are clear. the question is, are they going to be applied? i personally think you can do it. it's a cultural change. it's always going to be more difficult to make that judgment than it is a judgment about the credibility. >> i think those are all the questions i have. you wanted to think about the issues a little bit more. i've been very grateful for your

persistence. i'm very used to looking backwards and trying to decide what's going to happen. but as many people have said including those at seminars which started off this inquiry, it's not necessarily a given that a judge would be the best person to make recommendations for the future. i can live with that. so whatever assistance you can give on how you have thought about changing the future, i would be very interested. first of all, gray with you

entirely whatever k lly whateve this should be independent of the government, independent of the state, independent of parliament. independent of the press. must command the respect of the press but equally the respect of the public. seems to me it can do a lot of different things. i would like a system that provides redress, particularly to those who can't afford to litigate. you comment your wife has started many proceedings. and had she in different

circumstances she not be able to do so. but yeah. >> even at the letters. so it's got to work for people who can't afford it. it's got to be speedy. and it's got to be effective. it has to achieve a result. if it can be done collusively by mediation, that's fine. i have no problem about that. also another issue. and that is to whom it involves. at the moment we don't take group complaints. so for example, and i have a number of people giving evidence

from, for example, the transgender community. the other groups. i've received submissions from disabled groups. who say because there's no name in this, there's nobody to complain. therefore there's no mechanism to retrain address. so the scope. the second is some sort of mechanism to resolve disputes. i would also like to think about whether i can't come up with another problem which relates to

education. i well understand the reasons that the european court gave for rejecting mr. moseley's complaint. his evidence was very clear. if you can stop my leg from being chopped off, why would you not want to stop it being chopped off? rather than trying to stitch it back on afterwards? so i understand the point. i equally understand there is an argument that in some circumstances, requiring prior notification would kill the story. so there has to be some way of drawing a line, and i share this with you. and sharing things that i haven't said before.

one possible might be to say there's a mechanism that allows the press to say look, we have this story. we don't feel we ought to notify the subject of it. for these reasons. the evidence or whatever. doesn't matter and to get a view. that doesn't bind the editor. he's perfectly entitled to say, well, thank you much, i reject it. if, however, that independent person who is really there as a check for the editorial, for editorial enthusiasm says, well, i take that point as reasonable, then the editor ought to be able to prover back in a court, to say i took reasonable steps.

either they don't ask, or alternatively he asks and gets the answer, then that doesn't he shouldn't publish. it's up to him. perhaps there should be a regime for the damages. i'm just throwing out ideas. and then you get a decision. and then i have another mechanism for swift revolution of privacy, small liable type issues. not the enormous stuff. perhaps the inquiztorial regime, that can be done without lawyers. but some mechanism for members of the public to be able to challenge decisions and get a

swift response. on top of all that, one has to have a mechanism that means that sanctions work. i'm not at all -- i recognize entirely the financial position of much of the press. but it's important that the sanction is taken seriously. after all that mix, the intimacy, or where the line should be drawn between conversations in a pub, through tweeting, which i appreciate from millions, through blogs, which equally can be followed by millions, or by a few. into the press. because i am struck by the fact

that what the bbc does is covered by five different rules to what -- excuse me. not the news of the world. and/or associated newspapers do. enyou can look at their websites. on the face of it, they're doing similar things. i'm not suggesting the press should become impartial. i entirely agree with everything you said about that. and that is the importance of that free press brings to our society. and although i know people continue to repeat i'm out to undermine freedom of the press, i will carry on saying this is repetitious evidence from over

the years. but it does seem to me to find a way possible of solving all of that without imperilling what is important to our society. i recognize immediately that you're entitled to say this, it was given to me by the prime minister last july. why should you take it on? of course, there's no compulsion. but because these are our issues that you've thought about, if you can provide me with some view, i would be grateful and welcomed to receive it. >> i will do that look, i think this is a very difficult task. and i think some of these questions are difficult, not just for our country, by the way, but this is a debate that

will take place around the democratic world. rather than giving you responses now, some of these are very tough questions indeed. especially around the things to do with social media. in some ways, those that deal with the issues, deal with intrusion and privacy and so on. and the other ones are a lot harder. and you do get something of a political con sen us around it. >> i have absolutely no doubt that a political consensus is very important, if not critical.

because one of the greatest concerns that i have is that this in the absence of such a consensus, the whole thing will become too difficult for the very reasons you identified at the very beginning of your evidence. and i have no doubt any prime minister will have all sorts of ideas and policies to issue. it may be today and during the currency of this inquirer. but whether it remains so is difficult. and what troubles me is you recant on history since the war

that has been four or five efforts. and it's always ended up too difficult. so when i said to mr. paxton that i didn't want my report to end up on the second shelf of a professor of journalism study, the only comment is it's hired for the second shelf. so even the bottom shelf is in his view obviously a possibility. >> yeah. look, i think there's a chance to get this in a better place, actually. and there will be many that will disagree with this. but i think there are a lot of people in journalism and in the media who if the frame work in which they are operating is

different it would also give them the freedom to be -- to do their job properly without believing that in some competitive rush to the bottom. i think part of all this is to do not with particular individuals or particular newspapers or bits of the media, but it is to do with the way the world has changed. and i think this has been growing and building up for a long period of time. and now i think it is a sensible moment in which we'll say, well, how do we protect our democratic freedoms but make sure that they are working within the system that is mature enough, also to be fair to people? >> well, i agree. the reaction to the whole thing has been very -- the inquirer has been illuminative.

in part aggressively defensive of the media's position. i hope that the press will work with a solution rather than against the solution. by recognizing the last thing i want to do is imperil freedom speech or free press. and that if any suggestion i have might have that possibility as i talked about them, and i have no doubt at all that they will pour over the words i've just uttered to you. but to get a solution that will work and that is sensible, most certainly. >> well, i think those people

who engaged in the political side should help do that. and i think it can improve the quality of political debate and democracy. i think you're right in recognizing this is very tough. but the key will be to establish a basis that allows a situation in which most people in my position have been uncomfortable with a long time to have that resolved in a way that is right and proper and fair. >> i'm not suggesting they should hold judges and politicians to a count whatever they do. >> i'm sure they will. mr. blair, thank you very much indeed. >> thank you. that concludes the business

today. # right. and thank you very much. thank you. you can see this on, former chief executive of international james murdoch any time in the c-span video library. go to cspan.org slrg video library. as ceremony from march included speeches by the speaker of the house and house of common ahead of the 60th anniversary of the succession to the throne. that's at 9:00 on c-span.

and all this week we've been featuring american history tv's weekend programs. tonight watch programs from the american art facts series, beginning at 8:00 eastern. visit three surviving forts around the nation's capitol as we examine civil war defenses of washington. at 8:30, look at clara barton's missing soldier's office. and then at 10:00 p.m., tour the mansion of frederick pabst. american history tv in prime time here on c-span 3. each sunday evening at 7:30 now through labor day weekend, american history tv features the series, the contenders. 14 key political figures who ran for president and lost, but changed political history. this sunday, the great

compromi compromiser henry clay. whether we're in politics or something else is to do the right thing. they also said in a sense that politicians need to remember the country and sacrifice for the country. that is something we need to remember as well. >> also this weekend, we'll feature the visit to wichita. american history tv this weekend on c-span #. chronic disease and efforts of the move away from the system where doctors are paid for each service they provide. this event was hosted on tuesday for the alliance for health reform. a nonpartisan group that doesn't lobby in favor. this is just over three hours. >> good morning.

my name is ed howard. i'm with the alliance for health reform. first of all, the words of welcome from senator of welcome from senator rockefeller, bob graham and the rems of the board of directors. but a word of thanks for everybody who began their post holiday work period, as we say here in washington, delving into one of the toughest problems that health care faces, which of course is health care costs. and we're going to talk today about two of the most prominent aspects of that. that is chronic care for chronic conditions, and the role of technology in health care costs. i want to thank first of all our friends at the kaiser family foundation, diane roland and her colleagues, for not only helping to support and sponsor this

series, but offering us this wonderful facility in which to have the discussion. you'll notice that we've configured the seats, those of you who are here for the first of these three briefings, in a way that we hope will encourage everyone around the table. and i see a lot of illustrious faces around this table, to get into the conversation. and we've reserved a fair amount of time for that to happen. so don't be bashful. i don't see anyone around here who would be usually characterized that way. so we will look forward from contributions from everybody sitting around the square. thanks also to everyone whose name appears on the screen above you. we have had broad and gratifying support from a variety of parts of the health care world, and

every organization represented there has been extremely helpful, not just in financially supporting the series but helping us to plan it out and make sure that we had the right folks around the table. and finally, let me just reiterate our thanks to our informal advisory board chaired by john rother from the national commission coalition on health care, who is also a member of our board. there is a sheet describing those folks in your material, and each of them played a big role in shaping the series itself, both the content and the format in a way that we hope will help. i'm pleased and fortunate to have guiding us through this entire series susan denser of health affairs, who i will not

say anything nice about, because you know all the good things about her. we're just happy that she's here to make sure that everybody gets a chance to make the contribution that they're capable of doing. susan, let me turn it over to you and have a great discussion. >> thank you very much, ed. good morning to all of you, and welcome back to work. those of you who were at our first session will know that when we open up a conversation about health care costs, it's very difficult to confine that conversation to a couple of discrete contributors for health care costs. we tried to do that in the first session and failed miserably. we will probably do that again today, just because, of course, as we all know, there are multiple determinants of higher health care spending. and these don't tend to exist in discrete silos.

they very much interact with each other. but once again, today we're going to try to stay on a couple of discrete contributors to health care spending and health care costs to the degree we can do that, and as you know, as ed said today, we're going to be talking about technology and chronic conditions as drivers of health care spending and health care costs. we, of course, are attempting to understand not just the role that these are contributing, but also in particular in start to discuss what is actionable. what can we do about these things? are there policy initiatives that would address them, that would not contravene some of our other goals in having a robust health care environment that addresses our needs. so what we will hear this tension throughout the conversation today as we discuss some of the actionable --

potentially actionable policy solutions, but recognize that there are tradeoffs involved and embracing them all. to get us started, we're delighted to have two speakers, joe antos from american enterprises and ken thorpe from emery, to speak respectably about the roles of technology and chronic conditions. and joe, we're very happy to have joe with us today. he decided to have an authentic health care experience over the weekend in order to have a legitimate grip on his subject. but joe managed to come back from a case of sciatica and be us with today. thank you for being with us. we know it was only with considerable effort you were able to join us. so joe has a presentation and then we'll move directly into ken's presentation. joe, all yours. >> thank you.

okay, there we are. so i promise to stay on the subject -- oh, sorry. i promise to stay on the subject for whole minutes at a time, technology. and you saw the picture of marcus welby. if you got up this morning and took a pill, you used medical technology. that's probably what almost everybody in this room did. i took quite a few pills. they didn't do much good. rick, get to work. but virtually -- what's that? >> i need incentives. >> i'll be getting to that in just a second. so rick has already taken me off of technology and to my favorite topic. but marcus welby, that instrument that he's using, that was probably the best he had in those days. the reason he went to your home

to visit you, he took that black bag, what was in it? a stethoscope, and basically nothing else. they had a thermometer too. okay, good deal. health care is not practiced that way anymore, and i think most of you can say that's a good thing. so there's the contrast to marcus welby. that is a proton beam therapy chamber. it's somewhat controversial. but the one thing you can be sure about it is, it's expensive. so it's always interesting to know how these things work, so here's a nice schematic and you can see there are these various ways to treat patients and the alleged power sources is the cyclotron. but we know that isn't true. the real source of power, of course, is money.

if we didn't have big demand for this technology, we wouldn't spend the money. it's the money that drives the system. so i'm glad i got past technology so i can now talk about economics. seriously, i'll go back to technology, but that's the point. as susan said, the various sources of health care costs, growth that people have attributed over the years are not separatable. and in particular, they all have their root in the supply or demand for something, and since this is a market economy, it means money. and in this particular case, it's both supply and demand. any way, here's something that i found in someone else's presentation that i thought was interesting. this does reflect the march of cost, of technology and of

course, the march of progress. the traditional technology, which is not clear that that's really traditional. the real traditional technology is something that the cave man did. so this is really kind of advanced stuff, since about 1910 or so. but we'll take it. and you can see that over time, we've gone to more and more sophisticated equipment and every time there's a new generation of equipment, it seems as if the cost is higher. what i can't tell you for sure is whether this is in price adjusted terms, but it probably doesn't matter. i think the impression is undoubtedly correct. but when people talk about technology, they think about pieces of equipment. of course, it's not just pieces of equipment. it's everything that a doctor does.