♪ host: it is the washington journal for february 11. major drug manufacturers to testify on the cost of drugs and the impact on the american public. democrats relating the high cost of some drugs to profits made by drug companies. republicans spoke about cost of companies for developing and manufacturing drugs and how that relates to price. to start our program, we want to hear from you about what you pay for prescription drugs and the affordability of the drugs you use. here is how you can call us and

give us your thoughts on what you pay and your experience paying for prescription drugs. (202) 748-8000 for those in the audience under 30. (202) 748-8001 if you fall between the ages of 31 and 65. if you are over 65, (202) 748-8002 is the number to call. if you want to post about your experiences playing for -- paying for prescription drugs by text, (202) 748-8003. you can also post on facebook and on x. it was kaiser family foundation that did a poll last year talking what people were paying for prescription drugs. here's what they found, about eight in 10 adults say the cost of prescription drugs is unreasonable, most saying affording a prescription drug is easy. 82% say the cost of those drugs were unreasonable. 65% saying prescription drugs --

paying for them is very or somewhat easy, but talks about those who are having difficulty in paying for those drugs, 28% of people overall say it was difficult for them to afford the cost of prescription medicine. when it comes to age, those 18 to 29 say they had the most difficulty paying for those drugs. when it comes to 65 years or older, 20% of respondents said that. here is household income. for those making less than $40,000, 40% of those saying they had difficulty affording prescription drugs. 29% -- 11% of those making over $90,000. that is the poll about prescription drug affordability from last year. you can add your experiences in the mix, especially as congress recently held a hearing on this. if you want to tell us about

your experiences, (202) 748-8000 for those under the age of 35. (202) 748-8001 between 31 and 65. over 65, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. several of those ceos of drug companies appeared before a senate committee last week to talk about some of the cost of the drugs and manufacturing of them. nbc picking up that headline. you can still see this hearing on our website and follow along on the c-span now app. it was during opening comments that the chair of the committee of the senate hearing, bernie sanders, talked about his criticisms of drug companies, especially when it comes to costs. >> the average american who hears all of this is asking a simple question. how does all of this happen? what is going on? how could your companies charge

us 10 times more than they charge canadians or people around the world for the same drugs? how do they get away with this? when so many of our people cannot afford the high price of the drugs they need? how can it be uniquely among industrialized countries that these companies, the pharmaceutical industry in general, can raise prices anytime they want to any level they want? how did they get away with all of that? in my view, here is the answer. the united states government does not regate drug companies , with few exceptions the drug companies regulate the united states government. that is the state of affairs and the corrupt political system. over the past 25 years, the pharmaceutical industry spent

over $8.5 billion on lobbying and more than 740 $5 million on campaign contribution. they are bipartisan. they give to republicans. they give to democrats. host: thoughts from senator sanders there. you may share those thoughts, particularly when it ceso your experience in paying for thosprcription drugs. you're under 30, (202) 748-8000. from 31 to 65 year old, (202) 748-8001. if you are over 65, (202) 748-8002 is how you can reach out to us. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. in oregon on the line for those over 65, lester joins us. caller: good morning. i am a son -- i am sorry.

kaiser has been really good to me. we have kaiser here in oregon. so what i am saying is i have to have an infusion and it is $20,000. i have had three fusions. so you can add that up. they took me off that fusion. the immunodeficiency i have there is not a cure for. still working on getting that care. these medicines that i take range between $100 or so per pill and you can figure that one out. the reason why we are high-priced in medication, you need to know who is running our

country and causing this to happen. so i'm going to mention -- i am not going to mention any names. we know who we have for president now. you wonder why you are paying high prices for your drugs. host: that is lester in oregon. let's hear from kelly in texas for those between the ages of 31 and 65. caller: how are you this morning? i couple points i want to make about this. i will be 59 next month. my husband is 58. i tak seizure medication. only take four medications, but the rest are generic. but still they are outrageous right now. it costs me about $150 a month to get my medication and one of them is not generic.

on my husband's side, he is diabetic. everybody has had this talk about owes and pick that people are using to lose weight with. he has to take it in order to live. with his insurance, and he gets his insurance through his job, which is still obamacare -- we have united health care. it still costs him a thousand dollars for that prescription. so as far as i am concerned, with the prices of drugs now, i think our biggest problem is they need to be made in the united states and big pharma has a hold on us. just like the last gentleman said, i'm not going to bring a presidents, but i know whoever we have an office -- i was not paying that kind of money for my prescriptions at all. they were not that high. host: there is kelly in texas

not talking about her experiences. some of you reaching out to us on social media. on x, my doctor prescribes anything. does my nce cover that? if the answer is no, look for a viable alternative. a couple times something else is available or needs preapproval. then another viewer saying that i found good rx is used at certain stores and is cheaper than my insurance. you may remember the biden administration under medicare part d has entered several drugs into -- between the drugs and companies, negotiating price. it has put out a report of what medicare covers for these costs. from june of 2022 to may of

2023, total coverage, $16 trillion plus. the number of medicare enrollees, over 3 million getting that drug. when it comes to the figures there for the federal government, 1.5 million plus receiving that drug to prevent treatment of blood clots. it was covered from june of 2022 to may of 2023, 1 .3 million people getting that. it goes on from there. there is more about what drugs have been entered into the negotiating program. you can check that out and give us your perspective. let's hear another perspective, the ranking member of that senate hearing, senator bill cassidy of louisiana giving his thoughts about costs and other

things that have to be looked at when it comes to costs of prescription drugs. here are his comments from last week. >> just to show you there is to hear, canada's specialty care. in may of last year, the canadian government began to send 4800 and 80 ends to washington state to ensure people have faster access to lifesaving radiation treatment. they can afford their system because we are next-door. related to this hearing and that , a canadian woman paid for her own treatment in the united states after the health authority in british columbia denied her access to lifesaving chemotherapy. canada had a lower cost drug, so low they did not carry chemotherapy, so she paid for it out-of-pocket in the united states so she could have lifesaving chemotherapy. the united states is not perfect, but if we cherry pick from all three countries come

out we have to do a more thorough investigation to see if there is a balance. let's return to prescriptions. canadians pay less than we do. let's figure out why. let's point out public health insurance in canada only covers a percent of newly developed drugs. maybe that is a trade-off, but you tell un-american they cannot have access to a lifesaving drug, they are going to see you in court. they are going to sue. they are going to say, i want to that access. the u.k. covers 48% of newly available drugs. americans would not tolerate that. host: that hearing available on our website. let's hear from john in michigan on our line for those under 30. caller: i do not have insurance right now. i just find the cost to be exorbitant. actually, my job -- i will be 30

later this year, but i am not yet. my job, they still classify me as temporary even though i have been full-time for almost two years, so i cannot get insurance through them but i could through my union but still i find the cost exorbitant. the last real medical bill i had -- we were able to get that covered. it was a different circumstance, like an accident. since then, i have only had a cavity and a blood test, so have not really had any medical. host: when it comes to the drugs, how many are we talking here? caller: i do not take any. host: i thought you were talking about your experience paying for drugs, prescript and drugs. caller: well, from the perspective of not having insurance whatsoever.

host: here is donna in illinois on our line for those over 65. caller: what i'm calling about is i do not have prescription coverage because i cannot afford it. but i take prescription drugs because i am diabetic. i have found rx pricing beats anything even close to on the market. otherwise, there is no way i could afford them. that one service and how they do it -- i do not know. it is the only thing that makes me be able to afford drugs that i need, but my biggest issue about prescription drugs comes down to one simple thing. i found out painfully that a drug i take called gabapentin -- pharmacies due to corporate greed will switch drugs -- drug

manufacturers. even though they claim they are the same, in reality they are not. when i take a pain medicine for diabetes for neuropathy and my pharmacist -- the corporate headquarters decided to change the manufacturer. the only way i found out that these do not work is all of a sudden it was like i was taking no medication at all. the pain was instant and unbearable. this is just changing manufacturers and the consumer like myself has no recourse. if the corporation refuses to buy the same product, you are stuck with whatever they buy. so when the fda approves drugs and says they are the same, they are not. i wonder about people with cholesterol medicine, blood pressure medicine, blood thinning medicines, things like

that that you will not know that the medicine is not working for months and maybe when you would go to your doctor he would say, did your pharmacy change manufacturers? that would not be a question. they would think over eating or not exercising. there would be a million other things. they might increase the dosage when in reality the drug manufacturer is saying it is the same medication but it stops working. host: donna in illinois. this was back in august when it comes to costs, saying when it comes to those not filing a prescription due to costs, 20 1% taking an over-the-counter drug instead of can a prescription drug. 21% cut pills in half or skip doses. a category did at least one of the above, 30 1%. that is the impact as far as

people concerned about costs and how it would affect how often they take their medication. you can add to the mix to tell us your experience. juliet, hello. >> thanks for taking my call. i do not take any medications at all. i go to the gym four days a week. i am outdoors four to five days a week. i eat a plant waste diet, occasionally ice cream in the summer. i watched a hearing this morning and aside from bernie sanders most senators are so deferential to the people representing the ceos. one had a foreign accent. host: one was johnson & johnson and there was mark -- merck.

caller: i was astonished at how differential the senators were with their meek questions, and contrast to the hearing with mark zuckerberg and the whole panel. you were not seeing any of that in this hearing. like bernie sanders said -- here's an interesting fact. in great britain, it is permitted to advertise pharmaceuticals. they do not do it. moreover, what was also a key point in the hearing was the pharmacy benefit managers. they are the middlemen. that is why the cost of pharmaceuticals has gone through the roof. if you look at cvs and walgreens, these are basically modern-day pill mills. it is unbelievable. host: for those and your experience with paying for prescription drugs got you can

tell us about that (202) 748-8000 for those under 30. (202) 748-8001 for those 31 to 65 if you are over 65, (202) 748-8002. if you or texted us saying, i had a hearck. they told me, take these or die. they cost $1200 a month. saying he had to declare bankruptcy or they were going to put me out of my home and on the street. again, that is an experience from one of those texting us. call us on the line that best represents your aggrp there. in maryland on our over 65 line, hello. caller: i am 76 years old. i am on medicare. kaiser permanente is my medicare

supplemental program. i take two for high blood pressure and one for thyroid. i had a tumor removed in december 2022. i pay zero for my prescriptions. they are mailed to me. zero. democrats are the ones looking out for the patients. republicans are the ones that are looking out for the pharmaceutical companies. that is it in a nutshell. people, stop voting against your own interests. host: do you only pay zero because you get it under advantage? how much do you pay for advantage? caller: i pay $27 a month for my premium. that is it. the person from oregon, the person from texas who talks about who is in the white house

and they are the reason for these high-priced prescriptions, not true. i guess they have forgotten president biden and the democrats are the ones that tried to get diabetes medication down to $35 for all americans. only the senior citizens had that reduce diabetes medication. $35. i do not know what these people are talking about. host: let's hear from eva in georgia. caller: good money -- good morning and happy sunday. this is one of the core issues for us as a nation because we have to protect. medicare -- i have an 86-year-old that i care for.

so in 2022 when they did pass the inflation reduction act, as the senior from maryland stated, they did cap right now, as you shared on the chart. the -- right now, a heart condition with mother. one is $800. the interest go -- $669 for one bottle of pills. a nation has decided we are going to profit ties -- privatize when we went into this medicare. a lot of people are not political pundits.

they are regular people. i am a physician and i have five pharmacists, my three daughters and two cousins, so i am familiar with this experience of prescription drugs and also with the angel i have at this house this morning that the lord just woke up. i am calling because we now have all those drugs you just put up. those are the very expensive, lifesaving, research approved drugs. i remember when one was costing $1600. the rx good is for people who have low income, but for the majority of working people, people who work at our schools or our municipal workers, part of the private care prescription medicine that is given to workers -- 70% of people receive the medicare -- the health care

through the job. host: ok. that is eva. biden administration, particularly the administration's work when it comes to insulin. this is from cnn, reporting americans with diabetes will get a break on costs in 2024. three drugmakers are drastically lowering list prices for products as well. the drugmakers have come under fire for years for simply raising the price of insulin, which is relatively an extensive to produce. the inflation-adjusted cost of the medication has increased 24% between 2017 and 2022. more there on the cnn story if you want to read that and the biden administration's effort on that front. gregory, go ahead. caller: first, i have been

taking expensive drugs. and the cost of the drugs is $417. with insurance, it is $250 a month. but is made by astrazeneca. the same drug in india is five dollars a month. so i don't understand how you can supply the exact same drug. i really got a supply from india , $30. they are two different systems? i work for the u.s. fda. i was posted in india for five years.

i inspected and made sure they were inspected and i know all the companies. it is interesting. the u.s. embassy in india buys drugs locally from india, so it is interesting. that they have a different scale. host: gregory in maryland. that hearing did feature several drug manufacturers and questions from connecticut democratic senator chris murphy about the cost of manufacturing drugs and what people pay for them. here is a portion of that. >> you talk in your testimony about the united states health care system that prioritizes important role of patient choice. i want to present you with a case of one of my constituents and ask you about the choices that she faces.

i have a constituent who needs a blood thinner, critical to her survival. she has a medicare plan that gets her the best possible price. and that price is $350 a month. the average social security benefit in connecticut is about $1700 a month and somebody on a liquid is likely on other drugs as well. so here is her choice. her choice is to pay the 350 dollars and go without food or pay her rent late or not take the drug and risk heart attack or stroke. is that the choice you are talking about? when you refer to a health care system that prioritizes the important role of choice? >> absolutely not.

on behalf of all of our employees, that is a choice no patient should have to make. >> but she makes it because you have chosen to price a drug at a point that is not affordable. >> we have priced it in the u.s. in our estimation -- we try to do this for all our medicines consistent with the value it brings and we are happy with the fact that eloquence -- is the leading anti-stroke drug. >> you put eight billion dollars into stock buybacks. why not bring the price of the drug down? host: that hearing -- there is plenty for you to consume when it comes to the topic of prescription drugs. you can still watch it at our website. leslie in georgia, thanks for

calling. go ahead. caller: first, i take medicine for my diabetes and i take high blood pressure medicine and cholesterol medicine. i have just retired from teaching, so i do have insurance . it was able to be carried over to my retirement, but i -- for my diabetes medicine, i was paying two hundred dollars every three months. for my blood pressure medicine, i was paying between eight dollars and $12 every three months. and then my cholesterol medicine is free. once wonderful, caring, the president of the united states joe biden and wonderful caring

vice president of the united states kamala harris passed that bill, now i do not pay anything for any of the medicine. the diabetic medicine was in the form of a pill but now for diabetes i pay -- it is totally free. my blood pressure changed a little bit, but it is still totally free. and my cholesterol medicine is free. so thank you to the president and vice president of these united states of america. host: let's hear from linda in baltimore, over 65 years old. caller: i'm calling because i am on medicare. i received $1400 a month. i pay out of that $40 a month for prescriptions.

when i go to get prescription plans, i charge a co-pay. i am paying for my eyedrops over $300 per month. one is $100 a month and then $56 for my eyedrops. i have had my doctor change to a lower cost eyedrop, which is what i am on now. then my blood pressure medicine for a two week supply, $120 every two weeks. that is 200 something dollars. and the income i receive, i am barely keeping my head above the water because i am paying this fee for my prescription plan and then co-pay. and when i go to the doctor i am paying a deductible and a co-pay.

i have to pay rent out of this social security check. thankfully, i do not pay that much for my heart medication. a lot of my medication is not covered. or it is a high, costly co-pay and i find it hard to live in maryland now because you cannot keep up with paying for medication between the co-pay and adoptable. i attempted to enter into an advantage plan. they wanted $400 a month plus of social security deducts $170 out of my check every month automatically. even with the $300 a month, i still would have to pay a co-pay. so i just hope the government

puts some kind of cap on the medication or something more to the people. i am getting little or none. the more you have, the more you pay. host: that is glenda -- linda's experience there. martin joins us. caller: first, i want to talk about the elephant in the room. your discussion is about the price of prescription drugs. unfortunately, my medication costs -- fortunately, my medication costs are relatively low. the medication cost for the united states government is tremendous and you need to understand these drugs are not free. they are not low-cost because the government is paying for them and the medicare and social

security system is in peril. we need to understand that we need to hold our government officials accountable because they are paying the pharmaceutical cost for all of these medications. that is my comment. host: from a viewer off of x talking about the experience with description drugs, the buying airline tickets. than to shop around because my insurance might not be giving me the best price. don't get me started on insulin. emmanuel from facebook say am lucky i'm a veteran and my tws are seven dollars. the v.a. negotiates with the pharmace industry. republicans refused to allow medicare the same pge. no other industrialized country th ps anywhere near what

is charged to americans. we could change that if republicans cared about the well-being of the american people. this viewer adds -- stephanie hilton saying, serving as a guardian for disabled adults, government is covering everything including medications. one of the people at that hearing, tommy tuberville, questioning the ceo of merck about provisions that could impact research and development of other drugs. here that exchange. >> the biden administration has two authority -- priorities, dictate cost of prescription drugs, specifically small molecule drugs, and cure cancer. can you walk me through how those priorities might be in contradiction of each other? >> i think what you're referring to is what is called the pill

penalty underneath the ira. that effectively says that at nine years post your first approval or price or drug will be negotiated. the issue that raises is it disfavors a small molecule development and the reality is, if you look across the majority of cancer treatment's, they are still small molecules. as chris pointed out earlier, the development of cancer drugs usually starts at the sickest patient in the last stage of disease and then you work forward to earlier stages where you can start to maybe talk about a cure. to do those studies, we have nine approvals in that space. those can take seven to nine

years to do. obviously if at nine years i have to significantly reduce the price of that drug to a point that it is potentially no profit, my incentive to do those follow-on studies is not there. it is our worry that if you look at cancer care you're going to see patients suffer because we cannot get to really talking about here at an earlier stage of disease. you did not ask about alzheimer's, but most diseases also require small molecules because large molecules cannot penetrate the blood-brain barrier. so we are just incentivizing some of the largest areas of sickness and chronic need in our society through that pill penalty. host: there is more if you want to check it out on the website. we are asking you to give us the experiences you have in paying for prescription drugs.

talking about the drugs you pay for and how much you pay and how much it impacts you, (202) 748-8000 fewer under the age of 30. (202) 748-8001 if you are between one and 31 -- 31 and 65. caller: good morning. i am still waiting for a medication to go down in price. there are times i have shown up at cvs and the clerk at the counter is embarrassed to tell me the price. he tells me the price of the drugs, which is hundreds of dollars, and i have to give her the answer, i will be back. i have to go back and get some money. it is a very expensive drug and then the drug companies think they can justify this cost by

the scams that they advertise on tv that if you cannot afford the drug you have to participate in this program and we will help you out with the drug price. it is all a scam. they want to keep the prices high and there are people that cannot afford these drugs and people that are shortchanging themselves on other things, like food and rent. i have had to go and juggle my expenses so i could afford the drug. and the eliquis, the people that produce it are preventing the -- i'm trying to think of the word, the -- sorry about that.

when there is a drug -- they are preventing the drug from being put on the market. they have substituted drugs for eliquis but they will not lead on the market. host: ok. wilson in north carolina, between the ages of 31 and 65. : i want to build on what the gentleman earlier talked about with the inspections in india. costs are loe, but so much of it is we have so much money that we pay for the research to develop these drugs. it is already ours.this. we already paid for?r something further than tha, my son is

hd and i have to tell you, ing around for five pharmacies so he can get his adderall and be a func child in school is not ok. even after i call pies, i have to wait two weeks. i do not know what to do. host: that is wilson, north carolina, sharing his experience. the rand corporation put out a report last year that looks at the cost of u.s. drugs compared to other international markets. some of those key findings from the report saying, except unbranded generics, manufacturer drug prices in the u.s. were substantially higher than those in other countries. u.s. prices were 278% of other country prices. u.s. gross prices for brand name originator drugs were 400% of

prices in comparison countries. u.s. net prices for brand name originator drugs were relatively low, still over three times as high as prices in other countries, adding the united states has lower prices for unbranded generics for most countries and branded generics accounted for 90% of u.s. prescription drug volume, a larger share than the comparison countries but only 8% of u.s. prescription drug spending compared with 13% of other countries. more analysis there on that report that you can find online. you will be using 2022 data. it is the international prescription drug price comparison if you want to look it up fo yourself. this is john in connecticut. caller:appy to be here. i am calling about my wife's blood thinner.

it is expensive even with our surance. i am notiar with it. we pay-of-pocket. that is the lowest -- one of the lowest times we can get it it is that price. would $1600 for 90 days.ance, it she takes one pill evening and i know the government is relto or anyese blood xa thinners, it is expensive. we are on social security, medicare. it is extremely expensive. some good doctors will give out samples and it is rare. but what is the website i can look at to see when xarelto will

go down? host: i understand cms.gov has the list of drugs that have entered the negotiating program as it has been described when it comes to the debate between the federal government and drug manufacturers. cms.gov is the website. here is the posting saying medicare drug prices -- selected drugs for initial price applicability here. those are the list of drugs under consideration under that program. again, more information available to you at cms.gov. britney is in virginia on our line for those over 65. caller: i am fortunate because i am on medicare. just t70 and i take two

ood pressure medications, one chrol. one of the blood pressures i have to take twice a day. i get it mailed to me, so my cost is zero. so i feel good about that. i had a late enrollment penalty to my advantage plan because i did not know because i was in one jurisdiction out of the service area, so i have to pay the late enrollment penalty for my advantage plan, so i do not know why. they can never give me a good answer why, but that is for over three or four years now. but that is all it is. i am ok with it. host: thanks for sharing that story. let's hear from james in

florida, over 65. caller: i have a different perspective. i hope someone else has not covered this, but i am over 65. i had a son who has since died. he was a paranoid schizophrenic, so parents try to help their kids. a lot of the time, gets very involved in acquiring drugs for them. i wanted to make this comment. someone called earlier and said something about the program where you cannot afford your drugs and drug companies will help you. my experience was that it was just a waste of time to try to get their help. it was just a way to make it look good but help was not ever there.

he was very poor and i'm not a ch man. then another thing that i have had experience with is good rx. that is a real good deal for people out here who can actually get drugs they are looking for. good rx does not alw have what you need. if they do, a lot of times that is a better place too. host: you talked about drug companies and programs they offer as far as helping you pay. what specifically was it that was a waste of time for you? caller: he is gone now, but back then one of the newest drugs,

one of the cost was around $900 a month at the time that he was taking. i tried to get that by the program where you can apply for it. if anybody had a need and so forth, he had a need. there is no doubt about it, but he was just -- i got to a point where every time i saw that, for whatever i was try to give him, i did not even waste my time. it was a waste of time. i do not know that it is that way today. you may not be that way today, so i guess everybody has to try. that was my experience. host: sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing that experience with your audience --

with the audience. kira in north carolina for the london between 30 and 65. -- line between 30 and 65. caller: i have had an awful experience with prescription costs. i am a licensed clinical social worker. my husband is a dietitian. we both work for public agencies. he has worked for the hospital. i work for public education. when one of these prescriptions i take finally had a generic version, it is nowhere to be seen. then the insurance company decided they will not pay for it -- for the regular one if the generic is not available. and the price for the medication without insurance is $600.

as a public service worker, i have never had insurance cost less than almost have a mortgage , so i think are prescription costs -- there is not enough out there. they lobby for our government. i think our entire health care system needs to be more for the people. host: keira in north carolina sharing her experiences. this is from our facebook page, saying the excuse was given that drug cross had come up. i thought biden was lowerin drug costs. that is a lie. this is a view fm texas. andrew virginia -- i found you really must arcy shop to get the lowest cpaand then from el paso, texas, saying it is different fm ate to state. in texas, it is available over the counter but it is expensive.

cheryl myers adding, take two pills a day and insurance has paid zero. i pay them every month for nothing. one of the aspects brought up at the hearing of the senate was advertising for drugs and particularly what goes into that that was a question from the minnesota democratic senator to the ceo of merck. >> could you tell us how much you spend on advertising every year? >> in the united states, our direct to consumer advertising is about $350 million. . >> direct medical providers? >> i would not know that. >> is approximately $2 billion overall worldwide. >> i do not recognize that number, but we can come back to you. >> one thing i bet most of us on

the panel could agree with is nobody likes that advertising. the american medical association has called for a ban on direct to consumer advertising, so could you address this issue? i think it is also true that you suits to prevent regulations that would require you to disclose list price is that advertising. could you address that? >> direct to consumer advertising serves an important purpose. studies have shown it drives better adherence. it drives patients to understand the use of their medications and it will bring benefits to the health system. i believe there is a valid educational piece to direct to consumer advertising and i believe we need to be full and fair and transparent in helping people understand the costs of drugs. the reason we brought this suit you're referring to is are

concerned that the specific request in that was that you show the list price of the drug and our concern based on conversations we have had this morning is that can be misleading and can cause patients not to seek the drug when in reality if we put on an advertisement that it is 6000 on hundred dollars when in reality in the system it is $690, i would hate to think someone does not showp to get the medicine because they do not understand the price. what we supported instead, we drive you to a site that gives our list price, all the rebates we provide so you can see it and we get further information and education. we think that is a more effective and accurate tool to stop the misperceptions that exist. that is why we raised the concern. host: there is plenty more to that hearing on our website. it took place last week and you

can see the rest of the questions and comments from the ceos of drug many factual errors. let's hear from doug in wisconsin -- drug manufacturers. let's hear from doug in wisconsin. caller: i pay for my health care premium. i have a $7,000 deductible. i make about $35,000 a year. the active pharmaceutical ingredients think are all made in china and the united states does not control hardly any of the active pharmaceutical ingredients, yet we are getting all this fentanyl coming in over the border. i do not understand it. guest: -- host: mary in mississippi -- from michigan, good morning. caller: i am a retired nurse.

i just started on medicare. things are going well so far, but i wanted to bring up that about 10 years ago when i moved back to michigan to take care of my mom i had to go on the affordable care act and i went to a federally funded clinic. there are many of them out there and they are a godsend now because there's a shortage of doctors. they sent me to walmart to get my blood pressure medication and a blood thinner. walmart has a program where they negotiate with the government for certain generic medications, things for hypertension. there are a bunch of them come and they are four dollars a month. to me, that was a godsend at the time when i was between jobs,

just moving back to the area. i was able to get life-saving medication for four dollars through walmart. i think most areas in this country, people have access to a walmart. i wanted to say that i did work 20 years ago at a pediatric office that was federally funded and our doctors -- there were five of them at the time. they were all pediatricians. they would not let a drug rep in the door. they did not care for free samples and everything. they thought it was morally wrong for a drug rep to come in the door with all these new medications in such, so they were not allowed. i have family that lives in michigan and on the weekends --

across the bridge comes the canadians on fridays, saturday, and sunday. they will be packed today. our stores are packed at the gas stations are packed with canadians buying cheap gas and cheap groceries. you think things are bad in the united states. they cross the bridge -- americans crossed the bridge into canada to buy drugs. it is the same down in detroit. host: let's have one more call from adeline in manassas, virginia on our line for those over 65. caller: i am 78. i have been on medicare. i am upset that i'm having to pay $140 for a januvia. the first time i started it, i went back to have it refilled and it was $345.

i am on seven other prescriptions, blood thinners and so forth. i do not comprehend why i pay $179 for medicare that i paid into 36 years and i pay $281 a month to cover my medical and prescriptions and i am still paying out $200 a month for prescriptions and the one that is most expensive is januvia. i just had to go on it and i want to know why at 78 -- i will be 79 wednesday -- i am still having to pay more than i ever paid when i worked. what has happened that a senior citizen should live on $1200 a month social security check and pay most of it in medico -- medical and prescriptions? host: matta line in virginia -- madeline in virginia.

that hearing, if you want to see more of that, you can still watch if you go to our website at c-span.org. it took place last thursday. several guests joining us through the course of the program. next, we will hear from records professor david love about topics related not only to black history month but the role black voters play when it comes to 2020 for politics. later, we will hear from jay cost on a new report that argues congress was designed to be the dominant branch of the federal government. we will get those thoughts coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> tonight, author and five generations and publishing talks about the publishing house.

hear stories about how some authors say published. >> they kept winston churchill solid financially during his years. >> when he was out of office, that is true. he earned his livelihood, and it was an expensive livelihood. i think i mentioned the multivolume set of the history of world war i. with the advance that he got on that, he bought a rolls-royce. >> five generations and publishing. tonight on c-span's q&a.

>> we are asking voters across the country, what issue is most important to you in these -- this election? >> immigration. >> economics. >> i think homelessness is an issue that to be addressed. >> share your voice by going to our website. select the record your voice time. c-span voices 2024. be a part of the conversation. >> be up-to-date with the latest on publishing. with current nonfiction book releases and the seller lists, as well as industry news. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> this week on the c-span network, the house returns on tuesday following democratic annual retreat. they will adjourn for a two-week rake over the presidents' day holiday. anti-pelosi and kevin mccarthy join the historical society and awarding its freedom award to cheryl johnson. mr. johnson gained attention during the speakerphone by presiding over the chamber while members struggled to elect a speaker. the budget director provides the economic outlook. and on thursday, the foreign affairs committee will hear comments. watch this week, live on this network or on c-span now, our

free mobile video app. headed over to c-span.org for information or watch live on demand at any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage coming can find it anytime online. markers guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlight. these markers appear on the right hand side of years. it makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through. >> in the weeks that lie ahead, the famous influential men in the occupy both seats and will have a lot to say about the

society in which we live today. >> saturdays on free to choose. mr. friedman coproduced the series with rose friedman and it first aired on public television in 1980. they wrote a companion book of the same name. programs take us to location important to the economy. they advocate free-market principles. other topics include welfare, education, equality, consumer and worker protection and nation. watch free to choose on american history tv on span -- on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: our first guest this morning is david love.

he writes on several topics. thank you for giving us your time, professor. we appreciate it. people go to your site for the interesting eggs that you write. what did they find and what motivates you to write on politics? guest: if you go to my website, you will see a lot of writing on the issues that affect everyday people. i have always been interested in politics, but within the context of social justice, civil rights, human right, the things that really affect people. i have always think of learned about efforts to try to make better for people and trying to equalize the field and bring justice to those who have been marginalized. that is the type of work that i

have focused on in my writing and also in my research and my teaching. host: what things concerning you under that umbrella, specifically? guest: voting rights are very important. we are seeing an erosion of voting rights. reparations are very important to me. i think it is necessary for this country to come to terms with a long history of injustice that this country has not come to terms with. similar issues to that -- i think these are issues that really should be at the forefront and very often, people, particularly political leaders are ignoring them. host: do you think those issues

are at the forefront during an election year? guest: yes. i feel like every day people care about these issues but i am concerned that the political leadership are not really focusing on it. the issues that i mentioned are very important, but they are also ugly. when you consider the obliteration of reproductive right and reproductive freedoms, it seems that these laws are being passed and people are just normalizing it. that is an issue that affects african-american voters and everyone. it is important to realize that for issues like that, black people, poor people, marginalized groups tend to be affected even more. unfortunately, i believe that because a lot of politicians are

beholden to the monied interest, the people who give the contributions care about what those people think and do not necessarily care as much about the voters. i think that is why we are seeing this disconnect. politicians are focused on other issues, altogether. host: does that extend to the presidential race or president biden running for another term in office? guest: i think in many ways, just looking at biden, it is pretty clear that the vast majority of his base and voters overall are against what is going on with israel's bombing of gaza wherever biden goes,

there are calls for him to demand a cease-fire. it appears he is not listening and he is facing a lot of blowback and punishment because of that. people are saying that could impact the election, in terms of his chances of winning. it is an example of how people care about particular issues, such as the threat of thousands of people dying and biden is not listening. as far as trump, his base likes him, but we know what we are going to get with another four years of trump, probably more of a disaster than the first time around. i think that what we are seeing

is an electoral system that is not really addressing thek2 demd and the interests of people on the street and in the communities. host: david love joining us for this conversation. if you want to ask our guest questions, you can use that same number if you want to text us. a little more about the policy going on in israel and gaza. what would you like to see the administration do? does it extend to other african-american voters as well? guest: at the very least, biotin needs to tell them to stop. the u.s. needs to stop funding

all of these explosives and the bombs. u.s. is enabling all of this. at the very least, we need to stop the violence and stop the killing, but we also need to put together a process for the palestinians to have self-determination and justice. how that looks depends on palestinians. whether it is a one state solution, federation or whatever it is. but it is clear that what is going on now is unsustainable. many african-americans feel this way. recently, over 1000 black religious leaders have signed letters calling for a cease-fire. they are very disappointed in joe biden and have made their voices no in terms of wanting a change the policy.

it is impacting them greatly. host: their support for the palestinians and what is going on there. why do you think there is so much solidarity there? guest: that has always been solidarity. for years, when you look at the black panthers, there solidarity with the palestinians. i think that the bottom line is that other marginalized people see what is going on there and they can relate to our experiences here. we have a country built on genocide and slavery. we have so many glacial explosions, so many racial massacres, where black people were slaughtered. they are things that are not taught about the history books. and this is black history month,

so maybe we should talk more about it, but we know how it feels to be colonized internally. answer face all of this violence. that is why black people and other people are having this reaction because we know that this type of thing has happened to us and it could actually happen to us in the future. it is as if they are testing all of these weapons used at a future time. host: you mentioned the possible political impact. others have talked about the pullback of american support for the president. what were they asking the administration to do? was there any response? >> they are asking for a cease-fire.

there are some asking for the palestinians. they have been discussion that leaders have had, but they are not getting the responses that they like. i think it is because of that that you are seeing a number of clergy who have very soon are going to go to washington and have protests and vigils. and of course with the african-american community, so many african-american leaders and muslim leaders will not meet with joe biden because what else is there to say, when peoples -- their relatives are being killed and there is a sense that biden does not really care or have empathy when it comes to them

and their relatives being slaughtered. so i think that the biden administration the biden campaign really has a lot of work ahead of them. it is clear what they have to do but whether they have enough time to turn things around, i do not know. host: david love joining us today. our first call for you comes from yonkers, new york. kenneth, good morning and thank you for calling. go ahead. kenneth yonkers, new york, hello? one more time for kenneth. good morning. ok. let's start with chris on the independent line. good morning and go ahead.

you are on. go ahead. caller: can hear me? host: go ahead. caller: this is kenneth. there was concern going on in the middle east. but a lot of us are a lot more concerned about what is going on in our neighborhood. paying attention to current events but it is not really biting, it is the rest of the democrats. there have been a lot of deals signed into law. i'm happy that biden got that amtrak deal, but he has to go out there and really push it. we need to push the issue. they should have been done a year ago. they should have been campaigning.

campaign. and the crisis in the middle east and ukraine? throw that in the mix as well. guest: one thing that i will say, the caller made some very good points. people care very much about what is happening internally and ethically. even if some people do not care as much about what is going on overseas, we have to look at the connection between the two. dr. king made a point that we have to care about all of the money that we are spending on war because that is money that we do not have for domestic programs. as we can see, it seems like there is not the will for universal health care or reparations for slavery. for other things, but we see in

administration who can bypass congress and send all kinds of weaponry to israel. so it is a matter of priority. if we do not care about what is going on in foreign countries, then we will find that we actually will not have the resources that we need to take care of ourselves. host: chris is in new york. caller: good morning to you and your guests. i wanted to say something along the line that was just mentioned, and regard to why african-americans receive reparations and how can they go about getting reparations at this point. it speaks for itself.

so please. thank you. host: professor love, go ahead. guest: you do see in california, state like california and new york, it is actually starting to take place. a bill was recently introduced in california. you also have organizations that are making efforts to try to push things along on a national level and there are international organizations in the caribbean, which are also pushing for reparations for caribbean nations. but i think it is ultimately going to take a lot of organizing on the part of people to demand this. some people believe that it is a matter of giving checks to people. while certainly there is a financial or monetary element, i

think that ultimately, we have to look at reparations in terms of the damage that has been done and to try to make efforts to if not correct the situation, but to acknowledge what has been done and to make efforts to repair. host: brian is in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: hello? i would like -- my question is, earlier you said -- the speaker said that trump's -- it was a disaster. well, what policy was a disaster? jobs were up. i was making a lot more money then, then i am now. what exactly does he mean?

what policies were disasters? i wonder what policies did he do that was so disastrous for this country when everything seemed better than? host: thank you for your call. guest: i do not know where to begin. the muslim ban for one. the corruption, collusion with russia -- so many things that were done. i think if trump were to return, it would be far worse than what we ask. when he was in office. the republican party has basically decided that they do not want democracy.

they do not want voting rights for everyone and they want to take over the country. it is a big threat to americans overall. it is basically fascism. host: are there specific examples that you look at and say voting rights have been infringed, in this case? guest: when you look at the efforts of so many red states with voter id, with voter suppression. look at things like florida where people who have criminal records -- look at all of these efforts and basically eliminating many people from the voter rolls. and they are not going after everyone. they are targeting african-american and other

marginalized groups. look at the way the deep -- the redistricting is going on in med states. it is part of a process. they have decided that they do not want to change their policies so they have decided that they are going to remake the system so that their voters, white voters, will prevail. that is the only way that they can win. the atrocious policies that they have. host: we have a text talking about voting, asking you, what is the plan to encourage voters to turn out in alabama and other southern state? what should the democratic party be doing? guest: i think addressing the

issues that black americans care about. i would also say that there are many community-based voting rights organization on the ground. others have been doing the hard work of engaging people. i think this is going to be a tough election year. i do not think black voters will vote for trump, but perhaps some people will not be energized and they will not show up, perhaps. i think the democrats have to address the issues that we care about, if they want people to come out and vote. i think that trump cannot be president. i also believe that biden has some problems and the democrats are going to have to deal with it. host: you have probably seen

polls about the possibility of those who could turn away to a third party. we have a viewers say that do you think it is to that he could capture as much as 20% of black vote? guest: i do not have much faith in that. i think you will always find some segment of the black population attracted to trump. i do not think it will be much. i do not think he has much to offer. host: when it comes to the biting campaign, your background is in information. how do you think the campaign is doing on messaging? what could they change? guest: i think the democrats have always had a problem with highlighting the things that they have done, the actual success. at the same me not really focusn

the things that people care about, so if they were to talk more about the things that black voters and other voters actually care about, whether it is voting right or reproductive choice, student loans or other issues, i think that would go a long way. democrats have always had an issue with messaging. they might have to realize that they have an issue with policies and the extent to which there were certain things that might haveromised and have not delivered on. maybe they have to think about changing their policies so that they are doing things that people care about. host: the school of

communication information. robert joins us from maryland. thank you for calling. you are on. caller: i just had a few points. i should be able to do this in about 30 seconds or so. i am under 35, barely, but on the precipice of the elder limit of the young butter. i am a black latino who voted for trump and 2016 and i plan to vote for him again. i support israel. i think the genocide going on -- i think if trump wins, he will lower interest rate so that younger people like myself can have an easier time purchasing a home, which is the real way to get ahead in life.

i think he will stop the crime plaguing our areas. people in their 70's, 80's and 90's weak hard to build. there are no penalties for just destroying these neighborhoods. they are closing pharmacy is grocery stores. i do not know where they will go to get their medicine. i do support -- i want to give a brief story of an elder person and my family who voted for obama twice. they did not vote for hillary. they voted for biden, but they decided they would vote this time for whoever the republican nominee is because of the issues of urban crime and the moral decline of the democratic party. they are getting too far away

from moral values. host: ok. we believe it there in maryland. talking about the list of issues. where does crime fit in there? guest: crime is always an issue, but it is also racialized and brought up to divide people. republicans ut -- use that issue because they like to say that -- host: let's turn to another topic. the time we have left here. the viewer asks us, does having black history month because more or less division? who gets more from it? guest: that is a good question. i think that black history month

is very important. every month should be black history month, but i think it is important for us to focus on the role of black americans in this country and in this world. we are living in a time where people do not want to talk about black people. and the role that they have played in this country. it is very dangerous because we are seeing books being banned because the subject matter is black people. we are seeing school districts and we are seeing colleges and universities banning black studies. there is an effort to erase black americans in this country. it is very disturbing and it is indicative of where we are headed as a mediation because if we do not understand what happened in history, we will not be able to solve the present and

future problems that we face, when we pretend that there is no injustice, that there has been knows lavery or segregation, if we do not understand how systems of oppression have been created, then we are setting the stage for those systems to continue. that is why it is important for us to really focus on black history and for all of us to understand this rich history. a lot of good things, but a lot of atrocious things as well. host: is there a starting point for someone saying, i'm interested in learning, where should i start? is there a particular instance and black history? where should they start? guest: there are 70 things. i think about ivan's book. i'm thinking about eric who wrote about the civil war and reconstruction.

w.e.b. dubois has written many books. those are just a start. you can really get a sense. i'm thinking about 400 souls. it really lays out the history of black people in this country. it is important to know and unfortunately, in the schools, many students are not getting this background, and as a result , society is clueless. so there is really no effort to fix the problems because people do not even know that the problems exist. host: from georgia, democratic line for our guest, david love. morning. good morning.

caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: it sounds like he gave the first two caller some bad information. there is no republican in the senate that is going to vote for repatriation. you have 60 votes of the senate to get any thing done. my brothers would vote against their own self interest. they would cut their nose off to spite their face and vote for democrats. i had an argument with a white guy. we are both retired from the state company. he wanted trump back in office and i said why? you have been a union man. tell me a republican who ever

stood up for the union. but they vote against their self interest because they think it hurts me. we are all in the same boat. but that is a delusion that they have down in the south. i'm in a position where i cannot afford to pay for a car. if he does not have a clue and he could not pay for -- that is the mentality that they have in the south. host: thank you for the call. guest: the caller makes some good points. looking at the south, throughout the country, but especially about the south and things like louisiana where we just had this election and a new governor. and turnout was very low.

many and louisiana did not vote. it speaks to people not seen change and not believing that things are going to change, so they decide not to participate. as far as the issue of republicans not wanting to vote for repatriation, -- to vote for retribution. i think ultimately, people have to make their voices heard and they have to go out in the streets and petition their elected officials, join organizations and organize, and demand certain things. that changes the culture. that changes what is being heard

in the public. and then you start to change opinions and these issues starts become normalized. i believe that one day there will be reparations. once we actually vote for elected officials who are responsive to our needs, then we will get change. the people who are in office right now, many of them are not going to do what we want. host: if there was a policy where they were paid on the state level or the national level, what does it do to change the conversation overall? does it give a window into opening conversation? guest: i think it changes the

nature because so many people do not understand that the racial inequities and injustice that we see today, there are some the facets of society that are not by happenstance. but because of hundreds of years of systematic oppression -- look at slavery and jim crow segregation, and how that led to the injustice that we see today. people do not seem to understand that racism is not a matter merely of hurt feelings or calling people bad names. it is an issue of the systems of oppression that have built up for years. we are not even acknowledging it. i think about native americans. that is another issue that is important. we are actually living in a country that was built on the

genocide of native americans. all of their land was taken away. we have not come to terms with that. we have not come to terms with these schools that we built, where he forced native american children to go to them. we took them away from their communities and their language and culture, and many hundreds of thousands of native american children went to the schools and they died and they were buried at those schools. if we come to term with the harm that was done and the atrocities that were committed, then we have a chance of moving ahead and actually building a better country, but if we do not acknowledge the harm that was done and make some efforts to turn things around, then we are

just going to be running in place for years and years to come. host: let's hear from a caller in maryland. caller: good morning. from michigan to washington dc, to virginia -- i wish i were younger. number two, is there a possibility of the republicans, independent and democrat working together? he is the only rational person. i do not care what the other

people are saying. they make no sense. i do not know if donald trump is mentally retarded or something. english happens to be my fourth language. he often said, let's make america great again. let's make america great again. when was america great? was it the time they were killing native americans or when they brought african-americans to the country and chains to enslave them? it baffles me. let's make.

host: we got the point, but we are running short on time, but we will let our guests respond. guest: make america great again is a signal to particularly the white public that we are going to return things -- we are going to return the country to how it was before civil rights, before women had rights. when black people knew their place. and it is pretty clear. some people would argue that america was never really that great for us. so yeah. i picked up on that as well. host: this is david love and you can find his work at the university. professor, how long do you post and what do you plan to write about next? guest: i tend to write as often

as i can, usually a couple times a month, but i am definitely going to get into the election and the issues that are coming up in the election. other similar problems that are going on in the community. host: david love, thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: coming, our next guest says it is congress that was intended to be the dominant branch of the federal government, but it is considerably weakened. later in the program, keith white discusses the rise of online sports gambling since cash -- sports gambling.

>> this week on c-span network, the house return on tuesday following the democratic annual retreat. the court will adjourn over a two week break. also on tuesday, nancy pelosi and kevin mccarthy join this oracle society and awarding the feet of the word. ms. johnson gained national attention during the week long speaker vote by presiding over the chamber while members struggle to elect a speaker. the congressional budget director provides the economic outlook and on thursday, the house foreign affairs committee will discuss the delhi treatment and withdrawal from -- and withdrawal. also, head over first scheduling information or watch live,

on-demand. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. truly informed. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you wired to get the opinion that matters -- because

the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span, powered by cable. host: a discussion with the american enterprise institute. a new report called the defeated purpose. thank you for joining us. before we talk about the details, you can you talk about where congress should be? guest: again, thank you for having me. my jumping off point is usually the way that the framers intended it. they intended congress to be the central institution for our government. they all join together.

i like to think about the architecture. the white house is an iconic building but when you look at it , it is a pretty plain building. compare that to the grantor of congress. it was a way for the founding generation -- you can look at it in terms of the powers that congress possess is the other branches. oftentimes, the phase that is in the popular lexicon -- it is not really to. coordinate branches, but not coequal branches. congress has the power to fire the president, to fire anybody in the judiciary, but the president -- neither of the president or the court can remove a member of congress. only the house can remove a

house member and the senate can remove a senate member. that is it. if i told you that we were equal but i have the power to fire you and you cannot fire me, who would you say is in charge? host: you said congress was intended to be the mos important entity in our national government. it is commonalities to think our government is one of equal coverages. it might be optimistic to say that congress is a totally ful branch with -- of the government. but the legislature has them -- the least preeminence. how did this happen? guest: there are a couple reasons for that. one of the main one is -- it is an old story. a lot of the problems from 1872

to about 1930, ect to be other things happening simultaneously. you see congress becoming increasingly corrupt and parochial. that really is remarkable if you think about the changes of the second half of the century. look at congress. that is one part of the story. congress' reputation was declining. the other part of the story is that there are people committed to dealing with the problems of the nation and they began looking at the office president and began looking towards the administration of the government , moving it out of control of the congress, which had abused

its trust and making it immune from the political process. you see this: many in a series of progressive presidents, predominantly. teddy roosevelt, culminating and franklin roosevelt, the office of the presidency expanding because of these entrepreneurial presidents. taking advantage -- not taking advantage because congress did this to itself. taking an opportunity. the branches are always in competition with one another. roosevelt and wilson both saw a lack of public trust in congress. conviction that congress was not getting the job done. the idea of increasingly housing power within the executive ranches. it is an old story. it is so old now that we have sort of come to take it as a

given that the congress that it is today has always been that way, but is not -- that is not true. i increasingly -- a lot of this is because congress, facing pressure from the public, facing frustration from the public has increasingly written a law to give the executive branch vast discretion. vast discretionary powers. such that it no longer wants to make the choices for itself. increasingly, it has a political incentive to do so. the feeling, the calculus within the legislative ranches pushing power off to avoid responsibility, should the decision-making turned out to have negative effects.

it is not surprising that congress often pushes issues out of its domain that do not have obvious political benefits. you could juxtapose that and compare environmental regulation , which is increasingly on the side of the executive branch. you are going to create losers. you increase regulation, you will hurt businesses. decrease regulation and the environment will be hurt. it is a lose lose scenario. there is an area where members of congress have an opportunity to create winners. a lot of that is the consequence of the fact that they like to cut taxes. this is not like the partisan

debate over what the taxation be. but they like to do spending through the tax cut. congress keeps that power for itself because it is politically beneficial. a lot of it is else in. host: if you want to ask him questions you can do so on the line. if you want to text us about the congress and the amount of influence it has, (202) 748-8003 is how you can do that. all the historical examples that you cited, are there any parallels with the modern-day congress? guest: as an example of this, what reasons why the recent immigration bill failed.

at least if you look at the discourse among conservatives, they were reading through the bill and they were really shocked at the extent to which the bill handed discretionary authority over. that is one example. there are all sorts of examples. rather operating a massive grant clearinghouse for organizations. that is everywhere and our government now. they just offer of grants delivered. you can also see the most striking example in medicare. generally speaking, the

entitlement process, which we take as a given -- from a constitutional perspective, it is extraordinary. you have congress abdicating its spending authority, which is its most essential authority. i do not know what the exact number is, but the federal budget is set by law that is decades old. it is extraordinary, anything about it from a constitutional perspective. one thing that i think is interesting is the details of how medicare money is spent. they are set by formula that are done deep within the executive branch. they are done a deep coordination with key interest groups. there are clear conflicts of interest within the structure. congress has nothing to do with

that. it is outside the political process. host: we have a viewer in georgia, democratic line. we are talking about the effectiveness of congress. thank you for calling. go ahead. caller: what i would like to ask is this. if the constitution -- the things that were good in the amendments -- we are having so many problems now interpreting and finding out what is legal and not legal. they are not the supreme court. they're the ones that will. democrats can pass any policy that they want and the supreme court can maintain right-wing, racist rule by overruling it. it is obsolete now.

electoral college. it is obsolete. they have the same power as new york, texas or california. it is not fair or legal. we are going to write a new constitution. we also need to put restrictions on the supreme court. host: you made your case. you talked about congress' relationship to the presidency but what about their relation to judiciary? guest: that is a good question. with respect to both of his criticisms, neither of those is in the constitution. and i want to emphasize here that what the constitution is and is not, it is a framework through which politics is supposed to happen.

politics is ultimately a vision of factions within the country coming to achieve consensus. i would agree in principle with the point that the current way our politics is organized is not achieve that. it is not in the constitution. it is a power grab. and not necessarily a problematic one. it was a paragraph. james made a point about the supreme court claiming power to resolve social and political disputes at the heart of the american community. these decisions should be left to the community itself. i would point out a couple things.

for starters, the decision -- the way the electoral college is set up right now, every state except two, maine and nebraska, have a winner take all basis. went. has the effect of doing is, it has the effect of creating a greater possibility for minority/majority presidents. that is not in the constitution either. in the early days, they were often allocated by congressional district. a lot of people complain about the relative political power that a state like california has over a state like wyoming. the house of representatives has been stuck at 400 35 members for almost a century.

not in the constitution. as the population grew, so did the size of the house of representatives. members of congress decided that was not going to happen anymore. remember that they are apportioned on the basis of two senators and one house member. it gives small states like wyoming and advantage in the house but also in the electoral college. these were decisions made by political actors acting sometime after the constitution was ratified. it speaks to the fact we need to understand that when we are frustrated with our politics, going back to the foundational law of the country that has worked reasonably well, should we sometimes consider that? absolutely. that is why there is an amendment process. but we need to understand the

causal change. we need to follow that through to connect it to our current frustration. oftentimes, we will see it is not really what is in the constitution so much as it is decisions made subsequent. host: this is from lynn, independent line, maryland. caller: i think maybe your guest is failing to see the forest for the trees. the congress, judiciary, and executive long ago were superseded either power of extra governmental organizations, the n.g.o.'s, these nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations connected to globalist foundations and the media. i would argue between the n.g.o.'s and the media, neither the congress, nor the executive, nor the judiciary have anything like the power you presumed they have. the best example and most dramatic proof of that is with the scam democratic -- scamdemic

they ran with the lockdowns and vaccination requirements, all kinds of things came across because in every county and municipality, you got a public health advisor that advises the county executive, the mayor, the governor, and they take their orders from the cdc which takes its order from the world health organizations, which is a united nations agency, and they control the media. i think you are living in the distant past. host: what about those external forces viewers spoke about in the influence they have over congress? guest: a couple of points. for starters, ultimately congress will be influenced by public opinion. as far as outside groups can influence public opinion, that will have an effect on what congress does. again, i think we need to be

very careful about understanding the nature of power within our system of government. when we are talking about state health directors and county health directors, now we are not talking about federal power. this is one of the reasons why the covid response was a patchwork across 50 states, because congress and the federal government have only limited power to regulate the intrastate health decisions. your guest was right that the cdc was involved. but the cdc was predominately involved in an advisory fashion. we saw in states like georgia and florida and also south dakota, we saw those states sort of take a different direction. some would argue this is an illustration of one of the

strengths of our system of government. our federalism has long been an enduring source of strength in our system of government by creating opportunities for flexibility. at the end of the day, our government is intended to be a republic. when it is well-functioning, it will reflect the values and judgments of the american people. the reality is the american people in the spring and summer of 2020 were scared and generally approved of the steps the government was taking. i would argue if the american people did not like it, the government would have quickly backed down. there's always a question about the extent to which the media influences public opinion and we can build that out to look at the extent to which nongovernmental organizations

influence public opinion. influences on public opinion have been a long, persistent question in a free society. i think that takes us far afield of questions regarding institutions of the government. host: jay cost joining us for this discussion. charlie in texas. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. thanks for c-span. we forget this country is the greatest country because of our constitution. i do not think our congress and judicial system and president realizes that, that we have got to stay with the constitution and collect the taxes, balance the budget, and have a strong defense. sure, we can help people one

weekend unless we can -- we can help people when we can and give them an organization -- education that is so important. we have let our almond tree schools go down terribly. all over texas and i think all over the country. by golly, we need to get back to what we need to do. our congress needs to be strong and our representatives need to get together and stop the infighting. this is crazy. host: thank you for the segue. you mentioned the senate side. on the house side, there was an effort to impeach the secretary. there was an effort to have the standalone israel bill that failed. i wondered about the current strength of congress as you see it. guest: i'm not sure bills failing is a sign of congressional weakness.

i think the house has a narrow republican majority that creates drama on the floor and it looks like weakness. i'm not sure legislation failing is a bad thing. i think one of the problems we have is the leadership of both parties exercise too tight control on what comes to the floor. i would like to see more bills come to the floor and failed. you think about voting on the floor as a process of discovery by which members rebuilt preferences and through which public debate can happen. if you think about it from that perspective rather than a tight, orderly procedure, i don't necessarily have a problem with that. one of the things i do have a problem with, and this is contrary to the kind of ethos i

pick up in beltway publications. there seems to be partiality. things passing and deals getting struck which i am not inherently opposed to. one thing i have a problem with already massive omnibus bills they pass with very little debate per day are counted as victories for leadership. but usually, those are problematic in that members do not know what they are voting for. the public does not know what is in it. there has not been an out in the open back-and-forth on the details of the bill. the fact the congressional appropriations process i would point a finger at that is about 50 years old is terribly outdated. it is not reasonable.

it leads with today's current partisan divide, it is antiquated. congress refuses to fix it. i think it is not unreasonable to expect an honest and open accounting of what we are going to spend our money on. we do not get that. when i see legislation fail on the floor of the house, it is messy and makes leadership looking competent. but i see that is not -- makes leadership look incompetent. that is not necessarily a bad thing. the constitutional vision of politics is the search for consensus. the search for consensus is often going to be messy. contrary to that, i think these massive omnibus bills, i do not see them being a product of consensus. i do not see them facilitating trust in the system. host: we had a viewer asked by text if you think the current

speaker would be subject to almost instant removal. the viewer asked, is congress relevant under these conditions? guest: that is a good question. i think a lot of what is going on now is the house being split leaves a very narrow majority, so that will make it harder for the republican party to work its will. that is a very rare situation to see. usually, youdo see a republican or democratic majority as narrow. i do think the problems speaker mccarthy had, the problems mike johnson have, or partially a consequence of the this ordered

incentive structures members of congress have. most members of congress just want to do a good job. they want to do the committee work. my congressman in western pennsylvania is doing a good job. mike kelly from western pennsylvania does a good job. he is not a flashy guy. he is not interested in making headlines. there is increasing incentive for members of congress, and i'm thinking specifically of matt gaetz and you can probably imagine others, who can get instagram famous or cpac famous, thumbing their nose at the system, indicting everybody of being in on the game, and causing chaos and then going off and reaping various benefits as

a consequence. that is an increasing problem. i think it exist on both sides with members of congress that do not want to do the work. the job as a member of congress should be about the drudgery of government. you sit through the hearings, you go through the markups, you get deep in the weeds in your committee. you go through the drudgery of government. that is your job. increasingly, it remains a small minority in congress but it is getting larger. even a small minority can cause problems. i think we have seen that on the republican side, especially in this congress. host: viewers, you can read it online. one of the lines in the report are that many members of congress are flamethrowers who lack the moral and intellectual

strength. guest: it is not most members of congress. most are just there to do their job. the problem as it does not take a majority of people like that to undermine the institution. host: let's hear from catherine in ohio, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question is this, or statement. i do not believe congress wants to do a good job. i think they like being in the limelight and not getting anything done. that is one point. social security. i am 75. still, nothing is done about social security. why not? they know what to do. by don't they just do it?

-- why don't they just do it? host: thank you. guest: i agree in principle. i would agree lots of members of congress do not want to do anything. i would argue as well, it sort of relates to the previous point we were talking about, it is the same group of people that get themselves on television. when you look at congress from that perspective, you can see this as a group of people that do not want to do anything. when we talk about social security, i think she is right. social security needs to be fixed. in many respects, it is an outdated system. but the challenge with social security is congress basically sees the annual operations of social security. none of us -- social security levels are set by long-standing law. i think the last major reform

was like 20 years ago. there are political reasons for that. the political reason is reforming social security, somebody is going to lose. either taxes will have to go up or benefits will have to be decreased which means somebody will be upset. this is one of the reasons carvers shunted the power off to the executive branch. as a consequence, congress does not have to deal with it. this was a century ago almost, 1935. congress agreed to president roosevelt's recommendation to set things according to a formula. but that ends up ceding spending power out of congress so it does not have to make those decisions and will not until forced to. right now, it is not forced to. that is a frustrating aspect of our congress. i think in many respects, congress does not make decisions. but i also think congress has

decided, and i want to be clear about all of this, when we are talking about the diminished congress, who or what has diminished congress, the answer is congress. congress had all of these powers we have talked about. they have given them up. they have chosen not to exercise them. at the end of the day, who's is to blame? we are. the. every two years, if we wanted to , we could throw out every member of the house and it would only take us six years to throw out every number of congress and yet we choose not to. host: to what degree do you think they are interested in getting some of that back? guest: i think at this point they are not interested in getting it back. there is a greater issue. let's say congress decides we do not like the extent to which the

executive branch has all of these powers regarding national security. we are going to pass a law pulling it back. when those powers are given, when you give those powers over to the executive branch, that is an institutional incentive of the executive branch. compounding that is both parties are in constant pursuit of the white house. when they have the white house, they are in favor of using all of the powers of the executive branch to maximize their own policy goals. let's say you have a republican resident and a congress that wants to pull the power back with members in congress who want to pull the power back. republicans in congress are not going to go for it because they do not want the power taken away from a republican president. you have institutional issues preview have partisan issues. one of the reasons i am writing this series is what has happened

increasingly over the last century is that the focus of the focus of the american people has shifted. it was more focused on expectation of congress. now, the president would become the center of american political life. as long as that remains the case, i think you will see congress happily slide into deference to the president. the reason i am writing this series of essays is because i would prefer, and i think it would be better for our republic, for politics, to have a congress that has reclaimed its institutional powers and has redesigned internal structure to exercise that responsibly. the only way that can happen is if the people expected. host: let's hear from dave in michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. our needs right now are starting

to exceed our costs. that is one of the problems. i have to ask you a question. we have put a huge amount of taxation into doctors, all kinds of medical supplies, equipment, buildings, steel, brickwork, everything. i have got to know, are they tossed? our taxation does not seem to be allocated a certain amount to come back into the cost, to deplete the cost of medical equipment, everything. everything needs to be allocated. 2% to 5% has to go back into low income, especially seniors and so on, to lower the cost of medical care. i don't know how the taxation

works for those but everything seems to be just taxed. doctors offices, nurses, everything. host: thank you for the call. let's expand that to the power of the purse as far as the power congress has. guest: the power congress has exercised with gross irresponsibility. right now, the country is running as a share of gdp, it is running a massive procyclical deficit. we have economic growth right now and get congress has approved and allowed a deficit that is larger as a share of gdp , just gross irresponsibility. we have an underlying entitlement crisis coming and expected to get worse.

with the federal reserve increasing interest rates, the cost of our borrowing every year, i think next year it will be $1 trillion that the government will pay on interest on the debt. this is all grossly irresponsible. what is going on at the end of the day is congress prefers high spending and low taxes paid that is what it prefers because it keeps everybody happy in the short term. people who predominately pay into the tax system get low taxes. people who derive benefits derive benefits. congress does not like to pick between winners and losers. it is like the opera joke -- op rah joke. you get a car, you get a car. ultimately, there will have to be a reckoning. probably the bond market will say enough is enough you have to

get your fiscal house in order. we as a nation will have to have a serious public conversation about how we get our fiscal house in order. to what extent do we reduce spending or ndg to make it more accountable or effective towards the goals set forth question mark to what extent do we increase taxes? these are conversations we the people have not had in a meaningful sense beyond partisan rhetoric but i think that day is coming. congress is going to be the place where those decisions have to be made. host: you can find in the first part of the report at aei.org. it is written by jay cost of the american enterprise institute who serves as a ford senior fellow and obviously a rolling stones fan as well. thanks for the time today. guest: my pleasure.

thanks for having me. host: there is an effort in congress to put more money into research into online gambling. the national council on problem gambling's keith whyte joins us next to tell us more. ♪ >> weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. joshua green with his book where he describes economic populism on the left and the future of the democratic party. the writer and podcaster argues the u.s. should move toward the colorblind approach to politics and race. what book -- watch book tv every

weekd and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch anytime online. friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters. this along with first-hand accounts from reporters, updated numbers, and campaign ads. watc c-span, online, or download now. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span

has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors, to party briefings and committee meetings, c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our final segment of the day with keith whyte, executive director of the national council on problem gambling to talk about the impact of gambling particularly in the online sports world. thanks for giving us her time -- your time. tell us the perspective you bring on the topic and how you are funded. guest: we were founded in 1972. it is the advocate for problem

gamblers and their families. to do that work, we need them to trust us. our founders, including a lot of people who have recovered, determined we would always be neutral on legalized gambling. we are neutral on legalized gambling so people with gambling problems will not have to face the shame and stigma and misunderstanding they face in other areas of society. going forward from that, we are able to work with all stakeholders which includes not just the gambling industry, now sports leagues, but state governments. one of the largest purveyors of gambling are state governments. our neutrality has enabled us to work with everyone, including government. to your question, we certainly accept and encourage donations from began when industry, from

tracks, tribes, regulators. but the majority comes from other sources including the national football league is our largest supporter. we are proud of our neutrality and ability to work with all the stakeholders and make sure, if you are a stakeholder, we believe it is good ethics to support a neutral nonprofit to provide lifesaving services we provide. host: i suspect fun days like today with the big game taking place, the super bowl taking place, this brings the topic into sharp focus for you as far as concerns. guest: super bowl sunday is a workday for everyone in the game wingfield and problem gambling feel like our organization. interest is spiked to unprecedented levels since 2018 on the legalization of sports

betting across the united states. our help lines, our call, text, and chat centers are staffed and ready to respond to people who had a losing season and are ready to reach out for help. host: when it comes to the issue of problem gambling, how do you define that? guest: great question. i think this is a femoral to many americans. i might argue americans are more predisposed towards risk-taking. many people do not think about what addiction looks like because they are conditioned to think of it in terms of substance abuse. that causes chemical changes in the brain. gamblers do not have that excuse. even though we know heavy repeated gambling is also

associated with the same physical changes in the brain just like substance abuse. the brain of a problem gambler looks a lot like the brain of someone who has a cocaine problem. when you look at the criteria, while there is no substance involved, you are often chasing your losses and betting more and more money. more important things like not being able to stick with a limit of time and money spent gambling and gambling causing harm, not just financial harm but emotional harm, psychological harm to families and vocations. it is broader but looks a lot like a chronic, relapsing addiction, just like substance abuse. host: keith whyte is joining us for this discussion. if you want to ask him questions about online gambling, sports gambling, and the like, call 202-748-8000 for eastern time

zones. perhaps you have and explain she would like to share with the guest. 202-748-8002 is how you can do it. noise text us at 202-748-8003. it recently expanded across the united states. this goes back to the decision by the spring -- supreme court. guest: congress passed a law that prohibited states from legalizing sports betting. no other state had legalized sports betting except nevada by 1992. the act carved that out. that law stood until 2018 when it was challenged by the state of new jersey. the supreme court struck it down

as improperly commandeering state power. it prohibited it could already let roscoe do it. it failed a number of tests according to the supreme court. after 2018, sports -- states were free to legalize sports betting and rapidly jumped into the water. in five years, many have legalized sports betting. it has been the largest and fastest expansion of gambling in our nation's history. host: is the expansion done by the states themselves or do they work in league with online companies that provide the service? guest: technically, it is done by the states. gambling law harkens back to english law where gambling is generally prohibited unless it has been legalized in a particular jurisdiction.

always, caveats are placed around it. minimum legal age, companies authorized to do it. you have to pay additional taxes and licensing fees. gambling is a heavily regulated industry. the baseline principle important to remember is unless it is legalized by a specific state, it is presumptively illegal. there has been a tremendous amount of lobbying from the legalized industry to try to open these markets. it has become quite a growth area. host: that is represented by the american gaming association. if i understand, he worked for them. -- you worked for them. guest: from 1995 to 1998. it is really important for us to talk to all of these companies

in the space, all of the leagues, all of the governmental regulators, all the stakeholders . i have experienced woing with the american gaming association that was quite helpful forging these relationships and partnerships now from the national council where i have been for the last almost 25 years. host: working at the association, how does it inform the work you do now? guest: it is critical. if we are trying to change american public opinion, individual behavior amongst gamblers, we have got to be working with those who provide the services. we do that a couple of ways. work in partnership with companies to train employees, to make sure they have responsible gambling policies. as advocates, we also go to legislators to make sure if a state doesn't legalize or expand gambling, they have strong protections -- does legalize or

expand gamely, they have strong protections written into the law. we aggressively lobby and advocate with regulators to make sure there are good protections in statutes and those are translated to strong legislation. if a company is not meeting those expectations, we push that they face the proper penalties. we try to be active in all steps of the process. it is important to make sure consumers are able to make an informed choice and that consumers with vulnerable problems have the services they need in place to treat gambling problems. host: keith whyte joining us for this discussion. the first call is from washington, d.c. paula, you are on with our guest. caller: thank you. i have two questions.

i am a person of a certain age. you mentioned the possible ramifications of gambling and having issues but i did not hear literally putting your life on the line in gambling situations. i was wondering if that leveled off with the onset of legalize gambling. back in the day, there were illegal ways of doing it which put you in harm's way. that was my first question. the second question is, did we not think as a society that there would be some influx and issues with gambling with the uptick in promotion of legalized gambling by celebrities, former athletes, etc.? i will take the response offline. host: paula, thank you.

guest: thank you and good morning. to take the second question first, there is an unprecedented surge of gambling advertising. celebrities. it is unprecedented in our nations history. it is absolutely having an impact on the risk for gambling problems. we know those especially vulnerable are online male sports bettors. there are additional indicators it may be male sports bettors of color in minority communities, people who are athletes, active military or veterans. these are groups known to have higher rates of gambling problems in general and make them particularly susceptible to online sports betting. we are really concerned. we are seeing a lot more young men come into gambling

treatment, call our helpline. anecdotally, they are coming into yelling anonymous rooms. the response is completely inadequate. in the district of columbia where all three of us are today, the mayor cut the sole public funding for gambling -- problem again when programs. they put $200,000 aside from tax revenue to treat gambling problems. however, they took that money back. the budget this year has zero in the district to treat gambling problems. these young men are only hearing about the benefits of gambling and only hearing it from celebrities and not hearing preventative messages or where to get hope or set a limit and stick to it. there is a massive asymmetry and disconnect between the amount of money going into promoting gambling and the amount of money going to prevent gambling

addiction which in d.c. is zero. there is not a single penny of revenue going back to prevention. the national council, among others, has clearly said with the expansion of sports betting, it will increase the rate and severity of gambling problems unless appropriate measures are put in place to try and prevent and treat and stem the tide. we recommend 1% of revenue from all gambling goes back to prevent and treat problems. that 1% figure last year would have been $1.5 billion. the amount of public funding spent to prevent and treat gambling problems last year was $100 million. there is about a $1.4 billion gap, minimum amount we recommend to treat gamblin problems, and the amount actually being spent.

that cap is only increasing as online sports betting explodes dramatically. i hope that answers your question. problem gambling has one of the highest rates of suicidal behavior amongst any disorders. part of it is shame and stigma, part of it is lack of resources. it is hard to get away from it. roughly 20% of people who have severe gamblin problems report they had a suicidal attempt in the past year. it is an extraordinarily high rate of lethality. it is the reason it is a national health problem. host: in california, go ahead. caller: i live in california. i have never played the state lottery. probably the reason why is i

wonder how that gambling money, because it is gambling, that money taken and is distributed. i think we were told initially it benefited educational programs and other worthy things. i somewhat skeptical may be. but could you outline that for state lottery moneys, where is it distributed? guest: i can briefly talk about what we know. to be clear, our focus is on problem gambling and responsible damming. how a state distributes lottery proceeds is left to the states. most of the money that comes in from a lottery or racing or online sports betting will go to popular causes like

education, roads, property tax relief, water rights in colorado. almost inevitably, the least and last amount of money goes to treat the actual gambling addiction. they took in about $50 billion west year in revenue to states government. the state governments in general are nowhere near the 1% minimum target we recommend for prevention and treatment. that leaves 99% for the good causes. but we are far from balancing the cost and benefits of gambling in terms of public accountability, if you will. host: let's hear from sarah in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: good morning.

i am actually a therapist. one of my specialties is problem gambling. i feel it is important to shine a light on the fact that so many people in many demographics have problems with gambling. many of my clients are young people in their 20's and 30's. a lot of them are first responders. there is easy accessibility of being able to do slot machines and sports betting right from their phones. i have seen an extraordinary uptick in the amount of people struggling with this. to make matters worse, when they do try to do any self exploration from the apps, they can only do it for a certain amount of time could they cannot opt out. the site context them via email and lets them know yourself exclusion time is up and you are allowed to gamble again. for many people, it triggers them into relapse.

i think there has to be a better way to regulate this and make it so it is not so easily accessible. i have clients who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars , marriages, children, jobs. this is so much bigger than people realize. it is even more accessible than alcohol where you can go to a bar. this you can do from your home without anybody noticing. host: thank you for that and for giving those examples. mr. whyte? guest: thank you for the good work you do helping folks. there have to be trained counselors who know how to address gambling addiction. while there are a lot of similarities with substance abuse, there are significant differences. if you are seeking help, try to make sure you are getting to someone who understands the

distinctions ambulances. you are the technological aspect of gambling is fundamentally different when you think about accessibility, the types of action people can have now. sports betting today is categorically different from a few years ago. the pace of technological changes is accelerating and that brings a lot more risk. one of the things you said i think is important to highlight for the audience is the risk among first responders and others. when i mentioned military and veterans, first responders would fall into that group. they tend to be young, male, willing to take risks at a higher rate. there is a lot of stress. there is a lot of ptsd and trauma they face. for many of them, gambling is a means of escape. it is a means of anesthetizing some of the pain they feel. if you are seeking gambling for

those reasons, that can rapidly turn into a gambling addiction. thank you for the work you do. we get a call every 90 seconds, a call, text, or chat. a growing proportion are from young male military first responders. host: we have a viewer who asks via text, what is the treatment and success rate for recovering? guest: when you call, text, or chat, it is there 24 hours a day nationwide. you are routed to the call center in your area that is appropriate for your area code. at the moment, we have 20 different contact centers on 800 gambler.

someone called from new mexico will get new mexico resources. someone calling from new york will get routed to new york resources. it is an information referral system. they will do a brief assessment and try and refer you to resources appropriate for you. just as there are a lot of pathways into a gambling problem, there are a lot of pathways out. it is important to note of the calls to 800 gambler, roughly one third are from friends or family members of problem gamblers. if you have someone in your life who has a problem, you can call. resources vary. what is appropriate for different people varies. a lot of it depends on your insurance and state you are located. there are eight states where there are no publicly funded resources, including places like the district of columbia. the level of treatment you are going to get varies greatly depending on your location and other factors.

it should never stop anyone from calling, texting, or chatting with 800 gambler. there is always hope and help. roughly two thirds of people who seek and stay in treatment for a gambling problem have either stopped or reduced gambler to nonproblematic levels. two thirds matches or exceeds the rate for things like diabetes care. please do not be afraid to call, text, or chat 800-gambler to get the help you need. host: syracuse, new york. caller: for the longest time in new york state, we had just indian casinos. then democrats wanted to raise tax revenues so they legalized for all casinos in new york state.

now just private sector people are buying casinos. in atlantic city, one of the arguments they made is it will create jobs and revitalize the area. it did not do that. on a side note, i was at the golden nugget in atlantic city. i was taking a subtle from the district down to the boardwalk. on the bus was a woman who was a counselor for gambling addiction but she was also a gambling addict. she was ashamed to admit she was helping people for a living with the same problem she had. i think it is a much bigger problem. online gambling is a terrible idea. you cannot afford to drive to a casino or atlantic city, you cannot afford to gamble. a lot of people were not there for money. they were there escaping some problem. it was an escape. they lost money. they were chasing their bets. it just goes on.

state spring involved in legalizing it and -- states being involved in legalizing it and profiting from it is the worst thing to happen in the last 30 years. guest: it is a really important issue. recreational gamblers gamble for fun or excitement. they will set a limit and stick to it. it is not causing harm to themselves. people with gambling problems, you might think they are chasing money. but what they tell us is they are chasing debt action. that is why they keep going back. there is not enough money in the world to make a problem gambler stop. there is not enough money in the world to overdose a problem gambler. money is the substance they abuse. it is not about winning or losing money. it is all about not being able to stop or not feeling good when you are not gambling. gambling is the thing that makes

you feel alive. you need more and more. it goes back to the earlier discussion. it is literally biologically different. the brains of people with severe gambler and problems are different from others. just like with drugs and alcohol, they have been habituated to activate certain pleasure receptors and deaden others. even a gambling counselor can become addicted. it is a powerful realization for folks that this is not just someone who wants to win money and greed. this is someone who has become addicted, who has the same pathways in the brain, and the same problem with stopping, with doing something over and over again that you know is harmful but you cannot stop and you will not stop until you get special help. it is a devastating disorder. there is hope and help available. if you take the first step, we

can help you get the rest of the way. host: this interview was on "60 minutes" about a week ago. bill miller was interviewed on the interest in gambling. i want to play a portion of what he had to say and get your response. [video clip] >> to get our phones, 24 hours a day, you swipe. this entertainment has the potential to addict users. >> the addiction element of people addicted to their phones, a common phrase, i don't believe there is an addiction to mobile betting anymore than there is to the utilization of your phone for any other reason. >> you don't think adding a layer of betting makes the phone more addictive than instagram? >> no. every clinician we have spoken to says there are more problem gamblers now by every metric than free 2018 -- pre-2018.

>> i would concede there are more known people with gambling problems because we in the industry are flagging those people. >> miller told us sportsbooks look at betting patterns to spot problem gamblers but admitted a policy on it is still a work in progress. >> there is problem gambling. it is a real problem. whether it has gotten bigger or just become more noticeable because sports betting is legal, is an unknown. host: that is a portion of the interview. what is your response? guest: there are a lot of statistics that came from the national council. i will say there is a lot to unpack in the clip. i will say one of the reasons no one knows the exact rate of the rise in gambling problems is the lack of federal funding. that is very important. we have introduced the grid act

to provide the first ever federal funding for treatment and research of gambling addiction. federal research will help us look at it on the national level. it is undeniable there has been an increase in rates. our own surveys between 2018 and 2021 find a roughly 30% increase in the risk for gamblin problems. every indicator we have, everyone is seeing more people coming forward with gambling problems. there is a question, are these new gambling problems? without federal support, states and organizations like us are left to answer these questions the best we can. calling for federal research is

appropriate to help us determine. there is no question there had been an increase in risk for gambling problems since 2018. it is probably growing year by year. i think that is incontrovertible. host: the gambling recovery, the grid act, i believe they have spoken out against it. i may be wrong. guest: they have opposed it. i think that is incredibly shortsighted. regardless of where they are on the grid act, we are pushing forward. even companies in the gambling industry are coming out to support it. they speak for commercial casino manufacturers. there are a lot more stakeholders in the gambling industry. there are a lot more stakeholders around sports betting including the professional leagues. we are confident we will be able to build on the support and make

it a bipartisan bill. everyone we have talked to in congress the past couple of weeks since the act has been introduced, every office we have walked into they say we see sports betting ads everywhere now. i think it is important to think about if we have been working on this issue for more than five decades, most of the time before now in congress, people have said gambling is a state issue. that is where the taxation happens. that is where you get money to prevent problems. we agree. states that legalize gambling and even states that do not, everybody should be putting public money towards preventing and treating problems. but especially now members of congress are seeing it is not only a state issue because ads are nationwide. it is more appropriate than ever to have a national public policy response. the grid act is funded by only

half of the sports betting excise tax. there is a tax placed on every sports betting in the united states. for every $4 but, one penny goes to the federal government. we just want to take half of that and put it back to prevent and treat gambling addiction. host: let's hear from dominic in virginia. caller: good morning, sir. i have one comment. the states are addicted to the money and they have taken over the position of organized crime who ran numbers and everything else. my question is this. have you done a demographic study of the income strata of the people most addicted with a cost/benefit analysis of the true cost? i will listen off the air. host: thank you. guest: thank you. i think you are right that the states bear enormous responsibility.

far too often, they put little or no money back into treating or preventing gambling problems. you are asking the national council. we have done all of this cost-benefit and social demographic bits. running 800-gambler and making sure we have a helpline, training counselors and employees, that is our primary focus. we do not have the time or money to do the sort of research you are talking about. as advocates for helping people with problem gambling, that should be done by states and they are not before they get in the gambling business. i can tell you based on our research around people with gambling problems, interestingly enough, you are more likely to have negative impacts the lesser your education or income except for spats that -- sports

betting. it is the only form of gambling around the world where education is positively associated with betting on sports. the higher education you have, the more likely you are to bet on sports. this runs for graduate school and even doctorate level programs. part of this has to do with the fact that in america sports and sports gambling are intertwined with college. no other countries have such a huge amateur market based on college sports because most other countries do not have college sports at all. probably, there is something that has to do with the way sports have been commoditized in the united states at the college level. i think this may help answer questions about demographics. i think there's also something to do with the fact most americans think of sports

betting as a game of skill. there is an intuitive thing that the more educated you are, the more likely you may think you are better than, that you understand the odds and math better, that you are making a more informed decision about your betting. of course, the more you gamble, the more likely you are to lose. the longer you gamble, the more likely you are to lose. the association with education and the belief that the smarter we are, the better we are at things, can work against you in the gambling space when it comes to sports betting. in the united states right now, it is not inappropriate to say higher education is a risk factor for gambling participation and addiction. if the more educated you are, the more likely you are to bet, the more you bet, the more likely you are to have a gambling problem. it is a really strange thing in the united states right now.

that is just one way of looking at the cost/benefit. higher education is associated with higher rates of gambling and sports and addiction even though education works as a protective factor for other forms of betting and addiction. host: let's get one more call in from scott. we are short on time so jump in with a question or comment. caller: my comment or question is i think you are talking about a small percentage of people who gamble. you are trying to fearmonger their addiction. most gamblers are levelheaded, play well, and entertain themselves, and they live on it

on an entertainment basis but you are confining them. host: got your point. thank you. i apologize. mr. whyte, we have less than a minute. guest: agreed, 98% of people who gamble will not have problems. the 2% represents about 7 million americans. the vast majority of people who gamble will not have problems. we focus on the 2%. we focus on another percentage at risk. it is important to recognize for most americans who gamble, they are recreational gamblers. we actually agree with the caller. host: you can check out the website to check out their work. keith whyte serves as the national director for the national council on problem gambling. that is it food program today. another edition of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow morning at 7:00. we will see you then.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]

m+ fitness to run

for reelection based on the report findings.