senators of the time, but one of the most accomplished americans. his extraordinary life has come to a end on this earth. the extraordinary good he did lives on. for his family he was a garden. for america he was the defender of the dream. -- for his family he was a guardian. i spoke to his beloved wife vicki this morning. our thoughts and prayers are with her, and there to burn, and step-children. . .

>> elected to the senate in 1962. the family released a statement that the husband, father, grandfather, and uncle we loved died tuesday night at his home. we lost an irreplaceable center of our family. that is part of their statement. more coverage, more reaction throughout the day on c-span. right now, we're going to take you to a discussion on a survey on teenage drug use. that is the former health and human services secretary. a new study is out on teenage drug and alcohol use. >> better able to help our nation's teens grow up drug

free. we regard this as a work in progress, as we try each year to improve our ability to identify the situations and characteristics that influence a risk that teens will smoke, drink, get drunk, using illegal drugs, or of the use prescription drugs. we do not ask whether the teens do this. a number of government surveys conduct such studies of substance abuse. rather, the survey asked questions such as, how many teens friends smoke, drink, or use drugs? or at what percentage of parties but teens and 10's are alcohol and illegal and prescription drugs used. over the past 15 years, we have surveyed thousands of american teens and their parents. we have identified a number of

circumstances and characteristics that affected teens risk of smoking, drinking, and using drugs. we have learned how such things as stress, boredom, spending money, parties, hanging out on school nights, learning disabilities, eating disorders, conduct disorders, to mpuberty, and changing schools affect teens use of drinking and smoking. for drug use, if you wanted to buy marijuana now, how fast could you get it? we have gained insight into america's teenage culture. perhaps the most important findings from so many years of teenage surveys are these. a child who gets to age 21 without smoking, without using illegal drugs, and without

using alcohol is virtually certain never to do so. the greatest influence on children is parents. no one has greater power to influence teens decisions then that teen's mother and father. this sounds an alarm to parents of teens who drink. mom and dad, if your teen drinks, the odds are your teen is getting drunk. 2/3 of teens who drink once a month get drunk once a month. the latest survey fundown 44% of 9-12 grade students had a drink in the last month.

this year's survey also identifies some parents who have become enablers of their teenagers' smoking, drinking, and drug use. they send their teenagers that that is okay to smoke, drink, and use drugs. fathers who are ok with their 12-17 year-old drink alcohol are apparent in a bowlers. so our mothers and fathers to expect their children to use drugs and acquiesce in sending their schools -- sending their teenagers to schools where drugs are sold. parents who expect their children to drink and use drugs

will have children who will drink and use strokes. -- and use drugs. preventingteens from starting to use is first and foremost a mom- and-pop operation. my new book, "how to raise a drug free kid" offers practical, evidence based advice and suggestions for parents on how to be engaged with their children, on talking to their kids about the dangers of tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use, about having high expectations and setting and enforcing limits, and about providing a good example. though written by me, this book is a product of almost two decades of work by scores of casa professional researchers. it is published as an original

paperback so that any parent can afford it. all royalties go to casa to support its work. the bottom line for parents is this. do not be vague about your expectations for your kids. let them know clearly and consistently that you do not approve of underage drinking. set high expectations for your kids and for the school environment. show them through your own engagement, through your own behavior, how you live by those expectations. remember, parent pitchepressure trump's peer pressure. now let me introduce elizabeth. she is the vice president of casa and director of special projects. she has managed casa's annual

service for the past seven years. she has been assisted by robert, an associate editor for statistics and the valuations for the american journal of public health. steve wagner, and the distinguished outside advisory group. it is elizabeth's high professional standards and creativity, to say nothing of the fact that she is the mother of three children, that is primarily responsible for the value of this unique undertaking. she will now report the survey findings and take your questions. >> good morning. thank you, joe. ok, so i'm going to walk you through the findings of our 14th annual national severesurvey on

attitudes toward substance abuse. we have noted many of the attitudes and behaviors that make teens substance use more or less likely. the survey shows how parents words, actions, and expectations are related to their kids expectations. the findings remind us that for better or for worse, parents have a tremendous impact on whether their children will use substances. i will take you to the key findings and highlight some of the most important points. i want to take a moment to acknowledge our survey advisers. this group of advisers are independent advisers. they are all survey research experts. they have been helping us for a number of years on this project. they reviewed the analysis and presentation of the findings. they help us with the survey methodology every year. in the white folder that you received, you have complete copies of the report. you have full copies of the questionnaires.

and you have a very lengthy discussion of the survey methodology. i hope you'll take a look at that. if you have a question, we are available to address those. this is just a snapshot of the methodology. we conducted this survey every spring. before we conduct this survey, in the winter we conduct focus groups. we're pretty distance from our teenage years, so we use the focus groups so when we sit down with teenagers, they can inform us what is going on today in teen culture. the focus groups help us in developing new questions for the survey. they help us make sure that the kids are hearing the question as we mean it. we do that in the winter. what we did this past winter was two focus groups. we had a group of high school

juniors and seniors. we also met with a group of recent high-school graduates. we asked them to reflect back on their high school experience. in the spring, we went out in the field with our survey. this is drawn from a nationally representative sample. the teens are randomly selected. they're called at home. we conducted 509 interviews with boys between 12 and 17. and girls between 12 and 17. we were able to complete 452 interviews with parents. these are parents of the same teens that we interviewed. we're able to link responses. i'm going to start with the

theme of teen drinking and drunkenness. i will summarize the findings for you now. probably the most significant finding from this year's survey is that teens are drinking on a monthly basis, on are they are also getting drunk on a monthly basis. this chart demonstrates that. 2/3 of 12 to 17 year olds who drink once a month also get drunk once a month. 85% of these also get drunk once a month. and we asked teenagers if this is their intention. do they drink with the intention of getting drunk. 1/3 say they drink to get drunk. 85% of them do get drunk on a

monthly basis when that is what they set out to do. what is also important for parents to understand is that among the kids who answered no to this question, 1/3 of them find themselves drawn on a monthly basis -- drunk on a monthly basis. we know a lot about the relationship between teen drinking and driving accidents. we know about the relationship between drinking and risky sexual behavior. we know that the earlier and more heavily teens drink, the more likely they are to have drinking problems later in life. we looked at the relationship between teenage drunk in this and other substance abuse. compared to teens who have never tried alcohol, those who are getting drunk on a monthly basis are 18 times likelier to try. . -- 18 times likelier to try

marijuana. this could be because of the crowd they're moving in. they are four times likelier than non drinking appears to say that they can get their hands on marijuana in just one hour. there's three times likelier to have friends who are using the drug. you can see the relationship between teen drunkenness and having friends who use other substances. teens who are getting drunk monthly are four times more likely to have friends who are misusing prescription drugs. teens drink and get drunk for a lot of reasons. we know that parents are incredibly important in influencing teens attitudes and behaviors. we have had a lot of findings of how important moms are in kids' lives. we decided to take a look at

dad. we asked teens -- how do you think your father feels about your drinking? do you think he is ok with your drinking, or do you think he is youit? when teens think that their fathers are ok with them drinking, they are 2.5 times more likely to be getting drunk. this perception that your dad is ok with you drinking is common among the oldest boys in our survey. 20% of the 16th and 17-year-old boys think there that is ok with them drinking. how do you think your parents feel about you drinking is an important element in kids' attitudes and behavior. also the behaviors that your

parents model for you are very important. what they say is important, but what they do is important as well. we asked teens if they have ever seen their parents a drunk. 1/3 of the 12 to 17-year-olds have seen one or more of their parents drunk. half of 17-year-old have seen one or both of their parents drunk. this is how it relates to the teens behavior. and here they are mimicking the activity. teens who have seen their parents drunk or two 0.5 times more likelier to get drunk

themselves on a monthly basis. interestingly, this is also related to other substance abuse. kids who have seen their parents drunk are three times likelier to try marijuana and three times likelier to try cigarettes. turning now to marijuana, what we were interested in is how teen attitudes impact their behavior. this is driven by a new question this year. we asked -- the youngest kids in our survey, only 10% said it is not a big deal to use marijuana. by the time the kids are 17, 40% think it is not such a big deal to use marijuana. how they feel about this decision is directly related to their behavior. compared to kids who think it is

not such a big deal to use marijuana, those who think it is not such a big deal are four times likelier to have tried the drug. when kids have tried cigarettes, over half of them say that the decision to use marijuana is not a big deal. in 2004, casa released in conjunction with the american legacy foundation a report called teen cigarette smoking and marijuana use. we looked at how teen cigarette smoking impacted their behavior with respect to marijuana. this is a follow up to that. these are some other aspects of the teen that are related to their attitudes about marijuana use. large majorities of teens who get good grades in school have an excellent relationship with

their parents and to attend religious services at least weekly -- large majorities say that the decision to use marijuana is a big deal. we looked at how teen attitudes affect their behavior with respect to marijuana. we're interested in their parents' attitudes about the drug. this is a snapshot of where the parents stand on marijuana. 96% of the parents we surveyed said it is important to them that there teen not use marijuana. 93% believe that the drug is harmful to their teenage child. 44% say it is unrealistic to expect that a teen will not use the drug. here we see how parents' expectations and link up with their kids' behavior. we are linking tarrant and teen responses from within single households.

you're looking at a combination of two questions. the question to parents was -- how likely do you think it is that your teen uses marijuana in the future? we linked this to their children's response about whether or not to use marijuana. teens whose parents think that future drug use by the teen are 10 times likelier. we have looked at attitudes and behavior. now we turn to the availability of marijuana and prescription drugs to teens. and with respect to prescription drugs, we have important new findings to show you. this shows you a question we have been looking at for a number of years. we asked the teens which a

substance is easiest to buy. as you can see, this year, marijuana is as easy for kids to buy as cigarettes'. since 2007, we have seen a 37% increase in the percentage of kids who say marijuana is easiest to buy and prescription drugs are third on the list. and a question that we used to get a sense of the proximity of drugs in kids' lives -- we asked them, if you wanted to get marijuana of right now, how long would it take you to get the drug? 23% of 12 to 17-year-olds told us it will only take them one hour to get their hands on marijuana. 40% would be able to get the drug in one day. we have been looking at this for

many years. those figures are virtually identical from year to year. for the first time this year, we asked the same question with respect to prescription drugs. if you wanted to get prescription drugs right now for the purpose of getting high, how long would it take you to get them? one in five of 12 to 17-year- olds can get prescription drugs in just about one hour. 1/3 of them can get prescription drugs within one day. if we applied these percentages to the u.s. census population of 12 to 17-year-olds in the u.s., that is almost 5 million teens who can get prescription drugs in one hour. that is almost teens 9 million who can get them within one day. we asked, if you wanted to get prescription drugs, where would you get them? we're showing you the next most popular response options. most kids who say they can get

prescription drugs are getting them from home, from their parents, other family members, or from their friends. this is what it looks like for marijuana. if you wanted to get marijuana right now, where would you get it? 41% would be unable to buy the drug. 25% would go to their friends. 13% say they would get the drugs from school. presumably they meet other students. we do not exactly know. drugs in school is a topic that casa has been tracking for many years. we asked kids every year, is your school drug free, or is it not drug free? if you look at the bar on the right, 2/3 of the high school students that we surveyed said that drugs are used, kept, or

sold at their schools. this has been pretty consistently the case for the past five years. this is what the middle school students said. 25% say drugs are used, kept, or sold on the grounds of their school. we have seen a decline since 2007. we will see that as a trend that will hold. why do we care about drugs in schools? when drugs are available on the grounds of a kid's school, drugs are much more -- the kids are much more able to get them quickly. we looked at response as to whether or not their school is drug free, and their responses to how quickly they could get substances. kids who say that drugs are present on the grounds of their school are three times likelier to be able to get their hands on marijuana in just one hour. they are twice as likely to be able to get prescription drugs for the purpose of getting high in just. one.

-- in just one hour. unfortunately, too many parents accept the fact of drugs in schools. 89% of the parents we surveyed said it is important to them that there children's school is drug free. 60% say this is not the case. meaning, drugs are used, kept, or sold on the grounds of the school. i want to point out what i showed you earlier with the 2/3 of high school students and 25% of middle school students, when we combine that and look at all of the teens between 12 to 17- year-olds. the parents may have a more realistic view. among these parents who say that drugs are present at the school, 62% believe it is more likely that their kids will use dru

gs if the drugs are on school grounds. they're right about that. more than half say the goal of a drug-free school is not realistic. 45% say there's nothing parents can do to make the school drug free. 25% of these parents have never talked to anyone, a teacher or an administrator of the school about this problem. parents do not think there's anything they can do to achieve a drug-free school. their inaction on that issue may help ensure that schools continue to be places where students. , used, and sell drugs. we have devoted a chapter of our new book, "how to raise a drug- free kid: the straight dope for parents close " we have raised

the issue. the book is practical advice for parents about talking to your kids about drug use and answering questions about what you did as a teenager. understand the differences between boys and girls and preparing your kids for going off to college. casa has spent years studying teens and parents in finding out which factors make kids more or less likely to use. and which parenting actions are most effective. everything we know today about risk factors and practical parenting tips is contained in the book. we invite you to visit the book website, which you can see here. thank you. if there are questions, i am happy to take them now. yes? please wait for the microphone. >> to break down the questioning

even further, do you -- i am glancing through the survey questions. i see you have a question on religious preferences. do you make any distinctions among the various religions on how that affects the alcohol and drug abuse? and on the frequency of worship or religious attendance, how that may affect it? also, when it comes to alcohol, do you make any distinctions as far as the type of alcohol, whether it is beer, wine, harder, larger amounts of alcohol? >> ltd. the religion question

first. we have seen a trend for a long time that kids who attend religious services on a weekly basis are much less likely to be using substances compared to their peers who are not attending religious services. we have done a lot of research on the relationship between substance abuse risk and religious curservices. a big part of that relates to parental. . -- and a big part of that relates to parental engagement. in terms of alcohol, we know from last year's survey that teens prefer the taste of liquor mixed with something sweet. that was the preferred survey answered. in this year's survey, we did not ask them to distinguish what they were drinking. >> [inaudible]

>> we do not have a large enough sample of the others. >> among christians, have you seen any wide variances? >> between christian and non christian? >> no, there's no breakdown within the category of christians. >> i'm also curious. when you talked about mixing the drinks, you said that was last year's survey. did you find what was the alcohol of choice when mixing? >> we do not know. ok. thank you so much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> at 1:15 p.m. eastern, how the government is using social media to get the message out. also this week on "washington journal" -- in depth look at medicare.

we will show you this morning discussion tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> how is c-span funded? >> private donations. >> donations. >> i do not know where the money comes from. >> federal aid. >> hal is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span. no government mandate. no government money. >> senator ted kennedy died last night in his home at hyannis port massachusetts. he died of brain cancer. he was 77. he served 47 years. an unsuccessful candidate for the 1980 democratic nomination. senator ted kennedy dead at the age of 77. next, senator edward kennedy

speaking at the 1980 convention in new york city. he ran unsuccessfully that year against jimmy carter.

>> thank you very much. ♪ >> thank you, berarbara mik ulski, for your eloquent, your

eloquent introduction. distinguished legislator, a great spokesman for economic democracy and social justice in this country, i thank you for your eloquent introduction. well, things worked out a little different from the way i thought, but let me tell you, i still love new york. my fellow democrats and my fellow americans, i have come here tonight not to argue as a candidate but to affirm the a cause. i am asking you to renew the commitment of the democratic party to economic justice.

i am asking you to renew our commitment to a fair and lasting prosperity that can put america back to work. this is the cause that brought me into the campaign and that sustained me for 19 month9 montd across 100,000 miles and 40 different states. we had our losses, but the pain of our defeats is far less than the pain of the people that i have met. we have learned that is important to take issues seriously, but never to take ourselves too seriously.

the serious issue before us tonight is the cause for which the democratic party has stood in its finest hours, the cause that keeps our party young and makes it, in the second century of his age, the largest political party in this republic and the longest lasting political party on this planet. our cause has been, since the days of thomas jefferson, the cause of the common man and the common woman. [applause] our commitment has been, since the days of andrew jackson, to all those he called "the humble

members of society, the farmers, mechanics, and laborers." on this foundation we have to define our values, refine our policies, and refresh our faith. now why take the unusual step of caring the cause and commitment of my campaign personally to our national convention. i speak out of a deep sense of urgency about the anguish and anxiety i have seen across america. i speak out of a deep belief in the ideals of the democratic party, and i am the potential of that party and of the president to make a difference. i speak out of eight deep trust in our capacity to proceed with boldness and a common vision that will feel and heal the suffering of our time and the

divisions of our party. [applause] the economic plank of this platform on its face concerns only material things, but it is also a moral issue that i raised tonight. it has taken many forms over many years. in this campaign and in this country that we seek to lead, the challenge in 1980 is to give our voice and vote for these fundamental democratic principles. [applause] let us pledge that we will never misused unemployment, high interest rates, and human misery as false weapons against inflation.

[applause] let us pledge that employment will be the first priority of our economic policy. [applause] let us pledge that there will be security for all those who are now at work, and let us pledge that there will be jobs for all who are out of work. and we will not compromise on the issue of jobs. [applause] these are not simplistic pledges. simply put, they're the heart of our tradition, and they have been the soul of our party

across the generations. it is the glory and the greatness of our tradition to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten, to respond to the frustrations and fulfil the aspirations of all americans seeking a better life in a better land. we dare not forsake that tradition. we cannot let the great purposes of the democratic party become the bygone passages of history. [applause] we must not permit the republicans to seize and run on the slogans of prosperity. heard the foragers at their convention all trying to talk like democrats. -- we heard the orators at their

convention all trying to talk like democrats. they proved that even republican nominees can quote franklin roosevelt to their own purpose. [applause] the grand old party thinks it has found a great new trick, but 40 years ago an earlier generation of republicans attempted the same trick. franklin roosevelt himself replied, "most republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the for resward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. let us not be diluted that overnight those leaders have suddenly become a friend of average men and women." [applause]

he continued, "you know, very few of us are that the gullible." and four years later when the republicans tried that trick again, franklin roosevelt asked, "can the old guard pass itself off as the new deal? i think not. we have all seen many marvelous stunts in the circus, but no performing elephant could turn a handspring without falling flat on its back." [applause] the 1980 republican convention was awash with crocodile tears

for our economic distress, but it is by their long record and not their recent words that you shall know them. the same republicans who are talking about the crisis of unemployment have nominated a man who once said, "unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders." and that nominee is no friend of labor. [applause] the same republicans who are talking about securitthe problef the inner city have nominated a man who said, "i have included in my morning and evening prayers every day the prayer that the federal government not to bail out new york."

and that nominee is no friend of this city and our great urban centers across this nation. [applause] the same republicans who are talking about security for the elderly have been nominated a man who said just four years ago that "participation in social security should be made voluntary." and that nominee is no friend of the senior citizens of this nation. [applause] the same republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and i quote, "80% of our air pollution

comes from plants and trees." and that nominee is no friend of the environment. [applause] and the same republicans who are invoking franklin roosevelt have nominated a man who said in 1976, and these are his exact words, "fascism was really the basis of the new deal." and that nominee whose name is ronald reagan has no right to quote franklin delano roosevelt. [applause]

the great adventures which our opponents offer is a voyage into the past. progress is our heritage, not theirs. what is right for us as democrats is also the right way for democrats to win. the commitment i seek is not to outworn views, but too old values that will never wear out. programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always indendures. circumstances may change, but

the work of compassion must continue. it is surely correct that we cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but it is also correct that we dare not throw out our national problems on to a scrapheap of inattention and indifference. the poor may be out of political fashion, but they're not without human needs. the middle class may be angry, but they have not lost a dream that all americans can advance together. [applause] the demand of our people in 1980 is not for smaller government or bigger government but for better government. some say that government is always bad and that spending for basic social programs is the root of our economic evils. but weaver appl reply -- the prt

inflation and recession cost our economy2 economy00 -- weaver ap reply -- the task of leadership in 1980 is not to parade scapegoats or to seek refuge in reaction, but to match our power to the possibilities of the progress. while others talked of free enterprise, it was the democratic party that acted and we ended excessive regulation in the airline and trucking industry, and we restored competition to the marketplace. and i take some satisfaction that this deregulation legislation that i sponsored and pass in the congress of the united states. as democrats we recognize that each generation of americans has

a rendezvous with a different reality. the answers of one generation becomes the questions of the next generation. but there is a guiding star in the american firmament. it is as old as the revolutionary believe that all people are created equal, and as clear as the contemporary condition of liberty city and the south bronx. again and again, democratic leaders have followed that star and they have given new meaning to the old values of liberty and justice for all. [applause] we are the party of the new freedom, the new deal, and the new frontier. we have always been the party of hope. this year let us offer new hope. new hope to an american uncertain about the present, but unsurpassed in its potential for

the future. to all those who are idle in the cities and industries of america let us provide new hope for the dignity of useful work. democrats have also believed that a basic civil right of all americans is their right to earn their own way. the party of the people must always be the party of full employment. [applause] to all those who doubt the future of our economy, let us provide new hope for the reindustrialization of america. and let our vision reach beyond the next election or the next year to a new generation of prosperity. if we could rebuild and germany and japan after world war ii, then surely we can reindustrialize our own nation and revive our inner cities in

the 1980's. [applause] to all those who doubt thwork ha living wage, let us provide do hopnew hope that their price of their employment shall not be an unsafe workplace and a death at an earlier age. to all those who inhabit our land from california to the new york island, from the red word forredwood forest to the gulf stream waters, let us provide a new hope that prosperity shall not be purchased by poisoning the air, the rivers, and natural resources that are the greatest gift of this continent.

we must insist that our children and grandchildren shall inherit the land which they can truly call america the beautiful. [applause] to all those who see the worst of their work and their savings taken by inflation, let us offer new hope for a stable economy. we must meet the pressures of the present by invoking the full power of government to master increasing prices. in candor, we must say that the federal budget can be balanced only by policies that bring us to a balanced prosperity of full employment and price. . -- and price restraint. [applause] and to all those over burdened by an unfair tax structure, let us provide new hope for real tax reform.

instead of shutting down classrooms, lead us shut off tax shelters. [applause] instead of cutting out school lunches, let us cut off tax subsidies for expensive business lunches that are nothing more than food stamp for the rich. [applause] the tax cut of our republican opponents takes the name of tax reform in vain. it is a wonderfully republican idea that would redistribute income in the wrong direction. it is good news for any of you with incomes over $200,000 per year. for a few of you, it offers a

pot of gold worth $14,000. the republican tax cut is bad news for the middle income families. for many of you, they plan a pittance of $200 per year, and that is not with the democratic party means when we say tax reform. [applause] the vast majority of americans cannot afford this panacea from a republican nominee who has denounced the progressive income tax as the invention of karl marx. i'm afraid he has confused karl marx with theodore roosevelt. [applause] that obscure republican

president who sought and fought for a tax system based on ability to pay. theodore roosevelt was not karl- marx- marx, and the republican x scheme is not tax reform. we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. so i will continue to stand for national health insurance. [applause] we must not surrender. we must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bring corrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. let us insist on real controls

over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of the family's wealth. [applause] the president, the vice president, the members of congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives to catch a little cold, the capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. we do not get a bill even when we ask for it, and when did you think was the last time a member of congress asked for a bill for the federal government?

and i say again as i have before, if health insurance is good enough for the president, the vice president, the congress of the united states, then it is good enough for you and every family in america. [applause] there were some who said we should be silent about our differences on issues during this convention, but the heritage of the democratic party has been a history of democracy. we fight hard because we care deeply about our principles and

purposes. we did not flee the struggle. we welcome the contrast with the empty and expedient spectacle last month in detroit where no nomination was contested, no question was debated, and no one dared to raise any doubt or dissent. [applause] democrats can be proud that we chose a different course and a different platform. we can be proud that our party stands for investment in six energy, instead of a nuclear future that may threaten the future itself. [applause] we must not permit the neighborhoods of america to be permanently shadowed by the fear of another three mile island. [applause]

we can be proud that our party stands for the fair housing law to unlocked the doors of discrimination once and for all. . >> our stock -- our party stands proud for the equal rights amendment. women hold their rightful place at our convention, and women must have their rightful place in the constitution of the united states.

on this issue, we will not yield. we will not rationalize or explain. we will stand for era. our nation was made up of founding mothers as well as founding fathers. [cheers] a fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp. we do not have every answer. there are questions not yet asked waiting in the recesses of the future. because it is the lesson of all of our history.

a president and the people can make a difference. faith is still alive wherever i travel across this land. let's reject -- let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves. there will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead. we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us. [applause] let this be our commitment. whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. at the end of our journey and before us, shines that ideal of

liberty and justice for all. [applause] in closing, let me say a few words to all of those i have met and to all those who have supported me. at this convention and across the country. there were hard hours on our journey and often we sailed against the wind. but always we kept our orrudder true. you gave your help. you gave your heart. because of view, this has been a happy campaign. you have welcomed joan and me and into our -- into your neighborhoods, your churches, your union halls. i think of view and i recall the

words and i say, what golden friends i have. among new, project among you, i have listened and learned. i have listened to a glass blower who has 10 children to support but has lost his job after 35 years, three years short of qualifying for his pension. i have listened to the tractor family in iowa who wonder whether they can pass the good life and the good earth onto their children. i have listened to the grandmother who no longer has a phone to call her grand children because she gave it up to pay the rent. i have listened to young workers out of work, to students without tuition for college, and to

families without the chance to own a home. i have seen indiana and california and i have seen far too many idle men and women desperate to work. i have seen far too many working families desperate to protect the value of their wages. i have also sensed the yearning for new hope or i have been. i have felt it in their handshake and i shall never forget the mothers who carried children to our rallies. i shop remembered the elderly who believe that it can all happen again. tonight in their name, i have come here to speak for them. i ask you to speak for them. i asked you to reaffirm the timeless truth of our party.

i congratulate president party -- president carter on his victory here. i am confident that the democratic party will reunite on the basis of democratic principles and that together we will march towards a democratic victory in 1980. and someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowd stopped

sharing and the bands stop playing, and may it be said that we kept the faith. may it be said of our party that we found our faith again. may be said of bust in bright days in the words of tennyson that my brothers quoted and love that have special meaning for me now, i am a part of all that i have met. too much is taken. that which we are, we are. one people temper of her rope hearts, strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. for me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. for all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause indoors, the

dreams and shall never die. -- because endured, and the dream shall never die. >> etc. said kennedy and his concession speech at the 1980 -- senator ted kennedy and his concession speech at the 1980 democratic convention. that is one of the video is available at our website. there is reaction to his passing from colleagues at the home

page. we will have a look at how the government is using social media to get its message out. it is expected to last until 5:00 p.m. here on c-span. jim moran and his town hall meeting last night. it runs just over two hours.

>> well, this is going to be fun, governor. thank you. thank you for coming. there are still two very long winds. it looks like we're pretty well full. i think we will start right on time. we do appreciate you attending this regardless -- regardless of how you feel about health care. it is important that we hear from all sides. this is the most important part of the democratic process.

i thank all of you for being here. before we begin, i like to invite the rabbi from preston's of northern virginia hebrew convention to open with a prayer. rabbi? >> joseph said to his leader, the nightmares your having our true and they are one. god sends them to you. years of plenty are coming but they will be followed by years of hardship. so look for a leader who is discerning and wise, appoint him to halt the sustenance of good

years for the famine that will arrive. i share this teaching for a moment such as this. in this town hall, the nightmares of our leaders have come true. our health care system needs help. [cheers] our trust in a safe path forward is easy during times of plenty and harvest, but during hard and challenge, we must draw together. so what do we seek it? we seek in our leaders nothing less than the qualities of wisdom and discernment. we seek in them to know the potential of every human being.

we remember the potential of a harsh winds and inaaction to blow across our capital. we see a true engagement in this debate. to approach one another at this evening with respect and an honor for telling and repeating the truth as we need to understand it. [applause] man ask you all to please rise. -- may i ask you all to please rise. let's take a moment, then, and remember the possibility the week each could be agents of healing. remind our congressman to serve the public, to renew and reform our system as needed, and to draw from each of us.

if i could ask you all to draw your thoughts to those who are in need of health care, who are ill or injured at this moment, at this hour, at this day. good sweet god, the failed dreams and healing for those who are in need of it, in a rich spam, support them during times of plenty and those of hardship ahead. amen. >> thank you, rabbi, for those awful words. and now -- thank you for those thoughtful words. and now the scoutmaster will lead us in the pledge of allegiance which will be delivered by scalped armstrong.

-- buy scalpy scout armstrong. >> i pledge allegiance to the flight of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [cheers] >> we thank trooper1018 for leading us in the pledge. boy scouts are well known for their civic participation and

adherence to the values of order and civility. i trust they will get their civics bench tonight. let me say a word about our ground rules. dissent is as american as apple pie. it is the cornerstone of our democracy and the freedom of speech, the first amendment is clearly the foundation upon which our country was built. the voices of the american people should not be silenced, particularly on an issue as important as this. that being said, it does not provide one with the right to

shout down or to otherwise interfere with someone else's right to be heard. [cheers] at the door, we provided copies of rules of civility. i hope it was not a naive thing for us to do. i am not sure we had enough for everyone. we wanted to do this in an auditorium. this gymnasium has seats for over 2000. we figured 2500 and we will get close to 3000. there are two long lines outside. i do apologize. please talk to those who may not

get in because of fire department rules. we're sorry. is not more space. we could not provide more space -- more seats though we have right now. the purpose of this town hall meeting is to get feedback from my constituents primarily, but from others, as well. my constituents in the eighth district will get a party. [cheers] but i also want to share information as to what the congress has been working on. where there is consensus, what we intend to do, certainly on the house side, and i will share with you what i intend to vote for. we cannot do that if we are

constantly interrupting one another. so i really do respectfully ask that we be as civil and respectful as possible. we are going to draw questions from a box that contains the questions asked by people who are supportive. we will drop an equal number from those who are not supporters and from those who are undecided. from best we can determine -- please. that was not a controversial thing to say. [laughter] [applause] but the best we can determine, the crowd is generally equally divided roughly. i think it is a fair thing to do. following -- following my

remarks, we are fortunate to have a real expert in the -- and a grass-roots leader in health care. five years ago -- [boos] well, this is going to be a fun night, governor. that was just a factual statement. five years ago he ran a campaign for president based primarily on this issue. he has also written a great book. he insisted it be in paperback. it is more affordable. you can get it at any bookstore. it is called "howard dean's

prescription for real health care reform." [boos] dr. dean is a physician. he is a former governor of vermont where he envisioned and legislated and implemented a statewide health care plan that the people of vermont are very happy with. he is also chairman emeritus of the democratic party. he is going to provide a broader view of what health care reform means in real life terms for the american people. ma'am, really. sometimes people say more about themselves than they do about the issue.

[cheers] so because i feel it is my responsibility to share with you how i feel and what we have been doing for the last several months, i will take several minutes to do that and to address some of the inaccuracies that have been going around and i am sure all of you have heard them. i will address them and then i will turn it over to dr. dean. so that will take in total about half an hour. then we will take an hour and a half to hear from the audience. so a three to one ratio of speaking to hearing, it seems to

me, is reasonable distribution of time. what we're going to do is pick from each of the three boxes and we will have microphones in the audience, mobile microphones, so that i will announce the name of the person and then that person will stand up and repeat their question. i will not try to read or paraphrase the question. i will ask you to ask the question yourself. we will be as unbiased as possible in terms of the questions being asked. let's be discussed -- actually, i will address that because many people are suggesting i read the bill. we have taken four hours were had to sit in our seats with

listening to some very technical language. we normally do not do that. it was important enough because a lot of this bill is complex. it is technical. but it is our response ability to understand to the best of our knowledge. let me share with you now where we stand. i will explain some of the parts of the bill and address some of the things that could be classified as myths. just before the august recess, they agreed upon a bill. we now have three bills that have been reported out of committee. one in the ways and means committee and one in the energy and commerce committee. there are compatible.

the one major change was made by some relatively conservative democrats teaming up with republicans who put in a provision that requires that the prices charged and the public option be negotiated with the hospitals, the doctors, and the other health care providers. we were going to use the medicare price schedule. one thing you'll realize is this public option is almost identical with medicare. what is doing is expanding medicare for more people if they can choose to enroll it as an option. this is something that governor dean has thought about and proposed for some time. the best way to understand this is it is very much like medicare

but extended to the rest of the adult population in. it is not identical but very similar. under this proposal, no one will lose their current health coverage. that means -- so that means -- so that means regardless of what health insurance plan and you're now in, you will stay in that plan, and that will apply to about 80% of the people in this audience. so those people who are satisfied with your plan, you just keep your insurance plan.

now another important thing that this legislation does, bearing in mind that in the eighth congressional district, a relatively affluent district, a very high employment rate relative to the rate -- to the rest of the country, but even in the eighth district, there were over 800 families last year that went bankrupt solely because they could not pay their medical bills. in most cases, the cost of their health care exceeded the insurance. in some cases, the insurance companies simply dropped them when they realize these families had health costs that were more than the insurance company wanted to play.

so i family goes bankrupt. it is one of the principal reasons for the high rate of bankruptcy in this country are the medical bills that people cannot pay. one of the important things that this bill does is to captur outf pocket expenses for individuals at $5,000. if your cost is more than $5,000, you do not have to pay it. and families will be capped at a total of $10,000. so families can put money aside knowing there is some limit to how much they are going to have to rely upon and out of pocket cost if the worst happens, someone has a serious accident or illness. under the bill, no one can be

denied health insurance by a private insurer and the public insurance -- the public insurers do not deny anyone on the basis of a pre-existing health condition. [cheers] one of the reasons why private health insurers often time spent as much as 30% of the premium revenue they get in on administrative costs is trying to determine who not to insure. those are people who are most likely to get set who need insurance the most. private insurance companies sense of their objective, and there is nothing wrong with the objective of making money. there is something wrong if there is not an option.

their objection to make profits means it is in their interest to exclude people who are going to drop from the profit because they get very sick or have a serious accident. under this bill, you cannot be denied because of pre-existing health conditions. [cheers] [boos] and many of you, they feel, -- you may feel it is not likely to affect me. pregnancy is currently considered to be a pre-existing health condition. and some insurance companies, not all, it will drop coverage or deny payments for a serious condition by manufacturing something in the policy. it happens in northern virginia. i met with a woman recently who

was diagnosed with breast cancer and her insurance company stated that because she saw a doctor for acne 20 years ago and did not disclose this, they were able to drop her coverage. [boos] that is a real-life example. it is wrong. it needs to be corrected. these situations can be appealed. the insurance companies understand, as other industries understand, that if you can delay the process and make it as cumbersome as possible, many people put simply give up their appeal. that is what has happened. that is why this provision is very important, that they cannot drop coverage under this bill. dropping coverage -- dropping

coverage has a term. it is called a rescission. if someone is diagnosed with cancer and the insurance company manufactures a reason to not cover them anymore, that is called a rescission. there will not be allowed under this bill. i consider that to be a morally outrageous practice. some companies, hopefully not all, but many insurance companies to make it a practice. it maximizes their profit. it greatly disadvantages their enrollees. it would not be allowed under this bill. substance abuse programs will have full parity other treatment. physical and mental health will be treated equally.

in many parts of the country, the option for private insurance is very much limited. some insurance companies cover 85% of a population. so you do not have a whole lot of choice but to pay because of that insurance policy and to accept the restrictions that are included with the insurance policy. we are setting up an exchange. the exchange works the same way as the federal employee health system. you'll be able to go online. you can compare different health plans side by side and the pins used the one that works best for you and your family. -- and you can choose the one that works best for you and your family. i think, and economists have

shown, that a lack of competition is one of the main reason that insurance premiums continue to rise. as with car insurance, the legislation that we are considering, and this is included in all three house bills, requires everyone to purchase health insurance. no free riders. everybody at some point get sick. everybody at some point has an accident or needs healthcare. most often, they will go to an emergency room and they will get health insurance -- they would get health care in northern virginia, but somebody has to pay. more than $100 million just in

northern virginia is spent on health care for people who are not insured. coupes for that? everybody else pays for that -- who pays for that? on average costs us an extra $1,100 a year to pay for uncompensated care. that is what we have a provision and each one of the house bills and the 17 build has been passed, and requires everyone to purchase health insurance. those who can afford to pay will pay for their health insurance. but if they decide not to have health insurance, they will be subject to a 2.5% 3, 2.5% of

their income. now that -- [boos] generally, health insurance on average costs about 10% of your income. so we're only taking 1/4 of that as a penalty. but i think that it will be a sufficient motivation for everyone to purchase insurance. we're not going to put people in jail if they do not. there needs to be a penalty for people who are trying to free ride this system. the pelted will be a 2.5% fee on their income. now, for singeenior --

[boos] for senior citizens, and i understand but senior citizens make up somewhat disproportionate number of the people, and lees from what we're told who object to this. it's important to lay this out. this bill narrows the prescription drug donor hall, it is called. basically, between 2000 $700.60 sells a $154, if a senior citizen spends more than $2,700 a year in prescription drugs, they have to pay 100%, and this will reduce the so-called don't hall. after $6,100, the government

covers it. insurance companies understand most people fall in that gap. that gap will be narrowed. i do not know that it has been adequately explained. one of the things that -- senior citizens can save as much as 50% of the money that they are currently paying out of pocket. and we estimate that every senior citizen will save on average about $1,700 in prescription drug costs as a

result of this bill. finally, legislation includes a very important provision. it is energy -- it has to energize people across the political spectrum. it does not seem to be fully understood but could do the most to bring down the long term medical costs. and to insure every american. that provision is the so-called public option. [cheers] so -- when i used the term

energized people, i guess that was a fair term. perhaps ill little understated. what the public option means is that the federal governments would provide americans a choice to purchase either -- to purchase a government health plan, like medicare, that would provide a basic level of insurance, but no one would be required to join the public option. people, everyone is still free to purchase private insurance. now, the private insurance companies, we think, are going to want to be more competitive. so insurance premiums will probably go down, hopefully to

the point where they do not rise any more than the rate of inflation. now, the public option is not going to be a cadillac insurance plan. but it is not going to have a lot of frills on it. it will focus on providing access to quality preventative care using the physician of your choice. now, the cost of the bill would be roughly $100 billion per year for the next 10 years. but that cost is going to be fully paid for.

half would come from a graduated surcharge of 1% that starts with each dollar over 250,000 dollars. in the case of individuals, 300,000 dollars in the case of families. it applies to the wealthiest 1.2% of americans in the united states. so in other words, it and does not affect 98.8% of wage earners in this country. it is estimated that this will raise about five order $44 billion. the over 10 years. -- the other half, the other $50 billion would come from reforms to the health-care system.

medicare reimbursement to providers and a program to reduce hospital readmission rates. what is designed and envisioned is that if a hospital does the right thing initially so that people do not have to come back to the hospital consistently, they get additional reimbursement. now, hospitals where people get infected in the hospital or where it is found of the carrot was not adequate and they have to keep returning, hospitals with high readmission rates will be relatively speaking, they will pay a price in that in terms of reimbursements. that is the kind of incentive we

are building in so that hospitals reduce the amount of infection which in fact is one of the major reasons why people have more serious illnesses. we have a high rate of fatalities in hospitals. we're trying to give incentives for hospitals to do it right the first time and also to be as clean and sanitary and professional as possible. in northern virginia, we do not have that problem. but that is not the case throughout the country. and i know you care about our friends at the ralph rest of the country and not just for ourselves. -- throughout the rest of the country and not just for ourselves. the reason we're doing this is because of a lot of things that have put us deeply in debt, such as the iraq war which is never paid for.

the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, none of which was ever paid for. we care not and should not pass a health reform bill without fully paying for its, not increasing the national debt and not passing the debt onto our children. now, the president, president obama, who i felt was referenced in the intricate -- in the invocation, believes this very strongly. the congress is committed to this principle, as well. now, let me give the second part of this before introducing governor dean.

where is our -- many in the audience tonight have heard the rumors, i am sure, about a number of scary things that the health reform plan would do. i will briefly address the most widespread myths that are still floating around on the internet and on television and have been said by some so-called political leaders. let me address those because it will save time to address them now rather than have repeated questions about them. number one, death panels. many people feel, apparently, that death panels made up of so-

called government bureaucrats will determine whether a patient is worthy of health care. it is the "killed grandma" clause. this is nonsense. in fact -- the fact is -- the fact is nothing could be further from the truth. this bill extends medicare coverage to cover the cost of patiencts who voluntarily choose to speak with their doctors about their values and their preferences regarding end of life care. it will empower older americans to take control of their lives. [cheers] [boos] now, these are deeply personal

decisions that take very thoughtful consideration, and it is only appropriate that doctors be compensated for their time. it takes time. doctors cannot be rushing to the next appointment with the next surgery or whatever. in order for them to spend the kind of time that is necessary so that patients understand all of the options that might ochre when they start to lose control, the doctor should not be rushed. the doctor should be compensated for the time they spend counseling their patient. that is all it does. there is no mandate in any of our bills to complete an advance care directive or a living will. it is completely optional. it is not required. if a patient chooses to complete

an advanced directives or -- in order for life-sustaining treatment, which is certainly an option if they prefer in order to sustain for treatment that will sustain life, those documents articulate the full range of treatment preferences, from fall and aggressive treatment to limited comfort care only. someone yelled out, we have it now, and i am happy that they have a now, but a lot of people do not. and it seems to me it is a good idea for everyone to have an advanced care directive and even a living will. this is a provision that was included by a conservative republican senator from georgia. he felt this was an important

provision. it was discussed. people agreed. we put it in. i think it should stay. but -- but this advance care directives or living will is entirely customized by the patients themselves in concert with their doctor. it is totally optional. myth number 2. a second myth is that everyone will be affected by the reform except members of congress and their families. the fact -- members of congress have a the same health care plans as all other federal employees and will be subject to the same rules as all other employer-sponsored plans.

there is nothing -- i am glad we have -- i want you to read this carefully. there is nothing in the -- -- in the legislation that extends the plans as part of the health benefits program from this reform. we are subject to the same things other employer-sponsored plans will be. more than 90% of all plants today are likely to meet or to exceed the bills's minimum standards of coverage under this legislation. under 90% will not be affected. it includes the health benefits plan because we have a minimal standard of care, and so it will not be affected in that sense. for most large employers, they will not be affected. employees will not seek any

change in their plans as a result. they can choose whatever doctor they wish to. they can choose the care they receive. the remaining plants have until the end of 2018 to make will be minor adjustments. there is a mandate for a minimally adequate level of coverage, of services, you name it. but all of the insurance plans will have roughly eight years to make those changes. that seems to be a reasonable period of time. myth number 3. this will result in expanded government control over your health. so let me address this. in the current health-care

system, insurance companies, not patients, not doctors, insurance companies hold the power. now, many of those insurance companies are very good organizations. there are good corpse. i could name several. i like them. a work closely with them. it is they who decide whether or not to cover treatments or procedures or routine visits to doctors. more so than the doctor decides. they can decide when to raise premiums, whether to deny coverage, whether to deny care without any accountability. they are in control. and they can and collectively

have shot millions of people out of health care altogether. the reason why millions of people do not have health care is in large part because insurance companies do not want to cover them. and that is the system that america faces today. there is no industrialized nation that has given over the health care of its citizens to private, for-profit companies to make those decisions. [cheers] so this plan, all three bills that have passed the house and the one that has passed the

senate, is designed to put patients and doctors where they belong, in the driver's seat. the insurance company professionals whose job is to maximize profits, will not be able to stand between americans and their doctors and the care that american patients need any more. there will be competition if we are successful. myth number 4. the bill would create a health benefits advisory committee that would make determinations about what types of treatments and services can be covered with concerned benefit classes and what kind of cost sharing will poker. the answer -- there is no rationing of care under this bill. [cheers]

the health benefits advisory committee does not have any role in determining what treatment individuals are entitled to go. the primary role is simply to recommend the minimum standards of care and benefits that insurers must offer under the bill. that is their job. they will determine what benefits are offered by insurance companies. and this advisory committee is going to be made up of providers, consumer representatives, labor, and of independent experts. it is a broadly represented committee. myth number 5. it will make taxpayers fund

health-care subsidies for illegal immigrants. you've all heard this charge. this could not be further from the truth. [boos] taxpayers under this bill will not fund health care for undocumented workers. in this bill, and you can read it yourself, section 246, states that, and i want to quote it. it is not here. listen to this. nothing in this shell all-out federal payments on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the united states. there is no subsidy whatsoever. there will be some cases, and

the government -- some cases where some people who are not u.s. citizens are already included on their private health insurance plans. those do not get affected. so there is no way that it will be changed. but that is not the government. that is because we're leaving most health insurance plans the way they are. without government involvement or government subsidy of any manner. the public auction. a government-run public auction -- public option will force everyone onto a public plan. you have heard that myth. under this bill, no one can be forced onto the public plan. the only way that someone would be in the public plan is of a

person's own individual free choice. furthermore, the congressional budget office projects that rather than in forcing employers to drop coverage, more employers are likely to provide coverage under this bill because -- because if they do not, they would have to contribute a to% of their -- contribute 8% of their peril to provide coverage for their employees unless they are total -- unless their total work force -- they're completely exempt. it is 40 employees and an average salary of $25,000 each

and it is graduated. i will keep moving along quickly. all of these issues could be discussed further. i want to get them -- i want to get through them all. . >> subscribers can determine whether they want to enroll in

that plan. many offer coverage because many people want that option. some do not. it is determined by private insurance plans. it will not be paid for with federal dollars. current reform efforts will continue in that vein and allow consumers to choose a plan for the exchange so that when you go to this exchange you can pick which plans do not provide coverage and you don't have to pick a plan that offers that covers. these will be private plans. it is up to the private insurer. and your own moral decision, what ever you want to do, it is your call. there will not be federal dollars paying for abortions in -- except in the case of rape, incest, or the help of the mother. -- haelth of the mother.

commissioner will choose your health benefits for you. the help joyces commissioner is charged with insuring -- the health choices commissioner is charged with insuring and issuing affordability credits and monitoring the exchange. they are monitoring the insurance companies. they will not choose which benefits or which insurance plan you choose. nothing in this section or in any of the bills that we have put through committee permits the health choices commissioner tutus benefits for you. [applause] myth number 9 -- there are awful lot of myths out there. this has become very contentious. myth number 9 -- the government

will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. the section they are referring to is on page 59 of the bill. it encourages the development of standards to encourage electronic payments between providers and insurance companies. this is what insurance companies ask for to make it easier to pay insurance premiums. it is an administrative simplification and it will save billions of dollars. nothing gives the government access to your bank account. nothing. two more final minutes -- final myths - of fact -- insurance

companies and this exchange will have to offer a basic benefits package in every service area, a minimally adequate package. it includes hospitalization, position visits, medical equipment, mental health, preventive care, maternity and baby care, and medicines. those are services that anyone should expect an insurance policy to cover. [applause] we are going to require that those basic services be covered by ever insurance plan. private insurers can and are encouraged to and probably will offer a higher tier of service with more benefits that are not mandated by the government. they can do that in order to acquire more subscribers. to make more money and get more people. that is what the private

competitive system is all about. that is why we want them to be able to do that. there needs to be a minimally adequate level of benefits. many people pay into insurance plans and they get sick and find that it is not covered. we won a covered bridge the last minute -- that is that the government will reduce position services to all medicaid seniors. this is completely wrong. the section that is referred to on page 239 to adjust the way that the sustainable growth rate, it is a formula, that is calculated. it helps to prevent massive cut four positions. we worked with the positions to come up with this. we work with the amount of -- american medical association and physicians are in strong support of desperate -- in strong

support of best. it is their section. they wanted it in here. it is not cutting physician reimbursement for physician services. as the last thing the positions in the ama would want. we put it in at the request and it is staying in. those are the mets. -- myths. there may be other myths out here. there may be some facts. there are a number of reasons for why people would quite genuinely have reason to oppose this legislation, cost for example, about fact that we cannot control what we try to do [applause] i voted against -- i will be frank with you, even though many seniors were disappointed -- i voted against the medicare part d prescription drug benefit

because i thought it would be too expensive. as soon as they put that language in forbidding the federal government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of medicare providers, i felt this would be too expensive and sure enough, it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. you cannot always control what you are trying to do but it does not mean you should not try to do the right thing and try to do it as inexpensively as possible. [applause] for me, this will be the highlight of the evening, i want to introduce our featured guest speaker. [applause] [applause & jeers]

let the record show that there was an overwhelmingly positive response to that. [applause] i don't want to encourage the other side. apparently, he needs no introduction by will give him one anyway. howard dean is a position by trade. he is a state legislator, lieutenant governor, and he was governor of the state of vermont and did a very fine job. he continued to practice medicine the entire a state legislator and lieutenant governor. he is dedicated to his profession which is public service and medical care. he served three terms as governor of vermont and under

his leadership, he got through a law that provides health care coverage for all children and all pregnant women in the entire state. [applause] and -- and he balanced the state budget. [applause] five years ago today, he ran for president of the united states. he ran primarily on a platform of health care about was affordable and accessible to all americans. now we have, tonight, we are honored, to have a real fighter for the people. he is a grass-roots leader. he has worked his adult life for the reform of our health-care system. he is a great guy.

he is a terrific person. we are honored to have him with us, governor howard dean. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. the last time i was in front of a crop this size, it was me that was during the scrimmage. now it is you doing the screening. we appreciate that. i will say a very short few words. the reason i will say a very short few words is that i think that jim did a terrific job laying out his thoughts on the health care. how about a round of applause for jim moran, a great

congressperson who is thoughtful and knows his stuff? the reason that i believe we need health care reform in this country, first, is that the cost of health care is 70% more expensive in this country than it is in any other country. this country spends 17% of its gross national product on health care. >> i am sorry but i cannot even hear the governor and i am sitting next to him. this means that there are hundreds of people in this gymnasium who cannot hear him because of a handful of people. these folks are not from the eighth district. they really don't belong here. i will ask them to leave.

[crowd noises] [chanting] >> we won't be silenced. we won't be silenced. we won't be silenced. quacks' he announced yesterday that he was coming to this meeting for the purpose -- not for the purpose of disrupting. that is not the purpose of the meeting. i will ask that he be escorted out.

[applause] apparently, most people did not hear me because my staff person did not even hear what i had to say. his name is randall terry. he is an abortion rights activists. i consider him to be a bit of a radical because all he does is try to disrupt meetings. he announced today in the press that he was coming year for the purpose of disrupting this meeting. that is why i am asking him to leave because we have other purposes for this meeting. mr. terry, if he would leave, please. please leave, mr. terry.

quacks' halliburton, they are your people. >> relax. mr. terry, if you are so inclined, let me suggest this -- if you want to, rather than be escorted out, you can have the option of having the first question in five minutes to say whatever you want. but then, it would be restricted because we need to hear from

other people. you have your choice. otherwise, you really need to leave because we need to move forward with this. >> we want to pay for murder. >> we won't pay for murder. >> we won't pay for murder. you are a baby killer, howard dean. howard dean is a baby killer. you are a baby killer. >> taken out. take him out. take him out. >> howard dean is a baby killer. >> if you would stay in the audience with the rest of the

people. i know you think your special but there are hundreds of people. governor dean, if you would -- >> howard dean is a baby killer. >> as i said, i will be extremely brief because i would like to hear from you, not that i have not already. there are three problems that we have to fix. regardless of whether you work at a conservative, democrat, or liberal, or republican, we have to fix them. one is that health insurance is 70% more expensive in this country than it is in the next three most expensive countries. that is harming our economy and our business says. two, there are a large number of

people in this country who have no health insurance. i don't know anybody, wherever you are in the political spectrum, that thinks that is ok. one thing i think that republicans and democrats agree with in the congress is that we need some kind of health care reform and we should cover everybody, in some way. [applause] 3, the way that we pay for health care in this country leads us to do many things that are not necessary. there is an enormous amount of stuff that we do to people at all ages from the oldest to youngest that we do because people like me get paid because we do them. in many systems of health care around the world, they have a different kind of payment system which leads that country to develop what we call a wellness model instead of an illness model, which is what we have in this country.

[applause] now, i think most people agree with that, that we would rather pay for people keeping is healthy rather than getting paid as soon as we get sick. we spent too much and we should get more in line with what other countries spend and where an awful lot of people that should have health insurance, some of home -- some of whom have it through no fault of their own. i will say one more thing -- two more things -- one is why i believe strongly in this great when i was practicing medicine, this is probably about 20 years ago, i would guess, a woman about 35 years old came to make who was healthy that i had known for a little while. she said that she was increasingly thursday and losing weight and having to urinate a lot. it turned out that she had diabetes. that was in february.

by may, her insurance company had discontinued her insurance. i don't think that is right. somebody needs to do something about that. [applause] the last thing that i was going to say, which will undoubtedly sent me out the way i came in, was that i support president barack obama's health care plan including the public option. [cheers & jeers] jim has told you all the reasons why. now that i have dropped that hot potato, i will sit down the same way i stood up and get this back to the guy whose district this is and has done an outstanding job and we will start to answer some questions, jim moran. [applause]

>> all right, governor, now the fun begins. gail ruder is my office manager and scheduler. you will hear her voice when you call my office we have 3 boxes here. we will pick the first question and we will announce the second so that people can make their way to the microphone to save time. now, the question says," -- the first question is," my brother lived in france for 10 years. "" oh, there is, sara scott.

there she is. why don't you read it or you can paraphrase it yourself. yep. let me read the second names of the second person can start coming up. the second person will be personlawson. ok, sara scott. >> my brother lived in france for 10 years. his doctor bills and medical prescriptions were paid for through the government system. he did not have to wait in line to see a doctor. why, in the u.s., are people afraid of such a system? [applause] >> look, change is hard. the reason that the europeans

have the system they have is because their health care system was destroyed during world war two and it was put back together in a -- by the government. the system in britain was put together by one of the most conservative prime ministers in history, winston churchill. the reason was that when the system was destroyed in the bombings, they commandeered all the hospitals and put them together to get people through the war and they did. they started from a different place. we started from an employer- based system because in our country, we were only attacked twice, once in the aleutians, and once in the hawaiian islands. our system was not destroyed. the reason that our system is the way it is today is because a lot of employers were prevented from giving their employees wage increases during world war two because of inflation and because of wage and price controls and they made it up to their employees by giving them more

benefits. we devolved an employer-based system in this country. the europeans did a government run system because of two different circumstances. it is hard to change. a lot of this debate is about change. the one thing that any doctor can tell you about change is that you never make real changes until the pain of staying the same is -- exceeds the fear of change. i think the pain of staying the same has exceeded the fear of change. [applause] >> that is what i mean. what a thoughtful, articulate response. many people are not fully familiar with that. which one is brian lawson? jessica abrams and is helping us with the microphones. go ahead. you want to read it? >> i am a pharmacist by

training. my question for you is, do you support therapy services which allow pharmacists to work with physicians and nurses to manage the care of nurses -- up patients with chronic illnesses? >> yes. [laughter] governor dean responded. in a comprehensive way. >> one of the deals here is that there are a lot of people that practice medicine in this country besides positions. we will keep the cost down and you have these people like pharmacists and nurse practitioners to do more care. that will make a big deal and will reduce costs. [applause] >> and mr. e. williams?

mr. williams? and then whoever gets here first -- alexandra broadman? mr. williams or miss broadman, are they coming? >> congressman? >> congressman, thank you for doing this. >> that is clear mcintyre in the stands. >> my question is, do you think that a system involving co-ops is an acceptable compromise on health care reform? >> i personally doubt. i will explain why. there is nothing wrong with health care cooperative spirit in fact, many states allow them and some states have them. they are not a substitute for a public auction. it is very difficult for enough

people to get together to put it together themselves. for one thing, you need about 500,000 people to be competitive with the private insurance industry. you need a lot of startup money. that is why it is felt that if the government was able to kick start it with money that would be repaid so it could eventually pay for itself, the government has the expertise, having run medicare, that it can do this. health care cooperative is, frankly don't. while i would encourage people who want them to put them together, that is fine. the problem is, there is no real profit incentive for anybody to invest a substantial amount of capital in setting it up. they will not get repaid in the

form of dividends or profits. it is not comparable but it is not a bad thing. miss esther williams. e, williams? we need a microphone. we did not know where you were. where is jessica? war claire? clear as a microphone. >> i would like to know, are you and your family willing to go on the same health plan and also, have you ever, or any of your family members, lived on socialized medicine? i have and i have relatives living on it. trust me, it is not working. unless you have private insurance -- [applause]

>> as the crowd comes down, i will respond yes, and no. yes? of course i am prepared. actually, i am sure by the federal employee insurance plan are it is a full family plan. i pay a very substantial amount every month, several thousands of dollars a year, i think it is over $6,000 per year. it is a good plan and want to preserve it for all federal employees and retirees.

this is alesia h. is that you? yes, ma'am. do you want to get the microphone over there? claire is coming with the microphone. this woman has been animated so she must have a good question. >> actually, it is the same exact question. are you willing to take the plan? you did not answer it. [applause] >> the answer is yes. the answer is yes. >> i had the microphone taken away. >> i will not ask him right now. >> chris aplleton? and then gail? kress appleton first and then

dennis sawyer? chris appleton? where is chris appleton? right there? you are miss appleton? jessica? >> hello? yes, i have a simple question and it might be something everyone can agree on -- why don't we take the $23 trillion we put -- >> that is not the question. i don't think you are miss appleton. that is not right. you are not as appleton. what are you doing? you told you were and you are not. that is not appropriate. please go back to your seat, ma'am. [boos] please go back to your seat.

the problem as that if other people can do that, i asked for a name, they come up and purport to be that person then a lot of people will do that and it will get completely out of order. we will not allow that. where is ms. appleton? i don't know what happened to chris appleton? let's try it dennis sawyer. is dennis so you're here? >> right here. i am right here. >> ok, good. >> my question was answered when you were going through your facts. i have come up with a different one. what will the reform of medicare partd look like?

we have a situation where privatized health insurance is more in control of providing -- determining what kind of medications older patients can take. how will this change with this reform? what will we do about this? >> i will share with you my understanding of a deal that was made at the white house with the pharmaceutical industry. in return for the pharmaceutical industry reducing the gap so that seniors would save about $1,700 per year by being able to purchase drugs at less cost -- in return for that, the government would not repeal the provision that prohibits the federal government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of medicare beneficiaries in the same way that we negotiate with the

veterans administration. i would not have made that deal, personally, but i was not part of that. i was not there and i don't know all the particulars. and the veterans administration, sometimes you will pay 1/3 to less than one- half of most brand-name drugs because they can negotiate. if we were able to negotiate, using the medicare beneficiary population, we could get the price of drugs down very substantially but we are not allowed to do that nor are we allowed to buy drugs from canada. at this point, the only thing i am aware of that would change is that the dome of cold gap would be narrowed. governor dean, did you have anything to add? >is there a toliver? taliferro?

sir? there is a microphone right there. >> i have a similar question. i have an unusual name. >> is a pronounced toliver? >> it is in virginia. >> i will pronounced it anywhere you want. >> it is quite simple. knowing full well that somehow the congress and the executive and the other branches of government will find ways to get themselves off of this particular government-run plan, the question -- i know we will hear different things but, the question is, if it is so good

for all this, can you be honest with us, please? >> i am. i am. i know what your talking about since there have been a lot of people have asked this, let me try to address it wants more. ok? i will try to address it and thank you for your question, sir. 85% of people, approximately, are not going to see any change in their health insurance coverage. the reason for that -- the reason for that is that most plants have adequate coverage, particularly in northern virginia. i have a private insurance coverage, is under bluecross /blueshield. i pay the highest auction for my family coverage.

i think i pay about $500 per month, approximately, i should have checked before i left, about $6,000 per year the federal government matches it that 72%. it is the same that applies to several million federal employees. if you are a federal employee and you get federal health benefits, that is the plan that i have an almost all members of congress do, as well. it falls under the same plan as the executive branch as it i don't know what the judiciary as. -- has. the next question is from maureen mitchell of reston. jessica has the microphone. >> i have two questions -- is about the public plan which i am

in favor of. thank you. could you explain how we could insure almost everyone without the public plan? maybe governor dean could. is there a way to insure everyone without the public plan? >> there are two countries, 2.5, we will leave the house along with his german agree there are two countries, the netherlands and switzerland that have universal health care plans without a public plan. but, in order to do that, they treat the insurance industry as a regulated utility. they tell what they can charge, how much they can earn, and what their ceo salaries are. with all the hoopla about the public plan, i have been tempted to ask congress to put in the swiss system and see how fast

the insurance industry would embrace the public option instead of turning into a public utility [applause] >> give me the next one. next is jeff verheff -- verhoff. we will hear from roland tolino. but first, jeff verhoff. >> right here, over here. to your left. to your left howard, will you tell him what left is?

>> i just couldn't see. >> please answer this because you have ducked the hard questions. you said earlier that medicare is being run by experts. who are these people? this is a program that is $39 trillion in the bread. these are experts? who are these [applause] experts? help from howard. you are my congressman. howard dean is not my congressman. >> let's have a vote. all those in favor of getting rid of medicare, raise your hand. all those in favor of getting rid of medicare, raise your hand. all those in favor of getting rid of medicare, raise your hand. thank you.

>> answer the question! >> medicare is not actually in the red because we don't use general funds. it is true that we are eventually going to run out of money sooner than social security because the cost of medical care is going up. but, i don't know anyone over the age of 65 who wants to give up their medicare and the reality is, that medicare costs have gone up at a much slower rate than private insurance company costs and medicare uses 3% of the trust fund money for administrative costs whereas in the private system, it is about 30%. medicare is operating at much less cost and we need to figure

out a way to pay for it. in the long run, and this is one of the ways that we intend to do that. the experts. there are federal employees who have spent much of their adult lives running medicare. the fact is, they do a very good job. they are located in baltimore, maryland. i am proud that the work for the federal government. rowland tolino? what? you are not roland toino. please go sit down. what does this say?

what does this say? >> let me see your identification. you are an impostor. >> ask your question. do we have a microphone? >> my question is -- >> you obviously have a question. >> there is $200 million in savings with torte reform -- >> let to a microphone so everyone can hear you. it is not fair when you don't have a microphone and other people have. please share your thoughts with us. >> there is $200 million over tenures in savings if we had tort reform and nobody loses but the lawyers. why have we not even considered that tonight in the discussion, sir? tell the american people that.

>> all right, this is the answer from a doctor and a politician -- here is why tort reform is not on the bill. when you go to pass an enormous bill like that, the more step you put in a, a more enemies you make. the reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who rode it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else. that is the plain and simple truth. now, that is the truth. now, sell -- so, what is a reasonable possibility? most people agree that most people who get injured from doctors should get compensation.

secondly, i think we don't want is a lot of lawsuits against doctors that are frivolous. they create the atmosphere in which we cause doctors to do more stuff than i need to in order to make sure that doesn't get brought in from the jury and so forth. what i'm about to say is not authorized by anybody. i have tried out on doctors and lawyers and neither one like it. i am sure it is somewhat reasonable. here is what i think we ought to do -- it will not happen in this bill. this bill has enough enemies. there is a fair number of them in this room are the more groups to take on, the more and as we make and we do not need any more for this bill right now. here is a reasonable solution. i might add, if we look toward reform in the bill, we would not get an extra vote in the united states senate or the house of representatives. [applause] however, here is what i think what happened which is reasonable and fair to both injured patients and physicians

and hospitals. you cannot take away the right of somebody to a jury trial. yet that is unconstitutional and not fair. however, what i think should happen -- this will be a hot one, ready? effectiveness research will be a great help in reforming tort. comparative affecting this research will ultimately study what works and does not and will create a national standard of practice. in national standard of practice is an absolute defense in a court of law. if you done the things you're supposed to have done, you cannot be sued and any reasonable judge will say that. now, here is what i think ought to happen -- i think if you have an action that you will bring against a medical practitioner, it should go to arbitration. you cannot make arbitration body because if you do, you are denied jury trial. and then,, it goes to

arbitration and of the patient is dissatisfied and believes they have not been treated fairly, the fair thing to do is to have a trial and allow the arbitration board to be submitted as evidence. [applause] >> that is a very honest answer. before go any further, where is mr. tolino? ok, because i noticed you gesturing and yelling, i suspect you are not who you are. the fact is you are. i want to apologize for doubting. >> no problem. >> #2, it is a very good question. it is an appropriate question. it got an honest answer. that is the answer. politics is the art of compromise. it would have generated a great deal of opposition, not just from tort lawyers but from other

sectors. there is one other which does not seem important but in the scheme of things, it actually matters and that is that the bill would have had to go through the judiciary committee as well. in the judiciary committee, it would have politicized it more because that committee is perhaps the most partisan of all committees. the judiciary committee never would have left out tort reform. both of us gave you an honest answer. thank you for the question. it was a very good question. i thought we already ask more and mitchell. we did not? you will get one question.

how about william birksen, sir? do you want your card? >> that's ok, thank you. i am very concerned about the quality of the debate. not only the screaming of misrepresentation but also the fact that the press release does not seem to want to cover policy. [applause] they want to cover gossip. i am very disappointed. i would like all the press to start covering the policy. i would also like to hear my democrats, my beloved democratic party, also arguing some basic things. number one, i don't understand why philosophically you don't say that the problem of health care cannot be solved by free enterprise.

we are now in a school that my kids went to that is supported by the state of virginia, many of the kids here at south lakes high school could not go here if this were private. they would not have education. the same is true for health care. the government has to be involved if we are to have universal health care. i don't see why we don't start with that principle. [applause] the other point i wish you would address in detail is that on like those who say all government programs are bad, and i know that some are good and some are bad. you do, too. what i like to know is why specifically this program is going to be a relatively good one as compared to options. i would like to know how it will operate. thank you very much. [applause] >> i don't fully agree with the

first thing you said. i think it is true that, at least in the state of massachusetts which is fighting out. they have gone a noble experiment, entirely in the private sector. they are going broke. i would argue that you really do need the public option to make that work. here is why -- jgñi think it is true that in the health insurance business, for-profit means taking money out of the insurance companies and putting it into the shareholders' pockets. this will be a switch because my own folks like this. some of the opposition elected pri the truth is, there are some parts of the health-care system that to better for profit. one of them is the drug industry.

i know that i am shopping every democrat to say that. hear me out, here is why i will say this. i know the drug industry gets beat up a lot for some reason, i don't think those tv ads are helpful. this is an industry that consumes roughly 10% of the entire budget of health care. it is also an industry that do not make as big profits but the use to and people resent it. this industry reduces your time in hospital and reduces costs and that's a fact, whether you like it or not. many people on my side of the aisle 8 the dragon -- a drug industry but that is effect. the other fact is that i happened to go on a tour this morning of two biological plants in maryland. the first one makes a product that enables premature babies to live where they previously died because of respiratory virus. it saves billions of dollars.

that is a for-profit company. the second one is very likely to have the first real improvement in the treatment of sickle cell anemia and the last 40 years which will save hundreds of millions of dollars in hospitalization. i am not one of those people who believes that profit in health care is always better. i do think it is not helpful in the insurance industry. i also believe -- that is why i like the obama bill, it is a choice. if you want to be in a single- payer system, if you have that choice. if you like your insurance, you can make that choice. that is why i think barack obama's insurance bill is the bass. applause & boos] >> elizabeth wiley, please?

this is the undecided box, right? >> i am a medical student and a proud member of the american medical student association and i went to medical school because i want certification. i do not want to argue with private insurers and fight to provide care. i applaud your support for a robust public auction. there is an alternative for it as representative weiner's plan that will be offered that offers a single-payer option and i'm wondering if you will support that. [applause] >> i don't know. it will depend upon what it takes to get the best bill that we can out of the house. i am sorry that i cannot be more specific than that. i will work with the leadership

to get the best bill we can. i used to be a sponsor of chairman john conyers judiciary committee. i used to be a co-sponsor of his bill. now that we have a bill and that the white house has endorsed, my inclination is to support that bill. [applause] bob, from alexandria? bob from alexandria? i think this is the anti box. we'll only have time for two or three questions of the most. >> do you want to check my id? because i sit over there, it does not mean i agree with everything that everybody says. i did want to take the time to thank you for doing this. it has been a tough crowd. [applause] >> thank you. >> i also want to point out that

it is part of your job and it is what we sent you to washington to do. >> that is right. >> anyway, i appreciate it. >> i am not complaining. i am honored to represent this area. [applause] >> as one of your constituents, i wish you would have held this closer to my house in alexandria. understanding the way things are, i will ask my question. >> most of my town hall meetings have been held in alexandria and i am trying to be fair to the rest in population. [applause] >> congress deals with medicare costs like cutting fees to physicians and cannot otherwise seem to control the cost of the program. by the way, the question about the deficit of medicare, if you required the government to use the same accounting methods that require public companies to use

for their pension system, it would be in the red. why should i trust congress and the government to run a national health-care plan and be able to control the costs? [applause] >> there will clearly be people who do not trust that the government is going to be able to operate the public clamor option in an effective and efficient manner. they don't need to enroll in the public plan. the fact is, the public plan will be paid for. that is the way it is set up so that the revenues that come in will pay for its expenditures.

it will be self-supporting. people like you, who don't trust the government to that, i would not think that you would want to enroll in the public plan. there is a gentleman here who has made a point of maiming one government program that is well- run. the fact is, when i go around -- when i have an opportunity to visit other countries, unless it is the first world, europe, canada, other governments are relatively corrupt. they run the gamut but the fact is we have the largest civil service system that is the least

corruptible. [applause] we have mechanisms if there has been corruption. let me give you an example of government programs that, first of all, the military as a government program. [applause] and when, over the last eight years, there was a decided effort to privatize military operations -- sir, we don't want that kind of stuff. maybe you want to move the chair or something. when we tried to privatize in the last administration, we found that there are many government contractors in iraq than there were government military and most of the abuses were committed by contractors.

[applause] i work with the contract is very close because we have a lot of them in northern virginia. the reality is that firms like black water and halliburton and so on ripped off the government. when soldiers come home, i don't know any family -- ma'am, please, i don't know any family that has a wounded warrior who does not want them going through the veterans administration. the va is not perfect. because we put a lot of money and we have good people, it provides good medical care for our veterans. that is a socialized medicine system. [applause]