0.00 / 0)

It's a bit esoteric to this non-specialist, but Baker does go into great detail as to the solution.

But let me address one assertion of yours, which is that malpractice lawsuits don't improve medicine.  In fact, Professor Baker gives an excellent example of how lawsuits do improve medicine right here in Connecticut.  He cites the example of Bridgeport Hospital which by 2002 had such poor hygienic practices that several people died of avoidable infections there.  One survivor's family sued, which permitted the lawyer to get the truth about the hospital's horrendous rate of infections.  Other victims (yes, victims- let's not forget that people died unnecessarily there) joined the law suit.  In the end, the victims'families won their suit.  That prompted the management of Bridgeport Hospital to review all of their procedures in order to identify what was going wrong, why people were getting sick, and to correct them and implement new procedures.  As a result, Professor Baker points out, infections among patients at BH, which had reached 22% in some months, then dropped to zero in most months from there on out.  In short, those lawsuits forced the hospital to change the way it operated, and improve the care it provided to its patients.

He also pointed out a study of cardiologists.  The cardiologists were presented with a questionnaire with patients and their conditions outlined for the doctors.  Then the questionnaire asked the doctors what procedures they would prescribe and what drugs, and asked them if they were doing it for the benefit of the patients, or to avoid lawsuits.  On only a small number of procedures did the doctors check the box for "to avoid malpractice suit".  But the questionnaire had two columns, and for almost all of the procedures the doctors checked both boxes: "for the patient's health" (or words to that effect) and "to avoid malpractice lawsuits".  In only a tiny number of procedures did any of the doctors check only the "avoid lawsuit" box.  Baker pointed out other studies that corroborated that finding.  In other words, the doctors acknowledged that doing something to avoid a lawsuit was also in the interest of the patient's health.  Professor Baker concluded from that study and others, that the threat of lawsuits only rarely resulted in clearly unnecessary procedures being done.  Or looked at another way, the doctors also acknowledged that were they not to perform those procedures, they would have been negligent.

Again, I'm paraphrasing his book, which is loaded with references to numerous studies.  So I'd recommend going right to the book.

But Professor Baker makes another point about malpractice lawsuits, which is that we hold people accountable for their actions.  If someone clearly injures someone else through negligence or incompetence, then the injured party deserves to be compensated.  It isn't just medicine where we hold people accountable, but drug companies that knowingly sell medicines that are injurious, food companies that sell foods that they know, or should know, will hurt or kill people.  We hold airlines accountable for not repairing their planes properly that crash and kill people.  For some odd reason, many people believe that incompetence or negligence by doctors that kill and injure people shouldn't be punished.  Why, I'll never understand.

There was a recent example from Stamford in which negligence resulted in serious injuries to an infant, and its parents were awarded $36 million.  I don't know all of the details, but something like $30 million was for medical care for the child for the rest of its life.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 15:27:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sure Attorney Baker (0.00 / 0)

... has numerous studies to cite the value of lawyers and lawsuits. My point is we can do this cheaper and better. For instance, you say:

One survivor's family sued, which permitted the lawyer to get the truth about the hospital's horrendous rate of infections.  Other victims (yes, victims- let's not forget that people died unnecessarily there) joined the law suit.  In the end, the victims'families won their suit.

How about this: Force hospitals to publish their infection rates, and any rates below X will close down the hospital until remedies are put in place. Send inspectors to make sure they're up to code. That way, more than just Bridgeport Hospital would benefit.

Also, there's a cost associated with reducing infections -- maybe you'd have to hire another nurse to change bedding, for instance. If hospitals could spend less on liability insurance, they could spend more to ensure lower infection rates.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 19:06:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

publishing rates (0.00 / 0)

What happens if they lie? Doctors already don't disclose their history of medical error, as required by law. What happens if you learn that the infection rate was triple the published rate, and get an infection? Do you have any recourse?

And how would an additional 1% alter the current nurse-to-patient ratio?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 19:28:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What should happen? (0.00 / 0)

Hospitals have to report any incidents to the state, and in order to be accredited they have to allow random inspections. I don't know what happens if they lie. What should happen? What if they lie to attorneys? What if a patient lies?

By the way, you can create a system for filing a grievance with a hospital and have a public defender represent you. (UK offers public defenders in grievance cases.) It can be cheaper, and more accessible to patients who don't have access to expensive attorneys.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 20:33:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

another flaw ... (0.00 / 0)

If one of the earlier victims of the infections had an easy way to file a grievance, maybe that later victim wouldn't have died.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 21:17:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're now blaming the deaths themselves on malpractice insurance? (0.00 / 0)

We're in right wing fantasy-land now.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 21:52:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, I'm saying you need to make it easier to file a grievance (0.00 / 0)

You disagree? And you can't do that in the current system.

How about this: Keep the tort system in place, and then just allow people to file grievances easily and inexpensively through an arbitration system.

You'll see how trial lawyers will howl because it will do the same thing to them as the public option will do to insurance companies.

If you disagree with that basic improvement, then you are in right-wing distortion land, protecting the profits of lawyers and insurance companies for ideological reasons.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 22:28:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the only difficulty in CT (0.00 / 0)

... is that you can't file a complaint unless you have an expert sign off that, in their professional opinion, the standard of care was violated. The community nature of specialty practices made this extremely difficult to get from other practitioners within the state, so plaintiffs are allowed to seek expert opinions from outside of the state.

So my question about your idea is, are you suggesting that plaintiffs should no longer require an expert opinion to file (which would make it easier, certainly)? Or would their consultation with out-of-state experts be subsidized or covered somehow? The former would explode the number of cases, and the cost of defense attorneys for hospitals and doctors (and those attorneys bill by the hour, not on contingency) would be added to the medical costs on the other end (eating up your savings). The latter would increase the cost of health insurance or create a new government office in order to pay for research that is currently being covered out of pocket by trial attorneys.

Either of those two paths would be fine, but why you think a barrage of nuisance suits is going to cut cots, or having non-lawyers going up against the corporate counsel retained by hospitals is going to serve the interests of justice for victims of malpractice is a mystery to me.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 23:00:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paraphrasing Professor Baker.. (0.00 / 0)

In his book, Professor Baker pointed out that, indeed, the corrections that Bridgeport Hospital had to make to reduce its infection rates were very, very cheap.  He actually pointed out that the hospital had decided not to make a very inexpensive alteration that would have reduced infections before the lawsuit, but decided not to spend the money.  After they were successfully sued, they realized that they needed to make changes, changes that included things as simple as making sure that doctors washed their hands for a specified period before surgery (yes, they weren't doing that!), and repaired some other systems for minimal outlays of cash.  But it took the lawsuits to spur hospital management into action.

Professor Baker also points out that, despite requirements to report any adverse outcomes resulting from malpractice, they rarely do so.  He also points out that it takes the filing of a lawsuit for victims' families to actually get the truth about what happened to their loved ones.  Often, he writes, when it is revealed that the doctors and nurses involved did not do anything wrong, the families quickly drop the lawsuits.  But they are forced to file suits because doing so is the only way to get the truth.  Those lawsuits, which Republicans and the doctors' lobby often characterize as frivolous, are in fact a crucial means to discovering the truth.

Professor Baker's Rx for repairing the malpractice situation is to require hospitals to inform patients or their families whenever they know that an adverse outcome has resulted from malpractice.  I admit to not understanding all of his complicated system, but he suggests that doing so will lead to quick resolutions that will avoid expensive lawsuits by both victims' families and insurance companies and hospitals.  But do read the book to get a full understanding of his prescription.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 13:22:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"worth it" (0.00 / 0)

1. Only a small percentage of people actually sue for malpractice -- due to the fact that lawyers only take cases they think will be "worth it" to them. (Where's the justice?)

Lawyers consult with medical experts to learn whether cases are true malpractice or simply a series of unfortunate coincidences. This is another way of saying that private attorneys vastly reduce the number of frivolous cases brought into the system.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 16:53:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"worth it" (0.00 / 0)

Worth it means likely to produce enough money to justify taking this case over some other highly profitable case.

Most victims of "malpractice" receive no awards or compensation whatsoever.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 18:04:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Malpractice is clearly defined (0.00 / 0)

Each specialty has a standard of care that a doctor is expected to follow.

What is not clear is [the point at which/if] a particular condition [was/should have been] observed, what it was possible to do to address it, what priority that issue had among the other medical issues the patient was experiencing at the time, and whether the doctor took the correct steps in the correct order to preserve their patient's life and health.

Those are judgement calls that take months to sort out, and are incredibly specific to a particular case. You seem to think that someone can assemble a complicated formula and get a dollar figure at the end of it. I think that our existing legal system, with the evolving judgement of a jury of our peers, does a pretty good job, actually, and it's actually cheap. Even if I use your statistic, $24 billion, we're talking about 1% of the cost of healthcare going to remediating errors in the heathcare system. What do you ultimately think we can cram it down to?

That said, on your last two points, if small damages from medical error aren't allowed in small claims court, then they should be. The plaintiff won't have any experts allowed to speak for them, will have to study up on the standards of care, and figure out the labyrinthine process of obtaining medical records from a hospital for the express purpose of suing them (which is always popular with the medical records department) but no big deal, right? They only broke a toe or got a scar or something.

And the penalty for performing poorly would have to be pretty gentle to have a doctor or hospital jump at it over the current system. How would you stack up the value of 2% of your office budget going to pay for insurance versus your license would be automatically revoked with no ability to appeal after making a single medical error? Maybe that would be fair, and maybe it would severely reduce malpractice. But would it reduce "defensive medicine"? Would it distort the marketplace less than malpractice insurance rates do? I doubt it would do either of those things.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 17:20:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

$24 billion (0.00 / 0)

... doesn't remediate much at all. You can reduce incidents of malpractice and provide more equitable access to compensation in far better ways. But I'm glad that you're at least asking some good questions on how more people can be properly compensated for malpractice. That's a start, at least.

And I'll take this as one solution: make it easy for patients to access their medical records.

 

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 18:49:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

$24 billion (0.00 / 0)

...remediates exactly as much as American juries thinks it should remediate. I actually think that a having malpractice only cost 0.5-1% of the systematic costs is a good deal, and reflects pretty well on doctors in general.

And records are easy to obtain, unless the hospital screwed up and is facing a court date. So you "make it easy." What happens when the hospital doesn't give up the records? You're back to court. Again, you don't have rights if you can't sue for your rights.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 19:03:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Capt (0.00 / 0)

Show us what a 1% increase in expenditures would do. The one study you showed us said that it wouldn't make much of a difference. Give us something better, not this know-nothing rhetoric about trial lawyers.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 23:15:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would argue that... (0.00 / 0)

as Professor Baker points out, and numerous studies have concluded, only a tiny percentage of people actually injured by malpractice ever file a lawsuit.  Most don't because they are unaware that the doctor or nurse made a mistake.  And Professor Baker points out that hospitals and doctors almost never tell the patient or the patient's family that they erred.  Filing a lawsuit is a very expensive proposition, there is no assurance of success, the experts who need to be brought in are also expensive, and, as Professor Baker points out, insurance companies fight equally hard against lawsuits that they know themselves are indefensible as they do against lawsuits that are very defensible or are difficult to discern.  But contrary to the assertion that finding out if a doctor has made a mistake takes months and is difficult for even the experts, the Institute of Medicine study that very conservatively estimated that some 98,000 people die every year due to medical mistakes was based on reviews of records by doctors themselves, and only included deaths that were clearly seen as resulting from mistakes by all of the doctors on that panel.  Those patients who died from procedures that the doctors disagreed amongst themselves were mistakes were not included.  So if they had included the problematic, or difficult to discern negative outcomes, that 98,000 deaths figure would have been much higher.

Justice under our system of torts (no, I'm not a lawyer) requires that people be compensated when they are wrongfully injured.  But if only 3% of those injured or killed by malpractice actually ever file a lawsuit, let alone win an award, then our malpractice system is not working.  And a medical system that kills 98,000 people every year is also malfunctioning.  As Professor Baker states clearly at the beginning of his book, he believes that we don't have a medical malpractice lawsuit crisis; we have a medical malpractice crisis.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 13:33:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here are some data from Baker (0.00 / 0)

"In 2003 U.S. businesses paid $27 billion for auto liability insurance premiums, $57 billion for workers' compensation insurance premiums, and less than $5 billion for products liability insurance premiums.  Doctors, hospitals, and other health professionals paid only about $11 billion in medical malpractice insurance premiums.  This means that the real insurance money and the real claiming action for U.S. business does not lie in high-profile areas like products liability and  medical malpractice.  The real action lies in routine, below-the-radar areas like workers' compensation and automobile lawsuits. U.S. businesses paid less than half as much for products liability and medical malpractice insurance, combined, as they paid for auto insurance, alone, and only a quarter of what they paid for workers' compensation insurance.....

"Adding all the premiums of all the different kids of liability insurance together results in a big number- about $215 billion in 2003- but that number is hardly exploding, and the medical malpractice insurance share- $11 billion- looks pretty small by comparison.  It looks even smaller next to the $1.5 trillion plus we spent on health care that year.  Something that amounts to less than 1 percent of health care costs simply cannot have the impact on health care that the medical malpractice myth would have us believe.

"Even on a per doctor basis, that medical malpractice insurance number is not as high as many people think.  There were nearly 900,000 doctors in the United States in 2003.  That means that medical malpractice insurance premiums were about $12,000 per doctor, and of course  hospitals, dentists, and other heal care professionals buy malpractice insurance, too.  So the average premium doctors paid was less.  Some kids of doctors have to pay much more.  Obstetricians are the best-kown example.  But there is a simple insurance reform that will solve that problem, as I will explain in chapter 8."

(The Medical Malpractice Myth, by Tom Baker.  pp 8-9).  Keep in mind that Baker is a professor at UPenn, the former director of the insurance law institute at the University of Connecticut, and the child of two practicing doctors.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 21:33:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

for bringing up Professor Baker's excellent book.  While Professor Baker is now at the University of Pennsylvania, I'm sure he'd be willing to discuss the malpractice and tort reform issues with our Connecticut representatives -- if they were inclined to learn more than soundbites.

Another book which debunks the "theory" that malpractice lawsuits and premiums are at the root of our healthcare woes is "To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System."  Preventable errors drive up the costs of healthcare and cause up to 98,000 deaths per year.  

The book can be accessed online at:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph...

---

by: chele @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 23:57:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He references it extensively (0.00 / 0)

It's published by the Institute of Medicine, and in fact is the conclusion of an extensive research study.

Hearst Newspapers went back to the authors of that study recently and asked them if they believed that the situation had improved.  Their take was that the situation with preventable deaths is no better today.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 00:55:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In reality (0.00 / 0)

The medical error situation is largely a case of "Physician, heal thyself."  

How and why we blame attorneys -- and victims -- for medical errors, the resulting injuries, and the costs thereof is just mind-boggling.  Insurance company lobbyists have done a great job, haven't they?  

---

by: chele @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 18:11:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

spare us the defined tests approach (0.00 / 0)

Talk about tying a doctor's hands -- the assumption that if you only do the right tests, then diagnosis will be a snap is simplistic.  I would hope that neither Rep. Himes nor the governmebnt, charged with coming up with a short list of tests to do in order to avoid liability, would assume that diseases are clearcut and discrete, and that people only get one disease at once and that they all progress in the same way.

It gives me pause to think about something like Lyme disease, highly politicized and the tests often really don't work very well in coming to a diagnosis.  If you don't want  a wham/bam/thank you ma-am kind of medical experience, then why would you say, "Heck, we'll tell them what tests to do and if they don't work, no worries, because the government's got their back..."

Lyme disease really does require some diagnostic skills and the way that it shows up may vary greatly.  I just don't see it fitting neatly into the " do as we say and you won't get sued" scenario that Miller says Himes is espousing.

Glad Rep. Himes is thinking about how to reduce unnecessary tests -- not sure this is the way to do it.

Changing the point of initial contact with the MD from Crisis Time to Teaching Moment/Preventive Care (years earlier) might help...

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:03:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Toni Boucher and CT Republicans are painting themselves into the far-right corner (0.00 / 0)

further alienating all but the freaky fringes of their own party.  The more they align themselves with the Big PhRMA-Private Insurance lobby's Astroturf opposition to real health care reform, the more they prove to CT voters that their base is shrinking and, therefore, shrieking.

Now that Gov. Rell has opened the door to even a modest tax increase on people Toni Boucher calls "the so-called wealthy" I wonder what form of pretzel Toni's twisting her head into now.

Also, if people making more than $600,000 a year are "the so-called wealthy" I'd ask Ms Boucher how much does someone need to make to be actually wealthy?

---

by: catchlightning @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 01:50:45 AM UTC

The question Jim Himes should be asking Republicans is (0.00 / 0)

"How do you propose to bring down medical, insurance and pharmaceutical costs, insure the uninsured and expand coverage regardless of health history or employment?  How, exactly?  Or is it that you just don't want America to do this?"

And if they "respond" with the pre-packaged lines about not wanting "government-run health care", Jim should say "that's not what this is, but since you think it is and you're so opposed to government-run programs, let me ask 'Do you support abolishing Medicare?  How about Social Security?  Unemployment insurance?  Maybe public education?..."

---

by: catchlightning @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 02:00:51 AM UTC

Thank you from the Ridgefield RTC (0.00 / 0)

A quick thank you to Jim Himes for coming to our event today in Ridgefield.

I was happy to see so many people on both sides of the health-care issue come out and listen to the panel and ask some good questions.

It was also nice to meet you ctblogger.

Regards,
Jim Carroll
Chairman, Ridgefield Republican Town Committee  

---

by: Jim Carroll @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 19:26:52 PM UTC

Well I actually went to this shindig. (0.00 / 0)

I got there at about 1:00 so I missed half. From what I saw the crowd was well behaved. At one point someone started heckling Himes "answer the question" being posed to him. A cop went right over to the guy and that was the end of it.

As expected a heavily GOP crowd with a few of us DFHs peppered in.

There were also two doctors on the panel - one woman and one man. The woman was a Gastroenterologist. I think the man was a neurologist, but I'm not sure.

At first I thought the woman gastroenterologist was being a GOP tool. (I can't remember exactly what made me think that - I wasn't taking notes). Then she said, "I think we should raise cigarette taxes as much as possible". The few progressives in the room clapped. I thought that was a riot. I was expecting a whisper  "Icksnay on the axes-Tay" from Boucher and Debicella. For simplicity I'll refer to them as Tonella.

Tonella was talking about the "freedom" to not be covered. The doctors also chimed in a bit how that was crazy the female docto r talked about how people need to go for colonoscopies, and about how preventative medicine works. Unfortunately both doctors talked a little bit about how a lack of copays makes medical care "free" and could lead to unecessary appointments. (I can't wait for my no-pay colonoscopy).

Tonella was kept on talking about how the American system was the "best in the world". Unfortunately I couldn't follow up, and Himes had already left. I would have loved to ask what objective measure they were basing that on.

Toni specifically started spouting about how private systems were inherently better than public ones. The quesiton I wanted to ask, but couldn't was, "Tonella, what do you think of the job Chief Buford is doing with our socialized Ridgefield fire department, and how is that different than socialized medicine.

I did notice the moderator flipping through cards with questions on them. I'm pretty certain that wouldn't have made the cut. I didn't see any really hard questions from the left, but then again I did miss half of it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Goopers "seeded" some of their own questions in there. I've given pitches (non political) like that, and its the oldest trick in the book.

---

by: CTMET @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 19:30:47 PM UTC

I was there (0.00 / 0)

I was there as well and was happy to see Congressman Himes there.  The event, while hosted by the RTC, was open to the public and I had wanted to go even before I knew Himes would be there just to see what kinds of bull were being bandied about by our State legislature.  I was glad to see we weren't alone and there were other supporters of reform there as well.  It was good to see Rep. Himes speak intelligently, forcefully and honestly about reform and his support of a public option and while the majority of people there may never be in favor - if he reached even one or two people with the truth - it was time well spent.  He was able to counter some of the lies presented by Boucher and Debicella and who knows if he made an impression on some who are confused and frightened.  At least he tried.  There were a number of us who wrote questions but of course they were never posed to the panel. That's expected I guess but infuriating nonetheless.  But Himes did a great job and I think it shows his commitment to his constituency that he went and explained his position so well.

---

by: RainaP @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 20:19:27 PM UTC

Does anyone know if there is a video or (0.00 / 0)

transcript of the meeting.  

---

by: CTMET @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 13:49:54 PM UTC

I videotaped it (0.00 / 0)

I'll add my commentary, including my "conversation" with Jim Carroll shortly.

---

by: ctblogger @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 14:01:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, where can I find that? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: CTMET @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 16:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]