funds and private equity funds is in this plan. we will see the congress taking a look to give the sec authority to take a closer look. money is kind of like water. it flows to the areas of least resistance. this will be a plan to significantly increase oversight of banks. . .

it ended up bringing down institutions and a lot of markets. so i would say there is no question that hedge funds player roll and a very complex financial system, but the key is the complexity. there are many layers and facets to what happened here, and hedge funds are only a player. it was the guys, ironically, that the regulators were supposed to be looking after, at the root of the problem. host: germantown, maryland. independent caller. caller: the root of the crisis are credit defaults swaps. there are 56 trillion dollars

out there, with markets like our stock market right now. it is an insane number. to have our country not regulate the industry is insane. the whole reason we had collapsed in november and again in march is that they have to pay off the credit appalled swaps -- credit defaults swaps. how is it that geithner -- it does not make sense to me. guest: on credit default swaps, this, too, is on the plan. the fed, but regulatory is more broadly are going to take a much closer look at these exotic financial instruments. you can describe them either as an insurance policy or a wager

on the behavior of debt. it was the view before the crisis started the credit defaults what actually helps to make the financial system more resilience by spreading dispersing risk around the world. that view has been widely discredited by what just happened. credit the fault swaps were on the table, they are on the agenda. it is also worth noting that one of the guys who was most focus on these was tim geithner at the new york fed. he tried to find ways to make more efficient at the clearing settlement of these incidents. it was here we can say that the fed did not go far enough in trying to understand how this market works and what kind of vulnerability is created for the entire financial system. now they are going to go back and have to do it.

host: we think the john -- we thank johnna, from we would like to thank john. coming up next, dave camp talking abuot health care legislation. in our final segment leader, a penn state's prof. professor.

>> rahm emanuel speaks to the democratic leadership meeting. a meeting to consider and make changes to the health care administration, with live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. both events are also online at c-span.org. right now, look for our redesigned booktv website, and every weekend, stream programming right to your computer. it is also easier to search for and watch videos with the refined search function and player. you can share videos with everyone you know. look for it today. >> july 4, discover an

unfamiliar side of the george washington, live from mount vernon with a story and the author on the ascent of george washington. join us live on c-span 2's booktv. host: our guest now is dave camp, republican of michigan, fourth district, a 10th term. he's also ranking on ways and means, so he plays a key role in health care legislation that is expected to be coming up in weeks and months ahead. so your side will come up with its own outline. tell us about it. >> this is obviously a critical issue, and what we will announce today at 10:30 is a summary. i have been part of a working group for many months and not too long ago we announced our principles, those ideas we thought health care reform ought

to adhere to. today, it will be a summary, and ultimately, legislation will be introduced. there is the reason health care has not been done before. it is a complicated issue. that is why there is this rollout process. but we have an american health plan today that will really emphasized affordability, accessibility, and availability. we think it is important to be part of the debate here, and the ideas we have can be incorporated in a bipartisan bill if that is the direction this goes, which is what i am hoping for, a bipartisan solution, an american solution. we're trying to do that. if not, there are ideas we will put four to be part of the debate. host: how are these ideas different from what the white house has put out so far? guest: they have not gone deeply into the issue as and

administration, and we have not seen lots of ideas from the democrats in the house. so we are very much in this in terms of debate. i think we need to stress affordability, bring down costs in health care. but one of the critical things we think in any reform should be a strong discussion of oversight of the health-care system. there is a lot of waste, fraud and abuse, duplication in the system. we think it is important to address those and a robust way. we also think that malpractice reform, we know that tests are ordered on patients simply to prevent doctors from being sued unnecessarily. we think malpractice reform like texas and california, with new ideas that we will present this morning, we will present a real approach. also, making sure that people who are in small businesses or

individuals who cannot buy health insurance have some help doing that. and also those of low and modest incomes have some help so they can also acquire health insurance. but you cannot do those changes without the oversight and malpractice reform to help bring down some of these embedded costs. host: we welcome our viewers for questions and comments with congressman dave camp. the gop will outline their health-care plan today. we will be covering the conference and show it to you a bit later. not a lot of details are coming out yet, but when you talk about helping the average person at various income levels, what are you saying to them? what kind of help, specifically? >> one thing we cannot have is a solution costing more than the problem, and preliminarily on some of these ideas out there what we have seen is that the

cost is more than the gdp of some countries. we believe that, particularly in this recession, trying to sway over a whole lot of cost on the american people is just not going to work. but as i said, there are laws that will allow larger pooling of insurance. one of the reasons that we have better cancer rates for survival for men with prostate cancer in women with breast cancer is that you get immediate care in america. you do not wait six weeks for the mri or six months for the intervention. if you can get the diagnosis, you get immediate intervention.

we want to keep that aspect of our system, so we have designed this american health plan, really, to stress the things i've mentioned. host: from connecticut, joyce, you are on air with david camp. welcome. caller: i want to know why you have never clearly explained the european system of health care. the fact that it is not free. they have a certain amount of money taken out of their salaries every month, every week, and the fact that the two systems, what they call regular and then they call private -- private means that when they go to the hospital, they can select their searchers or doctors like we do. and the regular care is like me. if i am taken in, i have to take

whatever doctor is available, and then i can make my mind of whether i want to go private or not. guest: there is often a two-tier system. even susan boyle went to a private hospital. so there is that system in britain and other countries and we want to avoid that here. we think all americans should have immediate access to the care they want at an affordable cost. we want to make sure that people do not wake -- weight. -- wait. caller: my brother died three months ago because he had no coverage. so he went into the hospital because of a pre-existing heart condition and was showing time

signs of cardiac trouble. he was turned away, saying that he could get everything done as an outpatient, and with priorities straight and that he could come up -- straightened out, he could come up with the $50,000 it would cost. i do not want any insurance companies involved. if we have to do single payer plus private-public, that is fine with me. but i cannot go to let own doctor because he will not go with the six thirds -- insurance company my work has. i have to find another doctor. i am grieving, i am upset, and this is still going to happen if you get insurance companies. they will still find a way not to treat the poor. guest: i am sorry about your

brother. that is a tragic loss. i certainly hope you find comfort there in months ahead. the government does not have all the actors, either. the government does not always run things well, either. we have government programs for medicaid and medicare, and if someone is ill and present to an emergency room, they will get the treatment. they are supposed to get the treatment. there are legal consequences for when they do not. but i would say for anyone with a condition needing treatment, but do that. but one of the concerns the government does is that they often slice of the reimbursement to providers like hospitals, like doctors. we think it important to have a strong health care system for people to go into, and one of the concerns about single-payer and government plans is that the only way governments control cost is to limit access, which

is what they do in the european models, by having people wait a time for their surgery, or they just say, "you do not fit the prevalent patient model we have established to get ^." we believe that care is the ability to get your own insurance that does not end if you have a pre-existing condition or illness. or if you already are sick and have cancer, you get to have care. it does not end because he changed jobs. and if you have your health care, for example, through an association or another group you belong to that is not related to your work, you can change jobs and not lose it. those are the reforms we want to have. and understand, it sounds like, "if only the government stepped in and took over, everything would be ok." we know that is not the case in the way that government runs other things, whether it is

emergency management or trying to get through a crowded airport. we know they do not always adopt the most up-to-date, the most innovative, the best ways to provide care. so that is why they are concerned about a government-run plant. lastly, a government-run plan will move, and we have nonpartisan experts as saying that 120 million people lose their insurance with a government-run plan because it will leave private insurance. so then you have no choice. just one option. and we think choice in health care is also important. >> he mentioned affordability, and i wanted to talk to you about cost. host: there are so many headlines this week. democrats are working to pare the cost of the health-care bill following an estimate. and they make the point about finance panel possible bill in

the senate would cost less than a trillion dollars over 10 years, whereas cbo put it out there as well over a trillion. what do those numbers mean to you? guest: it will be important that we have the cbo evaluate our legislation, not only for cost, but for the number ensured. and that is what health care is so complicated. legislative portions of the bills interrelate and you change one and affect another. and so the latest score we saw was a trillion and a half, which we think is a burden that the american people will not be able to sustain in terms of higher taxes or cuts to providers to get there. so it will be important to have a common-sense approach, which is what we have. and that is going to be a key portion of looking at this, particularly in this recession.

we see debt upon debt piled upon the american taxpayer. it is important to do this the right way. not in a way that is going to make it more difficult for our country to recover economically. and i think that we're at a critical point in that period that has certainly got to be a big part of what is possible in this debate, and we think the alternative we will provide this morning will be a common sense the american approach people can rally around. host: there are financing plans at this point, talking about options like lower-income people, which tax cuts expiring, and letting company deferred plans be enacted.

any thoughts there? guest: i think they are struggling with how you come up with a trillion, two trillion, three trillion dollars. all aspects of life -- individuals, a job creators -- to make prescription medicine more expensive is a real nonstarter. so it is very difficult, and that is why it is important to make these administrative reforms discussed, what we try to make it more possible for people to get a lower cost policy so we did not have to go after all of it. if adult dependents are still dependent on their parents, and we allow the parents to keep him on insurance until they're 25, that will assure -- insure 7

million in america. there are changes we can make to press forward on access for everyone, health insurance for americans, that will -- that we can do and agree on that will not require this voracious appetite for revenue that we are seeing moving forward. host: rockville, md. 3 independent color. go ahead. caller: [inaudible] we wake up in the last three months and realize we have a healthcare crisis when republicans had the white house for eight years? we had a problem forever. they need the guts to confront the problem. the second thing, with this

health issue, they want you to get the talking points. we have already hurt them. let's address the problem. what is the solution? what type of cost do you have in congress, how much does it cost you? why do you say that americans bring you in, and you talk about government -- why do americans not deserve the type of coverage you have? guest: let me just say that first of all, republicans have led the reform effort in medicare, which is under the authority of a committee of mine. we passed prescription part b, which brought drug coverage to seniors. that means seniors no longer

have to choose between medicines and food. that was a major reform. i was also very active in the reforms in medicare, bringing prevention for the first time. it had been in existence for a decade, and nobody had addressed the idea of prevention. now, there is an entry of all physical. -- entry-level physical. seniors can get care coordination, help with prescription glasses, and some of the services medicare does not provide. let me just say that medicare, 90% of the seniors have some supplemental coverage. so medicare alone does not really meet needs. it does not meet the needs of seniors. and that is where the federal government has had the most experienced, in health care. so clearly, wellness will have to be a big part, and we will have a significant wellness'

section that will help reward those employees who engage in healthy behaviors and eat healthy criteria. we have examples, real-world examples where health care costs for significant number of employees have gone down because of the significant wellness incentives that had been allowed under hipa. we would like to see those provisions expanded. we also adopted health savings account so people could get a high-deductible policy and begin to build up tax-free a nest egg cell if they had catastrophic health-care costs and they have insurance. i have been working on a bill for several years and we have been working on this several months and we want to be participants in this debate. i do not know that there is any rule about when you have a good idea. i think it is important to bring

good ideas, and clearly, we believe there is an opportunity for this to move forward and we want to make sure that the right ideas are on the table. host: arkansas. good morning. caller: i was listening to other people and thinking what i would talk about. the first thing i want to say is that he is republican. i wonder if he has read "medicare and you." if you had read this book you could not say what you just said. we had lacrosse in 1954, and now my husband is 72 and we do not have the finances to pay insurance. the only thing we have now is

medicare. and also, it is not free. they take to under dollars out of our social security costs, which leaves us very little. when we see a doctor, we have to pay a copayment. we pay the doctor if we get a cold or a shot, anything like that. we pay extra. it is not free. all of the news media keeps saying, "oh, medicare is stored to be free for everybody. but if it is free for everybody, what our senior citizens paying money out of their social security? >> she is right. she made the point i made, as well, that 90% of beneficiaries have some form of coverage,

because medicare alone is not enough. so she is one of the 10% of seniors on medicare only and that coverage does not always fill the bill. clearly, just a government solution will not work. but obviously, having held for people of low and modest incomes to pay for their premium, making sure that those are at or near retirement having help with their health insurance premiums so they get the kind of care that can meet the needs they have. that is one of the concerns about an all-seven plan. the concerned about the option is that you'll end up with and only government plan because other governments will not be able to maintain coverage. so i think surely has actually with her comments proved the

point i am trying to make. host: how do you not give it away from the private insurance companies? guest: there will be choice. and part b has been successful because insurance companies know that their participants moved to another plant. when medicare part b was debated, there were those who wanted, democrats particularly wanted to address a premium for part b. have they done that, the premium would be $45 a month. right now the average is $28 a month. the projected costs are higher than actual costs, because we have seen savings. this is because of disability for individuals -- this ability

for individuals to change policies. no one likes their insurance company prepaid premiums and then for some reason you never feel the coverage is adequate. host: beverly is on the line. good morning. caller: i am for single-payer, and i notice that it is deliberately left out of the panel by the committee led by spencer baucus, who is supposed to be a democrat, but i cannot believe he is. single payer has worked in europe, latin america, and parts of asia. there is nothing wrong with it. it is a very workable system,

and the government does not control you. there is choice. he built that in to satisfy republicans, but they are dead letter. they will not cooperate. guest: democrats are not pushing single-payer in congress. if there is a two-tier system, that is not the kind of approach they want. if you have resources, you can opt out and have the ability to go to a private facility in new england. that is