writ fits into our broader economic strategy. six months ago, i took office amid the worst recession in half a century. we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse. as a result of the actions we took in those first weeks, we've been able to pull our economy back from the brink. we took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market. we passed a recovery act that has already saved jobs and created new ones, delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses, and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off. of course, we still have a long way to go. the recovery act will continue to save and create more jobs over the next two years, just like it was designed to do. i realize this is little comfort to those americans who are currently out of work. i'll be honest with you, new hiring is always one of the last

things to bounce back after a recession. the fact is even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for those folks at the very top but not a lot of good paying jobs for the rest of america. it's an economy that simply wasn't ready to compete in the 21st century. one where we've been slow to invest in clean energy technologies that created new jobs and industries in other countries where we have watched our graduation rates lag behind too much of the world and where we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it. that's why i said, even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before. and health insurance reform is central to that effort. this is not just about the 47 million americans who don't have any health insurance at all, reform is about every american who has ever feared they may lose their coverage if they become too sick or lose their

job or change their job. it's about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. it's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of medicare and medicaid. so let me be clear, if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. if we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. if we don't act, 14,000 americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. these are the consequences of inaction, these are the stakes of the debate we're having right now. i realize that with all the charges and criticisms being thrown around in washington, a lot of americans may be wondering what's in this for me? how does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform. tonight, i want to answer those

questions because even though congress is still working through a few key issues, we already have rough agreement on the following areas. if you have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will provide you with more security and more stability. it will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance, if you're happy with it. it will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. it will give you the security of knowing if you lose your job, if you move, or if you change your job, you'll still be able to have coverage. it will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. it will cover preventative care like checkups and mammograms that save lives and money. now, if you don't have health insurance, or you're a small business looking to cover your employees, you'll be able to choose a quality affordable health plan through a health insurance exchange a marketplace

that promotes choice and competition. finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. i've also pledged health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade and i mean it. in the past eight years, we saw the enactment of two tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest americans and medicare prescription program, none of which were paid for. that's partly why i inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. that will not happen with health insurance reform. it will be paid for. already, we've estimated two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money simply being wasted in federal health care programs. this includes $100 billion of unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of medicare, subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors. i'm pleased congress has already embraced these proposals, while they're currently working through proposals to finance the

remaining cost, i continue to insist health care reform not be paid for on the backs of middle class families. in addition to making sure this plan doesn't add to the deficit in the short term, the bill i sign must also slow the growth of health care costs in the long run. our proposals would change incentives so doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, just not the most expensive care. that's why the nation's largest organizations representing doctors and nurses have embraced our plan. we also want to create an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in medicare on an annual basis a proposal that could save even more money and ensure long term financial health for medicare. overall, our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them thousands of dollars on prescription drugs, which is why the arp has endorsed our reform efforts. not all of the cost savings

measures i just mentioned were contained in congress's draft legislation, we're now seeing broad agreement, thanks to the work that has been done over the last few days. even though we still have a few issues to work out, what's remarkable at this point is not how far we have left to go, it's how far we've already come. i understand how easy it is for this town to become consumed in the game of politics, turn every issue into a retuunning tally o who's up and down. i heard one republican strategist say even though they may want to compromise, it's better to go for the kill and another said it's about breaking me. let me be clear, this isn't about me. i have great health insurance and so does every member of congress. this debate is about the letters i read when i sit in the oval office everyday and the stories i hear at town hall meetings. this is about the woman in colorado who paid 700 dollars a month to her insurance company only to find out they wouldn't pay a dime for her cancer

treatment, who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life. this is about the middle class college graduate in maryland whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs and woke up from the imagine medical surgery with $10,000 worth of debt. this is about every taxpayer that continues to shoulder the burden washington has failed to solve for decades. this debate is not a game for these americans and they can't afford to wait any longer for reform. they're counting on us to get this done, they're looking to us for leadership, we can't let them down. we will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every american can count on. we will do it this year. with that, i'll take your questions and we are going to start off with ben feller at associated press. >> thank you, mr. president.

congress, as you alluded to, is trying to figure out how to pay for all of this reform. have you told house and senate leaders which of their ideas are acceptable to you? if so, are you willing to share that stand of yours with the american people and if you haven't given that kind of direction to congressional leaders, are you willing to -- are you willing to explain why you're not stepping in to get a deal done, since you're the one setting a deadline? >> well, before we talk about how to pay for it, let's talk about what exactly needs to be done. the reason i want to emphasize this is because there's been a lot of misinformation out there. right now, premiums for families that have health insurance have doubled over the last ten years. they've gone up three times faster than wages. so what we know is that if the current trends continue, more and more families are going to lose health care, more and more families are going to be in a position where they keep their health care but it takes a bigger bite out of their budget.

employers will put more and more of the costs on the employees or they will just stop providing health care all together. we also know with health care inflation on the curve that it's on, we are guaranteed to see medicare and medicaid basically break the federal budget. and we know that we're spending on average, we, here in the united states, are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries, where they're just as healthy. i've said this before, if you found out that your neighbor had gotten the same car for $6,000 less, you'd want to figure out how to get that deal. and that's what reform is all about, how can we make sure that we are getting the best bang for our health care dollar. now, what we did very early on was say, two-thirds of the costs of health care reform, which includes providing coverage for people who don't have it, making it more affordable for folks who

do, and making sure that we're over the long term, creating the kinds of systems where prevention and wellness and information technologies make the system more efficient, that the entire cost of that has to be paid for and it's got be deficit neutral. we identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars already being spent right now. taxpayers are already putting this money into the kitty. the problem is they're not getting a good deal for the money they're spending. that takes care of about two-thirds of the cost. the remaining one-third is what the argument has been about of late. what i've said is that there may be a number of different ways to raise money. i put forward what i thought was the best proposal, which was to limit the deductions, the itemized deductions for the wealthiest americans. people like myself could take the same percentage deduction that middle class families do and that would raise sufficient

funds for that final 1-third. -- one-third. so far, we haven't seen any of the bills adopt that. there are other ideas out there. i continue to think my idea's the best one, but i'm not foreclosing some of these other ideas as the committees are working them through. the one commitment i've been clear about is i don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy. so if i see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing, middle class families, i'm going to be opposed to that because i think there are better ideas to do it. i have not yet seen what the senate finance committee is producing. they have a number of ideas but we haven't seen a final draft. the house suggested a surcharge

on wealthy americans and my understanding, although i haven't seen the final versions, is that there's been talk about making that basically only apply to families whose joint income is a million dollar. to me, that meets my principle that it's not being shouldered by families who are already having a tough time. what i want to do is see what emerges from these committees, continuing to work, to find more savings, because i actually think that it's possible for us to fund even more of this process through identifying waste in the system, try to narrow as much as possible the new revenue that's needed on the front end and then see how we c canopies this thing together in a way that's acceptable to both democrats, and i hope, some republicans. absolutely, mites job. i'm the president. i think this has to get done. just a broader point.

if somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health care costs over the next ten years, guaranteed to result in more americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, i think most people would be opposed to that. well, that's the status quo. that's what we have right now. so if we don't change, we can't expect a different result. that's why i think this is so important, not only for those families out there who are struggling, and who need some protection from abuses from the insurance industry or need some protection from skyrocketing costs, but it's also important for our economy. and by the way, it's important for families, wages and incomes. one of the things that doesn't get talked about is the fact that when premiums are going and

the costs to employers are going up, that's money that could be going into people's wages and incomes and over the last decade, we basically saw middle class families, their incomes and wages flatlined. part of the reason is because health care costs are gobbling that up. that's why i say, if we can -- even if we don't reduce our health care costs by the $6,000 that we're paying more than any other country on earth, if we just reduced it by 2 or $3,000 that would mean money in peop people's pockets. that's possible to do, but we're going to have to make some changes. we have to change how health care is delivered to -- the health care delivery system works so doctors are being paid for the quality of care and not the quantity of care. we have to make information technology more effective. we have to have the medical system work in teams so people don't go through five different tests.

those are all critical to do and we can do them. now, i understand that people are feeling uncertain about this, they feel anxious, partly because we've just become so cynical about what government can accomplish, people's attitudes are, you know, even though i don't like this devil, at least i know it and i like that more than the devil i don't know. so folks are skeptical. that is entirely legitimate because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of washington lately that helped them. but my hope is, and i am confident that when people look at the costs of doing nothing, they're going to say, we can make this happen, we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the american people. david alexander of reuters. >> thank you, mr. president. you've been pushing congress to

pass health care reform by august. why the rush? are you worried that if you don't, there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collaps collapse? >> a couple of points. number one, i'm rushed because i get letters everyday from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. they ask me, can you help? so i've got a middle-aged couple that will write me and say, our daughter just found out she's got leukemia, if i don't do something soon, we just either are going to go bankrupt or we're not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care she needs. in a country like ours, that's not right. so that's part of my rush. the second thing is the fact that if you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen.

the default position is intertia because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy. there's always going to be some interest out there that decides, you know what, the status quo is working for me a little bit better. the fact that we have made so much progress, where we've got doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, aerp, saying that this makes sense to do, i think means that the stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that. now, i do think it's important to get this right. if at the end of the day, i do not yet see that we have it rig right, then i'm not going to sign a bill that for example adds to our deficit. i won't sign a bill that doesn't

reduce health care inflation, so that families as well as government are saving money. i'm not going to sign a bill that i don't think will work. and my measure of whether things work or not are listening to the american people but also listening to health care experts who have shown that in some communities health care is cheaper and delivers a better result. i think we can achieve that. i'm confident if we just keep at at it, working, we're diligent, honest, take criticisms out there and modify whatever plans are working through congress so it meets those concerns and criticisms we can arrive at a bill that will improve the lives of american people. i will give you one specific example. there was legitimate concern we

had not incorporated all of the measures that could reduce health care inflation over the long term. in some of the versions of health care reform that were coming out of the xheechcommitt. over the last week, working with not only health care experts but also members of congress concerned about this, we actually have now gotten a commitment to incorporate an idea that has a panel of doctors and health care experts advising on how we can get a better value for our money in medicare. and every expert out there says this can be a valuable tool to start reducing inflation over the long term. so can i say this, though? if we hadn't had any kind of deadline? that change probably would have never surfaced until who knows wh

when? so i want to do this right, but the american people need some relief. chuc chuck. >> thank you, sir. we're just talking in that question about reducing the health care inflation, reducing costs, can you explain how you're going to expand coverage? is it fair to say, is this bill going to cover all 47 million americans uninsured or is this going to be something, is it going take a mandate or is this something that isn't -- your bill is probably not going to get it all the way there and if it's not going to get it all the way there, can you say how far is enough? 20 million more, i can sign that, 10 million more, i can't. >> i want to cover everybody. now, the truth is that unless you have a single payer system in which everybody's automatically covered, you're probably not going to reach

every single individual because there's always going to be somebody out there who thinks they're indestructible and doesn't want to get health care, doesn't bother getting health care and unfortunately when they get hit by a bus end up in the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay for it. that's not the overwhelming majority of americans. the overwhelming majority of americans want health care but millions of them can't afford it. so the plain pn i put forward a what we're seeing in congress would cover the estimates are at least 97-98% of americans. there might still be people left out there, who even though is there an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance might still not get it or despite a lot of subsidies are still in such dire straits that it's still hard for them to afford it and we may end up giving them some sort of hardship e

ex-exemption. i'm sorry. so i think that the basic idea should be that in this country, if you want health care, you should be able to get affordable health care. given the waste that's already in the system right now, if we just redesign certain elements of health care, then we can pay for that. we can pay for it in the short term but we can also pay for it in the long term. and, in fact, there's going to be a whole lot of savings we obtain from that because for example, the average american family is paying thousands of dollars in hidden costs in their insurance premiums to pay for what's called uncompensated care, people who show up at the emergency room because they don't have a primary care physician. if we can get those people insured, and instead of having a foot amputation because of advanced diabetes, they're g

getting a nutritionist who's working with them, to make sure that they are keeping their diet where it needs to be, that's going to save us all money in the long term. >> back to the politics of it. you mentioned two republicans in your opening statement but you have 60 democratic seats, a healthy majority in the house. if you don't get this, isn't this a fight inside the democratic party and that republicans really aren't playing -- you can't really blame the republicans for this one? >> well, first of all, you haven't seen me out there blaming the republicans. i have been a little frustrated by some of the misinformation that's been coming out of the republicans. but that has to do with, as you pointed out, politics. if you've got somebody out there saying, not that, let's get the best bill possible but instead, says, you know, let's try to beat this so we can gain

political advantage, well, you know, that's not what i think the american people expect. i am very appreciative that people like chuck grassley on the finance committee, in the senate, people like mike enzi and people like olympia snow have been serious engaging democrats how do we get a system that works. even in those committees where you didn't see republican votes, we've seen republican ideas. for example in the health committee in the senate, 160 republican amendments were adopted into that bill because they've got good ideas to contribute. the politics may dick kate that they don't vote for health care reform because they think, you know, it will make obama more vulnerable, but if they've got a good idea, we'll still take it. in terms of democrats, the fact of the matter is that because

this is a big issue, i think that a lot of democrats have a lot of different ideas, some of them have to do with regional disparities, for example, you have some democrats concerned that the medicare reimbursement rates in their communities are too low and so they'd like to see the bill incorporate higher rates for doctors and providers in rural communities to incentivize good car in those communities, a legitimate concern. the minute you bring up that concern, that adds money and we have to find additional dollars. this is part of the normal give-and-take of the legislative process. i'm confident at the end we're going to have a bill that democrats and some republicans support. jak jake. >> thank you, mr. president. you said earlier you wanted to tell the american people what's in it for them, how will their family benefit from the health

care reform. but experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost cutting measures, such as americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end of life care. when you describe health care reform, you don't understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices americans might have to make. do you think you accept the premise other than some tax increases on the wealthiest americans the americans have to give anything up in order for this to happen? >> they have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. i, speaking as an american, i think that's the kind of change you want. look, if right now hospitals and doct doctors aren't coordinating enough to have tough yyou just e

test because of an illness and have you take another test and go to another specialist and take another test and go to another specialist and take a third test and nobody's bothering to take the same test you took, same test, to the next doctors, you're wasting money. you may not see it because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company but that's raising your premiums, raising everybody's premiums, and that money, one way or another is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that because there are tax breaks for health care. not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer. i want to change that. every american should want to change that. why would we want to pay for things that don't work? that aren't making us healthier? and here's what i'm confident about. if doctors and patients have the

best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works. if there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well? but the system right now doesn't incentivize that. those are the changes that are going to be needed -- that we're going to need to make inside the system. it will require, i think, patience, to -- as well as doctors, as well as hospitals, to be more discriminating consumers. but i think that's a good thing. because ultimately, we can't afford this. we just can't afford what we're doing right now. and just to raise a broader

issue, that i think has colored how we look at health care reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt because part of what's happening in this debate, is the american people are understa understandably questi ablably q huge deficits and debt we're facing right now. the feeling is, all right, we had the bank bailout, we had the recovery package, we had the supplemental, we have the budget, we're seeing numbers, trillions here and trillions there, so i think legitimately, people are saying, look, we're in a recession, i'm cutting back, i'm having to give up things, yet all i see is government spending more and more money. and that argument, i think, has been used effectively by people who don't want to change health care to suggest that somehow

this is one more government program. i just want to address that point very quickly. first of all, let's understand that when i came in, we had a 1$1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit that we had already inherited. we had to immediately move forward with a stimulus package, because the american economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth, consumers had lost through their 401(k)s, through their home values, you name it, they had lost tril yochbs dollayochbs -- trillions of dollars. that all went away, the day i was sworn in, it was already happening. we had 700,000 jobs being lost. we felt it was very important to put in place a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy. then we had to pass a budget, by

law, and our budget had a ten-year projection. i just want everybody to be clear about this, if we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a 9$9.3 trillion deficit over the next ten years. because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion. that's not good. but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in. the reason i point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit are deep concerns of mi mine. i am very worried about federal spend i spending and the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next ten years by $2.2 trillion.

it's not enough, but in order for us to do more, we not only have to eliminate waste in the system. by the way we had a big victory yesterday by eliminating a weapons program the f22, the pentagon repeatedly said we didn't need. we have to eliminate waste there, eliminate no big contracts, do all kinds of reforms in our budgeting. but we're also going to have to change health care. otherwise, we can't close that 7$7.1 trillion gap in the way te american people want it to change. so everybody who's out there who has been ginned up about this idea the obama administration want to spend and spend and spe spend, the fact of the matter is that we inherit ed an enormous defic deficit, enormous long term debt projections, we have not reduced

it as much as we need to, and as i'd like to, but health care reform is not going to add to that deficit, it's designed to low lower. that's part of the reason why it's so important to do and to do now. chi chip. >> thank you, mr. president. on medicare, there are obviously millions of americans who depend on medicare. when you talk about bending the long term costs downward or when you talk about cuts in the current proposal on capitol hill, you talk about cuts in medicare and they talk about cuts in medicare but there are never many specifics. specifically what kind of pain, what kind of sacrifice are you calling on beneficiaries to make, even if not right away, aren't future beneficiaries going to be getting less generous benefits than today's? what do you think about taking it out of the political realm and giving it to an outside body of experts to take the politics

out of medicare? >> on the second point, that's exactly what our proposal is. it's called the med-pack program. by the way, it was originally a republican idea, i want to give credit where credit is due. the republican congress passed a bill that created a panel of health care experts to make recommendations to congress on how we could get better quality, lower cost. the problem is every year, it would just go on a shelf and nobody would act on it. what we said is, let's give that body some power. let's require congress to vote on the proposals they're making every year. congress can still reject them so it's not completely removing it from politics but they have to reject or accept it as a package. that, i think, would in sintyvise and empower important changes. but here's the thing i want to emphasize, chip.

it's not going to reduce medicare benefits. what it's going to do is change how those benefits are delivered so they're more efficient. let me give you a very specific example. you've heard that as a consequence of our efforts at reform, the pharmaceutical industry has already said they're willing to put $80 billion on the table. wise that? t -- why is that? the reason is because there's probably more waste in $80 billion in terms of how the drug plan in medicare is administered. we might be able to get $100 billion out of them, or more. but the pharmaceutical industry voluntarily said, here's $80 billion. you know what that means? that means that senior citizen whose right now have a so-called donut hole in their plan, where after spending a certain amount on prescription drugs suddenly,

they drop off a cliff and they have to pocket the entire cost, suddenly, half of that is filled. that's a hard commitment that bealready have. so that's change in how we are delivering medicare, but you know what, it turns out it means out-of-pocket savings for seniors. that's why aarp has endorsed this. okay. christy parson. >> in your campaign you promised health care negotiations would take place on c-span. that hasn't happened. your administration recently turned down a request from a watchdog group seeking a list of health care executives who visited the white house to talk about health care reform. also the t.a.r.p. inspector general recently said your white house is with holding too much information on the bank bailout. my question for you is are you fulfilling your promise of transparency in the white house? >> well, on the list of health care executives who have visited us, most of the time, you guys have been in there taking

pictures, so it hasn't been a secret. my understanding is we just sent a letter out providing a full list of all the executives. frankly, these have mostly been at least photos where you could see who was participating. with respect to all the negotiations not being on c-span, you will recall in this very room that our kick-off event was here, on c-span. and at a certain point, you start getting into all kinds of different meetings, senate finance is having a meeting, the house is having a meeting, if they wanted those to be on c-span, then i would welcome it. i don't think there are a lot of secrets going on in there. the last question was respect to t.a.r.p. i -- let me take a look at what exactly they say we have not provided. i think that we've provided much great greater transparency than

existed prior to our administration coming in. it is a big program. i don't know exactly what's been requested, i'll find out and i will have an answer for you. >> julie. >> thank you, mr. president. you said the recent bank profits indicate there's been no sense of remorse on wall street for risky behavior, that we haven't seen a change culture there. do you think that your administration needs to be taking a harder line on -- with wall street? also, would you consider going a step further than your regulatory reform proposals and supporting a fee on risky activities that go beyond traditional lending? >> we were on the verge of a complete financial meltdown. and the reason was because wall

street took extraordinary risks with other people's money, they were peddling loans that they knew could never be paid back, they were flipping those loans and leveraging those loans in higher and higher mountain of debt were being built on loans fundamentally unsound and all of us now are paying the price. now, i believe it was the right thing to do, as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do, to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse, because things would be even worse today had those steps not been taken. it originated under the bush administration. we continued it because, whether you're on the left or the right, if you talk to economists, they said that this could have the kinds of consequences that would drop us into a deep depression

and not simply a very severe recession. one of the success stories of the past six months is that we really have seen a stabilization in the financial system. it's a not where it needs to be, but people are no longer talking about the financial system falling off a cliff. we've stepped away from the brink. that's important because what it means is there are a lot of companies right now that can go into the marketplace and borrow money to fund inventory, fund payroll that will help the economy grow as a whole. the problem is now that the financial system has bounced back. what you're seeing is banks are starting to make profits again. some have paid back the t.a.r.p. bank bailout money they received.

we expect more to pay it back. that's a good thing. we expect them to do it because it's profitable again and they can win. this is america, if you're profitable in the free market system, you benefit. but what we haven't seen, i think, is the kind of change in behavior and practices on wall street that would ensure that we don't find yourselves in a fix again where we've got to bail out these folks while they're taking huge risks and taking huge bonuses. so what do i think we need to do? we've got to pass financial regulatory reform. this is an example of where folks say, well, should the obama administration be taking on too much? the fact of the matter is that if we don't pass financial regulatory reform, then banks are going to go back to the same

things they were doing before. in some way, it could be worse because now they know that the federal government may think they're too big to fail, and so if they're unconstrained, they could take even more risks. so there are a number of elements of financial regulatory reform, with respect to compensation, i'd like to think that people would feel a little remorse and feel embarrassed and not get million dollar or multi- milli million dollar bonuses. if shame does not work, i think one proposal i put forward is to make sure that at least shareholders of these companies know what they're executives are being compensated. that may force some reductions. for banks that are still receiving taxpayer assistance, we have a set of rules that gives us some control on reducing unwarranted compensation. in terms of the last point you

made, which is the possibility of fees for transactions that we want to discourage, that is one of the ideas that is going to be working its way through the proce process. i think, at minimum, what we want to do is to make sure th that -- to the extent the federal government is going to have to be a backstop, just like the federal deposit insurance corporation, what everybody's familiar with, fdic, the reason you put your deposits in your bank, you can have confidence they're insured, that's paid for through bank fees, we may need to make sure there is a similar mechanism in place for some of these other far out transactions, so if you guys want to do them, you have to put something into the kit toy make sure if you screw up, it's not taxpayer dollars that have to pay for it, but it's dollars coming out of your profits. ste

ste steve. cleveland. >> to follow up on jake's question earlier, sir, so many americans are concerned about this plan particularly the government insurance, public option would lead to reduced benefits or reduced coverage. two questions, can you guarantee this legislation will lock in and say the government will never deny any services, that's going to be decided by the doctor and patient and the government will not deny any coverage and secondarily can you as a symbolic guess to your say you and the congress will abide by the same benefits in that public option? >> number one, not only the public option but the insurance regulation that we want to put in place will largely match up with what members of congress are getting through the federal employee plan. that's a good example of what we're trying to build for the american people, the same thing congress enjoys, which is they go, there's a marketplace of

different plans that they can access, depending on what's best for their families. one of the plans we talked about is a public option. part of the reason we want to have a public option is just to help keep the insurance companies honest. if the insurance companies are providing good care, as it is, they're going to be more regulated so they can't deny you care because of a pre-existing condition or because you changed jobs or they decided you're too sick and not a good risk, if -- with regulation, there's already going to be some improvement in the insurance industry. but having a public plan out there that also shows that maybe if you take some of the profit motive out, maybe if you are reducing some of the administrative costs you can get an even better deal, that will incentivize the private sector to do even better. that's a good thing, that's a good thing. now, there have been reports just over the last couple of

days of insurance companies making record profits. right now. at a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits and premiums are going up. what's the constraint on that? how can you insure that those costs aren't being passed onto employers or passed onto employees, american people ordinary middle class families way in that over time is going to make them broke? part of the way is to make sure there's competition out there. that's the idea. to get to your original question, can i guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system? no. the whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the american people and make them healthier. the government already is making some of these decisions.

more importantly, insurance companies right now, are making those decisionsment part sdeci. part of what we want to do is make sure the decisions are made by doctors and medical people by evidence, based on what works. that's not what's happening right now. a lot of times doctors are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore thro throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, i make a lot more money if i take this kid's tonsils out. that may be the right thing to do, but i'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kids' tonsils out or whether it might make more sense to just change maybe they to ch

have allergies, maybe they have something else that would make a difference. so, part of what we want to do is to free doctors, patients, hospitals, to make decisions all based on what's best for patient care. and that's the whole idea behind mayo. that's the whole idea behind the cleveland clinic. i'm going to be visiting your hometown tomorrow to go to the cleveland clinic to show -- to show why their system works so well. and part of the reason it works well is because they have set up a system where patient care is the number one concern, not bureaucracy, what forms have to be filled out what do we get reimbursed for? those are changes i think the american people want to see. >> [ inaudible ]. >> you know, i would be happy to abide by the same benefit package. i will just be honest with you. i'm the president of the united states, so i've got a doctor following me every minute. [ laughter ]

which is why i say this is not about me. i've got the best health care in the world. i'm trying to make sure that everybody has good health care and they don't right now. >> last question? >> lynn sweet? >> [ inaudible ]. [ laughter ] >> oh, well, i could but he just stood up. all right. shame on you. all right. get in there real quick, steve. >> i appreciate that. you cited the mayo clinic and the cleveland clinics as models for the delivery of health care in the past. the mayo clinic, though, has problems with house proposals, focusinging on patients and results. what do you expect to achieve tomorrow by going to the cleveland clinic, which hasn't stated an opinion and do you expect some sort of endorsement from the cleveland clinic? >> i'm not expecting an endorsement. the cleveland clinic is simply a

role model for some of the kind of changes that we want to see. i think it is important to note that the mayo clinic was initially critical and concerned about whether there were enough changes in the delivery system and cost-saving measures in the original house bill after they found out that we had put forward very specific mechanisms for this med pack idea, this idea of experts getting the politics out of health care and making decisions based on the best evidence out there, they wrote in their blog the very next day that we actually think this would make a difference, okay? all right. i tried to make that short so that lynn sweet would get her last question in. >> thank you, mr. president. recently, professor henry louis gates jr. was arrested at his home in cambridge. what does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in america? >> well, i should say at the

outset that skip gates is a friend, so i may be a little biased here. i don't know all the facts. what's been reported though is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied had his way to get into the house. there was a report called in to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far, so good, right? i mean, if i was trying to jigger -- i guess well this is my house now, so -- probably wouldn't happen. laugh love but let's say my old house in chicago. here aid get shot. [ laughter ] but so far so good. the reporting -- the police are doing what they should. there's a call, they go investigate what happens. my understanding is at that point, professor gates is already in his house. the police officer comes in.

i'm sure there's some exchange of words, but my understanding is that professor gates then shows his i.d. to show that this is his house. and at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped. now, i -- i don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but i think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. number two, that the cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. and number three, what i think we know, separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of african-americans and latinos being stopped by law enforcement

dispr disproportionately. as you know, lynn, when i was in the state legislature in illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. and that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. that doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. i am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. and yet, the fact of the matter is that this still haunts us. and even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause casts suspicion, even when there is good cause. and that's why i think the more that we are working with local law enforcement to improve

policing techniques so that we are eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody be is going to be. all right? thank you, everybody. >> all right. that was president obama wrapping up with his press conference. main focus, of course, trying to save his very controversial health care plan. he talked about how two-thirds of the cost of this trillion-dollar plan actually are going to come out of the government budget, the money the government already spends on health care. he says a legitimate concern, quote unquote, that not enough cost-reduction measures have gone into it and hunts it they have been adding things, including 160 republican amendments into the house bill. also talked, although he also had some very critical words for wall street at a time when i believe it is time to stop bashing wall street. he talked about wall street, "taking huge risks" and "taking huge bonuses" and even invoked the words shame and

embarrassment and said if that didn't work to curb their salaries, maybe shareholder power could do so. never mind in the most recent quarter, goldman sachs' risk was reduced in half. i don't know where he is getting the huge risks from. unclear whether tonight he has been able to rally the public to get behind that health care plan. certainly, this fight is barely beginning. and thanks for being with us. we will be right back after this break and we will have a little bit more of a wrapup for you, if we've got the time. [ engine revving ]

[ engine powers down ] gentlemen, you booked your hotels on orbitz. well, the price went down, so you're all getting a check thanks. for the difference. except for you -- you didn't book with orbitz, so you're not getting a check. well, i think we've all learned a valuable lesson today. good day, gentlemen. thanks a lot. thank you. introducing hotel price assurance, where if another orbitz customer books the same hotel for less, we send you a check for the difference, automatically.

has the fastest hands boxing has ever seen. so i've come to this ring to see who's faster... on the internet. i'll be using the 3g at&t laptopconnect card. he won't. so i can browse the web faster, email business plans faster. all on the go. i'm bill kurtis and i'm faster than floyd mayweather. (announcer) switch to the nation's fastest 3g network and get the at&t laptopconnect card for free.

on this episode of "american greed," dana giacchetto advises hollywood's hottest stars and finds his own fame and fortune. >> it was more like he was greedy for fame than he was greedy for money. he wanted the recognition. he wanted to be in the limelight. >> but his star power fades to black when nearly $10 million goes missing. >> oh, yeah, dana was a con man. there's no doubt about that. and later -- >> i was worth well over a billion dollars. why would i want more? >> he's an art collector, the former chairman of sotheby's and convicted felon. >> there was no greed involved on my part. why would i? why would i be involved? >> alfred taubman takes us inside the price-fixing scandal at christie's and sotheby's. >> the idea of blaming all this

on me is ridiculous. >> do you have anything to say about the money? can you tell us what happened to the money? >> dana giacchetto manages money for hollywood's biggest stars, including cameron diaz, ben affleck and leonardo dicaprio. and he loves the limelight as much as his clients do. >> i have nothing to say. >> but in the spring of 2000, this is hardly the kind of attention giacchetto wants. >> what happened to the money? >> he's accused of stealing nearly $10 million from his star-studded list of clients. this rising financial star seems to be going down in flames.