tv [untitled] CSPAN June 12, 2009 2:00am-2:30am EDT
reach out to achieve as many people being involved as possible. because that's hard. and community health centers when they've elected to do that, whether it's having the resources to have sufficient healthcare providers at every step of the way, we will be able to explain the bill to the american people once it is a mark comes forward. and then open to what congress will work its will, people will make suggestions, and we will have a product that will meet the president's values, meet the needs of the american people, be paid for, and make america healthier. ..
has an overwhelming advantage. of course it is not the profit and it doesn't advertise so it has -- it doesn't have some of the overhead that the private sector has. already, just the thought of having a public option has sort of eliminated words of -- from the health insurance glossary of preconditioned portability. everybody seems to be subscribing to the idea that we shouldn't have a precondition in order to get -- eliminating for health insurance. this is what we have come to do. our three chairman ask asked that that i remember dingle be the author of this bill. every year since he has been here he has been the author of universal health care. before that, his father was. he zpwaveled medicare. -- gaveled down medicare.
very few republican votes by the way on medicare. so we have heard the same concerns before. but it is -- it is a pretty -- as i said, this is life work for many members of congress and it certainly is the responsibility for all of us. this will happen. we told the president we would have a bill by the end of july. that it would be paid for and that's the course of action that we're in. i commend our three chairman, rangel, waxman and miller for working together, limiting any chank challenges that occurred in the 1990's and to facilitate this improvement in the lives of the american people. >> the senate passed tobacco bill barring unexpected amendment in the next couple of days. >> when we see the bill i can give you a more definite answer.
from what i have seen so far, i believe it will be possible for us to accept their bill and send it to the president. talking about the f.d.a. tobacco bill. thank you all very much. >> house republicans put forward their health care proposal on thursday. john bohner is joined by members to have group which crafted their plan. this is about 20 minutes. >> on every major issue addressed by congress and the white house this year, it is the american middle class that has take an hit from the trillion dollar stimulus bill to the fiscally irresponsible budget to endless bailouts. washington has asked the middle class to bankroll trillions in spending that we can't afford. now it appears that democrats
are ready to lead us off the cliff again, this time with health care. we're here to engaged and be on alert for what congress is about to do to rush a health care bill through this congress and into law. they want to rush it through congress as quickly as possible so that no one will understand the implications of what's about to happen. president obama is in wisconsin today pushing for rough passage of a bill that is going to make health care for expensive for america's middle class. but let's be clear. washington cannot afford to repeat the same mistakes made on the stimulus, the omnibus and the budget and the bailouts. small businesses have too much at stake when it comes to their health care. it raises taxes, rations care and puts bureaucrats instead of doctors and patience in charge.
it would force millions of americans off their own plans and into a government-sponsored plan. republicans know there is a better way. working with roy blunt, the chairman of our health care solutions group we've got better solutions to make sure that the middle class of america has access to high quality affordable health insurance and hope that the democrat also continue or begin to work with us to craft a bipartisan bill that will really address the needs that we have in our health care system without throwing baby out with the bathwater. >> as co-chair of the tuesday group, we are coming together with a centrist health care reform bill that will unveil on tuesday. what that bill will do is substantially reform health insurance markets, backing employer provided care which
already covers 170 million americans. one of the key examples that i would give on how substantive health care reform does not back a government takeover, really still does solve a lot of problems for middle class americans is to compare california and new jersey. if you want to do it poorly, you i do do it like to state of new jersey which has almost no reforms and has now boosts the average cost of care to $6,000 per person. if you want to do it in a much better way, it is california where insurance pools are larger and you reduce the cost almost $5,000 per patient and what we would be doing in our tuesday group reform bill is backing the kind of reforms that have lowered the cost in california over what's happening in new jersey. that's number one. number two, i'm very worried about how to pay for this system. having just come back in china,
we're worried about overall deficit spending by the united states. and the practice of the fed, one part of the federal government buying another part of the federal government's debt. when you look at the overall weakening of the dollar in international markets i think there is great fear about additional spending by the congress and the question that i would ask is with the federal government already $1.8 trillion in debt, would you really put that institution that is already out of money in charge of your families' health care. a sustainable plan is what is absolutely required. especially by international market s that areworried about the dollar. finally, the most respected medical jourge in the world, i would argue, the "lancet" which is published in britain published a study on cancer survival rates. americans are much more concerned about lowering the
cost of their insurance, even more than expanding coverage for everybody but there is one question that is more important than what any poll will tell you, which is will you live or die given the health insurance system that side present. the cancer survival rates across all european countries, canada and the united states and what it said in the most respected pure viewed way you are much more likely to live in the united states through cancer than in canada or the e.u. and we want to make sure that we do not harm that record because if you get a bad result from you're on colings and you're fighting cancer -- oncologist and you're fighting cancer you much more likely to live in the united states than those other countries which some folks have been looking at as a model from where the united states should go. >> good morning. i'm lynngenicens from the great state of kansas.
health care is not just a policy issue for me. as a daughter of aging parents and a mother of two children i've spent a fair amount of time in doctor's offices and emergency rooms in recent years. and when it comes to health care for my loved ones, i want their doctor working with us to explain treatment options and helping us make important decisions, not a distant government bureaucrat or washington politician who doesn't know situation and doesn't know my family. we've got a health care crisis on our hands. it is definitely a crisis when a family is denied the ability to choose the dack or the or hospital that is best for them and i'm concerned with some of the proposals being discussed in washington that will take that choice away and put a government bureaucrat in charge. health care decisions are personal and one thing we know for sure is that a one size fits all government take glover
health care will takeover in health care will result in fewer choices for americans. doctors are the best health care experts out there. they have spent years just to get that d.r. in front of their name. the last thing kansasians need is a bureaucrat in washington, d.c. telling them what kind of treatment they need or do not deserve. my constituents have called me asking me to represent them in this debate. the vast majority of them say reform is needed but i have not heard many who think that a government-run health care system will benefit them. one lady from pittsburgh, kansas, said she was concerned about any plan that allowed so-called leaders who have no medical background deciding who'll get what treatment when. she went on to say treatment may
be delayed or not given. my constituents have it figured out. house republicans will continue to ask to be part of this debate. this will no doubt be one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this year and for years to come and so for all the medical decision makers across this nation, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, rather than letting a distant bureaucrat call the shots for the ones you love we want to put the medical professionals in charge and we want you to have a say in every decision regarding your family's health. thank you. >> lynn jenkins was on the health care task force that the leader put together. the ranking members from all the committees involved, workforce committee, the energy and commerce committee, the budget committee and the ways and means
committee have been actively working. mark kirk's group has been very involved in the discussion we have been having and i think what has and in the last few weeks is we have become more and more specific and the administration has become less and less specification. there are eight principles. there are now three. their website has a lot less information on it than its did two weeks ago. one of the frustrations has been that we keep pounding on the door and we have good ideas here and we want to be a part of this process. we agree with the goals and that door never never opens for us. i read on the senate side the outside groups >> told if you're caught talking to republicans you're going to be penalized as this discussion goes forward. i think what the concern here is that our friends on the other side know particularly when it comes to public option this idea of a government takeover of health care just simply will not
fly are the american people. the american medical association, which has been trying to work with the administration up until my guess is about yesterday, yesterday announced that they are absolutely opposed to a government-run health care plan. they understand, as does everyone else who has analyzed this, as one of the competitors that very quickly you'll have no competitors. all the government plan does is shift the cost of everybody who doesn't that have plan and doctors have seen that now. these are not advocates for insurance company. these are advocates for something that works. one of our principles, with not for a government takeover of health care because we think it drives people away from the coverage they have tuned in most americans really think the coverage they have now works pretty well for them. they have heard all the reports and discussion and listened through campaigns and they believe there is a problem.
they just actually don't think the problem affects them. about 83% of the american people think their current health care coverage is either good or excellent. 83% and that's why you hear the president saying as mrs. clinton started saying last year if you like what you have, you can keep it because they know that people like what they have. but the truth is, under their plan, you will not be able to keep it because it just won't be there anymore. the government will never compete fairly and so before long you don't have any competitors. government won't compete fairly and we need to have actually more competition. not less competition. lens would add to that statement if you like what you have you can keep it you should also have even more choices than you have now. more opportunity to get into a
system that everyone can find coverage in. we are for a system that everybody can have access to, regardless of their pre-existing conditions. we think competition and better management and transparency and liability reform make that system more affordable . not less affordable and we also want to get realistic about the number of americans now that don't have insurance. that number may be 45 million. but an awful lot of them could get insurance at work if they wanted to. an awful lot of them are healthy people under 30. we're not satisfied. 10 million people can't get to the system now. we want everybody including those 10 million people that don't have access to have access. we want sick americans who have a preexisting condition and a chronic predisposition to have helt care coverage. we're going to be fighting for that. we're going to be fighting for a system that does not have us y waiting lines and rationing.
i think that's where this battle is coming down to. i've seen in the last few days these people in health care, the doctors, the most immediate example to have american medical association, the people in health care have been trying to work with the administration. they have listened to the rhetoric and as they begin to see the specifics saying this won't work. this plan will not work. that brings me to the other -- to the point that the leader made that i think it is critical to understand here. to set an artificial deadline of getting a bill off the house floorly the end of july when there is no bill by the middle of june when we're talking about restructuring somewhere like 16% to 18% of the american economy is needless. it is dangerous. it is outrageous and it won't allow the american people to see what's happening. so they may stay with that deadline. as people figure out what they are trying to do they are going
to be offended by this rush that the american people are getting to restructure not only the economy but their health care. their family's in a time frame that doesn't make sense, hoping that they can seek a government takeover of health care through before the american people realize what everybody agrees will be the consequences of that. you know, even the democrats say government competitor, that's a good thing. i think jan recently in a speech said -- and people on the other side are saying a government competitor means there will be a single pair system before too long and she went on to say you're right. that's what they side believes and that's what we believe. they won't want to that to happen and health care providers are stepping forward saying they don't want it to happen either. >> you said 83% of americans
like what they have and think it is pretty good. and the polls do show that. what responsibility does congress have -- many of those people, i don't know even another way to put it. many of those people are wrong. they may like what they have. it is not very good. it is overpriced and overensured and encurege courages them to seek too much care. how much work does congress have to do to persuade them and should they pay taxes? >> i'm tempted here to hope you're quoting somebody else from washington. that's a washington centric kind of view. the american just don't know what is good for them. this is the same debate we had when we started talking about part d and medicare. people would never be able to choose from this system. it is too complicated. turns out not complicated at
all. about 79% of the american people think it costs too much. principle it is fairly ingested depoo into the system are important. transparency, liability reform. better reporting. better use of technology. more importantly, a bigger marketplace. where people actually have to get out and compete in a marketplace where your employer may be able toll provide you with the insurance -- to provide you with the insurance that they have been provide yog you but may be able to make an equally -- directed by you purchase of insurance somewhere else. the bigger the marketplace the more likely people are going to have the care they need and the more likely the price is going to be reflective of a marketplace driven price where people -- where they are competitive with the price and care. one of the reasons part d works so well is that 100% of the
people in that edition of prescription drugs to medicare, 100% of the people in that system know they can change their provider in the next 12 months and so does their provider. that's why it is 40% cheaper than anybody estimated it would be. that's why you have these high levels of satisfaction. we think those same principles apply to the greater system and address the issue of price and that is an area of concern. people think that the system they have now in most cases works well for them. and if you have a government competitor, virtually, every study i'm aware of says that half of the people that get their coverage through their employer now would opt for the cheaper government competitor and of course that destroys the system and then you don't have any competitors. >> should people with -- pay taxes on this? >> is there any form of a public
plan where house republicans would be open to? >>le with, i can't speak for all house republicans? in my case, no. there is not. a government competitor will work against the system. i personally will be open to looking back at this in four or five years and see if the marketplace doesn't develop that i think will. back to the part d example again where 90% of the people are enrolled in a volunteer system and 90% of them think it is either good or excellent. the same people that said there wouldn't be enough competitors were saying that about medicare part d and then saying people won't be smart enough to make a choice in their needs and neither of those things are true. i'll be glad to readvise it if i'm wrong. for me i will not support a plan
that has a government competitor because the government will not compete fairly. >> i'm opposed to a government option, period. listen. if you like going to the d.m.v. and you think they do a great job or you like going the post office thained it is the most efficient thing you have run into then you'll love the government-run health care system that they are proposing because that is basically what you're going to have. >> i wanted to ask -- up for discussion today during the conference committee. a number of house democrats and house democratic leadership is thinking about taking graham-lieberman position out of supplemental. what are their concerns given president obama's views? >> listen. there have been a number of actions taken by this administration that have weakened our national security and put our soldiers and our
intelligence officers in a position of greater risk whether it was the plan to close guantanamo without a plan as to what to do with those detainees and how to try them. whether it was release over the interrogation memos and then when it came to these photos, it is clear that unless congress acts, these photos are going to be released and if they are released it is going to put our soldiers and intelligence officials at much greater risk and make america less safe so that language is critically important to stay in this bill, if, in fact, that is going to happen. it is prosecute clear from what i'm hearing the democrat leaders are for the far left appear to be ready to take that language out of the bill. i think they are making a very big mistake. >> last question on health care.
>> senator conrad unveiled a co-on plan last night of the finance committee. this is what senator greg said about it. it is an interesting idea involving co-ops. there are others thinking in a more constructive way about how you get to a plan that would be bipartisan. what do you think about a co-op plan that would be nonprofit that would allow consumers to choose -- >> i think there is a lot of work that needs to go into this idea. it is interesting, i'm sure that in the coming weeks there is going to be more developed so that we can take a look and see what is this idea and how would it work? you know, we have had -- we've had things like mpwr that were not regulated properly that turned out to be a very big
problem. so when -- you begin to look at what kind of co-ops, what kind of groupings, poolings are you talking about, we'll have more to comment on as we see more details. thank you. >> this week on news makers. we talked to senator jon kyl of arizona. we look at the nomination of judge sonia sotomayer.
the government funding of college is direct aid to colleges and their students really is a late 1950's, early 1960's thing that has grown very rapidly since then. >> today, not even government-backed student loans permitted. >> title four of the higher education act is 400-roughly pages long. if we have a lawyer here in town who tries to keep the government from giving us money and i asked him to send me a title four, he said i wouldn't be able to read it. >> larry srnn sunday night at 8:00. download the c-span cod cast. >> how is c-span funded? >> private donations? >> taxpayers? >> i don't really know. >> from public television. >> donations. >> i don't know where the money comes from. >> federal aid?
>> contributions from donors. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. a private business initiative. no government mandate. no government money. >> bank of america c.e.o. kenneth lewis testified at a house hearing today that looked into his company's merger with merrill lynch. now here is a part of that hearing. for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. lewis, i appreciate you being here. looking at some notes here dated december 31st, these are your notes also looking at some notes taken by joe brice, the cfo at bank of america were taken on december 21st of 2008 about the
attempt to pull -- use the mac clause and get out of the merrill lynch transaction. in the notes it says fire board of directors if you do it, irresponsible for country. tim g agrees. is tim g. i would assume would be timothy geithner? >> those are joe price's notes? >> yes. >> i would have to assume with you because they are his notes. >> based on your recollection of what was going on and based on the notes we see from the cfo that was there, fire board of directors if you do it, was that your understanding? >> the -- that was is probably a reference to the conversation i mentioned that i had with secretary paulson. but, again, those are his notes. >> based on your personal recollection, is that your understanding that the board of