And we hate him.
President George W. Bush, a New Haven native whose family has deep roots in Greenwich, will stop by Bridgeport tomorrow. This gives Democrats a great excuse to do what they do best: complain about what a lousy jerk Bush is.
Farrell is planning a noon rally on Wednesday at the Bridgeport City Hall Annex, a block from where the president is appearing, to criticize both Bush and Shays for the administration's handling of health care matters. She has invited everyday citizens to talk about their experiences with health care delivery.It also gives Republicans a chance to be somewhere else.
Rell's two Democratic opponents plan to stop by the Farrell event. (AP "Democrats")
Chris Shays, who will be flying in with the president on Air Force One, and Jodi Rell, who unfortunately has made a point out of always being in the state, are on the hook. Shays seems pretty pleased with himself, although Rell, when asked last week if she'd meet with the president, gave this tepid response:
"If the president comes to Connecticut, as the governor of this state I would welcome him and I would be glad to be there with him." (Cummings)Other high-profile Republicans decided to sit this one out.
The state's other two Republican members of Congress, U.S. Reps. Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson, said they are staying in Washington for legislative business. (AP "Democrats")Who can blame them? Bush has a 31% approval rating here, where both the war and his domestic policies are increasingly unpopular.
Worse, his motorcade is going to cause massive traffic problems. I'm glad he never comes to Enfield. Can't he take a helicopter? Like, say, the Sikorsky-made Marine One?
Oh. Never mind.
Sources
Cummings, Bill and Peter Urban. "Bridgeport on Bush's schedule." Connecticut Post 1 April, 2006.
"Democrats primed to criticize Republicans for appearing with Bush." Associated Press 4 April, 2006.
58 comments:
At least that would be more interesting than health savings accounts.
TBC, re: "dying a Democrat"?
Should I alert either Commissioner Boyle or Joe's life insurance agent about this fervent hope?
shays johnson and simmons will all win again...
Johnson can run, but she cannot hide.
From the Courant article:
Douglas Schwartz, director of Quinnipiac University Poll, said he can understand why Republicans, especially those in tight races, might be leery of appearing with Bush. Quinnipiac's last poll marked a new low in Connecticut for the president.
"This time, because the war is so unpopular, it could make a difference," he said. "In most elections for Congress, it comes down to the local factors, the individual candidates. But this year, with the war looming over everything and dragging down President Bush's numbers, it could make the difference in close contests." (emphasis added)
Inference: Nancy Johnson's polling is telling her she has a lot to worry about. And she does.
Simmons can run as well, but he can not hide either. The 2nd CT is far to blue this election and will notice how much of a phony that simmons is. Simmons needs the republican party just as much as they need him, and the voters will realize that this election. go ahead with the "coat-tails" from Rell. I dont see it. but go ahead anyway....
You guys are just brilliant.
Congress is in session tomorrow. If Johnson and Simmons hang around Bridgeport you'd pillory them for missing work for a photo op. Menawhile Shays gets hammered for attending the event even if it is in his district.
Yeah, it's like billionaires funding special interest attack groups is a bad thing unless George Soros funds them so they can invent charges against Republicans....so much for believing in campaign finance reform
Rells coat-tails will help state Reps and Senators not U.S. congressional candidates.
Republican is such a strong brand these days...
Look, Rell is getting a Gerald Ford honeymoon. No one wants to deal with the ugliness of a Governor going to jail.
Fortunately for Jodi, she wasn't standing besides Rowland while he was depriving CT of his "honest service". Was she?
In the Rell fantasy-world, Jodi was always out on her own! Rowland conned her into the fold, not b/c of her Sgt. Schultz loyalty, but b/c of her political strengths and integrity.
Whoops! Not really!
Look, Rowland made Rell. They had a twenty-year friendship. And nobody should be fooled by Jodi's Sgt. Schultz act. Rell is hardly a paradigm of virtue!
And just like Jodi's real Republican base, no one in CT should trust her. A Republican suddenly for publicly financed elections? -- yeah, right!
You'll have a long time to keep whining about Jodi. Enjoy your misery
Rells coat-tails will help state Reps and Senators not U.S. congressional candidates.
I agree. In 2004 the Rowland scandal brought us some amazing Republican losses for General Assembly seats, but Shays and Simmons held on because voters didn't associate them with Rowland.
But they (+Johnson) are associated with Bush....
TrueBlue -- DeStefano endorsed Lieberman too. If you're going to attack a Dem in the Gub. race over Lieberman, they both deserve it. They've also both spoken out against the war, btw.
Speaking of DeStefano, has there been any mention on here of the JI article on him and Malloy sparring over labor support? It's here
Good article. These two are starting to go at it, and it's getting interesting.
Someone should really tell John that you shouldnt qualify certain statements: "'My record is pretty clean,' DeStefano added"
Turrffgrrl: Fabrizi is the Mayor of Bridgeport and he will be welcoming Bush. Shays is the Congressman for the District and he is travelling on Tail 28000 with him. This is all protocol stuff. When Reagan was meeting with Gorby, they were not always best friends. And even Rell appeared with Maloy in Stamford yesterday.
And anyone interested in innovation in healthcare financing might want to check out the front page of today's Wall Street Journal for how MA (GOP guv and Donkey legislature) is trying now to do it with new legislation. No link here because the WSJ requires registration.
disgruntled: I think the logistics for when they use what mode of travel when for POTUS is a little more advanced than that but in any event for GC: Sikorsky lost the Marine One contract becuase Stephen Finger put up the wrong entry from the Sikorsky portfolio in the competition - too small and not powerful enough.
And for a little debate on the issue of HSA's here is a NHR link.
Here you go from today's NYT on the MA legislation for Massachusetts Sets Health Plan for Nearly All
Captain Obvious -
Thanks for the link to the JI story. Pretty interesting. Good pick up on JDS' "my record is pretty clean" line. Doesn't that kind of imply that his record is a little dirty? Not a good choice of words. Slap must have been busy with his new daughter -- as he should be -- for that one to slip through.
I just don't understand why they could land at tweed and then copter to bpt....instead they close the largest highway in the state so they can drive to bpt from NH....not exactly helping the economy.
The Business Council of Fairfield County invited him to speak. Blame them if you think the logistics will hurt the economy not the Secret Service for shutting down traffic and doing their job.
disgruntled_republican,
Tallarita? Really? First I've heard of it.
I've only met him a few times, but he seemed like a decent guy and people here seem to like him.
If anyone from Enfield is on the ticket, it would be great for us. Enfield is also one of those big, marginal towns that a Democratic gubernatorial candidate would absolutely need to win.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more it kind of makes sense. It's geographic diversity, Tallarita's from a strategically vital town, he's well-known among area Democrats (he's Courtney's treasurer right now)... why not?
turffgrrl: Shays is a rep while V is a senator; I see a difference there - and CT's transpo problems still go back to state govt. because Shays has never been turned down money for a transportation project. The nitwits who run this state - guv, legislators and commissioners - have no idea what to do except spend, spend, spend and that is not the answer - Bush will be driving through half of the quarter billion dollar so-called I-95 greater Bridgeport improvement that hasn't done anything to improve traffic flow but that's what the leaders wanted and tha'ts what they got - and neither the citizenry nor the business community nor the press is up in arms about the waste and failure.
In the oregon v. the mass. proposal is where we differ as you, a Democrat, and me, a Republican; I guess. We essentially have a single payer today for 40% of the population in medicare and medicaid - and in reality that's where the big bucks are spent. If we want to go 100% to single payor, I'd rather just see the VA system for everyone. The single payer - medicare and medicaid - system as pointed out before in some of my links sets up perverse economic incentives to the greedy doctors and hospitals providers and it has been doing it for 40 years.
I happen to think there needs to be a better dialogue in the US Senate on this and the nitwits at Coommon Good here would like you to beleive there is but when you get to the details you will see great disparities between the DLC and the Senate Republican Policy group,
Anon 10:40 - I am assuming that tweed is not an option because of the size of the runways.
Dis_Repub - i believe the thing being criticized was Shays' tactics. In the political climate right now, it would be better for him to not be in a picture with Bush.
And turffgrrrl: They landed as it says here and undoubetdly have crossed the Q Bridge (albeit DeLauro's territory)which will be getting tons of federal funds and as you may recall was somewhat held up and hijacked because neither DeStfano nor ConnDOT could get their act together. And having looked at the traffic patterns that will be created when it is done, they really could have done mush better but this afterall is CT where progress is measured by how deep we are in debt.>
Gabe: check my earlier post - they had planned to land two 747's at Tweed and i assume they used them - the helicopter business has to do with logistics and security - i saw it on PBS once whne they weren't covering boring UCONN basketball..
bluecoat:
If we want to go 100% to single payor, I'd rather just see the VA system for everyone.
Paul Krugman recently made exactly that case.
Sorry - missed it. It just seems hard to believe that a 747 could use tweed given the size of the runways and the airport.
I wasn't plageurising Professor Krugman; it just makes sense if you want natioanl healthcare to do it that way rahter than expand the medicare and medicaid disasters. There is even something in today's NYT where Suozzi is saying they are paying for dead people in NY but I only read the headline.
I still would prefer to see more consumer driven health services but it means busiting up the AMA and AHA monoploy and typing on a blog by me won't do that.
Quick question: does anyone know the date of the Republican Party's Convention this year?
turffgrrrl:And I would prefer to see individuals take responsibilty for their healthcare in the long run as they did prior to WWII and you would prefer to see the goverment take it over. I would not say you are wrong anymore than I think I am wrong. What's wrong is we have no national healthcare policy vision that our govt. can agree about and work toward - both sides are nibbling around the edges because they remebere waht happened to Hillary..
Just for the sake of clarity, I didn't intend any accusation of plagiarism, bluecoat. I only meant to offer a corroborating opinion.
Turfgrrl's last paragraph hits it right on the head. This is both accurate and, I believe, the politically winning argument.
In the latest independent survey, 81 percent of VHA hospital patients express satisfaction with the care they receive, compared to 77 percent of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
From the Washington Monthly piece turfgrrl linked. Interesting tidbit. 77% satisfaction leads me to question bluecoat's characterization "the medicare and medicaid disasters".
Whereas the HMO model is clearly a failure, and the argument for so-called "market based" health care completely lacking in supporting evidence, except at the very high end of the market where money is just a number.
I didn't take it that you accused me of plagiarism. Only the chancellors of a CSU outlet plagiarises. I don't disagree with what truffgrrl said in that paragraph about people being healthy and money driving politicians actions and even to say it is "politically winning" as you do may fly but your candidate is as naive as his opponent is antiquated.
Next to healthcare and transportation in CT, the outrageous costs of a state offered higher education need to be addressed too. None of this is happeneing form anybody - except for 'politically winning' statements.
If you are going to run a campaign you should look at more than a percentage satisfaction #. The perverse economic incentives in medicare/medicaid drive up costs and that was pointed out in half a dozen links that I ahve already posted. Maybe you missed the FOI beef with Rell's DSS Commissioner on getting stats on the quality and HMO delivery of Medicaid - and that is how it is delivered in CT. It's 16% of our GDP but the pols will reduce the issue to a dsoundbite at election time and then do nothing as usual.
For the record, I have nothing to do with the Murphy campaign. In fact the only reason I was posting under CT05 Admin was because I linked to the blog.
I am suggesting that your analysis is flawed because your underlying assumption - that market forces will impose discipline on medical care as they do in most other areas - is flawed.
The conclusion you draw is open to question. Medicare and medicaid are not blank checks. Ask doctors and hospitals, and they'll tell you that the remittances from these programs are insufficient to the point where many who have a choice stop accepting patients under these plans. The availability of care is heavily influenced by the quality of your insurance (or other ability to pay).
Yet, costs keep rising. Premiums keep going up. Basic care is rationed to the point where something like 50 million people have no health coverage. Which is to say they have greatly reduced or no access to health care.
The idea that I should haggle with my physician is ludicrous. I'm sick, I need his or her help, or my child, or mother, or grandfather needs them, and you suggest we ought to dicker? We aren't talking about used cars here. I do, however, have to spend an awful lot of my valuable time dickering with the HMO's to get them to pay bills they ought to be paying.
Check and see what proportion of our health care expenditures go to administrative costs (HMO's). Now check and see what proportion of Medicare premiums go to cover administrative costs. No contest.
(And I'll post under my own name at this point.)
Try again; Cardiologists and heart surgeons may be complaining about their incomes but that doesn't mean they aren't making enough under the perverse compensation schedule of Medicare. The 3% admin cost of medicaid is a bogus plus point BTW because it only considers the govt. cost. And you ignored - again - that Medicaid is delivered by HMO's in CT.
And you should read what I say and not assume what I mean if you wish to succeed in whatever it is you are pushing in politics.
Medicare is administered in every state I am familiar with by an insurance company. As for the administrarive costs: Ask your doctor?
The VA is, in fact, highly efficeient and effective as a provider of health services and Medicare doesn't even begin to touch it. As for CT Medicaid; read again; I think what DSS is doing sucks.
Solutions? Not on this post.
turffgrrl: the AMA also controls the supply of the types of medical professionals through medical shool enrollment, residencies/internships and lobbying. deciding to simply pay the infrastructure delivery by one payor won't fix that. The WWII reference goes to when companies first decided to pay for health insurance to keep workers because they were not allowed to give their employees raises r the wage and price controls put in palce during the war - it's the same reason the defense companies built housing - government intervention whether it is price controls or social engineering always screws things up in the long run.
And I almost forgot to answer Chris the govt. can solve it all on this I wasn't referring to surgeons, I am talking about the inaccessability of basic care it's because medicare and Medicaaid pay surgeons and specialists better than internists - and the private insurers pay in line with Medicare.
Heh - that'd be something huh?
April 5, 2006
Dateline: Cyberspace
BLOGGERS SOLVE HEALTHCARE CRISIS.
Turns out it was pretty simple after all.
Both houses of Congress met in special session and Presidents Bush and Cheney flew in from political fundraisers today to laud the work of "bluecoat", "turfgrrl", "Chris MC" and "Ghengis Conn" as they resolved one of the most difficult and expensive problems facing America....."
Very funny - and I mean that sincerely - but you don't think it is the dumb-ass mainstream-society- is-not-my-realm doctors who will solve it. As for med mal; it's about negligence and incompetence in CT; and shoving it off as an 'administrative issue is bull' and not respecting the rights of the consumer.
But bluecoat you're insisting on arguning within your premise. Turfgrrl points the problem with the system out clearly.
I'll put it somewhat differently. As a businessman, your basic objective is to maximize profit, which means in part externalizing as much cost as possible, paying out as small a percentage of your revenue as possible.
Like dumping toxic waste in the back lot, getting rid of less profitable operations such as insuring people who aren't so healthy shifts those costs outside of your enterprise.
Before too long, at the risk of taking this analogy obnoxiously [sic] far, you have a brownfield or a superfund site - or people who are chronically undercared for. Next thing you know, the site starts to leak into the aquifer, and now everybody has to deal with it in a much more expensive way.
Analogy - people showing up in the ER. Other analogy - people being less productive or unproductive - like a brownfield nobody can redevelop - because of health issues or unportability of health benefits. You've said nothing to address these very real and practical problems.
And some on the left's proposed solution - to force employers to pay insurance costs - is no solution, btw.
I happen to agree with Bush on the Community Health Centers but they need to be brought up to the quality and uniformity of the VA - the WTNH link is here and i only read the synopis and didn't listen the forum but I've heard it before.
OK, Chris (I was posting while you were) but let's nationalize Sikorsky, Lockheed and everybody else who supplies the government then.
hey, why are simmons and johnson staying in washington? looks like there are no votes in the house today... so are they just scared of being seen with the guy they helped elect?
I understand what you're saying about the medmal - I am definitely not saying that though. I am talking about the fact that a lot of medmal goes unaddressed because it doesn't meet the threshold of adjudication.
But (nationalization) that isn't my argument. Again, some stuff just can't be profitable, and some stuff won't respond to market forces. A lot of basic medical care falls into that category. High end, technology-sensitive, capital-intensive stuff, where real innovation happens, different story.
And some stuff, like weapons, is a whole other discussion.
"He said he wants small businesses to be able to pool risk the way big business does, and he made a big pitch for the health care savings accounts, saying people will be more careful in selecting health care if they are paying for part of it themselves."
I'm sorry, this is just nonsense as usual. What, to start, does he mean by small businesses pooling risk the way big business does? Short answer, nothing. He's got NOTHING. It's pure BS.
Second, in case it has escaped somebody here as it evidently has the President, the largest corporations have steadily moved away from company centric benefits - think GM's crushing defined-benefit plan they are spending BILLIONS to buy out of - to portable ones - think GE's move to 401K's. The President is just bass ackward on this.
And health care savings accounts? Really? People will be more responsible? Mr. President, 50 million people already have this option, and no other.
IT AIN'T WORKING.
Finally, if pooling risk makes sense, shouldn't we pool as much risk as possible? (Answer, yes). So he is contradicting himself in one breath.
How can a man be this stupidly obstinant?
"The protesters include anti-war people, health insurance people and supporters of senator wannabe, Ned Lamont"
Ouch.
Is there a Lieberman mole in the WTNH operation?
What you say about labor unions and bar associations is sometimes not always true. What you say about medical societiies is absolutley true. Lawyers, and in particular trial lawyers have to contend with judges - just look at how many times in recent years the CT Supreme Court has found the state prosecutors engagrd in prosecutorial misconduct. And on the state emeployee side, at least in CT my experience is that the AFSCME do work - are there contracts too lucrative? Yup, but the guv signed off on them. And you didn't say word about the municipal teachers and administrators,
But your list plays well with the right wing that doesn't look at the details.
The CBIA here likes to complain about state employee unions but have they oofered up theri expertise to modenize stae govt. Of course not; they make too mush money off of it the way it is. The same thing is true of the CT State Mediacla Society here with their undying support of mandates on what should be added to an basic health insurance policy and theirr undying support of work rule legislation to protect their turf - just as an example the use of physician asistants has greatly lowere the cost of healh insurance/services in other states but in CT what they can do is severley limited by. Toghthert eh doctors and hopital administrators spend over $$1million lobbying Hartford to maintain the status quo and their incomes - all in the name of the public - BULL>
I have worked with labor unions for 30 years and at the end of the day what you say has not been true when I dealt with them honestly, respectfully and firmly - straightforward in business. The ruels were alittle different than dealing with non- organized groups but the same principles applied. When there is a big bully union, there has usually been a laissez-faire mgt. that alowed them to get that way. While the auto workers at GM are not really bullies, the company did make them promises that if they could not keep.
turrfgrrrl: It's also a myth that you can not dismiss or discipline a union employee for cause.
There you go again; I know of few 'outrageous' jury awards here in CT.
bluecoat, out.
Genghis did; check the title of this blog. Bye, bye; or check out the Chamber of Commerce's national website where they rate states by litgation botherment; I haven't checked it latley and don't have time for a link but CT ranked in the Moderate range last I checked.
And on the national class action nonsense that has been a problem, our own Chris Dodd brokered a deal for legislation that passed last year in the Senate to begin to stop the process of jury shopping for national stuff.
I read a great pamphlet about the lady with the hot coffee in her lap case (in the interest of disclosure, I got it from a lawyer). McDonalds was sneaky on that case and deserved to have a verdict against them. (Although the woman did not collect millions as some would have you believe)
The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
also for those who are screaming "personal responsibilty!!!!", the McDonald's woman had her verdict reduced because she was at least partially responsible for the accident.
Post a Comment