dedicated to noting their successes and brags about their large audiences. not only does it score big in the children's market but they have huge hits during prime time as well. the private funding would be there. >> guest: that is a great argument. the reason it doesn't hold water, i know it doesn't, a couple years ago. to really do a deep dive into alternative funding for public media which we did. our executive vp did an amazing job and it didn't just come from within cpb and the bottom line is if public media did not receive federal funding it would soon become commercial media. rural stations would not be able to provide local content without commercials so right away you would have the commercialization. also in terms of raising money there is no way that that amount of money to sustain a viable,

vibrant, where the public media service which would now be along the public media, it wasn't sustainable. we appeared before congress and have this report if any of you are members, we are happy to provide it. it really put to us the idea that public media could exist without the federal appropriation and change the nature of this service to americans. >> host: can people find a report you and your web site? >> guest: yes. >> host: cpb.org. >> guest: alternative funding is a longer title. >> host: jack from manchester, republican. >> guest:.

>> caller: eric cantor resist saying what i heard miss harrison said, pbs is the second most trusted institutions second only to the military. the question that leave to my mind is why do we trust the military. >> guest: that is another show. >> caller: let me get to my point. we keep hearing television, commercial television referred to the vast wasteland as it was put in 1961. my memory goes back because i am old, prior to that, and i remember some really good quality television that was on and sometimes called the golden age of television. playhouse 90. i remember my mother sitting with rapt attention listening to classical music on the voice of firestone on commercial television. the idea that commercial television is inherently incapable of giving us quality

television is not true and that the same time when i turn on pbs these days, and i find lawrence welk and retro rock-and-roll shows which are good entertainment but kind of apart from the mission of public television and i wonder why you can't give us more live entertainment like they used do with playhouse 90 and so forth or variety shows like home companion on national public radio. one more point, you mentioned downtown abbey and masterpiece theater, those are english productions. why can't we have more american productions on national public television? >> guest: i love this call because i agree with everything. i can't speak for pbs but they are looking to announce pieces something more american focus.

as popular as downtown abbey is and people absolutely love it, i receive phone calls when one of the characters was killed prematurely why i had killed him off. you are absolutely right, there was the golden age of television but what happened is it became more and more expensive to really attract viewers, long form dramas, playhouse 90 was wonderful and i have a lot of commercial television in my life. the problem is they are driven by the bottom line. ken burns, if you are watching the civil war, you don't want it interrupted for a commercial. this is an oasis. and the question of should we have commercial television? i have great admiration for the head of the national association

of broadcasters and when commercial television does, but the fact is we have cable and cable costs money and a lot of wonderful dramas today, i love mad men, you have to pay for a new pay a lot. we are an oasis of people who can't pay and even for those who can, they pay taxpayer dollars, they choose to watch public television. i agree with you. more drama and more live events. let me say something about the late lawrence welk. these are pledge programs and we got a lot of pledge programs. >> host: explain for people, the corporation for public broadcasting, what it is separate from pbs and npr. just to make the distinction clear. >> guest: we are the steward of the appropriation. our job is to get this money in an appropriate way, to stations,

filmmakers and then we step back. >> host: you are not involved in the content. >> guest: we are not but my personal opinion, i would like to see an american version -- >> host: the president and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting, patricia de stacy harrison, created november 7th, 1967, when president johnson signed into law the public broadcasting act, part of his vision for a so-called great society and that is our focus on washington journal this week. looking at different pieces of legislation. in maryland, democratic column. going ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i love your show, c-span is great. i also love npr and pbs. i remember in 1983 when there was this raucous about trying to demolish pbs public broadcasting and at that time i wrote my

congressman please don't try to get rid of public broadcasting. that is crazy, it is free information for everyone. it doesn't matter who you are, you get information about everything. i remember as a child watching the electric company. it would be a national shame to alter president johnson's initiative to help broadcasting for everyone. that is one point. keep up the good work. i am worried about listening lately and the heritage foundation -- won't get into that because i don't agree with them but everyone has to have their opinion. >> host: let me hear from greg in idaho, independent caller. >> caller: good morning, ladies. thank you, c-span and pbs and npr not so much.

i would have to say you pretty much summed it up in your mission statement very clearly when you talk with the 88-year-old and wanted to talk to her all day because she agreed with you and i think that is what pbs, in pr are all about. i watch the news hour every evening after watching c-span all day and you guys put it in a format where there seems to be a debate but you always have new york times, washington post, nothing really central. it is all left-leaning and i would like to echo some of the other callers previously. >> host: have you ever gone to the corporation for public broadcasting's web site? they do annual reports where they report to congress about studies they have done, the research they have done in to their content? the content of npr and pbs etc.. >> caller: i haven't. for years i was a contributor, a

participating member and they have become so left-leaning it is very difficult and you should be a little bit more centrist the way you approach issues and even your commentators are pretty far left. >> host: what about this perception? >> guest: i tell you very seriously the reason i talking -- it is wonderful to hear that somebody is getting something of value and is making a difference in their life so that is a positive story. but equally i do respect these views and we worked very hard to ensure that no one group or ideology owns public media. i think within a day of listening there are things you like and things you don't like but we try for ultimate transparency and accuracy. >> host: what is next for the corporation for public

broadcasting? how do you adapt to the new world, the new technology? >> guest: we have been focused on this for a while and i would like to say all of a sudden the audience -- they were not leaning back on the couch, they were going. so our investment has to be to keep up with the audience and make sure the content we have goes with them when they wanted and where they wanted and how they want it so that is a big focus, to keep us on this track. we created a strategic framework for cpb and how we look at what we are funding and we call it the digital diversity dialogue. digital means innovation. always being innovative. diversity doesn't just referred to heritage or race. it refers to geographic diversity, points of view, age and dialogue is engaged in. more and more we are in the

community. the community is our partner. they want to be served and because of the democratization of technology and the ability to really help the audience as our partner. in a way what is happening, we have come from broadcasting, pushing out and whether you like it or not, all of us in me the at have a very interesting, new partnership, collaboration with people who have been calling c-span who have informed opinions and really is a shape, they helped to shape how you go forward so it is an exciting time because of technology. >> host: president and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting, we appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> live program to tell you

about. join us later for more from the heritage foundation, a multi panel discussion on the future of northeast asia, the korean ambassador to the united states is among the speakers live at 2:00 eastern on c-span. here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span we visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at 8:00 highlights from the new york ideas forum including cancer biologist andrew has oil and on sunday q&a with congressman charlie rangel at 8:00 p.m. eastern. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, in depth with bright red religious scholar reza aslan. retired neurosurgeon and columnist ben carson and sunday night at 11:00 p.m. eastern, lawrence goldstone on the competition between the white brothers and glenn curtis to be the predominant name in manned flight. american history tv on c-span2

on friday at 8:00 eastern, a look at hollywood portrayals slavery, saturday night at 8:00 on but anniversary of the battle of blade is forget the burning of washington and sunday night at 8:00 p.m. chief of staff discuss how presidents make decisions. find our television schedule one week in advance in c-span.org and let us know what you think of the programs you are watching. 2026263800 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org and join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> at c-span's latest book sundays at 8:00, collection of stories from the nation's most influential people over the next 25 years. >> i always knew there was a risk in the bohemian-oil and i decided to take it because whether it is an illusion or not, i don't think it is, it

helped my concentration. it is boring to some extent. it would keep you awake and long conversations so that is the moment ended 5 was asked if i would do it again the answer is probably yes. i would have quit earlier hoping to get away for a golfing. easy for me of course, it sounds irresponsible if i say i will do that again to you but the truth is it would be hypocritical of me to say no i never touch the stuff if i had known. >> the soviet union and the soviet system contain the seeds of its own destruction. many problems we saw at the end begin at the beginning. i spoke already about the attempt, would control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. the problem is when you do that, try to control everything, you

create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to paint the same way and one artists as i don't want to paint that way, you made him into a political dissident, if you and to subsidize housing in this country and wants to talk about it and the populace agrees, something to subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet. and how much it is costing. when you deliver it through the spare party enterprises, we deliver subsidies through public company and private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot about subsidies for themselves, there were not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. >> christa regions and gretchen morganson are a few of the 41 engaging stories in c-span and

sunday at 8:00. a look at the creation of medicare under lyndon johnson from today's washington journal. that is about 40 minutes. >> we are continuing the last hour of washington journal, lyndon johnson's vision for great society, and packing that vision bill by bill and we want to talk about medicare and medicaid. joining us from new york this morning is that the 12, former administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services. it -- let's begin with what was going on in the 60s and even before that, that president johnson saw the need for medicare and medicaid. >> a lot of low income people and elderly, seniors with no health care coverage, the primary outcry at the time was

to cover seniors which medicare covers 55 million seniors and disabled people but that was the primary thing, medicaid was an afterthought that obviously -- medicaid is for low income health care generally and medicare is generally for seniors and disabled but the driving force was a lot of low income seniors with no health care coverage. >> reporter: seniors's lives. >> host: according to pbs and aarp the medicare act of 1965 at that time, 20% of seniors had no health care coverage in 1964. that year more than one in 3 americans over 65 are living in poverty and 19 million-plus americans when medicare officially began on july 1st, 1966. was it a success? >> no question medicare had no

impact on seniors and social security hasn't changed and i was involved much later in treating the medicare part b benefits but you can debate financing and who pays for it and how it gets covered and some people should be paying more or less but no doubt medicare has changed seniors' lives and it has been a huge success but obviously medicare and medicaid together in the federal budget discussion. >> what is medicare? >> guest: medicare covers 55 million seniors and disabled. you have to be over 65 or on social security disability, 8 million people have that and medicare essentials recovers significant deductible and co-payments, generally going to the hospital because $1,200. if you go to a doctor you pay

the first $150 and then some co-payments. it is a fairly thorough insurance program that covers seniors' health care. ten years ago included the drug benefit, medicare part b and covers the bulk of senior health care costs. the average cost of senior pays $104 a month and taken generally just as automatically taken out. the average subsidy value is another 11,000. the benefit costs 12 to $13 a year per person and seeing is a 10%. it is highly subsidized and very effective plan to change seniors' lives for the better. it is the biggest health care payers in the country, the average hospital gets 50%.

they come from medicare. >> what about the portion for those with disabilities? >> in 1972, it was determined people with long-term disabilities, generally awaiting period once you are on social security and disability there is an exclusion for lou gehrig's disease or kidney dialysis for a short period, generally once you determine if you are under 65 you are fully disabled and gone medicare and 8 million people, not yet 65 who are disabled and that medicare benefits. obviously it recovered the same level as a senior. >> host: you said medicare was an afterthought during the debate in 60, 65, about creating medicare. why do you say that and what did you say when they formed medicaid? >> at the time that medicare was

passed medicare was the big debate and medicare is in my opinion kind of a sloppily thrown together health insurance plan. it was a compromise at the time to make it look somewhat like state blue cross plans a you had medicare part a and part d which doesn't look like a modern insurance program for the most part. most people would agree with that but at the time the chairman of ways and means committee put this together and the dominant player in health care and tax policy was trying to find a way to keep hospitals have the and physicians have the and crafted to get a medicare part a and part b to keep in close to what they were getting at the time and end with medicare. that was most of the debate but at the same time he thought quickly there were a lot of low-income people with no coverage, many millions as we ought to start having a basic benefit for them and the first year medicaid when it was passed in 1965, medicaid spending was something like $1 billion a year. this year over $500 billion.

medicaid was looked at as a much smaller program that was the beginning of trying to to cover low-income people who are not seen years, poor people and it has become the second-biggest program in health care for medicare and more people, 66 million people, one out of five americans on medicaid and at the time it was projected to be 5 million people so you have 66 million americans on medicaid, 65 million americans on medicare so obviously those are big programs that medicaid at the time was envisioned to be a relatively small program, substantially expanded. the president of theaca, the president's health care plan. >> host: the president and the affordable care act asks for the expansion of medicaid. some states of the and so. others have not. our discussions this morning with tom scully former administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services is about creation of medicare and medicaid in this country

under president johnson. his vision for a so-called great society. stephanie, you are a first in pennsylvania, independent scholar. >> caller: social security disability, i think a lot of that is for military, people who come back from the military using psc and other military stuff. i really think that ought to be on the military budget because that is part of the consequences of military engagement and that shouldn't be in the regular social security disability. another thing about social security disability is i found people, these companies are dumping employees that they don't want and calling them disabled. i didn't want to retire. and the company said that the

company told somebody that i had brain fog or some stupid things like that. that didn't go on social security disability. it is a dumping ground for companies to dump employees they don't want. >> host: tom scully? >> guest: most veterans benefits are covered through the va. sums that socials and 30 disability, housing to pave the past abused disability rolls up have exploded and grown, there were a couple court decisions that listed the enrollment and i think some people would argue there are a couple million people on social security to shouldn't be there. there was also if you are disabled and you have a l s or kidney dialysis and you are under 65 there are millions of people who legitimately need those benefits. probably millions of people who probably shouldn't be there and the medicare and social security disability rolls have been over

expanded last 10 years and a lot of people are disabled who really need those benefits so the issues is a great package of benefits for people who need them and there's a legitimate discussion, few of the people on disability are veterans. most of that because of the va. it is a perception problem. said many people on disability shouldn't be there. no more than 10%. >> host: we have tom scully, center of medicare and medicaid services with as for the next half-hour on washington journal as we talk about the history of medicare and medicaid and the debate today over these two programs. republicans 202-585-3880. independents 3882. karen in winterhaven, fla. democratic column. >> caller: i was growing up before medicare came in and in

the state of new hampshire, the seniors were in dire straits. they were living below poverty or at poverty levels and when medicare went through it made a tremendous difference but if i remember it was also couples with a raise in their social security rates so the whole program of the great society lifted a lot of seniors out of poverty and right now i care for my mom, she is 91 and with medicare and luckily my father had been a civil servant so we have blue cross blue shield, i can take my mom to any doctor i need to so i think people need to realize that this program has made it possible for seniors to live out their years in dignity.

>> i agree. is a wonderful thing. to protect seniors who don't have the resources to support themselves. the real discussion i would have is supporting low income seniors and middle-income seniors is a great idea and medicare is a wonderful benefit. i don't think it is a great idea personally to be subsidizing $10,000 subsidy for a guy who is a wealthy senior playing golf in florida. who should be appropriately in the program? same thing -- people who are truly needy and seniors who need help is a fabulous program, we taxes for them to get those benefits? these are the public policies we need to have. no doubt medicare is a great

program. host: what percentage of medicare beneficiaries make up the wealthy people or the people that have enough savings that you're describing? guest: not that many. probably 60 percent of people on social security have income. most seniors don't have a lot of income. i believe social security and medicare should be there to help people who need help. i paid social security and medicare taxes all my life. when i got to be 65, i don't think i'm going to need those f. when i get to be 65 which isn very far off i don't think i will need those subsidies and i don't think i should get some. e these are gigantic programs, $600 billion a year for medicare, $500 billion a year e for medicaid. they are in the federal budget.o we should be supporting people who need n'help, not people who don't and these of the policiesa decisions people need to i discuss. great

very few people would debate that medicare is not a great program or even that medicaid v for low-income people is a great program. the issue is who should be ts, getting the benefits? to they are massive. once you give people benefits they don't want to give them hoh back weather they need the more not. >> host: would be suggesting? a cap? >> guest: there's a lot of ther discussion that we discussed a lot more in the past, wealthy people pay more and healthy debate about how high you expand medicaid, to what levels of income and when to subsidize people. the biggest issue is the aca. i am republican. the biggest issue is the aca expense subsidies to help care 62% of americans, 400% of f poverty, 62% of americans get a big subsidy by health care. i don't have as much problem with the affordable care act as most people do. i have a problem subsidizing 62% of americans will just can't --n fundamentally run a railroad

when 62% of people get big subsidies. the issue is who should get the subsidies and where at what level based difference of these. >> host: democrats got randolph writes about medicaid expansiony giving health care to the poor lowers health care costs for everyone. the federal government allowed many states to lapse basic health care for the poorfund men even as a candid out biltalionsn unnecessary corporate tax rates, the middle class picks up the cost of providing care to the uninsured through taxes given to hospitals for uncompensated care and higher insurance costs. mental guest: the right thing to do is expand medicaid to poor people. the issue is medicaid which is the low-income program which is now $500 billion a year. expanding medicaid to low income people is probably the appropriate thing to do.

the issue is what level should you cover it? i think people who are relatively poor should get it. the issue here is the program is broken. there are no rules. every state fudges. new hampshire does not put one program become a financial and fiscal disgrace. there are no rules. every state handles it differently. i think you should cover the people and but have serious debit about the medicaid program the second biggest program in the government. how it is structured. when youve run a $500 billion program you have no rules i don't blame the states. every state basically come up with a clever way, i won't go through all the callers how to refinance themselves out of the program both states have the same deal. there is not a person at cms that explain how the medicaid works for a 500 billion-dollar program. some southern governors don't

want do cover because conservatives don't want to spend money. democrats say you have to expand the medicaid program in every state because it is free. it is no the free. this is our country and our should make the right decision. n the medicaid program functionally the most screwed up program by a long shot. looks like va like all-stars. we should have a serious debit about medicaid. once you have a well-run medicaid program i am all for it. that is a what the president out to have in mind. anybody that h understands the program at waa would cover their eyes, you're right the problem isam a total disaster structuray >> host: gretchen, napierville, nil know. republican caller. >> caller: i was interested in finding out more about a push, i think it was dick armey and somebody else from congress they were looking into opting out of medicare and it, at some point

was linked with social security if you opt out you don't get your social security. there is not really an option to opt out apparently and given some of the changes in cuts and billions of dollars from the aca, affecting medicare and i'm watching this with my parents, with the rules constantly changing. oh, we're not covering that now, oh, you have to pay this now, if people want to pursue a different kind of health insurance after 65, why are we not permitted to do that? >> guest: well you can. first of all you can, very few people do. it is such a good deal, getting 90% subsidized benefit. opting out is not a smart move for most people. you can opt out of part b which is optional. you don't have to pay the $104 per month premium. you can buy private insurance. everybody pay as.45% payroll

tax, employer pays the same for your whole life. that finances hospitals side because that is mandatory. you always paid into it. you can opt out of part b. it is usually not a wide decision. they have medicare advantage, instead of going into the traditional medicare program where the government runs insurance companies and acting like insurance company you can buy a private health plan with humana or blue cross, 30 pickup% of the people in the country do it. western pennsylvania up 40%. oregon i it is up to 40%. that is growing option. when i took over the program 10 years ago, just 3% of people buy private health insurance in medicare and now three years later it is 41%. you can buy private insurance if you like. medicare advantage. the government says i would spend $14,000 on you this year. take it to go buy private health plan instead. you could go out buy your private health care on top of it, you lose government

subsidies which in most cases that is not a wise decision. that is growing option most seniors taking. low income seniors buying private health plans in bigger numbers.ng 45% of lower income seniors there is lower deduct abs, lower co-payments. generally a cheaper option for most people. so that, you know, buying private health insurance with your meld care dollars is a fast growing option. >> host: we're talking with tom scully the cms administrator from 2001 and 2004. he focuses on health care and ledgetive matters. he is a partner with a private equity firm in new york talking to us from new york this morning. on the issue of medicare, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare put together the top 10 reasons americans love medicare and number seven, medicare is efficient. only 1% of traditional medicare spend something overhead compared to 9% for private

insurance and 6% for privatized medicare. tom scully, you want to weigh in on that? >> guest: that is completely and totally wrong. i'm trying not to be partisan be objective. medicare is wonderful program. it is incredibly inefficient. my old agency which i love runs it and spend 1% on overhead. medicare is single-payer system where the government pays every doctor in toledo and hospital in the same thing. the problem with any system in the history of any economy in the world when you fix prices is volume. so medicare basically pays every doctor 50 bucks for office visit and everyto hospital 5,000 bucks for same surgery. what you get is competition over volume. what happened over the years with medicare the government basically pretty big, very efficient as far as administrative dollars. they spendat 1% on writing checs but very little idea what is going on in the system. hospitals compete on volume what they're incentivized to do. in every other system in the world when you fix

prices. government fixed prices in medicare turns out to be in my opinion very inefficient. what happened last 10 years the government goes to the private insurance, look we give you money. you can spend, their overhead is roughly 8, 9% you can pay doctors differential. good doctor in toledo, 100 buck as visit don't put them in the network. what happened in my business it driven a lot more competition in the system. biggest payer in the country is medicare. it has been very dangerous to have medicare fixing prices. this injection of competition and differential pricing through private health plans worked out extremely well. i believe, most people don't realize it, medicare does not run medicare, blue cross plans, 10 of them under contract write all the checks. blue cross plans are running medicare anyway. get paid 1% to crank out fixed pricing for medicare. what they're saying instead of you having write checks out of our checkbook with a price fix mechanic tim,ism, give you

14,000 bucks on average. you will drive a lot different payments in the civil and i believe that's turned out to be far more efficient because when you put insurance companies at risk andic say, if we give you 14,000 bucks and you you know, your money is the a risk you will find better doctors, find better hospitals, drive better behavior. that program has grown 30% in medicare advantage. it creates much better incentives. i hear the argument medicare is efficient. i love cms, the employees are great. they have no clue what is going on in the health care system. by design they don't. when you get price fixing what you have, volume explosion. it is absolutely wrong argument. you're much better off with well-regulated private insurance companies running plan. look at states and medicaid for example, in 2001 i came in, 12% of the people in the states, democrat and republican governors the like, who had medicaid managed care. now 75%. same reason, democratic and

republican governors, like i sit here with my state administrators and fix prices stay ahead of the game, or i can contract with blue cross plan or wordwide insurance company, give them, regulate them well, give themn reasonable margin i get much better results. you've seen big move towards private health coverage in medicare and medicaid. with aca, president obama's plan, every plan in there there is no government program. l private insurance plans competing to cover these new people. i think that is much better way to go. one of thee reasons that health care costs are starting to come down, much more competition in the system which is all a good thing. argument to me about 1% admin cost, i can write checks for 1% too but the system has very little in generating efficiencies. >> host: pennsylvania, democratic caller. >> caller: good morning, i'm quite an admirer of yours, mr. scully. i remember newt gingrich, speak of the house stood on floor i

can't wait until the day comes when medicare dies on the vine. these wonderful people who really love america. isn't it amazing how they can stand up there to make a statement on that in front. house of representatives? i'm a very old man, i remember all these people lived in hooverville. retire from the big steel companies and things, build a shack in woods and thousands of men lived like that. that was long time ago. i remember those things. it is really refreshing to hear someone stand up and say medicare is a wonderful program basically it is, universal just about, but everybody in this country, but, you want to opt out of it you're foolish you know. thank you. >> host: tom scully? >> guest: i have one admirer left. maybe my mom is watching. i've known newt for a long time. he is little more conservative on some things than i am, he says, although he says things that are misinterpreted or you know, pretty vibrant, i don't think he wanted medicare to die

on the vine. i think what d he is talking abt the medicare fee-for-service price fixing mechanism where i talked about government runs as insurance company. as i mentioned 3% of the people were in medicare advantage and 97% went to the public program. what he wanted which what happened gradually, not many people talking about it medicare price fixing mechanism die on the fine. have seniors buy private plans which happened with 30% of the population. he didn't articulate that way, because ihi know, i spent a lotf time with him, in the first bush administration, what he wanted to have medicare become more competitive and private insurance, and it came across he wanted to wipe out medicare.an i know him pretty well. i actually like him. his intention was what he wanted to modernize medicare and get rid of old medicare and not get rid of medicare. he has strong opinions but he is very smart he guy. i don't always defend newt on everything but on that i can tell you i don't i ever wanted to get rid of the medicare

program. he wanted to get rid of price fixed program which is better for seniors in long run. >> host: on twitter. medicare is not free. money comes out from social security and many old have a problem tryin ag to live and buy medicine. mike, kitty hawk, north carolina, independent caller. question for tom scully. go ahead. >> caller: medicare fraud, how big is it? who is responsible for seeing, taking care of it and what are they doing? >> host: okay, medicare fraud, tom scully. >> guest: i think it is a big problem. easy to write articles about it, overdone in the press. $600 billion a year program. do i think there is 5, 10, $15 billion a year of fraud? yes. i meanra used to jokingly say, t off south florida and parts of louisiana where most of the fraud you save a lot of money for the medicare program. there is certain pockets of medicare in parts of the country

massive amount of medicare fraud going on. medicare program is single-payer program. if you're a doctor or hospital, pick anything, durable medical equipment supplier, wheelchair supplier, get medicare number, you send in bill, you tend to get paid. a lot of people figured out ways to defraud the program. i think government spend a lot of time on it. every administration does. huge issue for all administrations. i can tell you my successor, marilyn tavenner, who runs cms, very capable, very smart, not same political party but incredibly good person they spent a lot of time on it. i believe personally if you look toly get rid of fraud and medice program, 70% of the people in the traditional medicare program the risk of fraud is on treasury and all of you. when you hand the risk over to blue cross plan or aetna, united risk of fraud is on them. when their money is at risk they tend to be tougher to make sure people are not defrauding. in my opinion that we regulate

you well, only this much profit, guess what, somebody defrauding you on your nickel, much more effective way to shut down fraud. my own view, move to the private hello plans helps on fraud side because the companies have cash at risk they will be pretty tough. >> host: joan, damascus, maryland, democratic caller. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. this is more like many great society programs which began with good intentions but evolved into helping wealthy, similar to theea tbs which become a defacto arm of bloomberg media with charlie rose and judy woodruff married to all bloomberg, what you said about the working poor subsidizeing the golfers down in florida rang very true to me and seeing this program as well as many other great society

programs evolving into not what they were intended for in the beginning. >> host: okay. committee for preserving social security and medicare, back to the their top 10 reasons why americans love medicare, they write medicare costs rise slower than private insurance. medicare spending per beneficiary rose more than 400% from 1969 to 2009 but inflation adjusted premiums on private health insurance rose more than 700%. >> guest: i would take that as totally w wrong. the issue really is, there is a lot of cost shifting so because medicare and medicaid can fix price as big government payers over the years on average the medicare program gone out and paid physicians and hospitals, other providers 95% of the their costs. medicaid program in the states average pays 60% of the costs. say running a big hospital system. i used to run a big hospital association. if you're a hospital and you're

getting 95% of your costs from medicare and 60% from medicaid, what will you do? you cost shift to the private sector. all people paying insurance premiums out there pay 125% of costs. if you work for you know, a local car dealership or grocery store you will pay 125% of costs because you don't have the ability to fix prices. the government artificially fixed for years an underpaid, so all the insurance companies shift to the private sector. is that efficient way to do it? i would argue not. there are a lot of things i like structurally, get in trouble with republicans for saying this, is balance everybody. the program i have real issue about the programs are u.s. government. they aream massive. medicare 600 billion a year. medicaid, 500 billion a year. aca soon to be another 200 billion a year. issue who should get subsidies? i'm a huge fan taking care of poor people i think federal government should do with poor seniors or poor people generally.

aca subsidizes 62% of the americans. if i went out tomorrow and said give 62% of the people food stamps or housing vouchers you would say i'm crazy. the issue is money and who should be subsidizing because we're one big community. it is our money. i think the is a real problem to create massive social programs that subsidize people who are significantly notat in low incoe category. once they get going they're never coming back. that is really debate. whether medicare or medicaid or aca, who should be subsidized? that should be a large national debate. i have far fewer problems with the structure of the aca than most republicans do. i have more problems with fiscal issues whore we're subsidizing d where the money is going. on all the issues i think that is i the discussion. >> host: new york, bill isdi ne, independent. >> caller: yes, thank you so much for taking my call. i had quite a bit of hard time understanding a few things. i'm just about in my mid 40s

there and i noticed that a lot of these i am my grants -- immigrants and refugees that have come over had quite an easy way of blending into society and when i asked around, i get the same reiteration of, they have help by either the federal government for the federal government fundst the state to give them some kind of edge upon jobs, edge in certain programs -- >> host: phil are you asking about illegal immigrants having access to medicaid and these programs? >> caller: yes. >> host: tom scully. >> guest: depends on the state. big immigration issue i'm not sure we want to get into this morning. if you're a hospital, we have largest system in tulsa. we have 21% of the people walk in the t hospitals are uninsure.

when you look at that how did they get here? they will go to the hospital to have kids and go to hospitals when they're second quarter and go to the emergency room and state will pay for it. some states they support payments for some folks for medicaid and other limited purposes. that is big debate. once people are here you're going to provide health care whether state pays for it medicaid or hospitals eat it, as most hospitals do, eventually they will transfer costs. average hospital in the country 12% of the patients walk in uninsured. if the government doesn't cover it through new expansions of law or through medicaid we'll all pay for it somehow. they will just charge you more. the real issue, once people get here you will pay for them one way or the other. i don't think we should get into the immigration debate who should be here and why, but once people are here, they will get health care. >> host: not here. we have five minutes talking with tom scully about medicare and medicaid created under the johnson administration part of

lyndon john's's great society, signed into law. both of those programs, 1965. a time for few more phone cause. call in with your questions and comments. thomas in levittown, pennsylvania, independent caller. thomas, you're next, go ahead. >> caller: that is like me. i would like to throw this out to the gentleman. he seeps to know what he is talking about. my wife and i are both on social security. at the end of the year we get a w2 form and the first thing we noticed there is income tax taken out because we're told that's the portion that your employer paid in for you. so, okay. then i looked further down the line, it says medicare, $1200. both checks, my wife's and i, we have that taken out. so we'rehu paying for the covere of medicare. all during our working years. we paid into the fund called medicare.

now, medicaid, i'm not against it in a way people need help, fine. but whahy does the gentleman before me say that someone on the house said something about us living too long? i'm 84. she'svi 82. and that has nothing to do with living too long. since medicare, we're paying. >> host: we'll take that point, thomas. that is a tweet from one of our viewers, jean, medicare is earned employee ben wit we paid for with payroll taxes. >> guest: you have, but still a subsidy with taxpayers. youbi pay 1.45% your entire working life. if you're 84, it was less than many years. last 25 years you pay 1.45% of your payroll in paycheck and employer puts in 1.45%. since the aca passed if you're relatively wealthy you pay another .9% on top of that. it goes up another him one point

which is fairly significant tax increase in the aca. that pays for part-a of medicare which is the hospital side. and that roughly finances entire thing. you could say on the hospital side you paid in all your life. on the part b side which is, roughly equal ipan size. part b little smaller. pays for doctor visits, hospital outpatient visits ambulatory care outside the hospital, that is basically funded with what government figures it costs every year. you pay 25 bucks a year. the premium is 400 something dollars a month. taken out of i your social security check that. represents 25% of cost of part b much the o other 75% is paid by taxpayers. current people paying taxes like me. you're getting 75% subsidy on part b. in total, the average medicare benefit, if you're 84 years old, ont average, probably significantly higher than that for average medicare beneficiary costs $14,000 a year on average to buy medicare benefits. on average, 13,500 i think it

is. on average paying part b premiums 10%. paid all your life for part-a. paying 25% of the cost of part b. you are paying for it but the fact there is significant subsidy from taxpayers. older you get, average 90-year-old costs $30,000 a year. your subsidy gets a little bigger. that is the way system set up. i don't think anybody lives too long. my mom w is 85. i hope she is watching. i hope she has 20 years left. >> host: on twitter, people forget what hideous poverty seniors lifted in priority to social security and medicare. defrom new york, go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with mr. scully as far as medicare and medicaid. should be more selective who gets to partake in these programs. thereul are, to me just another issue with the government. come on sense needs to take over for politicians and people in

general. people who don't really have need, don't have to be on these programs. they were given no choice with the medicare program actually. again i agree we to need to be more selective with people who partake in these programs. thank you very much. >> host: all right. tomhems scully, let me ask you e wrap up -- >> guest: look, they're great programs. social fabric, a lot of people say keep the government out of my medicare, the fact is, when you get to be over 65 your health care costs go up. commercial insurance would not bere viable. medicare program is great program to protect seniors. issue what you should pay? we have wealthy seniors pay more already. my own view they should pay even more. >> host: the question what people should pay and how people afford health care in the future, a couple headlines. "usa today," a third of people have nothing saved for retirement. 16%, 14% of the adults older than 65 have very little saved for retirement.

and then you have this headline alsot from "usa today," about te cost of raising children. a child born in 2013 will cost you. a hefty $245,000 a year. some of those, that cost is health care. so without programs like medicare andre medicaid how are people going to in the future afford health care when the cost keeps going up? >> well, i think a lot of changes happened lately, the move toward more private health care more competition in health care is actually, look at other headlines lately, cost of health care have actually been relatively flattening last couple years i think is a food trend. i think that is result of more competition, more private insurance in medicare and medicare. i think that is all a good thing. the cost of health care will be enormous burden for low income people. we have nine million of the 55 million people on medicare, nine million are what are called dual eligible, poor seniors who get medicare and medicaid.

that number will probably grow. i think we should think to focus on those truly needy to get help. people who can't afford health care should get health care through medicare and medicaid. to make that work, person with significant savings and significant retirement income, who may, made 100,000 bucks a year can't be getting federal subsidies. this is issue with farm programs or whatever else. what level will you subsidize people? if you help truly needy you have to figure out who will get subsidies. that is the issue. as number of people who are truly needy grows we need to be focused who gets subsidies. >> host: the debate continues. tom scully, thank you very much for your time this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> here is what is coming up today on c-span2. next a discussion on the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life. then a congressional hearing looks at student athletes. later the supreme court oral argument in the case of nlrb

versus canning dealing with the constitutionality of some of president obama's recess appointments. here is a look what is ahead tonight on c-span2. more booktv. the future of money. hear from author michael lewis on his book, "flash boys" a wall street revolt among others. c-span3, looks at civil war battle of fort stevens the only battle to take place in washington d.c. on c-span at eight, a look back at the hearings on general motors recalls. you will hear testimony from gm ceo mary barra and compensation fund administrator kenneth feinberg. here's preview. >> more than a decade ago gm embarked on a small car program, sitting here today, i can not tell you why it took so long for

a safety f defect to be announcd for this program. but i can tell you we will find out. this is an extraordinary situation. it involves vehicles we no longer make but it came to light on my watch, so i'm responsible for resolving it. when we have answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators, and with our customers. while i can not turn back the clock, as soon as i learned about the problem, we acted without hesitation. we told the world we had a problem thatat needed to be fix. we did so because whatever mistakes were made in the past we will not shirk from our responsibilities now or in the future. today's gm will do the right .hing that begins with my sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected by this recall, especially the families and friends who lost their lives or were injured. i am deeply sorry.

>> the search for extrater reese teal life was focus of a congressional hearing earlier this year. house science space and technology committee held a hearing entitled, astro biology and the search for life in the universe. texas republican lamar smith chairs this hour long event. >> witnesses might be called to testify -- chance you take.

committee on science and space technology comes to order. welcome to today's hearing astro biology and search for life in the universe. a couple of preliminary announcements. i want to thanks c-span covering hearing. that shows importance of hearing in a lot of respects. i want to thank students from herndon high school. you had choice hearings to attend. you could have attended almost any hearing you wanted to and you attended this one because you thought that was the most interesting. actually that is one of the purposes of today's hearing that is to inspire students today to be the scientists of tomorrow. and who knows, we may have some of those scientists in the audience right now who will be inspired by what they hear, to

study astro biology and perhaps some other sciences as well. we appreciate your attendance. i'll recognize myself for opening statement. then the ranking member as well. as we discover more planets around the stars in our own galaxy it is natural to wonder if we may finally be on the brink of answering the question, are we alone in the universe? finding other life in the universe would be the most significant discovery in human history. scientists estimate that there are 80 quintillion stars in the mill which way galaxy. 70 billion planets have been found by the kepler space telescope. last month astronomers found the first planet where liquid