talking about health care and arguing for changes to the u.s. health-care system. he spoke to a talk-show host and took questions from listeners. that is next. congressman barney frank held a town hall meeting in massachusetts this week. health care was the main topic. later, a discussion on outsourcing intelligence gathering to the private sector by the u.s. government. also tonight -- attorney general eric holder thoughts about the release of the man by the scottish government who was convicted in the lockerbie bombing. . .

>> from the diplomatic rim of the white house, this is 30 minutes.

>> thank you. you look clean up. a fed should be in sweats. >> not today. this is the family business portion of the program trade that is my 11 year old. >> that's a good picture. can i sign it? what is his name? >> wilson. >> what is he doing these days? he is nervous for dad today. >> has the have a good summer? >> yes. >> he is clearly a phillies fan. is this your only one? >> we have four.

>> i hope you are saving for college tuition. >> two radio shows a day and i found time for four. thank you. the drill, if i may, is i am anxious to lock me to the program in about three minutes. there are a number of people on hold have courteous but direct questions, largely healthcare. more than 5000 e-mail's, mr. president, and the last 24 hours when word got out that i was coming to the white house. the good news is, respectful. people with legitimate questions and concerns. >> every time i have been on your show, i have had a great time. i'm looking forward to it again because this is a good opportunity. there are some legitimate disagreements to be had about healthcare, but there's a lot of misinformation. if we can clear up the misinformation, we can focus on the areas of legitimate debate. >> i am all about having

legitimate dialogue. >> i don't know if the piece is necessary. >> if i can't hear the first one well, i will put it in. >> i will ask a few questions to get things rolling. >> we're doing about 10 minutes on the front end? >> we will makes it up a little bit. they have been awfully patient. >> this is your show. this is a surreal environment for a guy like me to be seated in this room. understanding the history of what has taken place. >> i don't know if you have had a chance to take a tour, but you should. >> i'm going to put it together later and decompress. >> take a look at the west wing. you can go on the first floor. the famous pictures, that painting of kennedy, it gives you a real sense of history. we are doing some repairs on the walkway for the west wing, but

you could walk along the rose garden and see the ramp at the end built by fdr. >> have you settled in? has it finally hit you? >> the truth is you are moving so -- [no audio] you basically have a lot of work in front of the. the good thing is the family settled in quicker than i expected. the staff is wonderful and they made michele and the girls feel at home. the girls adjustment was better than i expected. they are gone this week, but they seem to be doing great. >> by boys saw the movie " the national treasure to." and in the you have been provided the bulk of secrets. which secrets most impressed you? >> i would tell you, but i would have to kill you. >> you have seen the movie? >> absolutely. i don't want you messing with my

resolute desk. >> big show open coming in just a couple of minutes. >> how are you? is this your producer? good to see. >> broadcasting from the cradle of liberty, this is the michael smerconish program. welcome back to the program. what an honor for me to say i am alive at the white house joined by the president of the united states. what an honor, and thank you for this privilege and thank you for coming back to the radio program. >> it's great to be on the show again. it has been a great time, i appreciate the opportunity. >> folks are stacked up. they're anxious to pose questions about health care.

more than 5000 e-mail suggestions have flowed through my website in just the last 24 hours. i will start by posing the couple of questions. some of the things i continue to hear from folks, we will welcome phone callers as well. allow me to begin with this -- did secretary sibelius misspeak last week? >> she really did not misspeak. she has been saying this all along. she said the same thing among ago. let me describe what the issue is. we have consistently talked about the need for health-care reform because family premiums have gone up three times faster than inflation and wages. the cost of medicare and medicaid will bankrupt this country if we do not reduce the cost inflation of health care. you have families who cannot get health care because of pre- existing conditions or the bump up against a lifetime cap if family member gets really ill.

there are a number of components of healthcare and one is that for people who already have health insurance, they can keep their health insurance, but we will have consumer protections to regulate how insurers operate. for example, they cannot prohibit people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. they cannot have a lifetime cap or a yearly cap that prevents people from getting the care they need. we are also going for people, for those who don't have health insurance, to set up a system similar to what congress has. you could buy into a bigger pool, get better rates, have better protection around you. you would be buying that insurance from private insurers, but one option we talked about was a public auction. there would not be a profit motive involved. it would be not for profit. at public auction we give you affordable health insurance. we think that's a good idea, but we've don't think is the only aspect of health insurance.

what she said was all these other insurance reforms are just as important as the public auction. the press got a little excited and some folks on the left got a little excited about it. our position has not changed. we think the key is cost control, competition, making sure people have quality options. if we are able to achieve that, that is the and we are seeking and the means, we could have good arguments about the best way to achieve it, but we have to change because the status quo is unsustainable. >> there is a mind-set among many folks in my audience to say that it's all about single payer in the endgame. you know that there is a perception out there that you want all. you want to be in the banks, the automotive industry, and now in healthcare. can you address that mind-set. >> absolutely. the intervention in the banks was not started by me. that was started by a

conservative, republican administration. and rightly so because the banks were on the verge of a meltdown. the only thing we have done is put in place financial regulation to make sure it does not happen again. the auto interventions were not started by me. they were started by conservative republican administration. the only thing we did was rather than write gm and chrysler a blank check, we said if you are going to get more tax parody, you have to be accountable. they went through a record bankruptcy and gm is hiring folks back. i know there is a perception that somehow we engage in these extraordinary interventions. part of that had to do with the worst financial crisis in history and the fact the auto bailout and bank bailout were started under a previous, conservative, republican administration. that indicates the fact that this was not ideological. it's a matter of necessity. as far as healthcare, i have consistently said i would love the private marketplace to be handling this without any

government intervention. the problem is, it's not working. what we are seeing is 14,000 folks lose health insurance every single day. we are seeing healthcare inflation, about twice as fast as regular inflation. businesses are being crippled by it, small businesses especially have no access to the marketplace because they have no leverage with insurance companies. all we have said is let's keep the private system in tact, but let's make sure people who cannot get health insurance right now, about 46 million, they are able to buy into the market. second, let's add consumer protections to make sure those of us who have health insurance don't end up getting a bad deal because we did not read defied print and think we have coverage when we finally get sick and need it, it turns out we are vulnerable because insurance companies are not operating in the interest of their customers. >> i would like to drive and mcx

and and f150. i have communicated with each of the one to sold me and they have both said the cash for clunkers initiative has been wonderful and have closed a lot of deals but the payments are late. i hear from the number of folks who say of the federal government can't get it together relative to cash for clunkers, i don't trust my healthcare to the federal government. >> let me address cash for clunkers. it has been successful beyond anyone's imagination we are now slightly victims of success because it happened so quickly and there was so much more demand than anyone expected that dealers were overwhelmed with applications. this program has only been going on for a few weeks. we have hired three times as many people to process the stuff as we originally had. there has not been extraordinary delays on the u.s. government's

part. i understand dealers want to get their money back as soon as possible, but the fact of the matter is this is a good news story. they are seeing sales they have not seen in years. they will get their money, but we have to process that properly because if we are careless about it, if we just send out checks for applications were incomplete, we would be breaking the law because there are statutes set up in terms of how this is supposed to go and second, there would be a story, you would ask me about scandals where all bunch of checks of taxpayer money wasted, going to people had not actually bought cars. i think this is a high class problem to have. we are selling into minicars too quickly and there is some backlog -- we are selling too many cars to quickly and there is some backlog. >> a listener in boston wishes to oppose the following question. go ahead. >> thank you.

mr. president -- >> how are you? >> i'm good. thank you for taking this call. i understand you have said the federal health-care plan for government employees is a pretty good plan. >> it is. >> congress has voted to my understanding to not join the public plan went it passes because they want to keep their good, federal plan. would you be willing to either urge congress to have the federal employees join the public plan or would be willing to urge congress to somehow open up the federal health plan to all americans? >> i hear this all the time, mr. president. >> it's a great question. first of all, understand that correctly federal employees have a very good health care plan because they're able to leverage the insurance companies. there are some members of the federal workforce that they can

get the best rate possible. every insurance company wants to do business with the federal government. premiums are lower and it's a better deal overall. this same concept is what we're trying to do in setting up a health insurance exchange, essentially it is a marketplace where people who currently do not have insurance or small businesses could pool their numbers so they have leverage over the insurance companies and go to a website and look at the various options, the types of various private health insurance plans being offered and choose the one best for their families. we are trying to duplicate what exists for federal employees, we want to make that available to everyone else. what we have said is let's make it public auction one choice -- public option one choice of one

many available to people. i see no problem having that available to federal employees as well. but one thing i have to make absolutely clear -- nobody would be obligated to choose the public auction. if you went to the web site and said across blue shield are offering a good deal and -- and said at blue cross blue shield are offering a good deal and that would rather choose the plan, you are perfectly free to do so. no one is saying he were obligated to go into a public plan. >> people are saying they would love it if you'd stand up and say whatever it is we are creating, whatever name might be ascribed to it, we in the executive branch and congress we will live with exactly these parameters. >> i think it would make perfect sense for us to make the public option available to federal employees as well. but keep in mind it would just be a choice. >> understood.

our next listener is from indianapolis. >> thank you for taking my call. until i heard you say a private auction is just a sliver of the health-care proposal recently, i think myself and many americans thought that was the proposal. >> i know. >> could you please quickly listed below. the legislation must include 40 to be willing to sign it -- for instance, employee mandates, illegal immigrants, toward reform, a public auction. >> i would be happy to. >>you mentioned illegal immigrants. this is an example pure misinformation out there. none of the bills voted on in congress and none of the proposals coming out of the white house propose giving coverage to illegal immigrants. none of them. that has never been on the table. no one has discussed it. everyone who is listening out there, when you hear somehow

this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, this is simply not true and has never been the case. >> what is their fate? there is a law book that says if you show up at an emergency room, you must be treated. >> that will continue because we don't want situation in which some child, even if they are an illegal immigrant, shows up at an emergency room with tuberculosis and nobody gives and treatment and go back to the playground and playing next to our kids. there is a basic standard of decency where if someone is in a death situation or serial bus -- severe illness, we will provide them emergency care. nobody has talked about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. you have a good point about what are the bullet points i want. it has to be deficit neutral. this has to be paid for. in the past, the healthcare

plans we have put forward have not been paid for. example was the prescription drug benefit for seniors. it was an important thing to do, but we never figured out how to pay for it. it went directly to the national debt and we can afford to do that. second, it has to bend the cost curve. that means we have to create a plan that experts credibly say will reduce health care inflation. if all we are doing is adding more people, but not controlling costs, that will blow up the deficit over the long term and blow up the burden on individual families and businesses. we have to get control of costs. we spend $6 billion more -- $6,000 more per person than any country. number three, we have that insurance reforms for people already have insurance. that means making sure you can get health insurance even if you have a pre-existing condition, making sure you are not burdened

by lifetime caps, making sure insurance companies cannot drop the because you get sick or are older or you are not healthy. making sure basic insurance protections, that is very important. number four, i want to make sure we have a health exchange, as i just described, that is similar to what members of congress have, where you have a set of options of your a small business or self-employed and have trouble getting health insurance, you can go look a bunch of options and we have to make it affordable for middle- class families. part of the plan has to be if you cannot afford a market-based premium that we're giving you a little bit of help and your able to get health insurance. choice, competition, reducing costs, those are the things i want to see accomplished in this health reform bill. >> where does personal responsibility factor into all

this? there is a story in "usa today" talking about publicity being the worst thing. how about rewarding people who exercise? >> you are already starting to see this happen among the lot of private companies. safeway is a company that has denigrate job in helping encourage employees to get said. they give them an incentive and say you will save x amount on your insurance premiums and you see that in your paycheck if you are taking steps to take care of yourself. creating incentives like that for prevention, for wellness, creating cash incentives for people where it shows up, they're saving money on health insurance because of it, that is something that should be part of it. >> joe listens to me in philadelphia. go ahead for the president of the united states. >> thank you for taking my call. >> how are you?

>> i am scared out of my mind talking to you. i am a supporter and voted for you last year. i am getting a little ticked off that feels like the these are buckling of little bit. we have an overwhelming majority in both house and senate and i'm just not getting -- it's frustrating to watch you try to -- [no audio] >> i guarantee you that we're going to get healthcare reform done. i know there are a lot of people out there who have been hand- wringing and folks in the press are following every little twist and turn of the legislative process. passing a bill like this is always messy.

fdr was called a socialist when he passed social security. jfk and lyndon johnson were both accused of a government takeover of health care when they passed medicare. this is the process we go through. understandably, the american people long tradition of being suspicious of government. until the government actually does something that helps them and then they don't want anybody messing with what ever gets set up. i am confident we will get it done, and as far as negotiations with republicans, by attitude has always been what see if we can get this done with some consensus. i would love to have more republicans engaged and involved in this process. i think early on a decision was made by the republican leadership that said let's not give them a victory and maybe we could have a replay of 1993 and 1994. when clinton came in, he failed on health care and we won in the midterm election that got the

majority. i think there are some folks who are taking a page out of the playbook, but this should not be a political issue. this is an issue for the american people. there are a bunch of republicans out there who have been working constructively. one of them, olympia snowe, from maine, has been dedicated. there are others who are dedicated and have been meeting in the senate finance committee. i want to give the chance to work to these processes and we're happy to make sensible compromises. what we are not willing to do is give up on the core principle that american to do not have health insurance should get it. americans who do should get a better deal and that consumer protections. we have to reduce health-care inflation so that everyone can keep the health care that have. that is my priority and i think we can get it done. >> today, scullin released the lockerbie bombing. actually, maybe it is healthcare related because he has terminal

cancer. of people are offended over a perceived lack of justice. >> we have been in contact with the scottish government, indicating we object to this. we thought was a mistake. we are now in contact with the government in libya and want to make sure if in fact this transfer has taken place that he is not welcome back in some way, but should be under house arrest. we have been in contact with the families of the victims and indicated to them we do not think this is a proper it. >> in each of our prior three conversations, i spoke with you extensively about the need for closure, and we agreed relative to osama bin laden. i have written and spoken about this extensively. things he said during the course of the campaign played a critical role in my personal decision pertaining to the 2008

election. i feel i would be derelict in my duty if i did not say where are we? i know we have had a victory with the number one individually -- #one individual and the taliban, where are we as far as osama bin laden? >> we are continuing to ramp up pressure in afghanistan. we had what appears to be a successful auction despite the taliban's effort to disrupt it. you have general -- have the general over there now and more troops putting pressure on the eastern and southern portions of afghanistan. on the other hand, you have the army in pakistan actually fighting in a very aggressive way. that is how we took out the top taliban leaders in pakistan who was also one of the osama bin laden's key allies. the goal is to have a picture where we are squeezing them on both sides, eliminating their allies, making it more difficult

for them to communicate, more difficult for them to operate safe-haven, and overtime, we hope to flush them out. we will keep on putting pressure on them and i know it is at great cost. i have to sign letters to family members who have fallen. a lot more are falling in afghanistan than iraq. as a consequence, we have to be sure we are really focused on finishing the job in afghanistan, but it will take some time. >> susan listens in new york city. go ahead, for the president of the united states. >> thank you very much mr. president for talking to us directly about this important issue. >> thank you. >> we all want reform. i guess it is just a matter of what the best solution is. a lot of us feel the federal government is just not equipped

to be getting involved in delivering health care services. we are very concerned that most of the money will actually go, instead of taking care of people, it will go to the cost of administering a huge government bureaucracy. why not do something more like giving it to the states like here in new york. we have a free health care for people who cannot afford it. it should only be for people who can't afford it, not for the 20 and 30 somethings who choose to spend their money on the latest electronics. it is not free because we know we will all be paying for it. it should only be for the people who can't really afford it. we want to have our own health care decisions, locally, and we don't want the federal government making decisions for us. >> is there a state solution? >> first of all, it's important

to understand part of health reform proposal we have put forward would involve the states. the states, in some cases, would be empowered to expand medicaid to cover more people the same way have been able to cover more children under the children self insurance program. a sizable portion of the people currently uninsured would be getting their insurance through to states. that is how the current medicaid program is able to allow states to cover more people. keep in mind no one is talking about the government administering all of healthcare. what we are talking about is a public auction that people could sign up for, but in that situation that would have to operate like any private insurer. it would have to collect premiums and so forth. the track record for government administering health care actually is surprisingly good. medicare, for example, a

government program, has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. part of that is because they -- either someone is qualified or they're not. signing them up as a lot more automatic. but that points to one of the big problems we have. in private insurance, huge amounts of insurance companies are spending a lot of money and a lot of effort and staff just trying to cherry pick people who are healthy and sign them up and then eliminate people who are sick. part of what we want to do here is a reformed the system so insurance companies are operating more fairly to all people. if you are young, it's easier to get health insurance these days. the tough population are people from 50-64. maybe they just got laid off or they are self-employed. they have a whale of a time tried to get health insurance and we want to make sure there's a market for them. the last. that would make is you mention

the fact a lot of people opt out. one of the things we would do under a form is say if you want, you can stay on your parents' health insurance up to the age of 26. that would cover all lot of young people who fall into the gap where their first job as not necessarily offer insurance. it gives them the way of having coverage until they get the job with more security. >> you are needed across town. i appreciate very much the privilege of coming to the white house. mr. president, thank you very much for being on the michael smerconish program. >> i want to thank all of your listeners. great question. there's a great dialogue that takes place on this show and i hope we can continue this dialogue in the same spirit to solve some of america's big problems. >> i will be back in just a moment from the white house. ♪

>> more of the smerconish the program after this. >> you don't need to tell me our country is experiencing the worst economic crisis since the great depression. stocks, real estate, have lost much of their value and the government is spending literally trillions of dollars in a desperate attempt to pay [no audio] [inaudible] >> thank you.

>> all this week, as congress continues its recess, we will be bringing new town hall meetings with members of the house and senate around the country. healthcare legislation has been the main topic of conversation at this meetings. massachusetts congressman, barney frank, held a meeting in his district this week. that is next on c-span. later, a bit -- a discussion on outsourcing u.s. intelligence gathering to the private sector. we will hear from a former cia director who was asked about the security firm, blackwater. also tonight, attorney general eric holder talks about the release of a man by the scottish government convicted in lockerbie bombing. >> as the healthcare conversation continues, c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource.

go on line and all the latests, video ads, and links. keep up with the house and senate debates and up load your opinions about health care with citizen patio. the c-span healthcare hub, and c-span.org/healthcare. >> democratic congressman barney frank confronted constituents about healthcare. he was also asked about freddie mae and fannie mae oversight. this meeting took place at a senior center in his district. this bill consists of many prominent issues, the most prominent being those who cannot afford health insurance. this particular subject could have been handled years ago with the wages of the middle and

lower class had not been stagnant for so long. over the last 30 years, this country has reverted back to a disparity of income we have not seen since the 1920's. this has left many without the funds to afford health insurance. we need to bring back that economic equality we saw during the 1950's and 1960's, that economic equality was the result of the new deal created by franklin delano roosevelt. just as social security -- thank you -- just as social security was the main staple of the new deal, health insurance reform is the main staple of president obama's new deal. [applause] we have a consensus that we don't have a majority of those

who oppose and are for. this is actually split audience. thank you. thank you very much. let me finish. this issue concerning health care is not a new idea our president has come up with. this has been around for as long as social security and has received the support of president in both parties over the last 75 years. this bill is about covering those who work hard every single day yet still struggle to obtain insurance for themselves and most importantly, for their children. right now is also a time we need to look past the smokescreen of fear and a motion used by a few to distract and obstruct reeled cognitive debate. [applause] keep it down.

using fear as a catalyst, the message printing -- brings nothing to the table progress. we need to remember, above all the disagreement we have and all of the party affiliations, sir, please put that sign down. we need to remember that above all, this agreement, and above all party affiliation, we are all united here as americans and we cannot be divided by those who use fear in order to win a debate. [applause] we can be united in the idea of democracy and the ability to compromise toward a real solution for our country. i ask we move past those distractions of -- and focus on the facts of the issue and have a thoughtful and meaningful discussion here tonight in

moving forward. congressman frank realizes the importance of hearing from his constituents and agreed to meet with us here tonight. i am sure he will be able to answer any and all questions you may have and we thank him for the time he took out of the schedule to attend this meeting here in dartmouth. it is my pleasure to introduce to you, congressman barney frank. [applause] >> i want to welcome some of the national press to southeastern massachusetts. stick around for a while. go to the museum and some great beaches. [applause] you are in a town right next to two towns that together are the most important fishing ports in

the united states. look at the great work force we have here. i'm very pleased we have been able to get some attention and i hope people will hang around. if you want to hit a nice beach, you don't even have to cross any bridges. you can just enjoy yourself. second, i appreciate the democratic town committee of dartmouth. political parties play a very portent role in america and in the democracy. i know it has become fashionable to denounce partisanship. partisanship can become excessive. disagreements people have as different parties get to better or overcome areas where they should be agreed in -- where they should be in agreement. the was a poll as to which people in each party that the other members of the other party were the most partisan or bipartisan. i was pleased i was the only one

picked as both one of the most partisan and one of the most bipartisan. i think that's the way it's supposed to be. there are areas where we differ and that's why we have parties and elections. but you should not allow those disagreements to spillovers the you cannot cooperate when you have agreement. i want to explain why i'm here. i know a number of my colleagues have been having town meetings. because a number of people have asked me to, i will call one of my own later. i think it's odd that people oppressing us for town meetings. anyone who has been around washington politics -- town meetings have long been a form of self aggrandizement for politicians. they tell you if your na tough district. -- they can tell you if you are in a tough district. you get to get all this press. i have found that, frankly, i

get a more representative group of opinions as i accept invitations like i have done tonight. i make a point of accepting a wide range of invitations because people are engaged and will have a town meeting later in the summer well before the house votes on issues and there are a couple of things that will be more clarified. i want to begin with a couple of points that have come up and i will throw this open. i want to apologize -- until fairly recently, i have read up on some of the stuff, my job in washington is primarily working on financial regulation. we passed a bill many of you like, i suppose, to restrict executive compensation. [applause] to keep excessive bonuses. we passed a bill that the "wall street journal" was very angry about to prevent the kinds of subprime mortgages that got us into trouble. i was pleased to see a good

article that accurately noted many of us were critical of the effort to give people mortgages when we should have been helping them get affordable rental housing. that has been a major shift happening now in the new administration. we're going to restrict derivatives. we will put serious controls on leverage, and that has been my major focal point. but the healthcare issue, not on those committees, but that is when we deal with when we get back. let me comment on a couple of the issues. i have been asked if i plan to protest paid in a public plan for health-care. the answer is i already have been. i am 69 years old and i have been on medicare for four years. medicare is a government run health care plan and a very good one. [applause] now it is true that when it was passed in 1965, a number people called it socialized medicine and said if the government got into healthcare it would ruin everything. i don't feel ruined and i don't

thing most of my fellow medicare recipients do. we also have, in the bill, one of the things i like. they passed a bill a few years ago that i voted against because it was not funded and had other problems, but they passed a bill to provide prescription drug coverage but did not allow any negotiation with the drug companies and had what is called the don't at hole where if you are old and sick enough at some point, you had to pay without any help. this bill now before us will fill that gap and it will do it in one fell swoop, but they made a deal with drug companies have agreed now under some pressure to reduce it. the other issue, and there is a lot of legitimate debate here, but i have to tell you the single most inaccurate argument i have heard in all my years of politics was that this was somehow going to compel the panels. there is a publication called " the the investor's business

daily" which had the misfortune of saying stephen hawking, the paralyzed, brilliant physician, if he had to depend on a national health service of britain, he would be dead because they said he was useless. the only problem is that mr. hawking lives in britain and the certified national health service in britain has treated him wonderfully as kept him alive. there is absolutely nothing in this bill that in any way, shape, or form that has compulsory death activity. there has been a threat to have the government intervened and life decisions, but it came from the most conservative element of the spectrum. it was in 2005, when the congress of which i was then a minority member, and the president decided to tell michael schaivo that he could not comply with the wishes of his wife and allow los left of her life to end.

it was the congress of the united states and the president who intervened and the american people were very unhappy. i think it or write to be unhappy. we will see any repeat of that. what the bill says is this -- if you want to consult with dr. about and of life, if you want to leave instructions about what to do and get a doctor's a vice about how to do it, the federal government will pay for it if you are on medicare. that is the whole basis for this best panel argument which i think makes no sense. let me talk about some of the things i like about this bill. i have spent a lot of time -- i have to acknowledge in a practice that some people think is awful. we earmark. i've done to my colleagues and said you know same bed -- the provider of great health care in new bedford, given the healthcare system in america,

the fact of low-wage city, they don't have enough money, get money to help them question are we provided money. remarks to the new bedford house center. -- new bedford help center. -- health center. over the years, i have earmarked $8 billion in healthcare for this region. i do not like your marks, but in the absence of decent health care for the people i represent who would not otherwise have it, children, old people, people who work hard but don't have healthcare, i will continue to do them. if we get this bill passed in the right way, we will need healthcare -- we will be done because we will have healthcare. i mentioned the fishing industry. anybody who works in the fishing industry knows about the absence

of health care for our fishermen. people are doing it terribly dangerous job and it's important for the health of us in this country. they don't have health care. the catholic health system has tried to help, but it's hard to do that. we have been trying to patch up healthcare for fisherman, but if this bill goes through in the right way, we'll have a major step in providing health care for fishermen. the bill says the rule be subsidies for the purchase of insurance for people who work hard at 12, 15, $20 an hour and don't make enough money to buy health care under the current system. i think that's very important and it's particularly important for this region. it is important for the people in fall river and elsewhere. i regard our region here as a potential great beneficiary. i should add that some of the things people are concerned about in the bill will have not much effect in massachusetts because the massachusetts

legislature passed the tome bill that does some of the same things. that costs money and a touch on this and i will throw this open. that is where i have some differences with the bill. i'd like the idea of linking and planned to healthcare. i think that is a depressing of jobs. i also want to expand health care to the working people of new bedford who might not otherwise afford it. one of the things the president proposed was to cut back on some hospital competition and i'm against that. for one thing, people think about hospital compensation and about medical specialists, and we want them to be well-paid. but you know who is paid by hospitals? hard-working people and the bedpans at 3:00 in the morning trade people preparing people for operations. hard-working people in this country are doing very difficult jobs and not for cutting back on

the low salaries they already get. i am looking for other ways to finance it. i am struck by those who say you don't care about the deficit. i do. [laughter] i do worry about the deficit. that's one of the reasons, not the only one, that i voted against the single most wasteful expenditure in the history of america -- the iraq war. [applause] the war in iraq -- somebody talked about bailouts. i'm sure you been george bush's system -- here's the deal. when you're through yelling, raise your hand and i will talk. i assume by bailout, you mean the $700 billion in george bush asked congress to vote for last year.

do you disagree with that fact? you say don't blame on george bush. [inaudible] there is an indicator and i hope people understand, when you say people things cannot refute, they try to drown you out and that's understandable. i understand why people resent the fact that my mentioning it was george bush's bill. when it comes to bailouts, as people call them, whether it's general motors -- let me talk about aig then. i will talk about aig for a minute because aig was done by the bush administration was no congressional votes. it was the bush administration officials decided to bail out aig. it was bush who first decided to

bail out general motors and chrysler without a congressional vote. yes. on fannie mae and freddie mac, i will be glad to respond to that. the bailout of fannie mae and freddie mac, we passed legislation in 2007 in the house that george bush asked us to pass when the democrats became the majority. [inaudible] the request -- excuse me, i just thought request probably from some devoted for and twice to talk about something other than george bush. i understand that coming from bush supporters. but it's impossible to understand where we are without looking at the context. what is the like?

somebody said i was lying? what's the like. what was the lie i told -- what was the lie i told? [inaudible] >> why didn't you read the bill he voted for? >> which bill? >> the park built. >> i did read the part bill. -- the tarp bill. >> i did read the tarp bill. i am struck by the top level of discussion of people who cannot disagree rationally. let me say this. there are some contradictory -- somebody asked me to talk about fannie mae and freddie mac. do you want me to talk about it? here is what happened. i was a supporter of their efforts to do affordable rental housing.

under the bush administration, they began to increase -- [inaudible] >> don't worry. i just asked the chairman to ignore the disruptions. i felt as well my political career. i used to tell this to people on the left and now i tell people on the right. disruption never helped cause. it makes it look like you are afraid to have a rational discussion trade egis drive people away. [applause]

this is the council on aging, not kindergarten. i don't expect anybody to act like a police officer. you can boo, you can disrupt and we will have much time. we are here for a couple of hours. patients apparently is not part of what you bring here. i think a few more minutes important. you asked me about fannie mae and freddie mac and bailout. everything that is now going on in the united states government people describe as a bailout -- aig, the banks, general motors, chrysler, was begun by and asked for the bush administration. those happen to the facts. laughter as a response to fact is i guess the only way to do it. in some cases, it was done without congress, like a ig. in regard to fannie mae and freddie mac, i supported them

for affordable rental housing. in the early part of 2000, george bush pushed them into doing more purchase of mortgages for low-income people. in 2004 -- 2003, i didn't think that problem, but in 2004, i objected when bush force them substantially to increase purchases from low-income people. in 2005, -- by the way, during 1995-2006, the republicans ran congress. i was not dictating what happened or did not happen the republicans did not pass anything until 2005. in 2005, house republicans passed a bill, george bush did not like the bill the house republicans passed. the senate democrats tried to pass the house republican bill and the senate republicans killed it. nothing happened. i did not have the power to do anything until january 2007. in march of 2007, we passed a bill to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac that the bush

administration asked for. the senate did not pass it until 2008. that is the facts. you can melanin grown in response, but there will be any factual refutations. to get back to this bill, it's very important that we provide the kind of medical assistance, financial assistance to people it cannot afford medical care. i agree with the chairman. illegal aliens are specifically excluded from getting assistance in the bill. [inaudible] section 246 says nothing in this bill shall permit any payment to people who are here illegally.

it's right in the bill. [applause] that is in the bill. what we are trying to do is increase wages in general. i support labor unions. i think that have played a very important role in america. the anti-union message at -- efforts we obscene have helped to depress wages in america. until we can get wages higher, we need to provide the kind of graduated subsidy we provide for people under this bill. that's another reason why i'm very much for it. it will help hospitals, a lot -- the working people who are hurting, and as far as the other argument that the west something in the bill that would dictate treatment, there is a provision in the bill that says they should do research on what medical treatments are effective and it says explicitly in the bill that this research shall never be used by the

government to dictate any procedures or outcomes. it is information available for people, but it says it in the bill. i will be glad to take some questions. >> -- >> quiet. >> anyone who has the hand up, i will acknowledge them. once iconology, please go to the center microphone -- once i acknowledge you, please go to the center microphone. i will acknowledge you most likely buyer wrote. -- most likely by wrote. go right at had. the gentleman in the blue will be next. >> president obama wants to cut costs and he wants to give us more choice.

if he is serious about doing this and why isn't there toward reform in any of the bills? -- why isn't there toward reform in any of the bills? you have more choice of insurance companies if you allow people to buy their insurance anywhere in the united states. if they can go to any state to get their insurance -- >> that's not tort reform. >> there is more than one question. he wants fair competition, allow the people to make the decision. let us go where we want to go to get our insurance. >>[applause] >> the problem in both cases,

the conservatives in congress have long maintained -- i guess objection to something you don't like it -- is called state rights. tort reform is a subject for the states in america. your right to sue or not to sue for wrongs committed against jews has been a state law matter since the late 18th century when the country was formed. the was a lot of resistance to having the federal government federalize tort reform for medical care and presumably everything else. that is a morally the case with insurance. -- that is similarly the case with insurance. .

>> it was passed by conservatives. the tort reform issue is very deeply held by the states and is a state issue. >> good evening. thank you for coming here. i am a registered nurse in the area. i want to ask you about fee schedules in medicare. if national health insurance is passed, there will probably a similar fee schedule. i would like to ask you if you

can work on getting all registered nurses quoted in a fee schedule free for treatment which is the same thing as a fee-for-service similar to as the positions are so quoted and paid. some bears practitioners are quoted in the schedule for selective roles. a nurse practitioner is a registered nurse with education. it is my belief and i have worked on this for years that all registered nurses should be quoted in medicare fee schedules which would provide more health care, rural, suburban, inner- city cheaper, more cost effectively and it would be like a nurse expander. nurses could come out and become self employed, office specialized, single or partnerships.

it should be a career option for nurses. the u.s. should consider that. >> i generally agree with that. when you talk about medicaid as opposed to medicare, and this is something that apparently people were not aware of, it has been a state issue. who gets to practice medicine and who gets to practice has been a state issue. i am on the side of the nurses. for example, an anesthesiologist -- the states decide who can do what. i have been of the view however consistently that whatever the state allows a practice that practitioner should be given the treatment you mentioned. you have this question that whether or not it is midwives

versus obstetricians. it is not easy for me to say. those are decisions that have been made by the state. it provides less expensive medical care as long as it is a choice of the individual. no individual should be compelled to pick an anesthesiologist or a nurse practitioner for a doctor. i agree with that. where is consistent with state law that governments say who can practice what, i am for what you say. i found on page 36 of the bill, section 246, nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credit on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the united states. that is in black and white in

the bill. no, there is no subsidy -- there are already people who are here illegally in medicaid. the bill does say very plainly, section 246 on page 36, nothing in this subset of should allow federal payments on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the united states. next. >> we are trying to keep it to -- >> where the government controls it, i am for doing what you said. >> [no audio] >> i would prefer that. i have found medicare to be a very good system.

i think that has been a very well-run government program compared to some of the private ones. i am not the majority there. >> thank you so much for taking our questions here tonight, congressman. i have a general point of view that h.r. 32 should be scrapped and totaled, start from fresh, primarily because i think the congressional budget office contrary to what you mentioned a moment ago regarding funding, i think the congressional budget office has indicated that this bill would practically bankrupt the economy of the united states government. notwithstanding that, you have read twice now pertaining to the legal -- to the legal aliens and

the coverage denied to them. i believe there is a very detailed description of how the legal immigrants will be covered under this legislation. >> which section? >> section 152. page 50 and 51. >> it is section 451 an. it is not on the page you said in the final version. >> what version do you have? >> the one that was just reported out by the three committees. >> what was the date of that? >> section 152, prohibiting discrimination in health care. except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this act, all health care covered by this act shall be provided without regard

to personal characteristics. >> continue, sir. >> to implement the requirement of the [unintelligible] services are provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to high-quality health care services. except as explicitly permitted by this act. the language i read is that reference. this says no discrimination based on race, or gender, sexual orientation, or religion. what the bill says is -- i read you a section that says no one who is here illegally. except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this act, the then which i read excluding people who are here illegally is permitted by this act. this provision here is modified by that explicit permission to

deny it to people here illegally. the anti-discrimination deals with what you generally have with anti-discrimination -- race, sexual orientation, is etc. this says except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this act, and the language i read is the explicit permission to do the discrimination as it were in this case. >>[applause] >> do you want me to keep reading? i want to keep reading. the next section says whistle- blower protection. it has nothing to do with discrimination. whistle-blower protection. yes, sir?

>> good evening, sir. for the record, i am not a member of the mob. i am a union member, teamsters local 251, for 20 years. i need to ask you a question. do you really favor of this bill? do you like it? >> hi favre most of it. i would like to amend its in regard to the tax based on employment. small businesses are exempted up to perils of half a million. i would like to reduce that. i have to disagree with the previous question. i never disputed about the congressional budget office. i want to raise the money because i do think it costs more money.

so fisherman can get health care and people that are working at $15 an hour can afford health care. i don't want to take it the way this bill does by taxing people who are employed. i do like the parts of the bill that raised taxes on income above 350 dowson dollars a year. i like the bill that deals with tax evasion overseas. [applause] with regard to the war in iraq, i think americans are making a grave mistake by becoming the military protector of the whole world. i think we could substantially reduce military spending. i just cited with the president, killing the f-22, a wonderful weapon. i will go further. the fact thhat the kurds in

iraq -- there is no reason that we should be spending money on that flight. reducing cold war weapons in cutting back -- i am not sure why wealthy european allies have to have military budgets one- quarter of hours as a percentage with a cannot do more themselves. that would generate enough money. if we did not go to the war in iraq, we would have more than enough money to pay for health care. [applause] >> i was wondering, can you pledge to all of us here tonight that if a new government single payer system is instituted, you will opt out of your cadillac insurance and into the same one that we will be forced to take? [cheers and applause] >> unfortunately, there will not

be a government single payer. secondly, apparently i was not clear when i said -- do you really think that advances your argument? i thought you were thoughtful people and wanted to have a conversation. i am disappointed at the level of response. [yells] i would hope but not on the same grounds. i am trying to respond to your questions. responding to hoots is kind of hard. [yelling] >> can we let the congressman answer the question? >> i feel very confident.

i am on medicare. i have been on medicaid since 1965. i and my getting any younger. -- i am not getting any younger. which one of you want to yell first? i am in bluecross, blueshield. if i am going to vote for a bill that will have a public auction as an option, no one will be forced into the plan. here is the great contradiction i get from people. if you have this public plan, it is going to be bad because it will ration and the government can't run things. two, it is going to be popular. there is no inconsistency. i am not voting for any bill that forces anybody into anything. some people will want to go into

it and some people will not want to go into it. if you are on medicare, virtually no one in the medicare will want to go into it. the public option will be for people who are not on the medicare. that is simply a matter of logic. >> [unintelligible] >> that is one of the things i like about this bill. people will get a degree of support from the federal government as long as they are not illegal aliens to be able to pay for it. that is a good thing. there are people who work very hard who cannot afford health care because it is not given by their employer.

>> [unintelligible] >> i have a question from someone who could not make it tonight. i want to get in before we get to the rest of them. as chairman of the banking committee, if the banks charge 6.5%, why can't banks live off of 2.5% and use the remaining 4% on interest for cd's and savings accounts progress we have a free enterprise system and we do not control prices. i am disappointed that the banks -- [yelling] what can disturb you about me answering that question. the answer is, is essentially, banks are free to do as they

wish with the pricing they said. i do believe there have been problems with consumer groups. the establishment of a consumer financial protection administration to protect consumers against overcharges and abuses by banks with regard to credit cards, overdraft fees. what, sir? [inaudible] you were yelling -- what? [inaudible] the point is, we are trying to pass a bill that will provide much better protection. if you have a complaint about a bank practice right now, banks are not making much money -- as much money as they used to from loans. loans are not regulated. the banks have been increasing

-- the big banks. the bigger banks have been trying to raise more money from fees so they give you overdraft protection even if you did not ask for it. they have not been fair on credit cards. we did pass a bill to restrain them on credit cards. going forward, i hope will be -- i hope we will establish this consumer finance production commission that will regulate bank practices to make them fairer. the czech catchers, the pay date lenders, the others that have been scamming people. >> i would like to bring some stability back into this discussion by trying to remind people that in 1787, four hand

written pages offered by 55 men, a total of 4553 words, wrote the constitution of the united states. we have a 1000-page article today that people are very confused about and don't understand what is happening. my concern is, when the constitution was written, the farmers, the tradesman dealt with their representatives had to head. today, the only people that you deal with, 99% of the time, lobbyists, special interests, unions, and all of that. [cheers and applause] we are not represented today to prove it, when you listen to washington talking about this

health bill, even though 85% of the people are satisfied with their health insurance and don't want it changed, the politicians in washington are saying we are going to do what we want. [applause] an example of tort reform would be attorney john edwards did $160 million of business on 63 malpractice suits, making $50 million or more this is what malpractice insurance is costing doctors. the first thing you should do is abandon the law groups. thank you. [applause]

>> my first disagreement is with lumping unions in their as special interests. i disagree with that. i have to be able to respond. are you finished? i think that denigrating the unions that weight is a great mistake. he said all we talk to is lobbyists, special interests, unions. if that is praised, i would hate to hear your criticism. you are lumping unions in that are not that representatives of working men and women. i have found that labor unions

tend to be very important. building trades, a food and commercial workers, the people that represent the fishermen. 13% of the population is kind of a lot. excuse me, i guess i don't understand. is it because you don't like what i am saying? [inaudible] i was answering the question by saying that i disagree. i am proud that i work with unions and working men and women and i think they are representative of people that need some help. secondly, when you say that is who i spent 99% of my time is, you are extremely wrong. i spend a lot of time in my congressional district meeting with a wide range of people. i don't generally call meetings. i have not been wholly dissuaded

from that view from this evening's performance by some. i have found that it is most useful for me to accept invitations from people in my district and go meet with them on their turf where they feel comfortable, where there is no effort to turn out the troops on one side or the other. i am glad to accept invitations like i have done from all of my district. i noticed there was something in the standard * complain to say that i was assiduous. i was in sichuan because a group asked me to come. even though they were not in my district. i was in plymouth the other day, going to meetings that other people have. york suggestion that i don't listen to average people is dead wrong.

a couple of people came to my office who wanted to talk about health care. secondly, the fact that the constitution was only a small number of pages in this bill is bigger is not a valid argument. the constitution was meant to be broad and general principles. even then, it was too short because the guys there wrote the constitution for got the bill of rights. they admitted that in their haste. i am glad they corrected themselves by passing the bill of rights. >> [inaudible] >> the constitution is different than law as it should be because the constitution has broad, general principles and a lot is much more specific. some of the complaint was that there weren't enough specifics. the general point that i don't listen -- i spend a lot of time

talking to fisherman who do not have health care. my desire to increase health care is spent in part by that. i have toward the new community health center. there on a lot of lobbyists -- there are not a lot of lobbyists there. there are a lot of poor people. i tried to get more money. the unions who represent hospital workers, who represent people who are emptying bedpans, who are shaving people getting ready for operations. yes, i do work with those people. people have a right to disagree but -- what is the matter with you all? >> [inaudible] >> do you get angry when i answer the question or when i do not? >> with all due respect, i see a

lot of smart people here in this room. i don't understand how they keep electing you back into congress. you said you want us to trust you with health care. >> no, i did not say that. >> let me finish. >> i never said i wanted you to trust me. >> you are part of the process -- you are part of the process, are you not? are you going to vote for the bill? >> probably. >> let me finish my question. if two months ago, there was an article in the new york times. you were quoted back into a dozen 3 saying that practices of fannie mae and freddie mac were fine. in 2005, he said the same thing. now you are here blaming president bush for the subprime mortgage meltdown.

how can we trust you with health care? can you answer that question? we pay 35% of our income towards income tax. you are going to bankrupt this country. you are making a mistake. we are going to pay more taxes because of you, sir. [applause] >> first of all, the biggest single waste of money in one fell swoop was the war in iraq it was a terrible idea. i guess the more you don't like it, the more you yell, but it does not advance the discussion. i really don't understand your mentality. what do you think you will accomplish by yelling? we are having a situation where

people can ask questions. i answer the question. maybe one of you will get up to the microphone and explain why you think yelling is helpful. the question was about the deficit. i think the war in iraq was a terrible mistake. i continue to believe that the military budget is excessive. not just in iraq but going forward. we are still there refereeing and internal set of flights. they want to spend tens of billions more. that is a great mistake. that is money you will have to pay. >> [inaudible] >> i will explain this to you, sir. you said you are worried about the deficit. who do you think paid for the war? santa claus? the deficit was exacerbated by

the war. that is a problem that you are thinking. >> [inaudible] >> you said the deficit. if you have any more comments, if you want to finish, finish. tell me when you are finished. the question was not just about health care. it was about fannie mae and freddie mac. the single biggest factor in the increase in the deficit was the war in iraq. much more than the economic recovery bill. what we have is a continued excess military spending. there are other areas that i wanted to cut back. as far as fannie mae and freddie mac, -- these are things that cause the deficit. in 2003, i said i did not think they were in crisis. i didn't think there was a crisis in lehman brothers or

others. i invite you to read a book of john mccain adviser. it was in the wall street journal a week ago. the bush administration decided that their way to help low income people was to greatly increase mortgages for lower income people. i saw it -- i thought that was a mistake. we could build rental housing for them. we will give up the paper to show you the quotes. in 2005, i joined an effort by the republican chairman of the financial services committee to pass a bill to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. the republicans in the house passed the bill. >> [inaudible] >> are you incapable of the conversation? do you have to interrupt? i don't ask you to trust me, i

ask you to have a civil conversation. i was in the minority from 1995 until 2006. in 2005, i try to help the republicans pass the bill. i did not like it in the end because what they did with rental housing. we were trying to restrict subprime mortgage lending. the republicans got into a fight. the house republicans, the senate republicans controlled the whole congress. how can it be my fault that no bill passed from 1995 until 2006? i became the chairman of the committee in 2007. several months after, we pass the bill to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac very toughly because it included a special provision for low-income rental housing that did not cause any of the economic problems. the senate did not pass it until 2008. those are the facts.

what do you think of what i just said it is inaccurate? >> [inaudible] >> let me summarize it and then you respond. here is the summary. in 2003, i thought they did not have a crisis. in 2004, i objected when bush increased the incentive of low income mortgages that they had to buy. the republicans in the senate defeated a bill and wanted a different one. the chairman of the committee and house of republicans said that george bush had given him the one finger salute and that is why it did not happen. in 2007, when i became the chairman, we pass the bill within six months. what is wrong in what i just said? >> [inaudible]

>> what is inaccurate and what i just said? >> [inaudible] the bush administration proposed at what point -- if there were problems with the subprime mortgage lending system, you said many times that there was no problem it is your fault. >> i am going to respond now. [applause] it is only their fault -- >> [inaudible] >> not when the republicans were running the house. in 2007, first i filed a bill to register hedge funds. there was a lot of criticism that there was too much

regulation. yes, bush said he wanted to -- he did not raise a question about subprime mortgage is. we try to pass a bill to regulate subprime mortgages. he did propose regulation of fannie mae and freddie mac when the republicans were controlling congress. the republicans passed a version he did not like. two years later when bush was the president, i got the bill passed when i became chairman that bush wanted. i only blame the republicans when they were in power. >> [inaudible] >> i want to stick with this. i think it is important to take some of these things to a logical conclusion. the republicans were in power from 1995 through 2006. i was not in charge of

legislation. when i can't became in charge in 2007, -- when i became a charge into a dozen 7, i helped the committee passed the bill. do i blame the republicans? yes, when they were in power. >> i am a physician living and serving this town. i see patients every day at my practice. i am appalled by the fact that i have full insurance -- not insurance, healthcare rights in my other country of turkey. i am proud to be an american. however, they give me full health insurance for free because i am a citizen of that country. healthcare is a right of the people in the country. that is not like that here.

[unintelligible] they pay minimal payments. i would rather change oil every day than [unintelligible] many doctors are being driven out of health care. they are doing something else. who is going to take care of the people who want free choice? even i do not have a primary physician. i have to go 75 miles to see my primary care doctor. i have to pay $75 every time i go to the emergency room. [unintelligible] what is this? is this health care for a joke?

is it is, it is broken down to the ground. [applause] >> first of all, different societies have different systems. we are not going to have the kind of health care that many countries have. is the quality of health care in turkey substantially worse than the quality here? >> it is perfectly fine. my doctor had a heart attack. he is a person that serves his country and he is served free. it is the public system. that is it. >> we have partially done that in america with medicare. if you listen to critics, medicare is subject to all of the criticisms that people think of this bill. the medicare system involves far more government intervention

control, etc., than this bill does. medicare was partisan. some of what you complain about is what we are trying to deal with. health insurance companies have made some agreement going forward. they will not be excluding people from pre-existing conditions. there will be as a result of the negotiations in this bill some improvements in the private health insurance. that is the argument for the public option. i believe in the free enterprise system. i have a lot of choice about what i buy for food, clothing, entertainment, or where i live. with health care, most of us do not have a choice. you can't decide not to get health care. that is why i don't think the market system works as well.

the major power the consumer has is to say no. you can't say no to health care. that is what the public auction will do. people say the public auction will restrict your choice, well then people will not pick it. it will save money because you take away the element of profit in the insurance industry. but they will compete with each other. then you will see what works better. [applause] >> good evening. i want to thank you so much for coming here tonight. i want to applaud everyone here who showed up tonight. i know all of you folks would rather be home with your loved ones. do you feel that the population in the issue might be representative of your constituent base? >> i have no way of knowing. >> i hear they do not want their

health care reform as written currently. if your constituents are opposed to it now, is there any way you would go against the obama administration and your own party and reject it? [cheers and applause] >> first, no one has any way of knowing that. no one has any way of knowing nor is it relevant whether this particular group is representative or not. that is not how you base your decisions on the people that come out on a hot night. the answer is, no one knows. will i sometimes oppose my constituents? yes. i think the majority of people are represented are for the patriot act. in 2001, after that terrible mass murder of so many

americans, the patriot act was very popular. i thought it was a mistake. i thought there were ways we could protect ourselves without it. i voted against it. the war in iraq, i think because the elite -- because people believed in the majority, saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, i thought that might have been popular and i voted against it. there are a lot of people who are for it and against it. there are some important choices still to be made. i would like to cut on the fact of taxation of employers. that is the answer to your question. >> [inaudible] two years ago, i came to you in the congress at the cafeteria.

i introduce you to the [unintelligible] which was the only solution to the crisis in this nation. >> i never said that serve. >> that is what you went with goldman sachs and other banking got millions of dollars. instead of doing what is necessary, put the federal reserve into bankruptcy. shouted down. begin a process of building a hamiltonian system. a national banking system. you have to get rid of the worthless dead. >> what is your question, sir? get to a question. that is what we are here for.

>> you have to get rid of all of the worthless derivatives and other debts -- they have no valid the validity to u.s. taxpayers. we are going to put the whole system, a chartered banks, and bank of organizations. if you do not do that, you screw the nation. >> when the secretary of treasury and the chairman of federal reserve came to us last september and said if we don't lend money to the banks we are going to have a terrible crisis, i felt we had no choice. we did not do it the way they wanted us to do it. >> many of those banks have paid the money back with interest. we have got back from several of those banks to hundred billion

dollars that was lent. $75 billion has been returned in less than a year. we insisted on compensation restrictions. we tried to force them to do foreclosure relief. as for bankruptcy, i did favre and the house passed a bill to allow people to declare bankruptcy [unintelligible] unfortunately, that died in the senate. we were not able to get that. i am disappointed on the banks -- with the banks on foreclosure. i have a problem with some of the money that is being repaid as the tarp plan comes back. i want to make that available as a loan to people who had a good mortgages, not subprime mortgages, but could mortgages who have lost their jobs.

you can't pay a mortgage out of [unintelligible] if that is your primary source of income. i will be fighting for that when we get back. >> if anybody has a political stance and not a question, the microphone will be cut off. we want to get to questions. >> i do want to respond because the man identified -- they are the ones giving out the picture with the president with a hitler mustache. it is the strength of the first amendment. yes, sir? [applause]

>> thank you for coming. i wanted to mention something that i noticed. these banks across the country are overvaluing their assets in their mortgages. i have been to a few foreclosure auctions and banks are buying back houses from themselves to prevent themselves to having to mark down the value of their assets and lying to us about their solvency, made possible by the federal reserve lending money to these institutions. [unintelligible] >> in the fall, i completely disagree that the fed is the cause of this. i have been pushing for more openness with the fed. here is what we plan to do. i want to restrict the powers of the federal reserve. first of all, they will be the

major losers of power if we are successful in setting up that financial product protection commission. the federal reserve is charged with protecting consumers. in 1994, congress give the federal reserve to adopt rules to ban the subprime mortgages. alan greenspan [unintelligible] they have the power to ban credit-card abuses. they had the power to deal with overdrafts. under ben bernanke, they started to do things but only after congress started. in every case after we started, the fed did it. that is why one of the reasons why we will take away from the federal reserve the power to do consumer protection. they have had since 1932 a right under herbert hoover

until recently to intervene into the economy whenever they fought. the federal reserve came to us and said they were going to advance $82 billion to aig. i was kind of surprise. under section 13.3, they can lend money to anyone they want. we are going to put constraints on that power. finally, -- i have been working with ron paul. he agrees that we don't want to have the odd it appear that it is influencing monetary policy because that would be inflationary. if it was made instantly public, a lot of people would be trading off of that and that would have too much impact in the market.

that will be part of the overall federal regulation that we will be adopting. the house will pass it probably in october. yes? >> [inaudible] >> testing, testing. has anyone in the budget office looked at if we adopted it for reimbursement of hospitals and doctors the massachusetts scheduled for medicare, how many billions of dollars we would save? if you are in florida and need a colonoscopy, is $4,200. in massachusetts, it is called hundred dollars. i have not seen any doctors

here move to florida. has anyone looked at using -- removing the cap on salaries for fica as a way for paying for this? >> there is no cap on medicare. there is on social security. medicare is now not capped. the social security cap fica bill -- that is social security taxation. as we reach -- social security is now in good physical shape. begin to start have to have a problem in late 2013. there will be a need to do some adjustments than -- in late 2013. -- 2030.

there will be some -- there is some free-setting mechanism in here, part of it going back to what the doctor mentioned before. there is an effort in this bill to create attractiveness of becoming a primary care physician. there is a problem with compensation of primary-care physicians. we have a special issue in massachusetts by the way. health care is important because it is a service that people get and as an industry. it contains big employers. in the hospitals in general, it in the greater boston area, they are very important for the

state's balance of payments. people come from all of the world to get care and spend money in massachusetts. we also have a burgeoning medical products industry, which is a high-tech industry less likely to be outsourced. [unintelligible] was a little worried that some of the proposals to cut costs was going to wait too much on our hospitals and our teaching hospitals. i am a little bit cautious about that. >> [inaudible] my name is inviolate. . i am 89 years old. [applause] -- my name is violet perry. there are 300 million people in this country, approximately 250 of which who have health insurance. if we include 50 million more

people into the system without an increase of doctors to treat these patients, how am i or anybody worse than me for that matter going to be able to [unintelligible] make an appointment with a doctor once you add in all these new patients? could you please explain? >> yes. i know some of those people do not have health care. fishermen in new bedford. i have a problem saying "tough." in the short term, -- for instance, the way we have been doing nursing. [unintelligible] that is a great mistake. it is dealt with by a improving importing nurses, a short-term

approach. i was very pleased when the president announced a greater increase in funding for community colleges. [unintelligible] we have a need for nurses around here. if people become nurses, by the way, we don't have to worry about outsourcing. increased funding for this is important. in the short term, it may be for immigration. in the immediate term, i believe we can increase the supply for medical practitioners. some people have left the medical profession because i believe the right kind of approach can draw them back in.

i am not comfortable saying that some of us have it and one- fifth of you don't. i think in the short term, there may be some immigration issues there was people coming here. i think we can increase the supply. yes? >> [inaudible] thank you very much for coming in to give some answers to us in the world. i am the chairman of the advisory board here. i have a quite a few constituents that are worried about their care right now. they are in a special group that is growing quickly because we are doing a very good job out in the field in iraq and afghanistan.

they are doing a great job but they have a lot of elements. you did say you are looking for other sources of revenue. i understand the situation because doctors are looking for other sources of revenue as well. as we introduce this new health care for everyone in the united states, including the extra 50 million that do not have any care, the rationing of resources is going to be very, very tight. how do we avoid the progress that the veterans administration and [unintelligible] have made so far in getting the care that they need in bringing of the level of care that they need and not jeopardize that and robbed peter to pay paul in order to introduce this larger health care program? >> the increase will come -- let me go back a step.

when we say people don't have health coverage, that does not mean they are not getting health care. they are getting care in hospital emergency rooms. hospital emergency rooms are an i should have said this first. as far as services are concerned, it has totally registered. chairman of the veterans affairs committee as a republican in the last congress, he offered the amendment in the committee to make it clear that nothing in this bill would change the health care for the veterans affairs department at all. they will continue to get it. by the way, for those of you who think government health care is a terrible thing, i suppose

you stay out of government-run hospitals. there will be no change whatsoever in the v.a. one of the things that has happened is a substantial increase in the level of health care. the president tried to cut back. medical care has advanced. people are surviving terrible wounds today who would not have survived years ago. george orwell, the author that were shot in the neck during the spanish civil war, somebody said he was lucky. there is nothing lucky about surviving a terrible wound. it does put more of a strain on this. that will continue to be a very

high priority and there will be a continued increase in resources. veterans will continue to come first, and that is very explicit in this bill. [applause] i have tootsie russell looking over my shoulder. >> earlier on, you were talking about the state's being in the way of doing reforms that would bring down costs. is there any way that we could let them be the laboratories of democracy and allow them to sit there and see what other states do well and i doubt that as well? >> there is an element of that in the bill that allows the states who want to do something different allow them to do it. massachusetts took the lead in a state program.

it won't affect them because massachusetts is already doing it. there is an effort to give states flexibility. when you will probably see is [unintelligible] . .

i'm a physician. my husband is a physician. my son is a doctor in training. one way we could try to make sure there were plenty of people to serve, such as a person before me who is worried about getting a doctor, is by finding a better people who go into primary care. right now the way the fee schedules are set up, surgeons are pay law for doing procedures. people for primary care and

ob/gyn's do not get paid very much. my question is congressman frank. there is a question about whether you believe people in this room represent the people's opinion in this country. i have been a number of these town hall meetings. i have heard the same talking points repeated over and ove/. i had an elderly woman, to me and said she did not want the death panels getting between her and her job when it came time for her to die. this is a heinous abuse of people'. i think that the people -- just a minute, please. just a minute. i'm going to ask the question. if you'll just be quiet and let me.

>> they become accustomed to that role. -- rule. >> i believe that these poor people are the dupes of people in the industry who have a vested interest -- just a minute, please. then make a lot of money the way the system is set up now. what i to ask is why this is not anticipated and why the obama administration did not get ahead of these people. i'm in the same people at the sarah palin rally before the last election. [boos] guess what? their side lost. it must be that the majority of people in this country wanted the democratic agenda which includes a serious health care reform.

[boos] >> part of the problem is from the standpoint of the economy being in bad shape. when the economy is hurting, people are more inclined to be skeptical, nervous. with regard to institutions. i have not asked anybody to dress me. -- trust me. there were some of the most respected institutions in the country, the financial institutions turned up to have screwed up very badly. people lost a lot of confidence in that. some things cannot be anticipated. this notion that something in

this bill would require people who are elderly or sick to be denied medical care is the single stupas arguments i have ever heard and all my ears. there is nothing relevant to it. you have the investors announcing it would killed steven hocking's when in fact it was the contrary. some of that was misinformation. some of it was a sign the people were in bad shape. part of it was as the economy does badly, it is hard to always anticipate how people will react. >> next question. >> i think the administration is missing something in the town hall meetings. it is not just one person. the economy is collapsing. we have 30% real unemployment,

48 states cannot balance their budgets. they are cutting problem -- programs. this is the context under which the obama administration is using the phrase health care reform. i am not a dumb. -- done. they say we need to limit medicare expenditures in order to do that. that is the origin of the policy. this is the policy of a hessler policy in 1939. he said certain lives are not worth living. certain people we should not spend the money to keep them alive. that is exactly what has been said. a question to you is, this policy has been defeated by larouche. why do you continue to support a

nazi policy as obama had expressly supported this policy? why are you supporting it? >a real solution. >> when you ask me that question, i will refer to my ethnic heritage and an answer your question with a question. on what planet do you spend most of your time? [applause] you stand there with the picture of the president did based like hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the nazi's. my answer to you is, it is a tribute to the first amendment that this kind of file

contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining through table. the dining room table. -- would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. [inaudible] >> i have been out of work. my home mortgage is about to get out of my reach. what, if anything, will this legislation or anything else you are doing do to help me with this?

the have it all up to that. >> what i'm working on will. i have introduced a bill to take the profit we have made on the tarp repayments in the form of interest, dividends, and warrants, which is now about a dinner billion dollars and recycle its partly for cities like new bedford. to give them the money to buy up the foreclosed properties and use them constructively and to create a loan fund for precisely with for people like yourself who made it sound decisions to get a mortgage. i will be pushing the bill. i had a hearing on it. i'm going to push it when i come back. i'm going to take the tarp profits and and then to people who are out of work so they can make their mortgage payments to be paid once they get their

jobs. >> it like it did follow up? my situation is my own. i walked into it. i am responsible for it. why would that obligate anyone on this room to pay for my personal trust? the government is not the church. socialism is taking money that people do not want to give. >> i disagreed that socialism that is to have on employment. -- i disagree that socialism is to have on employment. i differ with you that it is socialism to help people who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs. employment compensation is not just good for individuals. it is an important way to get

out of a recession. it is a counter-cyclical policy. as people lose their jobs economic purchases, that brings down the whole economy. unemployment compensation -- if you lose your job you are not supposed to be eligible. why -- i do think it is legitimate to try to help people out. i think you came deciding what you are going to tell me without listening to me, because what i said was the we would lend the money to people not to give it to them. it comes from -- i am sorry, you are not listening to me. it does not have to come from somewhere that will be repaid. it is advanced by the profits would make in the tarp. i think you are prepared to respond fell listening. we are not talking here about the subprime mortgage situation.

we are not giving money to that. we are telling the banks who lent them the money that they have to accept it. that is not public money. i said we would lend the money to people who were in trouble not because they had a bad mortgage but because they lost their jobs. i deferred when you said it was your situation. if you were imprudent in your mortgage -- i'm sorry. no, you said -- you said you do not see what everybody should have to help. that is what i would say -- that is what i was saying. that is what you said. i was quoting what you said. i will differentiate between someone who was in difficult situations because they were

imprudent or because the national economic crisis caused them to lose their doctor no fault of their own. -- through no fault of their own. i do think that to be a useful thing to do. it to be a loan to be repaid. >> thank you for taking the question. i believe that this bill is the first incremental step toward a single payer system. in the past, obama has said that he is in favor of an eventual

one pear system. how a private system be able to survive under this? >> it will survive and prosper if they provide better service. remember the argument against the public auction is that when the government gets there, and they will run it badly and it will be research. when the government runs it will deny people free choice is one of the thoughts. if you are a lawyer, you can argue two opposite views. you cannot really do that in any other case. if the private plan provides better, faster service that does not restrict, it will prosper. the public plan, it is up to the people.

people are not stupid. the public plan does not have a subsidy. profits go to the private insurers. these are the two competing pulls. a public plan would have less up-front expenses, but people fear it will be too restrictive. if it is, russia and cuba will not join it. that is the answer. -- if it is rational people will not join it. that is the answer. medicare is a single pair for elderly people. -- payer for elderly people. medicare is being dropped? i was a few things about that. you act as if you have

discovered it is obvious. i have been a co-sponsor of the single payer bill. i think it would be better. let him yell, please. what did you want to say? >> we watch tapes of obama saying they are in favor of a single payer system. >> it has been 21 years since i had a secret. [laughter] and i do not have one now. you have discovered that i am for single payer. i have been a co-sponsor for years. i will explain this to you as well. i do believe this. i do not have the votes to get congress to do a single payer. once again, people made

discoveries said everyone else made a long time ago. here is the argument against public options. it will lead to a single payer if people overwhelmingly prefer it. i think many people may choose a bill having to get health insurance drives of the cost. i have made no secret of this. i always believe the we will have a competition you will voluntarily choose what you believe will be the worst. let me address medicare being bankrupt. medicare is hurting right now. i'll bet more money into medicare. i know you guys -- if we could

have taken 10% of the money we wasted in that terrible war in iraq that cause a poor man to die -- [booing] you think somehow this terrible war did so much damage is an irrelevancy. >> yes or no? >> is medicare bankrupt? it is not technically bankrupt. [laughter] i am struck by those that think with this logic. the fact is that medicare does need additional source of revenue.

i believe they can come from several places. one is increased taxation on people -- [booing] >> [unintelligible] >> when you are 3 yelling, talk to me. -- cruet yelling, talk to me. >> one question at a time. calm down. >> if i say something -- i think taxing people over $25,000 income is a good thing. i think the proposals and here to tighten up overseas tax evasion are a good thing. there are proposals in here to tighten up -- just because you yell does not mean -- the proposals in the bill to tighten

up american corporations setter shipping activities overseas which could raise tens of thousands of dollars a year -- i do not see why you are against it just because obama proposed it. that is what is in the bill to help pay for medicare. they are dealing with overseas tax evasion. that would allow medicare very easily piping makes a great deal of sense. -- easily. i think it makes a great deal of sense. i am surprised that -- we have american corporations that some business overseas and evade taxes and the tax invasion is an incentive to send jobs

overseas. it is a good thing in and of itself. >> i am rev. stephen. i am from the north. i want to thank you you and your office -- when i was going homeless due to disabilities, we called your office and then a week we were in subsidized housing. i really appreciated that. [applause] my question today is -- we are seeing a pattern since the obama administration of people sneaking in and making amendments such as congressman waxman. there is a bill that was pushed through that people did not get to reproduce the stimulus package, same thing. we finally got a hold on its

health-care package of the people might be able to read it. it isn't language that i can understand. we were promised will have changed. so far, if we are going and having all these changes -- i even have a clue as to what they are -- how can i believe in it? how come it is the government without -- how can we trust the government without having a reasonable discussion about it? >> we are having a reasonable discussion. this is not being hurried through. it is being debated. we are here talking about it. it has been debated most of the year. it is being debated now. it will not be voted on until the fall. the talk of the language, yes, bills have to meet that.

it takes a little bit of extra work. that is what people have been willing to talk about it and put it on the internet. the answer is, i do not understand how that applies to this bill. i am working very hard on the financial regulation to try and deal with the manipulations that got into trouble. we have had hearings on those. people complained about too many hearings. those of you do not want us to tax the overseas tax evasions probably do not like as restraining derivatives in cutting down on leverage. we will do both of those things. we have been debating them for a very long time. we will set of the consumer protection agency. we will restrict credit cards. we are debating this for a long time. with this bill, it is not being rushed through anywhere.

it is now being discussed very openly for some time. >> by in action. that is the only thing that causes it to be held up. but they are trying to get it done before the recess. >> no. >> my real question is, how do we trust a government that goes ahead and shoves this through before we have a clue as to what is in them? there are earmarks and amendments put in. >> that is simply not true about this bill. people do not like this. people did not like the homeless programs we have. people think that is socialism. people did not like medicare. we do them. i am baffled.

we are having a long discussion about this bill. people objected that it was going to quickly, so it has not gone too quickly. it is not true. how can you trust the government? who ever told you to trust the government? did you live in a democracy. do not trust the government. use your individual initiative. >> that is why we are here. >> some of the object. others of you have asked me about trusting the government. i never asked anyone to trust the government. the government is not your lover, father, or doctor. i am sorry.

again, when someone said something that does not hold up and i respond, that is when the yelling starts because no one likes it. you participate. you get involved. you vote, you lobby. people ought to use their right as citizens. nobody should trust the government. >> [unintelligible] >> who is putting you down? i want to respond to this woman. who is putting you down? >> you are. >> what have i said it? i am critical of those who heckle and do not want to have a conversation. what have i said to put anything down? >> [unintelligible] >> i did tell the woman sitting there with the president looking like hitler who compares us to the nazi's that she was out for

mind. i did put her down. if you want to be on her side, ok. i object to people who are putting people down. goes to the people who boo -- that is -- that are the people who boo in sick of having a rational arguments. >> [unintelligible] >> i am here tonight. i am not accountable for what is said in the media. i am not putting anybody down. the denigration has been on the other side, people who have hooted and booed. it seems to me you are objecting to said then that is not happening here. >> of one to address -- i want to address the iraq war. congress has the ability to

declare war. it does not give the federal government the power to force health care upon its citizens. >> may i respond to that? >> no, i have another question. [laughter] >> george bush did not declare -- excuse me, when people ask a question and i respond, i do understand why not supposed to respond. the war in iraq, like other wars, was initiated by a president who said it is not up to congress, it is up to me. congress should have more to say in we go to war. this congress did vote to go to war and i voted against it. the war in iraq was initiated by

president bush. i think congress should have more rules. that is the health care -- as for health care, you think medicare is unconstitutional. i do not use if there is no constitutional mandate to do it. you and i differ if the medicare is unconstitutional. you think it is unconstitutional? >> it needs to be reformed. >> you said that the constitution does not have the authority. medicare was done. do you think that is unconstitutional? >> i've the medicare need to be reformed. >> they will not tell me if you think it is unconstitutional? >> i am not a constitutional lawyer. i have an actual question what data can you give us that health

care reform will give americans money, will not put people out of business, and will help us fix the economic crisis? all i'm hearing is talking in the data. >> i do not argue that this will help the economic crisis. there are other things we are working on to do that. stopping foreclosures for people who are unemployed i think would help us avoid further deterioration in the economy by holding up the health crisis. i do not make that. the only claim i would make was the one that says it will not a private insurers out of business. the answer is medicare. we have had a medicare since 1965. you are the one is the we had no constitutional authority. i think that is right.

medicare -- the private insurance commit have thrived with it. medicare has been too generous to them. history and the facts, medicare is not the private insurance companies out of business. after 44 years -- no health care -- after 65, most people do not work. >> thank you for coming. so many of my residence are attending. it is clear we have the opportunity for you to come down and express our democratic rights. i really appreciate you addressing our questions. yes, i am very public and union

for my district. -- republican union for my district and voted for president bush. i am here as a constituent with conservative. i have not read the health bill. i am not here to -- you will agree that some of the things that have gone on, i think the picture of our president portrayed as hitler is horrible. >> thank you. [applause] >> i am 31 years old i am the child up middle-class parents. my father is on medicare and is retired. here is my concern. i have a fear of health care.

i think we will all agree that health care need to be reform. is the perfect. it is the work. i am 31, i had 25 surgeries as a child. none were life-threatening. >> sometimes i buy you life more than other times. >> i was born deaf and the most of the surgery so i get here. my fear is reform. can you address the extent of rationing under the reform? my father helped me with the surge is like here today. i am afraid that my children and grandchildren will be in a system where at 31 the year

still waiting for the surgery so they can hear. that is my concern. >> that is a legitimate concern. nothing in this bill would in any way do that. what it will do is the opposite. to the extent there is a government role, it will be to urge them to do more. in fact, and there has been an agreement between the insurance industry and the obama administration -- they have dropped some of the restrictions, pre-existing conditions will not be a cause for exclusion. there is an annual cap on copays. the answer is there is nothing in this bill that would do this. one argument, was the opinion on the woman before. she is doing good with the health care.

we will -- this bill does try to do this -- expand the supply. it is not that these people are not getting health care. they are getting in emergency rooms. that generally means they get less of it and then they need a lot of it because they've not gotten the kind of preventive care. there are other things in this bill to try to expand medical education and do some financial incentives for people to become primary care doctors. nothing in this bill will be rationed. if you live and rationing, and my experience, more people complain to my office that they were denied health care they wanted from private insurance companies and for medicare. i think under this plan, that will happen less.

>> thank you. >> i'm 20 years old. i differ from the competition of this room. i'm sure everybody here cares about their children or grandchildren. i look at it from a different perspective. i have to deal with this for the next, i would like, eight years of my life. i do not understand -- i know george bush has issued the first bailout bill. he passed the first one. obama passed the second. and now we are in a whole. -- hole. we have to climb out. i do not understand how in good conscience as the chairman of the senate or house finance committee you tried to push

through a bill like this that would add directly to our deficit that i will have to do with for the rest of my life. i will have to pay for this. i do not get it. >> here is the answer. i do not wanted to go through in that form. that is why i am pushing to pay for it. i am sorry. are you finished? you have a lot of years. i think that is not an appropriate way to carry on the conversation. i'm sorry i hurt your feelings. how are you getting cut off? we thought your third the question. turn the microphone back on. >> there we go. i do not understand how you are

supposed to pay for this in any other way. without raising taxes. i understand you want to raise taxes on the people who are in a significant amount of money. i do not understand or you come across saying the people who earn under five and a thousand dollars -- $500,000 coming you want to lower that. >> you have that wrong. tell me when you are ready for me. >> go. >> i do not know we got a lowering the five and a thousand. -- where you got that lowering fife hundred thousand. 500,000 is the cut off in the bill right now where small businesses to get the payroll. if you are a small business and

apparel is under $500,000, you are exempt from the tax. $325,000 is the income level for individuals were you paid a surtax. when bill clinton became president in 1993, i voted to raise taxes on upper income people. we raised it from 36% to 39%. it held as reduced deficit and a negative affect on the economy. i do not believe a stock working. but it stopped working. can i continue? this is a complicated issue. at some point have to be able to answer. -- i have to be able to answer. that is assuming -- i do not

believe it is 55%. it depends on your state and federal tax. i'm sorry. when do i talk? these are complicated things. it is not would be 55%. we raised it from 36% to 39%. we need to accumulate that, some are deducted. your 55% figure is badly mistaken. george bush asked congress to lower the price. we did. it cost us money. i didn't think it was helpful. republicans want to abolish the state tax. it only applies to the top 2% of earners. only if you have millions. that will cost a lot of money i do believe we could raise taxes on the wealthiest people.

i'm surprised if the opposition. we could also -- there is a lot of tax evasion that goes on from companies that are american that do business overseas. the obama administration bought a good case against the swiss bank. they will get an awful lot of money back. i'm doing those, too. there is also the military. i believe america is the granddaddy to the whole world on the military. if the that the budget of germany and france and spain -- if you want to subsidize the military of the western europeans, then what you send them a check personally. i think it is a mistake. [unintelligible]

i believe a combination of those things. i believe more americans are in danger from not having their health needs met then they are because the kurds and the arabs are fighting in the north. [applause] >> [no audio] >> we are going to make room for about five more questions. the meeting was supposed to adjourn at 8:00. let us go an extra half-hour. >> 10 minutes. >> i'm asking for five more questions. >> 10 more minutes.

>> who pays your salary? >> next question. >> the federal reserve is unconstitutional and my opinion. you take an oath to obey the constitution. shooting you resign if you are breaking your oath? >> if i was pretty my oath, i do not believe the fed is unconstitutional. i do plan to put some legislation through that will curtail some of its powers. i do not think it is unconstitutional. no court has ever held that. every president from woodrow wilson on has said it has played an important role. i do not think you can do without one. >> i work in a hospital. i have to go when i'm done here.

they were not able to give us a cost-of-living raise this year. instead of having to lay off anybody to make ends me, every single manager including c zero -- ceos took cuts to keep from having to fire anybody. i want to read page 5. initiates' shared responsibility among employees and the governments of all americans have coverage of benefits. [unintelligible] the government does have much. we pay you. the day the government across taxpayers, it will say it will be paid for by workers and taxpayers.

what my hospital did -- in some of the government which has no interest to me -- we should be able to get the good people like ceos and people at the hospital woman to the people at the bottom line and stick together. get together with pharmaceutical companies all over the country and get together with the good people and say we need to cover everybody. how can we do it? can you take a little bit here? where can we meet in the middle? let the private citizens do this. this is not the federal government is to prevensue.

>> we only have 10 minutes. >> first of all, i would disagree with the argument the government is involved. we do medicare. do i get to respond? and do nothing it would do for medicare. i want to respond to terse comment that these people got big money. i've been fighting the ceo salaries. on the friday -- ma'am, i do not think -- i understand that. do you want me to respond? >> [no audio] >> i do not know or did i do not, ma'am.

you are not listening to me. the answer is, when you say the government's issue -- should stay out of it, then we would not have medicare. secondly, the administration has been trying to do what you are saying. how can i talk with yelling. and to understand this mentality. -- i do not understand this mentality. obama has met with the help insurance industry and the pharmaceuticals and the hospitals. i am sorry, ma'am. that is what you said. you just said they should meet with them and try to negotiate. i apologize. this is not a rational conversation. >> [unintelligible] >> the other point want to make

is when you talk about these people in the private sector to get money from the rest to program, but a bill passed through the house on the friday before we left to cut down substantially on the irresponsible bonuses they are getting. we will see curtailing top executive pay before the end of the year. i do not want the government totally out of healthcare. i think medicare is honorable. the children's health insurance program for example is a good one. people said it was socialized medicine but has reduced the number of uninsured children. >> thank you for coming out. you said we would be allowed to have a public auction as well as private. i want to know how the private

option compete with the public auction when you have unlimited resources of government money? >> the bill says that the public option will get a $2 billion up front appropriation to administer the cost and then will have to break even. there will be no subsidies allowed from the treasury. the advantage it will have is that it will have the profit- making that goes to the shareholders. the offset will be that the public option will be too restrictive. there will be no ongoing federal subsidy of the public option. you know what? >> [unintelligible] >> if you ask me questions -- >> [unintelligible] >> i get tired of this.

you ask me a question and you answer and you say you do not believe it. you came here believing what you wanted to believe. what is the point that i told you what was in the bill. if we do not want to believe it, do not believe it. people are entitled to believe or disbelieve anything they want. we are going to pay for by raising taxes on wealthy people. [booing [ we are going to raise taxes on corporations that are evading taxes overseas and people making more than $325,000. those of you who are defenders of the people sending money overseas, fight it out on the floor of the congress. >> i'm a registered nurse for 30 years. healthcare has been improved greatly.

for everyone here, if you download and a computer pages 424 - 430 and you get a feeling of what the advance care planning is all about. it says on here that individuals [unintelligible] i think everyone here should do that and see what they are. a lot of us have been doing their homework. i'm going on the internet and i've listened to people from the united kingdom, norway, and from canada. i was really listening to a doctor who is instrumental in not having it go forward before. some of the agreements is that

once this is put in place, these metrician the guns -- in 12 are involved, there is no way to turn around and get out. that is one of my concerns. the way this is one to be paid for it through raising taxes and the other half through cutting medicare by about five under billion dollars over the next 10 years there are about 30% of the population going into medicare. how this is going to be paid for his part of my question. >> people should read the against care. it is all entirely voluntary. all this says is that your doctor can now be capepaid for t if you plan to do it. it is entirely voluntary thing.

many people now do it. doctors now do not get paid for. it would allow doctors to be paid for it. that is what it says. >> [unintelligible] >> if you want to get the device about how to plan what you want the people close to you to do at the end of life, you think it would the doctor and your doctor will be paid for it. it is entirely voluntary. the doctor does not do it. there are new treatments involved. as to paying for it, i am opposed to cutting medicare that way. many of us on the democratic side have been opposing that b.

>i am sorry ma'am. you are not being fair to other people. i will take one last question. >> there is a message as part of this been here for 100 years. [unintelligible] how you expect us to compete with other companies if there is an 8% option for our competition? you worry about everybody keeping their taxes and earnings overseas. there is a reason for it. they are being taxed out of control over here. i would like to know if you consider doing what australia just did. they just cut taxes on businesses doing less than $2 million by 50%. they cut the taxes on those due

in less than $5 million annually by 30%. this administration has done nothing for small business. [cheers] we employ 80% of americans. when you going to help us out? when you say you are going to tax the rich, we fall into that category we do not take it home. we leave it in our business to invest. >> the first thing i would say is this. if you leave the money in the business into a not be taxed. we are talking about what is taken out in the personal. why is it when people get answers they do not like they ignore it? i understand. i cannot have a rational conversation. the fact is that we are talking

about only taxing that amount that is taken out of the business as personal property. secondly, when you say that nothing -- nothing has been done to raise taxes. all we are doing is raising taxes. what went up? what went up? >> [unintelligible] >> excuse me. wait a minute. i said nothing has been done under the obama administration in massachusetts and to raise taxes. i will take the last question. what'>> i'm not from your distr. he was not available so i came down here.

my question involves predict how you plan on reforming prescription drugs? i really do not see how you can have a profit based model in a health care system? >> there is in the bill a restriction being debated over how long they get patent protection for biologics. the bill gives them 12 years of patent productioprotection. the present one to give them seven years. the house bill does call for negotiation over pricing which didn't happen in the drug bill. you wanted to say more? >> [unintelligible] >> i did not finish answering. >> [unintelligible]

>> i'm trying to get to that. >> well, you said take politicians with a grain of salt. >> there is a lot of that going around. if you find me saying 7 that is not true -- using the can down to talk. i do not understand the attitude. before i get then is, you want to rebut what i have not said. it is very unusable. in the house bill, the senate this month have that. the president has been opposed to it. he says instead that he got an $80 billion succession from the drug company which they are going to use primarily to fill what is called the doughnut

hole, the requirement that people who are on the part "d" have to make payments. i disagree with that. i was in favor of both the negotiation and i've always been for allowing the importation of drugs in canada. we have been told it is unsafe to import a judge in canada. i've not seen any numbers of canadians that would prove that to me. thank you [applause] you all [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> as a healthcare conversation continues, the healthcare hub is a great resource. go on line and follow the latest tweets and video. keep up-to-date with health care events like town hall meetings, house and senate debate, and of load your opinion about healthcare with a citizen video. it is at c-