the so-called public option in the healthcare debate. . the debate over health care continues to dominate the news. it is the lead in many newspapers. we will get to it in a few seconds. as evidence by "the new york times" with the headline, democrats seem set to go alone when a health care bill. site resistance by gop and tone during the recess. that is what we want to discuss for the first half-hour is whether or not a bipartisan bill is important to you, whether it's got support of both democrats and republicans,

liberals and concurrence -- conservatives, or just one- sided. how important is it to you? that is the question for the first half-hour. if you have called us in the last 30 days, send us an e-mail. journal@c-span.org or send us a twitter. here is the article we referred to in "the new york times." given harding republican opposition to congressional health-care proposals, democrats now say they see little chance of the minorities cooperation in improving and the over all and increasingly focused on drawing support for final plan from within their own ranks. top democrats say tuesday that there go it alone in view was being shaped by what they saw

as republicans purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month's congressional resource -- recess as well as remarks by leading republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair. we're going to find out what you think about that, a little bit more from the "the new york times" article. rahm emanuel, the white house chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that republicans have made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration the pole -- proposals that republicans have opposed. again, the e-mail address is journal@6 and twitter, c-spanwj.

the first caller comes from georgia, joe online for republicans. caller: i just wanted to call and say i am totally against a bipartisan bill. we have outstanding congressman mike westmoreland and state senator chip pearson and rep -- i think it is just awful. everybody i have talked to down here is against it. we just feel it is too much government and i think obama have got to be stopped. i'm really proud of people like congressman westmoreland standing up for the taxpayers. we are fired up and energize to stop the the health care bill. we think it needs to be stopped because it is just socialized medicine, ronald, and i think the majority of the taxpayers as all the polls show are against it.

host: give us something in a bill evidence of socialized medicine. audit of the public -- all because of the publicoption -- a the president used the post office as an example. obama used the post office as an example of government. anything you turn over to government, rob, is inefficient and costs too much. the whole public option just cares american taxpayers like myself and just about everybody i see down here, we are all scared to death -- to death about death aboutoption -- anything that has to do about adding more government. see, i'm a small businessman, and i tell you, 27 million small businesses are against this for the most part, plus all of the

additional spending by the obama administration. host cut joe, we will leave it there. richard leventhal has this op-ed in co the philadelphia enquirer." your uncle sam is no doctor. on at least a two occasions president obama lot of fedex and ups for private sector efficiency, contrasting them with the troubled u.s. postal service. that alone should make average americans pause. it goes on to say, but if local government can't do something as simple as helping voters change their registration without too much trouble, how hard is it to believe that a future federal medical's are -- tsar might miss something important. dayton, texas. stephen on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: i would like to say it would be nice to have a bipartisan bill between the democrats and republicans, but if the republicans -- every time

the democrats take something off the table republicans say they won't vote for it. if that happens, the democrats just need to do it themselves. that is why they were elected. host: how important is it for you that the bill be bipartisan, and why? caller: i would like to date because that way both sides will take responsibility for passage of the bill. and that would be fair to all. we did not have that option the last eight years. but i would like it to be -- it needs to be done for the country. these people who were saying socialized medicine -- they would not give up their medicare, and that is socialized medicine. i just believe it would be the right thing to do. host: do you think a bipartisan bill would make a better quality bill. caller: it could be.

republicans would work with them and get good legislation with the democrats, it would be a good bill for everybody. but if they are refusing to do it, they are just wanting to say no and throw it off to the side. it been host: florida, arizona. our line for independents. caller: steven, you had a great point of but i did not believe in medicare being socialized program. i had a situation that mr. obama's bill would help out tremendously, sharing information between doctors. my mother was released from hospital on sunday with a broken arm in three places, and it now because she wasn't directed into the rehab center from the hospital, we are going through a heck to get her to rehab so she could get her arm taking care of. obama's bill would take care of

a lot of things. said back, and relax. but democrats and republicans have never gotten along in the entire time we have ever had them. bipartisan bill, it would be great, but i don't think it will ever happen. host: more from the article -- democratic shift may not make producing a final bill easier. it must go reconcile use of moderate and conservative democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government run insurance option. shipping is burke, pennsylvania. the line for republicans. cheryl, are you there? caller: thank you for c-span. i do not believe that the partisan bill is necessary. we do need health care passed. because of the past 30 years there have been a lot of people left out. there are a lot of people out there who are hurting right

now, and people with medicare and social security of the first ones to say that we do not need -- that we do not need socialized medicine. however, i think with the people who heard it and need it, any medicine is medicine and we need -- i'm a republican, but i voted for president obama because i feel we do need a change and i felt, like, extremely ashamed. host: let me get your reaction to this. republicans have used the congressional break to begin hard against the overall outline drawn by democrats. the senate's no. 2 republican, john kyl of arizona, is the latest way in strongly, saying tuesday that the public response seen over the summer break should persuade democrats to scrap their approach and start over here what do you think about that? caller: i think the democrats need to stand behind their present. the american people voted for

obama for a reason with an overwhelming majority. i think he is doing a good job and also think we do not give him enough credit. i feel he is basically giving the republican enough rope to hang themselves. host: up to leda -- toledo, ohio, democrat. is a bipartisan bill necessary? caller: absolutely not. it will never pass bipartisan. the republicans sent obama got in, bless his heart, they will not vote for anything that has anything to do with him and i still say that it comes down to the fact that he is black. in their inner core they are basically racist, they listened three hours a day to their leader, the fact, drug addicted rush limbaugh, and i am very concerned about heard they show up with ak-47's because that "is their right."

they want this president to not only heard but they want him gone, and if you know what gone means you get my drift because they are never, ever going to give him leeway. and a republican who calls before me, they are very few and far between and as far as joe mceachern, the inbred in georgia, he calls in all the time, he is one of the radicals about taking the country back. what have they lost with him and the white house? please, have them call in and tell me. host: on page a3 of "the washington post" this morning, white house backs rights arms outside obama events. robert gates, white house press secretary said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local law allowing "there are laws that govern firearms better done state or locally," he said. "those laws don't change when the present comes to your state

or locality." caller: did they do it before? this is a sign to obama. they want to intimidate him. i heard they take these guns and a lot of times there are no bullets. it is in them and giving a sign, we are in power and we got the guns and i tell you if they don't get a handle on the radical right wing with this bitch real hatred of our president of the united states -- vitriolic hatred. host: is a bipartisan health bill and poor? donnell on the line for independence -- dawna on the line for -- donna on the line for independents. caller: unfortunately these right wing people are not for. anything -- anybody against health care reform, they

probably never incurred a major health issue. because if you have ever been in my situation where i have had a hard time maintaining health insurance because i am self employed, when i have health insurance, as soon as you get sick they kick you off. that is my personal experience and experience of a lot of people i know. so anybody against it obviously has not had to sit and -- you are going to be bombarded with all of these bills you cannot afford and god forbid if something serious word to happen and you end up in the hospital. a lot of people now are bancorp and you are losing homes and pensions and all kinds of things because of health care, the number one reason for bankruptcy, and those people protest thing so violently, they obviously either they are set and they really don't care about anybody else or they are just ignorant. that is just my opinion.

but it will be nice to be bipartisan beard but we elected barack obama on the plat form of health care reform bill and i encourage him to put forward and every one else to support him and be more vocal and to step out and not be so quiet. host: victor, silver spring, maryland. the line for republicans. caller: i cannot believe the last two callers. obama is extremely dangerous. he is a marxist and the people around him want to bring the country to the east germany of 1957. and i'm going to speak out. it is my freedom to speak out. and i am sick and tired of these liberals who get on their and don't want anybody else to talk. someone brought up the fact there may be a race war. fine, bring it on. host: new york city, a drink, on the line for democrats, you are

next on "washington journal." is important to you? caller: i think it is rising unemployment rate, we have significant portion of our population who are working poor who cannot afford to pay for employment -- i am sorry, insurance, and the lawyers will not pay for for them and most of the people are probably getting some sort of emergency care of when something dramatic happens and premiums paid for that. i don't think the argument on the opposite end make a whole lot of sense given that fact we are probably paying for a lot of the services they are receiving in terms of trauma care, anyway. given the fact that everyone at this point is sympathetic that we have the unemployment rate in this country and there should be a security net. host: in the u.s. news section

of "the wall street journal," white house briefings how it sells health overhaul. backers criticizing him for focusing on regulatory details rather than a lofty scenes. he writes -- the president is expected to present a more emotional appeal during a conference call with a liberal religious groups. the message will be tailored to the group's moral and this is, although he cautioned the president's message to religious groups may not hold a broader shift in themes. back to the phones, middletown, conn., john on the line for independents. how important it to you the bill be passed by partisan why? caller: as independents think, we look at both sides and i don't think the democrats or

republicans will work together. barack obama -- your past call ers -- all this is class warfare, democrats against republicans and republicans against democrats and discourage other names. republicans were calling democrats names, democrats were calling republicans names. barack obama was elected for change. i saw no change. he has been in office now for eight months. he has done nothing but cause class warfare in this country. that is why this and medical bill should not pass, because he is not working with both sides of the house or both sides of the senate. if he is really what he says he is, he needs to get his butt and start working with the republicans and democrats. if he wants more medical in this country, he has to do a hard thing. either come up with a tax code where people -- everyone will pay. why don't we have a national sales tax where not only the rich pay but also the poor pay?

we all take the brunt of the medical insurance on our own selves. everything we buy, 2% goes towards medical insurance to everybody in the country. host: one of your thoughts about the president and administration working with republicans. "the new york times" writes that the white house also entered a critical comments by senator charles grassley of iowa, top republican negotiator, as a sign that there is little hope of reaching a deal politically acceptable to both parties. what do you think about that? caller: i agree. there is no bipartisan work because the democrats don't want to bend over and do what is right for the american people, they don't want to make the hard decisions, all the want is big government and tax the rich. they want to continue to have class warfare. once they start getting that

through their heads and come to the table and say, look, we need medical for the entire country, what we have to do to do what, and let's do it. if they did that and quit talking points and class warfare statements all the time, then something would get past. i believe in my heart. but you are not going to do it the way the argument is. holes cut thank you for the comments. we will look at other items in the news as we continue our discussion of bipartisan passage of the health-care bill and how important it is to it. if you have been reading the papers, you may know that robert novak passed away yesterday. this is how it was reported on the front of "the chicago sun- times." in the style section of this morning's "the washington post" under the headline, heart of "the prince of darkness."

colonists broke news as the insider's insider. the columnist broke the news. "the wall street journal" says "prince of light." in recent years he became a target of the political left because of his groff tv persona, he let people call and the prince of darkness, and especially for his 2003 column that all the cia analysts valerie plame. it was merely another case of robert novak during his job, writes "the wall street journal," and he protected his source, deputy secretary of state richard armitage, and behaved honorably even as others in the press corps abandoned first amendment principles to cheer on a spreadsheet -- special prosecutor willing to throw reporters in jail. you can read more about him in various newspapers of this morning beard back to the telephones. north caldwell, new jersey. helene on the line for republicans. welcome to the program.

caller: thank you for taking my call. host: thank you never much for calling. how important is it to you that the health care reform bill be passed on a bipartisan basis? caller: i'm for health care reform that the bill before us now seems too complicated. i think we should start all over again. i would like the republicans and democrats to get together, but right now it just doesn't seem to be working out. it is too complicated. i think if we do get together with the bills before them, no one will understand what is happening. i do hope we do have reform. we can do it much more simply, and one step at a time, i think, and we will be better off. host: have you actually tried to read the bill? what have you found so complicated?

caller: thousands of pages -- how can anybody read it? to tell you the truth, i have been in personal things -- but i intend to really read it, to get on the net and tried to really read it. host: bainbridge, ireland, washington. virginia on the line for democrats. what do you think about a bipartisan bill? caller: and the beginning. i volunteered for obama for other two years and we did so much out of reach to republicans and we met some really nice people and they saw the point, he was going to be on that conservative talk show host. but i cannot believe -- just watching on c-span on line, the conservative bloggers convention

that they had, the very end of it, i cannot remember the name of the fellow, a fellow came out that i think was a republican representative and retold the attendees that it was likely the public option would still be taken off the table and to not get caught off guard but to stay in opposition against any passage of any bill. so there is no opportunity for bipartisanship and it really, really bothers me. i feel they have done anything they can to get us to hate each other, i think a the right has. and they are antagonizing the left quite a lot. but it is not the way we started, though way we campaigned and ran and i think it is a real shame. host: thank you for your call.

sorry to cut you off because we want to get more calls in. from twitter -- a message from kathleen. back to the telephones, indianapolis, indiana. jamie on our line for independents. caller: i have to absolutely agree with the last message, although i probably would have been a lot more eloquent with it. the hard truth is no matter what this man puts forward the republicans will go against it and that people would take marching orders from republican leadership, not necessarily in elected officials, are misguiding a lot of the people themselves -- i don't know who recognizing this, voting against their best interest.

america never had the experience -- host: jamie? we lost jimmy. we do have "usa today" this morning. their lead story, climate plan calls for forced expansion. the epa says 18 million acres of trees to be planted. new forests will spread across the landscape, replacing both pastor and farm fields, under a congressional plan to confront climate change, and environmental protection agency analysis shows. petreaus watson goes on to write that about 80 million acres of new trees, roughly the size of west virginia -- would be planted by 2020 according to an epa analysis of the crime bill passed by the house of representatives in june. back to the telephones. gulfport, fla., on the line for republicans. caller: how are you doing this one?

just host: 5. what do you think about the bipartisan bill? caller: you know what i think it is necessary? nothing in more. america needs to wake up and realize one thing about politicians, the only thing they will do is the wrong thing. the best thing they can do is sell that whole page of garbage in d.c. to the chinese or something. this place is the not spirit not. totally not. job's going out there, nothing is going good for america, period. we are going to end up in a revolution or a racial war. host: "the financial times" has above the fold, a picture of president obama and egyptian president hosni mubarak who met at the white house. they were meeting for the third time in as many months. the president discussed how to give impetus to the stalled middle east peace process. petit urged mr. obama to set up

a blueprint -- "we can't afford wasting more time because of violence will increase," mr. mubarak said after this picture was taken. this is what "the financial times" had to write in their lead editorial regarding president mubarak's return to washington. while it is true that cairo's intermediation in the israeli- palestinian conflict remains a valuable, that cannot hide the falloff in -- ability to exert a positive influence on regional affairs. egypt is no longer really punching its weight in the arab world. indiana, i think that is. rich on our 94 democrat. caller: mass., that is. no problem. really it is how the republicans really don't want to spend the taxpayer money for health insurance reform.

and they are trying to talk everybody out of it and back when that idiot bush was president, he talked all the democrats into voting for a war, that by next year which costs $1 trillion, which is the same price as this health insurance bill, but yet he wanted us to spend $1 trillion dressed to kill one died. what is the waste of money here? host: thank you for the call. in "the washington post," the lead story, debates pass caught obama by surprise . surpriseoption was not in -- by surprise. public oiption was not intended to be the focus. an adviser says i don't understand why the left of the left decided that this is their war low, said a senior white house adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity. we have gotten to the point

where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the breadthoption -- but the breadth of the public option. the line for independents. go ahead. caller: i would like a bipartisan bill. i do not think it is possible. i think it is proven by the efforts of the democrats and the response of the republicans. the bipartisoan efforts, if it could come about, would prove elected officials are working for the interest of the american people as opposed to being loyal to their party. as far as the public option is

concerned, i think it is needed. i don't understand people saying it is wrong or socialism, when, in fact, it is just the free market working as they say it should, especially the republicans. if the public option is adopted, then the insurance companies will have to make themselves more viable and attractive. host: we are going to leave it there. we would take a short break. when we come back we'll talk to brooks jackson of factcheck.org on the fact some verses fiction over health-care reform. we will be right back.

>> as the health care conversation continues, c- span's healthcare hub is a key resource. go online and follow the latest tweets and links. keep up-to-date with events like town hall meetings, house and senate debate, even up load your opinion with a citizen of video. the c-span health care hub c- span.org/healthcare. >> this fall, answer the home to america's highest court. from the grant public for places, to those only accessible to the nine justices. the supreme court,, the first sunday in october, on c-span. >> the u.s. government? >> private benefactors. >> i don't know. i think some of it is government raised. >> it is not a public funding.

>> donations? >> i want to say from me, my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies greeted c-span as a public service. if private business initiative. no public mandate, no public money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brooks jackson joins us, from factcheck.org, and he is here to help us separate fact and fiction from this health care debate. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: in your research, there are various planes out on the table. what are some examples of the biggest and most talked about falsehoods you heard so far. guest: of course, the claim that there are some how death panels concluded or mandatory counseling that would push older people to assisted suicide or euthanasia, nothing like that is in the bill.

the provision was misrepresented. all it would do would make end of life counseling a covered service under medicare. that does not make it mandatory. hip replacements are covered and you don't have to have one. there are claims it would somehow all all private insurance. there was an editorial that says on page 16 there is a secret provision that would outlaw private insurance, the writer completely misread the legislation. all it said was that those who have insurance purchased on the private market not covered by the employer are basically grandfathered for a period of five years. they could keep their policy, even if it did not meet the new federal standards. for example, if it did not cover pre-existing conditions, if they wanted to hang on to the policy they could.

there have been many others. but those are just a couple. host: we wanted to continue talking about fact vs. fiction for the health-care debate with the director of factcheck.org. we want to get your calls in as soon as possible. the numbers are on the screen. you can also reach us electronically by e-mail, the journal@c-span.org and on twitter it is cs [anwj. what is the fact -- factcheck.org? guest: we are an arm of the university of pennsylvania. what we tried to do is to be non-partisan, non ideological sort of clearinghouse consumer advocate really for citizens and voters who tried to sort out

when they hear political claims by political figures of a factual nature. we sort out what is correct and what is not. host: how do you go about determining what is fact or fiction? are you reading the bill, additional research? guest: a lot of research. when a particular claim is made we try to go to the original source. we first of all go to the person making it, and if they are not clear where the information is coming from, we will ask him so we are not trip up by some misunderstanding. if there is a quote on a tv ad, for example, from a newspaper, we will read the quote to make sure it is quoted accurately and in context. host: we have got a chart of the seven falsehoods about

health care beard we already showed it once before. as the conversation goes on, i want to touch. the one at the top, government will decide what care i get. tell us about that. guest: this is sort of an extension of the death panel idea. we are talking primarily about the house leadership bill, which is the only one where you could really read in full right now, even though it has been amended and not completely transparent as of yet. the idea that there is going to be government run health care, panels of bureaucrats deciding patient by a patient who gets what type of treatment, that has been one of the major misrepresentations. what you are hearing some

republicans who oppose it are making a more sophisticated arguments saying, if it is in there it will inevitably lead to some been like that, but that is a completely different argument. for host: if i already have health insurance either through my company or some other means, anything in the bill that suggests that the government at some point will come in and say we want you to change your health insurance or is it up to meet to decide. guest: it is up to you to decide. but here is where president obama perhaps has been misleading because he has been saying if you have your health insurance, you can keep it. when pressed, what he really means is that there is nothing in the legislation, he does not favor anything that would direct people into a different plan. but it is absolutely true that, first of all, your plan may not meet new federal standards. so your plan may have to change

to meet those standards. if there is a public option, a more attractive option, your employer may say, well, i will drop coverage and put you in a different plan. of course, that happens a lot now. host: our first call comes from the republican line. tony from michigan. i heard caller: about the cbo -- caller: i heard anout the cbo -- about health care for 45 million people, although we hear different amounts. as everybody else starts to get into the health care, it will be a lot more than $1 trillion -- explain how we will pay for more than what it says.

guest: the venice and correctly, you are saying that covering everybody -- if i understand correctly, you are saying covering everybody will cause more than the $1 trillion that the cbo estimates. the cost of this bill is a concern. one of the misleading things that is being said is that if -- i should not say misleading, as yet an unfulfilled promise, the president says i will not sign a bill that is not deficit neutral. we can take the double negatives out. it means it has been paid for, either by tax increases or savings in medicare, primarily medicare. he is saying two-thirds will come from savings in the current system. well, according to but cbo scoring, -- the cbo scoring, the non-partisan that looks of these things, the house bill does not

accomplish that. senate legislation, to the extent, does not, either. as it stands now, either of these bills would increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. neither version of this legislation is paid for yet. host: in information from your web site, factcheck.org, under the topic, the bill is paid for -- at least, it isn't paid for yet. it is written according to the nonpartisan cbo hamilton townshw jersey. caller: i just wanted to say the gentleman was speaking about whether or not you would be able to keep your present plan. i have worked all of my life and my employer sheen's plans six times, i had no choice. -- change the plans six times. it happens to people already. my first point.

my second point is i think that senior citizens have been so riled up and frightened because they feel they will be losing benefits as a result of how to pay for this bill, that the backlash has been horrific and the white house has not been able to explain to senior citizens on how not only they will benefit or if something is done, your children will benefit and their grandchildren will in the long run and they probably will not be losing benefits but just a different form of delivery in order to streamline the situation. guest: well, the caller makes a good point about employers dropping coverage now were changing. quite often they don't have a choice. one of the things of that is envisioned in both of these bills is a wider choice of

insurance plans, portability insurance plans offered through exchanges, something like the ones available now to federal employees, federal employees health benefits system. it is absolutely true that a lot of scary things have been sent to seniors. we have an article which posted yesterday, headline, seniors scared again. but there are ads claiming there will be massive cuts to medicare benefits. i find it a little amusing and ironic because things have turned around. democrats getting a taste of their own medicine. as recently as last fall john mccain proposed to pay for part of his plan with what he called savings in medicare, making it clear he was not in visiting

cuts in benefits but would somehow squeeze out waste, fraud, and abuse. obama ran ads against him saying there was going to be a 22% cut in benefits. we called that falls. the same thing is now being used against the president and congress and it is still falls, adjust the issue on the other foot. the fact is, what is envisioned is reducing payments to hospitals, motorized wheelchair providers, to all sorts of service providers. not much to physicians -- they would have a cut that is scheduled, that would be canceled. so physicians, may be one of the reasons the american medical association is supporting the general thrust of legislation and endorsing the house bill specifically. yes, many things have been said that frighten a lot of older

people, and they are not all true. north palm beach, florida. caller: if the thousand-page bill were actually in effect right now, and i may be in the market just to start up a whole new health plan, what what my options. as opposed to the grandfathered in? host: what kind of plan are you under now? caller: none. i have no existing plan and what to start fresh. 71 is in place, what am i up against? guest: good question. the bills are very much moving targets. i can talk a little bit about the house leadership bill as it was introduced. it has been amended by three different committees that have

to reconcile their amendments. we don't have the bill as it stands right now. two options. if the federal plan survives, what proponents like to call a public option and as opponents like to call government run program, we call it a federal plan to try to be neutral. a new government public plan, if that is created, that would be one option. it may have somewhat lower premiums than a private plan if congress sticks with the idea of paying physicians and hospitals less than market rates. the way they do medicare. if they stick with those price controls, the premiums would be

lower and you might be allowed to buy that. it is not clear at this point that hall many people would be eligible -- how many people would be eligible to buy the public plan. that is the issue, who exactly would be allowed to buy in. the big difference would be that, as far as private plans go, there would be insurance exchanges go up. the senate bill -- state-by- state exchanges, and a house bill envisions a national exchange -- i may have mixed up. but in any case, both bills would model private insurance pretty much like federal employees have now, which is a wide choice of private plans that meet federal minimum standards. for example, must cover pre- existing conditions. there would be more choices.

if you are a low income person, there would be subsidies to help you purchased that insurance. host: once the house and senate versions are reconciled in the night -- in the not too distant future, do you see the level of debate regarding health care reform going up or down? guest: i think it would stay at a pretty high pitch. we have seen a sort of reflexive resistance to it, coming mainly from ideological groups. it is interesting how the planet have shifted since 1993 when i covered the clinton health care effort. at that point, big health insurance companies were against it, the pharmaceutical industry was against the hated the idea of having insurance cover their products because they thought it would lead inevitably to price

controls, which they didn't want. few businesses -- but the auto makers would have loved to have the health insurance costs taken off their backs. but huge business opposition. now you have the pharmaceutical industry thinking they cut a deal with the president, in return for $80 billion in cost reductions, they could have their products covered by a new insurance program but escape price controls. the insurance industry itself, the major lobby for the insurance industry right now, although it is very much opposed to a federal plan which they view as unfair competition, is officially on record as endorsing market reforms that would require them to cover pre- existing conditions or require

them to take all comers, not just selecting pockets of healthy people to ensure. they also want an individual mandate, they want to require people to buy health insurance, just like drivers are required to buy auto insurance. this is something hillary clinton, favored ironically, and criticized barack obama for being too timid about that in the campaign. the big insurance companies, they are lobbying for that. we haven't yet seen a lot of tv ads by big money lobbyists. you are seeing tv ads by ideological groups that really are not responsible to anybody but their donors. they have been pretty extreme and inflammatory, because that is how they raise money. if a bill goes for that one of the big lobbies does not light -- the pharmaceutical industry,

which is advertising on the pro side -- if they see something with the deal is broken, their money could certainly start pouring into ads to kill the bill. the same with the insurance industry. it will be interesting. host: before becoming director of factcheck.org but, he was special assignment correspondent at cnn and also was a reporter for "the wall street journal" and the associated press. discussion of the fact vs. fiction. our next call comes from carrollton, texas. fred on the line for republicans. caller: direct tv -- what i subscribe to. my question or comment. when the kennedy-kassebaum bill came into a fat, there was one

line on patient privacy and from that one line grew out of the hipaa regulations and rules. i keep on thinking about that and wondering what will happen with a 1000-page bill. i will listen for your comments. thank you. host: mr. jackson? guest: existing accommodation. i am aware when i go to see my doctor there are new forms to fill out. but i can't predict the future. clearly -- if anything like this, either the house and senate versions, go through, there will be increased regulation of the insurance money and of insurance companies. health insurance is complicated now. it will get somewhat more complicated. aside from that, honestly, we tried to stay away from predicting the future and stick to doing what we can do, which is adjudicating whether

particular statements are factual or not. host: another statement that seemed to cause a dustup be -- illegal immigrants will be covered. fact or fiction. guest: well, no. of course, illegal immigrants are not covered by federal programs even now. widespread misconception. i guess the exception would be if there is an auto accident and a patient shows up at an emergency room, i believe it is illegal right now to ask for a green card to turn away anyone from emergency treatment. on the basis of their immigration status. medicaid may indirectly fund emergency rooms for that will continue to treat illegals in emergency situations. in general, no. in fact, one of the 46 million

or 47 million people that are without insurance, i think the new census figures are coming out soon and that number megawatt -- but something like 6 million or 7 million art illegals, would not be covered. so one of the reasons why though it could extend to all the uninsured is because some of them, again, a fraction, are illegal immigrants. host: back to the phones to brooks, jackson. total, ohio. o larry on the line for democrats -- toledo, ohio. caller: this is all just a smokescreen. this fact checking. it is just a smokescreen because republicans don't believe that

there are death panels, they don't believe they will have rationing care. everybody needs to just sit back and take a deep breath and think of how we got to this point. when barack obama was getting elected, cnn loved him and just trashed hillary clinton. now they don't got a good word to say about barack obama. guest: i'm all for sitting back and taking a deep breath. i think that is good advice. we have been saying, democrats really have not helped the clarity of the debate very much by the way this legislation has been handled. it is so much of a moving target. i mentioned before we had three house committees that have done extensive amendments to that house leadership bill.

you can go through and peace through each on their own, but they have not yet reconciled or at least not the last time i looked. that legislation into one bill. the senate -- health, education, labor, and benson -- pensions committee approved a bill over a month ago and it is still not numbered, introduced, or public. there is an early draft still on the web site. they spent a month working it over. i don't understand why they haven't basically shown the public what their handiwork is and what they are proposing. meanwhile, of course, some of the big pieces are being debated and moved around. i am sure you covered conrad's comments that the public option has got to be taken out and a co-op system would be a huge change. i think we all would be well

advised to sit back and watch it unfold and withhold judgment until we see what is really -- host: dennis on the line for independents. caller: i have a unique perspective. i work for a large insurance company. i see the limitations everyday of denied care. the thing that got us in this mess is for-profit health insurance. they make a profit when they deny you care. the biggest thing that would help would be single payer. they took that off the table first thing. they would not let the people come to the hearings and testify. they took it out right away. this is a massive giveaway to the health girae for some public plan. once again that is a big smokescreen. there is a smokescreen. there is no debate going on. it is decided.

they will mandate you buy insurance and there might be some public thing. if you make a little tiny money -- like medicaid, you will be able to get some government assistance. host: how much fat and fiction in a statement? guest: he is expressing his views. our model is everybody is entitled to their opinion, just not to their own facts. it is very much heat, like a said before, and the air. the size of the plan, would be a little one open only to a few people, and will be a big one open to just about everybody? the power or basically to order doctors and hospitals to either accept less than market rates for their services when they are being paid by the public plan or not take any of the patients from a planned at all.

all of these things are yet to be decided. the details of the public plan, if there is one, that will decide just how many people it covers and how much of an unfair competition and might be with the private market. of course, the caller seems to be of opinion we ought to have single payer insurance here, and he is right, that has been a nonstarter. there are a number of members of congress that would like to see a single payer plan, but the president is not endorsing that. in fact, they have been accused of secretly wanting a single payer plan, one of the things the opponents throw up all the time, that' it is just going to the concern of the anti- abortion forces is not that this

bill contains or mandate coverage for abortion by itself, but that it leaves open the possibility that the administration will do that by executive order once the bill is passed. obama said at one point of the past -- reproductive services, which i guess is cold for abortion services, be covered. what they want is explicit prohibition, prohibition,the hyde jimenez saying that if there is -- explicit provision, like the hyde amendment, that it would not cover abortion services, period. .

to get it repaired. my second point is, i am on medicare, and it is a government-run plan. for the last few years i have been telling them about fraud. more than $10,000 being charged for service i am not getting. i cannot get anyone to give a flip. if this is $10,000, and nobody cares, what kind of message are we going to have when we put the government in charge for health care for everyone and we have to pay our of our pockets?

guest: we hope someone at hhs is listening and can pursue this fraud allegation. there have been well publicized instances of fraud against medicare. one of the weakness is of that plan -- weaknesses of that plan, or of any government plan is that if you do not have people looking for it, people are putting in for claims for things that they do not need. i cannot speak to kaiser permanente day, because i am not familiar with their system. of course, the president has brought up a few organizations, like the mayo clinic, who has identified deficiencies and the fact that we need to slow down the cost of medical services.

the congressional budget office looked at those provisions and said there was not really much in the bill that would slow down the overall rise in medical expenditures. one of the things that you could do is have people pay a bigger share of their medical costs. no one is proposing increasing copays. that is a nonstarter. host: thank you for being on the program. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will be speaking with andrew napolitano. >> this morning, is one flew

conference with public health officials, the emergency responders, and industry leaders. as the debate over health care continues, we are interested in your thoughts on the issue, particularly if you are attending a town hall meeting with your member of congress. share your thoughts on video by going online to c-span.org. >> as the health care conversation continues, c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource. keep up-to-date with health care events like town hall meetings, house and senate debates, and even upload your opinion with a video.

this fall, and her the home to america's highest court, to the grandest places, to the rooms only accessible to the justices. the supreme court. host: in joining us from new york is judge andrew napolitano to talk to us about u.s. rates and -- u.s. history and the law. good morning, welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: why did you write this book, and why did you use the dread scott decision to certify the example of race relations in america? guest: i was so moved from the

number of people who called in to my radio show during the campaign between senator obama and senator clinton commenting on the african american historical experience and the manner in which it jeremiah wright was making allusions to the sufferings of african- americans throughout history. it reminded me that i needed to review the history. some of the things jeremiah wright said were over the top, but they were an allegory for what happened. when he said the american government caused aids and gave it to black people, in my mind, there is no merit to that and it is a gross exaggeration. however, there is evidence when the u.s. government deliberately gave syphilis to four african- american men in the south and told them that it was cheering

them of syphilis in stead. little snippets of horrible events in history which have been taken by reverend wright and extrapolated into the present-day cause me to want to research this and write about it. white people, too soon forget the horrible things that were done illegally and in the name of the law against african- americans. that is why i wrote the book. dread scott is a metaphor for a government that can do what ever get want to do, like to spend their free will of a class of people based on their race the theory that would allow them to do it is something called positivism which says the law is what ever will law says it is. in this case, the congress and state legislators followed their own, when they wrote that law which was correct which allowed

them to make slavery lawful. throughout the book i reject that theory of law and argue for natural rights. our rights come from our humanity. they are as much a part of us as they are the figures on our hand. the government cannot take those rights away without due process. dread scott, himself, of course, is a great historical figure. by the way, at one of my book signings, i met his great, great granddaughter in a hotel in st. louis across the street from where the dread scott case was tried. he was born as a strict -- slave in virginia and was sold to various masters, one of whom was a military doctor assigned to illinois, which was free at that time. he argued he was brought to a

free state, and once set free, always free. after 10 years of going back and forth between illinois and missouri courts, it makes its way to the u.s. supreme court. it could have said, once a slave, always a slave, or once free, forever free. but it came down to the worst decision possible. that must, we cannot hear your case because you are not a person. the declaration by the supreme court that a class of human beings, by virtue of the color of their skin, are not persons and therefore could not have a right to is one of the last straws that causes the civil war. it is the highest -- height of the arrogance of a government who believes it can write any law no matter whose rights are

violated simply because some people in power are demanding it. that is the significance. host: in the book, you write, this is not your grandfather's american history book. you write, abraham lincol-- who is the audience for this book? guest: the audience is african americans who need to have their history told and caucasians who have forgotten the history of how african-americans have suffered. the quotation that you chose -- and i am glad you did -- is a

controversial one. i'm no fan of abraham lincoln and the myths that have surrounded him have distorted the truth. for example, the emancipation proclamation, the second one, all the rise slavery and affirmatively declared it was lawful in four border states, and in the six parishes in new orleans. lincoln himself many times are viewed -- who argued the negro is not equal to the white man lincoln actually secretly took $250,000 from the treasury and gave it to someone to build a chance patient -- to build a plantation on an island in the caribbean. the idea was that african- americans would not ship there.

the reason he issued the first part of the emancipation proclamation which purported to free slaves in the south, but did not because it lacked power, was because of his military powers. and they said the confederacy feared that slaves could get guns and rubble, and that would cause them to squash that rebelled at the same time they were fighting the north. lincoln personally had the same way to premises views about african-americans that many whites in the south and north had at that time. to that has been sanitized by the manner in which we have learned about history. that is why i say this is not your grandfather says to me. your grandfather in your children, and uni, were all taught that lincoln was a great man who freed the slaves. he was and and he did not.

host: our guest is injured napolitano. this is part of our month-long series looking at nonfiction books. -- andrew napolitano. we have some callers who want to speak to you. first phone call from helene, texas. caller: hello, i am a natural citizen. i came to the country from germany about 30 years ago. i am always surprised why we have to be exposed to slavery and all of this. i understand everyone in school, when you go to school you have history and it should be naturally concluded -- included, but why after book after book do

we have to remember and keep on recalling what happened 100 years ago? why don't we move on? it is 2009. talk about what is happening now, in 2009. we have black and white here. probably a little more black than white, i do not know. we get along fine. guest: that is great that you get along famously. one of the goals of the book is to help people do that. i believe -- and this is my phrase, and it has been stated in a variety of ways -- that those who are ignorant of the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. you may say how could we

possibly repeat dread scott where the supreme court declared a class of people not to be persons in 1857? i'm pro-life. i believe in 1973 when the rove vs. wade came down, the supreme court declared babies in the womb not to be persons. as a result of that, states like kansas and new jersey support abortion up to the moment of birth and no one can sue on behalf of the babies and they have no legal rights for the court to protect. in order to protect these horrific things from happening, it is helpful to understand what happened in the past. to the extent that i tell this story in a different way, i'd take the halo off of abraham lincoln, off the federal government. i show that white american president like woodrow wilson

specifically separate races in government, separated races in the defense department. fdr, when social security was being proposed, excluded people who work on the railroads, farms, which included most african-americans, because it was the only way he could get no votes from the white southerners. people need to know the direct and subtle ways that african- americans have suffered at the hands of the government so that they will be wary, should that have the legislation happened again, whether the target is african-americans, babies, immigrants from germany, or anyone else that the government may want to target. host: charles, from richmond, virginia. republican line. caller: let me tell you something. first off, i think about our

constitution in the dread scott decision. if you ask me why are you republican, do you like and abraham lincoln? i know his story. what lincoln did is he freed the slaves in the south because he could after winning the war, but slavery was still legal in delaware and other states because it was in the constitution. another thing, too, when we think about illegal immigrants in the united states, people say

that they should not allow to be involved in this and what not. i was born in the 1940's. you cannot fool me. we cannot forget about slavery. they banned books in germany. we cannot forget the past. we have to continually remember the past. guest: the past, obviously, is a lesson to the future. you are right, slavery was permitted to stay in delaware and the southern part of new jersey which was below the mason-dixon line. it was permitted in kentucky, tennessee. not because abraham lincoln looked the other way, but because he affirmatively wrote in the second part of the emancipation proclamation that it could remain. you are also right that we need to learn the lessons of the past. we cannot shy away even from an

ugly past. you are also correct there are at least three parts of the original constitution that have since been amended that authorized slavery and capped the government's hands off of it. lincoln once proposed a 13th amendment in the constitution which would have constitutionalized slavery and would have said the federal government may not come under any circumstances, interfere with it. he wrote it, proposed it, it passed the senate, but not the house of representatives. host: next phone call from mike, san diego, california. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask you a question. you said something important. you just said the same thing in essence what we all heard

reverend jeremiah wright say, but he said it with such passion. he is saying, do not forget about it. he was doing his thing, in two different branches of service. he did his service but he is not allowed to speak? some people at the very place you were sitting, fox news, nullified him. that 80 before wants us to forget, but it is -- the lady before wants us to forget, but it is still with us. guest: you are right. i was a judge in new jersey and i saw such a direct and subtle discrimination against african- americans in judiciary, law enforcement, never mind the lead against suing in my court room. -- litigants suing in my court room. i love my job here at fox and

the people that i work with. we do not always agree, but one of the reasons i wrote this book is to identify the type of direct, subtle discrimination that still exists, even though we have a by virgil president. i disagree with the president on almost every one of his policies but i rejoiced that the american electorate can popularly a lacked a biracial president because it's turns a significant page in our history. it does not put all of our problems behind us, but it does put a lot of them behind us. we have to be wary that these things can happen again. host: in your book, you write virtually all racism in the country has official government behavior at its roots. you go on to say --

the reason we have judges is to resist the majority. if we did not have them to enforce our natural rights, to say what we think, to publish what we say, to worship what we want, to engage in commercial intercourse, if judges were not around to enforce those, a popular majority could crush them. a lot is not lawful just because the majority wants it. the majority wanted and it also needs to not violate our natural rights. when the government key to enacting laws that violate people's natural rights simply because the majority wants them,

the government is not doing its job. almost all discrimination against african-americans in history came about because government, of population- elected, sworn to uphold the constitution -- constitution, failed to do its job. it simply did what the rabble- rousers' and those who scream loudest wanted to be done and it failed to protect the natural rights of minorities, whether it is japanese-americans in world war ii, eastern european jews in world war room and one, african- americans after the civil war. when the government does what it believes its popular rather than what is required to do under the constitution and declaration of independence which is to defend our natural rights, then it puts

the stamp of approval on racism and race-based decisions. that is what happened throughout american history. host: back to the phone calls. our next call comes from charlotte, north carolina. democrat line. caller: good morning. i wish you could make a movie out of this so that everyone can see. white folk is ok, and we love them like ourselves, but if you could see how the white folks got started, and then you will know why they are so far ahead of everyone else. mostly everyone else -- i am african-american, and i remember my mother used to talk toabout

her dead who worked all day and work 9 cents -- and got 9 cents a day. when a black person did build a school or church or something, they would run along and burn it up. guest: it took the government too long to realize it needed to be color blind. it took a civil war, courageous people dying in the streets, people incarcerated for expressing their opinions, and a couple of the opinions -- generations like your father's suffering and never having the good things in life, so that their children could have equal rights. to the extent that a book like this can help whites and blacks and understand how we got to where we are, it will help people understand that blacks and whites did not start at the same starting line in american

history. whites were eons ahead because the government failed to do its job, and we need to recognize and understand that. that is why even though some of the things jeremiah wright said were weird and over the top and offensive, there was a kernel of truth in some of a lesson he was trying to make, and much of those troops are explored in this book. thank you for those kind words -- kind words. host: we have this e-mail from keith edwards -- guest: frederick douglass was the most prominent african- american in the united states at the time, and was born a slave, and managed to escape from it and educated himself and became

a brilliant guy. in fact, my libertarian friends -- i am not a republican or democrat, miami libertarian -- claim frederick douglass as one of their heroes. he always felt that government was too big. he had very minimal contacts with abraham lincoln. he did it once, which was the first time that a black person went into the white house to meet president, not there as a servant. but i do not think that frederick douglass changed his views. i believe she harbored them up to the time of his death. host: do you know where that meeting took place? in the oval office? guest: i do not think it existed

at that time, as we know it now. i could not tell you where, but there is no dispute it happened somewhere in the building. host: next phone call from woodbridge, virginia. caller: some really interesting facts that you have. i probably would not mind taking on your book and reading into it, but there was one thing that touched me, no one pet peeve i have that perpetuate racism. that is calling one class of people -- and you did this -- call and whites, asians and blacks african-americans. any time you put the word before american you are separating them from another group. that is why it can cause one group is feeling another group is getting something over them.

i do not know what the alternative would be, but something other than putting something before american. guest: i appreciate the question. the whole purpose of the book is to zero in on how african- americans have suffered at the hands of government testing to from other americans. nine researchers and editors struggled over what terminology -- my researchers and editors struggled over what terminology we should use. became to the general view that african-americans and that they would highlight and distinguish about the people whom i was describing that would ask people like you to ask that progression. this does not purport to be a politically correct book.

the purpose of this book is not to gloss over problems that have happened in the past, but to highlight them. in order to describe them, properly, you need to talk about them in turn ways. host: can you describe the racial makeup of your research team, what was the process of the writing? guest: i had an african-american female, caucasian female, and two caucasian males, and myself. host: back to the telephones. north carolina. clyde, you are on with andrew napolitano . caller: it is great to talk to you. i am 63 years old. i agree with you about abraham lincoln. he was basically a strong central government politician,

even when he was campaigning against douglas. he did not believe in equality. he did not believe in relocation of the blacks at one time once they were freed. what a lot of people do not know is the triangle of slave trade was based in the north, in the new england states. when the slave ships left the northern region of northern harbor, they would go off to the ivory coast, then caribbean, and then they would exchange slaves. once they got to the north, they would be traded for distilleries.

that was all a no. venture -- northern venture. once the slaves started reproducing in the south, they did not mean that. when in became unprofitable for the north, then slavery became an issue. actually, the civil war was based on economic issues and also secession. host: sorry to cut you off. go ahead, and judge. -- go ahead, judge. guest: in an era when we had excise taxes and taxes on imports, think about it, with the exception of all the great new england ports, starting with

wilmington, baltimore, to houston started in the south. if you cut off that supply from the government on luxury goods and imports, you could starve the federal government. that is the reason lincoln sought -- fought the civil war, in my view. the attempt to liberate slaves was an after thought that was put upon him because of the military means. it was not out of the benevolence of his heart. the caller is correct, slavery did flourish in the north, but after awhile it did not become necessary. the population was able to support industrialists by white blue-collar laborers, if you will pardon the phrase, and slavery died a natural death in the north. i hate to say this on live television, and i do not know what your * good will is but i have another commitment coming

up shortly. host: can you take one more call? detroit, michigan. go ahead. caller: i want to commend you for coming forward with this information and trying to educate his colleagues at fox to of course possible for a lot of the misinformation that a lot of the people are believing on health care issue. that being said, that woman from fort hood, i wonder if they want the jews to forget the holocaust if there was still alive. we had millions of hitlers running around today. as far as reverend wright and aids, the bbc has a very good a documentary film about the race for the cure for polio where the tissue from monkeys was used to

make mr. room for the vaccine and injected into the population in africa which is actually the focal point of the disease. lastly, leron bennett jr. has a detailed book about abraham lincoln and his racism and how he wanted to free the slaves to break the back of the south. host: judge, you have the final word. guest: we are not in agreement about fox, but we are in agreement about the need to study history. i do not want to point a finger from the woman from germany. she is hardly responsible for german history, that any people who do not look backward will have difficulty looking forward. the specially when we see a painful history. we have to learn those lessons.

we cannot be afraid to discuss these things openly. host: thank you very much for being on the program. "dread scott's revenge." we are going to open up the phones for the next 20 minutes or so to give you a chance to weigh in on the items we have been talking about today as well as other items that you have heard locally or watched on other channels. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. in "the new york times" this had done -- -- headline --

to the phones, stella, maryland. tom on the independence line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am sorry i missed andrew napolitano. i can appreciate his book very much. at least he is telling the truth. most of us who have studied history, we do the research and find these things out. our history books brought up, we were not told the truth. my other feeling is there are other races of people in the

country than black, but the united states has always gone back to black-and-white. there is another race of people called the american indian. they were the first people here. nothing is ever written about them. we have been discriminated and enslave since the first white person ever stepped foot on the continent. we were not recognized as citizens. we could not bring any cases before the courts of america. we were not recognized as human beings even more american citizens and given the right to vote until 1924. everyone else -- women, other minorities, all had the right to vote, but not native americans. we were the original people here. even today we have the highest

alcohol problems, infant mortality, drug problems, homelessness, but the american indian has been completely forgotten. we have been pushed onto these little reservation islands because the federal government' wanted to get rid of us and they forgot about us. host: on the front page of the philadelphia inquirer, a story about cervical vaccines and whether gardasil can really cut kantor's -- cancers toll.

you can read more about this test and the report in the journal of the ama. back to the phones. cambridge, ohio. bill on the line for republicans. caller: i have three comments i want to make. on the aarp, with all of these people canceling their memberships because of their association with president obama, it was probably one year ago with the bush administration when i found out they were supporting moveon.org. i told them never to send me anything again. i did not want to be involved

with anyone who donated to that type of organization. also, senator conners was in the process of investigating acorn. why isn't the media looking into this? one last question -- what is the working families association? to me it sounds like the people's party. host: in the "harford current"

-- back to the phones. stanford, north carolina. danny? let's move on to clearwater, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning.

thank you for c-span. i could not avoid, in reference to your previous guest, and in all puffed -- andrew napolitano , i was reading about someone who wrote about huber hear me, one of the founders of harlem radicalism mentioning aimed lady named mary mcqueen. she wrote a book called the letters and addresses of abraham lincoln. one of the most telling quotes of lincoln says "one of my most paramount struggles and this is to save the union. and it is not eager to save or destroy slavery. if i can free the union without freeing any slaves, i would do it." i want to encourage people to understand what obama is doing with health care.

i think what is going to happen is when people start ebbing away from the public option, obama will support what the industry wants. once it is exposed that the republicans are so partisan they will oppose simply anything that obama will support, then i think we lost our to see support running around the public option. i do not think he is out of the count. there are so many people saying is over, but it is not over. host: "the miami herald" talking about inflation --

cranston, rhode island. tony on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i looked into judge napolitano. i would love to read his book. i have one question. my grandparents were never in this country when all of this supposedly happened. somewhere there must have been people, probably still some wealthy, that were ahead of this stuff. you never heard of that. you only hear about the ghetto, where i grew up, and that is the way they are. let the people who did this to other people, let them stand up

once. we were not here in this country, so it is hard to hear people say things -- i take the country for what it is. host: where are your parents from it? were you born here? caller: yes, but my parents were born in italy. the point is, we had a neighborhood that was totally mixed. we never had a problem. why is all this coming up? i think the media right to get up and incest. host: next phone call from miami, florida. caller: i just wanted to make a few observations about our health insurance, the reform

that is going on. i am nervous. we pay for all the research. if france and germany are allies, and if they cannot cough up some money -- and canada. france and germany were bailed out by us twice. we got them out of two wars. we did not have to get into them. they owe us war reparations. we had the marshall plan. and they owe us a lot of money because those war reparations that they promised to pay were never paid. host: in the "wall street journal" this morning --

this is by j. solomon and julian barnes. back to the phones. savannah, georgia. on our line for independents. what is on your mind? caller: i was going to expound on the civil war that the judge talked about. he mentioned the civil war and

lincoln. from my research, i found that there were four, five in dealing with native people building up to the civil war with lincoln. the native american person was saying that the people are neglecting them more than african-americans and any other race of people. that is true. you have supreme court rulings that date back to 1830. i want to see someone rebook on that ruling instead of the dread scott case.

winchester forces the state of georgia really explained more about why in the civil war took place. even though it took 60 years for it to go into effect. when andrew jackson won the election, that is when everything went into chaos. host: in the "denver post" -- and they write, the state is to free some inmates and parolees with some conditions --

back to the phones. rural retreat, virginia. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking my call. i really enjoyed this show. i wish more people would watch c-span and learn the different things to promote. i wanted to comment on judge napolitano. his last comment to sum everything up. we cannot look forward unless we are able to, as a people, look back. racism has no place in our society today. what ever provokes this and keeps it in people's minds about the bad things that happen -- and they truly were bad things -- but it is such a part of this country's history, you, me,

and any one can become what they want to be if they choose to do so. condoleezza rice, colin powell, even barack obama elected president of the united states. a person can be what ever they want to be. i really think we need to be able, as mature people, to look to the past, see where we have come from, and look at where we are today, and how much further we can go. host: regarding health-care issues in the "washington post" --

back to the phones. plymouth, massachusetts. on our line for democrats. thank you for waiting. caller: i'm sorry the judge is, because he seems to have left that a few things. lincoln was more than just a leader during the military phase. at midday, freeing the slaves had some impact on the southern economy, the military situation, some on foreign policy. but there was more to it.

before he even became president, lincoln said, "if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." that certainly gives you an idea of his mind set, but he was very much of a humanitarian. he saw things in humanitarian terms. he saw slavery in humanitarian terms. even if he would not pass the test of being prejudiced-free today, he was certainly in an evolutionary state back then. nothing about lincoln is he never wrote anything down. host: tell me what is humanitarian about slavery? you said he saw it in humanitarian terms. caller: right, it was wrong. if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. host: i apologize for the

misunderstanding. billion from new jersey. -- lillian from new jersey. caller: i wanted to comment on that woman from germany who said that this was a long time ago, why are we still talking about it? i am a baby boomers born in 1946. my grandfather was born in 1870. that is five years out of slavery. people seem to think all of this happened hundreds of years ago and does not touch people today. it does touch us. it continues to touch us. hopefully, this country will grow and we will not talk about this, but we will never forget it. host: in the "chicago tribune" --

this is a story about an illinois guardsman whose death after an attack in afghanistan still devastates per unit and family. next, los gatos, california. on our line for republicans. you were up pretty early. caller: i'm sorry i missed napolitano. two points. history is very relevant, but today the only place where slavery still goes on is in kenya, africa. it is alive and well. i saw obama traveling in kenya and he went into facilities where slaves were kept before they were put on ships. nothing is said about the fact

that his ancestors were slave traders. if we are going to go back in history, we need to look at this. host: hello? she is gone. in the "times picayune" --

among road, north carolina. david on our line for democrats. -- monroe, north carolina. turn down the television, please. caller: i just wanted to address the overall republican attitude. we went through eight years of a president who had a bunch of belligerent and tyrant ways. he did things with the my way or the highway attitude. now we have a president with compassion. he is trying to incorporate the thoughts of the people. i just think it is a character assassination going on. he won the election fair and square, by the largest margin in a long time.

i just do not think america is ready for the road they are going down with all this negativity. we need to get our country back in order, and we need to do it with unity. if not, there will be constant anarchy, and people need to realize we are all mature and we need to act that way. host: in your opinion, what is the first thing that americans need to unify themselves around? caller: we all americans. it does not matter what color we are. if the world is watching our democratic process, why do we have to convert that to 1950's attitude? host: thank you. in the "boston globe" today -- . .

look talk about health insurance and all of this stuff, here we are, we don't have jobs in the united states and stuff like that. free-trade has destroyed us. china is a laughing at us because they've got all of the jobs. we are the ones that are going to be in slavery when they come and take everything over because they got our jobs and our money. the government needs to -- and

say enough is enough. i do not know if there are going to do it or too scared. host: which will leave it there. we will take a short break and we come back we'll talk to david harvey, ceo of pro literacy, talking about adult education efforts for those who lack a high school degree. >> as the debate over health care continues, we are interested in your thoughts. particularly if you are attending a town hall meeting with a member of congress. share your experience and thoughts on video by going online to c-span.org/citizen video. >> as the health care conversation continues, c-span's

health care hub is a key resource. follow the latest tweets, videos and links and keep up-to-date with health care events like town meetings, house and senate events and link your citizen video. c-span health care hub c- span.org/healthcare. >> this fall, and toured the home of america's highest court. the supreme court, coming the first sunday in october on c- span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: david harvey joins us to talk about adult literacy. he is the president and ceo of proliteracy. what is it? guest: it is an international organization, we have about 1200

local and community-based organizations that serve adults who are in need of reading, writing, basic math and english language. internationally we support about 99 programs in 53 developing countries. host: the department of labor says unemployment among adults without a high-school degree is at 15.5%, 50% higher than the average. with 32 million consider below basic with reading and writing, how do you define for the sake of this discussion, in literacy, and are their degrees of illiteracy among adults? guest: the wolf -- roth equivalent is the grade level system. adults who are at the below basic level basically are functioning below a third grade or fourth grade education all level.

but level just above that, the basic level, is functioning between a fourth grade to seventh or eighth grade reading level. these are folks who have a lot of the problems with things we take for granted like filling out a job publication, reading a newspaper, figuring out how to make change. basic tasks like that. host: is this adult literacy problem getting worse? guest: it is. statistics show in the u.s. today, a shocking number, 30 million of belts are at the bowl low basic level. and another 60 million are at the basic level. so, this is a huge issue impacting in our economy and global competitiveness. host: talking about adult basic education with the president and ceo of proliteracy.

the numbers on the screen, if you want to get involved in the conversation. again, if you would like to get in touch with us and you called us in the last 30 days, today would be your day to send an e- mail or twitter, the e-mail address is journal@c-span.org and twitter is the c-spanwj. what are misconceptions about adult literacy? guest: i think some of the biggest problems we face is that folks who fakes -- face to these issues are often blamed for having failed in school, and that they don't deserve a second chance. i think -- what is driving this problem is basically three factors.

learning disabilities, and diagnose learning disabilities, failing schools, people dropping out, and immigration. host: explained a little bit more about each particular items. how is immigration affecting illiteracy? guest: currently we have a wave of immigration, folks coming into the u.s. who are the least educated in our history. many argue that we need folks to contribute to our economy. but the folks may not be literate in their native language and may need english- language skills as well to be contributing members of the economy. learning disabilities is a huge factor as well. unfortunately we are still not doing a very good job in diagnosing learning disabilities in the public schools system and providing the kids who need specialized services with the specialized instruction that they need.

host: the education department just put out a report on adult illiteracy. you can find it link on our website, c-span.org. tellus and the report, would jump out the most to you. -- tell us in the report, what jumped out the most to you? guest: overall we really have a shocking silent crisis in this country. we are not doing a very good job of limiting. today, the federal level we are finding adult literacy and basic education to the tune of about $500 million. in the scheme, a drop in the bucket. funding has not been increased in over a decade despite the problem growing. and i think the federal study simply points to the fact that this is really is silent problem we have to confront. host: of the first call for

david harvey, president and ceo of proliteracy. the line for democrats. caller: national consumer law center support -- documents supporting federal government's for bankruptcy protection of student loan debts. this obama administration has continually attempted to push a policy to keep them on informed population in this country. no incentives for students to go to college, especially not in a time students can't find jobs after they have gone to college. do you support institution of bankruptcy protection for student loan debt. there used to be protection, if you have no payments for seven years they were injured under the bankruptcy code. , eliminated that and he eliminated discharge ability of

private student loans. host: we are going to leave it there. sort of getting off the rails. are you going to address that? guest: i think he made a good point about the bankruptcy code. i can't say i am the biggest expert but i think he makes a good point. related to that is kind of a fact that is probably not well understood, probably the subprime loan mortgage crisis. it is driven by the fact that many people did not understand what they were signing. due to literacy problems. i think there is a huge need of the relationship between financial leadership and the need to remedy this larger problem in our country. host: san antonio, texas. billy on our line for independents. caller: hello?

i was wondering, since -- host: sorry, i didn't mean to cut you off. if you can get back in touch, go ahead. really sorry. what about special needs students? are there government programs, programs that you all endorsed that would help special needs students sort of escape this illiteracy trap? guest: there is quite a few federal programs to address the special education needs of kids today. with federal programs that attempt to provide assistance to the local level for kids, including those with learning disabilities. the work force investment act, one of the main federal programs, it has several components to it, including

rehabilitation program. title two is the main federal vehicle to tie funding to states and local communities to literacy and adult education programs. host: texas, on the line for democrats. caller: a low? host: yes, go ahead. caller: from my own experience, my wife is mexican american and her first language was the spanish and then noticed how her challenges were with my in-laws -- by english not being their first language. i think with education you need teachers that are crossed trained and are bilingual, that will help bridge the gap. in places like georgia and the midwest where people have

english as their first language, we are just not sensitive to. justice speak about the recession, unemployment rate is so high, you probably cannot get hired and florida as a crash dummy. people talk about student loans, but the truth of the matter is they are educated people who just cannot find jobs and if you complicate that with literacy problems -- that is what education and health i think is important. host: in addition to that, you also have on your website a link to ways to get involved, talking about individual american to help alleviate adult illiteracy. speak to that in terms of the general -- german's question. we have a lot of resources at pro-literacy.org.

but also links to local programs and the united states in your communities that have a great need for volunteers and others who contribute to enhancing and providing services and local level. the other way to get involved is to financial support the programs. i think the caller made an important point about addressing the english language needs of immigrants in the u.s. will working to assimilate and be effective contributors to the u.s.. which is why you can also find information about this on our website. the whole reform debate, the contentious debate, as we all know, but my organization calls for, regardless of what happens with immigration reform, there needs to be resources and programs that support english language learning skills for immigrants.

host: the need for those programs verses avenues in government and private sector that seems to cater partially to people who don't speak english. if you make a call and says, if you speak english, press one, if you don't, press two, and you go to the other language. what incentive is there for an immigrant to learn english if there are those programs that allow them to get through day- to-day life in the united states and not speak english? guest: many communities are bilingual, as we all know. i think that is not a debate we necessarily want to be in the middle of. but i think what the research shows and what programs are there in place to do is to help folks who need look english language skills to improve their skills on the job, to improve their potential for earnings. that is really the angle.

host: charleston, south carolina. on the line for independents. guest: what do you do with these counties in a system who don't recognize learning disabilities? my son is dyslexic. they -- i had contested in my school district and they told me everything was fine. i went to the private sector and he was diagnosed with dyslexia, dyspraxia and add, which none of them recognized. i went back to the county and told them what they found, and they said we don't recognize those disabilities so we don't offer services. i had to end up sending him -- he goes to regular schools but also has to go in school but

offers a reading method. they tell us that this is learning style -- he is doing beautifully. why don't we have magnet schools instead of just saying there is no learning disabled? my son is now in the eighth grade. he is doing wonderfully. i just put him in a private school because he needed a quiet atmosphere where he could focus. guest: the caller did a great job advocating 4%. unfortunately all too often that is what is required in order to secure the services that -- for kids to have these issues with learning disabilities, in terms of what they need. you have to have kind of a strong advocate to stand up and say, this is the issue, this is the need. i think the caller also identifies the need for our

education system to get better at recognizing these problems and then coming up with services these kids need and schools. host: west virginia, on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to make a statement that i am a volunteer here in west virginia, a literacy volunteer. i just wanted to say that i encourage people to become volunteers for literacy as well. it is very helpful for those who need the services and it is also very personally gratifying. and all parents and grandparents to read to their children. consequently, this goes on throughout the family where reading is something they love and enjoy and benefit from.

for me, the people who come into services because english is a second language or perhaps they have a disability or whatever barriers they have, i consider them to be very brave people and they must be very bright people to be able to try to function on their own without being able to read. i encourage volunteers to participate and encourage people who need assistance in meeting -- to come in for these services because we are available. it is a wonderful program. i just finished reading an older book, memoirs -- barbara bush, how active she was in literacy. host: before we let you go, did you have to get special training before you could volunteer to work with folks on their reading?

caller: yes, i did. i received extensive hours of training. and i recently received considerable training in the capital of charleston, west virginia, a training for the trainers. so i am expanding my out of reach so that we can have more folks available it is so important. that is the basics of being able to function in this society. host: thanks, katie. we want to leave it there. guest: first of all, they are one of our members and a fantastic program. i am so glad the caller talk generally about issues of volunteering in this field. some misunderstandings about that, but our programs, many of them use train volunteers to go

through very extensive training. attempting to provide one on one instruction in addition to some broader programs. but volunteers play a crucial role in programs across the u.s., particularly in serving adults that are at the lowest end of the literacy level. and the federally supported and state support of programs, the more formalized system tends to take adults who are reading at over a ninth-grade level and putting them into a program and creating clear pathways, which is desperately needed. but what pro-literacy programs to across the country is also trying to reach down further and serve the entry-level adult learners who are going to local community-based organizations and then supporting them through the rest of the system. host: in this article that we got from a service on line, with

the headline, budget votes tighten loose on literacy agency. talking about a long, slow death for the national institute for literacy. tell us about the vote on this and what kind of cuts that are talking about and what of all the fact it may have on adult literacy? guest: the national institute for literacy is a cause i- independent research and training center established years ago under federal law. unfortunately under the bush administration the institute got a little off track and president obama actually talked about that when he submitted his budget request to congress, stating he was concerned how the money was being spent there. it did not want to do away with it but when to shift the funds back to the department of education. congress has been considering that through the appropriations process.

they approve the president's request of shifting the funds. but adult literacy field is also concerned making sure there is some independent research and training programs that it supported by the federal government. those are a set of issues that continue to play out in congress right now and i think that would be resolved this fall with final passage of appropriations. host: chris, on the line for democrats. altoona, pennsylvania. caller: first time calling on c- span. i would like to point out an observation. with this many people who cannot read or have trouble reading, to me it directly translates into the problems we have with the health care debate and of the debates because those people rely on the things they are uphold instead of researching or reading or anything else. if we cannot correct this problem with reading, how can we correct public of problems when

so many don't understand? guest: this is and in poor condition, particularly playing out now in the health care reform debate. a whole specialty called help literacy. it is just as it sounds. folks who have trouble in reading, writing, math, also have trouble reading prescription drug labels, also has trouble understanding correct those of a drug to help their child. this problem costs the health- care system, it is estimated 28 billion baht -- $20 million. if we fix illiteracy in america under the health care system, we would have enough money to cover all of the uninsured individuals. i am so glad this caller makes this point because we are not hearing a lot about this issue in relation to the health care reform debate. but pro-literacy is very hopeful

congress will support some programs that would give health care providers the tools they need to assess these problems and their patients and get them into programs like pro-literacy member programs across the country. host: the president proposed a new community college initiative that he says can help adult learners. what is your thought on this community college initiative? guest: we are very excited about this initiative. the president is focusing in on the community college system because it is the largest education -- college education program in the u.s. serving the most number of students. so, we have been a part of the discussions, particularly with the white house, and as the effort starts to get considered by congress have, we have hall where the initiative to link

community colleges with local, adult basic education and literacy programs across the u.s.. so we are not forgetting the large population across the u.s. that is not ready to enter community college it yet. the white house has been very receptive. senator murray, kennedy, some members in the house. we're hopeful when legislation is hole -- hopefully past of this initiative, it would include an adult basic education component. host: of the last call comes from florida, a shop on the line for republicans. go ahead, chuck. caller: i told ged for over 20 years in polk county, i'm a retired teacher. host: if you turn down your

television set, this process will move a lot smoother. caller: ok. how was that? host: that is much better. caller: i feel that no one should be without reading and writing in english to language in our country, because it is free, no? i taught high school for years, i told analysts here -- military school, i have been around the barn, and i feel people should speak and write and read english. this is important to us. it is people in the ged that i have had -- i had a lot of spanish people, and i got along with them very well and in polk county we have quite a few immigrants here, and it is

important to maintain a high level of reading. a third grade level is important if they are going to have a driver's license, even. host: thanks, i will leave it there. guest: getting a ged is essential to getting a living wage job. all the statistics and return it -- research shows if you don't have a ged, you are really behind the game. and in a recession, folks without g e d is being heard the worst. this recession is affecting all of us when folks who don't have a ged art and low-skilled jobs are the first to get hit the hardest and will be the last to recover and get back to getting the job.

looking at young people -- working with young people and adults in getting the ged has been one of the main focus is. progress of literacy is very involved in supporting the g e d effort in our publishing division, new readers press, where we help to produce, sell, and disseminate a lot of prep materials. host: if you want more information on pro-literacy, go to proliteracy.org. david harvey, thank you very much. we are going to take a short break. when we come back we will talk to dana seen on -- from the american prospect about the public off -- option. we will be right back.

>> as the debate over health care continues, we are interested in your thoughts on the issue, particularly if you are attending a town hall meeting with your member of congress. share your experience and thoughts on video by going online to c-span.org/citizen video. >> as the health care conversation continues, c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource. go online and follow the latest tweets, video and links. and keep up on town hall meetings, house and senate debate, even up load your opinion with a citizen video.

the c-span health care of at c- span.org/healthcare. >> this fall, and toured the home of america's highest court, from the grand public places to those on the accessible to the nine justices. the supreme court, oct. on c- span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: dana goldstein joins us, an associate editor at american prospect in here to talk to us about where, specifically the public option. tell us, what is the public option, and why is there a hubbub? guest: it is not as complicated as people make it out to be. the government already runs two insurance plans -- medicare for the hourly and medicaid for the poor and disabled. the public option would just be

a third option because so many americans are having trouble for insurance and with no government-run plants are more efficient and affordable for consumers and this would provide another choice for people who are not elderly or are not destitute. this would be a choice for them that would coexist. i think the reason why so many are angry about this is because insurers, hospitals, people who want to keep prices high for consumers because the profit off of it, they are concerned about anything that would have the power to negotiate prices down, which the public option would, because you would not have executives making millions and millions. host: is there anything in the current legislation that is circling around capitol hill that says once this legislation is passed that certain people will have to go from private insurance to the public option?

guest: absolutely not. there will be five pieces of legislation that will have to turn into the eventual bill. none of the pieces would require anyone to go out of the private market into the public option -- in the of the employer-based that is what you will keep. it is simply one choice. if you are unemployed, you work part-time, or your job is not provide you with coverage, you will go into an exchange, it will have a menu of choices. all of those choices will be private choices except for one, and that will be the public choice. host: how is it going to be funded? guest: completely through the premiums and copays that people pay into it for their health care. so it would have to be self sustaining. that is why it is going to be competitive with private insurers but it will not be able to replace them. it is not that we will take tons of tax dollars that we are not already paying and put it into the public option.

that is not how it works. host: health and human services secretary talked about news reports concerning the obama administration, and that they made be willing to set aside the plan for the public option. we will take a look at that and get your response. >> and if you were watching the news over the weekend, you probably have seen reports about the obama administration and the public option portion of the health reform plan. all i can tell you is that sunday must have been a very slow news day. here is the bottom line. absolutely nothing has changed. we continue to support the public option to support lower- cost, give american consumers more choice, and keep private insurers honest.

if you have other ideas to accomplish these goals, we will look at those, too. but the public option is a very good way to do this. host: your response? guest: of the administration has been fairly consistent that the public option is one element. it is not the be all, and all. there was one moment in july where president obama says, yes, i want this bill to have the public option in it. that was the only moment really in an entire debate he was quite so firm in it. i think we're seeing something fairly consistent. the administration is clearly willing to negotiate and bargain when it comes to public option with the gang of six, the senate finance committee, that is really going through the nuts and bolts right now. output whether the public option will be in the final -- host: de thing he will sign final legislation that does not have it? guest: i think he would after

exhausting his negotiating tactic. the reason why is that what we need more than anything is health reform that guarantees coverage. he knows that. it would be a failure for his presidency if he does not pass something. host: we are talking with dana goldstein from "american prospect." minnesota, on r 94 independents. caller: of good morning. thank you for taking my call. a couple of points i would like to make. you said government runs wanted health care programs. they actually runs on six socialize programs, military and the va. they are involved in a government option now with medicare and also involved in the current program where they subsidized government and please. -- employees.

now, everybody says they want to cut waste in health care. but one man's waist is another person's profit. and i think that is why we are seeing such a big ruckus about it is the people who are making money don't want to not make money anymore. is there any comparison to what the three different types of programs that the government takes part in now cost verses socializes single payer and the current plan that federal employees are again where we subsidize -- paying $900 a month and federal employees pay up to 300 or something like that. as a working person who does not work for a company, none of those options that provides insurance, and none are open to me.

guest: first of all, if you work and you cannot have employer- provided health insurance, and health reform you would be able to participate in these exchanges. if you look less -- were less than 40,000 year you would be able to go into the private market. it sounds like you would be a winner under health reform. the terms of some of the programs -- veterans health care is the closest thing we have in the united states to sort of socialized medicine. it is extremely efficient, effective, it gets really high ratings in terms of the quality of care it provides. in all, the government can do a good job providing health care. we have evidence. in terms of private insurance that federal employees get, it is no different from what my employer, for example, provides to me. i work for a nonprofit and i have private health insurance. they are paying copays.

it is really no different than any other private insurance plan. host: shall be on our line for republicans from georgia. -- shelby. caller: i appreciate your show. i looked at medicare and medicaid which are not sustainable and wondered if the public option would get into the same trouble. guest: ok, that's a good question. the mayo clinic, the minnesota nonprofit health-care provider that president obama has lauded as a national model is actually quite skeptical of the public option because it shapes the way medicare pays doctors. -- apes the way medicare pays doctors. for every check of, for every operation, instead of looking at whether the quality is high.

for example, we do a lot of see sections for pregnant women. there is a lot of evidence showing we do not need to do quite as many, we don't need one third of pregnant women and labor with a c-section. one thing progressives would like to see is a way to change the way we pay doctors, for example, quality of care per patient, and not how many times did pick up a scalpel. health reform before congress does not change the law the way doctors are paid. which is one reason why people across the political step -- spectrum are skeptical. we need to pass something now. we could always revisit the details later on. given there are 47 million people right now totally uninsured, they are costing us quite a lot. what we need to do now and guarantee them coverage. host: stop in manhattan. caller: thank you for c-span. i think your desk is a great

spokesperson. she keeps it simple. but i think your guest is a great spokesperson. health-care companies make hundreds of billion dollars annually. the number one reason for bankruptcy's in the united states. a simple health care plan that we can all understand, it should be so simple that i don't understand why nobody is appealing to the simplicity. what americans can understand is an annual deductible, so if you are a healthy person you can get a high deductible, less healthy person, you can't get a low deductible annually and a co pay. this business with excluding people from all different kinds of coverage is absolute insanity, one exclusion after the other. i have my health care through my employer. the health-care company itself will not revealed to me any information about cost and about choices. it is all done through the

office there at my company. that i pay in full for, my health care. again, i am shut out from all information when it comes to dealing with cost and coverage and exclusions. that is what i think needs to be put on the table, a simple proposal dealing with deductibles and of course a cocaine. host: scott, hold on a second. are you pretty satisfied with your health insurance? caller: again, i cannot get any information from united healthcare. they cannot provide information. i have a $10,000 deductible and i pay my company in full for my policy. and i need a lawyer really to call up and find out what is excluded. i have gotten some information, medical imaging, mri and cat stands are not covered -- the cover if i am in my doctor's

office. my doctor does not have that kind of machine. guest: one of the things health reform is going to do is really simplify the system, where they have a private insurance plan or go into something like the public option. one of the best things about health reform is that all of the bills would stop insurance companies from denying due to pre-existing conditions. just because he had cancer five years ago does not mean you are not able to be insured any more. the other thing it would do is a lot of insurance companies cap how much money you can spend a year on health care and how much you can spend in your lifetime. so if you get into a catastrophic car accident you could run down your life time and now you are allowed to spend and that is what is leading to health care being the cause of so many personal bankruptcies in the united states, a really horrible system, incredibly in

humane and all of the bills and front of congress would keep that from happening in the future. host: would go into a public option such as the fine right now allows someone like scott to shop around more, someone he thought maybe was more cost- efficient? guest: yes, it would be aired one of the things it does is it brings down costs with and private insurance by competing. for example, the public option does not have to make a profit by the end of the year and it will not pay this ceo $3 million. it will be able to offer consumers a lower-cost, and in order to compete the private companies will have to learn whether cost of living, to. host: we are talking to dana goldstein from "american prospect." franklin, n.c. t carolyn on the line for independents.

caller: the woman who called a few moments ago, my comment on that was, pushing something through with all of its flaws is simply bad business. the bill is obviously flawed and we should not be pushing it through just because we need it and there are a few people out there who don't have insurance. i have had cancer, i have pre- existing condition, i have had to go to the medicaid option as an emergency. it works for me. i am concerned about precondition. i am concerned about getting dropped by insurance company. but let me give -- you this example with the public option. we live in an area where we have lots of illegals in our area. we used to have a painting business. they undercut us so we could not

continue to provide services to our customers because we are constantly under bid. and i feel the public option is going to do the same thing. they are going to put insurance companies out of business, and the repercussions for that are going to be greater than the benefits of your public option. guest: you bring up a couple of good points. i will try to respond to all of them. the public option would have still not put private insurers out of business. only some people will be able to go. those who don't have an employer-based option. it will be a small pool that is able to go into it. private insurers will continue to dominate. i think president obama has a great example. just because we have a public mail system does not mean that ups and fedex cannot make a nice profit at the end of the year. i am not very concerned about that.

you mentioned to illegal immigrants. just to get this out there because i know it is something people were the about the illegal immigrants will not be covered by any of the health reform plans currently before congress. they are for legal residents and american citizens. in terms of the bill being flawed and whether or not we should push to pass the flawed bill, i think it is a flawed bill. all of the bills are dealing with health reform. when you look at legislation that has been a really important inconsequential -- say, social security act, it is never perfect the first time. you always have to go back and tinker. when social security was first passed, it excluded disabled people. it seems so discriminatory for is now. but congress was able to perfect it over time. that is what we are looking for here with health reform. we need to pass the bills so we can start protecting this appeared host: mich., on the line for republicans. allen. go ahead. caller: any system -- i am all

for a system where the people who make walls are under the same rules. when they put out the bills where congress and anyone is a -- is included, i would be interested in thinking about it. thank you every month. guest: well, members of congress will be included in this bill just the same as you. members of congress have employer-provided health care. if you have employer-provided health care you will stay with it after reform and so will members of congress. if you're a member of congress is voted out and loses reelection and goes home and is unemployed, guess what, he can go in to the public option, he can buy health insurance out of the exchange from a private company. this is going to create a much more equitable system. host: of the lead editorial in yesterday's "the wall street journal" talking about the public option. it says it goes over -- the big

fight is far from finished. a sort of closed out by saying obama has been forced to publicly repudiate one of his main ideas, shows how much over interpreted his 2008 mandate. his election was not a call for a larger government or a control to 1970's dara entitlement liberalism, rather it was in favor of the amorphous change, change we can believe in, to clean of the beltway mess and tossed out an exhaustive gop. your thoughts. guest: i was on the campaign trail as a reporter and i know that health insurance was a huge concern for americans. just the cost. when you are spending $8,000, $10,000 or more to ensure yourself and your family and you are a middle-class american, that is a huge chunk of your income, completely ridiculous. in terms of how president obama repeated his priorities, i think he has. -- repudiated his priorities, i

don't think he has. he said he is willing to negotiate. he is quite clear in every town hall that he still thinks a plan with a public option included is a -- the best way to bring down costs. host: back to the phones. new jersey. darrent online for democrats. caller: how are you? earlier your desk said that it is partly the high salaries of insurance executives. it is that, but it is also the fact that profit margins on smaller pools and people will pay individually is outside of the pool are quite high for insurance companies and they don't want to give this up. i sought after work on sunday with the representative of the insurance companies, this is one of the reasons why they oppose both the public option and the insurance exchanges because it would create larger pools of

insured and reduced profit margins. that is one thing. secondly, this issue of insurance is an innovation killer right now because right now -- i am a software developer and i would like to be the to start my own business. i have software i am ready to go to the market. in order for me to in short, i have to pay between $1,000 of $1,300 a month to self-insure. what do i do? put i have to work to an employer, whatever innovation i will introduce in terms of technology is going to be lost because i need the insurance company that larger companies provide. finally, c-span " washington journal" has a rabidly devoted viewership and yet msnbc's morning show is on quite well, cnn's morning show go quite

well, nbc's morning shows are doing quite well, fox's morning show is doing quite well. so it is possible for public institutions, public entities to exist in the marketplace along with for-profit entities and not put them out of business, and that is all i have to say. thank you. guest: thanks, darren. he would mention you are potentially -- would like to start a small business but you cannot do to ensure its costs. such an important point. small businesses are potentially the biggest winners because they will be able to funnel their employees to a much more affordable coverage which is then going to increase profit margins of small business and allow people to open businesses. i really want to say if you are a small business on out there, you should be writing to your representatives in support of health reform. you mentioned larger insurance pools that consist of more people bring down profits for

private companies and make things cheaper for consumers. this is absolutely true, and this is one reason why has we negotiate details and congress, we want to make sure that pools exist if possible at the national level or at the regional level with states banning together. pools that are at the state and local level are just not going to be as effective in bringing down costs. so we want the how exchanges to be national or regional exchanges. we know in some cases -- states, blue cross and blue shield totally dominates the market. there is very little we can do to bring down costs and the situation. we want to break the monopoly is up. host: miami, ariz. appeared on the line for republicans. richard, go ahead. caller: as far as i'm concerned, them trying to force health care is an issue. one was the last time you saw a government agency that came in

that was forced through that actually worked properly and financially was responsible? several times i have heard the comparison with the post office. the post office is not funded by the government -- it is actually one of of its profits. the last couple of years they have had to take loans from the government because they are feeling. you also mention the that there is a senator, congressman, who loses his seat that he will go into the pool will have that option. his health care is not going to go away. he will keep that. don't mislead the people by saying, he can go here. he is not going to have the same coverage. guest: nobody is going to force anybody to go into the public option. it and congressman's federal health insurance runs out over time and he is still unemployed

he would have the option of the public option, just like anybody else who is unemployed. also if you are poor and go into the private market but nobody is forcing anyone to get public insurance. in mentioned the post office runs off of the profits. the public option also, as i mentioned earlier, will run off of the money consumers pay into it. so it is going to work similarly. the post office isn't perfect. none of our federal programs are perfect. the people really love their medicare, they love their medicaid providing an important service to people who can't otherwise afford health care and that is what we want, a humane society, and because uninsured people cost us a lot of money when they go to the emergency room. when you pay in, your premiums and your copays to your private insurer, you are covering paul of the uninsured people. you are covering all of the under-insured people. we are trying to make it a more it efficient system.

host: cleveland, ohio. on the line for democrats. caller: i have been following the health-care debate closely. i really don't understand all of the misinformation i have been hearing and i would like to know from your guest, i heard her say that she would like to see any bill get through rather than something -- the the other lady said was good business. the bottom-line of the whole debate is that insurance companies and health-care providers are in cahoots right now making a fortune on the system away it is. medicare, medicaid, the va, the facts are there and ministry of costs run much lower than private health insurance. i think it is something like 4% to 5% for public health insurance like medicaid and medicare.

companies like blue cross and blue shield, they are running like 30% because the salaries are so high, there is a lot of waste in the system. certainly not saying there is not a lot of waste in the government -- the math should dictate the whole thing. guest: here is a number i can offer. the economic policy institute has done some research that suggests consumers will save 20% to 30% after reform passes if they go into a public option. we can expected to be 20% to 30% cheaper than private coverage that is because we know that public lands have much lower a administrative costs, so you are right about that. host: the lead item in " the washington post" says the debates have caught obama by surprise. talk about the rift and the democratic party between the

left and the far left. they talk about a white house adviser who says, i don't understand why the left of the left beside it that this of their water low. he goes on to say we have gotten to the point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. is the debate within the democratic party likely to derail the public option? guest: i read the story and ask about budget quote from the white house that for was a bit disingenuous. the public option was sold to the progress of, the liberal community as a compromise. these people support a single payer health care. the public option was sold as the compromise. that is why people are so attached. they already compromised. they wanted to see the government managed system for everyone. this is not what this is. the government option is one component within and larger private. it is a little disingenuous for the white house to say i don't know why people are so upset.

people are so upset is where we are now is already a major compromise. host: wasa, wisconsin, ed on the line for independents. caller: you mentioned earlier that the mail clinic was a not- for-profit organization. i worked in health care all my life, retired now, but i worked seven years up in the twin cities where i was a department head and my whole life has been working for hospitals and to my knowledge, mayo clinic is not a not-for-profit -- there was a facility right in the twin cities that was run by mayo, and they shut it down. i have been yet to find out the reason for the closing of that

facility. i know a lot of medicare patients did go there. i assume they did it because they would not be getting the medicare patients. guest: i can't speak to the specifics of any facilities that the mayo clinic was associated with up in minnesota. i can say that they are nonprofit. the other option that exists out there that people talking about, this cooperative model. you know, it is supposed to be like a little bit like mail. -- like mayo clinic. we can already form cooperatives. if doctors and hospitals want to