support health care reform. this is different than the cap and trade bill. we are not trying to do this. with the health care reform bill, everyone but knowledge is that we have to of knowledge this. to specifically answer your question, we agree with the president. we need to do much more to contain costs. we need to provide a greater exemption for small businesses so we do not put them out of business while ensuring that we provide coverage for the employees of small businesses and then we have to address the regional and will disparities that exist in the medical reason -- reimbursement. . .

you have millions of people to that equation for the public option, which they contend should be based on regular rate, how long will they have to wait? it is one thing to provide everyone an insurance plan but to actually use that card and actually see a doctor? those are big concerns that we

have. there are obviously many more. we consider between 12 and 24 amendments during the markup period. the difference for us as fiscal conservatives is containing costs. if we do not contain the cost, many will not have health care in the distant future. >> this is david clarke with the first question. >> one issue is how to pay for the bill over 10 years and a second and more important is how in the long term to you get the rate of growth in health care to go down a little bit so it does not swamp the federal budget and cause everyone's health bill to raise? the cbo director said that the bill that is moving through the

house -- what would you like to see in the bill to rein in the long-term costs of health care? >> david, you are correct. the cbo director dropped a bombshell on thursday when he said that this bill does not go nearly far enough in containing costs. it will increase the debt long- term. that admission by the cbo director, we believe, validates what the blue dogs have been saying about this bill. and then senator conrad cam out and proposed the house version of the bill yesterday. it was not a good day for the bill. i believe that both of those validated our concerns. we get find ways to contain costs and we do not have all the answers. but i will speak to some of the ways that we believe costs can

be contained. i think it is important for the viewers that they understand why we have to do health care reform. i know that some people tell me, we're in the middle of the worst economic recession since world war ii, we have record debt, record deficits, so why held for -- why health care reform now? those are the reasons we need to do the right kind of health care reform now. a lot of people worry about national health care. many people in america already have it -- medicare, met -- medicare, medicaid, s-chip, veterans' health care. you add that this also security, and it consumes forty cents out of every tax dollar today. health care is growing twice the rate of inflation and has been for many years.

if we do not contain the costs, if we do not get health care growing at the rate of inflation, that forty cents out of every dollar to fund those national health care programs plus social security, that will reach 100% revenue by 2014. we cannot have an army, navy, air force, and marines. the nation cannot afford to let that happen. >> you are talking about the long-term costs. when things mentioned -- one of the things mentioned was whether employer's health benefits were taxed for not. excluding that tax would be one way to reduce the health -- the cost of health care. >> i think that that is a bad actor in the worst of the -- a bad idea in the middle of the

worst economic recession since world war ii. that is getting and how to pay for it. in terms of -- i don't know if we can ever get health care down to the rate of inflation are not. but i believe that we can do better than having twice the rate of inflation. one of the ideas that the president put out there is the net impact -- medipac, taking the politics out of the medical decision instead of having bought the 35 members of congress that are standing for reelection making tough choices, as it relates to the costs, as well as the reimbursement rates. i don't know what that is something i am for or not. i wanna learn more about it. i think it should be on the

table. this is the biggest reform of any domestic issue in my lifetime. and to try to speed this through committee in five days? it is ridiculous. we need to slow it down and look at every option that is on the table and find ways that we can really contain costs, to stop the raid in inflation. not only can we never balance the federal budget again, but the 160 million who do not have health insurance today, they will not have it in 10-20 years from now. we have already seen the employers shifting more and more of the cost to the employees. and in the next 15 years, it will reach a point whether knighted the employer nor the employee cannot afford a. a lot of people started thinking we were talking about health care reform in terms of of the

48 million net do not have it. that is something to address. i was one of 20 members at the white house for a summit. he made several things clear. this is about containing the cost and getting health care to rise at the rate of inflation or close. those who have it today can have it tomorrow. and other important thing he said in kicking the salt was that if you like health insurance you have today, you will always be able to keep it and choose your own doctor. we need to go back to the basics and back to where president obama laid out this need for health care reform in those important principles. >> anna edney. >> well with the bulldog coalition be doing on the energy and commerce committee specifically -- what would the blue dog comcoalition be doing

on the energy and commerce committee suspect -- specifically? >> we have about two doesn't amendments to the bill. some of them are still being drafted. the text of the bill did not come out until tuesday. and in the manager's amendment which totally rowboat the bill and added 200 pages to it. that just came out -- on thursday. our staff has been working around the clock and well into the evening trying to figure out some of these amendments. we're looking specifically at waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare system. we're looking specifically at the things in medicare that are broken and need to be fixed. and then we have got to look at the chronic disease management. there is a company in south carolina that all of their employees at the same coverage. yet what they did, that had a

group of diabetics voluntarily participate in a chronic disease management program for diabetics. and then they had another set that did not. that followed them over a short period of time, and your two. they all had the same health care coverage. one had a management program and the other did not. they all started at $11,000 a year in health-care costs. the fact is that after the pilot project, those that were not under some type of managed care , coordinated care program, even though they had the same health insurance plan, those who were not, their cost were around 16,000. those that were went from $11,000 to $6,000.

people need to have the freedom to choose the plan they want as well as be able to continue to choose their own doctors. >> some of those ways -- the cbo said that they cannot quite gauge how much would be saved from doing that or whether anything would be saved. how do you deal with that obstacle we might not get a price tag? >> that is part of the frustrating aspect of health care reform. what the cbo will score as a savings and what they will not. those areas where they to score savings come every area that they believe that there could be a saving, and the administration believes, all of this should be on the table and we should debate on it and not rushed to a five-day mark up. it seems to be an artificial deadline. we've been trying to get this done since teddy roosevelt, as

it relates to health care reform. we're very close and we have a real opportunity to do it but we need to do it right. i don't understand their rush when we very well have a bill that could pass the house in september. part of what we believe is to slow down and take our time, get all the facts, and do it right. the other thing i believe we should do is listen to the experts, not just the cbo. although we should like what they think that there are seven separate but there are areas they cannot score as savings, by health-care professionals, doctors, other health-care providers, who can tell you that there would certainly be savings in certain areas. just because the cbo does not score it is not the reason we should not look at it. >> to be clear, and you say that the bill in its current form would not pass the democratically controlled house?

>> correct. number one, you get the cbo director saying that it is going to increase the debt long term. the whole purpose for this bill was to bring health care down to the rate of inflation or closer. and also to begin to bend that cost curve, as it has become referred to. according to the cbo director, this actually increases the debt and not in the short-term -- which some might understand short term. it will increase the cost long- term, he has indicated. you have a freshman -- the freshmen who are indicating that they think it is a bad idea to propose the kind of tax increase that has been proposed at this time. this is not just conservative movement that has problems with the bill.

i can tell you a number of more progressive members who have come up to me during this and thank me for trying to slow this down and do it right. to answer your question, there are seven of us on the energy and commerce committee in the blue dog committee. we have been meeting for several hours every day to work through the amendments in ways to try and get the bill to a place where we can vote for it. the reasons i have outlined, we need health care reform. it doesn't go far enough toward containing the cost. and in terms of the democratic caucus as a whole, there are a number of people that would be significantly short in passing on the house floor. we certainly don't have the seven votes required -- seven of us on the committee. >> do you have a number?

>> i have not done a head count. there's 35 members of congress. but just in the discussions i have had with various members, various political philosophies, there is a lot of concern with the bill as it is currently written. >> david clarke. >> you mention tax increases. one of the president's goal was to make sure that the cost was in the neighborhood of $10 trillion. what the ways and means committee has done is put a surtax on upper income taxpayers that would raise about $550 billion to go toward paying the cost of that bill. do you support that? if not, what would you put in its place? >> i do not think that we should consider any tax increase until we have first identified and implemented into the

legislation, written into the legislation, all the cost savings that we can find. what the american people want us to do -- i think they are willing and a fair and equitable manner to help pay for a health care plan that will insure that they have health care now and in the future. they first expect us to squeeze every council of savings and waste, fraud, and abuse that we can find out of the current system. quite frankly that is going to mean rethinking how we deliver health care. we now pay providers to treat the sick. we need to rethink how we reimburse providers. it should be based on the value of service and the outcomes. there is are a lot things that

we think should be on the table for consideration. my concern is that in this health care reform debate, we are not taking the time to debate and make decisions on the tough choices. some of which may not be politically popular, but it is like we are throwing more money at the problem to see if we can sugarcoat it and get on down the road airways. this is a unique opportunity for us to reform health care in a way that will ensure that our children and grandchildren and future generations actually have a health care plan that works for them and one that exists. >> have you sat down with chairman waxman and shared these concerns? as he agree to any concessions before you offer amendments and the market? >> we are in negotiations with chairman waxman. he has indicated that he cannot

pass the committee out of the -- the bill out of the committee without the seven blue dogs begging for it. he clearly understands that this is a bill we cannot support in its current form. thursday night we spent a couple of hours with him after that. we have had a number of meetings like that in the last few days respect 45 minutes last monday in the open -- 00 office discussing our concerns. prior to that, we spent a couple of hours with speaker pelosi on at least two occasions, majority leader hoyer on a couple of occasions, and then specifically with chairman waxman, the seven blue dog conservative democrats on the energy and commerce committee spent a number of hours with him in trying to be helpful. we are not trying to kill health care reform. we are trying to be constructive.

we want a bill that does a better job of containing costs, reducing health-care to the rate of normal inflation, and one that they can pass on the house floor. >> one of the problems here is what specifically you are going to do to address these costs concerns. you say you're not in favor of a surtax to pay for the short-term costs. it sounds like you were supportive of taxing health care benefits. -- it did not sound like you are supportive of taxing health care benefits. why haven't you come out with specific proposals to pay for it in the short term and long term? you have put out principles that you want to see followed. why not give the chairman and others an idea of which would specifically like to do? you talk about hard choices. obviously $1 trillion in the year as a lot of money. it will be hard to cover that without some sort of tax increase. why can the blue dogs be more

specific? >> several reasons. we believe that we can squeeze more savings out of the current system? >> enough to pay for health care reform? >> it could be, if we did the basic reforms that are needed to make sure that those who have health insurance today had it tomorrow, to address the needs of the uninsured, and there are a lot of things that we could do a different that are being done in this bill. this bill expands medicaid from 100% of poverty to 133% of poverty, with the federal government paying the extra 33% -- the house bill is in definite that it will be funded by the federal government. covering up to 400% of poverty to help you pay for your health

insurance, and for a family of four making $88,000 a year, and very few in arkansas at duke, but for a family of four making $88,000 a year they will qualify for government subsidy for their health insurance. my gosh, the governor of arkansas had two children, he would qualify for government subsidy for his health insurance. that could be brought down to 300% of poverty which would still cover up family of four four -- making $66,000 a year. there are a lot of items in the bill with big costs. we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars worth of costs. two examples, i just ticked off. they might be back a little bit. that is just the cost of the actual bill. the bigger issue here, the

bigger issue here is containing those costs so that we stop help -- health care from growing at twice the rate of inflation. that is what this debate originally was all about. those of the things that we think should be done first. we have not focused on the revenue side of it. the seven of us that have put the brakes on health care reform, in terms of the current bill, and we are all for health care reform, but the seven of us, the seven blue dots on the energy and commerce committee, we have had our plateful just dealing with those issues that we have jurisdiction over. when we talk about revenue items, that falls under the house ways and means committee. we're not a member of that committee. we're focusing specifically on those items within our committee that we can, the seven of us, had a direct impact on. >> do you think nancy policy

would go for a leaner bill? -- nancy pelosi would go for a leaner bill? you will have to wait until the bills on the floor. >> speaker pelosi at the insistence of some of the freshmen is now saying that we need to rethink this surtax on the rich. i think we are a long way from saddling on how we will -- selling on how we will get the revenue to pay for it. this is what we believe. number one, we should squeeze every penny of savings out of the current health-care system that we can. after we have done that successfully, then we figure out how much is added to the debt. we do not know -- we do not need to borrow any more money from china.

we have had enough of that. from george washington to bill clinton, we put this government into $1 trillion in debt. we want accountability and common sense restored to our government. we should not add a penny to the debt, to our government, and it has to be paid for. it will require some difficult decisions. the american people -- if everyone benefits from this. if there is a share been a fit, there should also be a shared sacrifice -- a shared bennett that there should also be a shared sacrifice. -- a shared benefit, there should also be a shared sacrifice. i am giving you several ideas on how we believe that we can do that. medicare part d, we can negotiate with a drug meant there -- we can get rid of the doughnut hole by negotiating

with a drug manufacturers. in the house bill, they took a different approach. i know that there are a lot of people who want this marked up and rushed to the floor for a vote before the august break. maybe it can happen. maybe it cannot. we should not have an artificial deadline. we should take our time and do it right. we can do it right in the month of july, and that is great. if we need additional time in order to get it done right, we should do that. this is an issue that will face everyone in america. >> we're just about out of time. is their frustration with the liberals that run the committee, waxman of energy and commerce and rangel on ways and means, that they are driving the train on this? >> it there is a growing

frustration, not only among conservative blue dogs but across our caucus of big items being put before us with an artificial deadline and in rushed to the committee process on to the house floor. i tell you what the american people want -- they want health care reform but they want us to slow down, get it right, and ashley have time to read these bills that we are voting for. >> mike ross is the chair of the blue dog democrats. a democrat from arkansas, pinky for joining us. -- thank you for joining us. we continued the conversation with david kdavid clarke abd ana edney. after the sotomayor hearings, this is now front and center. >> the house may need to start

over, and given what the cbo has said about the cost of health care. he was talking about amendments but not having any specifics right now. they may be looking to the senate finance committee for this issue. they're the only bipartisan hope for health-care reform bill. they're still working and have i come out with anything. they were delayed slightly by the sotomayor hearings, it seemed. the war on a number of negotiators on the republican side who worked -- there were a number of negotiators on the republican sides to work on this. it looks like they're the last best hope for anybody to get a bill that will actually do something to reduce the risk of health care spending. i think everyone has their eye on them, including the blue dots. >> david clarke, you kept going back to that issue. he kept going back to waste, fraud, and abuse. >> how do you pay for it?

it seems difficult to do that out of some sort of tax component. when you talk about waste, fraud, and abuse, no one is against eliminating that. but it is difficult, especially when you talk about massive government programs to bric that all out and get the savings that you could. i think they will be in a bit of a spot. the blue dogs organizing principle is deficit-reduction, being fiscally responsible. they wanna make sure that this is paid for, and it will have to make some concessions on the tax part. when the bill comes to the floor in the house, in the past the bulldogs have taken tough stands as bills are being negotiated, saying that they are wary of the bill because of a cost. when it came to the floor, they have been supportive of what leadership wants them to be due generally. they have done some concessions but this is an obviously the biggest issue that we will see this dynamic play out on.

it will be interesting to see what sort of concessions they get from leadership and how big they are and where the votes go down on the floor. it will be a tough vote to vote against the leadership and the president who wants this bill. >> but that the -- both of you, we saw the democrats losing control before. what about next year's midterm elections? >> it is in the back of their minds because right now they want to pass this bill by august and get it to the president's desk by october so that by 2010 this is not an issue that they will be taking a vote on in that election year, and the democrats are not looking to raise taxes so close to when their constituents are going to the polls. >> it is always a concern for people in congress, and there are 52 blue dogs.