you can watch it live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. >> conservation in the beginning of the 20th century was a battle. there were two sides to it. >> historian douglas brinkley on teddy roosevelt and his leading role in the early days to have conservation movement. >> he was not by what you would call in modern terms holistic and he believed in hunting but not so you would make a species extinct so yes, we cared about butterflies and wild flowers. he wanted to make sure we had a place for that in modern society. >> sunday on "q & a" douglas brinkley. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span

or listen on xm satellite radio. >> ahead of president obama's town hall meeting on health care today, americans for tax reform and the media reform center hosted this discussion on health care. critics of the president's plan, senator jim demint and congressman tom price took part. this is about an hour and a half. >> i want to welcome you today to a discussion of how to improve health care in the united states without raising tax, without reducing people's choices and leaving people free to make their own decisions and

work directly with their doctors. we have a congressman and senator both who have ino vative legislation to this effect and to a panel of expert who is have worked on this issue forees. as you know a major american corporation is making a rather sizable contribution to the obama campaign for government control of health care by giving them free air time over at abc. we thought since an infomercial is being financed that we would offer to the american people a real conversation about real health care reform, reducing the costs, not increasing it. reducing taxes and not increasing it on health care.

>> thank you. grover, thanks for your leadership. it is a privilege to be with this group today and to address an issue that is near and dear to my heart and representing the sixth district of georgia, i'm a former physician, for 20 years took care of folks' broken bones and battered bodies on the north side of atlanta. i come to this discussion about this experience what it means to take care of patients. i think that is often times lost. i would mention at the outset many across this land believe this administration and congress are putting in place policies that will truly endanger future of our nation. i share those beliefs in some areas but i do know one thing. if the -- remains in the tank of this administration it does

indeed endanger this nation. get the word out across this land about this most important subject. i believe there are three things important at the quality of american health care. one of them is a pup option. one is a government-run program. it would be a dent fell in. we heard about it yesterday when it was presented. it makes the referee and the player the same person and when the referee and the player are the same person, you're on the other team. you lose. the problem is in this instance, the person that loses, the team that loses are patients all across this nation. what is a public option? what does a government-run program look like in the united states? it looks like medicare part b. a voluntary program. it has a 97% market share. crowds everything else out of the system. there are high quality reports

that would give evidence to 110-120 million americanings being crowded of their private insurance if a government option was in place. any mandate, either individual or -- and the reason for that is not just because it is a mandate, which is a bad idea in the first place but because when congressman dates something, what it mandates is the health coverage. what would qualify as health insurance. all of the dynamic things, health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, all of those things will not only be unavailable, they will be illegal and that's why a mandate would be a -- for american medicine. the healthy choice administration or the comparative research council,

whatever it is, if it is not patients and physicians making the decision about what treatment to administer, then quality of american health care plummets for each individual. not just in this room or this city but across this land. think about the principles you have for health care. whatever they are. i've got six of them. accessibility, affordability. quality, choices. whatever your principles are, i would suggest nounch them are improved by the -- none of them are improved. not one. accessibility, already in any of the programs that the federal government has a and in, access sblet decreasing, including in medicare. affordability, sometimes 100 times increasing. quality, i would suggest respectfully that the quality of health care that is provided

when the federal government gets involved gets worse, not better. responsiveness and innovation. federal government, you make the decision. i'm not sure that the federal government has anything to do with it in anything that it does. haven't seen it. choices clearly the federal government -- so there are positive solutions that we have put on the table land put on the table and they involve making patients and their families along with dock trors able to make health care decisions. -- doctors are able to make health care decisions. and they they own and control their health coverage and policy so that the dynamic between insurance companies and patients becomes one that is responsive. the insurance company has to be responsive to individuals. there is a patient-centered way to do it and government-centered way to do it. we believe patient-centered is the right way to do it.

>> thank you, grover. i want to thank everyone at the table and the groups that are represented here. the only way that we're going to stop a government takeover of our health care system is if americans are informed, engaged, hopefully outraged and they contact their congressmen and senators and talk about better ways to do this. thanks for your ads on takeover. we need to move from just criticizing what the democrats and obama are proposing to actually proposing a solution that would work. i welcome the debate on health care because it is time that we give fair treatment to all americans. if you work for someone that offers health insurance, your employer can deduct the cost of

that insurance and the employee is exempt from paying any taxes on that benefit and that's the way he ought to keep it but we ought to give fair treatment to the american who is don't get insurance through their employers and give every family a $5,000 certificate which equal what is that benefit would be in the workplace or an individual $2,000. just think about this as common sense. if you think about what works in health care today, what works the best is when an individual has health insurance, they can pick their own doctors and decide what their health care will be. the part of health care that is not working very well are the government plans. medicare, medicaid. these are plans that don't pay dock their cost to see patients. these are the plans that are

trillions of dollars in debt. and these are the plans that offer americans no choice. if you're retired on medicare, you don't have a choice. and that's the end game of every government plan. the last thing we need to do now is expand those plans that are not paying doctors enough to see patients and basically take away all your choice. there is a common sense solution. you look at those americans who are uninsured. i'm talking about americans. i'm not talking about illegals. i'm not talking about the folks who can sign up for medicaid or don't. we're talking about 20 million or maybe between 20 million and 25 million americans who need help. we don't need a multitrillion dollar government takeover to make this happen. what we can do is we can take the tarp money. we could reclaim the tarp money, which is $700 billion and pay for this plan that i'm proposing

over the next 10 years. no new taxes. no new costs ffplgts no one losing anything from their employer or their government plan. if you like what you have got you keep it. if you want to buy health insurance yourself, you can get $5,000 for a family plan or $2,000 as an individual. there are other things this bill does. it allows a an employer if they would like to contribute to a savings account, the employee could use that in addition to their health care certificate to pay for premiums. right now we don't let americans use health care savings accounts to pay for premiums. also create a market for health insurance and more competition allowing people to buy from any state in the union. to buy their insurance plan. they can look on the internet and go to an independent insurance agent and buy a plan from any state in the country where it is certified.

and we provide block grants to states to help with those that have preexisting conditions, uninsurable conditions to make is that your the previous health situations don't keep people from buying health insurance. we require more transparency from physicians and hospitals about pricing. there are talks about how you can simplify pricing and save money. everybody comes out a winner. we just need to have disclosure there. we need to have some lawsuit abuse reform in this bill too. all in all, it is simple. if you like what you have got, keep it. if you want to buy health insurance yourself, you get a $5,000 certificate a year for your family weaped make it more competitive to -- and we make it more competitive to buy insurance policies. we don't need to compromise at all on the expansion of government and health care.

there will be no private insurance market if the government expands right now already it is throwing such additional costs on the private market that it has a hard time functioning. let's work together and get behind plans that help people get health insurance. thank you very much. [applause] >> if you and the congressman want to stay here we will take questions from the senator and congressman theand we'll move on to the panel. any specific questions perhaps on the plan? introduce yourself. >>president obama may have -- [inaudible]

in your opinion is that just another form of -- for doctors and price controls for -- >> all you have to do is look at the current government plans to see how this is going to work. we don't pay doctors enough to see patients. it takes years to improve new technology. new things that come on the line that can save lives are delayed. they have thousands of codes that physicians and hospitals have to in the system. if they do what the patient needs only they are likely not to be able to make a living. i've been to a number of physician seminars that always has a program titled coding for profit. they have to -- we could greatly

simplify this if we move to consumerism in health care and allow people to buy their health care from health savings accounts. eliminate the third party administrator. what obama is talking about is not true. a government option will replace private health insurance. there is no question about it. it will not pay doctors enough to see patients. it will shift more costs on the private health insurers. the competition will basically eliminate those trying to operate in the free market. what democrats are saying now i think is misrepresenting, creating a crisis. they are trying to exaggerate the number of people who are uninsured. they are talking about government a government plan that can do things no government plan has ever done.

freedom that works. competition that works. choices that works. we know what works in america. >> [inaudible] >> let me just expand on that very briefly. i would echo the sentiments of senator demint. clearly, the government running anything, crowds, private sector out of the market, as i mentioned the public option in health care and other kinds of things, for example, the housing market, secondary market for mortgages looks like fanny and freddy. it is a public option. it is a disaster. that's what happens when the government gets involved in these kinds of things. i want to opponent out one thing that the president said yesterday and i would again echo the senator's comments. up to this point the president simply has not been telling

truth about his proposal. yesterday, though, he began to march down a road that bore a little more resemblens to the truth. when he was press on this notion when he says if you like your plan, you may keep it. in fact, that is not what the bill said that was introduced in the house and not what the president has supported. what he clarified yesterday before the press if you like what you have, the government will not force you out into another plan. what he didn't complete that sentence with is the next clause which the government may institute rules that will force you out of your plan and that is the -- that happens when the government gets involved in the area of health care. if you like your current coverage and your current plan, it is very likely that you will not be able to keep it turned president's proposme. -- under the president's proposal.

>>c.v.o. did a markup on one version of the bill which came up over a trillion dollars. can you talk about where you and your colleagues tend intend to find that money? >> as you know now, the federal government is spending and borrowing at unprecedented levels. i think the interest we pay our our debts is about $50 billion this year. other countries are starting to lose faith in our ability to pay this back and the value of our currency. a multitrillion dollar health care takeover is an extraordinary proposal in life and where we are. we don't have the money. we know we're printing a lot of money and have doubled our money

supply. the federal reserve is out of control. we're in deep waters as a country. we don't need to be borrowing money. we go recapture money that is already on the table, get over 20 million americans insured in half the time the obama administration is talking about and not spend any new money. we have got to look at proposals like this that don't put us in debt. if we don't have the money, they will do it with tax or borrowing money and it will make america a less attractive place to do business and business will go overseas. >>it simply isn't true. there are wonderful ways to improve the system. if you think about the cost

drivers in health care, they are no different than cost drivers in any other industry. their taxation and litigation primaryly. if we truly had an appropriate and robust liability reform we could save hundreds of billions of dollars. if we had appropriate regulatory reform we could save hundreds of billions in how patients are cared for in the marketplace. if we had real tax reform we could save hundreds of billions of dollars to allow people to have the kind of health care they desire. not the kind of health care speaker pelosi and harry reid desire. >> can you talk a little bit about -- plans cost, what it would cost over 10 years? >> our plan costs about $700 billion. the same amount that the tarp money is invested in the

legislative language suggests it should all be back in this five years. if we don't cap it and spend it on something like this, it will be spent on some other government program. i think what we would find quickly, once every american has a health insurance policy, the cost of health care and health insurance would go down dramatically. it is going to go to opposite way if the government funds health care. >> the plan that we have and actually the plan that has been put on the table by representatives ryan and nunez is budget neutral. it doesn't cost any more money over the period of time. that's because if we as a society reform our health system in a positive way, in a way that provides the appropriated sentence in the system and allows for the appropriate competition and the appropriate decision-making authority for patients and their families then

you save extraordinary amounts of money so there is again -- this sense that you have to have another trillion spent by the government is simply not true. >>just continuing on that point. what happened -- i guess, first, can you talk a lit about the way the tarp language was initially written, it would allow you to say that it's terminated after five years or would, you know, would banks say no, we didn't originally agree to this when we accepted the tarp money and also what is the way to finance it once the $700 billion tarp money runs out after 10 years or however long? >> supposely can't reissue the

money but they basically changed the law sense we passed it and i believe it will continue to be a $700 trillion slush fund for the treasury if we don't take that money back. my question, part of what happens to it when it comes back. he said it comes back but we can reissue it. after 10 years, if we just have to see where we're going. you make information more transparent. the cost of he will insurance is going to stabilize and probably fall. the showing compare it with is -- thing to compare it with is multitrillions of dollars that a government takeover is going to cost us if we go the president's way. >> yesterday the president also

said that as far as a government-sponsored solution, crowding out the private solutions, he said that would suggest that the government solution is doing something right. would that -- would you like to speak to that? [laughter] >> they think we're stupid. >> it simply isn't the case. it is just not true what he says. the reason that a government plan would -- that individuals would flock to a government plan is because they game the system. you can't have a level playing field. the question i asked yesterday in committee, are these plans going to be paying local taxes, state taxes, federal taxes? answer no. is that not a subsidy for the government plan itself? sure it is. you're not comparing apples and oranges and employers across this land because of the regulatory environment, again,

in answer to the other question, because of the regulatory environment, if employers across this nation had an opportunity to say get me out from under this incredible ownerous burden that the federal government puts on me, just because i'm trying to supply health coverage for my employees. there is already an alternative that the feds are running tell me what employer his or her right mind would say oh, no, i don't want do do that. take that headache off my plate. it is phenomenal. it is just fantasy to believe that the federal government won't crowd out private industry and end private health insurance as we know it. >> i'll answer this in just one final thought. i know we need to move on. i had a car company in my office the other day who had not -- was not currently owned by the federal government. [laughter] ok, gmac has received $10

billion. they are offering five-year no interest loans to help their cause. how can we compete with that without government money? is the government crowding them out? you're darn right they are. what is going to happen with the government plan? first of all they won't pay doctors enough to pete their costs. someone can probably pay less with the government plan because it is subsidized by taxpayers. you'll again to see the private insurance dry up. the employers will say i don't want to do this. go get your health scare from the government. it will definitely take the place of private insurance. there will be more cost shifting instead of less. this administration believes the american people are stupid. they will sit there and -- they will say while we're reporting

1.9 million jobs lost and say with a straight face we have saved or created 150,000 jobs. they they we're stupid. they think that you do not know that the government does not work well. that the same people who cleaned up after katrina can run your health care system that the personal touch that we all want. they do. they think you're stupid and not paying attention. they think the media is stupid and won't report this. the fact is if you look at the uninsured it is exaggerated to exaggerate a crisis. you have a lot of folks, noncitizens who could sign up for government programs. to get those people insured with private policys is a fraction of the costs of a government takeover. we can win this if we engage american people. they are not stupid. they are alarmed at what this government is doing.

they are ready to stand up and speak out. we need to get every american insured so every american has access to health care. thank you. [applause] >> senator demint, congressman tom price, thank you for those presentations on legislation. now we're going to call on the panelists here to talk about various aspects of reforming health care and the debate over reforming health care. if i can is them to come up first to discuss how the media has been covering this debate. >> well, i want to thank you, grover and everybody at a.t.r., american tax reform. most of all i want to thank abc news, because without them having an all-day love fest for government money we wouldn't

have had the idea to do this. it is sad that it is necessary that we have to do this here. it is not part of the abc coverage today. they are doing four hours to "moderate" a conversation. you don't moderate a conversation. you moderate a debate. they don't have the other side. we thought we would offer it up for them. responded by saying we have been giving fair coverage on the health care crisis for years. if you're calling it a crisis you're not giving it fair coverage and second of all, if he has been doing it for years let's take january to 20-june 19 of this year. stories versus 18 offering free