public safety missions specifically what enforcement so the first type of mission would be say things like disaster, reconnaissance, searching for lost persons, that type of thing versus a pervasive anti-terrorist counternarcotics surveillance. to have you focus for a moment on the question of public safety related use of you a/s and think hazardous material spills, search for lost children and that type of thing does the aclu have concerns about those types of applications of small you a fs? >> in general we do not. we are happy to see drones used for specific operations whether it is search and rescue, disaster response, police used in particular operations, police have a warrant to storm the state and want to use the drone as part of the operation we have

no problem with that. we think those are a lot of good uses for drones in those areas. there might be particular rules that need to be worked out around if a drone is being used to search for somebody and it happens to fly over private people's houses and the backyard we think there should be rules that govern how those are handled and the sharing of them so people whose houses happened to be flown over the privacy that is dated but we're focused on that surveillance, watching everybody all the time. we think drones have technology that has a lot of potential to do good and really it is in everybody's interest to pin down the privacy question, put in place common sense protection and we don't have to worry about privacy, that will free public safety agencies to use these technologies without the clout of big brother hanging over us.

>> did you have something to say on that topic? >> this year, boston police department use an online system over the marathon to monitor what was going on for security purposes, no suspicion would warrant getting a warrant in that circumstance but the aclu consider that mass generalized surveillance or particular law enforcement use. >> i haven't thought about that particular use but in general we would probably say that that would be something that would be towards the mass surveillance at the end of the spectrum. i am not sure what the drone would be in that situation. there is law enforcement wanting to video tape political rallies,

and who is politically active on the conservative side and liberal side of the spectrum and create databases for that affect. >> what is the privacy concerns the aclu would find in aerial surveillance of a marathon. >> the issue here would be establishing principle of not using drones for things outside a very particular situation. we don't want drones flying over the city's watching everything that is going on. it is an issue i haven't thought about in depth, if it is in time for public safety situation where there is a world wide event going on maybe that would be an exception that could be carved out without raising pervasive surveillance.

>> talking about law-enforcement but what is the aclu's position for commercial and noncommercial applications, those applications would not bring in protections of the fourth amendment unless people utilizing the you a s were operating for law enforcement. this is your next-door neighbor utilizing commercial and noncommercial purposes. >> for private sector use of drones raced privacy questions but there's a different set of privacy issues and they have not called for regulations at this time to cover private use of drones. for one thing there are an existing set of laws such as common law and harassment laws which cover a lot of things people are worried about. and keeping in the bedroom window, already covered by peeping tom, maybe they should

be able to be consistent. and potential for innovation in the private sector. and once the safety issues are taken care of. i would hate that innovation to be stumped where it is not clear what polk privacy problems will be. i don't think it is as clear in the government or law-enforcement context to use in certain ways and there is a countervailing constitutional issue which is the first amendment. we have defended the right to photography around the country, we have seen police officers harassing, sometimes arresting individuals for taking photographs of trains or bridges or the police themselves. very clear that you have first amendment rights to carry out public duties and yet we have

seen them harassed so we work to protect first amendment rights of photographers. those rights are implicated by drones. drones have been used by groups to watch japanese whalers, environmental groups and some of the occupy wall street activists created a drone they were going to use to watch over what they regarded as abusive arrests by the police. it was not legal to fly it. we think photography is something that individuals should use to watch over the government. we don't think the government should be watching over the people unless there is specific evidence you were involved in wrongdoing. it to be involved in everybody all the time. >> thank you. let's move to douglas marshall. are there any legal protections

in place to protect the privacy of the public? >> jay stanley covered that but other than local legislation on peeping tom and the abuse of this sort of device to intrude on the privacy of your next-door neighbor probably not, certainly not at the federal level but federal aviation regulations don't feel with the government systems at all. privacy is nowhere in federal aviation regulations or the mandate in progress for valentine's day last year, to implement rules and regulations, so one of the big questions is whether the faa should be in the business of regulating or dealing with privacy and many would argue probably not because it is not their job. their job is the fee. the simple answer to your

question is there are no legal protections that the federal level for privacy protection for use of these systems. >> what about civil repercussions? i am tired of the odd guy two doors down putting his uas up and watching my teenage daughters, any civil action i can initiate? >> that raises privacy, misdemeanor committed by using one of these systems to go over your neighbor's fence and peak in the bedroom window or invade their privacy. using an unmanned system, generated from that to disseminate private information and take picture of somebody on the internet to defame them in some way by disseminating false information to expose some activity to the public but those

are potentially result in civil mitigation, that would be damage, compensatory damage from pain and suffering or humiliation for intruding on privacy and in the right circumstances if the offense was great enough for egregious enough, the injured party could award punitive damage to someone using the system for purpose like that, punitive damages intended to convince the actor, the wrongdoer not to do that again or to provide a negative ramification for those that might want to do something similar in the future. i haven't seen that happen yet but it is certain we possible. >> let's step back to statutory law. 30 plus states are considering

or have considered one novel of review of laws controlling systems in those states but the question in your opinion is the state legislature, creation of state laws, an appropriate way of controlling or trying to control uas? >> my personal opinion is no. you run the risk of 50 sets of laws and regulations that would be impossible for a legitimate operator or commercial operator to fully understand the ramifications of moving from one state to another or an operation that may cross state lines or state borders and the issue of the right of local governments and municipal governments and state governments to exercise their police power and that is something retained by the states by the constitution.

the same time you have the aviation policies and regulations that come from a federal oversight role and those laws preempt state laws. and it addresses six states enacting a law dealing with uas. they have been introduced in 41 other states. and the jigsaw puzzle of conflicting regulations. and it is a harmonized effort to do something not only about privacy concerns that the overall regulation and management of unmet systems. >> sounds to me like that would be a chilling effect on the development of the technology. >> it certainly could. not just locally, it is a global

issue, ongoing attempts our efforts to harmonize the regulatory environment and standards environment for unmanned systems around world, a major effort for the presentation to talk about the newest committee, 28, and those have been going on for years and will likely go on for another decade or two before they are sorted out. the problem is conflicting and overlapping regulatory environment that make it nearly impossible for the developer or commercial enterprise or manufacturer or researcher to understand what the rules are. something we try to avoid. >> we moved to gregory mcneal. what should the uas associated industries be doing to address real and imagined issues associated with privacy? >> i am shocked when i walked

the trade show floor by the lack of attention to this issue. mostly because it is a business opportunity. the first company that has a foam board set up that says our software was where the camera was pointed and where it was when it was pointing of a camera. date and time stamp and lot of on a separate system and stores it somewhere so only authorized people can access the data and someone three years ahead of the privacy curve will be able to sell this to the states where legislators are clamoring for legislation that says to law enforcement what you doing with this data? jay stanley conceptualize force the privacy concerns of an entire group of organized, on call them the privacy lobby, a

group who is organized around privacy and tapping into what vein of paranoia the general public has, getting reflect on city kills polk, good in seattle, see if they're buying unmanned systems, getting reflected in state legislatures and the answer if you are in an industry that is innovative is look at the innovative product that addresses the concerns these people are raising. i have personal beliefs about the concerns, some have been overwrought. jay stanley and i disagree about what pervasive surveillance might be. with the l.a. gear period than the couple of hours it takes for the boston marathon to happen but that will happen in a legislature where they will be fine what privacy concerns are. and to address those concerns my argument would be if i am sitting in your shoes, in your chair, if i were in your shoes, in your chair my argument would

be unmanned systems can be more accountable and manned systems and let's take foyers and as a concern of the aclu. i had someone who is an officer who is voyeuristic if they decide they're going to drive to the state college campus and park their car outside the sorority house and observe what is going on inside if someone sees them they will come out ask a question and give an answer and golan and cover his tracks. if he tries to do that with an unmanned system that is accountable, who used and when, where they're subject to a separate audit, that person will get caught. people will raise questions, what was the system being operated a way pointing in a certain direction at in that direction it was pointed in, always that night, that system would be more accountable, subject to audit. if you want to store the data you would be able to store it

but it would be destroyed after a period of time and only accessible with a warrant. the other issue i have with industry is the only person pushing back that i witnessed in trying to track this pushing back against the legislation cropping up in different states and the congress, i don't see a lot of effort from businesses themselves and this will hurt your bottom line. if you are a local government or state decides to pass a bill that says any evidence derived from an unmanned system without a warrant cannot be used in the trial. first time you fly this out, looking for the lost hiker as you are flying you have a warrant and looking for a lost hiker you witnessed some phone -- someone in the woods being stabbed to death. ended the aclu proposal being in congress protecting american privacy act that evidence of a person being stabbed to death would have to be suppressed

because it was gathered without award. bills are being poorly drafted to address privacy concerns that are a bit blown out of proportion by the aclu, by rand paul and others and hurt your bottom line, if law-enforcement can't use evidence of crimes, when model from these systems. is important to track this and offered solutions from technology standpoint. >> i would like to chime in to that, any evidence that happens to be containing evidence of crime must be suppressed. >> polk day. >> in front of the state legislation being passed around on white paper. >> as presidents of california aclu, police town hall said this exception for inadvertant discovery or inadvertant

collection is such a big exception you could drive a truck through it and opposed even to inadvertant discovery, usage of that so i am glad to hear that is not the position of the aclu. >> an independent voice here i hope no legislation is so restrictive that it would incorporate that type of language because frequently when law enforcement agencies conducting searches, in the service of a search warrant if it is not associated with the search warrant and a place where we had a right to look at based on the four corners description of the search warrant that would be a legal seizure. i would be terribly disappointed. >> the american privacy act of 2013 judiciary committee, the sponsor out of -- sponsor of the bill, the most polk signatories

of everyone in the bill, working through congress. it is your federal legislation harmonized across the board. that house judiciary committee, identify all the problems with this particular bill, most likely to get past and blow a hole in your bottom line or prevent what enforcement from using these things in signatories where we want to use them. the most popular bill in congress. >> it does have the language you just explained to us not only would i be disappointed that characterize it as draconian and unprecedented because it will hurt law-enforcement includes that type of language. >> to characterize the debate, senator paul said i want to know if the fbi is getting a warrant before they fly drones over my house because he is concerned the camera will capture the roof of his house but does he won the award before the police drive a patrol car down the street and capture video of his street at

the front of his house, just the privacy of his reviews concerned with this is the tenor of the debate and getting bills written in this debate really poorly drafted that people should be paying attention to. >> one thing we're seeing our police video cameras on the street pointed at the front door of people's houses. would you like that in front of your house? i think most americans would not. that is a better analogy with persistent drone surveillance than of fly over. >> i agree with that definition. the problem is there are places like that. >> we will see the technology get to the point where drones will be capable technologically, they are already there, that kind of 247, 365 surveillance of neighborhoods, backyards, houses, that is why we need strong protection.

>> in my testimony my proposal was to define conlan as you move over that certain period of time, six hours we can debate whatever the length of time is you need reasonable suspicion to continue surveillance once you get to 24 hours you need a warrant or probable cause and 40 hours you need a warrant so to put this in perspective if you are driving down thdown the str reasonable suspicion if they have probable cause to believe you committed a crime they can arrest you without a warrant, search you without a warrant, search your vehicle without a warrant, bring you to the police station without a warrant and all of that undocumented by the patrol car's camera, law-enforcement standing on the street with a camera, and if you pop the drone overhead and the

state that all that evidence would be suppressed because it was gathered without a warrant. that seems excessive to me suppressed under current proposals. it would not be under current law as it stands but under the proposal requiring a war it would be protests and that seems out of touch that a police officer could arrest me and stop me and chris me and search my vehicle without a warrant but if we fly to take pictures they require a warrant. i agree with you on the persistence thing and that is where we need to define what persistence means rather than just to say -- >> they can't stop and search anybody they want. they need to have reasonable suspicion. it has been abused in new york with a stop and frisk policy stopped by a judge and all we say is police if they want to use a drone have to have a reason to think it is going to gather evidence of wrongdoing and not just throwing them up all the time for no reason because that is the temptation

we are going to see and they will be flying over our neighborhoods all the time. >> a return to my initial question with you. if i am concerned about public safety one of the things i want to do is have aerial surveillance over a massive crowd. it could be the new york times new year's eve celebration or the boston marathon because i want to be able to look down. i could do this under current%, see what is going on so i can see if someone is -- i want to see that and reconstruct the scene afterwards. of those cameras are on buildings it is okay, they don't require reward. if there on a helicopter it is okay, doesn't require reward but the position of aclu is to put that on an unmanned system than everything has fallen apart from a privacy perspective but i take the same camera everything is

ok, a bigger privacy site for the aclu than the first one. >> we don't like pervasive surveillance of public spaces whether it is very low or fixed cameras or license plate readers which are attracting american cars by the millions without any kind of suspicion or warrant going into government databases. it is a principal in our country the government doesn't look over your shoulder literally or figuratively unless it has reason to think you are involved in wrongdoing, doesn't watch everybody all time in case you happen to do something wrong. that changes the relationship--a police officer gets in a car and drops, they don't have any reason to think i'm doing anything wrong but they pull behind me and watch what i am doing for a little bit and radio my license plate or the license plate, and i have a warrant out for my arrest the license plate reader, they pull me over so i don't object someone. >> we don't have a problem with that but if you're just a

regular citizens they take the time and place where you weren't in the database and save that for a long period, many agencies indefinitely and building that tracks of where everybody goes even innocent people. we don't have a problem checking for stolen cars or amber dollars but why innocent people? the same issue with drones? >> it is the retention that is the problem. to say the we don't want police looking at people unless we think they are doing something wrong the police never leave their desk. >> that would be silly. police circulate through our society, there are so many police. when a police officers in your presence you know police officers in your presence so you know who is watching you but the technology is now here that we have virtually equivalent of everyone of us having a police officer watching everything we

do so we need to put in place good commonplace common-sense regulations around the technology to preserve the privacy americans for hundreds of years have enjoyed in the constitution and we are going to lose that if we sit back and allow these technologies to be put in place without protection. >> let's back up a little bit. not to interrupt but let's take a look at a macro view. jay stanley indicated to his knowledge and the aclu's knowledge and you're doing what you should be doing which is monitoring this important issue, there has been no documented cases of misuse of the system by governmental agencies so that seems important to me not that it won't record tomorrow or tonight but hasn't occurred to the aclu's knowledge to date. where did this year come from? was the aclu generated? was it press generated? is it legitimate concern of the

public? is it technology generated? fear of technology? why did this become such a good issue? seems odd to me that usually when we focus as a society on a particular problem or issue is is because it is a prevalent issue, something that occurred repeatedly or single occurrence was so shocking to the consciousness that we focused on it as a society but i see absence of this in this country and i am curious in your opinion why this became such a prevalent issue. >> i want to be clear the privacy concerns jay stanley is articulating, i am concerned as well but i disagree about the scope of the concern and that in the rhetoric often seems unmanned systems are being treated differently than other technology, time to jar the territory for me so let's take what you said. cameras have been around

forever. leave a backpack on the ground and see how long it takes for a police officer to show a because you are on camera somewhere where you will be seen. a helicopter can see people for miles away better than any camera on any unmanned system because the payload helicopter carries heavier than the payload on an unmanned system but drones i will use the word has this sort of fear, catalyst for concerns people have of pervasive electronic following each of us cataloging everything we are doing so that contemporary dystopian fear combined with advances in technology, we all have cellphones and understand how this technology works, has raised i think legitimate privacy concerns but they are privacy concerns for which unmanned systems industry is taking the brunt of the hit.

as opposed to having a way of legislating about privacy and pervasive surveillance and data retention procedures that cuts across all technology. if we are concerned about always being watched we could be concerned about always being watched from a camera on every telephone pole as well as the unmanned system. to go after the unmanned systems industry is the easy target that captors people's attention but makes really bad legislation when you just single out one industry without focusing on all the other ways privacy might be implicated. that is part of my biggest concern with the privacy law the's approach, they don't take it technology neutral stance in their legislation. a lot of bills are focused on drones, the texas bill is absurd, almost humorous in how it goes after drones and has these car out for realtor and cattle men and oil men and it is legislation gone bad with special interests throughout.

doesn't do anything for privacy from aerial surveillance, helicopters, fixed positions and what not. the big problem with it. that is the trigger here, the dystopian fears of robotics and unmanned systems and that is why we are seeing so much emphasis on drones rather than the rest of the ways privacy might be indicated. ..

>> in previous years all the way up until when faa bill was signed and passed. in fact, they were the most popular provisions of the entire bill. specifically the creation of the six unmanned test sites. they recognize the future of aviation, the future of aerospace is unmanned and the recognized jobs that can be associated with the. but it wasn't until there was and agriculture group that the ep was over find their properties using cameras to look for clean water act violations, and those giunta member who it was, someone in the midwest. they wrote their congressman who railed against the epa's ability to surveil. somewhere when that news reporting event, the word drone was inserted and as soon as they inserted that word then it went viral on media, you know,

numerous stations were picking up at the problem is no one fact check the actual article. and effect the epa does not have any unmanned aircraft. they do have manned aircraft and effect they have been using manned assessors to overfly farmers fields for decades looking for violation. but it was the word drone that really got things going in sensationalize. from that moment forward things have really tumbled. i think we would agree with greg, is that people are not truly talking about privacy issues. they are attacking this industry, this unmanned aircraft industry which is easy to the red hat because the faa has not yet written the safety rules. so right now it is illegal for commercial entities to find unmanned aircraft over a national airspace which is why there are not a whole lot of good news stories about how farmers are using these aircraft to monitor the crops and

increase their yield or how firefighters are using them to monitor wildfires to help save children in burning buildings. and the list goes on and on of all these great applications. so our concern is a lot of these privacy issues could, in fact, stifle the faa's progress on safety rules that impact the industry in the long run. >> thanks. that puts it in a historical precedent and whether came from, or that fear. >> to be fair, he did write his article i think a couple months he for the faa bill was passed into law. >> there you go. greg, let me come back to you. i think i know the answer and i think the audience suspects the answer but i want to ask the question anyhow. we started off with approvable question of what can industry due to address the street important concern of privacy. on a scale of one to 10, how would you rate the overall uas industry performance in this important them. >> i'm going to separate auvsi.

the association goes to bat for you so obviously the industry association is on top of particular policy issues so based on my very informal survey at last year's auvsi and this year's subsequent follow-on conversation and my writing for forbes, if 10 is the best and one is the worst i would do the industry zero. i mean, if you have a senator or a congressman who sponsored or signed onto a piece of legislation like the protecting american privacy act, there has to be someone who is signed on to appear, most certain of. have you brought that to your facilities or tour your facility will understand how many jobs can be created? to talk to them about what are the concerns congressman had a profit to decide on this

committee asked them about those concerns and asked them what they're hearing from their constituents? then you can select your development team and say, they're just concerned about data retention, and who can access the law. you have a computer to write a program that requires a password and log to access what is subjected to auditing? if you haven't done those things, then you're as you. if you done those things, then they start to move up closer to five. if you're implementing them and selling them next year to the 2014 sure you will be a 10. i will single you out for attention if we have some panel guess. that's my skill. doing something to address this concern, and by the way, your to ecosystems come equal costs come if you're sony with this software package that has all these audit controls, i bet your system gets sold to the local town council more readily than the competing system that doesn't have those concerns. all of those elected officials are paying attention to that and

so are the chiefs who have to listen to the town councils have to listen to the legislature. >> outstanding segue for ben gielow. ben as a representative of the largest order station representing the auvsi industry. what has auvsi done to do with privacy and to encourage the membership of auvsi to deal with this issue? >> thank you, alan, and thank you for moderating this panel. so, so we as the industry trade association recognized that the issues with privacy our series and they need to be addressed in a responsible manner and a thoughtful manner. we have been trying to do that. and, in fact, we know jay and aclu and i will use greg stern, the privacy lobbying groups to talk to them and say what are your concerns with this industry, how are we different than other types of electric

communication devices or anything else. to learn about what really are the issues. and after kind of addressing those and talking to our members, auvsi came out with her first ever into chicago conduct which talks with operating a system in a professional and responsible manner that does talk about privacy. we have -- issue the privacy statements and other positions, but ultimately i guess i could summarize our standpoint is we don't think privacy bills or legislation should be addressed to just uav. if you want to address privacy yet to do any technology way. i think greg used that term. i think it's important because if you're always legislating the newest technology there's going to be the new new thing and so on and so forth. really what this boils down to, if this is what i think aclu has

with a government agency is thus they can have a right to take picture you and use that picture against you in a court of law? that's really what this boils down to the ou hour approaches o cares how you take that picture is the fact whether from a satellite, and manned aircraft were unmanned aircraft, a street camera, whatever. so that when the issue that needs to be addressed your is the picture taking and the dedicate to our ways to implement protections. in fact, the international association of chiefs of police, the world's largest police organization came out with model guidelines on how they recommend please adopt this new technology and put policies in place to make sure the data is retained properly and if it is not used, it is discarded and there are audits and everything else. we support those, everything a lot of the -- it does come than education. went to do a better job of educating the public, educating decision-makers and others about what is this technology, how is

going to be used? i think a lot of folks when they hear the word drone they think of a big weaponize military system. and that's just not what we are talking about. what we're talking about are small things that probably look more akin to toys. things that we a few pounds the law-enforcement can put in the back of the truck and deeply when needed, like how to use the canine today. that we they can use the small unmanned system for the individual situation. i know that jay and aclu and others say what about any future when these things are so cheap and so pervasive, the reality is that the faa right now doesn't allow us to fly hardly at all. when they do it's under very tight controls and restrictions. not to mention the fact that technology is really there yet to make that affordable or even realistic. those large systems are very expensive. if a police department is millions of dollars they will spend on helicopter. they're not going to spend on an unmanned aircraft. aircraft. >> can i make one comment?

i can understand why the uav industry feels beleaguered by the privacy concerns around this technology. we are concerned about privacy broadly. we worry about cell phone tracking the we worry about license plate tracking. we worry about pervasiveness -- pervasive -- and we worry about drones and we suppose solutions for all of these. the eighth of you is not all powerful here. there is a wave of concern in the country about drones and we can talk about why that is, but the fact is that's one area where we have concerns and that's one area where there's a lot of interest on the part of state legislatures around the country. so we are happy to see them act on drones. we would like to see privacy laws that are brought and covered many technologies. we are not seeing those so we're not going to oppose federal privacy laws because they are not broader than ours. i understand why you feel perhaps the drones are singled

out. they are a very powerful surveillance technology and they do need to be regulated, but we also think that there are lots of other technologies but ultimately affect is not a reason not to regulate drones. >> i appreciate that. what we've been seeing is by tracking a lot of the state proposals is, in fact, that your state chapters which i know are loosely affiliated with headquarters is that what we're seeing at the state level is the aclu state chapters supporting these bills, which great doctor of is only different from how police use manned aircraft today. what they're usually doing and the reason why so many of the sponsors are republicans is usually the aclu is going to often tea party online republicans, and those are often times the sponsors of a lot of this legislation. switch had a lot of civil libertarians and civil liberty

groups joining forces. and i certainly understand where you're coming from on this. at the state level we're not seeing it like that. >> thank you. what i'd like to do, i'm going to come back with a couple of questions to close out the panel. so we have plenty of time to entertain audience questions, i would like to invite the audience not to approach any of the might makes you see in the center aisle. you can pose a question to any of the individual panelist or as a whole to the panel and whoever feels comfortable addressing that will answer your question. but i ask you to just go to one of the mic's. we would like to be able to hear your question. >> thank you all very much. this been really educational channel. i have a quick question and it has to do with if you standards for police and law enforcement, privacy concerns, but not for the private sector or individual citizens, i'm curious if that creates an opportunity for a

third party to conduct ongoing surveillance or run commercial overflight, and then as needed, to sell that data collection or video footage for since the received data to law enforcement as needed? it just occurred to me as you are talking from is that a potential workaround for trusted commercial partner to enter and help bridge that divide? >> anyone want to take a bat at that? >> i'm sure jay will jump in because i think he already alluded to it, in fact already companies that do just that. that. they will fly a manned assist or some other band platform over a city and they will record the city or the whole town or whatever. if there was a crime they will look at that specific area and then run the tape backwards or forced to see made where the bad guy got off two or whatever. but i think you do it for the specific calls when they run the tape back. that's a fee for service activity to law enforcement does

already buy today for manned platform. >> keep in mind as well but anytime you're utilizing the civilian contractor or civilian source, that search and seizure laws kick in and fourth amendment protections taken because those contractors are now a functionary of law enforcement. >> i'll clarify. i'm talking the persistent surveillance. for instance, the analogy of the overt satellite imagery, but let's assume instead that come from overhead satellite collection that whether with cell phone cameras or uav stationed somewhere or thick skin or any other kind of data collection with that address the privacy concerns if that data lived in a trusted third party provider from persistent collection, not passed out as necessary but i think in many ways like a mall security gamma is always collecting but with

the concerns of the aclu's concerns of? >> i think it would not. we do not want to see american public life subject to 24/7 aerial surveillance in which everybody's movements, comings and goings are recorded. whether it's by a government agency or whether it's by google. life street view raise on -- raises a lot of privacy questions. is that counting starts to emerge i think we would call for limits on the. i just think that they would change the nature of american life, you know, and create a chilling effects can get everything they are being watched once they leave the house. the americans that we represent don't want that, to live in that kind of country. >> thank you for your question. >> good afternoon and thanks for your participation, very informative and of course very provocative. three comments and question. first comment i would disagree

about the lack of attendance today. this is a very important issue, we all know that. it's just about time i guess. secondly, wondering why we're all being picked on? it's because it's aviation. we are always picked on at aviation. so that would be my second comment. the third comment i would say this issue is somewhat analogous to the noise issue with airports where if we're on top of it it's going to actually depress the market a as some of you have pointed out, and, of course, it was a response to that stage three, stage four, noise type standards. that helped, so somewhat talked, i believe it was you, greg, the way to get on top of this is to be proactive. i would agree with it. and then my question for you all. you've heard the stats today, fortysomething state legislatures, that's a lot. and so i look at that an and a k at the traditional role of the faa and mentioned airspace and

ice awaiting it, there's a huge disconnect here how are we going to make those parallel? can we make those parallel? and my final comment is before you answer the question, or maybe a follow-on question to that, to what level might this issue ultimately retard the deployment of these devices? >> let me paraphrase your question, so how will this issue ultimately affect the development of uav? >> and i will prejudice your spot by saying i think it's going to really depress it. >> okay. with some like to take a swing at that when? >> i would have to at least address the faa portion, which is from an industry standpoint we actually do not think the fa should be responsible for unmanned aircraft privacy issues. but they are probably the last federal agency would want responsible for privacy issues very, very safety or cassation as they should -- they should

stay focused on their mission to there are legitimate safety issues, that's a huge challenge but right now the faa is up against his public perception so they're being told from a higher power, maybe don't move the rulemaking forward so fast. maybe hold onto something. so you are right. this industry is jeopardized by the issue of privacy because it is holding a rulemaking to allow for commercial activities, which is why we need to focus this issue to other folks that are more adequate to handle these issues like the department of justice, homeland security, more well-suited for privacy issues. >> i don't want to harmonize this at all. i think that federal legislation for privacy is a horrible idea. i think federal legislation to address the concerns that we talked about before so that you know how to develop a system, and flight and asafa, of course that's a role for the faa but

privacy is a local issue. it really is to think about this. you go to new york city, take off your clothes and went down off your clothes in my down the straight be giving anyone is going to get a picture? i think they might. do the same thing on a ranch in texas. i'm thinking that you don't believe that anyone is going to be snapping a photo of the. your conceptions of privacy changed based on where you're at. i also think if the people and somewhere you don't want to subject themselves to raises events so they can have a crime free utopian society, then it's their right to choose to do that. and if massachusetts wants and then unmanned system let them do it and then things will work themselves out. as an industry you can develop an south of the places that want to buy a product and the places i want to let their hikers died in the mountains, they will die in the mountains until it's time for them to realize maybe there legislation is a bit overprotective and then you start selling to them when they change there legislation. if you have a one size fits all privacy bill at the federal level, i don't think you will

like the results especially when we take look at the types of bills that are working their way through the congress right now. the best way to develop this is to let it crop up in different states and see what types of technology develops, see what type of solutions developed a what type of codec is crop up in the state. that's the best way for the to develop, not in d.c. >> we like to see good strong federal privacy legislation. that would be our first choice but our second choice would be led to stay in the state and local level, and you will see different bills but it's important to remember the faa does have, the federal government of course does have precedence over the federal airspace but these local bills are not just regular airspace. they are regulating their local law enforcement. >> [inaudible]

>> there are better legal minds on the panel than me, certainly, but there is a question of what is the navigable airspace for an unmanned aircraft. the supreme court has defined that it's okay for police to use meant helicopters at certain altitudes because the rationale is anyone could fly those altitudes, and whatever people say is without a warrant. but a unmanned aircraft can fly when unmanned aircraft because of safety issues but they can find around power lines and close to mountains or in the foliage. so those issues do need to be addressed and it's undoubtable that the courts will address this issue. to be honest we think the quarter in a better situation, the courts have struggled some with a fourth amendment is and how it's governed. so that's what we would like to see play out. >> yes, sir. would you like to pose your question? >> thanks for having the

discussion on privacy issues and you've been talking about fourth amendment issues here jay touched on it a little and i would like to hear this from the response of each one of you. how do you see uavs being used in terms of newsgathering and first amendment issues, and how that is going to be combined with the privacy issue again but against first amendment concerns? >> we will go right down the panel spent on trees to see what jay has to say. thank you fo for the question. newsgathering is one of the great economic potentials of this industry when, in fact, the fa does legislate rules to commercial activities. newsgathering has always had a special place, some people argue it's the fourth branch of government and that, in fact, it is the freedom of the press that needs to be upheld. the needy would love to have access to these things, especially in situations where they might not be able to afford

and an asset or they might be too dangerous like after a tornado or after a flood or something like that where images are extremely newsworthy but very difficult if not dangerous to gather. so there's a great value and i think the news media will be a big user of this technology when it is allowable. >> so this is a point where i really don't envy jay's position because he has to threaten the layer between protecting first amendment rights for individuals to document whether they are legitimate journalists or citizen journalist, the first amendment right, versus privacy. we see this, i'm from california and we have this paparazzi legislation in california that tries to deal with these type of issues. and how to thread the legitimate rights for someone to take photographs of a public figure versus that public figures privacy interest? it's super challenging, you know, and so what may end up happening i think is as we start

to think about this and developed legislation, hopefully in the states where we can experiment, we will find different ways of dealing with the use issues can use restrictions, retention restrictions, commercial sales of persons likenesses and then will start to get into the whole area law that was referenced before but i think this is a real challenging balancing act. if you have to think about writing legislation on this, i teach legislation in the spring and this will be one of the topics i'm going to try to have my students work with. it's almost impossible to write legislation that would make everyone happy. >> interestingly that ties in to what you said about individual states' rights, and maybe the concept of don't fix something that's not broken. in california, we see that paparazzi concern. we don't have that in north dakota. and submit it is appropriate for california to address that type of use of this technology, or any type of technology that would potentially be utilized by

the paparazzi. where in north dakota that will be a very minor concern for us. >> i would agree with what's been said, ma for the same reason that makes sense economically for law enforcement to consider this technology and it's something that is a subsidy for the six money dollars helicopter, the news media will see the same benefits on this but i think there's a huge market. sometime in the next two to three years i believe that there will be a case before the u.s. supreme court dealing with the technology, the privacy issues, and that's a scary thing for all of us to have this industry and up in front of a court that may not understand or want to understand all the implications of what we're talking about. it may well not be a fourth amendment issue that ends up there, or a regulatory oversight but a first amendment issue of the media's right to use or

deployed a small unmanned system. and outside of what is generally considered navigable airspace to collect news. i think it's going to be the case and we will see in front of the courts. >> i welcome that. i would like to see a case go before the supreme court, and i would like to see organizations like auvsi be invited to educate the court on the. because i think there's a big debate now about whether we can take cases like florida versus writing which is a man search and seizure airborne case and apply them to unmanned aircraft. i think be interesting to see not only what the u.s. supreme court by the appellate courts and state supreme court weighed in on this and whether they connect the dots between manned aircraft searches an unmanned. we are waiting with baited breath to the aclu. >> greg is right. it is difficult balancing act with some cases and as a commentator thing. the aclu is a first amendment

free speech organization. we hav have been for an ideas. were found in world war i when people being thrown in prison for writing letters to the editor opposing u.s. entry into the war. and we think that there are significant first amendment applications of drones photography. i think it's exciting, the idea that drones can be used, not only by formal media organizations but by individuals acting in that capacity. watching over whether government is doing, watching news and so forth. that is the distinction between formal media and digital is increasingly boring today. you can imagine snares in a future where you come up with some very difficult conflict between the first amendment and privacy. we hope we won't see those, but we do, our prejudice is towards allowing individuals the right to take photographs which is one of the reasons why we've not called for in the legislation when it comes to privates --

private use of drones. we think of some of these really difficult album to emerge then maybe we can have a difficult, you know, soul-searching conversation within the aclu. but for now we would like to see individuals with the ability to watch the government but not the government watching individuals and less as reason to believe it is in fault -- it is involved in wrongdoing. >> i know the aclu has not sponsored and legislation but i had an opportunity to consult with a senator doyle will say who the senator was, on a bill to regulate private collection of information from a drone. and after like three weeks of back and forth, and like how they're trying to define what a private state was, i think they just give up because i didn't see introduced anywhere. but it's so hard. i mean, private use to document what's going on in the stadium, i don't know, to have an

expectation of privacy in a statement that it won't be document? and killed a foul ball comes, it's hard to figure how to define the spaces where we have regional expectations that should be protected from private interests or from government surveillance. >> i think this is something we as a society are grappling with because it always used to be easy to know who is watching us, whoever was in the room with you or whoever you could see was seeing you and now we have these technologies that you're in public but you're being tracked everywhere you go for your entire life. and that's an invasion of privacy that was never possible until very recently and how do we confront that with the, under the fourth amendment and under policy. the supreme court has just begun to grapple with that, they ruled police do need a warrant to put a gps tracking device on a car even though your car is in public and publicly viewable for an entire month. >> interestingly, a while back we were doing a training with

our unit and we had members of the press there and this was a number of the foreign press wanted to interview one of the politics i just said it got any part you want. went over to a grand forks police officers one of our pilots and was focus on the privacy issue and said, this is earth shattering, this is so different. kind of you young police officers, out of the mouths of babes and he said, i just don't see that. he said there's nothing has changed. they're still a fourth amendment and they're still case law in search and seizure and there's still the respect for the public that we have as police officers. i don't think anything is change. sometimes i think that was probably one of the more clear answers i've ever heard on this issue is that we still do all those checks and balances. we're just apply them to different technology, but again, his opinion and i think there's some validity to it. worth thinking about anyhow. >> greg, i know you spoke or at least it seemed as though you were speaking now, all of you, ab eouternal regulation or

external control over what's being done with unmanned aircraft systems. and i think you said that everybody right now is about a zero but you would like to see some people sort of percolate to the top. professor frazier, do you know of any situation where there's internal checks and balances on the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, whether be an academic or private situation? >> yes. i can speak to our project in north dakota. we have an independent committee of 15 members that is sponsored by the university that represents the public safety, represents the community as a whole, represents the faculty and administration at the university, and looks at every nation said that we do. they are there to be a set of checks and balances and to apply community standards. and interestingly, the committee stand in the city of newark may be different than they are in grand forks, north dakota, may e

different than our los angeles. this particular committee was charged with response would of applying grand forks, north dakota, community standards to the use of the uas. it's been helpful. i've got to tell you i wasn't the biggest fan of the process when i was introduced to it, that it has been very productive. they have made some recommendations that we've implemented in our uas unit that i think has made it more acceptable to the public, but also more credible unit in supporting what we are trying to do and in protecting the privacy of the public. and so in our particular case it's been very successful. >> [inaudible] >> sure. i'll give you a one. so there are some internal police standards, too, right? what we've learned from the most recent senator paul, grandstanding, was that the fbi has intro guidelines so it

appeared of six years they only use unmanned systems 10 times. you don't it know anything but fbi guidelines, it starts out and have access to limited things that you can do and there are increasing levels of suspicion that are required to continue the investigation and its required you be in a predicate or in a full investigation before and unmanned system can be used. it's an appendix to the fbi guidelines for investigation. so those internal guidelines are in place. it for me if i want to get from a want to attend let's say you're from a manufacture, i would say what system can enhance a law-enforcement so you don't even have to think of all the accountability ax and all of the other things that the asia you is concerned with come you can talk to them, talk to me about whether things would be but i was i want a system that identifies the operator is.

then images captured and retain offside with certain access controls with a software program in place. now when i go to the police department that sells to them they'll have to think, who am i going to put in charge of this and who's going to control the control keys, how do i track? man, i hope they don't ever pass any legislation requirement but instead, the police department-and then says, look at all the privacy controls it has built into it and were happy to create a town council civil liberties review board that will audit the record on a semiannual basis and the local aclu guy can sit on the audit board and we'll just, something will be redacted and after curtatone will delete all the info. >> [inaudible] >> you would need all of that but currently the system would be one that officer schmoe in

addition to his other duties has been passed now has the duty of maintaining the excel database for all this information and the word document and saving it without losing the thumb drive and doing all this other stuff that we know the police are tasked with, that will fall to lowest guy on the totable or the newest sergeant to have to do that. and so why not just deploy a system that i'm sure you can get an intern to write this program over the next couple of weeks and now you're selling the package, all the protections work into. because of a marketing feature as those protecting privacy and trading some transparency and some audit, that's just what i've been waiting to see every year, they be next you. i just gave you the business plan. >> in many technology forcing auditing become a standard feature of things. there are technology can put around auditing to make sure it can't be tampered with and so forth and so on but i think that's becoming the standard best practice in many technological areas.

>> i want to hear from you and make some of the other panelists on this, on the one hand i think there's a benefit for all footage to come off the uas to be archived but yet part of me says that's a slippery slope because now we are establishing this robust archive of things that potential do not have evidentiary value and that there's some danger there. on the other hand, which is just about being able to go back and say investigate a citizen complaint about the misuse of the technology would be enabled by the archiving of that, how do we reconcile that? how do we archived but not make it into the archive of data that would be i'm sure on earth to the aclu and frankel would be onerous to me as a citizen worksite particularly don't want a lot of archive footage out of there being stored by law enforcement agencies that does not have evidentiary value. >> i struggled with this one and the best solution i've come up with is sort of there's the

immediate collection perhaps subject to some analysis, then he needs to the removed from the hands, put offset somehow and perhaps only accessible, you might need a statute or into the procedure because it's only accessible than with a supervisor's permission or perhaps even with a warrant once it's archived off somewhere and then after. of time it just dies but it gets deleted. it could be a year, imagine she's freaking out about me saying a year. maybe 30 days or 15 days, depending on where you fall on this privacy civil liberties spectrum but once it's archived offsite maybe need to keys to access a bit after bit of time that information is deleted. if you just take the boston bombing example, if we had a uas overhead we would've been able to reconstruct the crime scene i think more quickly than we did. after 14 days or whatever, once you got to lead you would've taken the evidence that you

needed and put it aside or tag it because it was relevant for current prosecution or investigation and the other day would have been deleted. just like surveillance cameras in stores or at government facilities, override the tape after bit of time. i don't think you need to log all that information for ever because someone might say that the car was keyed three years ago need to go back in the database and see who was there but if you make those types of control, everything i just said is really hard for a politician soundbite and expected to get into legislation somewhere. so the weight needs to percolate up i think would be a smart idea for industry that would end up working and maybe get codified at the state and local level. >> archive our don't archived? >> well, i mean, i think that you can archived but it should be measured in days and weeks, not months and years. and what you do is if somebody flags, you know, images, the

authorities because they believe it has evidentiary value or an individual because they think they believe there's been some sort of abuse, then the data is retained, otherwise it is flushed out. the kinds of schemes your talk about are what we need to see. >> thank you. yes, sir. >> i'm with an organization called naps and were an association of firms in the aerial photography satellite mapmaking business. the american people have benefited from the capture of photography from a variety of platforms for decades. you dial 911 and expectant and that's to come to your home or where you are. it's because the emergency response department has an accurate map that begin with an aerial photograph so there are a lot of things that the american people use every day that is a

benefit from the acquisition of aerial photography. my question is, goes to the point that was made about being technology specific and the legislation going after uavs or drones. given that using other platforms the american people have been beneficiaries of imagery and data collection for a long time. so number one, i want to make a point to greg that we have been involved in pointing out the benefits that the members of our profession bring to the public and our anticipation to be able to continue to operate using an unmanned system just as we have with satellites and manned systems. senator udall and cholera does make that acknowledgment and recognition for our profession. but the question i want to ask the panel is your familiarity

with the dow chemical versus united states case back in 1980s were basically they use of manned aerial imagery within certain parameters. the court said is not an unwarranted search, and you think that sets the standard or is a relevant precedent that if and when the court subsequently looks at this issue with regard to unmanned systems, they will say, well, this is already decided law. we said it's a platform ubiquitously available to the public, as was the case with their photography from a man fixed wing aircraft in 1986, that it's not an illegal search or unwarranted action using a man the system. >> .com i know you're familiar with the dow chemical case. would you address that? >> i think that case does set the standard and is likely to be followed and that's something significant changes in the technology. the technology before that

aircraft, generally available camera that is no different to anything else that is currently available now. i don't see that case being overruled by what i know now. >> you have highlighted the key. for the nonlawyers in room will the gentleman was talk about was one of the three supreme court cases, california and florida, in cases where police basically took photographs from an aircraft, it was challenged by the aclu. in their briefs they made all, the late '80s commit all the execs and argues about privacy that they're making right now, if you pulled the brief, it's fascinating. are great in clothes that are identical. went to the supreme court and they lost to the supreme court said you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that which you are exposed to the public including that which you expose to aerial surveillance. now everybody is sort of online. so if everything stayed static right now and --

>> just declared the supreme court ruled that you're in your backyard surrounded by 10-foot tall fence were no one could see you and you wish to live in your bathing suit or nude in your back yard, that the police can go over and take photographs of you in your backyard without a warrant. that was the argument we were involved in it and that is a precedent that was set, ma it's not clear how it will apply to drones. but because the existence of the president is one of the reasons we think existing law is not enough, why we do need extra laws. i apologize. >> your fine. that brings me to the next point. so if that precedent applies to unmanned systems, which that's what this whole fight is about, then aerial documentations formatting purposes would be okay. so into the fray runs all these groups that want to propose legislation to stop people from document someone in the backyard in their bikini. bear in mind, if you in the

first floor of the house floor of the house that's a note in the backyard and you get to the person in the beginning and if that person when the backyard stabbing someone to death you could call the police and say come up to my third floor and look at and you see what's going on and that person would simply not have an expectation of privacy. that's basically the supreme court realized was once you expose it to assess become a police cessna or here in this drum context we could argue, you've exposed it and it is out there. the problem that you're facing is that into that fray comes legislation that has come this is the language from i think the north carolina bill but i'm not sure, it says taking a picture of a person without a warrant, law enforcement taking a picture without a warrant is an unlawful use of an unmanned system and private parties civilians may not take pictures of people without warrants. so let's just stop there. that's the basic text of the legislation. you are going to fly over, we'll

look down and see little dots of people and a way that language is written, those little dots of people, you didn't get permission from each of them, fly over a festival while doing your mapping and see 500 people down there. you should have run around and got a signature from everyone, someone will say you don't have my permission and, therefore, that would be unlawful. there are civil damages in some of these bills essay for each instance of a privacy violation you're able to be sued for that. thousands of dollars of damage for you not getting this. and if you destroy become one of the bad ones, if you destroy the imagery conjured destroyed evidence and a civil or criminal case but if you retain the imagery you are filing the person's rights by continuing to retain a big only person who could like that is a plaintiffs look at its most absurd legislation you've ever seen the i wrote about affords. north carolina's drone killing privacy bill is how i described. that made sense to someone when

they wrote it because they are not lose. face a taken a of someone without their permission should be a violation of the law and i should be able to sue for the. you think that's a great piece of legislation until you realize from 1000 feet of privacy aspect, how could i do anything about that? that's not what the bill would amend. the bill isn't defined in a way what you think. do it from helicopter though it's okay. no privacy implications. just if you do it from an unmanned system. that's the north carolina bill. i could pick another one at random and flyspeck and fined 1000 of the problems that will kill your system. >> that brings us to closing but i have a couple of important things i want to leave you with. the first is a very, very severe thanks to our panelists for a lively debate on a favorite important issues so thank you very much for traveling here and doing that. [applause]

>> and in our last five seconds i want to leave you with something just to think about as you depart the conference hall here, and i began with a short opening about how important i thought this topic was, and a day. i think it's vitally important to citizenry, law enforcement and the uas industry. but i would suggest to you that there were two brothers on a sand hill in 1903. and if to gentlemen in suits walked up to them and one of them said, i'm with the civil aviation board and i'm sorry, you're not going to be able to fly that flying machine here, because we've got some regulations that we have put in place, the child to give certificate of authorization to fly that here. and the other gentleman said, and by the way, i'm a law enforcement officer from the state of north carolina, and i don't know if you know it but we

passed some legislation that says we have privacy concerns about the use of the flying machines because it will be able to observe people on their property or in the state of north carolina. so i'm afraid i have to tell you that you can't fly that flying machine as well. i just want to leave you with a thought that, along with many of my colleagues here, i think this is an important issue. i think there's a place for government. i just wonder out loud why they were not being a little bit premature in trying to legislate technology that hasn't even begun to mature. i think we're at the wright brothers state in the application of uas to domestic missions, and i just, i'm a little concerned and fearful that we may be chilling to develop an of this technology by the premature and eichmann of both state and federal legislation. with that i would encourage you to please fill out the survey, the very top secession never come you can leave a blank but if you just take a moment to answer those five questions. on your way out your door -- on

the weather you can leave it on one of the chairs at the back of the conference all. thank you very much for attending. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> this work on a military briefing on operations in east afghanistan. the senior commander in the region will talk to pentagon reporters about violence in the area and effort to shift

responsibility to afghan troops. live coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span. this is a place where you have to know what you about because there will be other people who want to tell you what you are about and those people don't have your best interest in mind. so that's where a kind of survivalist manhood he comes insistent about being what i am come being fixed to 1 a.m. an open question is how much is that unique to prisons, is that how much -- most americans are who are strangely absolutist and throws at the same time? my truth is the one true truth but i recognize your right, some wrong truth? i don't know the answer to that question. >> joshua dubler on religion and theology, sunday night at nine on "after words," part of booktv this weekend on c-span

c-span2. >> while congress is on its august recess many members are holding town hall meetings in their home district. on monday, virginia congressman bobby scott held a meeting at richmond focus on the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. he was joined by state and federal officials who answer to constituents questions about the probe. the house of representatives will reconvene on september 9. >> i want to say good evening to everyone who has come out tonight, and i want to come on behalf of our senior pastor and our mayor, my name is pastor derik jones is pastor derik jones. i'm the pastor of first baptist church of south richmond. we want to welcome you all, the only full service catering center right here in the south community. we certainly don't want this to be your last time is your first time. we want to welcome you here,

anytime to any of our array of community activities can any of our menu of services on sunday. we are very active and socially conscious of church. and so we want you to know that you are welcome, one and all. we are here tonight and we're glad to have c-span broadcasting live them because that we're going to be caught and sent of time as this is a live feed. so we'll move right into what we came to here tonight. we're here tonight to hear some good information about the affordable care act. when the legislation was passed it was a great victory and it still is but there are many questions still line out to pick many people want to know how does it affect my family, how does affect my future, how does it come does affect my community and what you tonight of those questions answered, not by a novice or not by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but we are glad to have one who has been through

thick and thin with this community, who, over the years we've been able to count on him not only to ask the right question but also to bring up the right answer but some pleased to bring to you tonight our congressmen who has decided to make richmond one of the stops as he goes throughout the district and his congressional district to bring information to the people. and that's a place he is here in south richmond tonight i so want you to help me to receive our congressmen, the third district congressman, bobby scott. let's receive him with a round of applause tonight. [applause] >> thank you, reverend jones, visitors, is pastor here at the first baptist is a member of the school board. so thank you very much for your leadership there.

state delegates are also with us today. plessy any other elected officials? thank you. good evening and i like to thank everyone for joining us this evening as we discuss the affordable care act, better known by most people as obamacare. i am pleased to be joined here by three great speakers, i understand we had to rearrange your schedule to be with us tonight, so we thank you for your willingness to be with us. the first speaker, when i finished will be joanne grossi was appointed by the obama and mr. shear as the regional director of the u.s. department of health and human services for region three which includes five states including virginia and the district of columbia. as regional director, she work with federal, state and local and tribal officials and a wide range of health and social service issues. prior to her appointment she served for seven years with the administration of governor

edward rendell in pennsylvania, first as every sector of health and later as first ever director of the office of women's services, she earned her master's degree at johns hopkins university and completed additional graduate work at johns hopkins university school of public health and hygiene. next speaker after that will be dr. william hazel who received his civil engineering degree from princeton and then attended the university, duke university school of medicine where he completed his orthopedic residency at the mayo clinic. he is a founding they are of the commonwealth orthopedics and rehabilitation. is also a former chair of the american medical association council on legislation, speaker and president of the medical college, medical society of virginia, president of the fairfax county medical society, and chairman and over the council. among his accomplishments, the

secretary includes the virginia health care, virginia health reform initiative and the creation of a virginia senator for health innovation. jill hanken discover turn at the law center where she specializes on health issues. you graduate from boston college law school and work as legal services in charleston, south carolina, before coming to virginia. during her brief hiatus from the law says she worked as an administrative law judge for the virginia department of medical assistance services. she has been one of the key advocates for promoting the development and improvement of public health insurance programs for low income virginians. but first i want to give you a little background on where we are and how we got to where we are before getting to our speakers. and let me just say briefly,

that several years ago we recognize that we need to reform, because employer-based coverage was declining. thousands of americans were losing their coverage, about 14,000 a day were losing their coverage. small businesses were struggling to provide insurance coverage with fewer and fewer small businesses providing coverage from 57% of small businesses in 2000, to 46% in 2009, about 1% a year declining coverage. and the premiums were skyrocketing as a percentage of your income. in 1987, health care premiums were costing about 7% of the families income. by about now it's about 17% if t if we don't do something it will be about 20% like 2020.

and so we recognize that if we're going to come up with any kind of plan that works it has to be comprehensive. one of the groups that we want to make sure we cover are those with preexisting conditions. and we found out that if you allow people to wait until they get sick before they buy insurance, people will wait until they get sick before they buy insurance and the only people with insurance would be sick and, therefore, the average cost for these premiums would be unaffordable. and so we have to have a comprehensive approach. and just briefly what we did was a proposal summer to other proposals, the guaranteed issue of insurance, responsibility of employers, individual mandate, subsidy to help people that can't afford to buy insurance, to help them buy insurance. and increased market regulations. the same elements of the republican plan in 93, and governor romney's plan in massachusetts, along with other

similar proposals all have these common elements and that's what we have in obamacare. some of the benefits, first of all, if you're a small business computer our talk about the effects of small business, less than 50 employees you are exempt. but if you provide health insurance, we give tax credits to small businesses that provide coverage. young adults can stay on their parents policies until they're 26 to their captain for out of pocket expenditures so that when you reach the cap, and affordable cap, there are no more co-pays and deductibles. it's all on the insurance company. there's also no lifetime limit. if you have a chronic disease, many times people are bumping up on the maximum of the insurance policy. after that you have no coverage because of a preexisting condition of a preexisting condition seeking to any other coverage. now under obamacare there are no lifetime limits and no annual

limits. and no precision of benefits. a lot of companies figure once you pay premiums all these years finally get sick, insurance congress figure they can count to the polls right thing. they can save some money. so we have prohibited canceling people's policies for any, for any illegal reason to you just can't arbitrarily cancel som summer's policy but if they don't pay, that's one thing. but if they have been paying their premiums all along you can't count other policy and that was a real problem. you can't fail to cover somebody because they have a preexisting condition. whatever your condition is, you can get coverage at the standard rate. cost-sharing protections for families under $94,000 come we're going to expect people to be able to buy insurance from some people just can't afford it. so from around $30,000.4904000, there will be tax credits to

keep the cost of the insurance from zero up to about 10% of her family in. so that it will be affordable. we are closing the donut hole on part d. if you're on party, i think most of you know what that donut hole. after concert couple thousand dollars worth of benefits, you end up with no benefits if you still have to pay your premium and then after a couple thousand dollars out of pocket, it kicks back in but that donut all is a real problem and we're closing the donut hole. security, you can get insurance regardless of your situation but a lot of people are in what's now called job lock. they've had insurance on the job, they can't leave the job because they ca can't get insure anywhere else but because of obamacare you can switch jobs without worrying about health insurance. preventive care without cobra or deductible, preventive, when you

get cancer screens or an annual checkup, no co-pay or deductible. people are finding that they have cancer but finding it out early when it is curable rather than late when it's generally fatal. and transparency, we can see what's going on and make sure that insurance company are doing what they're supposed to be doing. for virginia specifically, one of the things that we require under transparency is that insurance companies when they take your premium dollar they spend at least 80-85% on health care. not corporate jets, ceo salaries, commissions, advertising and other overhead. 80-85% to health care. a lot of them, for virginians, $12 million was saved thanks to policy rebates but we caught them not spending that much. they had to rebate to the polls held. virginians got about

$12 million. they got 66,000 young adults in virginia and now are on the parents policies. over 400,000 virginia and children already are getting health care without being discriminated against because of a preexisting condition. some are born with a congenital defect, can get insurance. now they can get insurance. 2 million virginians have already gotten their preventive care without co-pays and deductibles. medicare have saved about $157 million already on prescriptive drugs. medicare recipients. and there's more competition and better, and better prices. right now it is expected windows with the insurance today get insurance, we expect them to be paying 25% less than they are paying now. in new york, the bids are coming

in at about 50% of what they're paying, 50-60% of what people are paying now. other states huge savings. so the fact that you to actually compete and everybody is insured so that when you go to the hospital with insurance and pay, you just pay for itself, not a little extra because people showed up in the emergency room and couldn't pay. that little extra day is about $1000 on every family policy, and we're not paying that. people with insurance or don't have to do anything were public license '80s because they're thy thing for themselves now, not for everybody else. now, the marketplace for those without insurance will go and i said those without insurance because if you already have insurance you will get the benefit but you don't have to do anything. but those who are buying insurance from the marketplace, it will be run not by -- some stage or bring their own. virginia elected to let the

federal government to all the work. so it's been fun at the federal level. medicaid expansion is uncertain. there are huge benefits for expanding medicare. excusing, medicaid. if we expand medicaid under obamacare, 400,000 virginians would get health care. virginia has some of the strictest of deeply standards now, so a lot of people, working poor, would be able to get medicaid coverage. we have found that because virginia covers a lot of things like you to go to the hospital, the state has to pick it up. the health department gets services and can't pay, the state takes it a. community services board provides dental health services, and under obamacare there is no parity. virginia carries it now, but if

we expand all of those people will be coming with medicaid, 90%-100% paid by the federal government so that things paid for today on the state will be paid for with a medicaid card if we expand. one calculation estimated that the general fund to virginia, if we expand and pay the state match, the general fund will be $555 million better off because a lot of things are paid for with the state i'm will be paid for by federal money would be better off than it would if we do not expand. billions of dollars to about 30,000 jobs come and 400,000 virginians would get benefits. we have paid our taxes, and so we're entitled to get those benefits. virginia hasn't decided yet, and dr. hazel, i know we like to do things carefully.

so no one should be offended by the fact that virginia hasn't decided yet. they're going through a process to make sure whether it's the right thing or not. so let's not get mad at them because they're decided to do it slowly but surely, but hopefully, dr. hazel, they will come up with the conclusion that it's a good thing to do. we will now have presentations. >> good evening, everyone. thanks for having me here this evening. i really want to thank the center for graciously hosting this event and more importantly, to congressman scott who absolutely is a champion for the health and well being of all the citizens here of the third district, some all -- always grateful to do events with into it such a great pleasure to be

with you here in the great city of richmond and the commonwealth of virginia. and so as the gottesman said it perfectly for me by telling you about the horrible care act and some of the provisions and now i'm going to tell you about the marketplace and how you're going to get insurance. so again you might've heard sometimes that is called exchanges but we at hhs act referred to as the marketplace. so that's a you hear me speak about it going forward. so again, come january 1 of 2014, all states in the country are required to have a marketplace set up. and again, what's important to know and the congressman mentioned this and want to reiterate it, this is for people who currently don't have health insurance or who by their own health insurance. so if you were to get your insurance from their employer or from medicare or from medicaid or from chip or from tricare, this does not affect you. you will not be affected by the marketplace. this is for the 48 million uninsured americans and those who by their own private

insurance. so states have decisions to make and again the congressman mentioned this but it is worth repeating. states got to make a decision if they want to run it themselves, the marketplace, did they want to partner with us to run it, federal-state partnership like we're doing for example, in your neighboring state of west virginia or did they decide that they want the federal government to run it your that scully federally facilitated marketplace to as the congressman mentioned, we will be running the marketplace for you. we will be running it for you here in virginia because the government and administration decided not to run. it's important to know states can change their mind, even the virginia, for example, is going to be run by us at hhs starting in 2014. states can change the mine down the line to get inside you still like to run for themselves and, in fact, they can apply for funding from us at hhs to set up the marketplace through decemb december 2014. so now i want to give you some

details on the marketplace. the best way to think about this is kind of like expedient for health insurance. again, this is going to be private health insurance that you will be purchasing and you're going to be able to make real apples to apples comparison. so again you're going to look at what works for your life in terms of the health status and your finances. so again one of the things i want to tell you about is you can get actuarial values so this will be for levels that you choose from. bronze, silver, gold or platinum. then within those levels of the many different plans that you can pick from. what's important to know about the actual, actuarial values you see next to them, bronze is 60%. that means the plan will cover 6% of the benefits you will be responsible for the other 40. going up to plot and what means the plan will cover 90% of the benefit, you'll be responsible for the other 10. just for an example medicare is an 80/20 been equivalent of a

cold plan. sieges give an idea of what medicare is, you know the plan pays 80% of the cost, you are responsible for 20. i hope that you get an idea of what you're going to be looking at. you will get, the of to look and make your decision based on what level works for you and then within that, what plan within a level works for you. and again the other thing i want to do about is if you're a young person, for example, back to those levels, if you can imagine if a young person healthy, 20, and i think a bronze by mostly because your bronzeville have a lower premium but higher co-pays and deductibles to your in essence taking a measure not going to get sick. if you're 55 and you're a cancer survivor, your diabetes, you may think the platinum plan is better because it will cover a lot of benefits with the premium is going to be higher and you have little co-presented double. i hope it gives you a get out this as buying private health insurance and you get to make a lot of different plans and

decisions. somebody is going to say to me, what if i'm 55 and have diabetes but i can't afford the premium for platinum plan? the platinum plan is going to have a higher premium. we thought about that as well and the congressman alluded to. if you make up to 400% of the federal poverty level, which is about $94,000 a year for a family of four, about 46,000 a year for an individual, you are going to get financial assistance from the federal government to pay for your premiums. and begin you're going to know this information right up front. we are creating a data hub between irs, social security, department of justice and homeland security. so you will know right up front when you're making your decision about what premium you want to buy, what plan you want to buy, how much financial assistance you get from the federal government. so you will know that up front. that will have to make the calculation of what plan is the best for you. i hope that makes sense.

by the way you think that's important to know about that, that money does not come to you. the money goes directly automatically monthly to the health insurance company. to the health plan. so that we again a way to eliminate fraud and abuse but again you know what financial assistance you're getting at the money doesn't come to you. it will go automatically to the health insurance plan that you picked. in addition to this if you make up to 250% of the federal poverty level, which is about $58,000 a year for a family of four, about $20,000 a year for an individual, you will get additional financial assistance to pay for your co-pay annual deductible. and again you will know all this information up front about if you get any financial assistance for the co-pay, any financial assistance for the premiums. and begin knowing that data will actually help you make the decision about what plan you want, what medal level and what plan within the medal level you want to buy. and here's a list of the essential health benefits and

what does that mean? that means under the affordable care act my boss secretary said those has the authority to decide what would the benefits that must be covered in every plan. so no matter if you bought a bronze up to platinum, no matter what plan you buy, no matter what the premium, no matter what medal level, these categories of services must be covered. you can see the categories up there. so again just so you know, no matter what plan you buy, all the services you see, all these benefits you see listed will be in the plan. that's why we call them the essential health benefits. that's important for you to know. next, you're going to ask how am i going to enroll for this. it's going to be four different ways you can enroll. you can enroll online by computer, by phone, by regular mail or in person. i'll get into all of us in a minute, but again one of the things that's important to know is once again you will be able to know what qualified health plan, what plan you want, what financial assistance to get

before you make your decision but and what's important to note that special if you do online, you can buy your insurance right in real-time. that's why i say it's kind of like expedia. you can look at all the plans, know what financial assistance you get, make that decision, take the plan you want and you by your health plan. so it really is real-time purchasing of health insurance. important thing to know. so help is available. we already set up a 24 hour a day seven days a week call center to get started can 24t 24th. you see the number listed. that number actually if you call someone can speak to you in english or spanish but we also have another, 150 additional language lines available. so again you can get help up to 150 by which begins to have a 24 hour a day seven and week web chat of it will for you. again, live chatting. so people can help you as you're trying to fill out the application and make some decisions. again we know some people are really going to need help in

person, someone who can sit down with you at a computer and help you. we know that some people it will be the first time they are buying insurance or some people might have litters issues, or some people might have language issues. you know that so we've set that up as well. we have created to programs, one called a navigator program and one called and in person a sister program. as the messages i hope navigators are people who will sit with you and help you navigate the system as you try to make some decisions same thing with in person. they will sit with at a computer and help you kind of negotiate the system and make some choices. what's important to know? navigators or in person must be neutral. they cannot come it would be illegal for them to try to direct you to one health plan or another. without that as well. we have assistance for you. navigator grants were actually, since virginia is a federally facilitated marketplace we'll be announcing within the week progress that will be given out

to virginia, getting out $1.5 million to virginia for navigators and we've already given out 2.4 meant to community health centers for in person assistant. federal funding coming as well to virginia to help you sit down and get the assistance you need. by the way, something are always asking there still a big role for agents and brokers. we started agents and brokers training last week. we really do see there's an important role for them going forward. finally, i note jill and secretary hazel talk about his an account mentioned it, i can't sit down without telling you about medicaid expansion. as you know there's probably a little over 900,000 uninsured virginians in the marketplace. we expect about 520,000 virginians will get their health insurance now through the market place. but as the cards to mention the other 400,000 would get health insurance if you get medicaid expansion. so that's an important issue. it is two parts of the puzzle.

just so you know, that's for people who really are low income, working poor. these are working people, making up to 133% of the federal poverty level, or just about $3000 a year for family of four, $14,000 a year for an individual. we are trying to expand the safety net for the most volatile citizens. we know the administration is considering and we hope they will. the congressman mentioned and it's worth repeating, the first three years its 100% funded by us and the federal government. so 2014-2016 we pick up the cost 100%. it remains that for the going forward so we are going to take for the vast majority of the funding for medicaid expansion. you can see in the first six years we estimate virginia would get over $9 billion. as you're at the congress and say, creating over 30,000 jobs.

jill and the secretary will talk more about the i believe that the a couple of resources for you. i would hope we have some handouts we in the back, so you don't have to memorize this, but hope you go to healthcare.gov. you can go right now and set up something called might account. you can put in some information about yourself and start getting ready to win us which starts october 1. that the other thing i should mention the open enrollment is october 1 and only 49 days we. so we are working feverishly. it goes through march 31 of 2014. but if you enroll october 1 through december 15, your coverage starts january 1, 2014. you will have a about 10 weeks to make your decisions about what plan works best for you buddy can open enrollment starts october 1. you can start getting ready now with questions through the call center or setting up something called my account on healthcare.gov. and again until we are out of time but finally the last one, that is for anyone who's primarily which is spent.

that's healthcare.gov in spanish. finally, forever here, that is my personal e-mail address it is my honor and privilege to be a public servant. it in any questioning thing -- thank you very much. [applause] >> and dr. hazel? >> thank you, congressman, and think the imani center for having us tonight. let me recap a little bit, just so that we are all clear. if you have insurance today through your employer, a large employer greater than 50, the employer will likely continue to cover you if that's where you get your insurance. okay? if your ex-military, if you served in the military, you would be eligible for veterans benefits. that doesn't change. if you're over 65 or disabled

and you are on medicare, that doesn't change. i know a lot of people get confused about medicare and medicaid, so that doesn't change. in virginia, if you're on medicaid currently, that doesn't change. okay, so ther the really a coupe things change. number one, if you make more than 138% of the federal poverty level, that's about $28,000 for a family of four, and under 94,000, you be eligible for the tax benefit that ms. grossi has described in the marketplace. that's where you go to the marketplace, and the open in rome starts in october. the benefit doesn't actually kick in until january. just want to be clear. i know i'm repeating what they taught me in school, say it again and again because, so that's what happens. the difficult problem you'll have in virginia is if you are under 138% of the federal

poverty level and are not currently covered by medicaid, those rules have not changed. they haven't changed. in fact, the general assembly in the budget set up the commission called medicaid innovation and reform commission, and our five delegates and there are five senators and they're meeting again next monday year for the second meeting. and what they basically said in the budget to us is, we need some reforms of medicaid before we'll expand medicaid. and so they basically said, secretary hazel, go reform medicaid. i will tell you a little bit about that. we reformed medicaid in virginia back in 1997, and we are one of the few states that runs most of our insurance for most people on medicaid through private companies, managed care plans. so we have already done that. that's something we won't be able to do again because we have already done it. but what we know is that a lot of people who are not in the

managed care plans, and we called it defer service, and some call it fend for herself. so what we are trying to do is bring people in coming more into the managed care plans and some say that's just how so, it's just insurance companies and so forth. what we know in today's world when you go in for treatment, i can tell you about my mom a few years ago. she had been writing. this is her right upper quadrant. can anyone tell me what my mom had? her gallbladder did somebody say? yes, it was. i'm an orthopedic surgeon. i was in way before it became a secretary. mom didn't like that either. but, but, you know, so i know now, mom called and asked him having energy i said it's her gallbladder. so you know what she does, she has to go to the primary care doctor comes into the hospital been to the cardiologist and then delegates to the general surgeon and then just to go to, two weeks later she's on the floor in pain of the house and

my dad said no one will take care of your mother. that's enforceable been doing. sinking here and there. what we are working with with the plan is to try to do better in ensuring that everybody has got a medical home complaints were a doctor and his team know you that is paid to take care of you and keeps you will. 90% of health has got nothing to do with what we call health care today. the other 10% of health is what we're spending most of our money on in health care, and we think that there needs to be some change towards keeping people healthy and that involves a lot of them. a piece of it is your genetics. can't change that very much. poor choice of parents. we can do anything about. but what we can talk about is how we exercise, where you can walk in your community, those types of things. whether you're checked for your cholesterol, where the g8 you get your preventive testing.

so we need to think about how we put this in the package in the medicaid program. now, what this mirc is going to do, they have asked us to do several things. one is to move more people into managed care. another is to look at changing some of the roles. we defined that it makes a difference whether people are spending their own money on somebody else's money. we like for people to maybe just have a primary care doctor instead of going to the emergency room where they don't know you, they won't see you again, it's the most expensive place. we would like to get your in early. how can we help people get the right incentives to do that? we have reached an agreement with cms, contends agency, to help work with people who are dual eligibles folks were on both medicaid and medicare. currently you kind of fend for yourself and what we're hoping to do is be able to create a better court in haiti care for those folks so that maybe they

stay home instead of going to nursing homes in many cases, trying to keep folks in the community as a way of working without. another thing that we are doing is around the hateful health we have seen a lot of increase in behavioral health services that are offered but maybe no change in the number of folks with diagnoses, no change in the number of folks are getting medications, but we see a lot of changes and we're wondering whether that's adding any county. so we're looking at them we've created a behavioral health organization to help manage the care for those people. so we have a number of things that are in the works that we are working with cms right now on and will present this to the mirc and it will get to decide whether it is sufficient. why are we worried about it and why would someone listen to all this and say we're not ready to expand medicaid? argued a couple of points on that. the united states of american spends 18% of our gross domestic product on health care.

18%. does anybody know what the second most expensive country in the world is? switzerland. spends 11.5% of the gross domestic product on health care and covers everybody. now, that 6.5's indifference to do you know how big that is? 6.5 -- the whole u.s. defense budget is only 3.5% of gross domestic product, so we are spending almost twice the u.s. defense budget in excess of switzerland on health care, and switzerland is not a cheap country and they cover everybody. why is that important? it's important because the employers, if they're paying that much more, what happened to our jobs? so we're trying to find a balance, how can we be sure that what we're getting in health care actually works, how can we help people to stay healthier so that they don't consume as much health care? health care to do is collect the body shop after the accident. what we want to do is prevent

the accident. so these are real concerns, and the folks in virginia, general assembly, are saying we already spend one in $5 in virginia's budget on the medicaid program. we already cover about 985,000 virginians through the medicaid program. the reason we have the transportation package and attacks in this petition is because there isn't money for transportation when you're spending it on health care. there isn't money for educating and spent on health care but there isn't much of homelessness or substance abuse when you're spending it on the so we're trying to work out the package that will ultimately be sure that we are getting the good quality in health care as we go forward. i could go on for a long time, but just the keys to this our, october 1, if you fall in the category of where your uninsured are you working for a small business that is not covering you, then you go to the federal exchange. if you're a medicaid patient come to we want you to, to common help which are is our

portal in virginia for medicaid so we can get you signed up properly. and with that i will turn back to you, congress can come and you can introduce jill. [applause] >> jill hanken. >> good evening, everyone. it's really great to be here. thank you so much for the invitation to join you tonight. i do have a few slides, but before i get there i wanted to just say a few words about how hard everybody is working right now to be ready to launch the biggest part of the affordable care act starting october 1. i know that people at the federal level are working literally night and day to make sure everything is in place so that we could flip a switch on october 1 and be ready to accept applications from people who are applying for new affordable health care options. and at the state level, starting with secretary hazel, the

agencies are working really, really hard to make sure that this is going to work. .. the best hope here possible for your family. and but that, i wanted to talk more about the medicaid expansion. this is going to be somewhat

repetitive, but i guess it was said earlier that is the way we learn. in my mind, one of the biggest questions is whether there is going to be coverage for the lowest income virginians because the affordable care act was pieced together very carefully a congress so that everyone would have options. but as a result of the supreme court decision last year, the medicaid expansion, which is in my mind, one of the core essential pieces of the entire affordable care act was made an option by the u.s. supreme court and that is why states across the country are making decisions about whether or not to expand medicaid. right now in virginia, we don't have a positive answer yet. so is congressman scott said, in virginia right now we have one of the most restrictive medicaid programs -- which way should i stand? one of the most restrictive

medicaid programs in the united states. we are ranked 48th in per capita spending and eligibility for parents i really, really low. we don't do anything in virginia for childless adults. even if they have literally zero income. people that poor can't get medicaid in virginia. so what the affordable care act with due with that eight new income eligibility bubble up 138% of the poverty line, which would be for individuals around $15,000 a year for a family of four. we believe that up to 400,000 virginians could qualify if virginia adopts the medicaid expansion. who are these people? what about children who are on medicaid? they turn it tenet suddenly are not eligible. they still have allergies, still have diabetes. medical issues they need to have

taken care of. just because they're 19, does that mean the health care needs stop. lots of low income working families. the parents, even adults without children don't get health care through their jobs. they are uninsured. because of the low income levels right now in medicaid, they can't get medicaid under the affordable care act that they could. a lot of people receive state-funded health services. it was mentioned earlier cement to health services through community services boards. indigent care and our hospitals. those are folks who probably could qualify for the medicaid expansion. older adults were waiting for medicare. we're getting older amounts of problems start happening to us as we get older. i shall get medicare until you are 65. what about those folks?

if virginia tops it. people who are declared disabled also have to wait for medicare. did she know they have to wait 24 months after being declared disabled by social security administration before they can get medicare? these are the people who believe would qualify for the medicaid expansion in virginia. it is a great deal. the federal government pays 100% of the cost for the first three years and dr. hazel and his folks, one of the things they did to her card and this was to crunch numbers and try to figure out what the cost would be to the state to adopt the medicaid expansion on the numbers i appear say it all. we would he bringing in over a ten-year period, about $20 billion of federal dollars because they pay 100% of the cost at the beginning and no less than 90% thereafter. because of the assets we would experience because of the folks

who we pay for right now, for state-funded health services, that could be enrolled in the medicaid program, the cost to virginia over the same 10 years is $187 million. so you compare 137 million to 20 billion. it's a good deal to move forward. is congressman scott said, the money doesn't evaporate into space. it is money that goes into our economy, goes to support health services. experts say about 30,000 jobs would be created. so these are the kind of economic benefits that would occur in virginia if we expand medicaid. without it, this picture, i had some handouts in the back. without the medicaid expansion, we end up with a terrible gap in coverage, which is not the intent of the affordable care act. we have current medicaid at the

left-hand side, which is about 30% of the property line for low income parents, but it's really 0% for other childless adults. the exchange, the marketplace is only available with tax credits for people who have 100% of the federal poverty line. we have this enormous hole in our health care system, where about 400,000 uninsured people end up. so it is a real problem. secretary hazel talked about the medicaid innovation and reform commission. these are the reforms they are looking now. there are 10 legislators on this commission. they meet again in a week. here are the legislators who are on the medicaid commission and we are fortunate that they are for legislators from this area,

the greater richmond area. senator scott and senator watkins, delegates beaubien and indelicate massif and secretary hazel was on the commission. thank you for your service better. so just to wrap it up, five reasons to adopt the medicaid expansion. number one, the federal funding available to has to cover more uninsured virginians. our federal tax dollars, which support the medicaid expansion not to come back to virginia instead of helping people in other states. health insurance improves how obviously, but also provides security and peace of mind to families so that they don't have to worry if they need health care that they would get huge

bills they can afford. they don't have to worry about bankruptcy from unpaid medical debt. i think i'll virginians should really reject the idea of the coverage gap. 400,000 people fall into that routine without any options for health insurance. finally, the economic argument really ought to speak to everyone. 30,000 jobs, $20 billion over 10 years. it is great for virginia's economy and we need to move forward. with that full text and i know we'll have a chance to answer questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we were joined briefly by mayor jones, who is here briefly, but had to leave. add to that the members of city council, cynthia noble is here.

[applause] and member of city council, michelle mosley. thursday night to appear for questions if anyone has any questions. no questions? yes, ma'am. if you come to the mike, we appreciate it. and if you can line up at the mic, that would be helpful. >> hi, representative scott. i am proud of what you are doing. i do work and i have insurance through my company, but i am just wondering how can i get on it because they pay a lot, but if i can't pay $15 co-pay, there's no way i can pay $1500

for me and my boys. so i'm just like how long would it be for someone like me to wait before i can try and get on to this plan? >> when he says employers providing health care, they have to provide a certain amount of coverage. they just cannot call it health care. do you want to answer? >> if you get health insurance from your employer and he provides minimal coverage, that is considered a 60% planned, the bronze plan. if you get a plan were 60% of the benefits are paid for, that is minimal coverage in your considered to have credible coverage and you cannot go into the marketplace because your employer is already given you credible health care coverage. >> if you are a small employer, i don't know who you work for, but they may opt not to let you cover and go into the exchange and there's no penalty. if it is a small company under

50, you still may end up as the exchange being your best option. the other thing we're discussing is an affordability requirement requirement for your employer. it doesn't meet the minimal criteria unless it's also affordable. an effort was made to make it roughly equal if you are covered through your employer or not. >> sorry, i should've mentioned that. the insurance would cost you more than 9.5% of your income. that is considered the employer offering you an affordable coverage and you'd be able to go into the marketplace. >> okay, thank you. >> good evening. first of all, i would like to thank you for being here. >> do you want to identify yourself? >> carl crane, privacy and position for 33 years in the richmond community area. i have just a few questions. most of them come from the medical and. you stated that 80% of the cost

that the businesses have to go to medical remaining costs. have they defined as medically related costs and will we know what they are? that's one question. the other question is on prescription drugs. is that going to be through the hmos? are they going to cover generics? are they going to do a? is it going to be like a tier system? my other question is i have a lot of patients being hit hard because they have dropped a lot of durable medical, particularly insulin. insulin is covert, but the pans are not being covered. are they going to cover that? also, are they going to have anything for the doctors?

to 60%, 70% from 80%, 90% seems a good nightmare to my office. i don't know how we would do it. is that going to be as a co-pay? i just don't know. the other question is when they sign up, how long is it going to take another going have to stay on the phone forever like we have to stay on the phone forever to get to the plan? >> irish as they are not too long ago. >> the other thing is i want to defend the status bar is medicaid. we have a debt, as you say. but through this program called vcc, virginia coordinated care, we do cover that gap for a lot of these -- in richmond, really in the state of virginia. i think people from all over can

come. we do cover the gap. i just want to defend many cave because they see a lot of people on vcc. that's all my questions. [laughter] >> thank you. >> i will start and the secretary wants to add on. you're asking about the 8020 rule, where insurance companies must provide 20% -- less than at least 80% of premium dollars on your medical services. so that is the definition. they must pay 80% of your premium dollars must be spent in your medical services. as the congressman said he can't be for bonus this kind of ceos or trips to the bahamas. absolutely it has been defined and insurance companies have to report to us that hhs started in the summer of 2012 if they were adhering to that formula and if not, they had to give you a rebate and last summer,

12.8 million americans got a rebate, totaling over $2.1 billion. that's absolutely working that way we hoped it would. they are reporting twice and have been since last summer. under call-center question, if you don't mind it will answer that. i just hate the data this morning. the average wait time is three seconds to get an answer from the call center. working exactly the way we are hoping so we hope you'll call back the sun or if you have any questions. 183-18-2596. the average wait time you get an answer in three seconds. on your drugs questioned commissary, you're a doctor so you this. it's just like private insurance. so people are going to get to make decisions about what plan they want and what pharmaceutical co-pays there are, et cetera.

but you will know that they can it now. it is private insurance. i hope that answered all your questions. >> will include felons, every one? >> there are nine exemptions from people required by health insurance starting january 1st one of those is incarcerated individuals are not covered. they are not allowed to buy insurance in the marketplace. >> silence, yes. if they are to jail. >> the group that is not covered are people who are not here, probably documented immigration. >> what happens at individuals who are in jails and prisons that they leave the premise for the night and are under a different route, they are automatically eligible for medicaid. it is an exchange or marketplace, but they would be eligible for medicaid. one of the savings over a

ten-year period as we say roughly $190 million because instead of paying for them in jails and corrections come in medicaid picks that up would make his service outside the facility. i cannot speak to george dme question related to the private plans. i just don't know the answer to that. the drug formularies would be very much would a private formulary would make. what is interesting when we went to the essential benefit package,.or green, it up well with what i medicaid packages. the base package. 60, 70, 8090% of something that's worked out through the exchange or the marketplace with the individual. you won't be involved in that as a physician. though, and insurance card and look like any other insurance card will have their copayments ended up the bulls. that is always a problem because we had it, too.

by way of the mission, b.c. you get the credit for vcc but the medicaid does. i will tell you one of the things we're asking for the medicaid reforms with the feds as we want a pre-negotiated set of parameters in which we can innovate. the prototype of the program is vcc. when it's expanded, will have the tools that will come into it than previously and assured them we will expect them to be high in these individuals. we need to sit down with the program and say we pay to use you. but when you get vcc, the current medicaid rules don't allow restriction of networks and access. we would have to get that. the way it works today, we have to take the program to see msn have to ask for permission and they would have to bless it and frankly by the time it was over we would all be god. what we ask in advance is to do innovative programs like that across the state. that is one of our requirements.

>> when questioned about whether you have sessions from doctors. it will not directly affect doctors much. you will take insurance, just like you take insurance. i assume you'll be asked a lot of questions. we need to have a session, so we will work with units that were not. >> most of the time where the navigator. >> i think you've heard it -- >> use the mic. >> my name is marilyn trevor. i think you've already partially answered my question for the first person. that has been retired for your stability fortunately that medicare now. i thank the lord was kept on his insurance policy. i carry the cost alone, which cost me $800 a month. i was hoping i would be able to take advantage of one of these plans, but i get the feeling i

won't be able to from what you said because even though i am not an employee, i am already offered private insurance. is that correct? >> no, no. since it is employer-based, based on your has-beens situation, his former and player , you are a dependent. i don't think for you it is going to be considered affordable employer-based insurance since you are the depend. you are not the employee. so we are all not positive about this answer. i think this may be an option for you to go into the exchange. and find something that might be more affordable for you. >> okay, so the 9.5% of income is the qualifier applies to his

income for city joint income? >> the income they look at is your family income, using tax code rules about who your family is in what your income is. >> okay, all right. i have to go into the exchange and find out. >> with a question like that, you do want to go to the marketplace when it opens. jill and i tend to call exchange because we've been living this thing for three years and we haven't gotten the new lingo yet. in a situation like yours, if you are dealing with the broker individually, i would go to the marketplace and ask. >> is it better to do with the broker? >> not necessarily. i think you probably could picture question answered at the marketplace. that's what it's designed to do.

>> again, that call centers already set up for questions like this. 1800235819624 hours a day. that is an answer of something you can find out if the marketplace is something you can enter. it is going to depend on the map. i encourage you to call the call center and find out. >> hello, dan a lower, business the city. i just want more clarity in the preexisting conditions. i noticed you had an example up there about asthma versus diabetes, et cetera. >> we can answer that. it doesn't matter which her preexisting condition is, you're good to standard rate like everybody else. it wouldn't be more if you have

asthma versus diabetes, won't be another rate or anything like that? >> the congressman said is one of the great things about the affordable care act. from now on if you have a preexisting condition, not only can you not be denied health insurance, you cannot be charged more. that becomes true for everyone january 2014 and already became true for children in september september 2010. you cannot get charged more and you cannot be denied insurance in a bunker if you have a preexisting condition. >> what i can tell you this virginia has not done what we call community rating before. but we started this. what that means is the maximum ratio from the most expensive to these expensive will be free to whine. what will happen his folks who are otherwise healthy, whom i'd had had a lower premium will end up paying a little more. folks who had done this isn't things like that will be the

advantage of having a little less. that is how insurance works in general. >> but they can't charge you an arm and a leg. you know what they need? >> for preexisting conditions, they can't charge you more. they can charge people more if they smoke. and then there will also be an allowable distinction for different ages and different geographic locations in the state. preexisting conditions don't matter at all. sex does not matter at all. used to be women were paying more for health insurance because they were women. that's gone. really there's a lot less discrimination going on with these new plans. >> okay. >> one last thing. pastor six or 25,000 americans were denied health insurance because of preexisting

conditions. so for us we ain't this is a great day, when no longer anyone can be denied health insurance because every preexisting condition or charged more. thank you for asking that. >> one thing i would like to say is this really only works if people sign up. if you cannot be denied for preexisting condition, shouldn't wait until you have direct until you sign up. if not everybody is paying in and participating, those who do the right thing and the responsible thing will end up having to pay more. it's just the way it works. you've got to sign up. >> hello. marcia fanning. i am currently on bcc. my question is, well i have a

sewers as to if i say i'm bcc or will i need to actually go out and buy health insurance? >> it is hard to know just i'm not. my guess is because you aren't bcc come you don't qualify for the medicaid program, which means you will seem like bcc until they decide how it's going to handle medicaid. what we try to get to happen is that medicaid is expanding, the cc folks can stay on it. >> if i want to get off of bcc, i can go out and buy insurance if that what to to be ensured, right? i don't have to stay on bcc? >> that would depend on a lot of things that you probably don't want to tell the room about victor marital status, how many kids you have and how much money

you make. there's a lot of things that go into those decisions. so if you think he would be eligible for medicaid, you have choice in medicaid is expanded. but it isn't yet. you can also check the exchange and see if you qualify for that. you have to have a family for income over 28,000. >> one of the problems is if we don't expand, people who have got the medicaid card are in a situation that we had not anticipated in the law. we expect that everybody would get a medicaid call. if you don't get medicaid, you can't afford the cost of insurance in the exchange. so you have to make a certain time to get into the marketplace. under that, you're supposed to get a medicaid card. there is a real awkwardness if we deny expand.

if you aren't bcc now, you're about medicaid, that probably would get covered to forget the expansion to be one of the 400,000 people. if we don't expand, we don't really know what's going to happen. that's one of the reasons are brought to do the right thing. >> you are going to get me fired, congressman. we cannot be offended is virginia going to thoughtful process. the fact they do that before they sign on to anything is the reason virginia is then up under financial shape than the federal government. hopefully when i get to the end of a thoughtful process, they will notice many problems not expanding and expand. let's go through the process. >> could i have one thing we haven't mentioned tonight? there is a third option for

individuals who fall in that gap. right now with a federally qualified health centers or community health centers. they would welcome folks have fallen the cracks to become, their medical home. they would break their folks to come and to these federally qualified health centers. it's not a substitute for an insurance package, but it is the place to go and get care and be a triage to other services. >> it's a wonderful place to go, but they can't meet the demands. >> what he's talking about is the burn in harris center here in richmond. >> it's funny perfect option, but it is some gain in the interim. >> okay, thank you. yes, sir. >> good evening. chris rent-a-car, frustrated insurance agent.

this is a great outreach program. very happy to be here. you mentioned earlier the tax credits for small business owner under 50. is there a tax credit that has lapsed the business to take -- [inaudible] >> three years. >> second question i have is i now -- can you here me now? not a verizon commercial, i promise. how do you feel about the bill that was dropped on nagasaki and up in washington, as far as eliminating the limit on the $2000 deductible for small employers plan? i have many clients in richmond that of a $3000.go plan. the employer pays the last thousand of the dead bull. i am being told by d.c. on everything i've that cannot be offered.

not the strap two fridays ago two of them inseminate that caveat. how do you stand on that? >> i'm not sure exactly. >> i know the problem you are dealing with. you know who dropped to, who the sponsors? >> mr. thompson of california introduced the final bill in the affordable care to eliminate the deductibles for employer-sponsored health plans. small employers are required to offer health plans. they want to do something for their employers. i am having the small employers being told -- >> of a small employers are required to do anything, whatever they do -- i don't see where the limitation would be. they don't have to do any in. they have to provide credible coverage, which means the minimum coverage. >> the issue here is i don't believe those hired to do about plans meet the minimal coverage

that has been put into place. >> it if you are a small employer, you are not obligated to do anything. >> that's true. if it doesn't meet the requirements, the individual then goes to the exchange because it's too much out of pocket. i possess the requirement. so the employer loses the contribution of the employer, pays the post-tax dollars. >> but he gets the tax credits. >> possibly. >> if he is making less than $94,000 a year. >> for a family of four. correct. >> i will look at that. that hasn't been debated at all. >> the only other thing i want to mention you ask about the tax credit. it is up to 50%. you must get the tax credit.

the other way to do this by purchasing the health insurance to the shop. it is a marketplace for small business owners, but the tax credit is up to 50% if you have 25 equivalent employees or fewer. if you have anymore questions about the marketplace for small business owners, please contact me at the e-mail address i gave you an ip glad to help you out. >> thank you very much. >> tedium that, congressman scott in your distinguished panel on the new things coming down the pipe. my name is henry mac. and if he had not, veteran, retired navy. my group of veterans work with a lot of homeless veterans, females are named traumatized. but most of all, incarcerated people coming out. you touch someone on the

incarceration insurance coverage. as you know, as we stand down in afghanistan, iraq and pakistan, we'll have a lot of combat veterans coming. i will be a high rate of ptsd, which is going to take a lot of dollars to take care of and treat. as you know, we have both male and female in the war. back in vietnam, it was primarily male prosecuting the war in that. now, when we look at tri-care, plus tri-care is going up, how will this new program of veterans be able to participate in that if they can't meet all of their requirements through tri-care? >> go ahead.

>> sorry, sir, if they weren't able to qualify for tri-care, what happens to them, is that what you're asking? if they don't qualify, they can get their health insurance to the health insurance marketplace. and also be able to get those tax credits, will be called the financial assistance for the premiums and cochairs if they make that federal poverty line. anyone to does not qualify for tri-care can go into the health insurance marketplace. >> okay, the other theme will you be doing some type of training orientation tour of veterans? because a lot of veterans are homeless, some incarcerated. plus dealing with the ptsd. and then you have the high unemployment rates that we must address. >> on the ptsd, one of the things that is good about the policies available on

january 1st is they will contain significant mental health coverage. so that would be extremely helpful from that is. if they are unemployed, depending on medicaid expansion, it would expand medicaid, they'll be eligible for medicaid. >> some of the veterans as we file a for disability or a pension, but if they have a bad discharge, they can't qualify for disability service-connected nor help care unless it's military or combat related. >> they would be eligible -- if they are under about $30,000, they get a medicaid card. above that, on a sliding fee up to less than 10%, up to $94,000 with the able to buy insurance at an affordable rate. >> i wanted to mention that part

of the outreach and enrollment work that needs to be done this fall is to reach out to uninsured butter and then there are tens of thousands of uninsured veterans in virginia. we know that. so groups like yours that work directly with veterans have some option about being -- you could actually become a certified application count flirt and get training from the federal government so you can help provide information and give advice to the people who you are working with. so also application of sisters can help people with this process. a lot of different groups are stepping up to the plate to do that kind of outreach and application assistance. i agree that veterans represents a very important group that will make good counseling and advice has been moving to this new world.

>> absolutely. and i can be reached 804 -- (804)913-2033. and by the way, congressman scott, we also work with the choir dac. >> you work with my brother. >> she is not finished with you, sir. >> sera, i am sorry. i just want to ritter is something the congressman said. if they do get health insurance, please remember mental health services, substance abuse services are part of the essential health services, server plan must suffer mental health services. we are doing webinars on the affordable care act in the marketplace can help us if you go to the veterans history should website, there's whole pages on the affordable care act

and what it means for veterans and how they get to the marketplace. >> okay again, i strongly encourage to do the orientation. as you know, most combatants takes a lot of patience and training in getting a proper diagnosis. when you go to the different places, in fact, some are not user-friendly, nor do they have the patience. that is where a lot of veterans doesn't seek those opportunities. >> i want to if i may add a couple things. it's good to have the coverage. one of the things we're concerned about is lack of folks to do the work and take care of people. we do not have the army of mental health recessional spending in place to handle the volume and that is something we're working on. we are asking for innovation grant money.

one of the things we haven't talked about in the affordable care to use the funds invested innovation model from name. we are looking at trying to do a better job of incorporating mental health into the physical health. as is the way of expanding capacity. roosting tele- health as a way of expanding capacity. have you hooked up with the wounded warrior program run through the state with kathy wilson at all? >> i am familiar with kathy wilson. in fact, i believe you had -- [inaudible] >> there are a couple things they. a couple homeless initiatives have been working in ithaca is easily changed policies and we reduced the homeless rate at 18%. we are pleased with that. a disproportionate number of veterans are in that group. having the better involvement with the program is important

because the veterans, first of all for those of you don't know, if you ask folks if they are veterans, they don't respond. if they ask of you observe they say yes. what changed are programs to say have you served? would identify them because we weren't answering the questions. we are trying to bring more years into the program because you just don't know unless you've been there. >> one last thing. i am a peer mentor with the wounded warriors. but the incarcerated group, working with another gentleman. we are going to try to train the incarcerated people make construction trade. hopefully we can take advantage of some of the abandoned houses bigger boat veterans and good thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you for service and came back for helping ed mcguire. >> are there other questions after these two?

>> okay, these would be the last four. yes, ma'am. >> my name is gloria. good i am a schoolteacher at last year here in the city of richmond, across virginia we went through some unique changes as far as our contributions to drs, contribution to social security and and a health insurance policy exchange. the company we were dealing with, the cost of insurance went up. a lot of us found that we had to do some very unique things in order to be out of cover health insurance. myself, rather than carry my son and i on my insurance policy, it is cheaper for me to say under my insurance with my job. but to pick up an insurance

policy for him because it was cheaper for me. i found out a lot of this had to do that. unfortunately, so my colleagues of other people that did work for the city were unable to afford that insurance. when you think about the social security furlough days, those kinds of things, you have to become very creative of what you do. fortunately, my son got a full-time job -- a part-time job. what is unique is the company he works for dead offer him an insurance policy, which was again cheaper even than what i was for hand. that gap may become one of those because part-time jobs are even

less secure than a full-time job. i am wondering what his options would be if that happened. would i be required to cover had under my insurance because i don't write out. >> so you are not required to cover him, but certainly you're welcome to cover had? >> i can cover had 26. like i said, with all those changes that affect my take-home pay was, i come up with anything more feasible and a lot of us have found ourselves in a situation. >> the other thing i wanted to tell you, you're not required to provide. the other thing available to him if he's under 30, they can get a catastrophic plan. there is a catastrophic thing available under the marketplace, specifically for younger adults under the age of 30.

.. >> my name is lynn, and i would like to confirm affordability. i work for economy that has about 4000 employees nationwide. our insurance this past year doubled on premiums.

full 50% up. the minimum plans they offer is 35% of our income. do that qualify me or my wife for affordablaffordabl e care, the marketplace plan since it is 35% of my income for what i'm working? that's minimum. that's the small plan. >> your employer-based insurance costs you 35% of your income? >> correct. >> g. you know if it was an employee only plan, do you know what it would cost if it was just you who was covered? because of that, unfortunately, is the way they will evaluate -- >> for just the it drops to 26%. >> then it would be deemed unaffordable because it exceeds 9.5% of your income. they look at the cost of employee only coverage and if it is over 9.5% of your feminine, then you can go to the exchange

and find something that is cheaper and something that would bring you tax credits. >> i think it's going to be a little bit confused, this plan was first brought up, brought out as a bill or a care plan. yet when he went before the supreme court they argued it as a tax. sits it was ordered as a tax by chief justice roberts, he said i will grant this and i agree with it and it did past. what gives president obama the right to exempt anybody from tax? if it's good enough, if they pass a bill which most of them didn't even start with -- >> are you talking about the delay in the employer-based, employer mandate? >> yes. >> okay. >> he exempted that in the middle of the night after everyone left d.c. >> first, technically, the supreme court called it not a tax before the called it a tax. so it's a little awkward leading

because the first congressional question they had answer was is it a tax? if it is a tax, the law is you can't sue to invalidate a tax into europe paid it. you don't pay it until 2014. so if they ruled it a tax, they would have thrown -- they would've had to throw the case out. they ruled it was not a tax. then later they said, but you can do it under your taxing authority. that kind of called it a tax after that. so whether it is or not is somewhat elusive earbud on the question of whether or not the president has the authority to delay the implementation of a tax, to some people, the answer is they have been doing it all the time, if it is a question of starting regulations, if you can't get the regulations done

or for feasibility purposes, you need to delay it, happens all the time, several times under the bush administration they did it on a number of different taxes. you can delay. you can't delete forever. you can only delay it while you're getting things under order. so the courts have ruled, and it happens all the time. no one complained when president bush did it. it wasn't as big a deal because peoplpeople weren't watching itt everybody was watching the affordable care act. but delaying the effective date of a tax happens all the time. and isn't the authority of the president to do that has only been questioned when president obama did what everybody else has been doing. [applause] >> my question -- my question wasn't about the delay. my question was the exemption, such as he granted to you and

your entire staff. the senate and their entire staff that you are exempt from this program. and then he gave it to all the unions that he did. 10 different unions. >> what happened in congress was in the bill that we are the only employees in the country, members of congress under staff are the only employees in the country not lose their health insurance and had to go into the exchange but after we wrote it we noticed that we're getting health insurance as a benefit. we going exchange to get a, we still ought to get some benefit for having insurance. and they're working that out. i'm not sure they have the final regulations on that fixed, but the idea is that although we are going exchange we will be no worse off than we were before we went into the exchange. that's what's going on with congress. i thought you were talking about the employer mandate.

>> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is thurgood, and i am a licensed, so insurance. i don't particularly careful our health insurance, but part of my clients an medicaid. so you have to go and read about health insurance. [inaudible] a whole lot of definitions when you go and it gets him very involved. in reading the literature, every time you talk about health insurance they talk about get the same choices that members of congress. that means the members of congress have a bronze plan, and and a gold plan? [laughter] that's one question. >> let me just say, members of congress will be getting the same kind of plan that the

marketplace has for everybody else. because members of congress, like i said, the only employees in the country that cannot keep their insurance they've got. we go into the exchange but all that stuff, i was paying attention just like you were because that's what i will have to be getting. >> that might answer my next question. so you'll have deductibles and everything, co-pays just like -- >> we will get the same policies. like i said, i was paying attention to what was going on just like you were. >> my other question is, we've got an insane congress, anytime you try to repeal a law that has been approved by the supreme court, you try to repeal it 40 times. that's a massive tactician, doing the same thing over and over, looking for different results. it's been 40 times. when is it so bad about the

affordable care act that those other people -- you all know who i'm talking about. [laughter] >> come on, let's get real. [inaudible] this is the deal. what is it they like so bad about it? you may have already answered this. that they want to repeal it so bad that they don't want to the same type of insurance that other people from health insurance other people laugh your pages 12 t-boned, i don't know what they want to do. >> congressman, you will need to to interpret it? >> i don't think i should go there. >> we are so bad about it. [inaudible] >> thurgood? thurgood? sir? i will try to answer a little bit and then i will bail the congressman out a little bit. the congressman and his staff will have the same insurance that's in the exchange but that is required as a result of that,

they lost what they had before, which was through a good program called the federal employee benefit which was a really good deal. now, he's going to get the same insurance plan, one of those that you might get, if you're in the exchange. there are some differences about the employer contribution to it that is different but that's not the reason the republicans have been going after this. okay, i can assure you of that. that's the least thing they care about in all of this. >> i don't know what else they're doing or why -- >> you want me to tell you or not? >> help me out. >> i will tell you. i will tell you, and this is the hard part of the discussion. i have a three year old granddaughter, and when my granddaughter was born three years ago, her share of the federal debt was $44,000. now, the unfortunate thing is that this year her share of the federal debt is about $54,000. every man, woman and child in

this country owes a piece of that debt. now, what congress has not figured out how to do is to balance the budget. and i think that the essence of this problem, and we talked about the money coming in being 100% federal money for three years, 90% forever, the question is who is paying for it? we have borrowed all this money from china. china has 1 billion people in the navy. we will have to pay them back one day. so that is what the essence of the discussion is. and it boils down, it boils down and i'm not trying to judge in what i'm telling you but i think the essence here of what they're arguing about is what is the proper role of government, and what is the proper role the taxpayer, how much more of this should be tax paid for and how much spending cuts. that's what this is got up and i think, congressman. it's not about congress and senate. not this time anyway. >> one of the things that we did when we passed obamacare was to

make sure that it was fully paid for. we made some changes in medicare. and i think everybody in here can remember the number 716, the number of billion dollars that we took out of medicare to pay for health care, help pay for obamacare. we raised taxes. when the dust settled, the congressional research service estimates that there will be more paying for them our services. about a trillion dollars in service, about a trillion won in new offsets. so that the budget will be about $100 billion better off at the end of 10 years, and a lot more that are off in the future. because of obamacare. the suggestion that it is a fiscal responsibility issue, nothing wrong of looking at the numbers. if you look at the numbers, in stark contrast to the part d medicare, part d prescription drug, that money didn't get paid

for. it went straight to the bottom line deficit. that's what this deficit is coming from. we passed tax cuts not paying for them. that's how we got in the condition we're in. obamacare, we very meticulously made sure, and the tv commercials, one of them, because everybody is one how you pay for it, we like to run on the benefits but unfortunate if you're doing it right you got to do both. when we they talk about repealing obamacare, you get the sense you can repeal obamacare without repealing the taxes that pay for it. if you repeal the whole thing, the taxes paying for, the cuts that went effect, you just started from scratch. the deficit would be worse. and so we went to great lengths to make sure it was paid for and took a big hit in the last election because of it. but there's nothing wrong with raising the question, but the answer is that obamacare was paid four, more than paid for,

and the next 10 years it will be even more. one thing about health care, one thing about health care, people are saying that medicare and medicaid going up and up and up every year out of control, well, that is not a medicaid or medicare problem as much as it is a medical care problem. you ask any of these business in here that provide health care for the employers over the last 20 or 30 years, and they will say in the first 30, 40 years ago everybody gets family coverage, no problem. then after a few years, we will give you coverage from you've got to pay for your family. after a few more years, you by your family and some of your own. then it's about 50/50. then we'll get a group policy because it's cheaper but you've got to pay the whole thing. you draw that line, medical care has been going out of control and 50 medicaid programs are

paying the medical care expenses obviously they will have big challenges. and so we've got to get the medical care expenses under control, int and to a larger ex, obamacare is helping to do that. by encouraging hospitals to get it right the first time, we're not going to pay you to go to the hospital, comeback, then go back in. we are not -- anymore than you put your garden shop comment breaks on your way home. they will fix it. a lot of other things, and some of the things that the sector is talk about, secretary hazel has been talking about how you pay the doctors, defer service, more comprehensive, trying to get the health care medical care costs under control is a big challenge your medicaid -- whatever the medical costs are, we've got to pick him if we don't pay into medicaid or medicare program

does abate, then you are paying them. so you have until anybody by cutting back on medicaid or medicare. you don't get sick, if medicare doesn't pay, then you are paying it. you have the same expenses. so one of the challenges, and we've seen in this last year, although somebody got a lot better, bigger hit than most people on average, the health care costs been going up every year. last year's increase was the smallest they've had in about half a century. and next year people will be paying, a lot of people will be paying 25% less for an individual policy than they are paying now. new york it's about 50% at some of them will be paying 50% of what they are paying now. so obamacare, making sure everybody is covered means that everybody will be paying just for themselves, not everybody else. that's going to help control the costs a little bit. but the medical care problem i