you what he was doing. there's endless speculation and conspiracy theories about whether you may have received funding from the secretary of war but there's no evidence either way. they probably just let it happ happen. >> at what point did this country get to a single currency? >> it happens during the civil war, and there's a number of remarkable and unprecedented steps the federal government takes in the 1860s which would have been politically possible without the civil war. so before the war as we have said you had more than 10,000 types of currency. after the war, the only paper money is federalists either printed directly by the treasury in the form of greenbacks or it is printed by a system of federally chartered banks. counterfeiting declined quite dramatically. not only because of that because if you of the founding of the secret service in 1865. its original mandate was to go after counterfeiters.

>> was a controversial to get to a single currency? >> extremely controversial because there's a number of steps the federal government has to take. the most dramatic is to break the power of the state banks which are deeply entrenched interest, states like new york and pennsylvania have congressmen and senators who advocate very aggressively for these interests because they benefit enormously from a fairly chaotic monetary system. >> ben tarnoff is the author of this book, "moneymakers: the wicked lives and surprising adventures of three notorious counterfeiters." >> next on book tv, "why obamacare is wrong for america," took office present their criticisms of the recently passed national health care legislation in a panel discussion and the first amendment lounge in washington, d.c., for a little over an hour.

>> good morning. i'm grace-marie turner, i would like to welcome all of you here. thank you for joining us and want to welcome our live webcast audience and also welcome our c-span viewers today to our launch event for why obamacare is wrong or america. it is an important new book published by harpercollins, available in bookstores across the country. and also you can order online at our dedicated website, wrong for america book.com. you need to word book in there. the book is a collaboration of me and two authors jim capretta of the ethics and public policy center, tom miller of the american enterprise institute, and bob moffit of heritage foundation. and it has really been a wonderful collaboration. i want to thank also our editor

at harpercollins and her publicist, our editor and our publicist, as well as a terrific team at all of our think tanks that really helped us so much and are helping us to make sure people know about this important new book. it really was a pleasure and a remarkable pleasure to work with the four authors, or three co-authors in myself, to put this book together. it's not a collection of chapters, each one of us were and took individual ownership of. this is a seamless book. we really wanted to tell the story of what obamacare is going to mean for the american people, how it's going to affect families, and young people and seniors, and employers and employees, and taxpayers and citizens. and most importantly, doctors and patients. and the book is written to really help people understand, written by policies but it's

accessible book for people to understand what is coming with this law. i'll be talking a bit about the overview, and my co-authors and i will be each talking about individual parts of the bill. and two leaders of i'm absolutely delighted to welcome our longtime friend and colleague, bill kristol, currently editor-in-chief of the weekly standard, a commentator on fox news, former chief of staff for vice president dan quayle, and a true freedom fighter who has been in the trenches with us for a long time also on health care. bill and i first really got to work together during the 1993-94 health care debate when hillary clinton was proposing probably actually at this point a much less aggressive form of health reform and has been enacted

under the obama administration. and bill was really remarkable. he was the master of the facts at the time which was the latest technology to help people understand what was really in the law. and really thrilling and a pleasure to have him here today to talk a little bit about where he sees the politics of health care today. bill, welcome and thank you so much for all you do. [applause] >> thanks, grace-marie, and thank you for inviting me to join you. i'll speak briefly and i have an appointment i had to run off to. i did want to come partly because i'm such a fan of this book. it's really an excellent statement i think in a case against obamacare which i think is the correct case. and understanding of obamacare. also suggest the direction one should do once it's revealed. one publisher approached us at

one point and said once you publish data collection on obamacare and i ask jim capretta wrote quite a bit of it actually. but these are dispute articles and i think people limited market really to that and people probably deserve no coherent explanation of what we stand now with all has passed and allegedly being put into effect, or planning to put into effect. and a great thing about this book as grace-marie suggested it really does, it is a book, not a collection, different articles stitched together. i'm amazed for people could get together and produce such a seamless, that is attributed to them and i just want to come here to recommend the book. obviously, what's striking also about the book is the book is about a live issue. most books on public policy our youth about what should be done in future, which is fine, those are interesting books, but, of course, the southern sense

because they have one set of proposals and their 2 25 other sets of proposals out there and what ends up happening, legislation is some compilation of a set of ideas. or one way to tell something passed in one start analyzing it, and anyone can tweak with the legislation later on but that sort of retrospective look at public policy. this is a very unusual moment. one reason i think this book is so relevant and important, the legislation passed with concrete, it is there. god knows how many pages of it, and all the subsequent regulations are flowing and will flow from it but it is there a law so it is something real and concrete that could be analyzed, not speculative. yet it is not a done deal. because it is up for repeal, and it can be repealed and will be rebuilt i think if republicans win the presidency in 2012.

i think what's striking over last year's how little there's been no increase in support for the bill, no wavering in the determination of the republican party and even a few democrats actually -- the determination, no waiting and determination. it's going to be a central issue in 2012. it's pretty unusual when you think about it in american politics to a huge piece of legislation passed, and then, but then the issue, and its fate are still up for grabs. i think there's one reason why this book is not a backward looking book. it's not a here's some ideas for the future but. it will be at the center of our national debate for the next year and a half. for grabs because this huge piece of legislation passed, shirley parsifal, extremely unusual in american history and makes it susceptible to john.

there have been attempts to national elections in which health care was an important issue. in the second case i would say the central issue. first 2008 work president obama defeated senator mccain. he won the democrats, democrats one congressman. it again huge issue in 2010. republicans won a huge issue running against obamacare. we had won election on each side. 2012 is the rubber match. and probably will determine the future of health care in this country one way or the other. so this is really, an unusual moment in american politics. over the last 20, 30 years. it we it we have on these rare moments when this kind of a fork in the road. a fork that a substitute or important. health care is a huge issue. 16% of gdp.

30% of the federal budget and two different visions of how to reform it. this is not sort of one party is for doing a little more and one part is we're doing a lot more in the same direction, and this is not one of these mighty cases where the parties, one party has one idea. this is too fundamentally different visions of the way we should go on this important issue, very important for the issue of health care in this country, very important for the size and scope of government, very important for even broader questions about citizenship and self-governance, the whole way we think about the relationship of individuals, the private sector, to the federal government in this country. so it's an unusual moment to have such a big issue in the balance over a year and half now. there'll be a huge congressional and national debate about it. is a concrete piece of legislation that will look at and judge. it will be argued about and voted on a year and a half from

now. so it's is substantively very important and politically very important and politically in the balance. you have a book that helps us understand. so i just want to come and commend the book and then thank the authors for their service they have given us. and final point, i will be, i think people underestimate how important health care will be in 2012. it is the centerpiece of legislation and since the obama presidency, it's the one that is also most a matter of choice. the stimulus we were in a terrible recession. i think that'll be an issue in 2012012 but it doesn't have the kind of clarity. health care something we didn't have to do. there was no particular emergency. like the bailouts and stimulus. even dodd-frank weather was

arguably a huge financial crisis, delete and do something about the banks, the financial system. this was a matter of choice are part of the present and the democrats in congress. oppose it was a matter of choice on the part of republicans. they could've gone a long. so this in a sense is really tell you more about the governing visions of the two parties and of the two major political plus of these than most other issues do. it's unusual in that respect. the president chose to make this a priority. they chose to force it through on a party vote even after losing the scott brown collection and gender 2010. it is there. it is law. the president is reelected in 12, and the democrats were able to keep control of the senate and gain seats and as it would

be awfully hard to repeal it. if the president, if a republican president and republicans take control of the house and even come close or wednesday and i think we'll be easy to repeal it. so unlike in 93-94, we put together the fight against the clinton health care proposal, that failed. that was all the books by 95. than president clinton had a huge amount of maneuverability and 95-96. he signed welfare reform. president obama can move to the center on some issues and has on some issues, and should be praised for doing so. might put you on some issues at the end of the day this is a signature piece of legislation. it's on the books. he can't tinker with it too much. republicans will have to repeal it. he has to defend. it doesn't provide a contrast, choice for the country. between the presidential candidates. so again this is pretty unusual i would say. most of the time in american

politics it's muddier, the policy consequences of an election are less clear. this is a case we are on essential piece of domestic policy legislation, what the president and speaker pelosi said their central piece of legislation in state is now in the balance as we go to the polls a year and half from now, and this book i think will help voters understand what to help them think about the problems, the obamacare. you will -- it is objective but how shall i say, it's not neutral on obamacare. you might not be surprised with a book entitled "why obamacare is wrong for america." they went for subtlety on the title there. but it truth in advertising. no point being coy about this. it is a huge issue. this is an honest critique of it. i think a compelling critique of obamacare, and the final chapter lays out the likely i think,

very likely way in which republicans would go about replacing obamacare if you were repeal. so again gives people a sense, citizens, voters a sense i think of what's at stake in with real choice is in 2012. so thank you for having me here. i'm going to run off to my appointment, but good luck with the rest of the session and good luck with the book. thanks. [applause] >> thank you, bill, on behalf of all of us that was a wonderful introduction, and thank you very much for your compliment about the book. again, or those of you who just joined as i am grace-marie turner, i will be introducing each one of our speakers and co-authors as they speak. and i just want to reinforce bill's point. we did not take an unequivocal stand against a really sensitive and i think well documented and

well cited stand about why obamacare is wrong for america. and in case anybody was confused about that, the subtitle is how the new care law -- drives up costs, puts government in charge of your choices and threatens your constitutional rights. so the new health care law drives up costs, puts government in charge of your choices and threatens her constitutional right. so case anyone was wondering when we said with a tie we certainly made them know where we felt about this. it's because we understand this law so well. we not only saw the debate leading up to it, we've seen the debate over the last several decades of this real contrast that bill was talking about between two different visions of our our health care system is going, that the health sector is one-sixth of a capitalist economy. and yet we're trying to put this

one-sixth of our economy under a different system, what the differences of rule. and i think that's really where the difference is, and why we felt we needed to help them understand when you live under a set of rules and which 2800 pages of legislation and likely tens of thousands of pages of regulation that will be written to comply, it's a very different world than the rest of the economy. and we do have a chapter in the book, talking about what we should do instead, we could get no book about that. but what we need to do was help people understand first what's coming. and a lot of people have thought, you know, the house has referred to repeal this, and it's been declared unconstitutional on several courts. it's been challenged by the states, 26 states, 20 states are challenging it, have court cases against it. what's the big deal? especially when the president

and others talk about this legislation talk about some of the early provisions that were put into law to help people have something to talk about early, allowing 26 euros to be on their parents policy, of creating new risk pools for people with preexisting conditions. some of the insurance regulation, some of the provisions that allow, that require actually health plans to provide preventive care with no cost to the consumer. those were designed to try to help people think about this law in a more friendly way. lead is a freight train coming at us. it is in law. in 2014 this lockout most of the presentations -- provisions will take effect. and we are going to see over the course of, if this law, obamacare is actually allowed to stand, we are going to see half

a trillion dollars in cuts to medicare, we're going to have a train dollars in new taxes just over the next 10 years. you're going to see 29 people added to the medicaid program, which already is not able to sustain or take care of the people on the program today. you're going to see mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance, and this is likely to be for many people first or second most expensive thing in the family budget. about 110 million people may think that they're eligible for subsidies. when the congressional budget office scored this, they said only a fraction of that number are actually going to get subsidies. employers already started to have second thoughts. they were told, you know, if you just support this health legislation then you'll be more competitive internationally guess you won't have this burden of health costs. we all know that there was no

place else -- they weren't going to get off the hook. in fact, they would be paying more, and the rules and regulations are going to have to follow in order to provide that health insurance, are going to be even more rigorous and more strict than the flexibility that they have now to figure how to balance their resources with their costs. and, of course, we see the states absolutely crushed under the budget demands they have now. in a recent study i believe the senate finance committee and energy and commerce committee in the house showed that they are facing more than $100 billion in additional costs, as result of this law. they can't afford it. said the country can't afford it. businesses can't afford it. individuals can't afford it. and here we are talking about entitlement reform while we are creating two massive new entitlement programs. so jim capretta is going to talk with us about the budget impact

and why it is that this law stretch the rules so far too tried to get this through, but the reality of what's coming is really, is really on a non-controversial, that it is going to happen and jim having a currently a scholar and expert at the public policy center and director director of obamacare watch is an expert on budget issues. he works at the office of management and budget annually in time policy, health policy in the first bush to turn. and before that, he spent many years with the senate budget committee. so he really understands what the impact of this law will be. not from a political standpoint, but from a budgetary standpoint, it's going to affect all of us. and jim, i want to me to the podium to talk to people about your perspective on what's

coming. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you, grace-marie. and i want to say to my fellow co-authors it's been a real pleasure working with all of you. i was very pleased to join this project when it was proposed to be so much ago because i saw a real need to do as what bill said, inject into the conversation and accessible book that explains the new law in ways that the engaged citizen find out what they need to know. and so with chapters in your as grace-marie has noted on a number of different groups of our country, young people, senior citizens, taxpayers, employers, doctors, vulnerable people with health conditions and to all of these things are impacted by the new law, and by

reading this book, you can find out why it was the wrong approach when we need to go in a different direction. so when i heard that this is what this book would be about i was really replaced to be a part of it. let me just talk for a minute about two groups that are discussed in the book, taxpayers and senior citizens. one of the main talking points used by the president and still used by the advocates of the new law to try to so was look, we'll cover everybody in the country with insurance and you're not going to live but will cut the deficit, too. so it was going to be a twofer. so what's not to like? everybody gets coverage, no middle-class will pay anymore, and the deficit will come down as well. it seems like a great all the way around. well, it's great all the way around and to start digging into it which we do in the book. and to try to figure out and explain is that really going to be the case. when you start to dig you realize no, it will be the case,

that actually this new law exposes taxpayers to substantial new rift in terms of financing, just at a time when the conversation is getting around to how do we deal with the endowment problems that we haven't funded yet. this new law will pile on top of existing entitlement promises a bunch of new ones that we can't pay for either. now, where do we begin? first let's talk about the class act. this was a provision that hitched a ride onto the new law, and it was sold as a long-term care insurance program for people with disabilities. the problem is that, and they claim that it would generate $7 billion in deficit reduction. now, just in the last two months sectors of us have brought into question whether it will produce anything at all. it's going to know a couple times and such you know what, we discovered this program is

flawed come after the fact, after he got enacted and that it's financially unstable and were not going to let it go into effect until we can figure out how to make it work. there's a couple things about this. first of all, it was known all along that it would have this effect. but they jim to do anyway because they create the perception of deficit reduction. why is this program so flawed? it's flawed because it creates the procession of deficit reduction because you collect premiums for 10 years but nobody becomes eligible for benefits for at least five. so you've got a period of time where no one can get benefits that have debate brings. that creates the illusion of a surplus. the problem is it's a program that will suffer from very severe adverse selection. that's an insurance term meaning because it's voluntary, more like a high risk people will be signing up for it rather than people with low risk. the premium will be very high, and within 15 or 20 years itself

will run short of buying a will either need new premiums to cover the costs or the benefits will have to be cut to keep the program in line with the premiums that are collected. so instead of as being something that will improve the situation for the country, it is the exact opposite, something that will expose future taxpayers to the potential of another bailout because you have these very vulnerable citizens signed up for a program that wasn't financed properly, and, of course, the puck response in a couple decades time would be a, we should take care of them, let's have taxpayers pay for it. so they've created a a new program your that is very likely to fall into the same trap as many other programs have in the past. it will not be something that will improve the outlook for the federal budget. secondly, let me just mention that this new law has already in very large tax increases that i don't think most citizens understand are there. according to the congressional budget office, between now and

2035 the total tax increase from this is going to be about 1.2% of gdp. now, that's an abstract national term but that's roughly another at least five-10% increase in taxes associate with this new law. so it's already great a very large tax hike. it's brought back something that we thought we'd gotten rid of with president reagan in 1981 which was bracket. back in the '70s as inflation was very high, people were automatically pushed into higher tax brackets because their wages went up. that new law, this new law does the same thing. there's a new payroll tax in a supposedly applies to people with incomes just about $200,000 a year. for individuals, 250 if you're a couple. but those income thresholds are not indexed for inflation so as time goes on more and more people, in fact by 2030 those

thresholds will be the government of about $130,000 today. so the fact that the president always has rich people will be paying for this bill is simply not true. finally, there's the impact on senior citizens. the remarkable thing that occurred last august really didn't get enough attention was that the president, medicare trustees may report on the medicaid program, and it's about a 300 page document. and his own in the last two or three pages that you get to the punchline, which was the person most responsible for producing this particular document voter statement of actuarial opinion, as he does every year, and in this particular statement he basically said in so many words, don't believe all the numbers that preceded the statement in the prior 290 pages. because they're based on a premise that this new law, new health care law, will make

permanent perpetual cuts in payments to institutional providers, such that they would fall well, well below what medicaid pays. now, if he knows about medicaid, medicaid rates are so low that the availability of services to those who are on the medicaid program is extremely constrained. you can't get access to care usually in many places if you're on medicaid. so the notion that you're going to take medicare payments data such a low level, they will be well below what medicaid is paying even by the coming decade strikes a lot of people as being not plausible. so i have a very -- will pay for all this new endowment spending by cutting medicare in a pretty arbitrary way. i am for we need to reform medicare, but this is not the way to do. they're basically doing arbitrary price controls, and from that you get, you can already see that political pressure will certainly bill to say we can't do this because

seniors need access to care, and so the presumed spending reduction coming from this large cut in medicare is not going to materialize. that's what the chief actuary of the medicare program says. the end result will be we will have a new entitlement program. there'll be pressure for even more medicare spending, and the deficit reduction that was promised will go away. finally, let me -- this is my second finally, but it really is my last point. [laughter] the debt limit is coming up for a vote again. there's lots of concern the nation is piling up debt at a very rapid rate and will have to raise the amount under this subject debt limit, according to treasury estimates. now, what does the new law due to debt subject to limit? it was promised that this law would actually improve our deficit outlook for taxpayers and not add onto the cost.

but when you dig into this you realize that, in fact, a new law, even according to the very optimistic projections that the administration's site, will actually speed up the raising of the debt limit because what it does is it piles a bunch of new ious into the medicare trust fund with these phony cuts, and it pays for the new entitlement program. the debt subject to limit will go up under this bill. and i think that's an actual indicator that our taxpayers this is not a winner but a loser. 90. [applause] >> many thanks, jim. is this mic life? can everybody hear me? i know some people were late. we are being webcast but apparently there's a big traffic jan in virginia so thank you all

for continued to come. i just want to emphasize that all of us have been working for much of our career on positive solutions for health reform. so the fact that we are criticizing this law is not because we don't think we need health reform. we do. but we just don't think this is it. and from a perspective of someone who doesn't ever hold anything back, tom miller, i think it's because, it is original training, tom. it was a trial to choice would have a trial attorney on your site. he is currently director, he is a resident fellow at the american enterprise institute dealing with health policy issues. he previously was the senior health economist of the joint economic committee. you strict of health policy studies at the cato institute, a chief economist with the competitive enterprise institute

and also serve on a national advisory council for the agency for health care research and equality so we are very like to welcome tom miller who also was a former broadcast, sports broadcaster with the wildcats. welcome, tom. [applause] >> thank you very much, grace-marie, jim, bob and all the other folks that are respected institutions and harpercollins for making this wonderful book, rocket possible. i'd like to thank the obama administration, the last congress for making this necessary, i don't want to. so let's just continue our collective -- our books written to provide you with a firm foundation understanding of the serious consequences of the unaffordable care act, or a.k.a.

tca for americans and injuries slices of life. i think we did it in a clear and accessible manner at least my co-authors did. but there's always a bit of the bill murray groundhog day experience in wondering how we continue repeating the experience of many of the same basic health policy mistakes year after year. although this law has tried hard to expand the scope of elected failures to come. however, i think a better metaphor of the moment comes in december 1997 episode of the seinfeld show involving the celebration of festivus. the holiday alternative to the over commercialized high pressure christmas season, festivus for the rest of us was the phrase. it was highlighted important by the airing of grievances in which each person tells anyone else all the ways that discipline him or her over the past year. now, you can review our book chapters and categories of americans, that promise great gifts and delivered either empty

boxes, heart defects or the proverbial lumps of coal, so much for clean energy interview health care law. now to be fair, the broader airing of health policy and health care grievances in this nation's public discourse is rather inconsistent but contradictory and landed with a common denominator consensus position think it's always someone else's fault. we to keep stepping on the gas pedal and then hitting the brakes and wondering why there are so many collisions. despite the airbags onboard in high political office. an important part of what we're seeing in this book is we have to shift gears and move in another direction. the final tradition of festivus is that it cannot conclude without the head of the household being into the mat by another challenger in a wrestling match. and we're moving in that direction on capitol hill in the 2012 campaign season ahead. within the appropriate limits to secret service protection in federal law. i don't want to get arrested. and looking back over the last year, some of what proceeded

final enactment of this public nuisance, we see various acts in a five ring circus including lots of political clowns, contortions, daredevils and aspiring lion tamer. in the political arena, public opinion has remained skeptical about the overall virtues and benefits of this law, the plurality and sometimes the majority has refused to buy what the laws proponents try to sell them many months. the whole has been much less some of its parts and it's a pretty deep old when you stare down into the abyss. in the legislature and we've seen many of those in the previous majority in congress given the hook, next cast pleased about. the reviews are not in yet on whether repeal and replace or defund disemboweled will get to the file act but it will, hopefully sooner rather than later. over in the clouded economic ring the aca continues to flounder in the face of slow job growth and massive government

debt. health laws flight from double entry bookkeeping, evidence-based assumptions and effective incentives leads even more americans anxious, insecure and uncertain that it offers any feasible path towards higher value and more productive health care. meanwhile, we are running just a little bit short of resources to invest in other important priorities, not called for health care spending. the new health law temporary truce with the employer-based forum private insurance is contradicted by its steady drip by drip political water torture of plan sponsors, this instead of job growth and wage growth and job creation, destruction and churning of coverage arrangement and revelatory schemes that the only certainty is the aca has and will continue to produce massive uncertainty for firms which delays important business decisions. in the next circus ring nearby we find promises of amazing

feats of administration and implementation, many of which has never been witnessed before. when first unwrapped in congress the aca gives, should have carried the warning some assembly is required. the law did seem to rely too heavily on a toolbox full of hammers designed to pound round human pegs into regulatory square holes, you know what i meant. a lot of down and a lot of yelping from some of the folks when they hit their fingers. remember that items like the medical loss ratio rules, facing an annual limits on insurance plans and protecting existing employer plan some disruptive regulation. those were supposed to be the early easy tasks, the why is not on don't connect in the aca's over ambitious came up even more centralized regulation, welfare state redistribution in real-time data flows, they create a more explosive fireball that spreads throughout the

health care system, government budgets in the economy. and it seems that federal planners assume that state governments would fall into line without a whimper as a junior associate and branch office assigned a messy job of making health exchanges, medicaid expansion, dual insurance regulation and coverage mandates work better in local practice many were designed in washington theory. in the last circus ring, the courts, might have a real showstopper. although almost the entire cohort of constitutional law condescending reflectively dismissed any basis for a challenge to new health care law a year ago. to federal district court judges dusted off an older vintage of the us constitution that's been in exile for the last half-century. adequate individual mandate beyond the powers of congress under the commerce clause. the constitution, don't leave home without it. we are in the first amendment lounge that begins congress shall make no law, that's always a good start as a presumption.

[laughter] the final opinions in the court case as a mention of judge hudson and judge vinson respectively which we discussed in the book, there are serious substantive well reasoned and well-written for several lower courts disagreed and another round of appeal. after other round of appeals we made see -- we will have to see what justice kennedy has her breakfast that day. but initial litigation is flushed out an important insight on how the aca reached far beyond fundamental american principles of limited government and the federal's structure of the constitution. so to learn more, read the book. and since we're working on sales royalties as part-time writers, buy one if you can. the big message is not just how bad this health law is, it's hard to do in part, yes, we have overlooked the circus or for

political system, stress are struggling economy and misdirected future of health care decision-making, but what really is to longer believable in the future implantation of obamacare in the aca is inevitable. instead, our political discourse in health policy has been revitalized with millions of grassroots americans were engaged in form, still confused than ever before. repeal is not enough, but he will write a mighty good start. we have to clear a pile of recent and older health policy debris before moving in a careful determined manner to replace long overdue solutions to chronic u.s. health care conditions. the clock is running out we can and we will do this much better and we have to. thank you. [applause] >> tom does not disappoint. our final co-author and speaker is bob moffit who is the current

fellow in health policy with the heritage foundation, the center for policy innovation. he was director of heritage health policies center for many years. before that he served in the reagan administration both in the department of health and human services and also at the office of personnel management what he would have a good close look at a program that we all have thought actually a model to give people actually consumer choice. in purchasing their health insurance. bob moffit, i welcome you, one of our again valued co-authors. the fact that we are also speaking to each other shares that we start out very much in the same place and have worked for equality. >> thank you very much, grace-marie. i, too, would like to thank my colleagues for this wonderful collaboration and the wonderful staff in new york, the harpercollins publishing team your they did a truly great job.

but i would be remiss if i would not extend a deep appreciation, sincere appreciation for house speaker nancy pelosi. she told us that it was important to pass the law so we did find out what was in it. ends the book. it was one of the most profoundly prophetic declarations in america and local history. we're finding out a great deal. in the book what we decide to do was look at a number of different things, but one of the items that we focused on whether claims being made on behalf of of the new law. from the beginning of the health care debate act in 29, president obama -- 2009, president obama repeatedly made high profile promises which turned out the extraordinary claims. i think it's fair because in the book we go into detail from the evidence behind these claims it

is fair to repeat some of them for you this morning. the kind of things that we looked at when we examined the debate. you will recall that the president said that if you like your health care plan you can keep it. he repeated this constantly in his september 2009 address to the congress. the president declared nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. it's extraordinary. in fact, the mandates and regulations, economic incentives are hardwired into law, will require literally millions of your fellow citizens to change or lose what they have today whether they like it or not. in 2010 the obama administration unveiled draft health insurance rules for plants that were to be grandfathered. but the draft rules that would require about one half of all the plans to change. beyond those rule changes, when you look at the impact of the incentives on the law, the actuary at medicare, richard

foster, estimated literally 14 million americans would lose or be transitioned out of their employer health insurance. the former director of the congressional budget office, our friend, doug holtz-eakin, look at the economic and his behind bill, projected 35 million americans would be transitioned out of their existing coverage. that number, ladies and gentlemen, could, in fact, be much higher, and the disruptions to employer based health insurance coverage could turn out to be massive. you will remember that the president said at the very beginning of the health care debate that americans would see an annual decline in the health insurance premiums. he said early on that they would be amount to $2500 annually for a typical family at the end of his first term. i do think this needs any further discussion. the congressional budget office says if you buy health insurance, and individual market, you'll see an increase between 10 and 13% in your premiums.

the actuary at cms has attacks on drugs, medical device, health insurance, all of which will result in higher premiums. the president you recall said that the purpose of health care reform was to bend the famous spending curve downward. he promised that would happen if we did the right thing. in fact, the new law will do exactly the opposite. it will bend the health care spending curve, but it will bend it upwards. cms actuary estimates over the initial 10 years of the loss enforcement, the united states will spend an estimated $311 billion more than we would have spent if the loss has never been enacted. the president said that you will see an increase, you'll see a decrease in taxation or the middle-class americans will not see a tax increase. he promised that no families making less than $250,000 annually would see a tax increase.

well, most of the tax increases that my friend jim capretta sites in the book are tax increases that would directly affect the middle-class. tax increases on medical goods and services and drugs, insurance, all of these things will be passed passed on to you. these are middle tax tax increase the even 40% excise grasp on high-value health care plans, the so-called cadillac coverage, is largely a middle-class tax increase. more than eight out of 10 persons that would be affected by that tax would be persons making less than $200,000 in yearly. you'll recall that during the debate one of the big concerns was how is this going to affect senior citizens. the administration and its allies in congress promised that they would be no cuts to medicare benefits. anybody not remember that? this was a very, very key point.

largely because the senior population is so critical in the politics of the debate. in his remarks the president said i want to assure you we are not talking about cutting medicare benefits. we are talking about making medicare more efficient. eliminating insurance subsidies, working with hospitals so that they are changing some of the reimbursement policies. well, in the summer of 2009 the cbo director, doug elmendorf, told in a state senate finance committee that indeed the medicare payment cuts would, in fact, result in cuts in medicare benefits. laid on the actuary reported after law had passed, at the medicare provider payments would result to payment cuts would result in a 15% reduction in hospitals, 50% in other words, would make them unprofitable and jeopardize seniors access to care.

subsequent analysis by independent analysts have indicated that the medicare advantage cuts are going to result not on any massive desyrel of people with medicare advantage, but they're also going to cut that benefits that are payable to people in the medicare advantage program. herta just an independent analysis of that which indicates by 2017 medicare advantage reductions will result in the reduction of $3700, the value of benefits. jemez talked about the fact that the law does in fact adds to the deficit. the president said however, reporting, recording that he would not sign a lot and i quote as one done through our deficit either now or in the future. well, you can bet the proverbial farm that the cost estimates including the official cost estimates of the congressional budget office will continue to

increase in terms of what this law will actually cost. since its enactment for shortly after its enactment the cbo revise its initial 10 year cost estimate to add another $115 billion. that's just the beginning. in any event under any scenario, a trillion dollars addition in federal spending plus the creation of two new entitlement programs is hardly a formula for deficit reduction. ladies and gentlemen, there is one other item that is, in fact, i think a very important driver in this debate. and that is the question about how we are to be governed. it is actually underlying source of a great deal of 10% of this country, the president and his academic allies have long insisted that they are not proposing a federal takeover of health care. because private plans and providers will still exist.

well, way would anybody get the idea that this is a federal takeover for health care? under the law the federal officials, not your employer, not you, not the insurance company, will make the key decisions in health care. they will decide whether they require you and your employer to buy federally approved health care plan, pay a federal fine or penalty if you don't. able to find in redefined your health care benefits package including the medical treatments and procedures that you must have. the kind of well of preventive health care services that you must have, the level of coverage that you must have the leverage of cost sharing, copayments that are legally permissible, norge you're going to get what the federal officials say he will get or you'll be penalized. beyond that it's not just have a question of the law. the law's language is so vague that it transfers enormous rigatoni authority from the secretary of hhs to make all kinds of decisions with regard

to such goals as defining quality of care, securing value in hospital provide purchasing. so in writing the rules that will directly affect, federal officials, especially the secretary of hhs, and going to fill in all the nitty-gritty details on the issues, the interval decisions that congress either could not or would not make, this broad discretion authority enables these officials to make exceptions to the rule that finished -- that the issue. this is very sobering. very sobering. not just a matter of cost and quality of access to care. that's all important a great part of the national debate is how we're going to be governed. when similar situated americans are treated very different in a large growing administrative state, manned by large numbers

of persons that they do not know and will never know, and you are not accountable to them and never will be, we are living in a different world. with such a process you can expect more arbitrary, highly politicized decision-making by the officials. your problem is that their decisions and the bureaucratic politics that drive those decisions will profoundly affect your personal life. we're in the first amendment lounge. i doubt that the founding fathers really had this kind of thing in mind. certainly they did not want this to be the job of government. we are not to be governed like this. they certainly didn't want it, neither should we. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, bob. i think you can see from these talks, not only that really each

of the authors brings really substantive knowledge to what we have done and what we have written in the book, but also great passion. because this is really about freedom. difficulty about the future of our country. this is a hugely consequential law. it will absolutely a defining issue in the 2012 presidential election. this is not settle policy. and since bob quoted the previous speaker of the house, i think it might be useful to quote the current speaker of the house, john boehner, who actually wrote an endorsement for the book that said while obamacare is wrong for america is been carefully researched, well-written and a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of health care in our nation, it proves without a doubt that this law will bankrupt our nation and hurt economic growth. again, the book is available on

websites everywhere, bookstores everyplace. we have a dedicated website at wrong for america books.com, and i now welcome your questions. we have several people with microphones because this is being recorded and broadcast, we do need to wait for you to get the microphone. so if anybody wanted to be brave and ask the first question, i do ask you to please identify yourself and tell us who you are with. so, have we answered all your questions? yes, sir we have a question over here. >> i'm michael from morgan lewis. in the program are discussions you said in the end of the book there are recommendations for what you do. kenny outlined in briefly -- can you outline in briefly? >> in the book we talk about a

different perspective, and i think the fork in the road that bill kristol described is really, you know, accurate, that you can start from the premise that the government is going to allocate resources in health sector. and that's what obamacare does. it started from the premise that the way to make the health sector more equitable, covering more people, and more efficient and, therefore, bend the cost curve bend the cost curve was that the federal government really managing every aspect of resource allocations, the benefit package, premiums, how to insurance -- which insurance covers are loud in the marketplace and which art. it really put the government in charge of all of that. our recommendation comes from exactly the opposite, 180-degree perspective which is the way to improve our health system and put the patient at the center of

everything, the consumer at the center of everything and the way to do that is to give them control over the resources. that once you put them in charge of making some choices for themselves, the system will orient itself toward pleasing them much more than they do today. you get higher quality, more productivity, cost would be an issue because people would look for a value with their limited resources. so we make a recommendation in the final chapter here that says you need to change existing public policy to put the consumer at the center of the marketplace. the government provides oversight of that marketplace and the needs to be some things to aid in their choices, but really the key is consumer choice based on some limited but equitable contributions from the federal government. >> that's the sheet music and the broader mood which is here in these situations, and we all

support the basic schematic but if you get it right in terms of choice and competition it's real. it means something. accountable health care delivery, you know, you know what you're doing and you ask or pay attention to the value of it. those all kinds of broad categories, but at the core as we read about this separately as well, you have to change the mistaken signals are sent in the system and that starts with the financing, not the end of it comes with talked about a defined contribution structure. it's not going to be the same flat dollar for a but regardless. there will be adjustments but if you start there and make it pretty clear that the public resources are not unlimited. private resources you can upgrade and to all kinds of wonderful things because you're spending your own money. that's to start getting this reoriented. that's not just for private health insurance. it's for medicare. it's for medicaid. we all need to be pulling together. >> and there's been a lot of talk about where it is the

republican plan, what is the conservative plan? republicans can come up with a 2801 page plan that would somehow get it right, we don't think that. we really believe that the way to change the health sector, to change the incentive. right now bureaucrats are making choices for people, and they don't like that. medicare run by federal washington bureaucrats. medicaid by state and federal bureaucrats. employee health benefits where people get their private insurance, by human resources directors, their bosses. people want those choices themselves, especially in information age economy. what you need to do is move power and control back to the consumer so that day, the market reorganizes itself around them, and that means changing the incentives and changing the resource allocation instead of moving power to washington, it moves it as jim and tom and bob,

move it to the consumers. that's a resource allocation and changing the incentive. so, i hope washington, that republicans and congress don't come up with her own 2800 page bill. we need a step-by-step approach that does this right, allows the market to work and forces the market to reorganize itself around the centers. ..

>> the big changes take place in 2014. the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the mandate on the states, the massive expansion of medicaid. call of these things -- all of these things are taking place much later which means that the president and his team have invited a long, long political battle over health care which is going to have slash points that are going to be very intense over the next few years. what i'm saying to you is what the white house and the administration's allies on capitol hill have done is guarantee we are going to have a major battle over health care on a titanic struggle over the next few years. now, there's something else here that's critically important. we're a federal republic. power in this system is wisely

divided between a national government to handle general concerns and particular governments to handle particular concerns. most of us, liberal and conservative, who have looked at this very carefully, and henry aaron is one of the best in this area, have made the fundamental point there is no such thing as an american health care system. it doesn't exist. what we have is we have a very complex system of third party payment arrangements, and as henry aaron also point out, you can go from one state to another, and you will find that the market conditions on on the ground, the practice of medicine, the way in which things are done often vary from state to state, and the political culture varies too. the congress should do what is within its proper constitutional jurisdiction. it has two areas where it can make policy, under article i, section 8. one is to raise revenue and, therefore, make tax policy that

is fair and equitable and expansive to enable americans to get the health insurance they want at the price that they want to pay in a competitive market. congress can do that, but congress -- we cannot have competitive markets unless we address the tax treatment of health insurance. the other factor to remember is that we've got states who large ri right now -- largely right now regulate insurance markets. some do a good job, some do not. but congress could encourage that at the state level, then we would start to see some progress. i don't know of anybody, you know, right, left, centrist, who thinks we should not help people who cannot afford health insurance to get it. that's not on the table. the question is, who is going to make the key decisions in the system? our approach is, as grace-marie and my other colleagues have pointed out, is to put the patient at the center of the decision making process. >> another question. yes, ma'am.

>> please tell us who you are. >> hi. i'm kirby thomas, i'm an intern. i was wondering what you guys thought about what's the best hope for kind of undoing obamacare? do you think it's going after, you know, particular aspects of the bill, like maybe the class act with the 1099 tax reporting, or full repeal or maybe victory in the courts which is most likely to be successful? >> you know, this battle is going to be fought on all those levels. this is now four major fronts. there's certainty the legislative challenge with the house not only having voted to repeal the law, but taking a series of votes on the individual provisions like the dreaded 1099 paperwork provision. the hearings and the studies and asking the administration for more information about how it actually wrote and is implementing the law. so the legislative front is really important. the regulatory front continues with, now as we said, 6500 pages

of regulation that already have been written and many, many thousands more to come. congress will certainly keep oversight of that. the american people have an opportunity to comment. the political front will continue. as we've said, we think this is going to continue to be an issue in the elections in 2012 and even, perhaps, beyond. and then, of course, the legal front where you have the law being challenged in a number of courts, and it certainly cannot help but go to the supreme court, very likely a decision in the summer of 2012. so the american people still have an opportunity for their voice to be heard on many fronts, but i don't think there's any one that's more important than the other. >> we can try the death of a thousand cuts without blood clotting factor, and certainly that's a good way to nibble way at this -- away at this. a legislative turning of this isn't going to happen, but every effort should be made to highlight pick out whatever spots you want.

don't worry about taking out the ugly eyesores, there's so much there, you could remove half and there's still much to get rid of. we should never totally invest in nine unelected judges who have a long body of bad precedent to get over to fundamentally transform what's a terrible line of precedent in regard to the commerce clause. the district court judges did a great job. when you go to the supreme court, you don't know what's going to happen. we can be hopeful, but i wouldn't think that's going to save us from everything else. this is, ultimately, a political battle. we're going to win this one old school. you have to go ahead and vote, and throw some people out and put some people in, and i think we know who needs to be taken care of in this regard. and this will be happening in 2012, and we'll be repealing this in 2013. >> and we do have a chapter in the book, what you can do to put the brakes on obamacare. and we have a wonderful forward

by congressman paul ryan, really delighted to have the current chairman of the house budget committee offer a forward, and he certainly has provided a vision for how to put consumer back this charge of decisions and choices in health programs of all sorts. i think we had a question up here. yes? tell us, again, your name. >> i'm martha lewis, bethesda, maryland. i think, and i hate to be negative, but i think the title is unfortunate because so many of the people who should be learning about this will simply look at the title and go no further. i wish it had been something that you mentioned putting the patient in the center of it. however, we can't fix that. how are you going to address the masses and persuade them that you have something else to offer? because they won't read to the back chapter. and, also n regard to putting patients first, the response which most off i hear -- often i hear from those in favor of

obamacare is i think even should get health care. and they go no farther. so how are you going to address those people who think if you say it's wrong, that means you don't want people to have health care. >> that's a really good question. >> you know, there's a real misunderstanding about what this kind of proposal would do versus the alternative in that regard. and i think the, frankly, the mainstream press doesn't report on this very well. back when senator mccain proposed his health care program back in the 2008 campaign, it was widely reported at that time -- and at that time president obama was against the individual mandate, by the way. the widely reported at that time based on very speculative estimates that president obama would cover everybody, and senator mccain would not, okay? and that is completely an erroneous way to report on this.

remember, what senator mccain proposed was to give every household in america a minimum of a $5,000 tax credit that could only be used for getting health coverage and health services, okay? by definition, in effect, it was a universal coverage plan. if you didn't use it to buy health insurance, you lost the $5,000. and you could always come back the next year and get it. so by definition it was a universal coverage program that got everybody into some kind of a system of insurance. um, meanwhile, the president's proposal, the one that's been enacted, has to use a series of mandates and coercion and fines to try to get people to buy private insurance that they otherwise probably wouldn't want to get, okay? and the speculation is it's going to work. yeah, we're going to end up with all these people getting insurance because these coercive tactics will be enforced, and the irs is going to go out and fine everybody, and this'll

really work to get, you know, the 50 million people into manager they don't want. >> that still leaves 23 million uninsured -- >> that's just a rounding error. [laughter] >> my point is that the alternative to this can cover everybody, can make sure everybody's in good health care and can do so in a way that's better than what was passed. >> but i hear what you say about the title. you know, we -- there are a lot of people out there who are really upset about this law, and we are among them, and we just wanted to tell people where we were coming from. the next book we write will be how do we get to patient-centered health care, so thank you for suggesting that to your editor. [laughter] >> when you've got a tumor, you've got to stop it from growing, and you have to cut it out. >> i would just add that i think that part of the, part of this agenda here with us is to explain in plain language a very, very complex piece of legislation which really has no precedent in american history.

i do not recall any piece of legislation affecting all 300 million americans dealing with one particular set of the economy. that has ever been like this where congress, basically, passed a 2800-page bill. i don't ever recall anything like that, nor do i ever recall a situation where you had 28 states in court fighting the federal government. regionally-diverse states. i think we're live anything a, we're living in a historic time in this health care debate. this is one of the great debates in american political history. but i think what we have to do to broaden this conversation is i think what we need is more open air, public debates. i'm talking about the stuff that used to fuel political discussion in this country at another time, at another place and in some cases a better time and place when we had real debates, oxford-style debates or open air debates between proponents and opponents of the

legislation. so, you know, my view is that town hall meetings should not be simply just town hall meetings. if members of congress want to sponsor public debates, we ought to have it, and people should be able to hear both sides equally. as far as the media is surgeoned, i think the media has done, for the most part, a pretty good job in reporting things. i don't want to single anybody out in particular, but some of the columns that have been written by robert pare are absolutely tremendous in this area. but pare pointed out something that i think is really interesting. it has to do with section 1312 of the bill which requires members of congress and their personal staffs, right? to go into the health insurance exchanges on january 1, 2014. now, what that means is despite this argument about being able to keep your own health care plan, at least personal staffs of members of congress are not going to be able to do that. but what was interesting about

this is as pare pointed out, is that it is, apparently, the leadership offices of the house and senate are apparently not covered by the provision. don't you think that's interesting? and the professional committee staff are, apparently, not covered by that provision. now, for the members of the press in the first amendment lounge here, i would like them to try to find out a simple question. i would like to know the name of the congressman who drafted section 1312. i think that would be nice to know. it'd be nice to know what congressional staffers were involve inside that. i think we ought to know these things. because the fact of the matter is you have a law here that is consequential, it's affecting so many people, and they insist -- i'm talking about the leadership, congress, the previous leadership insists -- that this is in the best interests of america. if it is, they should be able to defend it in broad daylight. >> thank you, tom, thank you,

bob. >> for more information visit the book's web site, wrong for america book.com. >> what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know. >> well, i heard that there's a new book out by chris hedges, new york times reporter, excellent writer. boy, he cuts right to the core, and i just, i just heard about it, so i want to get this. i don't know if it's out yet for the summer. he's a wonderful writer. and writes very passionately about the times, you know, in which we live. um, there's also a book i just saw, it's called "the good jesus and the scoundrel christ." and it sort of, it's a dark satire. it imagines that mary had twins on christmas day. [laughter] and we never heard about, like, the bad twin. wey