that are beyond typical legislation. i do nothing that you can have a typical anticipation of how this will move. >> the finance committee is a realistic goal? can you tell me what you are doing? >> i cannot really say the operating premise in terms of timing. this is in hands of the chairman of the committee. >> what did you think about the briefing on health care? >> i think that this is great. .

>> we show frank mccourt talking about "angela's ashes" on book tv. >> author harry stein has talked about how he changed his life by going left to right. >> how with c-span funded? >> mainly through donations. >> there is a sponsor ship -- >> taxpayer funding. >> of the government? -- the government? >> 30 years ago, american cable companies created c-span as a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> now, president obama talks about health care legislation. this is just under one hour.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> good evening. please be before i take your questions, i want to talk for a few minutes about the progress we are making on health insurance reform and where it fits into our a broader economic strategy for the six months ago i took office amid the worst recession in half a century. we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse. as a result of the actions we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brank. we took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market and we passed the recovery act that has already saved jobs and created new ones, delivered billions in tax relief

to families and small businesses and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off. of course we still have a long way to go. the recovery act will continue to create more jobs over the next two years just like it was designed to do. i realize this is no comfort to those americans who are currently out of court and i will be honest with you. the new hiring is always one of the last things to bounce back after a recession. the fact is even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for those folks of the very top of not a lot of good-paying jobs for the rest of america. it is an economy that simply wasn't ready to compete in the 21st century and one where we have been slow to invest in clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and industries in other countries where we have watched our graduation lag behind and where we spent much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it.

that is why i have said even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before and health insurance reform is central to that effort. this is not just about the 47 million americans who don't have any health insurance at all. reform is about every american who has ever feared they may lose their coverage if they become too sick or lose their job or change their job. it is about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. it is about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of medicare and medicaid. let me be clear. if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. if we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. if we don't act, 14,000 americans will continue to lose

their health insurance every single day. these are the consequences of inaction. these are the stakes of the debate we are having right now. i realize that with all the charges and criticisms being thrown around in washington, a lot of americans may be wondering what is in this for me? how does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform? tonight i want to answer those questions because even though congress is still working through a few key issues we already have gruff agreement on the following areas. if you have health insurance, the reform we are proposing will provide more security and more stability and will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you are happy with it. it will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick and it will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, if you move or change your job you will still be able to have coverage.

it will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for medical costs out of your own pocket and will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money. now, if you don't have health insurance or you are a small business looking to cover your employees you will be able to choose a quality, affordable health plan through health insurance exchange, a marketplace that promotes choice and competition. finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a preexisting medical condition. i have also pledged reform will not add toward deficit over the next decade and i mean it. in the past eight years we saw the enactment of to tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest americans and the medicare prescription program, none of which were paid for and that is partly why i inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. that will not happen with health insurance reform. it will be paid for. already we have estimated

two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money that is simply being wasted in federal health care programs. this includes over $100 billion on wanted subsidies that go to insurance companies part of medicare, subsidies that do nothing to improve care for seniors and i am pleased that congress has already embraced these proposals. well there currently working to a proposal to finance the remaining costs i continue to insist that health reform not be paid for on the backs of middle-class families. in addition to making sure this plan doesn't add to the deficit in the short term, the bill einstein must also slow the growth of health care costs in the long run. our proposals will change the senate's of doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, just not the most expensive care. that is why the nation's largest please stand by.

a proposal that could save even more money and ensure long-term financial health for medicare. overall, our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them thousands of dollars on prescription drugs, which is why the aarp has read-- endorsed our efforts. not all the measures i mentioned were contained in congress is drafting legislation that we are now seeing broad agreement thanks to the work that has been done over the last few days so even though we have a few issues to work out, what is remarkable at this point is not how far we have left to go, it is how far we have already come. i understand how easy it is for this town to become consumed in the name of politics, to turn every issue into running tally of who's up and who's down. i have heard the one republican strategist tell us party even though they may want to pollack-- to go for the kill. another republican senator that defeating health care reform is

about breaking me. so let me be clear. this is about me. i have great health insurance and so does every member of congress. if this debate is about the letters i read when i sit in oval office every day and the stories i hear at town hall meetings. this is about the woman in colorado who pays $700 a month to her insurance company only to find out that when pay a dime for cancer treatment it had used up her retirement funds to save her own life. it is about the middle-class college graduate from maryland his health insurance expired 20 change jobs and woke up from the emergency surgery that he required with $10,000 worth of debt. this is about every family, every business and every taxpayer who continues to shoulder the burden of a problem that washington has failed to solve for decades. this debate is not a game for these americans and can afford to wait any longer for reform. they are counting on us to get this done other looking to us

for leadership and we can't let them down. we will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage every american can count on and we will do it this year. with that i will take your questions. and, we are going to start off with the then feller with "associated press." >> thank you mr. president. congress as you alluded to is trying to figure out how to pay for all of this reform. have you told house and senate leaders which of their ideas are acceptable to you? if so are you willing to share that standard with the american people and if you haven't given that kind of direction to congressional leaders, are you willing to, are you willing to explain why do you are not stepping in to get a deal done since you are the ones setting the deadline? >> well, before we talk about how to pay for it, let's talk about what exactly needs to be done, and the reason i want to emphasize this is because there

has been a lot of misinformation out there. right now premiums for families that have health insurance have doubled over the last ten years. they have gone up three times faster than wages so what we know is that if the current trends continue, more and more families will lose health care, more and more families are going to be in a position where they keep their health care but it takes a bigger bite out of their budget. employers are going to put more cost on the employee or just stop providing health care altogether. we also know what health care inflation on the curve it is on we are guaranteed to see medicare and medicaid basically break the federal budget. and, we know we are spending on average, we hear in the united states are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries, where they are just as healthy, and i have said this before. if you found out that your neighbor had gotten the same car for $6,000 less, you would want

to figure out how to get that deal. and that is what reform is all about, how can we make sure that we are getting the best bang for health care dollar? now, what we did very early on wednesday two-thirds of the cost of health care reform, which includes providing coverage for people who don't have it, making it more affordable for folks to do and making sure that we are over the long term creating the kinds of systems were prevention and wellness and information technologies make the system more efficient, that the entire cost of that has to be paid for and it has got to be deficit neutral. we identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now, so taxpayers are already putting this money into the kitty. the problem is they are not getting a deal for the money they are spending. that takes care of two-thirds of the cost. the remaining one-third is what the argument has been about of

late. what i have said is that there may be a number of different ways to@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ a people like myself could take the same percentage deductions that middle-class families do. and that would raise sufficient funds for that final one-third. now, so far, we haven't seen any of the bills adopt that. there are other ideas that are out there. i continue to think my idea is the best one, but i'm not foreclosing some of these other ideas as the committees are working them through. the one commitment that i've been clear about is i don't want that final one-third of the costs of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle-class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy. middle-class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy, and so if i

see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing, middle-class families, i am going to be opposed to that because i think there are better ideas to do it. now, i have not yet seen what the senate finance committee is producing productive than the number of ideas that we have not seen the final draft. the house suggested a surcharge on wealthy americans, and my understanding although i have not seen the final versions, there is talk about making that basically only apply to families whose joint income is $1 million. to me, that meets my principle that it has not been shouldered by families who are already having a tough time. what i want to do is to see what emerges from these committees, continuing to work to find more savings because i actually think it is possible for us to fund more of this process to identifying waste in the system, try to narrow as much as

possible the revenue needed on the front end and then see how we can piece this thing together in a way that is acceptable to both democrats and i hope republicans. absolutely it is my job. i am the president, and i think this has to get done. just a broader point, if somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health care costs over the next ten years, that is guaranteed to result in more americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, i think most people would be opposed to it. that is the status quo. that is what we have right now, so if we don't change, we can expect a different result.

that is why i think this is so important, not only for those families out there who are struggling and you need some protection from abuses of the insurance company or need some protection from skyrocketing costs, but it is also important for our economy and by the way it is important for families wages and incomes. one of the things that does not yet talked about is the fact that when premiums are going up and the cost to employers are going up, that is money that could be going into people's wages and incomes and over the last decade we basically saw middle-class families, their incomes and wages flatlined. part of the reason is because health care costs are gobbling that up and that is why i say, even if we don't reduce our health care costs by the $6,000 that we are paying more than any other country on earth, if we just reduced it by two or 3,000 that would mean money in people's pockets and that is

possible to do, but we are going to have to make some changes. we have got to change how health care is delivered into the health care dissolute-- so that doctors are being paid for the quality of care and not the quantity of care. we have got to make information technology more effective. we have got to have the medical system work in teams so that people don't go through five different tests. those are all critical to do and we can do them. i understand people are feeling uncertain about this. they feel anxious partly because we have become so cynical about what government can accomplish. people's attitudes are, you know, even though i don't like this, at least i know it and i would like to have more that i don't know so folks are skeptical. that is entirely legitimate because they have not seen a lot of laws coming out of washington lately that have helped them. but, my hope is, and i am

confident that when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they are going to say we can make this happen. we have made big changes before that and up resulting in a better life for the american people. david alexander of reuters. >> thank you mr. president. you have been pushing congress to pass health care reform by august. why the rush? are you worried that if you don't, there is a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse? >> a couple of points. number one, i am rushed because i get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. and they ask me, can you help. i have got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say our daughter just found out she is that leukemia, and if i don't do something soon, we just r.e.

they are going to go bankrupt or we are not going to be able to provide their daughter with the care that she needs. and, in a country like ours, that is not right. so that is part of my rush. the second thing is the fact that, if you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. the default position is inertia, because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy. there is always going to be some interest out there that decides, you know what? the status quo is working for me a little bit better, and the fact that we have made so much progress, where we have got doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, aarp, saying that this makes sense to do, i think means that

the stars are lined and we need to take advantage of that. now, i do think it is important to get this right. and, if at the end of the day i do not yet see that we have it right, then i am not going to sign a bill that for example ed store deficit. i won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation, so that families as well as government are saving money. i am not going to sign a bill that i don't think will work, and my measure of whether things work or not our listening to the american people but also listening to health care experts, who have shown that in some communities, health care is cheaper and delivers a better result. i think we can achieve it so i am confident that if we just keep at it, we keep working, we

are diligent, we are on this, if we take criticisms that are out there, and modify whatever plans are already working through congress so that it meets those concerns and those criticisms, that we can arrive at a bill that is going to improve the lives of the american people. i will give you one specific example. i think there was legitimate concern that we have not incorporated all of the measures that could reduce health care inflation over the long term. in some of the versions of health care reform that were coming out of committee. over the last week, working with not only health care experts but also members of congress who are concerned about this, we actually have now got a commitment to incorporate an idea that has a panel of doctors and health care experts advising

on how we can get a better value for our money in medicare. and, every expert out there says this can be a valuable tool to start reducing inflation over the long term. so, can i say this though? if we hadn't had any kind of deadline, that change probably would have never surfaced until who knows when. and, so, i want to do this right, but the american people need some relief. chuck todd. >> thank you our. where just talking on that question about reducing health care inflation, reducing costs. can you explain how you are going to expand coverage? is it fair to say, is this bill going to cover all 47 million americans who are uninsured or is it going to take a mandate? is this something, your bill is probably not going to get it all the way there and if it is not going to get all the way there,

how far is enough? 20 million mark, i can sign that, 10 million more i can't. >> now, the truth is that unless you have what is called a single-payer system in which everybody is automatically covered, then you are probably not going to reach every single individual because there is always going to be somebody out there who thinks they are indestructible and doesn't want to get health care, doesn't bother getting health care and then unfortunately when they get hit by a bus and end up in the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay for it. that is not the overwhelming majority of americans. the overwhelming majority of americans want health care but millions of them can afford it, so the plan that has been, that i put forward and that we are seeing in congress would cover the estimates are at least 97 to

98% of americans. there might still be people left out there who, even though there is an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance, might still not getting it, war despite a lot of subsidies are still in such dire straits and that it is still hard for them to afford it and we may end up giving them some sort of hardship exemption. i am sorry, go ahead. so, i think that's the basic idea should be that in this country, if you want health care you should be able to get affordable health care, and given the ways that is already in the system right now, if we just to redesign certain elements of health care, then we can pay for it. we can pay for it in the short term but we can also pay for it in along term and in fact there is going to be a whole lot of savings that we obtain from that because for example, the average

american family is paying thousands of dollars in hidden costs in their insurance premiums to pay for what is called uncompensated care. people the show up at the emergency room because they don't have a primary care physician. if we can get those people insured, and instead of having a foot amputation because of advanced diabetes, they are getting a nutritionist who was working with them to make sure that they are keeping their diet where it needs to be. that is going to save us all money in the long term. >> you mentioned to republicans in your opening statement, but you have 60 democratic seats, healthy majority in the house for goeth you don't get this, isn't this a fight inside the democratic party and republicans really aren't playing? you can't blame the republicans for this one. >> first of all, you have not

seen me out there blaming the republicans. i have been a little frustrated by some of the misinformation that has been coming out of the republicans, but that has to do with as you pointed out, politics. if you have got somebody out there saying, not let's get the best bill possible but instead says, let's try to beat this so we can gain political of advantage, well, that is not i think what the american people expect. i am very appreciative that people like chuck grassley on the finance committee in the senate, people like mike enzi, people like alexius know have been serious and engaging democrats in trying to figure out how do we action get a system that works, and even in those committees were you did not see republican votes we have seen republican ideas so for example in the health committee in the senate, 160 republican amendments were adopted into the

bill because they have got good ideas to contribute so the politics may dictate that they don't vote for health care reform because they think you know, it will make obama more vulnerable. but, they have got a good idea we will still take it and in terms of democrats, the fact of the matter is that, because this is a big issue i think that a lot of democrats have a lot of different ideas. some of them have to do with regional disparities. for example you have got some democrats who are concerned that the medicare reimbursement rates and their communities are too low, so they would like to see the bill incorporates higher rates for doctors and providers in rural communities to incentivize good care and those communities. that is a legitimate concern but the minute you bring up that concern, that adds money which means we then have to find

additional dollars. so, this is part of the normal give-and-take of the legislative process. i am confident in the end we@@@@ >> you said earlier you wanted to tell the american people what's in it for them, how their family will benefit from health care reform. but experts say in addition to the benefits you're pushing, there is going to have to be sacrifice in order to be true cost cutting measures, such as americans giving up tax referrals, choice, end-of-life care. when you describe health care reform, you don't -- understan understandably, you don't talk about sacrifices that americans might have to make. do you think you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest americans, the american people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen? >> they're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier, and i --

speaking as an american, i think that's kind of change you want. k that is the kind of change you want. look, if right now hospitals and doctors aren't coordinating and of to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness, but instead have you take one test, then you go to another specialist and take a another test, then you take a third test and nobody is bothering to send the first test, the same test, to the next doctors. you are wasting money. you may not see it because if you have health insurance right now, it is just being sent to the insurance company but that is raising your premiums, that is raising everybody's premiums. that money one way or another is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that because there are tax breaks for health care.

so, not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it is also costing you as a taxpayer. i want to change that. every american should want to change that. why would we want to pay for things that don't work that are not making us healthier? and come here is what i am confident about. if doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they are going to want to pay for what works. if there is a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that is going to make you well? the system right now doesn't incentivize that. those are the changes that are going to be needed, that we are going to need to make inside the system. it will require i think patients

to, as well as doctors, as well as hospitals, to be more discriminating consumers. but i think that is a good thing, because ultimately we can't afford this. we just can't afford what we are doing right now. and, just to raise a broader issue, that i think has how we look at health care reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt, because part of what has been happening in this debate is the american people are understandably queasy about the huge deficits and debt we are facing right now. and, the feeling is, alright, we have the bank bailout. we have the recovery package. we have the supplemental.

we have got the budget. we ours the numbers, trillionth here in trillionth there's a legitimately people are saying look, we are in recession. i am having to give up things and yet all they see as government spending more and more money. that argument i think it's been used effectively by people who don't want to change health care, to suggest that somehow this is one more government programs so i just want to address that point very quickly. first of all, let's understand that when i came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, that we had already inherited. we had to immediately move forward with a stimulus package because the american economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. consumers have lost their their

401(k)'s, through their home values, you name it, they have lost trillions of dollars. that all just went away. that was the day i was sworn in, it was already happening. we had 700,000 dolleck-- 700,000 jobs being lost. we felt it was important put together a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy. then we passed the budget by law, and our budget at a ten year projection, and i just want everybody to be clear about this, if we had done nothing, if you have the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget he would have been $9.3 trillion deficit over the next ten years. because of the changes we have made, it is going to be 7.1 trillion. that is not good, but it is $2.2 trillion less than it would

have then if we have the same policies in place when we came in. so, the reason i point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit our deep concern of mine. i am very worried about federal spending. and, the steps that we have taken so far have reduce federal spending over the next ten years by $2.2 trillion. it is not enough, but in order for us to do more, we are not only going to have to eliminate waste in the system and by the way we have a big victory yesterday by eliminating a weapons program, the f-22 that the pentagon had repeatedly said we didn't need so we are going to have to eliminate waste there. we are going to have to eliminate no-bid contracts. we are going to have to do all kinds of reforms in our budget but we are also going to have to change health care. otherwise we can't close that

$7.1 trillion gap in the way the american people want it to change. so, to everybody who is out there who has been ginned up about this idea that the obama administration wants to spend and spend and spend the fact of the matter is that we inherited an enormous deficit, enormous long-term debt projections. we have not reduced it as much as we need to end as i would like to, but health care reform is not going to add to that deficit. it is designed to lower it. that is part of the reason why it is so important to do and to do now. chipper read. >> thank you mr. president. on medicare, they are obviously millions of americans who depend on medicare, and when you talk about ending the long term cost them or when you talk about cuts in the current proposal on capitol hill, you talk about cuts in medicare or they talk

about cuts in medicare but there never many specifics. specifically what kind of thing, what kind of sacrifice are you calling on beneficiaries to make and even if not right away our future beneficiaries going to be getting less generous benefits than today? and what you think about taking it out of the political realm and giving it to an outside body of experts to take it out of health care? >> that is what our proposal is. it is called the medpac program. by the way it was originally a republican idea. i want to give credit where credit is due. the republican congress passed a bill that created a panel of health care experts to make recommendations to congress on how we could get better quality, lower costs. the problem is every year it would just go on the shelf and nobody would act on it, so what we have said is, let's give that body some power.

let's require congress to vote on the proposals they are making every year. congress can still reject it, so does not completely removing it from politics, but they have to reject or accept it as a package and that i think what incentivize and empower important changes, but here's the thing i want to emphasize. it is not going to reduce medicare benefits. what is going to do is to change of those benefits are delivered, so that they are more efficient. let me give you a theories that the example. you have heard that there is a consequence of our efforts of reform, the pharmaceutical industry has already said they are willing to put $80 billion on the table. why is that? the reason is, is because there is probably more waste than $80 billion in terms of how the drug plan and medicare is administered.

we might be able to get $100 billion of debt or more, but the pharmaceutical industry voluntarily said here the $80 billion. do you know what that means? that mean senior citizens who right now have a so-called donut hole in their plan, where after spending a certain amount on prescription drugs, suddenly they drop off the cliff and they have got to pocket the entire cost. so they half of that is filled. that is a hard commitment that we already have, so that is the change in how we are delivering medicare, but do you know what? it turns out it means out-of-pocket savings for seniors. that is why aarp has endorsed us. christie parson. >> you promised health care negotiations would take place on c-span and that has not happened. nord ministries and recently turned down a request from a watchdog group seeking a list of

health care executives who visited the white us to talk about health care reform. also, the t.a.r.p. inspector general recently said your white house of withhold and to much information on the bank bailout so my question for you is are you fulfilling a promise of transparency and the white house? >> on the list of health care executives who visited us, most of the time you guys have been in there taking pictures though it has not been a secret and my understanding is we sent a letter out providing a full list of all the executives, but frankly these have mostly been at least photos phrase for you could see who was participating. with respect to while the negotiations not being on c-span, you will recall in this very room that our kickoff event was here on c-span, and at a certain point, you know you start getting into all kinds of different meetings, the senate finance is having a meeting, the house is having a meeting.

if they want this to be on c-span, then i would welcome it. i don't think there are a lot of secrets going on in there. and, the last question with respect to t.a.r.p.. let me take a look at what exactly they say we have not provided. i think that we have provided much greater transparency then existed prior to our administration coming in. it is a big program. i don't know exactly what has been requested. i will find out and i will have answered for you. >> thank you mr. president. you have said the recent bank profits indicate there has been no sense of remorse on wall street for risky behavior and we haven't seen a change in culture there. do you think that your administration needs to be taking a harder line with wall street and also, would you

consider going a step further than your regulatory reform proposals and supporting a fee on risky activities that go beyond traditional lending? >> we were on the verge of a complete financial meltdown. and, the reason was because wall street took extraordinary risks with other people's money. they were peddling loans that they knew could never be paid back. they were flipping those loans and leveraging those loans and higher and higher mountains of debt were being built on loans that were fundamentally unsound. and, all of us now are paying the price. now, i believe it was the right thing to do. as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not

collapse, because things would be even worse today that the steps not been taken. it originated under the bush administration. we continue it, because, with your on the left of the right if you talk to economists, they said that this could have the kinds of consequences that would drop this into a deep depression and not simply a very severe recession. now, one of these success stories of the past six months is that we really have seen a stabilization in the financial system. it is not where it needs to be, but people are no longer talking about the financial system falling off a cliff. we have stepped away from the brink and that is important because what it means is there are a lot of companies right now that can go into the marketplace and borrow money to fund inventory from payroll and that

will help the economy grow as a whole. whole. l4@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ w that the we expect more of them to pay this back. that's a good thing. and we also think it's a good thing that they're profitable again, because if they're prof profitable, that means that they have reserves in place and they can win. and this is america, so if you're profitable in the free market system, then you benefit. but what we haven't seen, i think, is the kind of change in behavior and practices on wall street that would ensure that we don't find ourselves in a fix again where we've got to bail out these folks, and while they're taking huge risks, and taking huge bonuses. , and taking huge bonuses.

so, what do i think we need to do? we have got to pass the financial regulatory reform, and you know this is an example of where folks say, should the obama administration be taking on too much? the fact of the matter is that if we don't pass financial regulatory reform, then banks are going to go back to the same things that they were doing before. in some ways it could be worse because now they know that the federal government may think they are too big to fail, so if they are unconstrained they can take even more risks. so, there are a number of elements of financial regulatory reform. with respect to compensation i would like to think that people would feel a little remorse and feel embarrassed and would not get multimillion-dollar bonuses, but if shane does not work, then i think one proposal that i put forward is to make sure at least shareholders of these companies

know what their executives are being compensated, and that may force some reductions. for banks that are still receiving taxpayer assistance, we have a set of rules that give sessom control on reducing the unwarranted compensation and in terms of the last point you made, which is the possibility of these four transactions that we want to discourage, that is one of the ideas that is going to be working its way through the process. i think it minimum, what we want to do is to make sure that, to the extent the federal government is going to have to be a backstop, just like the federal deposit insurance corp., everybody is familiar with the fdic, when you put your deposit in your bank you have confidence that they are insured, that is

paid for by bank fees. we need to make sure that there's a similar mechanism in place for some of these other far out transactions, so if you guys want to do them, then you have got to put something into the kitty to make sure that if you screw up is not taxpayer dollars that have to pay for it, but dollars coming out of your pockets. steve kaufman of the cleveland plain view. >> thank you. to follow up on jake's question earlier star. so many americans are concerned that this plan particularly the public option which lead to reduced benefits are reduced coverage, to questions. one, can you guarantee this legislation wheel lock again, so the government will never deny any services that will be decided by the doctor and patient, the government will then not deny coverage and secondarily can you as the symbolic gestures say that you and the congress will abide by the same benefits and the public option?

>> well, number one, not only the public option but the insurance regulation that we want to put into place will largely matched up with what members of congress are getting through the federal employee plan. that is a good example of what we are trying to build for the american people. the same thing that congress enjoys, which is they go, there is a marketplace of different plans that they can access, depending on what is best for their families. one of the plan that we have talked about is a public option in part of the reason we want to have a public option is to help keep the insurance companies on the speak with the insurance companies are providing good care and as it is they are going to be more regulated so they can't deny you care because of a preexisting condition or because you change jobs or they decided you were too sick and not a good risk. with regulation, there is already going to be improvement in the insurance industry. but, having a public plan out

there that also shows that maybe if you take some of the profit motive out, maybe if you are reducing some of the administrative cost that you can get an even better deal, that is going to incentivize the private sector to do even better and that is a good thing. that is a good thing. you know, there have been reports in just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits right now, at a time when everyone is getting hammered. they are making record profits and premiums are going up. what is the constraint on them? how can you ensure that those costs aren't being passed on to employers or passed on to employees? the american people, ordinary middle-class families and the way that overtime is going to make them broke? part of the ways to make sure there is some competition now there's so that is the idea.

now come to get your original question, can i guarantee that they are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system? no. the whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the american people and make them healthier. the government already is making some of these decisions. more importantly, insurance companies right now are making those decisions in part of what we want to do is make sure those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works because that is not how it is working right now. that is not have this working now. right now doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that is out there, so if they are looking and you come in and you have got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore

throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, i make a lot more money if i take this kids tonsils out. that may be the right thing to do. but, i would rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kids tonsils out whether it might make more sense just to change, maybe they have allergies, and maybe they have something else that would make a difference. partum webley want to do is to free doctors, patients, hospitals to make decisions based on what is best for patient care and that is the whole idea behind mayo. that is the whole idea behind the cleveland clinic. i am going to be visiting your hometown's mall to go to the cleveland clinic, to show why their system works so well in part of the reason it works well is because they have set up a system where patient care is the

number one concern, not bureaucracy, what forms have to be filled up, what do we get reimbursed for. those are changes i think the american people want to see. [inaudible] >> you know, i would be happy to abide by the same benefit package. i will be honest with you. i am the president of the united states so i have a doctor following me every minute, which is why i say this is not about me. i have got the best health care in the world. i am trying to make sure that everybody has good health care and they don't right now. lynn sweet. [laughter] i said steve, but he just stood up. that is not fair. shame on you. gideon there real quick. >> i appreciate that. you cited the mayo clinic in the

cleveland clinic's as models for the delivery of health care. the mayo clinic though has problems with house proposals, saying they don't focus enough on patients and results. what to expect to achieve tomorrow by going to the cleveland clinic and r.e. expecting some form of the endorsement from the cleveland clinic? >> i am not expecting an endorsement. the cleveland clinic is simply a role model for some of the kinds of changes that we want to see. i think it is important to note that the mayo clinic was initially critical and concerned about whether there were and of changes in the delivery system and cost-saving measures in the original house bill. after they found out we had put forward very specific mechanisms for this medpac idea, this idea of experts getting the politics out of health care in making decisions based on the best evidence out there, they wrote in their blog the very

next day that we actually think this would make a difference. alright, i try to make that short savitt lynn sweet would last question in. >> thank you mr. president a we usually professor henry jr. was arrested at his home in cambridge. what this that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in america? >> i should say at the outset that skip gates is a friend, so i may be little biased here. i don't know all the facts. what has been reported though is that the guy forgot his keys. he jimmy his way to get into the house. there was a report called then to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far, so good. if i was trying to-- i did guess this is my house now. [laughter] let's say my old house in chicago. here i would get shot.

[laughter] so far so good. the police call. they investigate. what happens? my understanding at that point, professor gates is already in his house. the police officer comes in. i'm sure there's some exchange of words, but my understanding is is that professor gates then shows his i.d. to show that this is his house. and at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped. now, i don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but i think it's fair to say number one, any of us would be pretty angry, number two, that the cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting

somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and number three, what i think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of african-americans and latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. that's just a fact. as you know, lyn, when i was in the state slur in illinois, we worked on a racial profiling -- in the state legislature in illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. and that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society. that doesn't lessen i the incredible progress that's been made. i am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been ma made, and yet, the fact of the matter is is that, you know, this still haunts us.

and even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause. and that's why i think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bi bias, the safer everybody's going to be. all righall right? thank you, everybody.

. . >> in an hour and a half we hear about the government's spending of tarp funds from