.. >> i don't see any vast sea of

exemptions. i see some exemptions that are clearly explained in terms of we understand under the case law. >> i would disagree with your assessment of the grandfathering exemptions. the regulation itself says it is a right and it's a definite. >> your case hinges on how we construe the grandfathering? >> not necessarily. the other exemptions have about be taken into account as well. >> we've gone through them. have i missed some? >> no, that is the point. >> well, they're insignificant. corporations you can't argue that as a basis. >> that is why we're here because we don't qualify for any of the exemptions. we're saying rifra requires we begin an exemption because of those other exemptions. we don't pretend we're a religious corporation. we have say the exercise of religion is not necessarily limited to people in the quote, unquote, religion business. anymore than in the bill lotty case, the supreme court rejected

this approach that freedom of speech for corporations for corporations in the speech business. i frankly disagree with your honor's assessment of the scope of the exemptions. they're massive. >> there is a case, i don't believe you cited that supports the proposition that you're arguing in favor of, the supreme court case, the greater new orleans case? >> not familiar with it, your honor. >> justice stevens in the opinion deals with this sort of thing says the, the flaw of the government's case, and this is in the is the operation of this statute is to attendant with the pierce by exemptions and inconsistencies that the government can not be exonerated and this is advertising case but the supreme court struck it down. seems to me what, that case supports your argument. but, the district court never

got there. >> that's correct. >> i mean the threshold question here is identifying who's religious beliefs are being burdened. the next question whether it is substantially. i want to ask you about that. i can't even remember the procedural posture of this case. did the government answer the complaint? >> no, they did not. >> so, at the case comes to us, we have allegations by your clients that running their company in the manner that the mandate requires violates their religious beliefs. >> that's right. >> and that is uncontested. >> it is uncontested. >> so the question then becomes, what is the relevance of the corporate structure? unless there's another religious tenet that says that if your company is a corporation, then you have absolutely no moral obligation to run it in a manner that is consistent with catholic

teaching. there is no such thing. >> our clients interpret their catholic faith the opposite way. that they are required to run it in a manner consistent with their religious faith. that is what they have done for as long as anybody can find records for. >> is there any significance to the fact that the, at least the penalty portion that they would be subject to is part of the internal revenue code? and that, under the internal revenue code, at least for income tax purposes, the court would disregard it because this is s-corporation? >> it may well be. the fact it is an s-corporation even though it means there is this corporate forum, the net result of income and loss of penalty goes on frank and phil gilardi's income tax returns, part of schedule k. >> a complete pass through? >> yes. >> that is true of limited liabilitied corporations and associations?

>> i think we deal with a you blah that impinges on fundamental first amendment freedoms the supreme court said we don't allow form to triumph over substance that. is what we're talking here. >> i think what lee says, if you're in the commercial, if you're in the commercial market you have to give up some for the greater good. >> i agree judge, it does say that but what we say that is part of the -- >> congress had some exemptions as well. >> nothing like in -- >> that is your take. you're saying the exemptions here are so overwhelming, so large in their number that you should win, i don't see you can't possibly get around lee. because lee had exemptions and the court gave it the back of the hand. they said of course congress can make those decisions. that's what we do. and you can not come in, they said and i'm pose your religious values on society and deny to your employees, who are larger than you are, what congress has

the decided is the better good that they should be entitled to if they choose to have it. that is the way lee looks at it. that is, you can't bring your religious free exercise and overtake the larger good in society. we don't allow that. >> -- imposing your religious views on anybody? >> no. >> not imposing religious views on anyone. their employees are free to use and buy contraceptives anytime they like. gilardi is simply saying -- >> how is it different than paying them wages? >> that is the line they draw which the thomas case and others teach. the court may not second-guess. they draw the line, has to do with principles of catholic and moral -- about cooperation with evil. >> i don't get what the plaintiffs are obliged to do to contribute to a national scheme. they're not in any way obliged to give up their beliefs. >> they are not at all. they have to check off the joint

appendix, contraceptives, sterilization, abortion. not the same as contributing to a national scheme for social security taxes and income taxes. it is quite different, your honor. >> any employees work for these employers obliged to take the contraceptive benefits? >> under the hhs mandate they will. >> they're obliged to. not to use them, of course but they're obliged to in the plan. >> i see my time expired. panel has no other questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> may it please the court, alicia cline for the federal government. i will turn to strict scrutiny if i may begin with the threshold point that the sixth circuit recently made that the

claims here and there in all the contraceptive coverage cases are asking the court to interpret frfra in a way that would disregard the corporate form. the supreme court in kushner. made it clear if you have only a single shareholder, the that the share holder is distinct from the corporation, holds true and it has interpreted the federal rico statute in accordance with the background common law principle. there are other examples cited in our petition this is not a contested proposition. the question we have here, issue of statutory interpretation, what did riff a do when -- rfra as the congress enacted in 1993. >> -- >> the language of rfra is person's exercise of religion. when you say the claim is, by regulating the freshway foods corporation, and that would be

any form of regulation, you are, that is tantamount to personally burdening, you know, frank and philip gilardi as individuals. we are not aware of any support, for 200 years before rfra was enacted -- >> that is a religious question. >> no, your honor, this is statutory question. >> whether we're regulating freshway as you say, burdens the gilardi's exercise of religion, depends on the tenets of the catholic church. it doesn't depend on a statutory interpretation and which is, they say it does. they say it burdens them and that allegation is so -- the government hasn't contested it. will you contest that? will you say the catholic church or the catholic religion does not recognize the burden of the gilardis running their company,

their solely-owned company that way? >> i'm distinguishing between the sincerity of their claim and the legal question. we're not asking the court -- >> their basic argument that to run the company in the way that the government is requiring us to do through fines, violates our religious beliefs. that's the heart of their position. do you contest that or do you not? >> we have not contested the sincerity of their claims. as of, well, at this point we have no reason to. at this stage but as a matter of law we are saying that that does not state a prima facie case under rfra. that it would be wrong to interpret rfra to allow, i'm not sure were the line is but controlling shareholder, officer, whatever the claim is, when you regulate a corporation as the for-profit business as the corporations that you then

reverse pierce the veil and say this is for legal purposes a substantial burden on the individual who owns the controlling stake as the ceo. >> to follow up on that, then if the gilardis had established their business as a partnership, kind of, i assume you would then agree that they have standing? >> yes. all of our other arguments would be the same. we would not acknowledge that the particular burden which they claim is substantial. we would argue that scrutiny -- >> even if they clearly had standing as individuals, your argument would be that the mandate does not impose a substantial burden on them? >> that's correct. there are a number of independent arguments but the threshold problem with the claims here and in conostoga, hobby lobby, most of these are the s-corporations which is the same point which is you do not interpret rfra or other federal

statutes in a way that disregards the background principle that supreme court reiterated in kurschner, said many times a corporation is distinct from its shareholder ceo, president -- >> the principle of the internal revenue code though, is it? >> there is, as your honor rove ringed in the specific provision in the tax code that gives tax benefit to certain s-corporations. they have fewer than 100 shareholders and that avoids double taxation. >> under sub chapter s this freshways has only one shareholder, right? >> these corporations have the two. >> they're treated as one under, on subchapter s. >> that's correct. >> they have a common ancestor. >> misdemeanor of these pending case it is the sole shareholder. hobby lobby, con necessary stowing ga and a lot of other

cases have sole shareholder and our argument is exactly the same >> your view the corporate form itself, has the effect, doesn't that then that, that the state, which allows them to incorporate, is actually imposing an unconstitutional condition? basically it is saying if you get these benefits, you have to give up certain constitutional rights to do it? >> that is half the answer. first there is no constitutional claim best court. >> i understand -- >> we explained to the district court, there is no viable free exercise claim here. the only question before this court is the statutory one and for 200 years no corporation or sole shareholder has ever obtained an exemption from any form of regulation on the theory that is being urged here, that

you pass through the corporation and treat corporate regulation as if it were regulation of the ceo or controlling shareholder. there is no support in any supreme court case. the plaintiffs here around elsewhere rely on 9th circuit decision called townly went on to reject the free exercise claims and there is no relationship between closely held corporation and controlling shareholders but there did not address any of the corporate law principles that are crucial here and the third circuit and the sixth circuit exclusively the townly pass through theory. make sure to address the scrutiny point -- >> let's suppose that we have a, you had a religion one of the beliefs or sacred texts if you open and run a company and your

company, corporation, violates our moral principles you are just as guilty of the sin as if you did it yourself? say that is, that's the religious principle. would your argument still be that the corporate form trumps the religion? the religious precepts? >> yes. and as a matter of law under rfra. we're taking as a given your hypothetical, is their belief. they sincerely believe that the teachings of the catholic church prevent them from, i don't know, acting as officers of a corporation that complies with the federal law and that that compliance, we're not taking on the since sate. we're saying as a matter of law that congress, when it enacted rfra did not count separate claims. >> did not intend that? how do you get to that

proposition? this is statutory interpretation, just treat persons not as the corporation but as the individual, sole owners? how do get to the proposition that congress didn't intend to recognize this sort of, precept that i just, gave you? >> a few different points. first, sixth circuit explained, and in hobby lobby, 200 years between the adoption of the first amendment and enactment of rfra which is meant to restore something, restore the supreme court's just prize dense -- jerusalem prudence there has never been claim like that. >> if there is no claim like that -- >> if you were acting, what was congress doing when it enacted rfra. you have to say it is restoring something. you have not conclude for the first time it is authorizing

courts to corporate form and, treat it as if there were a burden on individuals who are officers of the company. >> i think the courts have recognized that rfra goes beyond something overruling smith. >> i'm not aware of that. i know there are courts that said rfra restores the -- >> any exercise, et cetera, et cetera. >> well, i mean, i think the court has been fairly clear, no, this is, if you're looking to the body of precedent you look to the supreme court's pre-smith jurisprudence. you have people like sherbet and yeoer and cases cited in rfra and claims by churches. these are organizations formed in order to exercise religion. so no example in all of rfra's, the supreme court precedent history, nothing in the debate, nothing in the legislative

history a lot of background settle employment law, federal employment statutes which there are specific exemptions for certain types of employers but those have been confined essentially to churches and a religious institutions. >> let me ask you in that regard is your argument this is a non-profit corporation? >> our argument, if i understand the question is that a for-profit corporation is -- >> i meant that. >> okay, if that's the question, our arguement here, we may have different arguments and there are pending cases in district court brought by non-profit religious institutions that are challenging the new rules just issued in july, i'm for the purpose of all the cases now in the courts of appearls and our cert petition it is sufficient that we are talking about for-profit corporation. >> and that's your way of distinguishing churches to corporate? >> yes.

the supreme court has said that congress could in title 7 exempt not just the church's religious activities but could go all the way to the church's non-profit activities. it was the mormon church that ran a non-profit gymnasium. the reasoning was to avoid entanglement concerns. for a church to have to predict in advance whether a court would regard soup kitchen or other activity as religious or secular is, itself, problematic. and so that congress could go beyond core exemption for a church's religious activities and get to the mormon church runing a non-profit gymnasium but there's nothing that would take the step to, for profit business, merely because it has directors, officers, shareholders who have religious beliefs. >> 501 c corporations is that the idea? >> i just want to be careful not to step into issues that may

still be the subject of litigation in the district court but non-profit religious institutions -- >> recognized by the internal revenue service? >> i don't believe that is part of the definition but there are piggybacks off other established exemptions. >> relying at least on some of these that may be -- district court's opinions dealing with 501-c which rates as a question in my mind, if your distinction, i mean you may deny this, if your distinction rests on the treatment of a particular corporation under the internal revenue code, under section 501-c, and, why isn't an s-corporation exempt, not exempt but why isn't it that the shareholders of the s-corporation are the focus rather than the corporation itself? >> this is, we're not actually, i mean this court's precedent

interpreting the title 7 exemptions, actually it is the university of great falls case is interpreting the nlra exemption but relying on title 7 principles, talks about non-profit but i don't understand this court to be saying that not apply to 501(c)(3). if you look at employment law statutes which congress enacted rfra there is precedent to exempt, not just the church but church's non-profit activities whether or not a court might regard those activities as religious or secular. as this court explained in the base great false case, it is hard to decide whether the church's activities are religious or secular but there is bright line easy way to distinguish between non-profit activities and for-profit activitys. >> i want to be sure i understand the government's argument here. are you saying that the government take as position for

religiously observant corporation there is is no free exercise right, or are you saying in fact that it is a neutral and generally applicable law, no one has a free exercise right? >> we are saying that, as a matter of interpretation of rfra there is no substantial burden on the controlling shareholder officer based on the, generally applicable regulation of the corporation. >> and the reason there is no substantial burden in your view is because it is the corporation that has to implement the mandate? >> it is the corporation that has all of obligations. it is not the personal responsibility of, mr. gilardi or the greens or the hahns. >> -- what the religious tenet said. >> yes. it had -- >> doesn't matter that the religion says that, you can't,

you can't excuse yourself from a violation of the moral code by claiming that it was the corporation that did it, not you. and that that doesn't matter to the government. >> exact exactly. we're not asking the court to -- excuse me. >> that even if they dropped this suit as individuals, there still would not be substantial burden? >> i mean they are plaintiffs in this case and we think the sixth circuit has analogy correct. there is not only standing but substantively the principle that -- >> i'm trying to understand. you said a moment ago because it has the corporation who has all the burden of the implementation there is no substantial burden on the gilardis but you also said even if they brought it as individuals you would argue, you would make all the same arguments? in other words, there was no substantial burden? i want to make sure -- >> that is exactly right.

>> so on one hand it is because the corporation is doing all the implementation but your argument that even if they brought it as individuals there would be no burden? that is what i'm trying to understand? >> if the question is, forget about the corporation and this were just a sole proprietor, the argument would still be there is no violation but the reasons would be different. you would then be dropping down to our other argument that is this particular burden is to an 10 eighted and strictly -- to get the scrutiny and make sure i respond to the grandfathering arguement. my recollection of the survey of 30 plus cases to the extent district courts of the 10th circuit ruled against us it has been on the basis really of the grandfathering provision and we think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of grandfathering provision. >> your regs the way the plaintiffs read them. they claim their your regulations say they go on

indefinitely. that is not my understanding. >> well it may be we're saying the same thing in different ways. if you raise co-payments, raise deductibles, raise employer contributions and lose benefits all the times you lose grandfathering. term grandfathering doesn't mean you're forever protected. this is not the sense that the affordable care act is using grandfathering. if there are no further questions. thank you >> heads the government wins, tails the plaintiff always loses. this could not, if you have a kosher deli owner who goes into business and decides, i'm going to incorporate, and a law is passed requiring all food

establishments to sell pork or some other violation of kosher regulations no one could bring a rfra a claim according to the government. if you have a sabbath observer who for sound business reasons decides to incorporate and the government to encourage economic growth requires all businesses having more than say, two employees to be open seven days a week, no one could bring a rfra a challenge there. >> i think you're really overstating it. and again, according to lee the supreme court addressed to maintain organized society that guaranties a religious freedom to great variety of faith that some religious practices yield to the common good. >> i agree. >> case goes on and on. it is not a surprising notion. we can't have people just announce, wait, i firmly and absolutely believe in x. and x happens to be inconsistent with the statute that was just passed and i really believe it strongly and it comes from wherever the great leader is in this particular religious group

and no one doubts they're sincere that notion is not a viable notion. that is not the way we run. >> judge, that is the holding employment division which rfra a was enacted to overturn. >> did not overturn lee. the principles in lee have been recited by the supreme court and over and over again. they are viable principles and sometimes free exercise has to give way to the common good, epending -- depending upon whether the government shows -- >> when there is compelling interest by least prescriptive means which is certainly not this case. i see my time as expired. i would like to thank the panel. >> we've got more from the privacy and civil liberties oversight board hearing later today. the public hearing will continue with the focus being foreign surveillance. you can watch that live at 1:15 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span.

taking a look at congress the house is out all week. they will be back next tuesday, november 12th at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate is in for business today. lawmakers will gavel in about hour 1/2, 2:00 and will debate employee non-discrimination legislation for lgbt workers. a test vote takes place at 5:30 p.m. eastern. you can watch the house next week live on c-span. the senate live at 2:00 eastern here on c-span2. "u.s. news & world report" hosts an event on the health care law and challenges facing hospitals. former republican senate majority leader bill frist who is also a surgeon, takes part along with the heads of the cleveland clinic and the head of the texas medical center. that is live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. join us later tonight at the look back at the 2008 financial crisis. "wall street journal" columnist david wessel moderates a panel discussion with former top economic advisors from the clinton, bush, and obama

administrations at a conference hosted by the university of chicago. here's a look at that. >> at the beginning of 2009 there's a sense of a missed opportunity, right? opportunity is taken and fiscal stimulus was needed. i just wonder if a different kind of stiplous with some of the changes larry hinted at, dropping some high-speed rail and energy and all that, might have gotten bipartisan support. right? i know today people, no republicans will oppose anything president obama suggests but you know, back at beginning of 09, many were really hoping the guy would bring us together and it didn't happen. i'm not blaming one side or the other. there is going to be fault on both sides but to me the question is a different set of choices have brought the country together in a way that didn't happen? >> you know i've been critical of some of the more classically democratic parts of the recovery program but i was there, you

know. the senate minority leader said that the basic purpose of his mine for the leadership was to make sure that the president was not reelected. i think it is not easy to make the case that people in the administration were prepared to walk a long mile to get substantial, to get substantial support. so i think it would have been much more, much more difficult and the price of doing it would have been much more stuff, not in the infrastructure direction but in the tax cut correction. that i think would have been fairly problematic. >> can i pick up on the last question. >> sure. >> on the fed policy and whether paying interest on reserves is proper. >> before you do that, i was there, look. many of us from treasury who were helping people on the hill.

there is a sense many people would say i was there. the feeling in republicans on the hill that the administration didn't walk the mile. eight years of pent-up spending. and, it came out. and you know, to me it is -- >> before administration comes in january 20, 2009, they're already holding up many of our economic nominations as we come in. we're supposed to, we have had hearings. yes, but i'm saying, it was quite clear the partisanship. >> that is just counter fact. that is completely counter factual. >> that is not counter factual. i can give you a list of -- >> treasury secretary was held up for his own reasons. >> i'm not talking about -- >> you were having to do what senator reed did in the past with donald marron. i think it is completely counter

factual. >> okay. >> that is just a portion of tonight's program on the 2008 financial crisis. again, watch that at 7:55 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> one of the tenets that is incredible important to the carriers i represent is the concept of universal service and that is the idea all americans, no matter where you live should have access to comparable and affordable telecommunications services. as we've gone through this evolution over the past several years going from pain ol' telephone service to a broadband world to an ip world how do we insure rural americans have access to those same services and those same application that is come across those networks? so that has really been a big focus for us legislatively and certainly with the fcc talking to them how important it is to maintain the tenets of universal service, what that means and how that mechanism has allowed folks in rural, high-cost area to have

comparable services. >> making the jump from copper wire to finds in rural america. on "the communicators" at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> i'm surrounded by, here are the items kept me on the 10 best-dressed list year she was first lady. she worked with one of our favorite designers and for suits and day wear outfits. this is the outfit she worn to the opening of st. lawrence seaway. another custom designed dress, referred to as ice hen hower twall printed cotton fabric with many houses they lived in during their marriage. five-star symbols of the five-star general eisenhower. this is few examples of maimie's day dresses. she was fond of color pink and wore it in many styles. jackie kennedy is well-known for the little black dress and here are two examples of mamie's

little black dress. she always said she would never dress like an old lady. she wore the gowns well into the 70s and 80s show bright colors and wild fabrics. >> a discussion now on the status of budget talks on capitol hill from today's "washington journal." this runs about 40 minutes. >> host: while it's true that the government of the shutdown is over and the country is no longer flirting with imminent default anyone who believes the fiscal wars are over might be mistaken. been put on hold pending outcome of a house and senate conference committee that convened last week. here to discuss that effort is william hoagland, senior vice president at bipartisan policy center. and, mr. hoagland, the headline of the "usa today" talked about

low expectations for a deal coming out of this conference committee c budget talks set low expectations for the deal is the headline from last week. do you agree with that? >> guest: i think that the assumption that we were going to reach some grand bargain, a large deficit reduction package over the next 10 years, i think it's clear that the expectations for that have been lowered dramatically. >> host: why? >> guest: because the differences between the house ft and senate are very, very dramatic. almost like we're on different planets even though in the same universe. of theferences in terms house position, in terms of the resolution they passed back in the spring which had no tax increases, no revenue increases, assumed the repeal of the affordable care act, capped block grant at medicaid program antithesis to the senate position. position, budget resolution they passed, senate had about a trillion dollars, $890 billion over thehe next 10

years and, increased in revenues. the differences are so great i think it is probably very unlikely there will be any kind of an agreement to raise revenues because it could not pass in the house of representatives. >> host: sir, does that doom this effort toof failure at outset? >> guest: no, no. i think i?f people had expectations that this would be a large deficit reduction package achieved by the deadline of, the hoped-for deadline of december the 13th, i think that is off the table but i think there is a real possibility not of a grand bargain but of a bargain at the end of the day will be grand we got a bargain at all is the bottom line because i think the fact that the american public believe that the congress is dysfunctional and can not achieve anything at a minimum it seems to me there is a good possibility that both mrs. murray and mr. ryan can come together on some sort of a package that will at least show that the house and senate can work together in at least a minimal way moving forward.

like i say it will not be a grand bargain, the fact that we haven't been able to achieve a budget resolution for the last four years, this would be something at least to be respected that the congress could, even a divided congress could come to minimal kind of agreement on budget. >> host: we're talking about this budget conference that just begane meeting last week with william hoagland of the bipartisan policy center. he is here to answer your questions and hear your comments about it. our phone lines are open if you want to start dialing in. send us emails and tweets and post on the facebook page as well. phone lines are on the o screenf you want to start calling in. but, mr. hoagland, you said the december 13th deadline is for the committee to present its final report, is it? >> yes. the house passed a budget resolution under regular order back in the screen. the senate passed a budget resolution, a blueprint, a blueprint for how congress should spend or tax its monies

going forward. just like a bills house bill, senate bill, go to conference. we haven't gone to conference the last fouro years. this is achievement itself we're going to conference. it came about with a crisis back in early october but the house and senate will go to conference an hopefully they will be able to solve their differences. they come up with the conference agreement and that conference agreement goes back to the house and hopefully passes the house, passes the senate and stops. this is one thing people may not understand fully. it's a blueprint for guiding the legislative process, legislating, authorizing committees, tax committees, later on. it is a blueprint that guides them. the first process, this will be achievement we haven't had for four years, to put together a blueprint to guide the other committees how to proceed rest of the year. >> host: timing gets pretty tight after december 13th.

16th congress begins the holiday recess and january 15th the current continuing resolution expires. is it possible to move something that quickly? >> ito think it is very possibl, should you achieve a blueprint, an agreement, a agreement for budget resolution for fiscal year 2014, the year we're in right now, and you have that adopted as a blueprint, i think that will set the level of spending as it relates to what the level of spending will be as opposed to a continuing resolution or dropping back down to the sequester level on january the, or january the 15th. so it is possible to have the blueprint. if you have an agreement, if you have an agreement between the house and the senate i think that lowers the rhetoric a lot and we can move forward and there's an agreement we will pass legislation to fund the government, keep the government operational and move forward. >> host: and what isov the next debtes ceiling deadline? >> guest: the next debt ceiling,

aggragation ofon all the debt fm the beginning of the republic to today, is september the 7th. however it is not like beginning of a new fiscal year where everybody comes to an end on february the 7th. there are extraordinary measures to allow the treasury to continue to have cash flow to keep them moving from beyond. we believe the bipartisan policy center, we analyzed this, we think it is not february the 7th. that we'll be literally back in the soup again with not having enough cash to pay our bills probably the end of february, early march before we hit that but we will once again, we will face the statutory debt limit and the cash flow problem. >> host: we're talking with bill hoagland of d the bipartisan policy center. for folks who don't know the bipartisan policy center what is it? >> it was established in 2007, by four former leaders of the.

>> senate, senator dole, senator baker, senator mitchell and senator daschle a non-frost 501(c)(4). it tries to drive towards pilled solutions and reasonable negotiations. it's a, it is not a non-partisan. it's a bipartisan organization. we take on major housing fiscal issues, immigration recently, health issues a number of issues that we bring together. a lot of former members of congress as they try to find some common, reasoned approach to these difficulty issues that divide the country. >> bill hoagland is senior vice president at the bipartisan policy center. worked as former republican staff director of the senate budget committee from 1986 to 2003. he is here to answer your questions on this subject of budget conference, these continuing budget talks on capitol hill. we'll go to lee from eugene,

oregon on the line for democrats this morning. lee, you're on with bill hoagland. >> caller: thank you very much. i always appreciated the work of the bipartisan policy center. but i must say in this tragic time right now moderates in both parties are not being heard. choices t, things we're suggestg to the leaders, and i know this specifically and i contacted patty murray's office four different times this year and have yet to get a response at all from anything. i have sent suggestions. i have made offers of, you know, how, people on disability like myself could gain more respect publiclyga by taking a little ls of the gift that the american people give to us. and at the same time, realize

that the social security disability part of social security was created before we had millionaire athletes and 100 millionaire ceos of insurance companies. and soha we have to balance both sides of the copy while disability, disabled people give up some of the money, we also have to be able to tax to a higher salary cap, maybe up to 1.5 or $2 million rather than a quarter of a million dollars that gets taxed right now. >> host: lee, i will let bill hoagland jump in here. >> guest: lee, thank you very much for the call. you are unique in the fact that you're willing to put forward a reduction in the government disability payments you receive so i congratulate you on that. i will say, can't speak for chairman c murray's staff, don't know why she has not responded to her suggestions at all. that is not to my

responsibility. i will say thank youti for complimenting the bipartisan policy center. it is difficult in this town to find bipartisanship. it is been my experience in this town, i've been here for longer than i should be but it does seem to me that the pendulum does swing and i think there is a real possibility that we'll see a movement back toward more moderation in terms of policies as we go forward. again, thank you. i will also say that one real issue that you raised which i think a people have to remember, is that the social security disability trust fund itself expires in terms of its funding by the end of 2015, 2016. the issue of social secure disabilityty funding going forwd will be an issue at least the bipartisan policy center will focus on and congress will have to focus on in the upcoming next session of congress. >> host: for those,

senator murray is the head of the chair of the senate budget committee. the lead negotiator for democrats in the conference committee. her counterpart on the other side? >> guest: is chairman paul ryan. this is true, budget committees. i sometimes get a little bit upset the mead draw and press saying this is something unique we're having a special committee. what is unique the fact we're conferencing. this is the way process iss supposed to work. house passes a budget. the senate passes a budget and conference it. that is what is going on now. >> host: makeup of this committee, 22 members, house members, four republicans three democrats, does that makeup give house members little more say because there are fewer of them? >> no. the bottom line, at the sometime if they get an agreement then they have to geth a majority of signatures on the conference agreement. doesn't matter what the numbers are. the majority is of course in the house because republicans control the house. the majority is in the senate.

but at the end of the day the majority of those members have to sign the conference agreement for it to become active. >> host: that is the one due on december 15th? >> december 13th, right. friday the 13th. >> host: rob up next from lake dallas, texas on the line for republicans. rob, you're on with bill hoagland. >> caller: mr. hoagland. >> guest: good morning, rob. >> caller: good morning. would that budget that the senate put together be first one they have put together in four years? >> guest: it will be the first conference agreement on a budget resolution, in fact i have it in front of me, since april the 27th, 2009. >> caller: i mean, has the senate pushed, they own the budget during this whole four years of the administration if. >> guest: well, when there hasn't been an agreement on a blueprint going forward. when we reached that particular stage what happens as you saw back recently here, we operate in what we call a continuing

resolution. we do not have a halfway, if you like, as -- pathway, if you like how we control our long-term debt and deficits in this country. we do operate, government continues to operate but operates without any kind of what you as a individual, as a family, as a business would normally have and that is a budget and blueprint. >> caller: i think you know what i'm asking though. >> guest: excuse me? >> caller: i think you know what i'm asking. i don't think they put a budget forward. >> guest: the senate did pass a budget. they just didn't go to conference with it. >> we'll hear from sam from marion, indiana, from the line for independents. sam, good morning. >> caller: hello? >> host: go ahead, sam. >> caller: i have a few comments the working people, you work overtime, everything else and at a certain point you have to make

choices between the paying utility bills, eating, everything else. to do this, you have to either cut back as far as you can cut back and or go out and find another job, to get more revenue our government needs to work in this direction to, okay, let's cut where we can and take a good look at everything. but also, let's look at more revenue coming in where we can get it, so our working people of this country are squeezed to death. and, also, looking at this, pulling the cap off of the taxation of top rate on earnings for social security. could you give me an estimate on

how much more revenue just this one thing would do? i just listen to your comments. >> guest: thank you, sam. i'm originally from indiana, so thank you for being a hoosier and being from indiana. let me just say, sam, i don't have, i don't have before me right now taking off the cap on the taxation. remember, taking the cap off also does affect the benefits in the future too. so it is not a total just a revenue increase because the increasing the taxation also increases the benefits that are provided in the future. having said that, i agree with youat fully, that think in the d here governments, the federal government, just like businesses like families, like universities, we have to control our spending and we have to balance it with our revenues. the difficulty here has been finding that balance and that's probably, that is the reason why we ate least now are talking, between the house and senate on

where do we find the balance between additional revenues, if there are to be additional revenues. maybe not through tax rate increases but what we call government receipts, alternative ways of raising revenues. through fees maybe. >> host: are there some areas of agreement both sides are showing? >> there has been some suggestion there might be some ways in which receipts, not revenues but receipts, such things as fees for, as an example, probably not a good one, an example would be increasing fees for entrances into public places such as national parks or museums and things of that nature. i don't think these in the long run raise that much revenue to be quite frank with you. annkd so it comes back to the spending side and controlling of spending is the critical element here that i think you're going to have to focus on. the difficulty is that the areas

of the government where we have controlled spending and have limited spending on those areas that i refer to as the seed corn of the future those are things that investments in infrastructure, education, research, science, technology and the well over, when you add in interest on the public debt, 2/3 of the federal budget is basically medicare, medicaid, social security, defense spending and interest on the public debt. that is where the money is, that is where we're going to make any progress inwe reducing spendingn the future we have to focus our attention. >> host: carl from chicago, illinois, on the line for democrats. you're on with mr. hoagland. >> caller: good morning, gentleman. mr. hoagland, you're saying a balance between spending and revenues. i think thatth you got it wrong. this is where the problem is in my eyes. in 2000 we had a balanced budget anhad surplus. republican chose to take all the surplus and borrow money to have

tax cuts, okay? they said that we could have a war. in six weeks it wasn't going to cost as you dime. that wasn't true. it cost us a trillion or two dollars, maybe one or two trillion doll -- $2 trillion. we had the recession where americans lost 30% of their net worth and lost gdp because the recession started in 2007. gdp in 2007 and 8. which probably comes to maybe about, comes to maybe about a couple of trillion dollars. this is not about the entitlements, not that they can't be reformed but our fiscal problems is because we didn't, a, raise taxes to pay for these things t wasn't, we were spending too much. like your dad going out to buy a yacht and takes six months off of work and wife tells him, hey, honey, we can't pay the bills. he said, oh, junior can't go to college and grandma is going to

have to take out of nursing home, those weren't the problems. the problems were that things that the republicans spent money on and they don't want to acknowledge it. >> host: okay, mr. hoagland. >> guest: carl, first of all thank you for your question and i you have a very valid point here. let me be a budget tier with you for a second. this is my background. in the spring of 2001 when george bush the ii came into office, there was a projection of a surplus. you're right. there was a surplus, projected $6 trillion. it was projected of a surplus not just by the incoming bush administration. it was the a defeated gore campaign was also projecting this as welld as the federal reserve system was projecting it and congressional budget office. what happened in the spring of 2001, congress in a bipartisan

way should we return some of that surplus. hard to believe in this day of age, surpluses can be as damaging as deficits. so a decision was made to return some of that surplus to the american public. they returned in form of a tax cut, you're absolutely correct, carl. that tax cut was acu 10-year tax cut. what we did not anticipate of course what happened on september the 11th, 2000 one we basically went from surpluses to deficits overnight. tax cuts remained in effect. i thinkut you're right. there should have been some revisiting of those tax cuts that were in effect but those tax cuts also allowed us to avoid a major recession back in 2001. >> host: you bring up deficits. how much motivation is there right now to get a grand deal done whether in this effort or future effort, with u.s. having just posted its lowest deficits in 2008, is it?

>> yeah. yes, john, you're right. we ended up fiscal year that just ended, fiscal year 2013 with a deficit of $680 billion. i believe that the figure was and that was a significant, 30, 40% reduction from the previous year by 1.1 trillion. immediate effect of this, you're absolutely correct by your question is that taking some pressure off, wait a minute, things are improving. yes, they are improving in the near term. i would point out part of the reason, in fact to carl's question, part of the reason why deficit came down so quickly, revenues went up 13% and spending went down 2% last year. combination of those two resulted in the deficit coming down the difficulty is, that while that's a good sign in the near term, all projections because of demographics going forward, all projections indicate that we will continue to see deficits coming back in the future. and more important than the

annual deficit from my per-- perspective, my bipartisan perspective, domenici-rivlin work done, accumulation of debt from theof beginning of the republic, not deficits, debt, will remain up into 70, 71% of gdp out into the future. largely as economy starts to recover, interest rates will start to come back up and fastest growing component of the federal budget will not be social security, medicare, medicaid. it will be just paying the interest on that aaccumulated debt t of nearly $17 trillion. that is the concern that as budgeteers if you like have. not so much the deficit hadn't come down. we like that. that's good, that's positive but it is the long-term risk we are faced with a country with accumulation of debt. >> host: you bring up the budget chairs. focus on paul ryan for a second and his history working on these efforts. he was part of the

simpson-bowles commission but he voted against it, correct? he was also not part of that 2011 super-committee effort. how do you think democrats see him as they're entering these negotiations? do they prefek r him versus a jn boehner to work with in these negotiations? >> in fairness john, i have to point out that chairman ryan was a fellow staffer with me in the united states senate when he worked for senator kasten in wisconsin and we worked together on the senate budget committee. yes, i think chairman ryan, he definitely has a conservative focus in terms of controlling spending. he has a definite outlook that we caner control spending going forward. and he focuses, i think correctly on those issues such as entitlement spending. so i think that, yes, i think is, he is dedicated to principled to his position. as is quite frankly chairman murray. so i do think that they probably

look at him as really one of the budget experts in the house that they can work with and find a compromise. >> host: how do republicans see patty g murray? would they prefer to work with her rather than a harry reid? >> i think again that is a hard question for me to answer. er this the chairs of the two budget committees. that is their responsibility. are is no question, let's be honest, no question chairman ryan and murray will still work with the leadership if an agreement is to be reached. it will not be done in isolation of their leadership. ime think, that yes, they look t this as the way, what we call regular order is the way it should bek done. the two chairman of the two budgeter committees go to work d try to find a senator , a middle ground that can actually pass a budget that will be the blueprint for the rest of this year and maybe for years to come. >> host: sort of a policy question for the, for you at bipartisan policy center, should

any corporation be tax-exempt when the country is holding trillions of dollars in debt? >> i don't know any corporation is tax-exempt. they do pay corporate taxes, so i'm not quite sure that is, that is relevant question. >> host: let's go to michael from imperial beach, california, for line for independents. michael, you're on for bill hoagland of the bipartisan policy center. >> caller: good morning, john. good morning, mr. hogue land. i heard snore bernie sanders speak the other day, speaking of corporations on the senate floor, one in four corporations don't pay any taxes versus revenues at all. while other countries are spending money on education and health care and infrastructure we're spending unbelievable amounts on our military. do you think our military budget is sane at time cutting foot stamps, meal on wheels, strapping our new generation weedcation debt that is are unbelievable? what are your thoughts?

thank you. our economy with education debts that are unbelievable. understand what senator sanders is saying. corporations do receive credits, deductions, exclusions that could result in them not having to pay their corporate income tax. i think one of the critical factors that congress can continue to address here is corporate tax reform. question, as it relates to defense spending, there is no question in my mind that additional reductions in defense spending are going to have to happen. they will have to be done in a way that focuses on a strategic goal of protecting this country going forward. we're back to the same situation of balancing out spending reductions, whether in defense versus food stamps. we have to find a balance between all of our spending and

stay on a path that is fiscally sound for the future of our children and grandchildren. the caller brings up for a sanders and an editorial of his from last week. do not cut the big benefit programs. we must not balance the budget on the backs of the most full marble people in our country. what do you think ernie sanders -- bernie sanders'role will be? case for will make the the whole marvel members of our society. i think that is a useful role but he plays. thatasic problem here is it is the entitlement programs and not the safety net programs. it is the medicare and social security programs going forward we will have to address. chairman murray and chairman ryan understand that. bill we are talking with

folkman. you can see his policy. he is there republican staff director on the senate committee from 1986 to 2003. he is answering your questions and taking your comments for the next 15 minutes or so. we will go to jack on our line for republicans. jack from hyattsville, maryland. good morning. hear thatam glad to they soundtee -- like a very long reaching organization. that is my main question. i have a couple of ideas. how far down the road do you look to come up with ideas? everybody is trying to control the passage of legislation. people are not going to change the rules of our congress in the

near-term for fear of losing out. if you look eight years or 10 things arethe road, costing people time and money. let's get rid of the filibuster. of about the simple idea it longer.et's make campaigns.for last i will hang up and listen. guest: thank you. one of the projects that we have underway is the democracy project. we call it the democracy project and we launch it earlier this year. we're looking into specific issues that you have mentioned as it relates to government filibusters.

campaign finance -- the issues of redistricting -- i agree with you. this is more than just spending and revenues. this is the structure and some of the issues that have created difficulties in coming to agreements going forward. at the same time, jack, i am an old senate staffer. i have to disagree with you on the filibuster. i do believe that the great deliberative body called the united states senate -- the filibuster does have a role to play. it founding fathers made clear that they expected there to be these kind of conflicts. they also expected the passions of the house to be cooled by the saucer of the senate. how washington and jefferson like to refer to it. i think there is a role to the filibuster. i think that a lot of the issues

you have raised are issues that are outside of the budget committee responsibilities. you have to go to the actual structure of the senate and the house. the formulation of the policy going forward would be benefited. i do agree with you, though. i think it would be nice if we could change the term limit in the house from two years to four years. that would require a change in the constitution. i think there is a lot of -- host: the term, not the term limit? guest: the term of the member of the house from two to four years. spent raisingis money for the next election. they're not able to focus on the job that they were elected to come here to do. host: you say you are an old

senate staffer. on your twitter page, you talked about the last time divided chambers came up with a budget agreement. can you talk about the history of that? guest: yes. let me try to explain it very carefully. createdet act that was in 1974 set up the process. there was a budget committee in the senate. they created the congressional budget office. that has been in effect for 30 and almost 40 years. every year we pass a budget and go to conference and agree to it. the last time there was no agreement was when we had a divided congress and the house was under democratic control and the senate was under republican control. the last time we had an agreement with a divided congress was 19 86.

here's a picture. what are we seeing? guest: you are seeing the chairman of the senate budget committee. the senate was under control of republicans at that time. he was the chairman of the senate budget committee. andsee myself on the right my deputy on the left. the staff director of the house budget committee. he is with chairman ryan. this was a negotiation. it was in june and i believe we got conference agreement by june 20 heard, 1986. , 1986. 23 the house was under the same control is the senate. we never had a situation where the house was republican in the senate was democrat and we

achieved a budget agreement. this is a high hurdle. host: joseph on twitter asks about what you think the clinton tax rates would do to the national debt. some ofe did restore those tax rates back in january. we face the fiscal cliff act then. it would -- restoration going prior tohose tax rates the 2001 tax cuts would probably add revenues over the next decade. that would help the debt and the deficit. i would like to point out that to current number is close $7 trillion. it aloneot do effusively raise revenues by going back to those rates. we need growth and we need

spending reduction. hoagland of the bipartisan policy center is talking about these budget talks that are happening on capitol hill. the headline of the washington post on the day that they met last week -- diminished expectations. we will talk for the next five to 10 minutes on the subject and take your calls. charlie is up from florida on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you doing? for thea topic gentleman from the bipartisan center. i think bipartisanship is what we need. i would like to mention using the word balance. balance is needed. -- ihing that i do not have not heard yet, you talked about spending cuts and raising revenue if push comes to shove -- but the elephant in the room is the problem with wealth distribution in the country. you cannot have a good economy

and half of the people do not have money to spend. it is a consumer economy. andust ignore that fact allow the policies that have gotten us to this point -- the policies of the last 32, 33 giving money to the too big to fail banks, it is crazy. the right wing has been shoving -- thatryone's throats needs to be addressed. guest: thank you. the income distribution issue is difficult. we know that, on the basis of what we have seen, there has been a growing degree of inequality in this country. i would suggest that members of congress are aware of this. it is part of the ideological differences that we have here. thato you grow an economy

deals with the critical issues that you have mentioned in terms of inequality? my guess is that we do need to focus on those particular policies that grow the economy and create more jobs, create more income, and address specifically the type of concerns that you have about distribution of income. it is difficult issue, but it is not unrelated to what kinds of policies this congress considers. host: we have talked about the membership of this committee. there is a deadline for final recommendations on december 13. one of those members as tom cole, republican from oklahoma. i want to ask you about what his role is in the budget conference. he wall street journal says is a guy with a large military presence in his district. it would be impacted by

sequestration. he is an outspoken guy and willing to break with his party on occasion. what do you think his role will be? guest: i think over spent coal is a very thoughtful congressman who recognizes the concerns that we all have about the growing level of debt in this country. therefore, he will later critical role going forward with recommendations. i do think that recognizing that if there is no agreement, we that willa sequester go down to lower levels of spending for defense fund in mer 16th -- it does seem to that he will want to press for some way to find additional revenues or additional spending reductions that will allow for us to avoid further cuts in defense. at least for 2014, going forward.

he will play a major role in this discussion. host: the bipartisan policy center has a turn on their webpage that talks about what the cuts would be. toense cuts would come up $492 billion. also $492 cuts are billion. guest: over the next 10 years. the reductions that would take place would be about $50 billion. i think that is what the focus -- by the way, the president's , the house budget committee the senate budget, all have the same level of request for spending. the difficulty is that mr. ryan's budget would like to stay at sequester levels. he went up to the higher level, but went down on nondiscretionary spending. what will be in conference here is how do you find a way to

maintain the $552 billion in defense for next year? nondefense would be hurt the most going forward. host: bipartisan policy center is continuing to follow this subject. to focus will continue on the impact of the sequester that was released last week. we're looking at immigration reform, which is an important element for the future. we're focusing on housing issues going forward. we have a major effort under way in governance and democracy. there's a lot going on in the very active organization for a young, new organization. host: you can see all of tha

one of the things important to the carriers that i represent is the concept of universal service. and that is the idea that all americans, no matter where you live, should have access to comparable and affordable telecommunications services. so as we have gone through this evolution over the last several years of going from plaine telephone service to a broadband world to an ip world, how do we ensure that americans have access to the same services and the same applications that come across on those networks? that has been the focus legislatively and certainly with the fcc talking to them about how important it is to maintain the temmins of universal service, what that means, and how that mechanism has allowed folks and the high-cost areas to have comparable service. >> i'm surrounded by a few of

the items that kept her on the ten best list ever since she was first lady. she worked with one of her famous designers for her outfits. this is what she wore to the formal opening where queen elizabeth and prince philip. another customize dress is referred to the eisenhower 12a printed fabric with many houses the eisenhower's lived in during their marriage and includes the five-star general eisenhower. these are a few examples of her daytime dresses. she was fond of the color pink and she wore it in many different shades and styles. jackie kennedy is well known for the little black dress and here are two examples of her favorite little black dress. she always said she would never dressed like an old lady. these towns that she wore into the 70's and 80's show her love of bright colors and bright fabric.

more now on the health care law known as the affordable care act or obamacare. from today's washington journal we will show you as much of this as we can until the senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern to risk on this segment of the washington journal we have been taking a look at the implementation of the affordable care act with the help of supporters from kaiser health news. this week julie appleby is back to discuss the reason why some individuals have seen their plans canceled by providers and the law has gone into effect. it's become a hot topic on capitol hill among some talking heads with julie appleby to discuss the mechanics at play. why are some people receiving cancellation notices? >> guest: these are people who buy their own coverage because they don't get it through their job. so these are folks who are small

business owners, self-employed, an increasing number of contract workers don't get health insurance so they buy their own. many farmers by their own. about 5% by their own coverage to read many of them are getting notices that we don't know exactly how many but many are given the notices saying the current policy is going to be discontinued by the end of the year and the need to enroll in a new policy. that is because many of these policies don't meet all of the requirements of the affordable care act. >> host: the numbers we are talking about coming here is an ap story just from today at least 3.5 million americans have had their health and germans policies canceled thanks to obamacare and you are saying it is an estimate at this point. why can't we find of specific numbers yet? >> about 14 million people who buy their own coverage of this country and there's not an exact tally of how many are going to get notices. some are getting notices that say their policies expire by the

end of this year and some states the insurers are allowed to live over some be the policies of expire until next year so they might get a notice in january referred to larry. when we wrote about this a couple of weeks ago we had insurers 20 to 80% of their individual business is being cancelled it's a substantial number of the 14 million americans getting these notices. >> the ones who were canceled to lay it out for folks. >> insurers are looking at this and saying policies that didn't exist before march of 2010, some new policies, people purchase since 2010 are unlikely to do what is called grandfathered. if they are not grandfather and they don't meet the requirements of the affordable care act, it's very likely that they are going to get a notice. now before the affordable care act, the insurers would discontinue policies or cancel

policies. that wasn't unusual. they would discontinue those that were not profitable. maybe they were pulling out of the region. what is unusual ofs' the scope of people but are unlikely. >> host: you listed consumer advocates that the insurers are using these cancellations to target sort of the most costly enrollees come correct? >> guest: that is what some consumer advocates are worried about is maybe they are taking unprofitable lines of business and the insurers say that isn't the case. regulators say they are watching out for that and there are some that say insurers can't just pick and choose certain people to cancel. they have to close an entire year sort of book of business if you will. they are not supposed to be choosing just protect the people that entire lines of business. we did see some insurers canceling policies that went to people who were six but they were saying those policies were originally given to them and they were not as comprehensive as the law requires.

they may have a limit on doctors' offices and things like that but i've also been reporting and topped with ventures that said the are cancelling a very profitable line of products in california. one particular injured simply because it doesn't meet the standards of the law. so it's going a lot of different ways. >> host: we want to hear the viewers on the subject. we have the lines a little different on this segment. if you have an employer plan and want to chat about it, 202-58-5380. if you have an individual insurance plan, (202)585-3881. if your plan has been cancelled as a part of the result of what we've been talking about is (202)585-3882 and all others (202)585-3883. we will have those lines open for you to call to ask julie appleby at kaiser health news about this subject. there are some stories coming out of people getting their

plans canceled and then getting offered new plans with higher premiums. how much are we seeing of that happening? >> guest: premiums are interesting issues. it depends. some people are indeed getting notices that say that their plan or comparable plans are going to cost a lot more. some people are finding that with a subsidy, remember the subsidies and the law for people that earn up to $46,000 a year that are offsetting some of those costs. so it varies. i spoke with one gentleman who had a policy that covered his wife and daughter and it was costing about $336 a month now and it's gone up to about 500 something dollars a month. very similar deductible. so in that case it is kind of hard for him to understand why that is to the other policies i think we heard a lot about from folks in florida for example but have been on the national news that was only $50 a month and it is now going up quite a bit. and part of the reason for that

is that these policies didn't cover very much so the tignes cover hospitalization or a number of other things so they are cancelling those policies. so it really depends. the premium as they depend on what you're paying now and what kind of policy you bought. there's a number of factors. >> host: you will or helpful to provide as a cancellation letter for folks that we were talking about. here's one from blue cross blue shield of america and they note in the cancellation letter we will be offering new individual and family health plans that include required benefits of the affordable care act and a summary of the new health plans we are offering to you from the coverage effective date beginning tiberi first, 2014. so, julie appleby if someone gets a letter like this what should they do? >> host: they should look at it very carefully. understand what it means. they don't have to act right away. consumer advocates tell me folks should take time to understand what it is the purchase already,

how much is there deductible, how much is the deductible per person and how much might have to pay before the insurance kicks in, how much might you have to pay for the entire year. something called the out-of-pocket maximum. so look at that and see what your insurance is offering. your insurance may be offering something very comparable but double check. that isn't your only option. you don't have to roll over into another plan offered by your insurer. you can go on to the state market place or on to healthcare.gov and looked up other policies. healthcare.gov as you know has had some problems. they made some changes to the website people can simply browse plans and get an idea a step on the premiums. even if they can't get set up an account. as a policy experts say to do that. talk to an independent broker, try to get help understanding this and find something comparable and enroll in that and understand if folks say if you enroll by december 15th your

coverage will start on january 1st. >> host: julie appleby of kaiser health news joining today to answer questions on the subject. kaiser health news is a nonprofit news service editorial independent from the kaiser family foundation and nonprofit partisan health center research and communication organization that's not affiliated with kaiser permanente day. she is here to help us answer your questions on the subject. we have split the lines of a little differently this morning. we will also take your comments overt ritter and e-mail what we will start with eric from jonesboro georgia on the line with those with employer insurance. good morning. >> caller: my comment is in the 80's ronald reagan got rid of the fairness act meaning -- and this is when tip o'neill shut down the government to stop ronald reagan from getting rid of the fairness act. ever since then we have seen a race to the bottom by the gop

and the corporate types of the nature. tip o'neill tried to stop this, democrats couldn't stop it, the corporate media has been out of control brainwashing the public to the the the republicans are like the liberal media that all corporate media and of course corporations protect from taxes and regulations. the corporate media assaults the republicans because they help them out. so that means all media is republican media. anyway, on this point about cancellations, president obama said if you like your plan you can keep it. president obama why it. they know that these people like having a plan. they didn't cover hospitalization like the lady said earlier that have lifetime caps, and yearly caps.

apparently the corporate media knows that these individual people getting cancellations did not like those plans. i'm assuming people didn't like those plans because you pay for something and you didn't get anything back. >> host: eric brings up the president's statement made several times over the years, something that glenn kessler of the fact checkers of "the washington post" looked up and gave the president a four pinocchio rating on the statement that if you like your health care plan you will be allowed to keep your health care plan, period. no one will take it away in a matter what. julie appleby? >> guest: the president has been watching that in the recent days. we heard him in boston last week he said the house majority of people that have health insurance at work you can keep it. succumbed some of these plans were not that effective or helpful for folks. this is why this market was

targeted by congress in the dca specifically because it had some problems. many people who buy their own insurance for example before the wall found they couldn't buy coverage at any cost because the health condition and the insurers were able to reach out to people that had a health condition or charge them more or perhaps exclude that particular condition from coverage and as it was pointed out some of the plans have a limited benefit. i've written about plans that have maybe 100-dollar a day benefit for hospitalization. if you've ever been in the hospital you know things are more than $100 a day. so they are limited benefits going away but some people actually really do take this coverage because they want it. they want a five or six or 10,000 were deductible because it comes with lower premiums. they are not happy that these plans are going away.

>> host: we have the lines of this morning for folks that had their plans canceled. on that line and borat is leading from new york new york. thanks for calling this morning. >> caller: thanks for taking my call and c-span. first thing i don't know what planet that last call was on. maybe they have affordable health care on his plan at but while that is the first. second, julie, i had my plan canceled a few months back. that wasn't before the insurance premiums were hiked up by about $2,000 disqualifying it from being, quote on quote, grandfathered in to one of these plans that are now in washington to be complete. i was very happy with the policy but i'm not happy about is going forward. i'm now forced to sign up for a program where i have to cover dental, pediatrics, birth control and all sorts of other services that i will never use.

the other thing is now that i have no policy i have to sign up by come as you said, december 15th and have insurance going forward. but yet consumer reports said that no one should go on to healthcare.gov for at least a month until the start to get some of these signed out so now there is a big black area or gray area i should say where the will be a lapse in my coverage which i haven't had ever in my life. so i find it very unfair that we talked about this so evenly and you can sit here and deflect a comment like the president. he isn't walking back comment. he didn't tell the truth and that is the sad truth about it and there's a large segment of americans who were going to pay for the dishonesty. >> host: julie appleby, i will let you jump in here. >> guest: you live in new york so i think your state is doing its own exchange. you might have more luck getting on your own exchange looking at policies but to your point, the administration should have known

that these policies are going to be canceled. a lot of experts are saying yeah you know what they should have known quite a bit more about this because many of the policies were substandard and the law's aim was to remove the standard policies and the obama administration did write regulations talking about grandfathering. grandfathering means if you have a plan that didn't meet all the standards you could keep it if the insurers decided they would keep it so long as it was purchased before march, 2010. and the rules that they wrote said purchased before march, 2010, which is when the law was enacted. but no substantial changes have been made. and the rules defining the substantial change hour actually fairly minor. so if you need a 5-dollar change in your co-payment for example or if your insurer increased your deductible by about 15% or more. they keep the premium down that

would take you out of this sort of grand father status until the plan would be more likely. >> host: what about the point having to pay for things like maternity coverage as a healthy young man? why was it written into the rules that he can't find a plan without those things? >> guest: i'm getting a lot of questions of things like that why do i have to pay for maternity coverage? i'm healthy white why have to pay for people who are six? and this is part of the insurance pool and this is part of the detention and the flaw. the lawmakers decided that they wanted to create this minimum benefit package. that is essential benefit package including the return to care prescription drugs, hospitalization, that kind of thing in order to make these plans comprehensive. people can differ on what they think is a comprehensive package, but this is what they've put in and decide everyone's been to pay for it and find the risk across. so it is in the gentleman's point he's never going to use

maternity care that is correct. folks decide many women that by the policies will never be treated for prostate cancer for examples of its coverage in the race as well. you don't pick and choose which things you can cover but insurance runs the risk among everybody. >> host: a question on twitter is the affordable care act about the health of the people or of the overall financial health of the insurance industry? or is it bow flex >> guest: this was something that will really benefit insurance companies and other folks have different views with the aim of the congress is what they wanted to expand on coverage. the expanded to people that were not sure and they wanted to make it easier for people that buy their own coverage which is what we are talking about today to be able to do that. and the congress did not want to go the route of making this a government entirely run plan and turning it into a single payer

plan. it is going both ways. >> host: we are talking with julie appleby with kaiser health news about the health care cannibalization that some individuals have received on some policies. we set our minds of a little bit differently in this segment. if you have an employer plan you can give a call that (202)585-3880. individual (202)585-3881. if you had your plan canceled it is 202-58-5382. we would like to hear your story and all others can call 585-3883 on the line for folks that have an individual plan. from oak hill florida, good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you? i think they took the cookies out before they were based on this issue. it seems to me that when the

grandfathered these policies they made a change after that several months after that making it clear it's almost impossible for anybody to keep their plan or any adjustment. this could be a minor adjustment dealing with the inflationary cost, they knew this is the way that was good piece of it for sovereignty into the one pool but i have a little different situation as a medicare person, not medicaid. my medicare has gone completely haywire. my deductible was increased. the amount of doctor care that i get has been decreased and the supplemental plans like aarp has increased tenfold because of the obamacare regulations and minimum requirement. like she's trying to say it's fine. a tree but the needs to pay for pregnancy and for prostate cancer so it all works out. that is a one pager system and

if that is what the system wanted to try to force people into to make it such a mess that they will come back with a 1p system as the only way to solve this issue, that is what they really wanted in the first place. and i don't understand a health care person such as yourself on here. one does kaiser foundation stand to gain from this because they also have cancellation policies. >> host: kaiser health news is a nonprofit independent from the kaiser family foundation. it's a non-profit and non-partisan health policy tag think-tank and the correspondence cover things like the health insurance and they have been helping us the past couple of weeks to try to explain this for folks. he brings up the medicare issue that he was talking about if you want to touch on that. >> guest: it affects medicare in a couple of ways. one of the ways that he may be talking about is that they are

slowing down the payments for something called medicare advantage and this is the private market and private insurers offering medicare coverage to the folks that sign up for it as an alternative to the traditional medicare which is fee-for-service. the program is having some slowdown in payment increases because the congress said that today were already paying this more money than they pay for the traditional medicare program and they wanted to bring it alone but closer into alignment. so some insurers with medicare advantage plans are probably raising premiums and doing other things and making some changes as a result of that. >> host: from nick mills zero delaware on the line for folks that have an employer insurance. good morning. >> caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. a couple of points just a little off track. whether or not president obama malae, i don't believe that that

he's being very disingenuous with all of the statements about you could have kept your policies if you like them and not being aware of these insurance companies would cancel all of these plans. they will jump from the democratic party and president obama and they will get all what they want to read into years our next year's midterm election and in three years in the presidential election the obama administration is going to be swept out of office. everybody is going to jump ship to the republican side to be able to go back to before the affordable care act came through. my situation, and this is something that i can't imagine no one anticipated these things happening. i am retired and when i retired, my employer sponsored plan, my

rates quintupled. i am paying five times now more than i was paying when i was working. i got married after i retired and i'm not allowed to add my life to my plan. we pay for private health insurance before and the insurance was more than $300 a month. her premiums were only $5 a week. now that is being terminated and we are going into the exchange to try to get a plan and they say you might qualify for medicaid coverage. you have to forfeit your income to the government. you're only allowed to keep

$3,500 a month. >> guest: he has retiring coverage and it sounds like your former employer has increased the amount that you are paying for that it isn't unusual and many employers are required to pay a certain portion of the cost of medical care and that may have been more than they paid when they were employed. now, for your wife it sounds like she's coming from a plan that may have been well subsidized by her employer to looking on the market where she is going to pay the full amount. and this is also a concern for people that buy their own insurance. you have to remember they are paying 100% of the cost could whereas your employer usually picks up 70 to 80% of the cost of the premium so many people have no idea when they go from the employer coverage to buying their own just how much it costs because you're only paying a portion of that. they don't realize the cost in the individual market and it can be quite surprising to folks when they do find out about the

market. >> host: michael also brought up the president's comment again on this issue that we talked about this morning about whether who will be able to keep their health care plan if they like them was the subject of the editorial in today's usa today coverage cancellation on fy obama's promise is the head line there. below that is a piece from congressman fred upton, republican from michigan and the head of the chair energy commerce committee to get his piece what people keep their coverage, talking about keep your health care plan act. if you want to read that those are on the opinion page today of the usa today that we are talking with julie appleby this morning of kaiser health news taking your questions and comments particularly about the cancellation notices. ray is on the line that we set up for folks that had their plans canceled. he is from richfield new hampshire. good morning. >> good morning and thanks for taking my call. >> i called on october 1st when this whole thing started and was

mentioned. the least expensive obamacare plan was $140 a month more than we are currently paying $690 a month. and we have 8,000-dollar deductible basically my wife and i were in the 50's. we are not and be eligible for any subsidies because the cut off four of the couple is $52,000 a year. we need more than that. but looking at the plans. people say these plans but they have a lot of these mandates, they keep the kids on until 26, the of mental health and maternity and they have hospitalizations and they were paying for that.

that is why they are being cancelled and these are going to be more affordable because i don't understand what he considers affordable. but this is just what is really upsetting is we were told that number one, you will be able to keep your plan and your doctor and number three you'd save about $2,500 a year. well, this is true. i want to know what people consider affordable because none of these plans are affordable. >> guest: it seems like you're in a situation where a number of folks have called me talking about a similar situation. you have a high deductible policy, $8,000 family deductible. that is something that you and your family were comfortable with and felt that was a good plan that kept your premiums down. under the new law with unsuspecting is that your plan -- the deductible and the other

out of pocket costs are exceeding the limit that is in the law. now you have to find a new plan and your funding is the cost a couple hundred dollars more a month which is a lot of money. this is part of the tension and a lot of folks are going to see that they are paying more and he raises a good point why is this costing more? what is going on? the state required some of these mandates. so what i am seeing from the actuaries is that part of it is having to add additional benefits and part of it is probably lowering that family deductible. going to go down a little bit. maybe the out of pocket macs over the course of the year you might not be potentially vulnerable to as many costs. but i think a bigger part of it from of the actuaries are telling me is now the insurers have to take everybody. they didn't have to take people with pre-existing medical conditions before. they could charge them a lot more. they could exclude their medical conditions from coverage that now starting on january 1st the losses they can't do that anymore so they are building

into the rate the fact they have to take all comers so people like you and your wife are probably healthy and had a lower rate as a result of that. so people who were perhaps healthier coming younger than me if have lower rates and those rates may go up. people who are older, those rates might bring more of an average but it's really what the in jurors are deciding what they think the risk is in terms of having to take everybody that has a healthy rate and they are making it difficult for folks like ray. >> host: secretary sebelius was asked about his exact subject at last week's energy and commerce committee hearing. i want to play a little bit of that and come back and get your thoughts on her appearance before the committee. >> before, during and after the law was passed, the president kept saying if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it. so is he keeping his promise?

>> yes, he is. >> what do you say to the 300,000 people in florida that you just mentioned were the 28,000 in tennessee that cannot get health insurance, the plans are terminated. is he keeping their promise to them? >> guest: first of all the can get health insurance. they must be offered new plans, new options either inside of the marketplace or if they don't qualify for a financial subsidy they can shop -- they absolutely will have new coverage. >> host: julie appleby what was your biggest take away from secretary sebelius? >> guest: this demonstrates that the obama administration, this is adding into their difficulties so only do they have problems with the healthcare.gov site not working properly, but now they have this issue where they made a promise people to keep their plans. they are having to fight that now. obviously the republicans are upset about this and a lot of

democrats are nervous as well saying you've got to get this site fixed. you have to get this working in the rollout. so i think it is just adding to the administration difficulties. >> host: a comment over e-mail rights this is disingenuous to say that someone with a pre-existing condition can now get insurance but not answer the problem of those who are losing insurance that they have helped for a long time. what so-called items are wrong? it seems this is an excuse for insurance companies to gouge the citizens when you lose your insurance you are -- the president why it is the comment from michigan. richard is up next from new port richey florida on the line for folks who have individual coverage. good morning. >> caller: good morning. fisa for taking my call today i am calling for my son a.

he will turn 50 in december for. they are paying $800 a month for both of them for coverage. they are empty nest, their kids are out of the house. his premium will be a thousand dollars a month. they have higher incomes so they were notified that is lighter premiums increased. the thing that gets me is already a 30% tax bracket state and federal. under the blanket so to speak. i don't understand why republican, democrat and independent don't get together and get rid of this.

best description i've heard of obamacare and i would like her comment on that situation. >> guest: i don't see the congress getting together soon and agreeing on things that there will be a lot of discussion and debate or a lot of effort or movement at this point to make any changes to the law. now, we may see this change if they don't get the healthcare.gov site working by the end of the year they may be more discussion about deleting the pieces of the law delaying the parts of extending open enrollment i don't know but the insurance rates would be very interesting to know if your son has gone to the healthcare.gov or if it was somewhere else. a thousand dollars for one person in florida does sound a little high. there may be some other options for him. i have seen a lot of studies out there looking at prices and they are all over the place. like i said, it depends what

they were buying before, what kind of coverage they had, what plans they were looking at. there may well be something less than if you look at putting he and his wife together. there have been a whole bunch of studies that look at the premium cost and they range all over the place. and this is a really difficult issue because some people will pay more and some will pay less and it really depends on what they bought before, the kind of subsidies they've got, the kind of plan they choose. there was a study out just this morning that looked at those and a couple of wall street analysts the of the estimated 7 million me if a plan that will become with a higher deductible and then there's people like richard in florida who are very concerned the rates are going out. >> host: is their anything written into the law that protect people from getting gouged on some of these rates? >> guest: into law it does say that any increase over 10% a

year has to be reviewed by regulators and if they determine that it was unjustified, they can hold that off and say this is an unjustified rate increase, but it is up to you to see and the states have varying ways that they regulate the health insurance class. some states are given the state insurance commissioners the power to reject to say no this is too much to get many states have not done that so it really depends on where you live. but there is that. and if people are being overcharged this year let's say they have overestimated the number of six people they will get in the race. they spend 8% of their premium rate on medical care if they don't they have to issue the rebate. conversely if they haven't estimated high enough and they are spending a whole bunch more, more than the anticipated coming you can see higher rates in 2015 and 2016. so it really depends on what

happens. >> host: we have about ten minutes left with julie appleby. senior correspondent with kaiser health news. you can also corker at plater at julieappleby @khnews if you to follow keyser hold a news. we are going to go to new york on the line for folks that have employer insurance. you are on with julie appleby. >> caller: i was going to say good morning but it's never a good morning. peery the governors and congressmen and senators don't understand these laws that us lowly college graduates over 60-years-old, well we don't understand it. i had an accident put on social

security. i wasn't making enough money to keep my kids with food in their mouth. i went back to work at a different job with a college degree and got hurt again, worked for an ivy league college and they didn't like the idea that i got hurt with them, too. so what did they do? they did away with my job. they do away with your job and what your insurance. so they actually talked me into cashing in my attention. so i have none of that. and i do take offense when people say that this is an entitlement. i have paid since 1969, actually

1968 for my social security benefits. >> host: joe started by talking about folks trying to understand the small. we have heard a lot about the navigator is out there that were built into this act to help people understand. where do those navigators stand right now? are they helping people today? >> guest: every state has a navigator and other ways you can get help into navigating in the understanding how to get on the web site and how to enroll in this coverage and the best way people can find them is to go on healthcare.gov and they can help walk you through this. it's different in different states. the 36 states that decided not to do their own market place exchange or going to have fewer navigators than the states that did decide to do their own health care marketplace because they got a lot more money to do it. the federal government didn't

have as much money so there are not. you can find them through community health centers and this is really difficult to understand. but - that once you look on the website or talk to a broker they would have a little bit better understanding. >> host: let's go to john from new york new york on the line for folks that have had their plans canceled. tell us about your situation. >> host: >> guest: >> caller: i had a $2,000 deductible plan, zero co-payment, note referrals basically, at had a terrific premium cap at about $9,000 in total. i got a letter from my insurance company basically saying that because i am a sole proprietor

and because i do not employee another person and this is not including a staff, that the affordable care act automatically deems me not to be part of a group anymore but makes me an individual and the order directed me to go on exchanges. so i have a terrific plan in network. it was very fortunate because i had a heart attack in march. every aspect of my bills were covered. all of my doctors were covered. i even had some psychiatric care and i was really happy with what i had. they directed me on the plan to go on the exchange because i have to be an individual now and about four or $5,000 more with less than standard care that my insurance offered me because

there are copayments, higher deductibles so it's not a good effective law for me. >> host: what you make of john's situation? >> guest: it sounds like you and from having good coverage, small proprietor group plan now kicked over into the individual market and finding it a lot more sensitive. it sounds like some people are running into that situation and again there are winners and losers and it sounds like john is going to have to come up with more money for his plan. sort of the flip side is what the proponents would say people like john who couldn't get coverage before, they couldn't get group coverage or by individual coverage will now have the opportunity to do that because insurers can't turn them away but this is one of the things, part of the disruption of the market is a difficult market. congress did target this for a lot of changes and people like john and others are experiencing some of those changes. >> host: let's go to now lucey

from maine online for folks with individual penchant. lucey, good morning. >> caller: good morning. julie was just saying that there's winners and losers and i guess i am one of those losers. i liked my plan and my doctor but i guess obama and congress didn't like my plan and my doctor. am i entrance is scheduled to be canceled in december. i have never had a lapse in insurance pity if i had a good plan and now i am going to as of standard plan with a high deductible. >> we are going to leave the last couple minutes of the segment at this point the senate is about to gavel and. a quick reminder you can see this and any washington journal program on line any time at c-span.org. live to the senate as lawmakers work on nondiscrimination legislation for lgbt employees. a test vote and confirmation votes for a pair of judicial nominees will take place around 5:30 this afternoon.

live to the senate floor on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to owrd. the chairntion retired admiral dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: le let us pray. eal god, help us to live so that the generations to come will know of your mighty acts. today, give our lawmakers the sing later of heart