are a dying breed and free transmission because the bandwidth of all these channels that has been leverage by the retransmission and placed on to the cable operator and the rates and cost provide a small independent from getting to a critical mass. we cannot find the space or the money to move our business forward. we can certainly tell you the art would be and 90 million homes but we don't have that regulation. we don't have the ability to trade on the transmission so it does affect us. many distributors have told us our growth is in jeopardy because of free transmission. >> i just have one last question and you want to just respond 30 seconds? >> i would say, you know, they are clearly the larger programming groups to distribute in number of channels but it's not unique to broadcasters and

i've made the point before that when charles talks about if he were owned by turner i think this thing would be true -- the same would be true. he was owned by discovery the same would be true. it's not a unique -- said that obligation unique in broadcasters i think is not fair in the context of large groups broadcasting and not another words when you're a mother channel on the dial. >> one last question and a word to senator kerry. julius genachowski, the chairman, wrote that the sec, quote, has very few tools with which to protect consumer interest when it comes to these issues. what you think? you think this is true, do they need more tools? >> i think if the fcc is there to help protect diversity and media than they do have a tool because the diversity and the independents are being squashed in the current system.

>> mr. kerry? >> i honestly believe as this process has worked for decades we are negotiating a rate for the channel and i do think it is the specter of government involvement that is sort of distorted the process, and i think if people accept the have to go along with business and largely with pretty constructive relationships here. yes, broadcasting went from zero and i understand we've gone from zero to say we need to get paid and that's a change but i think the facts of what broadcasting is facing proved it is a reasonable request. but i think we will get on to business. as we have gone on to business and in many ways i think we can get back to focusing on how we use the digital age and other things to bring excitement to the consumer but this is not some unique complicated process. i think there's been an attempt, a segment of the business to make it sound much more unique,

much more complicated. i think this is a rate negotiation like all of them that have happened if one should have been in the private marketplace it will go forward. >> mr. rutledge? >> we think the fcc does have the authority to help -- >> is your light on? there you go. >> we do think the fcc has the authority. we know the letter sent to the chairman, but they've exercised broad authority in other ways. they do have the obligation to watch out for consumer prices and to protect the consumer and fairly broad authority which we pointed out in our written testimony, and so we believe they do have the authority to help the consumer in these kind of disputes. >> okay. thank you, mr. uva. >> i do agree that the fcc has the of 40 in its rules and the communications give the right to monitor and determine whether the negotiations were taken place in good faith or bad faith

and the ability to enforce. >> mr. britt? >> yes, we think they both have the authority and the obligation to oversee and be involved as appropriate but they have chosen not to exercise that. >> thank you very much. i appreciate all your time. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. let's try to sort of wrap up here a little bit on these thoughts. mr. speaker, let me ask a couple more questions if i can before we wrap up. broadcasters argued in the amount of profit margin that you guys make, you are more than able to deal to pay them the cost of the retransmission consent fee without passing them on to consumers, and they've argued further that it's fair

sharing if you will of the profits that you make off of their content so you ought to be able to pass that on. what do you say to that? >> i would say that the company is in front of you are all very profitable including news corporation and disney who's not here, so the issue we are raising is not about the relative profitability of different companies. we are really raising an issue that in the context of this narrow thing called the transmission consent which was set up by the government do we have the right process for deciding the amount of that subsidy of the viewers. we are not questioning whether there should be a subsidy or whether there should be a payment, but the mechanism for determining the amount seems broken and there's a lot of transparency, so that's our

focus. we have plenty of competition so what we end up charging consumers is pretty much determined by a competitive marketplace. >> i won't disagree the market has provided increased competition. a lot of people surprised but it is very broad with a digital download and so forth et cetera, it is a new world out there and there is no question about that. well, here's sort of what the congressional research service, which is non-partisan as you know, has concluded that the negotiations between programmers and distributors although private are strongly affected by statutory and regulatory requirements and cannot be properly characterized as just

free-market so there's sort of a beginning principle here which we need to think about. second, although the ncta of which i think all of you are a member including news corporation, is divided on the solution to the president has said that he wants to debunk the notion that free transmission consent is purely and simply a free market negotiation as many tv station and cable company. that, he said, is complete nonsense. third, the disputes that started putting consumers in the middle and about 2007 is when it started and they seem to be escalating since then. and i think we need to take note of that that we went a long time without it and started and now it's going to escalate and the prospect of this being the tool

in the absence of some sort of a other mechanism seems to loom fairly large, the government staying out of that certainly hasn't resolved the disputes, nor relieve the consumers of the problem that is, more and more to our attention. and, you know, it's interesting the most recent dispute kind of hit a significant level of discussion when fox made the decision to pull the signal off the air. i understand or desire to hold on to that right. and i think, you know, what we've put on the table respect that, but it requires a simple level of both the transparency and a sort of judgment, are they working in good faith if we have a good faith argument based on the marketplace, based on competitors, based on the

various offerings that are available to people at city, people step back and say that's not our dealer and you can still pull your signal. so you're not without a very significant lever it's just that it try is somehow to create a level of accountability to the public if you will in light of all the other benefits on the table. so, i just ask you to think about that, and we are going to think about it in light of the sort of discussion we've had today and maybe we can continue to have a private dialogue on this and see if we can't find some way to do something that relieves us of the burden because if we go forward in this atmosphere i suspect given the nature of competition and the nature of the hour marketplace building on this diversity people may feel more compelled to press for an advantage and pull the signal and as we go

forward here, and no one here i think is going to react very positively to that. so to the degree that you want this to remain a source hands of an arm's-length transaction where the market place has a maximum amount of ability to play itself out and that would be our preference, too i think you have to think about what is the compromise mechanism, what is the way to try to say we are doing something, let's give it a try and see if it creates better balance and a better outcome, and i suspect that in the end and somebody said a moment ago you were all very profitable companies. i don't think a lot of people are going to, you know, be thrilled with the idea that, you know, they are becoming a pawn in sort of for that extra percentage of profitability is going to be measured against the high levels of profitability you've already experienced measured against the

government's, you know, gift if you will on behalf of the american people and you're right to take part in that marketplace. so what's all think about it. i think it's been a healthy and a good hearing our point of view we aired some of these issues and get a sense of it. leave the record open until the end of the week for any submissions by additional colleagues and and again, we appreciate everybody and mr. uva, thanks for not feeling well hanging in with us.

[inaudible conversations]

and now a look in a recent poll asking voters to suggest how to make congress more accessible. this >> mr. green, thanks for time with us this morning.sk he worked with you to ask t questions of the public's of people that you polled were voters in the last election how to make the congress more accessible you learned? >> essentially there is very strong interest in making congress more accessible. there is a very clear message to the house leadership in these national poll findings. it is time to accept the digital age. i will give you an example of some of the findings.

we tested a series of things that congress might permit in terms of now that there is new leadership in the house. particularly encouraging congress to use everyday language. talking about legislation, publish bills on line so people might read them, might be able it see them, read them online. alert them when congress is addressing issues of particular interest concerning tax cuts or spending cuts. here is essentially what we learned. 84% of voters at the last election support congress using everyday language talking about legislation. two interesting things. these were 84% support, only 4% opposed change. very strong support across all parties as well as among independents. very interesting trend we saw is that it is true, basically the older the voter, the more they

favor these changes. so, in a sense and particularly we you consider as i said a moment ago, this is about accepting the digital age. what is fascinating is the older the voter the more likely they are to support the changes. so if you want to think about it this way, gray pwerdz are leading the -- gray beards are leading the way on the digital revolution. they would love to publish, see published the language of bills online so people may read them. 83% support this change, 4% oppose it. we see strong support across the parti parties, slightly stronger among independents. the biggest numbers are among the people over 50. think of this as crowd sourcing. in essence, the public could provide the checks and balances on earmarks. a million eyes when you publish bills online. the voting public strongly

supports that. they are also interested in particular 80% support very stro strongly for alerts such as we major tax bills or spending cuts might be coming for final vote to the floor of the house. we get alerts all the time on our phones digitally through computers. this is what the voting public would like to see. host: what other interesting finding is 76% support policy debates the way the congress debate is sequential aly. this suggests they would like to hear two sides going at it on an issue? >> yes. i think they would very much -- that is clearly something that they would -- i think this connects to the everyday language as well.

that support for everyday language. they feel very strongly that that way they could get some sense of what the important issues are. and i think there are some people that think they are fragi fragile. i think it would be better for congress and the institution of congress, you know? confidence in congress is at an all-time low since they invented survey research and arguably in the history of the republic. this is a good time to rethink the old ideas. the public is not fragile. they understand there are contrasting, differing viewpoints. let it play out in a way that is accessible. host: mr. green. thank you. you asked 1,200ld become

we welcome your participation 63 much for being with us. we appreciate your time. now a discussion looking at the impact state officials have on medicaid recipients if they drop out of the state and federal medicaid program. from today's washington journalt this is about 40 minutes. our f guest the introduce you to our final guest this friday morning. a guest h the table in number of times and helping with the debate on health care debate. marilyn werber serafini is a special correspondent with kaiser health news. guest: i am technically doing a fellowship that honors the memory of robin toner, "new york times" reporter for many, many years.

she passed away a couple of years ago from cancer. i am with kaiser health news, a fairly new nonprofit news service. we write health care policy stories for all kinds of papers across the country. we have been in "the washington post," "the new york times." we have our own website. i will be in this position until the end of 2011. i hope to become a better reporter. hope to spend some time learning and slowing down a little bit. loading some aspects of health care policy that i did not know before. i hope to keep writing about health care reform. this is the time to be writing about health care. host: people will love questions. we wanted to is your in on medicaid and how the medicaid program might change as a result

of the health care law. what is medicaid? guest: medicaid is the health- care program for the poor. it is a state-federal partnerships. the state put in their pot of money for helping this group insurance coverage. the federal government matches money. the government pays quite a bit more than the states do. in some cases, the government pays about 60% of the cost. in other cases, it pays up to 78% of the cost. with medicaid, we're talking about the poorest of the poor folk. we're talking -- it varies from state to state. states run their medicaid programs. they do it differently in every state. kids are covered. the lower-income kids. when it comes to adults, many parents are covered.

if you're an adult and you don't have kids, it is difficult and you have to be a very poor to be without kids and i get any kind of coverage. host: we have some statistics. approximately 53 million individuals in this country will be covered by medicaid this year. the federal outlay for medicaid is estimated as $290 billion. guest: people don't realize that medicaid is right there with medicare. we think of medicare as being a huge program. medicaid covers a lot of people. host: what has happened to the role of those covered since the financial crisis? guest: it has put a huge burden on the states. and the financial commitment

from the federal government has also increased. as we have hit this recession, or people have become unemployed, that leads to more people becoming eligible for medicaid. the medicaid rolls have grown with the recession. lag thee tends to recession. medicaid is always slower to get back to its normal levels after a recession. host: looking at stories in the newspaper. republican governors have been meeting in san diego. health care is on the plate because of the state budget situation. many of them are facing deficits. could you go into details about the state's responsibility in participating? it is a dollar-sharing program. do they get to make

discretionary decisions about who can be covered? guest: states have no obligation to participate in this program, but all of them do. the thinking has always been across the board that it makes sense for states because the federal government picks up so much of the cost. it has been considered a no- brainer. why would you not put in certain money to cover these low-income people when the federal government is putting in a huge amount of money? we have not talked about health care reform yet. the new folks who will be added to the program after 2014 under the new health care reform law, the federal government will cover more of the cost. currently, medicaid recipients, the government covers between

50% and 78% of the cost. in 2014, we start to see the medicaid expansion, the federal government at least initially will cover 100% of the costs for the newly eligible people. eventually, after a couple of years, that diminishes and the federal government still pays a lot more, and upwards of 90%. they will have a large expansion, 16 million people across the country. the federal government will pay more for those folks. host: explain who the 16 million new recipients will be. guest: exactly. currently, it is difficult for adults to be eligible for medicaid. kids, absolutely. under the new law, anybody under 133% of the federal poverty level will qualify for

medicaid no matter whether you are a kid, of gulf, whether you have your own kids or you don't have kids. that is about $22,000 for a family of four, the federal poverty level. host: 7 states will be required to contribute more funds. guest: that is exactly is it. states will not have to put in as much of their own funding. they still have to come up with their own funding. they are having a hard time right now coming up with enough funding of their own to pull down the federal funding so that they can pay the doctors and hospitals that people on medicaid are seeing. host: 8 questioned more of philosophical question. -- the ultimate

decision was the creation of exchanges, market exchanges where people could buy in. was there and see policy debates about doing away with medicaid as a separate program and giving people vouchers to buy into that? guest: there was discussion about the perry differences between the house bill and the senate bill at the time. for a while, one of the bills had in it a provision to allow these people who were under 133% of poverty, about whether it would be better to let those people get subsidies and to allow them to buy their private insurance through the various exchanges that will be up and running in 2014. eventually, that dropped out of the bill and we ended up with

was the understanding that the people under 133% of property would be in medicaid, except for legal immigrants. legal immigrants have a waiting time of five years before they can become eligible. under -- the new law, illegal immigrants will be able to get subsidies and go into the exchange for those first five years host:. you are saying legal immigrants. and illegal immigrants -- guest: are out of luck. host: let's get to some telephone calls. hagerstown, maryland. charles, a republican. caller: i am a retired physician. i was a primary care physician practicing internal medicine.

primary care physicians are those that first seat a patient with whatever problems they are having with their health. the big problem that i see on the horizon -- is already here -- is that there are not enough primary-care doctors to take care of all of the patient that are coming in for medical problems. less than 5% of graduate medical school students intend to go into primary care. i heard the secretary of health and human services addressing a group of sponsors of lesser trained individuals who will probably end up as the new primary care -- i am speaking

of physicians' assistants and nurse practitioners. my fear in conservation of funds available, we're going to end up with a lesser trade group of persons in the very important job of primary care. would you answer or speech to this problem? guest: you bring up an excellent point. there is a huge concern that there will not be enough primary care physicians, especially to see the medicaid population. we are talking about expanding insurance to a lot of people. especially in the short term. 2014, 2015, and for the first few years, there is a great deal of concern that there will not be enough primary-care physicians or enough physicians

in general to handle this large expansion population. one of the problems of medicaid in particular is that medicaid is the lowest pay your right now for physicians and hospitals and other medical providers. it pays the government when it pays these providers, it pays significantly less than it pays if you are a medicare patient or in privately insured patient. and that is why there is a provision in the new reform law that would increase payments to medical providers who participate in medicaid. this is just for primary-care physicians. this has nothing to do with specialists. it would only do this for a couple of years. that is also worrying the states because at that time when the levels of funding -- when the payment levels for this

primary-care physicians referred back to their previous level after a couple of years, the concern is that the states, feeling the pressure to maintain the new or higher levels to keep them seeing patients, that they will field the -- they will feel the pressure to maintain the harwell and that will cause a further strain on their budget. currently, medicaid recipients all over the country report is difficult to get in to see a doctor. so this has led to a lot of discussion about what you are talking about, which is how much power or how much ability whoo should physician assistants and nurse practitioners have in feeling and for primary-care physicians in certain

circumstances? that is a very good question. it is a big part of the debate that we have not seen yet. host: we have a twitter. guest: that is an interesting question. i covered that law. i'm not actually sure how it did affect medicaid eligibility. host: how is it affected by states with cash-strapped budgets? a couple of things that pop out regarding states and the budget woes. medicaid funding to states represents the single largest source of federal grants support to states, accounting for an estimated 44% of all federal grants to states. are they required to spend all the money they get on medicaid?

guest: that is another question. there really is not an answer to that question. yes, they are required to spend that money on medicaid. the big debate has been, do they really spend it on medicaid? if they get federal money, there are ways to move money around. the government has cracked down over the years to make sure that that money is not going towards the building of roads or schools or whatever other areas the states might see a need, there is general consensus that it has -- all the moving around of money has not stopped. host: one of the things congress did was increase the share temporarily of dollars going to the states that the federal government would pay. that money is beginning to dry up. how is that going to play out?

guest: states are in financial crisis. under the new law, the federal government would pick up the full cost for the 60 million new people who would become eligible for medicaid starting in 2014. even though there would pick up the full cost, that is why states are still talking about potentially dropping out of medicaid. that had been considered unthinkable until now. host: john says many states are challenging health care reform. guest: i think it could have an interesting impact. when states are talking about dropping at of medicaid, the texas governor is the only one at this point who has been out there in front and said, we are considering this. in other states, it is a discussion mostly at slightly

lower levels. some members of the legislature here or there are talking about this. governors' offices, the staff might be looking into what it would entail the what the possibilities are. the affect, if it did happen, could be huge. i will tell you why. there is a proposal for now from the heritage foundation that talks about one possible option for doing that. under this option, 40 of the 50 states would come out financially ahead. the dropping of that federal matching funding. what heritage is saying is that people between 100% and one under 33% of target do qualify for federal subsidies --133%. we're talking about a lot of people who are using medicaid

for their regular health-care services. they are going to the doctor or hospital or having surgery. there are two other parts of medicaid. one is a long term care. folks who are poor and require nursing home care or extensive home health care. medicaid also spends quite a bit of money on senior citizens. seniors get medicare. medicaid helps them pay for their premiums. helps them pay for their co- payments. this is significant. this idea from the heritage foundation says take the states and they would continue falling and the stick full responsibility for their long-

term care, the nursing home coverage, and also for helping the folks who are on medicare, the senior citizens who still need help paying their premiums. the rest of the folks, they qualify for subsidies. but by private insurance through the exchange. you are giving them full responsibility to the federal government. not everybody agrees that this is the case. there seems to be some confusion about whether these folks would qualify for subsidies. the people who wrote the law say that was not the intention. however, there are a number of folks in the government who are looking into this. they are surprised by this. we still don't have an official word from the federal government that this will not be the case, that they would not qualify for subsidies. this is kind of a big question.

it might be a deciding factor in whether states moved ahead with dropping out of medicaid. if they did drop out of medicaid, if these folks to qualify for the subsidies and were turned over to the federal government, it would meet a lot more spending by the federal government. host: the kaiser group has a chart that answers how states use that funding. here's the chart right here. the lighter color is 2009. that is less than the year before. cuts, 35% in the two years avoided or reduced andhos:

about 29 restore eligibility cuts. that is how the enhanced money that is beginningow now to wind down was used by the states. we are talkingr serafini with and we're talking with medicaid and the states. indeed, democrats line from florida. caller: good morning to you. -- amy. i am sure you can tell me whether this is included also. this has always bothered me. when i was much younger, my health insurance had pardon parcel of it was done so. the view is from both doctors and dentists that dental care is very important to your overall health care. if you have bad dental care, it can create strokes and heart attacks and major infections in your body.

i just don't quite understand why it is not still part and parcel of health insurance, whether it be from government health insurance or private health insurance. guest: that is a good question. go to the dentist and you might get a little bit covered by private insurance. but not very much, really. this is a good question. there is no enter as to what except it is expensive coverage. host: you wrote a piece -- could medicaid recipients buy insurance? we talk about that. we have a tweet from michael johnson. guest: this is simply because the federal government or the writers of this law decided that these people would be

better off in medicaid then there would be getting coverage through the exchange and private insurance. there are a number of questions as to -- there are some ups and downs about being in medicaid vs. being in the exchange. there are some folks out there, the ones who of like to see these people stay in medicaid, who say, if you put them in the exchange, they might lose some benefits. on the other hand, there are folks out there who are arguing that people -- if you move these folks from medicaid to the exchange, they would have better access to physicians. right now, there are a number of physicians -- lots of physicians who simply will not see medicaid patients. it is hard in some areas of the country for medicaid recipient to get in to see a doctor. host: this is the james from

pensacola, an independent. caller: yes. the economic situation -- if you're going to go broke -- there is a progressive medical program that the individual there on the screen is saying we expand medicaid, medicare. .'m retired military served 24 years, active duty. right now, if i want to go to see a doctor or dentist, i have to wait in line just like everybody else. medicare, medicaid.

the congress wrote the law that we're going to have imposed on the public's. we have a choice. i have availability for medicare. in the military. i'm on medicare. however, the other countries have a progressive-type medical system. most of them are going broke. we have one in the united states -- free medical. people -- why do we insist on bankrupting the american public with high-cost medical care?

mr. obama -- host: thank you. guest: you hit on a good issue. there are many folks in washington who are concerned that the law did not go nearly far enough in trying to bring in the high cost of health care and to get better quality care at a lower cost. there are centers of excellence within the country that have already begun doing a much better job and higher quality and lower cost and there are provisions in the health-care law to try to move us in that direction, by creating such things as accountable care organizations, meeting grouping physicians and hospitals together so that they are working together better and encouraging the use of electronic health records.

but even so, a lot of these programs are pilot projects. everybody will not be doing them immediately. we do not know when others will be picking them up. there are still a lot of questions about whether the law went far enough. many people here in washington, many of the policy experts are very concerned that there is more work to be done. host: there is a piece in "the washington post" about a new act by scott brown and ron wyden that affects states. ron wyden and scott brown introduced the empowering states ct.innovate an

host: the was a starting date three years after the starting date goes into effect. states could propose their alternatives now. guest: this is interesting. senator ron wyden has been very involved in this debate all the way through. he had his own proposal during the health care reform debate. this is what we're seeing from the states. the states want more flexibility to expand medicaid and to provide coverage for these -- for this poor population the way they see fit.

it is possible if the senators are successful in getting this kind of a law through, that we could see more differentiation in what the states are doing and how they are looking at expanding their population. the states have long complained -- many governors and many state legislators have complained that the federal government ties to many strings to that money. they placed a lot requirements on them to cover certain benefits, to cover certain populations of people, and to do it in a specific way. there are a number of states -- they want to run their medicaid programs differently. i think we can expect to see whether or not we see senator widen's bill progress, we can expect to see a lot of states looking for waivers from the

federal medicaid requirements so that they can run their programs differently. host: a republican from north carolina. good morning. caller: it is actually a wilmington, north carolina. my frustration is that i have been on medicaid -- i am a single father of two children. we have to use medicaid and so much that we've not been able to find physicians or urgent cares bill except it in this county. we have had to use the hospitals, which is financially taxing on the community. i am wondering if the have any kind of program or a number that a person could contact to find out who set medicaid. i have been on the phone calling -- i've been given several numbers. i get the same reply that there

are no longer taking patients. it is not available. i just keep going around and keep going to the hospital over and over again. guest: there are so many people around the country who are having the same problem you're having. they will take the primary farecards -- the primary-care physicians better beginning in 2014. whether there is one place you can go to see who is accepting medicaid, i don't think so. you could try calling your state's health department and see if they have any kind of that information. one thing we will start seeing but probably not until 2013 or 2014 -- as the states began to set up exchanges where many individuals can go to buy insurance, we should start to see more comparative information

becomes available, where you can look and see which doctors -- you can compare doctors and hospitals, insurance plans. we should start to see more information coming about. i'm not sure how successful you will be right now as opposed -- i think you will have to call a bunch of doctors. host: we have a tweet from the viewer. we will put it on screen. folks can see the detail. host: what should we take away from matt? -- what should we take away from that? guest: i am not sure.

i think what we can take away is that both programs are expensive for the federal government. and also for the states, as we well know. another message we can take away is that medicare -- which can expect to see a lot more discussion in the near future about the cost of medicare. one of the main ways in which we save money in this new health care reform law is by slowing the growth of medicare by $500 billion. that is a lot of money. there is some question about how that is going to affect the program. we have been talking about medicaid not paying providers may be as well as some people think they should. there was a new study the came out by a conservative think tank

yesterday in dallas and they calculated -- if we keep paying physicians the way we are paying physicians in medicare -- this is the program for seniors and disabled people -- medicare and eventually will be a lesser player. they will pay physicians and hospitals less than medicaid pays them. we heard the giant tell us he cannot find a doctor. that is why. -- we heard the gentleman tell us he cannot find a doctor. it does assume that the cuts for a physician payment that are in current law will actually go into effect. these cuts have been scheduled to go into effect for years. congress to not intend those cuts to be so steep. every year, sometimes twice a year, they have been coming in

and restoring that money. whether they will actually -- whether we will see the severity as this report seems to indicate, is not clear it will not be that severe. host: medicare payments were extended and it now goes to the house of representatives. from nancy.a tweet next, omaha, nebraska. susan is a democrat and on the air. caller: good morning, ladies. something that upsets me is my name is being used by businesses frontally. -- fraudulently. when i turn them in, nothing happens. $10,000 -- i don't understand why human services or medicaid

cares. if one of the -- one of the businesses kept charging for appointments i was canceling. they should cancel the approval. why should they get paid if i never show up? host: to live. waste, fraud, and abuse. -- host: thank you. guest: there was discussion and there are new programs in place that will be -- that will be coming up to deal with this waste, fraud, and abuse, and that is the intention, to get at some of this. usually when it is a one-person thing like this and you are saying that you were not seen by

a physician and they are still getting paid, those kinds of things, medicaid and medicare are more concerned in the large fraud scheme host:. wisconsin. caller: everything i have heard this morning has been very informative. one thing i'm concerned about is hearing that states are willing to opt out of medicaid based upon money and funding and things like that. in reality, each individual as a human deserves to have health care. a lot of the government does understand that when a new regulation went in for health care reform and being able to

pick up your child at the age of 21 for your employer -- host: 26. caller: many employers said we're not paying for that. they were eliminated. this ended up causing a lot more people -- this caused a lot more people to be on medicaid. is congress going to look at that option? with the reform going on, you are still going to have on the other end, you will still have the people, the employers will not hire people. they are going to be discreet. there will hire people that do not have families and do not have children so they don't have to pay these premiums. guest: some would argue that is already going on today. the people who created -- the

folks on capitol hill and the white house predicts the folks who created this law, they are aware and they are expecting that some employers will drop out of this program. they believe that -- some employers will stop offering health coverage. their assumption is also a that is not going to be that many. they do not believe it will have that profound of an affect on coverage. the reason we have got moved away from employer-sponsored coverage is that while some employers complain about this endlessly, and rightly so -- every now and then the talk about getting out of the business altogether. it is a competitive tool as a way to offer benefits and to attract employers. while there are some employers who they expect will be dropping coverage because of the new

requirements and they see the cost is increasing, the expectation is that it is not in the grand scheme of things. host: we are out of time. quick question. caller: i heard the lady talked and asking the question earlier about doctors not accepting medicaid patients. i went onto medicaid and i had a hard time finding a doctor who would accept medicare. what good is insurance going to be if all you can see is a nurse's aide if you have a problem? guest: it gets to the issue of medicare part we will see more. there are three commissions that are already working and are about to come up with proposals about how to deal with medicare and the skyrocketing costs

there. what you have experience, it is also possible that it could get worse before it gets better. host: on that note, there is a headline -- "guess who is rescue?"to obamacare's rescue?"to obamacare's