next, tom price and loose uchitele. washington journal is next. . host: in the front page of today's "the washington times "as well as many alaskan newspapers, focusing on governor sarah palin who leaves office

this morning. there will be a ceremony and fairbanks, alaska. what is next for the alaskan governor? the numbers are on your screen. the story this morning on the front page in the paper, friends and foes have their eyes set on sarah palin, asking what is next for her. here's part of what he is writing. she is possibly the hottest property ailing republicans can claim at this moment.

that is the question. if you go to her website, her official website, she has posted her announcement from earlier this month. it took place just before the july 4 weekend, indicating she was leaving office and would not seek another term. in one of the newspapers in fairbanks, here is the ap story. it says that the governor has gained some fame and some infamy since embarking on the vice presidential bid one year ago. she is getting something else -- questions over her motives and her next big move. again, the question we are asking, and we would especially like to hear from republicans -- what is next for sarah palin?

this caller is from michigan. caller: good morning, i am a dedicated listener. i really think c-span is the best educational program on television. you guys do a great job because you hear from people all the time and they are sincere, but i think you know with governor pailin, it is too much criticism. -- with governor sarah palin. you have people making millions of dollars as a living just criticizing. you would think that the week up in the morning and are ready to give the criticism of what can i criticize the president for? what can i criticized sarah palin for? why can't we all this along? it seems to me that the person

who was really thinking knows that the president is doing his very best for this country. i think there is too much criticism. i think that sarah palin is honest. i would like to see the president, the obama, sarah palin, the policeman -- i like to see them all join in and have a beer. host: things for the call. you're looking at the official political website of sarah palin. the only one officially sanctioned by her committee. this morning again from "the washington times," more about her motives.

marvin is on the phone from ohio on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. many people are talking about ms. sarah palin and her career. most of the people are just grabbing at her beauty. it seems like her elevator does not go all the way to the top. host: our next caller, what you think is next for her? caller: i think she's a very nice woman and stepped out onto

the political scene in trying times for the republicans. george bush has really hurt the conservative, republican party. john mccain was trying to make a run their. she came from out of the back and did a nice job on that scene. what is next for her is that she needs to take care of her family, financial burdens. i think she will try to make some money with the book and try to participate in the political process. she's a good spokesman for the conservative right. i wish for the best. host: that is written about on the editorial page of "the washington times." here is more from an alaskan newspaper. the lieutenant governor will take over as her successor.

pennsylvania, good morning. caller: however you doing? i think that sarah palin stepped onto the political scene at very trying times for the republicans. she tried to give john mccain a little boost. i do not think she expected to be drawn and the way she was. host: we have a very who is next from grand rapids. -- gary. caller: i would never vote for sarah palin. i don't think she is qualified to be either president or vice president. but i think that we should let her become a lead for love. she is a nice mother, a good lady, a good mother. -- but i think that we should leave her alone. the media should stop following her around with all the cameras. let her be and let her live her life. host: here this article says

that there is contempt and the gop -- can this political marriage be saved? further into the body of this piece, this writer has these points. with each passing day as the failure of the obama administration's neo-socialism becomes more graphic, the public

is turning back to conservative principles. next is sherry joining us from dallas, texas. caller: hello? oh, sari, hold on. it got it. the volume is down. i would just like to say that it is a treat to be speaking with you this morning. we love c-span. sarah palin, she has just been amazing since she came on the scene with john mccain.

she is employed in the republican party. she is so controversial. when she was on the campaign trail she had so much hate that she inspired. it is really disturbing to see that she stepped down. most of us cannot understand why she is still getting any, any --what is the word went to say? host: attention? caller: yes, attention -- why? she is hurting the party so much. the republicans have fallen so far and it is one scandal after the next. host: we're focusing on hurt today because she is officially leaving office. the question is what is next for

her? meanwhile, another republican governor from the state newspaper -- the scandal concerning mark sanford. the scandal exposes them as a man of many contradictions. we will be speaking with our guest, kevin madden, former spokesperson for mid romney. steve mcmahon will also joining us. both will be with us in about a half-hour. this is from the home town of sarah palin. this is the front page. the governor says goodbye at a picnic. it is one of the traditions. caller: thank you, steve. i just got you saying the republican governor from south carolina, what party are the new jersey governor's who just got busted for wrongdoing in new jersey? does anybody know that?

i have not heard that. has anybody heard that gates is a member of the naacp? host: this is a story this morning the belt gov. john core design who is up for reelection. here is the headline. -- it is about gov. john corzine. it says that the scandal has up ended the state's political landscape, prompting it the incumbent governor on saturday to name a reformist state senator as his running mate. caller: right there, finally we see a "s" -- you do not here on any of the media on tv -- finally we see a "d" -- you don't hear that it is a

democrat. it is always about the republicans. the democrats are dirty and it shows every day in the newspapers. just like we're following sarah palin. she is no good for the country. for the democrats, but every day we follow her. every day because we want to cut her down from now until the election. host: let me ask you. what is our future? issue viable contender for the presidency in 2012? caller: it is this. the closer that sarah palin holds it to the vest the better she will be until 2012. because the democrats the matter who steps up on top to try to leave, the newspapers, the media, the democrats will be on the paper every day with that person is supposedly doing wrong. it happens every time. as soon as someone steps to the

top they begin to cut them down. you just remember, gates is it naacp. host: you can contact us on twitter. mike is on the phone from akron, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, i believe that sarah palin will likely be a talk-show host for fox news. if she comes home alone i will vote for her for anything. host: the caller from boulder, colorado on the line for democrats. caller: here are my thoughts on sarah palin. she is popular now, she is a

trend in issues such a volatile figure. she will burn herself out. it is almost four years until the next presidential election. even if she plans on running as of now i cannot imagine she will still be around and get attention as far ahead as four years from now. host: thank you for the call. this reporter who posed the question at wednesday's press conference about skip gates and the situation that unfolded, she attended the peace for the "chicago sun-times ". this refers to the 50 different wards in chicago. caller: i think that sarah palin needs a break from the meeting. the way that she was treated, if

that was my wife i would have been so upset they would have sent me into fits of rage. thankfully, her husband kept his cool. when you have your children disparaged, talked for hours on and on how bad someone is and there is no real argument for that sort of policy to just tear people down day after day, is i feel very disgusting on the part of any group of media. with no real evidence about what she has or has not done. i think that she just needs a break. i hope she comes back in a few months. if she can deal with what she has already i think should make a great candidate. she has shown very strong will and not to break down after all this pump when.

if you took this type of situation to anyone in this country this99.99% of the people would probably have been administered drugs by either their doctor or psychiatrist. i think that she's a very tough, rugged woman. iti hope that she comes back ani will vote for her. host: here is a comment from twitter. vice-president joe biden has and "the new york times "-- which you might not know about the recovery. this fine point, we need relief,

recovery, and reinvestment to cope with our multifaceted crisis. the editorial this morning from the weekend review section of "the new york times." what is next, chris, from new york? caller: i think it is obvious that the republican party, and being a former republican, is still struggling on whether was to be conservative or appeal to a broader element to get reelected. the way that some republicans have attacked sarah palin shows me how corrupt they are. it seems to me -- and in both parties -- the democrats are even more corrupt the way they try to push through this health care. i think that sarah palin will be well-served to appeal.

they attacked her for not being smart or intellectual. i do not want anyone as an independent to be that smart that they know how to manipulate the system. quite frankly, i think americans should ask this -- what makes us trust both of these parties after they have screwed up time after time after time? if this were wal-mart we would burn the store down and hang the manager. we have to hold them accountable. i cheer on sarah palin i think that she is truly an honest and sincere person. host: here are some photographs from the august edition of "vanity fair." this piece received a lot of attention. it came from wasilla -- despite

her disaster performance, sarah palin is still the sexiest brand and republican politics with a lucrative book contract for her story, but what the charismatic governor wants people to know about herself does not always jive with reality. john mccain talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice presidential pick. it says that she was big trouble. at a check the forecast for her future. this peace cannot before her resignation. next is jacksonville, florida, good morning. caller: yes, i am here. good morning. personally, as a woman i would not vote for sarah palin. she keeps talking about her kids

and puts them up there in the media but said she does not want attention on her family. she acts like she is the and the woman who has ever had a baby boy with down's syndrome. talk about all the women around the country and world who have been put them into the forefront. she does not seem like she has it all upstairs to me. i personally would not vote for her. host: steven is next from winston-salem, north carolina. caller: good morning, i vote republican. with sarah palin i do not believe she is a viable candidate in that here she is elected as governor, has a term of four years, and in mid term sheet is quitting.

-- she is quitting. for what ever reason, for the obscure reason she is a wonder if she were elected as president, that things get tough, will she quit in the middle of her term as being a president? host: and you are a republican, right? so if she were to run, how the think this will put up with potential opponents like mitt romney or newt gingrich, may beat temple in the of minnesota? caller: well, i don't think she would ever get on the ticket to be honest. i do not think -- host: but if she runs the you think she will run for the top spot? caller: she will run, but probably be out within the first few months of debates. i do not think she will be able to raise the money to be able -- even though she is raising money now for her little finger she is

doing, and i think she can raise enough to run as a viable candidate. host: this is a message from twitter. we're joined from austin, texas, good morning. caller: i do not think that sarah palin is a viable candidate. she does not even know what a continent is. she ought to stay home with her downs syndrome child. she is just a beauty queen-type and i think that we need educated people in our government to make important decisions. she is not a viable candidate. she needs to learn about her state, learn what a continent is, and stay up there, not become a publicity figure. i am surprised the republican

party would want someone like that. host: thank you. one of the economic riders for "the new york times "will join us later this month. he has written about what some are calling a jobless recovery to this recession. meanwhile the washington paper has a piece concerning the secret service training. it is located on the parkway outside of washington, d.c. business week has on its cover what they called the incredible shrinking boomer economy. the sunday magazine from "the new york times "has a look inside one of the closest advisers of friends budget closest advisers and friends of the president and his first lady. it asks the question, so, what vichy do exactly? donald it is on the phone from atlanta.

caller: i like to reiterate that sarah palin would make a good president simply because -- she would not make a good president because she is a quitter and has proven she is a quitter. i watched her-obama throughout the entire collection. -- how i watched her bash obama. if anyone should have quit from being down, john mccain should. even though the democratic party won, he is still being bashed. host: this is the front page in both the washington and new our papers. he writes that mr. obama is under growing pressure to choose between will win a small band of republicans are struggling to rally his party.

meanwhile, elizabeth has the story this morning previewing that robert gates, the defense secretary is visiting israel and will find the issue of iran women. -- looming.

bud joins us from fort lauderdale, florida. back to what is next for sarah palin. caller: well, i think that she will run for president in 2011 -- 2012. the call screener asked me what i like about her. i like the fact she is a christian, anti-abortion. i think that is what the democrats continue to attack curve. they are most afraid of anyone who has that kind of belief. host: that is what rush limbaugh has also been saying. caller: he agrees with me. i think you'll be a formidable candidate if she runs for president. on the flip side of that

corning, i was in the military and had access to very sensitive information. -- on the flip side of that coin. when i listened to obama campaign, he was profoundly now leave naive, and it manifest itself when he attacked the police in cambridge. host: he has since apologized for caller: that but he did not apologize, he said he should recalibrate. host: he called it a teachable moment. caller: he shoots from the hip. the president should not ship from the hip. a couple of weeks ago when he went to get an agreement -- host: he was in russia and then traveled to italy and then on toghana. caller: he went over there to

get an agreement, and i do not remember the details, but you never send the top guy to do the negotiations. you have the underlings work out all the details. once everything is ready to sign then you bring in the top guy. host: there is an interesting piece in the latest edition of "the national journal "which focuses primarily on foreign policy. any response to that cover question? caller: you brought up richard nixon, he is the president who signed my commission when i went into the air force. that was after i got out of ots. so now for that reason alone, but i have always had great admiration for nixon. host: are there lessons you think this president can apply from richard nixon? caller: sure, but i don't think

this president will learn, though. he is too conceited. he is very smart, i will grant him that. but he thinks he is smarter than anyone else and he cannot learn from anybody. and people are beginning to understand this. his numbers are falling. i think it will fall even further. this country is in for rough ride with him at helm. host: this is from of your who sends this message by twitter. if you follow twitter use all the tweet from kevin madden this says that his appearing on "the washington journal "and he is, steve mcmahon along.

we will look at health care. this writer says that president obama says the primary goal of health care reform is to rein in runaway spending, and he points to real-world examples in which doctors and hospitals have improved care and reduced costs. one of the issues we will talk about with our two guests. first up, program will join us for a conversation that we take on friday. it airs at 10:00 a.m. this morning. the will focus on various committees as we sort through different versions. here is an excerpt. >> you know, it is kind of interesting.

i am a big fan of harry truman, my favorite president so far. i went out to his library a little over a year ago and one of the things to note is that when he left at the presidency 57 years ago the one thing that he said he regretted not having gotten done was health care for all americans. the speech he made to congress was 61 years ago. all of the major candidates laid down health-care plans through the campaign. for two years we have talked about it. when we took over the congress we have had 79 hearings on health care we have had it over 45 hours of marked up -- mark up in three different committees come now why would anyone call

is rushing when you have this kind of backdrop, all this activity going on? i do not understand. the fact of the matter is that we have been very slow and deliberate and tried to pull this legislation together. i am pleased with the process we have. what we have is a caucus that is very diverse. you have 51 blue dogs, 42 african-americans, many hispanics, progressive democrats, all these caucuses we have to deal with. that is what this country is all about. so, i expect for us to go through a process that is a little bit different from what the republicans go through because they do not have that diversity that we do. host: congressman james cliburn from south carolina, also the

house majority whip would join us on "newsmakers" with more on the health-care debate. you can watch the entire program at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. today. good morning, kevin madden. when do you are on your way coming over after we saw your tweet. [laughter] steve, what kind of a week as the president had? callerguest: he has had the kinf week when he is the dog that call bus. you have heard that old metaphor? he is seen what the challenges are of being the president of the u.s. his offhanded been marked gates situation created a furor he did not intend. it took him off his agenda of health care reform for the week. having said that, he is beginning to weigh in on health

care reform. he will have to leave the congress through the spring and he still has a very good chance to get it passed. guest: i like that analogy and would agree. to me it was a week where he had an unfulfilled expectations. that is an emerging trend that is, has his poll numbers under assault. by announcing last friday it would do a press conference to hit the reset button and take cannot provide momentum to healthcare by having a press conference on wednesday night, and it was essentially newsless and resulted on thursday as senate leaders say there would not get a health-care bill by the time recess began just showed the president set a very high bar and did not reach it. that has been apparent. this week petered out for the

president and congress. guest: there are many people who think as peter doeas kevin doest the press conference was newsless, but with focus groups around the country, many americans out there understand that health care reform understand it to be a party for the white house. they understand what is in it for the 18% of americans who do not have health coverage. but they do not understand what is in it for them. this news conference explained what is in it for them even if they already have coverage or are a small business owner. that is what people need to here to get behind it more fully. you could see support for health-care reform slipping in polls, especially for independents.

people did not understand what it meant for them other than more money to the federal government and through taxes. so it was imported. maybe not newsworthy, but to americans who wonder what is in it for me, there was information. guest: i would agree. it has been interesting to watch the way he talks about health care as a body. it is new to debate. for 25 years now washington has only talked about it as a spending issue. he has talked about it as a principle he hopes to achieve. ultimately, at the end of the day the reason he called a press conference was to leverage what he believes is this enormous reservoir of personal goodwill that he has with the american public. the more the public learns about the specifics the worst this healthcare plan does. guest: i do not think that is

right. host: here is obama's six-month report card. jimmy carter had a 75% approval rating early on. there are many stories this month the bell president jimmy carter's speech. there are some parallels as to whether president obama could go down the same path. are there parallels or is that a false analogy? guest: i think it is a false analogy. the circumstances now are so much different from that. when carter became president health care costs were not consuming 17% of gdp which they are today. the deficit was not at the level of today. there was not an economic meltdown going on. if you think about what president obama inherited an walked into, he walked into a

circumstance that was far, far worse. if you look at where obama is approval ratings are, kevin is right, his turn to leverage approval ratings on two policy. that is what a president must do. he has done that on two or three occasions on big issues whether stimulus package or climate change. that is what being president is all about even if it take a toll after some time. the people in washington understand that. host: your former boss ran against this man. the peace by edward kennedy co- written by his longtime speechwriter. has his absence been noticed on this issue? guest: i think so. both republicans and democrats would admit that someone who is as deep in the policy of health

care over the past 30 years as edward kennedy, that there is an incredible void. you look at governor admit romney's achievement of universal care in massachusetts, it could not have been done without kennedy's help both federally and to guide many democratic members of the legislature in massachusetts to agree. there might have been greater progress in the senate if there were a ted committee up there right now. guest: my former boss and someone who has fought for health care reform his entire life -- i think it would be different. even during the years i was there and since, and i was there some time ago -- republicans and the senate when polled about the most effective u.s. and the tears always a ted committee to

the top of list. it is not because they agree with him, but because he is very effective for his state and effective in the legislature as bringing people together. chris dodd and orin hatch have noted that his absence has been felt. host: he has been there before. caller: he once told me in 1979 when he was fighting for national health insurance, jimmy carter offered catastrophic health insurance for every american. senator kennedy made a choice which was that that did not go far enough. here we are 30 years later and he has regretted that choice to some degree. guest: as a conservative republican i do not agree with his policies on health care, but there is no doubt he has an incredible amount of experience

and deep-seated relationships with people on the hill to get these things done. guest: having come close both times and having this too is very committed to getting this through. even as he recuperates in cape cod from the serious health situation he is engaged in the debate in a way designed to help move it forward. host: here is a photograph from april 12, 2006. in the national review the caller from-- they called rom ney-care. that is a bad deal even by government standards, they say. guest: that is tough criticism from the national review. there are many things that people -- when it tried to draw

parallels between the debate we're having now in washington and the debate he had when it put together this universal health care plan and, there are number of things missing. to take several dollars which were used as direct payments and try to leverage them in a way to create private insurance as an exchange to get people who do not have health care and to private insurance compared to having a lot of the bureaucratic costs and cost runups with carrot that is been handled just through an emergency care situation. what is right for massachusetts does not necessarily right for everyone else. where governor met ronnie had a departure -- mitt romney -- he

did not believe there is a one size fits all approach to health care. it is probably one reason that plans that are put forth here in washington are having problems. you have state-by-state markets that are unique to each other. a federal approach is not the best way. host: this is vice-president joe biden's article in "the new york times." this came up wednesday night in the press conference. here is an excerpt. >> that and the deficit are the concerns of mine. i am very worried about federal spending. and of the steps we have taken so far have reduced the responding of the next 10 years

by $2.20 trillion. it is not enough, but for us to do more we will not only have to eliminate waste in the system -- and by the way we had a big victory yesterday by eliminating all weapons program, the f-22 that the pentagon repeatedly said we do not need it -- so, there and we will have to also eliminate no-bid contracts. but we will also have to change healthcare, otherwise we cannot close that $7.10 trillion gap in the way the american people want us to change. host: if you listen to sean hennessey or rush limbaugh, this becomes an achilles heel for critics. guest: it is another thing they try to beat the president with. but let's remember what the president inherited on his first day of office. he got a $1.30 trillion deficit.

that is not an easy thing to hear. he still has the financial meltdown on wall street to do with. he did not want to come to office and fight for a stimulus package and use all the political capital for it. he did because he understood what it meant for the economy to prevent a meltdown. i'm not an economist myself. but as i read the historical accounts of what was going on just a few months ago there are many economists who believe we were on the verge of a global financial meltdown. he stopped that he stopped it at some political cost to himself. i'm sure their rush limbaugh and sean hannity and all those who criticize him would have been even more upset if their great fortunes would have suddenly vanished which was possible. he did not have an easy choice.

it was not a very good choice. he made the choice to bring the country back and he did. host: you can send us your comments by twitter. do you tweet, the way? guest: i am not a big tweeter. host: you can send us that or an e-mail, or the old fashioned way with a phone call. here kevin madden says, the white house has misread the national mood. the problem is not that they did not bend the curve, or did not celebrate, the problem is that the national mood has changed since the president was elected. back then the mood was that changes for the good, but what altered or the full implications of the financial crash. guest: that is right.

around september 2008 the country went through the idea that they wanted to hit reset, essentially challenge the status quo. they did so by electing someone with very little experience, but someone who had developed a compelling case that there were unlike anything washington had seen before. that was president obama. at that time there was a lot of anxiety about the coming. that turned into a lot of anger when you looked at many of the bailout for aig and bonuses. now i think that the american mood has turned to cynicism. because they do not see -- they see that this president is somewhat inexperienced and has failed to to launch the status quo and has instead seemed to

become a conventional democrat. he has offered almost a devotional, devoted to putting federal spending and to every problem he confronts. that has created a situation now where his numbers have gone down, and congressional democrats' numbers have gone down. even the republicans' numbers have gone down because the public has turned into an anti- washington me. host: here is a photograph of gov. schwarzenegger from a bunker at the new york times," and it says that the california dream is dead, or else the lead. here he is with a switchblade and his office in sacramento. guest: he is probably about to turn it on himself. he probably has the most difficult job in america right

now. in california they have certain expectations. people live up there because the believe it is the land of opportunity and always has been. it has always offered a lifestyle that is very attractive to everybody who is in search of it. but they have serious problems now. if you look at numbers on education whether science, math, or reading -- california is down with states to spend far less on education. some of the southern states who are usually toward the bottom like alabama or mississippi. that is not what most in california who pay fairly hefty tax rates expect from the government or their governor. host: we will talk about new jersey politics and not. this is our next caller on the republican line. good morning, mark. caller: good morning, i would

like to ask you both a serious question concerning health-care problems. neither party wants to enter. how come no one addresses the fact of what illegal aliens have done to the health care system? these people have destroyed our medical system. 35% of our hospital bills here locally. guest: a number of republicans have addressed this. it is often part of the debate when you break down who the 47 million uninsured are. it ranges from close to 12 million who may be eligible for medicaid and medicare but do not sign up for. you have between seven and 13 million who are here in the country illegally. you have those above $75,000 and can afford it but do not pay for health care because they believe they are healthy and do

not need it. it is an added cost they would rather not have. it is often times part of the republican effort to address who exactly the 47 million people are. had we address those who deserve and need care but can i get it because of the current system. the question for those concerning illegal aliens is how we get people t-- how do we geto those who are here legally that protect public health. we cannot deny illegal people just because they are here illegally. it is a passionate debate. those people are getting care with taxpayer dollars.

many believe we must balance the risks and rewards. host: yet this piece points out that 30,000 legal immigrants were denied care because of a cutback by the massachusetts legislature. this final point, the experience in massachusetts should teach conservatives that individual and employer mandates are socialized medicine with the private facad. guest: it is "the national review -- and i am not surprised and frankly, not persuaded. the caller is right about the costs associated with and reimbursed care, but they're not the costs associated only with those who are here illegally -- who by the way most of them pay taxes even if illegal. the do not file returns of they

do not get refunds. in many instances the government profits from those people. but unreimbursed care is a serious problem that affects health care for a room. if you do not have a mandate you do not have young people bringing down the costs. they do not feel there will get sick and do not feel the need insurance and cannot fill the should pay for it. but if they're not in the pool, then the costs for old people like me and like you, steve, and younger people like kevin go way up. the only way you can get everyone in is by requiring them to be there. it is part of living in a civilized society. if you'll provide these benefits everyone shares the expense. host: ken is on the phone. good morning. caller: i know i don't have long to talk because i'm calling on the democrat line. host: i am not sure of the

connection. caller: the nisei this real quick. let me address two things. i called on the last line but you do not take the last call. -- let me address this request. the sarah palin thing, what you have the discussion i heard people calling in saying that the president is egotistical. how gates is a member of the naacp, and things like that. i do not think sarah palin is qualified i think she probably has some enduring qualities about her, but she does not have the background, even as limited as the president's is with understanding some national topics -- host: hold on, let me ask both of our guests concerning sarah palin and her resignation. guest: you have to take her on face value. the reason she is doing this --

she has felt that the state was burdened by many of these ethics investigations. her family was personally burdened by it. she chose to step of the spotlight and choose a new forum. host: do you want to follow up? caller: let me ask this about the president. i heard another caller from north carolina say that president obama is considered. do your panelists think he is just trying to be a socialist or that he really sees -- the medical thing has been around for a long, long time. guest: i think that he sees healthcare costs consuming 17% of our gdp. they are on their way to 20%.

47 million people do not have insurance and that does not include all the illegal aliens referred to a few moments ago. he sees a system that is unsustainable. medicaid and medicare alone, if there growth continues at this rate will bankrupt the federal government. he is trying to step in front of the problem and stop it. many americans do not think it is a serious problem. it does affect them because their premiums are higher than they should be to cover others. they pay more every day as small business people to cover employees because not everyone is a in. this is a national problem. most other industrialized countries have addressed it. he is trying to address problems he told the american public he would. now that he is president he is trying to keep his word. it is not something many

politicians do, but this president has from the beginning tried to keep his word. host: is president obama over- exposed? the guest: i think that the writer in market watch had a very important article about this. one of the amazing things that has happened in washington is that it has become the financial capital and now a cultural capital -- i am sorry, financial, political, and now a cultural capital of the world. by that committee used to be that you turned on cnn and saw the president, you turned on espn and saw baseball, and so on -- now you turn on espn and there is president obama throwing out the first pitch. you see him talking baseball. u-turn on cnn and he is talking about health care. u-turn on a channel related to

popular culture and it is about him and the first lady going to see a play in new york. there is nearly and on the presence by this president. i think it was at first welcomed, but now is becoming a bit of a burden for many folks. it is almost as if they cannot escape the present. if you asked me three months ago i would say no. he had this incredible personal popularity he was leveraging to get things done in washington, but now i think it has become something for people feel they almost cannot escape it on a daily basis. host: hartford, conn., good morning. caller: i would like to comment before i ask a question. but i have to agree with vidal that there is one corporate party with two right wings, won the republican, the other the democrat. i do not think there is real debate going on in this country at all. it is superficial at best.

as far as i'm concerned, no one really wants this done. no one wants a health care plan. but you continue to spend on wars and foreign aid. perhaps you will pay for a new war and iran and get think that health care plans will happen when you are borrowing all this money for iraq and afghanistan, borrowing from china to pay for it. . .

host: let me ask you gently, where is this debate going this week in washington? health care specifically. guest: that's a very good question. the speaker is still intent on trying to pass legislation out of the house, but she has a challenge with the blue dog members, which are the folks that are more conservative and used to be held by republicans. host: like mike ross of arkansas. guest: on the senate side, everybody is waiting for the finance committee to come out with their bill.

it's probably the best chance that we have to have a bipartisan bill. there are three republicans who were very involved in those association. senator grassley, senator snowe, and senator enzi from wyoming. i think the obama administration is hopeful that this westbound a bipartisan bill. they'd rather have the republicans come along and be constructive. if that's not possible, then they're going to try to get this done any way they can. guest: steve's comments i think underscore where i think i would disagree with the caller. everybody on capitol hill, i think steve would agree with me, everybody on capitol hill wants health care reform. there's a big difference between how everybody wants to achieve it though. there is a huge canyon between where some republicans are and where some democrats are. but if you ask every single member of congress, republican or democrat if they want health care reform, they would say yes. the problem that republicans have is that there's a lot of health care in these various

proposals, but there's no reform. where i think this debate is going, i think steve is also right. the fact that you have a -- they're a bipartisan group of senators that are in the room working on alternatives. i think you see leaders on the issue like senator grassley, senator bennett, senator hatch all working towards proposals, offering competing ideas. and it's going to continue that way up on the senate side. i think on the house side, i think there is an extreme lack of larnship. i think speaker pelosi has indicated that she's going to put a bill with the public option whether blue dog democrats who care about the cost care or not and whether republicans care or not. but i also think that the caller -- that kevin makes a very important point as well. you notice that he talked about how much problems he had with the spending, whether it was in afghanistan or whether it was on stimulus bill or whether anybody was talking about the economy. i also agree with the caller on

that. there's not a person in capitol hill or anywhere in washington or outside of washington that's not talking about the economy. but i do think there's an incredible amount of bailout fatigue, spending fatigue among the public, and there is i think a gap between the perceptions that people on capitol hill have with everyday more thans who are feeling that pain. guest: there is certainly a very, very large amount of bailout fatigue. but i'd like to point out, that under the obama stimulus package, the money that went to wall street on conditions. there were a number of conditions that wall street didn't like very much, including caps on executive compensation, the caps on bonuses. the money was accompanied by warrants. you see there are banks trying to return the stimulus money and buy the warrants back. this last round of stimulus could actually end up making taxpayers billions and billion of dollars because of the way it

was structured, because of the conditions that were attached to it, and because these banks that were returning the profitability, they're buying their warrants back, at a multiple of what it was that the government bought them for. every time they do that, taxpayers do that. host: republican health care reform, corporate riches, crumbs to commoners, more and more profit. we want to turn our attention briefly to economy, as we mention the cover of "newsweek" magazine. this is what it looks like. the recession is over! but then asking the question -- now what we need is a new kind of recovery. what kind of a recovery will it be? dan gross is the author of the piece. he writes, a year ago, "newsweek" dubbed this a new kind of recession, one caused by turmoil in the housing and finance rather than manufacturing or a weak consumer spending. and now that it's over, we will need a new kind of recovery. you can read more from

newsweek.com. dan gross is joining us on the phone from new york. thanks for being with us. guest: glad to be here. host: what did you learn in putting this piece together? guest: we always like to talk as if we're in a new age and things are unprecedented. what's different about this time is the usual tools we have to get our economy going, that we've used for the last 60 years, which is the federal reserve cuts interest rates, government cuts taxes. we kind of deregulate wall street and let them finance everybody and finance the movement of trade around the world, and we have consumption. all those things are off the table now, because those tools, we can't use them anymore. interest rates that the federal reserve controls are already at zero. they can't go lower. we have a trillion-dollar deficit, we're not going to be cutting taxes. the volume of global trade has been shrinking. instead of consumers pulling us out, they're still spending money like it's going out of

style. all the things we've relied on to get us out of the last many recessions we've had, it's like those tools have been broken or blunted or dulled from excessive use. so the question is, how do we get back the growth? there's the growing consensus among economists that the contraction may be over. that's just a technical term. how do we get back to the kind of two, three, 4% growth that actually creates jobs and raises living standards. host: you said until the next big thing comes along, consumers and businesses will continue to do what they've been doing. pay down the debt, restructure, focus on survival. which by your account doesn't lead to a robust economic recovery. guest: right. the u.s. is different than a lot of other developed mies due to our relatively high birthrate and immigration, our work force is expanding. we have to have 1 1/2 percent growth just to feel like we're

standing still. we have to create 140,000 jobs a month to start making a dent in that unemployment rate. we're not there yet. if you extrapolate from the recent past going forward, if people continue to do what they've been doing, which is companies cutting back, focusing on survival, consumers saving -- we're saving at a 7% or 8% rate, versus see row% a couple years ago, that's not going to get us out. the question is, how do we get back there? there are sources of demand as consumers, consumers who are still not partiesing. businesses who are still not really participating. and of course government. what we have right now is an immense substitution for public capital for private capital. we've seen it in the banking system, but we are seeing it if other parts of our economy as well. >> one other point from dan gross is that the obama administration strategy resting on what some might call industrial policy or excessive

government intervention or even creeping socialism. guest: what i would call the last many years of orthodox, you might call them a set of dumb or blunt instruments, tax cuts, cheap money, etc. they're not saying that's not the way to go. the way to go is invest in these strategic sectors of the economy. infrastructure, broad band, health care, alternative energy, green technology. these are the areas that have been neglected, that are vital for political and economic reasons, and that have the potential to catalyze private sector investment. that is the sort of only game in town right now. and it's the big economic -- and it's big political we because the republicans have basically -- there was not a single republican in the house that voted for the stimulus package. they are totally opposed to doing anything with health care. so this is the big economic question. it's a big political question.

host: steve mcmahon? guest: i think dan articulated the view perfectly. basically all the tools we've traditionally relied on and the republican tools that have been in effect for a long, long time -- lower interest rates, wall street deregulation, look where that got us. and the sort of thing that he mentioned was tax cuts. we now have a deficit. we've got low interest rates. and our ability to do things rather limited. what we can do is invest in those growing, emerging technologies. green jobs of the future are where the world is requiring them. they demand innovation. and america needs to step up to the pleat and lead the world because america always has. and you've got health care, as i talked about already, 17% of the economy. you've got to figure out how you're going to address that cost curve, or you're going to have an economic calamity going forward because medicare and medicaid are going to bankrupt the federal government.

i think they're doing what they have to do. they basically were dealt a set of cards that started with a $1.3 trillion deficit for the year that they took office. and they're trying to figure out how they can use the tools that have been used that are blunt and don't work as well as they used to and come up with new tools that invest in the future. because at the end of the day, america needs to invest in the future and look ahead, or india and china are going to simply pass us by guest: i think where i would disagree with the characterization that republicans don't care about health care, that's just simply not true. again, everybody on political cares about health care. there's just a difference in how we do it. i think democrats want to stimulate the government. republicans want to stimulate the private sector in a way that creates jobs and everybody benefits. i think that was a big problem with the stimulus. everybody understood that at a certain point, this economy was on the precipice, that we were on the knife point, and we could

have fallen off, and falling off that knife point either way would have been disastrous. but republicans believe that the stimulus plan dimlated the government. there was a focus on the government side and not enough of a focus on the private side. i absolutely agree with steve and i think there are many republicans that would agree, that we do need a comprehensive effort of investment and a new energy sector in this country. that was something that governor romney talked about extensively in places like michigan, a new energy sector, which is going to be sustainable growth in the economy, going to continue to create jobs, as we look for ways to get off of the way we've always been fueling this country on the energy side, an look at new ways to help that. so i think there's agreement there. the big fundamental disagreement is whether or not we should stimulate the government versus the private sector. host: online this week is the

cover story for news week. called the recession is over. now what we need is a new kind of recovery. we're talking to dan gross, who is on the phone from new york. how is westport, massachusetts, indicative of this recovery? guest: we did some reporting to try to find places where the stimulus is actually hitting home. we found a construction company that had been laying off people. they work on roads and other types of construction projects. it's been a rough two years for them. they've been on a dozen or so projects for the stimulus package. they got two. one of which is a $4 million road resurfacing project in westport, massachusetts, which is a town sort of a few miles from the beach, about 60 miles south of boston. they've hired five new people. they have a bunch of contractors on the job. so they've been able to -- because they got these two projects, have been able to maintain all their employees, bring on five new employees with

full benefits, and, you know, it's turning out to be a better year for them. to me, that is sort of a microcome. , because we are continuing to lose jobs. unemployment claims are continuing to rise. focusing on the consumer, giving people tax cuts in an environment like this, where they are hugely in debt, does not translate into new spending. it doesn't translate for consumers, doesn't translate into new spending for businesses. like it or not, the main source for now of new investment is the government. because private capital is not going to come in and build roads and their not going to build it in the factories because less than 70% of our industrial capacity is being used now. so we saw that looking at sort of that project, that company, and this is a small victory, and this is way it's going to have to go. you know, projects, companies

here and there creating a small number of jobs, and we have to hope that eventually that cat tallizes and schmo balls into something larger. host: dan gross, writes for news week, senior writer and columnist, the cover story. thank you for joining us. marie is joining us from palm springs, california. you're up awfully early this morning, marie. caller: well i had lunch yesterday with a canadian friend. lives her now, her husband was a physician. and they moved here when canada became socialized. how are we going to have health care without doctors? a lot of the doctors are not in favor of this. when you're in canada, she personally knows people that have had cancer, have had to wait three months for treatments, hip replacement. her sister has to wait three months. it's not as good as it sounds. are we going to provide health care for illegal aliens and all the welfare recipients and we're going to punish the achievers, people that have done well and tried hard and just giving --

we're just going to have to wait in line for care and it could cause a lot of deaths. it's not a good thing. not as pretty as it sounds. also the mean-spiritedness towards sarah palin i think is over the top. they used to try to hang that title on republicans that were mean spirited. the left has it now. letterman, for instance, and all kinds of people, just because she has a different lifestyle that they don't understand, living in alaska. host: thanks for the call. tom price will be joining us later if the hour. does anyone know that interest on the $11 trillion debt, that alone could have paid for health care for everyone. let me turn to politics for a moment and ask the same question i asked about president obama. kevin, what kind of a week have new jersey politicians had? guest: i think there's probably a lot of them now that are on phone calls just assuming that they're being bugged or tapped.

i think this was a good week for any politician who was a former prosecutor against corruption running for office. so i think chris christie probably had a very good week. i think there is also a way to make a case that chris christie represents a sort of modernized republican approach in new jersey, where you put an emphasis on law and order, you put an emphasis on job creation, the economy, jobs, health care, education. and that's where a lot of voters will -- a lot of voters are going to gravitate toward a message that is pragmatic and about cleaning up a state capital that they think has totally lost touch with the folks of ngng and is not focused on providing -- new jersey and is not focused on providing solutions. ultimately it was a pretty good week for chris christy. host: the polls show that jon

corzine is down. guest: i think what he's seeing this year is what president bush saw last year. there are people in new jersey who feel like their economic condition isn't imprufinge fast enough for their case and they're ready to take a chance on something new. i think governor corzine, however, has a pretty compelling story in terms of being able to manage a fragile economy. this is something who did quite well for himself in private business, who understands the economy, who understands how to bring pressures to improve it. the economy in new jersey isn't improving as quickly as they would like, but it's not improving as quickly as most americans would like either. i think you'll see a lot of governors, democrat or republicans, who will begin to feel the effects of an anxious and discontented public. guest: so when it comes to corzine, you guys like the private sector? guest: we like it respectively. we just finished talking to

daniel, and the stimulus money, which kevin says is going to the government, is going to companies like daniel found in massachusetts that are creating jobs, investing in infrastructure. everybody who benefits, the people who get jobs, the businesses who hire workers, and the people who drive across those roads and businesses, are all benefits from the stimulus package. host: good morning, independent line, with kevin madden and steve mcmahon. caller: thank you for the opportunity to talk about health care. you quoted an average of 2,600. i saw $20,000 for a family of three children. i don't know where this is going to go. the numbers that -- like the

ladies from palm springs. if i was in canada, of course i like to move to palm springs. say the hip replacement has to wait for three months, i had insurance here and i had to wait forever for a doc. about illegal immigrants. how many illegal immigrants do we have that take care of it thelses? -- themselves. so health care needs to be reenergied. the other day i went to the emergency services and i was not seen by a doctor. i was seen by a nurse. and i was charged as if i was seen by a doctor. host: that seems to be part of the problem. the rates that you're being

charged by health care providers, hospitals, doctors, urgent care. caller: the rate is super high. we are thinking here that we live in a competent society. we are living in a society where -- host: thanks for the call. the our issue is that tort reform is not part of the democratic plan and should be? guest: that's right. if i were to sum up his frustrations right now, it's cost. costs are driving this debate right now. i think if you look at the grab between people's personal assessment of the -- of their health care, some of them feel that it's good and they like their doctor, but they wish they could pay less, but they think that the system is broken. i think right now if they had to choose, they would look at their own costs. that is where this debate is being driven right now. i think that the fact that this

bill, the proposals that the democrats have put forward on capitol hill, even according to c.b.o. sthat estimates, doesn't do anything to solve the problem. more than anything of the little inside washington bickering that we talk about on capitol hill, it's filtered back to the american public very easily, that this is a very big bill that costs a lot of money that doesn't do much to reform the current system. host: the tweets are coming in. could you republican guest send chris christie over to pennsylvania before running for governor in new jersey? guest: well, you're a pennsylvania native. my wife is a pennsylvania native. i'm sure they would love to have somebody who is a foreminded republican in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. host: let me just ask steve mcmahon. you've been to pennsylvania. guest: yes. host: the wimes wrote a story about the race in virginia. the two states that have a

statewide election this year. what's happening in virginia politics? guest: what's happening this virginia generally is it's becoming more of a democratic state. it's purple now. it used to be a very reliably and conservative republican state. it's now much more competitive. president obama carried virginia this last time. and i think what you're seeing is you've had two governors now, governor warner and governor tim kaine, who have been fiscally conservative, pragmatic and moderate, so the democratic party in virginia is actually in very, very good shape. the economy is not in particularly good shape as it is not in very good shape around the country, so in some measure, the democrat perhaps has a slightly more difficult time. this is a rematch of what was run four years ago for foreign general, creigh deeds against mcdonald. it is following the same kind of

script. the traffic here is second only to los angeles in terms of what a mess it is. and many people in northern virginia feel like the government in richmond hasn't addressed it adequately. i think that favors the democrat. but there's no question it's going to be competitive and close and going to go down to the wire. host: just looking at it, is deeds the strongest of the three potential democratic candidates? is he the one candidate that -- guest: i think it would have been a much easier -- there would have been a greater opportunity for bob mcdonald to draw contrast. i think that this is one of those things where many of the democrats in virginia -- the reason he closed so quickly in those days, being outspent five to one, was that many democrats saw him quite electable.

can is quite odd because usually campaigns and primaries like that are where the base looks at, who represents the constituents of the party in virginia. the one really came down to electability. and i do think that steve is right, that virginia's demographics have changed. looking at northern virginia changing demographics. even parts of southeastern virginia. but what's still important to remember about virginia's electorate is that the middle is where the big battleground is. this is going to be essentially a race to get that growing sector, that has fall an away from both parties and is looking for pragmatic leadership. host: we're talking about virginia politics. the story this morning available online at the wimes website. it's also front page this morning in that newspaper. rock anne is joining us from --

roxanne is joining us from cleveland. caller: i don't know why they keep saying that canada's system is so bad. i mean, we have nothing -- i am able to afford my own -- i mean, i can pay for my own insurance, but i cannot afford it. it's too expensive. republicans do nothing that helps the poor and middle class. absolutely nothing. i haven't seen their plans. they have absolutely no plan. and they are being pimped by big business. why aren't they talking about how insurance are denying people coverage every single day. they're make your lives hell. another thing i'd like to say, obama is not any passing an insurance plan. why don't they make it where we can g across state lines and buy our own insurance. host: i just came back from a tour of canada and spoke to every canada i saw and talked to

them about their health care and they loved it. guest: people say, well, canada, they have government care. england has government care. well, they have much smaller populations than the united states. we have right now, competing with private insurance and coverage in this countrying something like 253 million people. i don't think canada even approaches anywhere close to that number of people being covered now. if you were to add 47 million, assuming that that number is in there into a public system, that would dramatically change the quality, the access, and the cost of care in this country. so i think you have to remember that you have to look at the unique populations of the united states versus places like canada and england, that have socialized medicine. i do disagree with the caller that republicans don't have a plan. if you were to look at paul ryan's plan from wisconsin, if you look at a number of folks, even a bipartisan bill up on the

senate side. widen bennett. there are a number of plans that look to help state businesses or pool their resources so they can get into association health plans. there are cooperative plans, such as senator charles grassley has. all intended to help people pool their resources, lower the cost, and ease the burdens for folks so that whether it's employers or individuals so they can help bring down the cost of their health insurance premiums. guest: there are some republicans on the senate side who are trying to come up with a bipartisan solution. i just would like to say something here about this canada conversation. because there's not a single democrat i'm aware of who's talking about the canadian health care system. what they're talking about is building on the system that we have, the american system. a system that's based fundamentally on private insurance companies delivering care, not the government delivering care. there's not going to be any

government takeover of anything. there's going to be an effort to reign in costs, to make sure that everybody is covered and require businesses and individuals to have coverage so that everybody comes into the system, the system operates the way it operates new. people get to choose their doctor, they get to choose their health insurance plan, they have a choice op options in both regards, and they essentially get everything that they like about the health care system today and they address many of the things that they don't like. health care reform, for instance, the health care reform we're talking about now, would not make it possible to deny somebody coverage for preexisting condition. everybody who wants coverage would be able to get it. and if you're sick, you wouldn't pay any more than somebody who's not sick. it would address the things that people are frustrated by. it would do it in a way that people are comfortable with in the american way. it wouldn't bring the canadian

system here. it's utterly untrue. guest: well, i think you also have a lot of democrats that point to the canadian systems and other systems, whether it's germany or england, as templates for some of the changes that they want to make. guest: other industrialized countries addressing a system and the health care crisis in those countries. every one of those countries that you mentioned provide just as good of care at a much lower cost and everybody is in. and i think those are the things that the democrats that i speak to are trying to accomplish in this country, not by bringing the canadian system here, but by improving -- guest: it's not just limited to republicans who bring it up. host: this is an aside. dick morris' book, catastrophe, stopping president obama before he transforms america into a socialist state. number three this week. guest: how is it that the conservatives write book and they shoot to the times. guest: dick morris is a

conservative? machiavelli's political consultant. host: walter, last call. what's on your mind? caller: our present insurance companies will continue to exist, but they cannot exist when the government throws out the standards that they presently use and insert the government requirements of taking bad risks and covering everything. and who's to decide when a cancer cure costs $250,000 for an elderly person that prolongs life for three months? rationing is the way they're going to save money and they don't admit it. host: thank you. let me take walter's point and ask you, we're still six months away from 2010. where do you see all this heading when we go to the next political cycle?

guest: i think a lot of it depends on what the final product is. i think i'm probably in the minority of republicans who believe that there will actually be some sort of bill at the end of this year, because i think the president has indicated that he's defined a win by getting some sort of bill he can put his signature on. i think ultimately that will result in a very partisan bill because i don't think if you look at any of the comments of the public postures of harry reid and nancy pelosi, and they're indicating they're more and more likely to sign on to a partisan bill. so i think ultimately democrats will put forward a bill that has a lot of health care, a lot of spending, very little reform, and that they'll pay a price in the 2010 elections for that. host: steve mcmahon, you get the last word. guest: i think he's wrong, how about that? i'm still hope. there will be republicans who come to table saying let's do

this as americans, not democrats or plans. we have to. we simply cannot afford to do nothing. host: steve mcmahon, frequent guest -- guest: whoever will take me. host: kevin madden, also on the cable shows. please come back. when we come back, we'll talk about health care, get an update from david brucker, and then we'll talk to tom price, congressman from georgia. "washington journal" continues on this sunday, july 26. we're back in a moment. g&)ç6o0wj >> tonight, harvard law professor henry louis gates jr. from a 2006 discussion. 10 p.m. eastern on c-span's "book tv." >> today at 9:00 p.m., conservative author harry stein talks about his book "i can't

believe i'm sitting next to a republican" on "after words." one of many books you'll find on c-span 2's "book tv." "q&a" tonight. susan jacoby and the house american activity hearings at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> join the conversation on civil rights and race relations with npr and fox news analyst juan williams, live, sunday august 2 at noon eastern, on "book tv's" in-depth, on span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to turn our attention to the issue of health care. congressman tom price is going to be joining us in just a moment. he's in atlanta. republican policy committee chair for house republicans. david brucker is on the fon -- phone with roll call. good morning, david, thanks for being with us. are you with us?

put this last week into some perspective. what happened and conversely what do you think is going to happen as democrats and republicans convene against this week? caller: they finally came to the aufs conclusion that it wasn't going to be a vote before the senate adjourns for the august recess. and they pretty much allowed max baucus, democrat from montana, senate of the -- chairman of the finance committee, to keep working on a health care reform bill to try to get something that is at least 60 votes in the senate, and you know what it takes to get anything through the senate. so that work remains ongoing. i know that max baucus and chuck grassley, ranking republican on the committee, are both very optimistic that they're getting somewhere, that they're going

somewhere, and it's just a matter of time. in the house, it's a little bit unclear to me exactly what's going on. the blue dog democrats and house democratic leaders were fighting all week over health care reform . would those two sides come to sort sort of an agreement that would allow the bill to be marked up. would democratic leaders forget marking anything up with other committees and just go directly to a vote and dare the conservative moderate democrats. at the very end of the week, it looks like they may have come into an agreement to talk again, negotiate again, and some sort of framework for agreeing on the key issues that might allow for compromise. the interest thing in all of this is i mentioned the republicans -- the numbers that matter, if they can put their 107-odd members or so together with about 50 conservative democrats. i think in the house, it's all

going to come down to what kind of compromise, either house democrats leaders work for modern democrats. that's going to tell us. in the senate, where everybody sees themselves as an individual in charge of their own little world, right now people are still holding out for the kind of health care reform that they want. and they are trying to keep the process a little bit more methodical. they were successful in doing that. even nine freshman democrats wrote a letter to max baucus saying don't rush, take your time. that's kind of where we stand when what is supposed to be last week of sessions for the recess and the house. host: do you see any scenario in which speaker pelosi will keep the house in beyond this week to deal with health care? >> i can see her doing that, particularly because the senate is supposed to be in for another

two weeks. so it may not be as jarring for them. she's not accustomed to losing. climate change was in place and she ended up ramming that through and getting it done. so, yeah, it's very possible that she could keep people in for a couple days. host: finally you talked about -- guest: i think it depends on how the negotiations go on with blue dogs. host: there was a statement late friday afternoon by mike ross who basically was heading up this effort for the blue dog democrats on the issue of health care. and in essence, his statement was don't blame us. we want health care reform, too. guest: yeah, i think that's reflective of every day on capitol hill. i really think virtually every democrat and virtually every republican wants some form of health care reform. they want to do something. the disagreement is what do you do? and this is one of the biggest issues in politics over the

generations over the last hundred years. it's really defining whether you're a republican or whether you see yourself as a democrat. it's hard to come to an agreement on doing something so big. i was told that what they're trying to do could probably be broken down into 10 separate big huge bills. yet they're trying to do it all in one bill. i think there's a good way to understand why this has become such a political fight. host: in "the washington post," lessons from the clinton health care efforts and lessons that apply to the biden administration. david brucker of roll call, thanks very much as always for sharing your perspective. guest: great to be here. host: congressman tom price is joining us. good morning, congressman, thanks for being with us. guest: good morning, steve, great to be with you. host: first from your standpoint on the other side of the aisle

and we'll talk about where the republicans go from here. guest: i think people are wanting to read the bill. a thousand-plus-page bill that says the house -- it's gone through two of the committees in the house, education and labor and ways and means. it's kind of stuck in energy and commerce. but the real issue is what is exactly in the bill? and there's a lot of confusion because we hear out of the administration that there are things that are in the bill that in fact aren't. and so it's going to be a very fascinating week to see whether or not the democrat majority is able to move a bill through to the house floor and through the house. host: so is your party essentially waiting to see where the democrats go before proceeding? guest: well, no, what we'd like to do is sit down and work in a bipartisan way to come up with a real solution. we don't believe that the bill that's been pushed through two committees in the house so far is the solution that the american people want. and clearly what we've heard over the last week or 10 days is as people learn more about this

bill, they're not excited about it. and they want -- everybody wants reform. there's no doubt about it. the status quo is unacceptable. but what we would hope is that we'd be able to work in a bipartisan way and come together, as david said earlier, on one of the biggest issues that any of us will ever deal with in our political careers. host: as you know, president obama dealing with health care during the bulk of his news conference last wednesday. here is one of the exchanges on what changes, if any, would be applicable to health care providers and patients. >> can i guarantee that there 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. part of what we want to do is to

make sure those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works. because that's not how it's working right now. that's not how it's working right now. right now doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. so if they're looking and you come in and you've 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, you know what? i make a lot more money if i take this kid's tonsils out. that may be the right thing to do. i'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change -- maybe they have allergies. maybe they have something else that would make a difference.

host: your reaction to the president from wednesday? guest: well, i appreciate you showing that clip, because i think what that demonstrated is the remarkable naivety or ignorance in this administration about what it makes to take care of patients. before i came to congress, i was a physician, practiced medicine for over 20 years. and for the president to say that physicians are making decisions solely based upon pay, solely based on the competition that they receive, is just an insult to every single doctor across this land. these folks are working just as hard as they can to provide the highest quality care that they can, and i think that was a slap in the face of all of the individuals who are trying just as diligently as they know how, given the current rules and regulations under which they're operating, to provide the highestalty care in the world. host: tom price, republican from georgia, earned his medical degree from the university of michigan. he studied orthopedic surgery.

now in his third term, the chair of the republican study committee. leah is swroining us on the phone from georgia. good morning, leah. are you with us? go ahead, leah. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am calling because i am very disturbed about the bhole health care -- whole health care debate and what i see coming. more people are paying attention and the status quo is not going to do in this instance. mr. price makes it sound as though republicans are interested in sitting at the table and reforming health care. i question that due to the fact when republicans were totally in control of the government, they made no moves to reform health care. now the obama administration, who campaigned on the promise of reforming health care, is teaming to get this done. i hear republican lawmakers stating that they want to kill this bill, that we need to kill it. it will be obama's waterloo.

it's all about political motivations versus doing what's best for the american pop luss. i think people see that. they also see the blue dog democrat, who happen to be people who would be heavy financing from the health care industry who are trying to solve this as well. and once again, when faced with the opportunity to actually invest, invest into the american people, which we need to do, we need to invest in this country education, health care, our infrastructure -- when it comes down to investing, there always seems to not be the political will to get it done. host: leah, we'll get a response from congressman price. thanks for coming. guest: thanks, leah, for your comments and perspective. republicans are sincerely interested in improving the health care system. because as i mentioned, the status quo is not acceptable. it's not acceptable to patients, physicians. it's not acceptable to all of those individuals who are trying to make certain that we have -- continue to have the highestalty

care in the world. i've only been in congress now -- this is my third time. but before i came, there actually were some significant changes, positive changes, that allowed patients a greater flexibility and the kind of health insurance that they were able to gain in the marketplace. but the big question is, who are we going to allow as a society to make these very personal medical decisions? is it going to be patients and their families along with caring and compassionate physicians? or is it going to be the federal government? that really is the place where we are right now. and the president's proposal, the proposal -- the bill that we have in the house of representatives right now, actually puts that control in the hands of non-medical individuals. i don't know anybody that sincerely believes that that's the right direction. even my democrat friends, they actually read that portion of the bill, they're concerned about that as well. so again what we need to do is sit down. this is a very important issue, one of the most important issues

any of us will ever deal with. i think it's imperative that we sit down together and work together and come up with a positive solution. there are wonderful things out there that would in fact solve the challenges that we face in the area of health care. host: lori is joining us on the phone from seattle, washington. good morning, lori. caller: good morning. i just don't hear republican plans. and if people -- i think from fear tactics that we heard back when hillary clinton was trying to pass health care reform. i think it's incredible that i hear people talking about canadians having to wait for care, when i myself has a friend who has to wait three years until she qualifies for medicare. she along with my family can't afford these premiums that were we're being charged. and the other thing is i just think the statistics about infant mortality rate, how many

people we have die at a young age, that's so much higher than these other countries. we rate, i believe first for infant mortality rate. first for people dying. highest in the united states. and highest for 15- to 24-year-olds. i think until the republicans get a plan, they shouldn't be talking. host: thank you for the call. let me take lori's point and also this tweet comment, congressman price, i think everyone wanting health care should realize that it is gonna have to be paid for. lori's first point is what is the republican alternative and how do you pay for it? guest: there are a lot of alternatives that we've put on the table. we'll be coming forward with a bill this week. the core of the republican alternative is truly that if you like your current plan, you can keep it. that's what the president says is in his plan. in fact, that's not.

we sincerely believe that the vast majority of the american people are very happy with the current care and current coverage that they have. and they ought to be able to keep it. secondly, we believe that there are significant changes that could be made in the marketplace to make it so that individuals have an easier opportunity to purchase health insurance at a much lower cost, whether that's purchasing insurance from across state lines, larger pooling mechanisms so they're not purchasing in just the individual market. we believe strongly you can descrees the redundancies and the waste in the system, especially through the practice of defensive medicine right now. thats over $300 billion a year. there needs to be liability reform that makes it so we don't have those redunn dan sis. i officially believe that individuals -- that we ought to get everybody insured through changes in the code to make it so that it's feasible and foolish for anybody not to be insured. and to have that insurance controlled and owned by patients

and their families themselves, instead of the government being in charge or insurance companies being in charge, there's a third alternative and that is to have patients and their families in charge. that's the way you get to a system that pakes the most sense for the american people. host: this program is covered live in britain on sundays. john is joining us from glasgow, scotland. >> it astonishes me that half of the people have no health care whatsoever. no one questions the hundreds of billions of industrial costs. the hundreds of billions spent. they're far better living in cuba if you were sick. in britain, no senior citizen over 60 has to worry about prescription charges.

in london, you'll be raced straight away to the hospital. they wouldn't worry about checking if he's got a wallet or credit card or insurance premium. regardless of social status of income. the richest country in the world , but it hasn't been constructed properly. you should get your priorities right and stop worrying about powerful industrial residences and complexes and powerful insurance companies who are trying to sabotage. host: we'll get a respofpbles thanks for phoning in from great britain. guest: thanks for that call. i invite my good friend from scotland to come visit us in the unite. the fact of the matter is that the united states has the highest quality health care in the world. anybody that, as he says, falls on the street or drops down on the street and is take on the the hospital, is cared for and

is given the highestalty care any place in the world. if you look at disease specific criteria, it's very interesting. you hear all these statistics. our caller from washington state threw out statistics about health care. if you look at disease-specific criteria, the united states is one or two or in the top five or virtually every single disease known to mankind. our caller there from scotland talked about the wonderful care that they received. well, if you look at cancer statistics, for example, the united states has five cancers for which there is a greater than 90% survival rate, cure rate for five different cancers. in the united kingdom and in europe, there's only one. now that doesn't mean that they have horrendous care. but what it means is that here in the united states we have the finest care in the world. there aren't 40 million people out there without health care. there are 40-plus-million

individuals out there who at some point during the past year don't have health insurance. that's something we can solve and should solve. the way to solve it is not to turn the whole system upside down and have the government run it in a way that would make it so that our care and quality would be decreased. host: as some of you may know, the issue this past week is where the legislation now stands. one of key committees is yet to move the legislation through the floor. congressman jim cly burn is our guest on "world news" program. and he talked about -- on "newsmakers" program. here's part of what he said. >> i think you may recall, last week i said that even if we can get this vote done today without consensus, i would much rather wait another week if it meant getting to consensus.

so i'm all for trying to do this with consensus among our memberships. now, one of the things that will probably be derned is -- determined is whether or not there's more consensus in the larger cawsuss than in the committee. now, if that kind of determination that this made, i suspect the speaker and other members of the leadership will sit down and make that determination. but i would personally rather see us go through regular and do this and have all the members feeling that the atmosphere was one of positiveness rather than the negativety. host: more on the develop pts in the house on welcome with james clyburn on "newsmaker," hairing at 10:00 eastern time this morning. republican of georgia, your reaction?

guest: regular order is what we use in house to describe a normal process. the bill is introduced in committee and has an opportunity for changing or perfecting in committee and thing going to the flor of the house an having the opportunity for amendments there. mr. clyburn speaks positively about that. but what we've seen oftentimes is that the speaker will bring a bill to the floor without going through that process and push it through or ram it through. we don't believe that's the best thing to do for any piece of legislation and certainly not for a piece of legislation that is this important and this vital to all americans. host: angie is joining us from california. republican line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say that we really need to take our time on this health plan. betsy mckay, she's a patient -- she's read the whole thing. we're trying to push this thing through without reading it. she cites that on page 425, there is a mandatory -- every

five years for people who are in medicare to seek counseling to attend a counseling session on how to help their life sooner, to do what is in best interest for society and your family. this is very scary. and also that $500 billion is going to be taken out of the health care benefits for seniors. we need to take our time and read this bill. we are not reading the bill. and people want to push something through that we're not going to be able to go back and change. please read the bill before you pass it. thank you. guest: you hear the concern and compassion in if caller's voice. i think it's appropriate, because what she has seen is what we have seen with other pieces of legislation. that is that there's no opportunity for significant review or appropriate review by any member of the house of representatives. and that's not the way to write

legislation. certainly not for something this important. the item that was mentioned is very concerning to many individuals, that there is end of life counseling that's mandated in the bill, and many people that you talk with in the house of representatives don't know particulars that are in the legislation. so i would agree with the caller and say, look, let's take -- let's have an opportunity to review this piece of legislation, not scrust the members of congress, but the american people. this is something that's going to affect every single american. we ought to have an opportunity to get it right. host: our guest is a doctor, former state senator from georgia, and now three-time congressman. tom price joining us from the atlanta area. i guess he'll be with us the next 15 minutes. journal@c-span.org. or you can send us a tweet. twitter.com/cspanwj.

caller: good morning, how are you? i agree with the last republican caller. i agree with that. we shouldn't look at the bill. the answer is single payer system. quit with the fear monogerg, stop doing that. the only way we can solve the system is a single payer. everybody has to be covered. don't tell me it's complicated. it's the. the only way to do it is single payer. and to get out the lobbyists. everybody has an interest in this. you need to tell me this republican senator is sitting there and he don't have an interest that he's getting lobbyist money and they're pushing for their ideals and everything, which is fine. that's how our democratic society works. but nobody's -- it's all greed. everybody wants to make "money" money. how much money can you have. host: thank you, john. and also this tweet that is along the same lines as you

espressed as our caller from scranton, that health care for profit -- is money the only thing that drives americans? guest: i would ask all the listeners, anybody who is watching this or listening to this, to think of your -- what are your principles for health care? for health reform? what are the best things we ought to keep in a health care system? i would suggest to you that none of them are improved by the greater intervention of the federal government, whether it's affordability of the system, accessibility of the system for patients, whether it's quality, whether it's responsiveness or innovation of the system or choices. all of those things that tend to be included on people's lists of priorities and principles when it cops to health care, all of those things are harmed by the intervention of the federal government. and that's not just an opinion. if you look at the four systems, the primary four systems of health care, where the federal government has a significant amount of control, whether it's medicare or medicaid or the v.a. health system or the indian

health service, those systems all have challenges in those areas. accessibility, affordability, etc. going into a single payer system would rull in a system that's not responsive to individuals, is not innovative. it decreases quality and choice. i simply don't believe that's what the american people desire. host: jim is on the phone from ohio. good morning. caller: it's a town of about 30,000 in northeastern, ohio. good morning, steve. and good morning, representative price. host: how far from cleveland where the president was thursday? caller: about 60 miles south of that. it's difficult for me -- of course i called in as an independent and i certainly am that. it's difficult to listen to representative price. i've got several things written down here. let me touch on two or three of them. the previous caller called in

and said that when she had read -- although no one had read or someone else had read, that there was end of life counseling to tell people how to end their lives sooner for the good of society. that's obviously a mischaracterization. earlier representative price listened to president obama say that a doctor might look at a fee schedule and pick a higher priced treatment. that's true to anyone who's over 5 years old, knows that that could happen. but the representative said it was a slap in the face because the president had said that all doctors would do that. that kind of mischaracterization of things just doesn't serve our culture very well, doesn't serve our representative form of government. and he's not going to stop doing it. people should be able to keep their insurance. well, of course they should. but representative price

indicates that that's somehow going to leave people that freedom to have their own insurance if they're happy with it. so i guess it's difficult for some of us to listen to this out here and listen to a person call after call and comment after comment mislead and mischaracterize and distort something that we just heard, the words out of the mouth of someone else. guest: i appreciate the perspective and the call. i would simply say to the caller that he ought to read the bill. for those who believe that they're going to be able to keep their health insurance, their current health insurance, if they like it. and that's about 85% of the american people, the answer so that question in the current bill that we have in the house of representatives, it is no. there's a five-year period of time where all current health insurance is phased out, and one would have to have, every single american would have to have a health insurance plan that's

called a qualified health benefit plan that has every parameter that the bill defines. now, the problem is that there are all sorts of wonderful health coverage vehicles that the american people have out there that wouldn't qualify as being a qualified health benefit plan. so i appreciate the caller's perspective, but for those of us who are charged with making certain that we get it right in the legislative arena, what we do, what i do as a former physician, as a former surgeon, i knew if i didn't make the right diagnosis, i couldn't treat the patient correctly, in this instance, the treatment is not matching the disease. host: this next tweet is indicative of a number in the stream we've been getting in the last 10 to 15 minutes. it goes back to your earlier point about america's health care system. what evidence do you have that we have the best health care in the world? evidence i've seen says otherwise. guest: it gets to the point of what kind of data do you look

at. statistics can prove anything you want. if you look at disease-specific criteria, the surf vifle rates for cancer, specific cancers. if you look at the survive rates and the quality of life rates for diabetes or heart disease or any of the major diseases that people across the world get, the united states ranks virtually one or two in every single area. now, if you look at the entire system and the world health organization statistics, they will say that 35, 36, 37 somewhere in the world. what they take into account is all sorts of things that have nothing to do with a specific diagnosis or a specific patient, like holte insurance rates. they take, for example, the individuals that don't have health insurance and that goes into their equation to get us into the 30's as it relates to the world. but if you look at disease-specific criteria, in the medical literature, then the united states has the best if

not the best -- one of the best health care systems, health care disease-specific treatment systems in the world. host: this e-mail from robert in atlanta saying insurance is the problem, not the solution. guest: well, it's an interesting point because if we allow patients -- if we allow individual americans to be able to determine what they believe is the best form of coverage for them, then i think that goes a long way toward solving the problem. many people say that a closed panel h.m.o. is the way to go. i don't believe that, but i also don't believe you ought to outlaw it. i think there are many individuals across this land who would want to have something like the keyser system and closed panel h.m.o. they provide excellent panel of care. but for other individuals, they may want to have, for example, a high deductible, catastrophic plan, which millions of individuals across this land belief is the best vehicle for

them. the question is, who is going to decide what kind of coverage each individual american should have? should it be each individual american or should it be the federal government? i simply believe, we simply believe on the republican side by and large, that individuals ought to be empowered to be able to make those decision. host: are the lobbyists influencing the process? guest: the lobbyists always influence the process. but when it gets down to the specifics of a particular bill like this, each individual member is trying to work together and hopefully a collie alfashion with their colleagues to work out the best process. it's important that each caller on this show are lob big for a particular exclusion or inclusion of this bill. the fact of the matter is that every single american in this instance, because this bill will affect every sungle american, every american is lobbying for what is in their best interest. host: richard in springfield,

massachusetts. welcome. guest: i agree with the congressman that the bill is way too comprehensive. a thousand pages to sit down and pass quietly. i also want point out that before the medicare system came into being, the state of rhode island had the program two years before the federal program came into being. i know from a corporate point of view, whenever you're going going to roll out something as large as this, we need a program. somewhere one state becomes a pilot program for what eventually becomes the national program. because this is going to cause too much of a mess. host: you're calling from massachusetts. we spoke to the state senator yesterday who led the effort in health care a democrat who we also talked with kevin madden today about your former governor

mitt romney who passed the big with democratic support. caller: exactly. we have universal health care here where everyone is actually forced into participating in the program or they face a substantial penalty on their tax return. host: do you think it's working? guest: yeah. i see i have maybe 350-plus clients and all be a handful have gotten health insurance through one way or another, whether it's the commonwealth care, or whether so far they're under the medicaid system. i think it's working in that it's causing people to have to participate in the health care system, where otherwise they were not. the people that weren't participating, believe it or not, were younger folks. they were people in their 20's who really didn't require insurance. they are really being put into a position where they now have to

participate in the health care system or pay an individual fine, i believe it's up to $925, which is tagged on to their income tagses. host: you said may not have wanted to pay for health insurance, right? guest: i know for a fact that some of the other clients i have mumble and grown, usually they're self-employed people that might be plumbers or electricians who do well but don't want to participate in health care. that's a question for another day, whether that as an american, you should be, you know, in a position to be on the system at some point. i think that mitt romney and the democrats did a pretty good job putting it together. it's not perfect, but at least everybody has to be insured. host: i was just going to add to congressman price to respond to this point and also the tweet saying, if congress price wants competition, then what's wrong with a public option like what's

going on in massachusetts? guest: what's wrong with a public option is that it skews the system. the government never plays fair, as you know. and you don't have to make a conjecture about that. you can point to the kind of public options that we already have, both in health care and in other systems. it's medicare part b. it's a voluntary program. patients nor doctors, neither one of them have to participate. it's a government option and has a 97% market share. it crowds everything else out of the market. which is what happens when the government gets involved. that's what would happen in this instance, if you had a government. it's because the federal government would subsidize. there's no way you can have a level playing field and make it compete fairly with private enterprise. the massachusetts experiment has some significant pluses, but

some challenges and they're working through those right now. i worked with congresswoman baldwin from wisconsin a couple years ago to try to do what the caller said, to have pilot programs across the nation to see the best way we could get the folks who don't have health coverage, don't have health insurance right now, covered. what may be right in massachusetts, for example, may not be right in georgia or colorado ork washington state. there are all sorts of wonderful things we could be doing out across the land and not deciding everything from washington, which i think is one of the great fears that the american people have. host: steve has one of these ideas. why not look at it as a utility? keep it private but regulate it like you do electric or gas utilities. guest: not a bad poun. it's important that in many utilities, we just have one option and that's the last thing that we want this health care. health care decisions are so

very, very personal. what's right for one patient even with the same diagnosis may not be necessarily what's right for the next patient with that same diagnosis. i know that as a physician. i think that's what rubbed those of us who cared for patients the wrong way when the president made his comments the other night, and that is the doctors of this land are trying as hard as they can. when they see a patient in the clinic room to make the right diagnosis and to provide the highest quality care that they're able to do, not based upon the compensation that they receive, but based upon the problem that patient has so that the patient has the best outcome and gets well. host: so let me in the short term ask you what you expect to see if the house this week. guest: i think we'll probably see a bill come to the floor. my sense is that the speaker will push a bill through. that's what she's done in the past.

she did that with the cap and tax bill that she pushed through before the july 4 recess. the spending bill or the stimulus bill that happened earlier this year was again a thousand-plus. page bill that they brought to the floor and within 12 short hours required a vote on the floor. so my sense is that she will bring a bill to the floor. i'm hopeful, however, that cooler heads will prevail and that the american people will be given the opportunity through the month of august to learn more about this piece of legislation and the altern tiffs that are available, the very positive alternatives available, and that we come back in september and move forward on a bill that addresses more of those positive alternatives for the american people. host: congressman tom price joining us from georgia and a former doctor. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you so much, steve. host: on the issue of health care and other agenda items, we want to ask you a question that

dan boles poses in "the washington post." he promised changing but is it too much, too soon? so in the next 15 to 20 minutes, we want to ask you that question, whether it's the issue of health care or the stimulus or other agenda items, foreign and domestic. this president is taking on too much. as always, you can send us an e-mail or a tweet. let me read part of what he writes in "the washington post."

host: we want to hear more from you in a moment. i want to share with you some behind-the-scenes from michael daily. hello, mr. president, just call me barack. this is based on a phone conversation that took place between sergeant crowley. he was have a burger and a blue moon beer at an irish pub. he hung up and looked altogether amazed. his jaw dropped, recalled peter woodman. a co-owner.

host: the pub stayed absolutely silent. a couple minutes came in from the street and ask for a table and the whole bar said shut up and sit down. host: that of course led to the statement from the white house briefing room of the president who is saying he wished he had calibrated his remarks a little bit differently with regard to henry louis gates and the state invited -- and here's a photo courtesy of sergeant james crowley talking to the president. let's hear from linda.

is president obama doing too much too soon? caller: no. not at all. it's been a long time needed. 40 years ago we needed this kind of health coming through. from being a person who's done low income work, we've strungled to just make a basic medical need check-up. and one thing about the end of life dying, i wanted to mention, many of us don't mind. having worked as a care giver for people who are dying and elderly, what's so wrong with discussing options and seeing what's available and thoughing what's going to come and being -- knowing what's going to come and being emotional prepared for it. host: we're look at scenes from

wednesday's news conference. also this morning, front page of the "chicago sun-times" what they call the 51st ward. so many chicago wans playing key roles in the obama administration. 1600 pennsylvania has become the newest ward for chicago politics. janet is on the phone. caller: good morning. he's doing too much too soon. actually, i'm a registered democrat. i didn't vote for him. in my gut, i felt that he was just, you know, a gracious liar. and his wife not being proud to be an american really turned me off. i want him to slow down, one thing at a time.

althis thing with greats and the police officer. that statement that he made about the police department being stupid brought me back to, he must have been paying attention those 20 years in reverend wright's church. host: thank you for the call. going back to the column this morning, it's called the sunday take. he points out to the new gal up poll showing the consequences of doing what obama has done this year. the survey finding that two in three pibts now think obama's proposals call for too much government spending and three in five say his agenda calls for too much government. obama has a tough call ahead. should he press for passage of a health care bill over a near-universal republican opposition, assuming that he and the democrats will reap a political benefit for accomplishing something that has eluded others?

or should he make bipartisanship agreement a top priority in the senate, even with a scaled-down compromise about the size of government and the deficit? we're asking you wlrnt you think this president is do you think too much too soon. julius is on the phone from florida. good morning. caller: i'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak my mind. my belief is that there's not enough being done fast enough. i think it's very clear, people look at the foundation of this nation, what we're suffering from is basically about ever since the depression, republicans and democrats spending more time fighting each other than representing the american people. and i think all of this negativeness and lack of ability to unite and make decisions that benefit us all, is going to have this nation pay an incredible

price that i don't think americans have been informed enough of what we face with our gigantic debt that was not accumulated by this president, but primarily by what they inherited. i was out of my state in oregon a month ago and i put a nail into my wrist, it was a rusty nail. host: that would hurt. caller: it was more side waist. but at any rate, i have health care. i called the hospital. it was a sunday. and i say i'd like to get a tetanus shot. they say come on down, it will only take about half an hour. i did so. my bill is now $975 and not anywhere in the billing does it even mention the word tetanus shot. host: how long were you in the hospital? caller: 45 minutes. it took them that long to process me. i gave them my insurance cards and all that kind of stuff. host: did you challenge them on

it? caller: yeah. i'm writing them a letter explaining that, you know, i have a thing in my bill about independent contractors operating in the hospital and somebody walks into the room where i'm sitting waiting for somebody to stick a needle into my arm and they say, how's your heart? how are you doing? how are you feeling? this or that? i'm like, well, i'm fine. just want to do the prudent thing and get a shot. each one of those people sent me an independent invoice for some kind of consultation. the bottom lune with the health care issue is basically right here in this town, i can get a pripping for lipitor, i can go to five different pharmacies and get five different prices for same drug. host: thank you for phoning in and sharing your story. louis uchitelle will be joining us from midtown manhattan in about five minutes. some of his latest reporting for the recovery, what it means for those looking for a job. also this twitter comment from a

viewer who says the problem with this white house is that it has become chicago on the potomac and we all know how politics is done in chicago. meanwhile, in massachusetts, governor patrick who signed a huge tax increase. "the boston globe" has a new poll out showing his support plummetsing for this democratic governor seeking re-election. and his disapproval rating now at 56%. next is ralph joining us from england. good morning. welcome to the "washington journal." thanks for tuning in on the bbc parliament channel. caller: the republican representatives talking about empowerment and choice. it's very easy to be empowered and have choice when you have money. and unfortunately, if you haven't got money, you have a state where the rich live and poor die. it's very sad. i'm one of the very first babies born under the national health

service, or i was, rather, 61 years ago. i'm giving a very direct story from my own experience. my late mother went deaf in 1917 during the great war. and we could never afford anything like a hearing aid. and i remember her coming home in 1950 with a hearing aid from the national health service and she could hear for the first time properly since a child. in other countries, it's exactly the same. without national health service, and it has many faults, many faults, it still means that whether you're rich or poor, you get what is necessary at the point of need. and should you wish to talk it out with private insurance, you can, of course. i simply can't understand how the richest nation on earth would allow 40 million people to be uninsured. it means obviously that the

taxes of the rich help to pay for the health of the poor. but until you really want the poor to die and the rich to live, there isn't much of a choice in a decent society, is there? host: thank you for the call. another story we want to bring your attention, you may have seen some of it yesterday. there's a follow-up in the noims. it will likely join some of the conversation on the sunday morning round tables and through the early part of this week. new biden criticism surprising russia. the reporter is andrew kramer. just weeks after a summit meeting intended to show a thawing in relations between the u.s. and russia, vice president joe biden made a blistering reference to russia's failing economy, loss of face and a leadership that is "clinging to something in the past" in an interview published on saturday. speaking on the heels of his trip to georgia and ukraine, mr. biden said flatly that the obama administration would make no deals and accept no compromises

with the kremlin in exchain for better relation. russia itself he say should find its own interest to repair relations. the kremlin immediately responding to comments made in the interview with "the wall street journal" with the demand for a clarification of the administration's intentions toward russia, saying essentially that it was receiving a mixed message so soon after president obama had visited moscow for that summit meeting. more this morning. the pavings section of "the new york times," also posted on "the new york times" website. john is on the phone from auburn hills, michigan. good morning. guest: i thought the only doctor that represented price -- i thought he was an comblent spin doctor because i thought his arguments were a bit ridiculous. my father was a doctor, graduated from columbia university medical school until 1935. the thing i found most intriguing was my dad said in 1935 the republican party fought tooth and nail against social security legislation.

in 1935, that was signed into law by f.d.r. they fought tooth and nail against medicare. this is socialized medicine. this is going to start us on the road to communism. and you know something? it sounds awfully familiar, this same kind of drum beat we're hearing. socialism and socialized medicine. this is a horrible, horrible thing. you know something? most of my republican friends whose families have medicare, who didn't have their grandmother going to a county poor house because of social security, they're usually pretty happy with both of those problems, as long as the programs are, and we all know they need restructuring. as long as those programs are, in the grand scheme of things, it was much better to have them passed than to not have them passed. host: thank you, john, for the call. "the washington post" and the wimes devoted to the issue of health care. specifically if "the washington

post," mr. obama's soothing bedside manner masked the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choice about what procedures and med cages to cover. it will require saying no or having the patient pay more at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement care. mr. obama is right that sticking with the status quo is a bad alternative, but he the president isn't leveling about the consequences of change. flst this comment from a regular view -- there's this comment that says w and cheney still at large, gitmo still open, and nafta and other free trade not undone. jobs still outsourced. not too much. we ask whether this president is doing too much too soon. we'll hear from wade who is joining us from south carolina. good morning. guest: i don't think obama is doing too much of anything. people have done it in the past. he's just trying to catch up.

these things should have already been taken care of in this country. these people calling in saying that it's too much. they apparently have good insurance and not worried about health care. but there's many americans out here that doesn't have it and didn't afford it. we're glad to have a president that finally speaks for the american people in general. that's all i have to say. thank you very much. host: before we let you go. there's a piece this morning also on the front page of the state newspaper. the two faces of mark sanford. i ask you that on a day that a lot of attention focused on the alaska governor who is leaving office officially today. still a lot of news accounts about your own governor. caller: i voted for sanford. i called in when lindsey graham was on when they were asking him about why sanford wouldn't take stimulus package money. which he said at that time he had already told sanford that he should have. and a week later, all this scandal came out about him. so apparently sanford was doing

other things rather than just the state. host: thank you for the call and to all of you for your calls, your e-mails and your tweets. joining us from new york is louis uchitelle. he's an economics writer for "the new york times." gong, sir. thank you for being with us again. guest: thank you for having me. host: let me begin with your own words from "the new york times" this past week. you said, quote host: can you explain? guest: well, there are signs of improvements. home sales seemed to have bottomed out. there's a little bit -- a tiny bit more consumption. there are generally signs -- it's relative, of course. we're going to have the gross domestic product, the economic growth for the second quarter

announced on friday. instead of being minus five and a half%, it will maybe minus 1 1/2 wers. and we're going to cheer that, as the turnaround of an improvement. that sort of contraction in the good old days of normal recessions was considered quite negative, quite upsetting. if that sense, the economy seems to be improving. it's moving into a stage of much smaller contraction and everyone hopes by the end of the year, it might actually begin to grow again. that doesn't mean that at all. host: you say

host: which companies? guest: well, that particular -- there was a quote that i have in that story from the chairman and chief executive of general electric. what's happening in this country is that manufacturing has taken the biggest hit of any sector in the economy. the jobs are down nearly two million out of a total of 6.5 million. and the output, that is the cars and refrigerators and aproblems, whatever manufacturing is make. that output is down more than 17%. that's the greatest decline in manufacturing output since the great depression, since the 1930's. so if you consider manufacturing important and president obama has signaled that he does. then you are in a situation in

which we are doing very heavy damage to a very important sector of the economy and the obama administration very gingerly ad hoc really is the word i use in that story, is trying to take steps to lift that sector of the economy. host: so as you hear that expression that there are green chutes in the economy -- first of all, are there? and where are they? guest: well, green chutes -- i think you should call them brown chutes. as i say, i think the main green chute is going to be that the economy is contracting les than it did before. and that's a very -- that's sort of a negative green chute, if you will. it's relatively better than a very steep decline that we had in the fourth quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year. the big problem is employment.

there is no -- we've had a steep recession and nor pally when we come out of a steep recession, we have -- normally when we come out of a steep recession, we have a steep surge and lift in employment. that isn't going to happen this time. we are likely to go on even when the economy starts to grow again and if the forecasters are right, that will begin to happen by the end of the year, or early next year. if the economy starts to grow again, the loss of jobs will continue at, say, instead of 467,000 in the month of june, 200,000, or 100,000. we're in for a period in which we have huge job losses for a protracted period of time. another jobless recovery. except the previous job losses recovery, we were talking 50,000, 60,000 a month, until job growth finally turned up. now we're talking a much larger

number. that in turn has an impact on the economy. it means that consumption won't be so great. people will be safing their money because they've lost so much wealth in the stock market and in their homes. relative to what they had when this started. so we're going to have a very, very gradual recovery, and always in this sort of a situation, the danger of something happening that will send us back into a double dip or another recession. host: a couple of points from the cover story of news -- "newsweek" magazine. the piece is called "the recession ask over, now we need a new kind of recovery." first of all the fed can't lower interest rates any further. they're now at zero. people just aren't spending. this has to be a different kind of recovery. i'm asking you if you can point to where this needs to go.

guest: well, i think it has to go, as it did during the 1930's, during the roosevelt administration, it has to go to government. in the absence of demand, in the absence of sufficient employment and income, in the absence really of competence, government has to step in. and it probably has to step in with a much larger stimulus package than we have had so far. we are now arguing whether or not the stimulus worked and there are actually people out there saying that the stimulus didn't work, forever we should cancel it. i think the real point is we're losing -- or we have been losing income, national income at a rate of a trillion dollars a year. our stimulus package is $787 billion over two years. i think we're going to have to come in with a lot more government spending if a short period of time in order to lift the economy and get the private

sector going again vigorously. i said it, i think, in one of the articles i wrote that it may have to be as much as $1 trillion spent in one year, probably on any furthermore of public projects, which would be good for the economy in general, for the market system. it would be a very efficient adjunct or very necessary adjunct to the market economy. and it would provide both the demand and the investment that the economy needs to get off the ground. host: our guest is louis uchitelle. we've invited him in the spring and asked him to share his perspective with you in the economy and his reporting in "the new york times." we'll get to your calls in just a moment. in one of the pieces you posted earlier this leet, you quote the policy director for the ficlo.

guest: i think i share that view. i'm puzzled in this country. we seem to think that somehow or other, manufacturing isn't important. it was the source of our rapid rise at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century. all through the 20th century. it's the source of the rapid economic strength of the asian countries, particularly china today. it is a source of tremendous productivity in this country. it's a source of good jobs for people with only a high school education. which is still the largest segment of our population. and it is a source for the gods that we all consume. -- for the goods that we all consume. we are consuming quite a bit -- quite a bit of what we consume, we have to import because we don't make it here. and that means i think maybe around 25% of the mrds that we

purchase and -- the merchandise that we consume is imported. if we continue doing that, we will rack up a trade deficit. the trade deficit weakens the dollar and as the dollar weakens too much, we lose the ability to make such purchases. we decline as a nation. i think the argument that obama is gingerly beginning to make and that others i think have to make much more strongly is that manufacturing is an essential -- is essential in a vigorous, industrial economy, and we're letting it slip. i had one other thing. this is not just an american problem. i think it's more of an american problem than any other nation. we are today -- we devet a little under 14% of our economy to manufacturing. and among the industrial powerhouses, including the

european nations of course, but also china, korea, and india, we're eighth out of nine. only france devotes less of its economy to manufacturing than we do. that's going to hurt us in the long run. host: of course you only have to go to upstate new york or buffalo or cleveland, ohio, or detroit to see miles after miles of empty industrial complexes. guest: that's true. the other thing we argue now, that while we don't have to manufacture, we'll invent. we'll invent a new chip and let subpoena else manufacture it. that ignores that most of our innovation, most of our r&d comes from the manufacturing sector. most of our inventions were done in con juncture with manufacturing. you make a new chip and walk it

across the street from an intel r.n.d. center and test it out on the factory line to see if you can actually make what you invented. you adjust in the production line to make it work properly. the two go together. there's no way to be an innovative, cutting-edge country when it comes to production and not also to have a very substantial manufacturing base. and that argument -- i'm making that not because -- i personally happen to believe that or think it's correct, but it's an argument that's coming up more and more now in the nation, and i think in the obama administration. host: our combest is louis uchitelle, economics writer from "the new york times." our guest is mickie from mississippi. you with us? we'll try it one more time for mickie in cleveland, mississippi. please go ahead.

caller: i am glad for the funt to voice my opinion. what i want to say basically is that president obama is trying to be a control freak and he's already got one of the major manufacturers in the nation and he's dictating what they can co-do and what they can't do. and also if you leave private business alone, they'll cure all of our woes, including health insurance. but we have a president that's a control freak. he don't want a bill passed. he just wants an open hand to directives because he can keep control of everything. host: thanks for the call.

we were talking earlier about dan ball's piece in "the washington post." he concludes, which is exactly what president obama was pointing out, that president obama will have to assess the mandate that he has to govern, so whether it's g.m. and chrysler and the bailout or wall street or the health care industry, or the economy in general, what's your reaction? guest: well, first of all, i think that the main -- the most successful economies are market economies. vigorous market economies that also have -- that also recognize that there is a goth role in a market economy. that cannot divorce those two. the simplest example would be the eerie canal or the interstate highway or federally subsidized railroads, all of watch enhance the private

sector, make possible transportation of goods made if the private sector, just to use the simplest example. so obama is being drawn in this terrible period of recession, into a role that the government should normally exercise. and that is the role of supplement to the private sector. and of course he stepped in to general motors bailout, of course, because he dded that he couldn't let this huge company go under. and he ended up -- the federal government ended up owning the company. presumably, they'll get out of ownership as quickly as they can. but if the administration had not taken this step, we would be without general motors today. and that would have meant many more jobs lost, much more income lost. and it would have become much harder to get out of the recession. so government has a role in any economy, and it is always -- it

has always had a significant role in our most successful decades, 1950's and 1960's. host: one of the viewers saying peter shiff has been saying this for years. we need to make things again. jim is joining us from roanoke, michigan. good morning. caller: my point is for years, since 2004, i've been watching the report that the department of labor puts out monthly. and i've been writing to the paper saying that the american economy is being written on a very loose base i bah sis. most of the jobs are in health care and food and drug establishments. people are living off the equities of their homes. this was not the basis for a strong economy. so that's why i think because

since we're not producing what we're consuming in this country and the kinds of jobs that are being created, we were headed for this for a long time. i'll take your answer off the phone. host: thank you. guest: well, i generally agree with that. when the jobs come back, the estimates that forecasters are now making is that they'll come back with education and health care and restaurants and pipeline construction, all of which is good, but they won't come back in manufacturing. again, we have this issue. can we consume more than we produce indefinitely? and still keep the dollar from collapsing on us because of the trade deficit, the need that we have for the chinese to invest in our securities. that can't go on indefinitely. eventually the dollar itself

will have to fall and we will face the problem of not being able to afford all that we want to consume. and that will -- of course american companies won't invest as much as they should. i want to make a clear point about american manufacturing. when it comes to value added, that can is the processing, turning a sheet of steel -- stamping it into the hood of a car, which is value added to that sheet of steel, the united states is still among all countries, adds more value in manufacturing than any other country. but we are also sheding our value add very rapidly, not more than other countries, although i think that's the case. the share of our economy devoted to manufacturing as i said before is actually 13.9%, down four percentage points in a

decade, according to world bank. that's a pretty rapid decline many a sector of the economy that produces the goods that we surround ourselves with. host: our topic is the economy. carol is with us from the stape capital in new hampshire, concord. good morning. caller: i have some things i would like to discuss. this insurance is trying to push it down our throughout. secondly, my parents came from italy. we were proud to come here. my mother was born here. we went to work, we took whatever there was to earn $1 and put food on our tables and pay our bills. there's too many damn people that the unite want to sit on their butts and not do anything. secondly, he's spending all this money and we're hearing about

medicare is going go, social security is going broke. why don't they put the money back that they took from social security that 400 people don't even know they took? that's it. host: thank you for your call. referring to president obama. uchitelle? guest: well, i guess i've been a reporter for a long time. i've interviewed a lot of people. i'm all in search of that person who wants to sit on their butt and not do anything, just sort of limbo off the fat of the land or live all welfare. i never find that person. i find that people want to work and they take pride in their work and the more skill they have, the greater pride -- the pride and the self-esteem that they have. and so i'm not too much -- i don't have a lot of sympathy for that view that we're a nation of some are doers and others are slackers. i think most people would like

to have good jobs, skilled jobs, and i'll again go back to manufacturing here, rather than deal with in health insurance, other than to say about health sfurns, that we are the only industrial country without a national health insurance system and we inevitably now must join the ranks of other nations. how we're going to do that, i'm not going to get into the details of it. i'm pretty confident that this government will -- congress and the president will if not immediately, then over the next year or two, produce a health insurance system that will take its place alongside social security and medicare as one of the jewels of our society. i do think that we have to concern ourselves with the wealth that we generate in this country, and i think one of the major means of generating wealth

is manufacturing. it's also one of the major sources of skill. not just welders or electricians or plumbers, all of whom are in short supply, by the way, these day. but engineers and physicists and chemists. all of which are skills that are attached to an industrial economy. and skills that we have relatively neglected over the years. host: on that issue of job growth, you write this. host: we'll hear from frank who is joining us from bradford, pennsylvania. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning, steve and

louis. i'm happy to say the hospitalization, the insurance, it's killing the industry. and if we don't realize that, when general motors has the plan in canada and g.e. says the same thing, it's because they're avoiding the tremendous cause that is a burden on our manufacturing. we have no recovery until manufacturing is restored. the insurance cost has to be taken off their back. insurance companies can thot be treated like they're the military industrial complex. nobody wonders why 1,300 insurance companies have a multimillion-dollar c.e.o.. these costs are forced upon business. there's no recovery without insurance being corrected. it sounds brutal, but i would like to say something about the blue dogs. where they got their noses.

aren't they interested? these companies have to compete. they cannot continue bearing the burden for all this insurance. thank you. host: thank you for the call. guest: well, there is an issue there. i'd like to think that we will have a recovery. it might not be as strong a recovery as we would -- as we're capable of. i also luke to think that we need -- many people feel this national health insurance just as a question of equity and a question of joining the modern age, if you will. our health insurance system worked very well for a very long. its day has passed, if i may be that general, and we are entering an era in which health insurance has to be a public responsibility. or that's certainly what the obama administration is putting forth. i am concerned that the obama

administration is coming slowly to the idea that it has to have some sort of manufacturing policy. there's a great fear that if you have manufacturing policy, that means you are going to choose winners and losers. you're going to save general motors and somebody else will go down. i think we shouldn't think of it that way. i think we should think of it as manufacturing in general and what we should do to support it. what the government should do. i think that should be part of the national debate. i certainly -- the obama administration seems to be doing -- to be meeting each situation as it presents itself, and of course, in energy there will be tubts to make solar panels and wind turbines. they're also being imported, by the way. policy has to evolve that addresses the issue of how many

-- of what should be made here and how much should be imported? host: one fan out there, this tweet comment, saying mr. uchitelle has the common sense that is rarely seen. his comment about lazy americans is great. guest: that was a comment that said i don't think americans are lazy. i've interviewed a lot of people who are on welfare and i have yet to find someone who didn't want to have a job, a good job, something that gave them self-respect. host: charles is joining us from oakland, california. good morning. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: i just want to say that fox news network, put george bush in office with a lie. we should be after the bush administration and dick cheney for all the damage they've done tho this country.

do not forget that. host: thank you for the call. let me go back to the economy. life in the rehab economy. he says the stock market's surge last week could almost make you think that the go-go years are coming back. but listening to the obama administration officials and business leaders over the last few weeks, i drew a less rosy picture about our nick future. he says our rovery is lukely to be a v shape so wide it will look like an l, gradually sloping upward and america recovers from the long, debt-fueled boom that began in the 1980's. what's your perspective? guest: well, -- i don't really have a perspective. i think we're going to not have a v-shaped recovery, one that we have a rapid recovery. i think it will be a slow recovery. i think will be subject -- and i think we might even have a double dip.

i think we're not into a recoverry right now. we're making that assumption that the worse is over and that the recover is ahead of us. and i worry that if we don't -- ha the private sector is not yet capable of generating the demand. consumption and business investment that the economy needs to stop contracting and grow again. and that has to be recognized and debated and we have to decide what else -- what other -- you can call it stimulus. what additional stimulus we need to make this happen. i would rather call it public investment. we have huge needs in transportation, in energy, and all sorts of sectors. i'd rather see it as a debate that says what must government do to enhance the private sector, to make the markets work better.

and energy, clean energy, is one of those things obviously. and that would be one way for the government to both invest and in doing so, lift the economy. i think this should be a debate over public investment stepped up at this moment when we really need it to lift the economy. host: from atlanta, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. when everything is said and done, you can argue until the cow's come home, but i've got a little poem i've come up here with. it won't take but a second. when the world will fall, governments are making that call. getting worse day by day, all that we can do is pray. peace, not war should be our creed. governments care less of our needs. take care of your own should be number one. or if not, we'll all be done.

they won't put dollars into the human race, by spending billions in outer space. asking for help, they say will pass. reality is they no longer have a grasp. it's always in god's hands to keep -- the lands. so thanks to them with all their need, the world will end along with greed. we're supposed to be in this thing together and if we don't, things are going to change real soon. thank you for your time. hope y'all have a wonderful weekend. host: thank you for the call. there's a comment, not a question in that, louis uchitelle. but did you want to respond in any way? guest: i wish that we could get rid of this idea that born in the reagan years or even in the carter years, that government is the problem. government and markets together are the solution. and both play a very important role. neither should be demonized.