you now smoke? do you smoke alone or in the presence of other people and do you believe the new law would help to you quit? if so, why? >> well, first of all, the new law that was plut knut place is not about me, it's about the next generation of kids coming up. .

was so important, because what we don't want is kids going down that path in the first place. ok. >> mr. president, you are meeting with the chile president and meeting next week with colombia. two months ago, you said that you called on latin american countries to help you with deeds, not words, particularly towards -- have you noticed any

progress in these proper months and can you give us examples? >> well, first of all, i'm looking forward to seeing the president. i think she's one of the finest leaders in latin america and very capable person. if you look at how chile has handled the recession, they have handled it very well in part because the surpluses that they got when copper prices were very high, they set aside. so they had a -- resources to deal with the downturn. it's a good lesson for the united states when we had surpluses, they got dissipated. we think that there's enormous possibilities in making progress in latin america generally. one of the things i will be talking about with the president

of chile is the coordination and cooperation between the united states and chile on clean energy. we will have an announcement when we do our press conference after my bilateral meeting on clean energy partnerships. we are making important progress when it comes to exchanges on cancer research. we continue to have a robust trade regime with chile. and by the way, chile has entered into interesting partnerships not just with the federal government, but state governments like california. so i think the relationship that we have with chile -- which, by the way does not fall in line with u.s. foreign policy on every single issue, but it's a respectful policy. chile is an important partner.

that's the model we want. partnership. the united states doesn't dictate how chile should view its own interests, but we have achieved great cooperation. and i will be looking at the president of chile giving us further advice how to take the kind of relationship we have with chile and expand it with our partnerships throughout latin america. >> about latin american countries, giving your hand on less democratic countries. >> the point is is that chile is leading by example. the president of brazil has come in and he has a different political orientation than most americans do. he came up through the trade union movement. he was perceived as a strong

leftist. it turns out he was a very practical person who, although maintains relationships across the political spectrum in latin america, has instituted all sorts of smart market reforms that have made brazil prosper. and so if you take the president of chile or the president of brazil and the united states has a good working relationship with them, that points the way for other countries where the democratic tradition is not as deeply embedded as we like it to be. and we can make common cause in showing those countries that, in fact, democracy, respect for property rights, respect for markets-based economies, rule of law, that all those things can, in fact, lead to greater prosperity, that that's not just

a u.s. agenda, but that's a smart way to increase the prosperity of your own people. ok. hans. >> returning to the economy. when you talked to advisers and economists talked about unemployment staying at 8%. but unemployment is at 10%. do you think you need a second stimulus package? >> not yet. it's important to see how the economy evolves and how effective the first stimulus is. i think it's fair to say that keep in mind the stimulus package was the first thing we did, and we did it a couple of weeks after inauguration. at that point, nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like. if you recall, it was only

significantly later that we suddenly get a report that the economy tanked. and so it's not surprising then that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates where unemployment would go. i think it's clear that unemployment will go over 10%, if you just look at the pattern, because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and start hiring again, typically, it takes a while for that employment number to catch up with economic recovery. and we're still not at actual recovery yet. so i anticipate that this is going to be a difficult year, a difficult period. >> what's the high-water mark for unemployment? >> i'm not suggesting i have a crystal ball. since you just threw back at us our last prognosis, let's not

engage in another one. but what i am saying is that -- here are some things i know for certain. in the absence of the stimulus, i think our recession would be much worse. it would have declined -- without the recovery act -- we know for a fact that states, for example, would have laid off a lot more teachers, a lot more police officers, a lot more firefighters, those individuals whose jobs were saved as a consequence. they are still making their mortgage payments. they are still shopping. so we know that the recovery act has had an impact. now, what we also know is that this was the worst recession since the great depression. and people are going through a very tough time right now. and i don't expect them to be satisfied. i mean, one thing that as i

sometimes glance at the various news outlets represented here, i know there are sometimes reporting of, oh, the administration's worried about this or the poll numbers are going down there. look, the american people have a right to feel like this is a tough time right now. what's incredible to me is how resilient the american people have been and how they are still more optimistic than the facts alone would justify, because this is a tough, tough period. a i don't feel satisfied with the progress that we've made. we've got to get our recovery act money out faster. we've got to make sure that the programs that we put in place are working the way they're supposed to. i think, for example, our mortgage program has actually helped to modify mortgages for a lot of people, but it hasn't

been keeping pace with all the foreclosures taking place. i get letters from people who say, i appreciate you putting out this mortgage program, but the bank isn't letting me modify my mortgage and i have to mortgage my home. and i ask my staff, can we adjust it, tweak it, make it more aggressive. this is a very, very difficult process. and what i've got to do is make sure we are focused both on the short-term, how can we provide families immediate relief and jump-start the economy as quickly as possible and i have to keep my eye on the long-term. and the long-term is making sure by reforming our health care system, passing serious energy legislation that makes us a clean energy economy, revamping our education system and getting the financial regulatory reforms in place that are necessary for the 21st century, by doing those things we have the foundation

for a long term economic growth. and we don't use up the economy artificially through the kinds of bubble strategies that helped to get us in the situation that we're in today. i've got time for two more questions. april? where's april? >> back on the economy, mr. president, people are criticizing thr recovery plan, specifically, there are reports in the "washington post" that say that the african-american unemployment rate will go to 20% by the end of this year and you had your chairman of economic advisers say the target may come next year if nothing changes. why not target intervention now? >> first of all, we know that the african-american unemployment rate and latino unemployment rate are consistently higher than the

national average. and so if the economy as a whole is doing poorly, then you know that the african-american community is going to be doing poorly and will be hit even harder. and the best thing that i can do for the african-american community or latino community, asian community, whatever community, is to get the economy as a whole moving. hold on one second. let me answer your question. if i don't do that, then i'm not going to be able to help anybody. that's priority number one. it is true that in certain inner city communities, the unemployment rate was already sky high even before this recession. the ladders available for people to enter into the job market are even worse. and so we are interested in looking at proven programs that help people on a pathway to jobs. there is a reason why right

before father's day, i went to a program here locally that is called europe, which has a proven track record of taking young, mostly minority people, some of whom have graduated from high school, some of whom may have just gotten their g.e.d. and trained them on computers and provide them with other technical skills, but also train them on how to carry themselves in an office, how to write an e-mail, some of the social skills that will allow them to be more employable. they've got a terrific placement rate after this one-year program. if there are ways we can potentially duplicate those programs, then we will do so. what we want to do is find tools that will give people more opportunity, but the most important thing i can do is to lift the economy overall, and that's what my strategy is focused on.

>> last question. >> putting a human face on this, over the weekend, we saw shocking video of a woman who had been shot in the chest. have you seen this video and what's your reaction? >> it's heartbreaking. it's heartbreaking. and i think that anybody who sees it knows that there is something fundamentally unjust about that. >> also have people on the ground who have been saying that the streets are quieter and they feel they are paralyzed by fear, fear of people gone missing, perhaps this is a movement that has grown underground and is dying. do you have any concern over that? yes -- >> yes, i have concern over how peaceful demonstrators and people who want their votes

counted may be stifled from expressing those concerns. i think as i said before, there are certain international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression -- hold on a second, helen -- that's a different question. and i think it's important for us to make sure that we let the iranian people know that we are watching what's happening, that they are not alone in this process. ultimately what's going to be most important is, what happens in iran. and we have all been struck by the courage of people and i mentioned this i think in a statement i made a couple of days ago, some of you who had been covering my campaigns, know

this is one of my favorite expressions, dr. king's expression. we have to believe that ultimately justice will prevail. all right. thank you, guys. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house is in recess until 6:30 eastern for votes on bills debated earlier today. a look at the administration's plans for health care reform. >> joining us from the break

room at the white house is linda douglas. the overall question seems to be who is going to pay for this and how, can you respond? guest: the president has put forward a proposal for $950 billion, which will make it possible for people to have more affordable health care. the rising costs of health care is absolutely crushing families and businesses and state governments, federal governments. it is simply unsustainable in this country. there will be an initial investment, which will consist of the -- the president has laid out $600 billion in savings in federal health care spending, medicare and medicaid, improving efficiency, improving quality in those programs as well as some additional revenues that will be designed to provide an opportunity for health care for all americans that will begin to emphasize quality of care, your relationship with your doctor as

opposed to simply quantity of services that are sometimes mindlessly done without any regard with what's really best for the whole patient. this is a small initial investment to improve the health care for all americans, make more affordable options available for all americans, make it possible for americans who can't get health care at all now to get health care for themselves and families. when you see ceos scoring because at $1 trillion or above, do those numbers correlated with your thinking and seeing in the administration? guest: there will be preliminary pieces of legislation that are emerging from various congressional committees that are working very hard to write legislation that will bring down costs and provide affordable options. there are preliminary estimates, and as i said, there will be some preliminary, up-front costs, but right now, we are spending one out of every six of

our dollars on health care. in 30 years, one-third of our economic output will be tied up in the health care system. that is simply unsustainable. there is tremendous waste. there is a system of perverse incentives that do not reward quality of care in this country. we have to bring the rising cost under control. let me give you an example. and right now, if you are working and -- american up with healthcare from your office, what you realize is that your wages have stayed flat, while the rising cost of health care has inspired your employer to give you payment in health care benefits read and money in your pocket for your family. an increasing percentage of your compensation as a vote -- as a worker is coming in health care benefits rather than wages. this is one of the reasons wages are staying flat. it is one of the reasons that employers are not able to expand their businesses and hire more workers.

this is unsustainable host: can you explain the white house view on a single payer system and whether you think that congress, in particular max baucus on the senate finance committee, will take up this issue? guest: the president has said he wants to build health reform on our existing employer based system. the system has worked very well in this country. this is the kind of reform that says to you with the person as -- with insurance, you can keep what you have if you like. but we want to build on the current system. folks who want a single payer plan really want the same thing that we are seeking in health reform. they want more affordable options. they want to make it possible for people who cannot get any health care to get affordable health care. we have the same goals, adjusted for ways of achieving them. host: will health care benefits be a taxable benefit for americans?

guest: that is certainly under discussion in one of the committees. the president has said all along that he is skeptical of any plan that would tax the health care benefits that you get from your work because he wants to build a health reform upon the existing, employer-based system. they call it the tax exclusion, that is, not taxing health care benefits. that is an important part of that -- that employer-based system. he prefers a proposal that would repeat -- that would give a return of itemized deductions for the wealthiest americans. he thinks this is a very id -- a good idea and has spoken to members of congress about it many times. this is the idea that the president prefers. host: steve is on the phone from robert p., and mexico -- albuquerque, new mexico. caller: you guys said so many things are would like to question, but -- i get the

feeling that the administration is trying to create an insurance plan for the 50 million -- and i believe that number is to be greatly inflated -- at the cost of the to under 50 million of us that have insurance paren. i think as a result of your programs, the insurance costs will go up to employers and their employees. therefore, what we have down the road will not be as good and will cost us more. you say this that and the other thing, he has told us an awful lot of things that he has planned since the campaign and into his presidency that are not the same as what he says. just to say that he is saying something does not mean a lot to me. guest: first,ç the goal here is to reduce your costs. i'm gathering from what you say

you get your health insurance from your work. i'm releasing a report today that is going to show that for folks who get their health insurance at work, those rising costs are forcing you, the insured person, to pay more and more out of pocket. an average family now with health insurance, based on the report we are releasing today, is spending $4,000 out-of- pocket. your percentage of your premium is going up. your deductibles are going up. your copays are going up. the number of your services that you get through your office insurance is going down. the cost of health care is making it harder and harder to -- for families that have health insurance to afford health care. certainly, small businesses are increasingly unable to provide health care. more than one-third of the uninsured work for small businesses. the insurance coverage that you get from small businesses is often not adequate. more than half of americans last year reported that they had to skip a doctors appointment or

cut down on medications that they were taking because they could not afford it. you're absolutely right, one of the goals in the president's plan is to provide health insurance, or access to health insurance and affordable choices for people who buy a turnabout but, for example, have lost their jobs and lost their insurance. perhaps they have a pre-existing condition. maybe their child has asthma and the insurance committee will not cover them. it worked for a small business and the employer has 10 employees they cannot afford. definitely, we want to bring everybody into the system. that will lower costs and young, healthy people will be in the system, too. the goal is to lower your costs and the cost for all americans. host: linda debose is from the white house office for a care reform. there is a tweed saying, ms. douglas, why does this radical plan have to be implemented during a recession? it will only add to inflationary

pressures. guest: i would certainly quibble with the word "radical," but one of the reasons that we're doing this is because we are struggling in our countries. this is -- in our country. this is squeezing our businesses and making it difficult for them to compete globally and to compete with businesses that do not provide health insurance because they cannot afford those costs. they cannot hire more workers. one of the reasons we're having a difficult time digging out of this economic trouble that we are in right now is because there is the way, the burden of these high health care costs on all businesses in this country. we pay twice as much for health care as any other country in the world. we do not necessarily have better outcomes, but we are spending a lot of money on health care. that is not good for businesses and certainly not -- very hard for families.

we have got to free up this money so it can be devoted to wages and to growth, and certainly, for your tax dollars so that we can spend those dollars on creating new, green jobs, building our infrastructure, improving education -- all the board is that americans care about. host: jim is on the phone from redding, california. caller: in the debate on health care, the government's position is always, always going to pay for this? it seems to me, with all of the profits that exchange hands under the name of the health- care industry -- lobbyis, lawyers, the advertising dollars -- if all of that money in the health-care industry was funneled into actual health care, you know, treating wounds and stuff, it seems to me there

would be a big step toward paying for the actual health care instead of the profits of the health-care industry. guest: you have made a couple of very good points. clearly, one of the goals of health care reform is to get rid of the very high administrative costs. the insurance industry, by the way, is eager to shrink some of these costs themselves. they have made proposals to the white house, for example, taking that pile of forms that everybody has to fill out and shrinking it down to a single, uniform form. right now, there are -- something like 25 cents to 35 cents of every dollar spent goes to administrative costs. your doctor is spending an inordinate amount of time on the telephone making sure he can find the right code to describe the diagnosis he is giving use of you can get reimbursement. there is a tremendous procuracy that has to be tackled here. your ups -- bureaucracy that has to be tackled year.

you're absolutely right, those things will definitely be part of a streamlining the way that health reform payments are process. you mentioned prevention. this is a crucial part of health reform. preventing people from getting sick in the first place. 75% of the money that we spend it on health care in this country spent on, and diseases, many of which could have been prevented, such as diabetes and heart disease, just with a regular checkups and healthier living. you're absolutely right, these are the kinds of steps that will begin to lower costs for all americans. host: thomas on the line from connecticut. caller: there is a current economic paradigm giving people a% of what a product offers for 20 percent -- 80% of what a product offers for 20% of the costs. of the 50 million, there are about 10 million who are making over $72,000 per year, so, for

the 40 million people that need it, we could offer a program that gives them 80% of what they need for 20% of the cost. we do that by allowing people to have programs where they cannot -- where the doctors are not allowed to use elaborate, off- the-wall medical modalities or treatments. you can do this also by allowing people like myself -- my banking is controlled by the state of north carolina. why can't we open uppe the stats like connecticut to a lawsuit by a medical programs from any state? host: there are a lot of ideas