the thing to compare it with is the will to trillions of dollars a government takeover is going to cost if we go the president's way. ..

>> isn't that a subsidy boy the government plan itself? insure. you're not comparing apples and oranges and employers across the land because of the regulatory environment if employers across the nation had the opportunity to say get me out from this incredible onerous burden of the federal government puts on me just because i am trying to provide health coverage for my employees, please get riyal and they say the alternative is that the washington is running then tell me what employer in his or her right mind would say no. i do not want to do that? take that headache off my plate. it is phenomenal part of it is fantasy to believe the federal government will not crowd out

private industry and end private health insurance as we know it. >> we need to move on but i had a car company in my office the other day that was not currently owned by the federal government. [laughter] they said gmac has received $10 billion and offering five-year no interest loans. how can we compete quit that? with the government money? is the government crowding them out? you are darn right. what will happen with a government plan first of all, they will not pay doctors enough to meet the cost so doctors have to charge private insurers more. anybody getting their healthcare through the employer will probably pay less with a government plan because it is subsidized. you begin to see their private policies dry up as more employers say i don't want to do this go get your healthcare from the government program will definitely replace

private policies does the government will subsidize and will not pay doctors enough there will be more cost shifting. i just have to go back to what is apparently trooper go this administration believes the american people are stupid. they will sit there and say well bree report 1.9 million jobs lost and say with a straight face we have saved or created 150,000 jobs. they think you're stupid and that you don't know that government does not work well. the same people that cleaned up after katrina can really run your health care system with the personal touch. [laughter] and they do. they think you're stupid and not paying attention and 18 then media is stupid and will not report this progress you look at the uninsured it is being exaggerated two exaggerates the crisis. you have a lot of folks, non-citizens, those who could sign up that have

not, you can get the number down at 20 or at the most 25 to get those insured with private policies is one fraction of the cost of big government takeover. we can win this if we engage the american people. they are not stupid they are alarmed at the government and ready to stand up and speak out if we give them the plan to get behind so we need to stop a government takeover and get every american insured to every american has access to healthcare. thank you. [applause] senator demand, congressmen tom price they give for those presentations on legislature. i will now call out the panelist to talk about various aspects of reforming healthcare if i could ask seton motley to compare first

to discuss how the media is covering the debate. >> thank you grover and everyone at american tax reform and the healthcare coalition first of all, i want to thank abc news is quote without them having the all-day love fest for an government medicine we have not had the idea to do this. it is necessary we have to do with year and it is not up part of the abc news presentation, they are doing four hours of on-air coverage from the white house to moderate the conversation of course, you do not moderate a conversation. they do not have the other side we thought we would offer it for them. yesterday's response to a letter to the fairness coalition responded by saying we have been getting fair coverage on the health-care crisis four years. if you call it a crisis you're not getting fair coverage and

if you have been doing it for years ago january 23219 there have been 55 obama himself or zero points of obama condi air on abc vs. 18 offering free market or alternatives to what they're proposing with a government takeover. so as we go into this day we do not want to say they will be terrible but if it does its four hours of coverage from the white house with that kind of track record going into the coverage of this today it wonders what they will do today we have to see but we have an inkling. thank you everybody and thank you for having me. >> of like to call up douglas holtz-eakin former director of cbo to talk about some of the numbers just briefly we have been talking for years about

billions some of you may have noticed that conversation has moved to trillions. if you could enunciate clearly because sometimes they do not make it clear we have shifted 1,000 times bigger when we move from billions to trillions. what are the numbers? >> i want to thank everyone for the chance to be here today. like many people i have some history. recently wrote a paper with the manhattan institute which was to be a road map to genuine bipartisan healthcare reform something that is very different what we're seeing so far in the congress. before that i had the privilege of john mccain to be debating the ideas over what healthcare show like they should look like going forward in the united states and a onetime did have a great privilege of running the cbo whose numbers have become a focal point* of this debate and properly so. the cbo estimates of what the

obama budget will do to this country is very striking. is as clear on a path to a debt spiral that will lead to a crises in the currency and the national bankruptcy and that healthcare bill is a tipping point* in the wrong direction for that pass. so one of the things i wanted to do for those who are not connoisseurs' is talk about what the congressional budget office does. the answer is these estimates of 1.6 trillion dollars, for the senate finance bill, $1 trillion, for the first title health bill without touching the rest of it, these are business as usual for the cbo. good job, the price of federal budget and tax legislation by the congress in during that there is things that the cbo due does. number one is gore's actual legislation and not ideas it

goes with a fantasy what could happen to what will happen if we do what is written in the proposals. second, it considers all of the potential effects on the bridge is spending, taxes and in direct spending what happens to the 16 of the u.s. economy with that is the healthcare sector when it is enacted. and importantly it ranks the option it wants to make sure even if it is wrong about the overall cost the 1.7 trillion or 1.6 65 more expensive ways as opposed to less expensive and does that on a very rigorous basis. there are some things it does not do. does not respond to lobbying for political pressure. i am pleased a senator and congressman could to join us today. i am sure when i was head of the cbo i disappointed them but i did so because the agency felt on the

intellectual merits we were correct, not on politics or any kind of lobbying influence. does not have its own agenda of. you do not see a cbo agenda you see the budgetary reflection of what the democrats have proposed and what is not in the business of saying what is good or bad policy. that in the end is the job of the u.s. congress. the senators and congressmen have to decide what is a good and bad way to do business but so far we have seen that a government plan, higher spending are bad policy the budgetary numbers coming out reflect that but it will be up to elected officials to move us in a path that center's american healthcare reform around american families and delivers higher-quality care at lower cost for the american. that is a job to focus on next. thank you. >> [applause]

up next we have merrill matthews of the council for affordable health insurance. >> thank you grover. it is a great pleasure to be here. i'm here to talk about the public plan. bugged government run public plan, we already have a government run public a plan called medicare and medicaid program has price controls, everyone is forced into medicare part a if you sign up for social security 1/2 to be in medicare part a there's a lawsuit out there trying to get people to opt out but currently have to me and that is the way a stage as the season. and there is a rampant fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid would cover the government programs are however starts out it will eventually look like medicare and medicaid at some point* in time. there will we price controls. one aspect of the legislation is estimated it will be

medicare plus 10% for the government run public options so they will give doctors and hospitals a little more than medicare may be. maybe. you may have noticed congressman wrangle has suggested he would like to pay for this in part with $400 billion in cuts to medicare and medicaid. the president has suggested a lower number pretty sad 110 billion in cuts of what they call productivity adjustments to doctors and hospitals. $110 billion in cuts i'm still waiting to see the headline that says is this going to hurt seniors? has anybody seen that headline? has anybody seen the press release saying this will hurt seniors or is this political? but doesn't the public option and give people lower prices? and no. the largest actuarial firm in

the country did a survey asking the question rear is the biggest cost shift coming from? the uninsured to the private sector? or medicare and medicaid to the private sector? the biggest shift coming from medicare and medicaid to the private sector burma bubo were reimbursement levels the cost is shifted to the private sector than congress comes in complaints about the cost of the private sector. yet they are responsible for its. we'll there be lower administrative costs in the public option? no. we have the actuarial firm to a study of two years ago medicare head and administrative costs when they talk about the 2% administrative costs that is simply what a cost to pay the bills. the rent on the building, salaries, management , insurance, all of that comes under other parts of the federal budget. that is what the study did go

up during it in the of budget even the prod the office of inspector general comes under a different budget and the medicare administrative costs. those are actually very high they may not be quite as high as the private sector but very high and they will be higher in the public plan. then there's the startup cost of yugo start an insurance company you have to raise millions of dollars to have been reserved the federal government will not do that it will just hit the taxpayer for it and claim it as a savings. in addition what if the private sector will be competitive with the public plan you will see members of congress complain about this. we have already seen it twice in the public plan medicare when they created medicare plus choice they paid the public or the private sector 95%. congressman stark complained the private sector was siphoning off all of the help

the people and that is why it was able to do it at 95% or 5% less than medicare when they created medicare advantage they paid the private sector a little more, about 13% and they complain about that there over reimbursing bid ministration and congress want to cut the reimbursement rates. the point* being of the private sector is doing a good job, they will come in and change the rules so it cannot do it. it will be a rich benefits package. we have already seen that. it will make it very expensive and as a result healthcare spending can explode. because of the public option and the dissatisfaction there has been a public option a proposal called a co-op maybe we can move to a co-op and find a middle ground. dirty habit co-op out there there are trade associations, various types of farm groups that work as a co-op and they provide health

insurance. there is a new fascination we will make a co-op nonprofit that will save money. there is a large nonprofit and for-profit sector there are nonprofit and for-profit hospitals. nonprofit and for-profit insurers for i have never seen a study that shows nonprofit hospitals and insurers actually provide lower interest premiums than the for-profit sector. i have never seen anything that shows up. if they do create the non-profit co-op they will end up going out as they do right now and contract with for-profit insurers to provide the insurance and if you don't do that you have the federal government that has to ding the tax payer again to provide the reserves for it. the co-ops are already out there. it is an option but no reason to move to it. they are already there. is the public plan a good

option? if you really think the public plan is a good option to keep competition out there and the private sector honest and competitive why do think you need a public option for life insurance? to keep the life insurance in price as low? why would you need it for auto insurance for food or clothing for the auto industry or maybe we do already have the public option in the auto industry. [laughter] bible that toyota will continue to do well even against that. thank you [applause] >> we actually have the example of the public alternative. we have the government run mail service, the post office and in order not to have competition there is a cause for been to do that. we know how the government

reacts to competition to the u.s. postal service. we're joined by greg scandlen from consumers were healthcare choice is. >> of talk about mandatory coverage and i suppose i should start off by confessing i have violated the law on the way here today the district of columbia has mandated that no one use a cell phone while driving within the district and i confess somebody did call me and i was continuing to drive even before i got to washington d.c. i was violating the 55-mile per hour speed limit with about 10,000 other people so the point* is that mandates simply don't work. [laughter] they talk about the main gate auto insurance coverage but about 15% of all drivers to not have autumn insurance coverage although it is

mandated in 47 states and that is why you have the uninsured motorists writer on your on a policy because it is so broadly violated. all of the interest groups and washington support it the american hospital association, a lot of republicans support it and democrats but this has happened before in 1988 congress passed up medicare catastrophic program which required elderly people to buy the supplement program it was supported by a the congress and brought in by ronald reagan everyone but the elderly was they found out they would be required to have coverage they didn't think they needed there was a famous scene in chicago were a bunch of old folks were chasing the

chairman to the ways and means committee with their picked it signed and keynesian when he tried to escape they beat on his car with their keynes. when everyone in washington agrees you can prepare -- be sure they're not talking to the american people. massachusetts passed mandatory coverage and there was a survey of the people directly affected by the mandate and the people directly affected by the mandate 22% said the law is helping them but 60% the lot is hurting them. we saw the very people the past the mandate because they're so concerned are telling us that it hurts more than it helps. and in fact, the only reason in massachusetts there has not been a revolt i think is there is not that many people in

massachusetts affected the rate of nine insurance before was less than 10%. but if you look at california the rate of nine insurance is 20% of the population and in florida it is 25 and texas 27 these of the people we will help and once they find out how much washington is helping them i don't think they will appreciate it very much. instead of dictating to these people we should be listening to them. there is a reason they're not buying coverage and it is not just affordability. one-third of the uninsured are already eligible for free medicaid. we find out once they enroll in the program they still cannot see a doctor because medicaid pays doctors so little that very few doctors will take it. so low they are rolled down to the e.r. just like they were before so what is a point*?

why bother having coverage when nothing in your life changes? and four the s-chip program one-third of the uninsured children that are currently eligible were enrolled in the program within the past 12 months. they know how to get enrolled and they founded of so little value they did not bother to read and roll. -- three enroll if we don't listen to level set what they tell us it is simply not attractive they do not find value even when it is free to should be listening to them and revising our insurance program to suit the market instead of dictating to them. if we insist on dictating to them that they buy coverage that they don't value we are basically telling working

people and joe the plumber that before he feed his children, before he puts gas in his car to get to work he has to pay for health insurance premiums. that that is the most important thing on is paying for your health insurance premiums. joined the plumber the show the plumber will not like that anymore than the old folks chasing the car down the street except joe the plumber carries a pipe. [laughter] [applause] we will. >> grover asked me about bill clinton health-care plan and in one sentence your of senior access to young nurses.

[laughter] let me go to liability which i probably adjusting countered. [laughter] while reducing medical malpractice in my eight judgment begins at the treatment stage my doctor does certain things and find a way to see a. when you see this staff h. for usa person. the waiting room is not a detention room. you actually get out of there as some point* without losing your whole day. then he follows up with results and can we reached and an emergency and the truth is that people who practice like my doctor are rarely sued if there is government control of our medical system the doctor cannot practice the way he is practicing because all of the things i mentioned will no longer have the flexibility that he has now and medical liability will increase and

will be a tinderbox and nobody is looking at that aspect because it is the freedom of the doctors to practice sound medicine that is one of the big things that caught malpractice law that goes away was the government tells people how to practice medicine. civil justice reform is spoken about by the president and others and they talk about medical malpractice but can i just share this with all of you the particular media. tort law which is my life i wrote the basic book, it is like a child kaleidoscope if you switch one part of it and the whole thing changes. if you limit liability for doctors and not do the same thing for pharmaceuticals all liability ships and congress will not be ready to assist pharmaceutical companies that way. the last time i looked. the key point* is federalism states have acted on medical

liability and doctors rates are fixed by states. ironically product liability countrywide rates. now wednesday but if one state changed the medical liability laws that has happened. in taxes since 2003 there's a 27% increase in specialized medicine while rates are down. mississippi since 2006 premium reduction increase competition. california the big ones since 1976 i have a cap on damages for pain and suffering. that is a long time ago. democratic controls never changed a. why? because they have increased over the past three years is one-third of cost of liability of the entire nation. people do not like to talk about it or look at it on the other sides would actually works. there is no boxcar of people who want lawsuits are being thrown out of court. if there were that legislature

would have changed that rule. there is not that strong of interest in federal liability but there is cost and as cost is increased taxpayer dollars are used there is the federal interest in curbing liability. the trial lawyers will tell you that's it doesn't make any difference. premiums are amount of total costs but they leave out defensive medicine which cost can be in the billions. they leave that out and that needs to be looked at and federal money will be spent let's look at places where it can be saved and liability is clearly one of them. i think any federal reform is what i call tort reform and if that is true, we have to be very careful it does not undercut things that happen in the states already. i have seen some of the proposals and they provide something rather weaker than

all of the work that is done in texas, mississippi, california disappears and nobody knows about a. the immediate especially need to focus on that and make sure federal white comes along does not undercut their good the states have already done. there are mythical and real reforms limits on non economic compensatory damages which you would known as pain and suffering has worked by congress is shying away from that the trial lawyers one no limits on damages of any kind because they feel since they get one-third of the results, and a cut cuts one-third of the recovery and that is simple math and true and they will fight it to the death and it is unlikely to occur on the federal level. the president has talked about but never got 10 specific about best practice reforms of

a doctor follows best practices he or she will not be liable. but it is interesting i have done this work for a number of word these years and spoke to a friend and said have you ever had a case where you challenged the best practices of doctors? no. medical malpractice cases go about whether the doctor violated the practice. it is the evolutionary reform put forth buy a lot of people and people buy it. yes. by apollo best practices i am not liable. this lawyer here cannot think of a case ever were the practiced standard is change it is what the doctor has done that is challenge. so watching the magic tricks you may hear from sources about reforms that sound like reform but they are really not. they are illusions. as a best practice defense