The overflow crowd of at least 125 people caused the meeting to move from indoors to out, with Weston First Selectman Woody Bliss telling people they could take the wooden benches outside.
"There will be no initiative as important as the one we're having a conversation about now," said Himes. "If we get it wrong, the downside is tremendous; if we get it right, the upside is tremendous. An issue of this magnitude and importance deserves a lot of this discussion," he said of healthcare.
Himes, a Democrat, said he committed himself, "at some peril within my own party," to saying that Congress should not vote on a healthcare bill before the summer recess. Of the 1,200- page bill, he had told his House colleagues, "I cannot read, review, and discuss this in three weeks."
Of his views on healthcare, "I start with the proposition that the status quo is no longer acceptable," said Himes to both loud boos and loud clapping.
"It's your choice. You decide how much clapping you want and how much talking you want," said Himes to the crowd, setting what was, thereafter, a civil tenor for the meeting.
Himes said the average family spends $1,100 a year in medical costs for those who have no insurance, meaning that insurance companies charge more in premiums because hospitals charge more to insurance companies to cover those who arrive at hospitals with no insurance.
Furthermore, it is more expensive to treat these peopple at this stage than if they had been diagnosed and treated at an earlier stage, he said.
"That's the financial reason to do something (about healthcare)," said Himes, noting that from a moral standpoint, it was unacceptable to do nothing.
As to what should be done, he said he liked what the House bill had done to close the "donut hole" for seniors, that it had put in a provision that insurance companies can't drop policyholders when they get a serious disease such as cancer, that it stipulated that insurance companies can't refuse to cover you because you have a pre-existing condition, and that it stipulated that insurance companies should not be allowed to impose a life-time cap on benefits.
"I like that we are considering a public option," he said to applause. "I support it because it is an 'option,'" adding that if someone liked their private plan, they could keep it. Furthermore, a public option would provide much needed competition for insurance companies.
Himes said that in this country, most geographic areas have one or two insurance companies. "That's not competition. That's collusion," he said, saying that they easily can and do set prices.
"I do not support a public option that is designed to force insurance companies out of business," he said.
Himes noted that the current bill doesn't do much to change the "fee for service" dynamic in which doctors are financially rewarded for prescribing more and more tests and procedures, rather than being rewarded for keeping people healthy.
He noted that many people don't get a yearly physical because they have to pay for it. If it were free, potentially expensive conditions could be caught early.
As to how he would vote, Himes said the bill keeps changing and the president seems to be backing away from a public option, so "It's a little bit of an open question."
Jay Goldma noted that there was a lot of fear about changes in health care. Of health insurance companies, he said, "I don't see them providing any value. Do they spread risk any differently than Medicare?"
Himes said insurance companies did administrative work, but from a cost standpoint, Medicare and the Veterans Administration could and did administrate more efficiently and they didn't pay their executives outsize salaries.
On the other hand, he said Medicare has provided three wheelchairs for one patient - clearly not cost efficient.
Himes said while most seniors are happy with Medicare, there are $30 to $40 trillion in "promises" that Medicare will owe over the next 10 years.
One woman noted that even upper-middle class people have trouble paying for health insurance. Another woman said that her friend is a diabetic and her insurance won't cover sessions with a nutritionist or a group program at Norwalk hospital on "How to Manage Diabetes," but it will cover $20,000 for a foot amputation 20 years down the road. The proposed bill says insurance companies would provide for free preventive care.
Tort reform was brought up. "It's a big fight between doctors and lawyers, but we all win if we can figure out a way to reduce medical errors," said Himes, mentioning electronic records.
There's a tension between high liability costs and the constitutional right to redress, Himes said. A possible solution was to determine what's appropriate treatment, what are best practices, and use that to determine more objectively if a doctor is negligent.
One man suggested limits on pain and suffering awards and suggested that the government set up a pool for that purpose.
Dan Gilbert, who is running for First Selectman in Weston on the Republican ticket, said that the government could fund the public option with deficit spending, whereas insurance companies couldn't. This would drive the insurance companies out of business, since many corporations would put their employees in the public option.
Gilbert also said that if there were lower payments to doctors, there would be fewer doctors and lower quality of care.
Himes said quality of care was important and that tens of thousands of Americans die each year from hospital-acquired infections.
One man said he had every page of the 1,200-page bill. "Obviously, I don't have a life," he quipped. He noted that the bill says no federal money will be used for abortion, but in the public option, it didn't say that. "If it's not definitely 'no,' then it's definitely 'yes', he said as others nodded in agreement with him.
Himes said the final outcome of the bill was in doubt, but the consensus is that it wouldn't change the federal policy on abortion.
"Yes or no?" asked the man.
Finally, "No," said Himes, again adding that the intent was not to change the status quo.
At the end, Himes asked how many were on Medicare and were "genuinely satisfied" with it. More than half of those on Medicare were satisfied. He asked how many were on private or employer-sponsored insurance and a much larger number of hands went up. Most seemed satisfied. However, one man said, "I pay $15,000 a year and I am not happy."
Another man said, "I am on Medicare, but I also have insurance from a private company and have had to use it extensively. Why doesn't the government use a combination of private and public insurance instead of overhauling the whole system? Make the government primary insurer and private insurance secondary."
Himes said that would work for the consumer, but the costs were spiraling out of control.