>> outside senator ted kennedy's home in massachusetts, awaiting to bring his body to boston to the kennedy library and museum around 4:00 p.m. eastern. we will have that live as well. as well as the beginning of the 8zceremony where he will lie in repose beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and on friday, the memorial service at 7:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow. on saturday, the funeral ceremony in a boston church beginning in 10:30 a.m. eaog and burial at arlington national sarin nerve -- cemetery at 5:30 p.m. eastern on saturday. all of that here on c-span and cnn radio as well. . . -- and c-span and radio as well. . .

. .

another look live at inside the kennedy compound in hyannis port, massachusetts. we are awaiting the start of the medicaid that will alive at boston around 4:00 p.m. eastern. -- we are awaiting the start of the motorcade that will arrive in boston.

>> this is inside the kennedy compound in hyannis port, massachusetts. the motorcade is taking senator kennedy's body to boston.

this will take a couple of hours because they will pass sites along senator kennedy's career, are arriving in boston around 4:00 p.m. eastern. during the motorcade, 'the los angeles *" reports that the motorcade will pass by st. stephen's church where his mother was baptized. -- "the los angeles times" reports. they will ring a bell 47 times in honor of senator kennedy's logger service in the u.s. senate. -- his longer service in the u.s. senate.

this scene is outside the kennedy compound in hyannis

port. the media gathered waiting for the start of the motorcade which was scheduled for 1:00 and they moved it back to 12:30. we wait for the start of that. it is still expected to arrive at the john f. kennedy library in boston around 4:00 p.m. eastern.

military honor guard waiting inside the kennedy compound. senator kennedy served in the army in the 1950's. he will be buried sunday at arlington national cemetery. 5:30 eastern next to where his brothers are verity -- next where his brothers are buried. we will have live coverage of that on c-span as well.

>> this is inside the kennedy compound. we are awaiting the start of the motorcade that will bring senator kennedy's body to boston. it is expected to arrive at 4:00

p.m. eastern at the john f. kennedy museum in boston and lying in repose beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern. live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern. a memorial service would senators kerry and john mccain expected to speak. the mass will be held at the lady of perpetual help at 10:30 a.m. in boston. president obama will deliver the eulogy and former presidents will be in attendance. news reports indicate that. the burial will be saturday afternoon at 5:00 p.m. eastern at arlington national cemetery. we will bring you live coverage.

>> we are awaiting the start of the motorcade of ted kennedy who died tuesday of brain cancer. the motorcade to take him from hyannis port to boston where his body will lie in repose beginning at 6:00 p.m. east team. earlier this morning we talked

about the progress, how about how the seat will be filled in the absence of senator kennedy. >> he is a longtime observer of congress. this question came up a lot following the election of barack obama with a number of the senate vacancies in delaware and new york. there seems to be no mandate into what states should be doing. is there? >> states have some discretion in this regard. the constitutional provision state legislatures to give their governors the authority to make temporary special appointments until an election is held. that has been the pattern since

the passage of the amendment providing for the direct election of senators, at the 17th amendment. and was the practice before that when the legislature was out of session and there was a vacancy in the senate seat. the governor would often make a temporary point, so that was the norm. but states have the authority to forgo that temporary appointment and keep the seat vacant until a special election can be held. several states do just that, including in the immediate case of the commonwealth of massachusetts. >> let me ask you about that. right now under the current law, there would be a primary general

election in january and during this five--- during this five months, we are facing whether or not the law should be changed to appoint an interim senator. what is the history behind the change in the law? >> that is what makes it so politically awkward for the democrats right now. in 2004, mitt romney was governor of massachusetts. john kerry was the democratic nominee for president. democrats worry that if kerry would be elected president, mitt romney would appoint a republican to serve in kerry's seat until the next election. therefore, they changed the law prohibiting any temporary appointments by the governor, specifying the general election

was to be held between 145 and 160 days after a vacancy is created in the senate seat. now as you indicated, there is a lot of talk about changing along -- changing the law to go back to what had been the previous practice. the governor certainly favor is that, but some democratic leaders in the legislature are a little reluctant, since it looks so transparently an effort to help democrats get someone in that seat during be critical legislative period this fall. host: this is the head line with the question "who is in line to take the lion's seat?

according to a congressional research service, the gubernatorial appointments to fill these vacancies in place in 41 states. state law requiring special elections include massachusetts, oregon and wisconsin. and other states including hawaii and wyoming, the government chooses a temporary senator from the names submitted from the committee. and arizona are requiring that senators be of the same party as pryor incumbents. oklahoma allows a person only in limited circumstances. alaska passed a law providing for special election, but right now the current status remains unclear. guest: is exactly right. you can see the diversity in our federal system. -- that is exactly right.

the states have the power to use or not use this special appointment power and condition at -- conditionit in the case, the appointee must be in the same party or nominated by that party central committee. certainly the most common practice is to allow for those appointments by the governor, that has been the practice. there have been 180 for such appointments since 1913. and this year we have seen a number of appointments. some like illinois have been very controversial, and even new york state for lorraine hillary

clinton's they the same was controversialf. wasilling hillary clinton's vacancy was controversial. -- filling hillary clinton's vacancy was controversial. host: does this have any political impact on healthcare? guest: potentially, it was never clear democrats could marshal all 60 who causus on a vote. there are some moderate conservative democrats like ben nelson of nebraska who might not have gone along, but it is seen as potentially pivotal. it could come down to a single votes, and therefore democrats

are very concerned about getting that seat filled as quickly as possible. host: senior fellow at the brookings institution with some background on states and their role in filling vacancies. thank you for being with us. guest: happy to be with you. >> that conversation from this morning's "washington journal." we're back live in hyannis port, mass., awaiting departure of the motorcade heading to boston. it is expected to arrive in boston at 4:00 p.m. eastern. senator kennedy paused body will lie in repose beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern at the john f. kennedy library. on friday there will be a memorial service at 7:00 p.m. eastern.

senator john kerry and john mccain are expected to memorialize senator kennedy. our coverage begins at 10:00 p.m. eastern on saturday morning. the president will speak at that and he will deliver the eulogy. former presidents will be in attendance as well. the burial at arlington cemetery later at 5:30 p.m. eastern. all of that live here on c-span.

>> the motorcade for senator kennedy should depart shortly. he died tuesday at age 77 of brain cancer. "wall street journal" writes mr. kennedy was the only one of his brothers to die of natural causes. his two brothers were he will be buried alongside them saturday. his oldest brother joseph kennedy jr. died in world war ii. we will have live coverage of that ceremony at arlington national 5:30 p.m. on saturday. the day starts with the funeral services in boston at 10:30 p.m.

-- at 10:30 a.m. eastern.

. . .

>> does casket bearing -- the casket bearing ted kennedy has been loaded into the hearse. the estimated arrival at the john f. kennedy library is for 4:00 p.m. eastern. in memorial service set for 7:00 on friday night, which we will cover it live. senators john kerry and john mccain will speak at the memorial service tomorrow, friday night, at 7:00. the funeral service saturday at boston. that is slide as well on c-span. president obama will speak it delivered the eulogy. the burial at arlington national cemetery later on saturday. that is scheduled for 5:30 p.m.

to go the motorcade bearing ted kennedy's body heads down, making its way to boston. earlier the medicaid expected to arrive in boston at about 4:00 p.m. eastern. that may change. we do know his body will lie in repose at the john f. kennedy library museum this evening beginning at 6:00 p.m.. our coverage continues later today with more evens from boston. on friday the memorial service. senators kerry and mccain will speak. coverage starts at 10:30 eastern. the eulogy by president obama and a burial at arlington national cemetery at 5:30 p.m. eastern. as washington and the nation continue to focus on health care, send it on c-span we will talk about dealing with the h1n1

swine flu virus with thomas -- dr. thomas friedman. onto neck, a look inside the hospital system with dr. john garrett. as the debate over health care continues, cspan's healthcare had is the key resource. watch the latest events, including town hall meetings and share your thoughts on the issue with your own citizen video, including video from any town halls you have gone too. there is more. >> year is one of the town hall meetings with virginia democrat, gerry connolly. this is just outside of washington, d.c. this runs about two hours.

>> good afternoon, everyone. i cannot figure out how to get this many people to my meetings. [laughter] i do want to welcome everyone here today. certainly congressman, nearly -- certainly congressman connelly. we find ourselves as a community very often right in the middle of some of these discussions and debates and part of the political process. it is a very exciting place to be. i have no doubt that today will be a model for how to do one of these comet to have one of these discussions and a town hall meeting that others will try to duplicate. thank you for your stability in courtesy to each other as we do this today. we are going to have some really great presentations, but the end we will have plenty of time for questions and the answers. we love of microphone in the

front. there will also be eroded microphone if you cannot get out of your seat. we will have people who can bring a microphone to you. we do ask that everyone keep their questions to 30 seconds because we imagine there will be many questions, and we want to make sure we have time for everyone. we will get started. but the introduced george polk -- burk. [applause] >> health care reform is an important issue that impacts every american, and particularly important for all of this gathered here today. there are lists circulated and many legitimate concerns about questions about health care reform. today we want to try to address your concerns and your questions. we thank all of you who chose to attend today's health-care forum and we apologize to those who

could not get into to the physical where magicians of the venue. as we opened the meeting, the congressman will deliver brief remarks, then i will hand over the microphone to the congressmen, and they will field your question for the next hour and a half. there are two microphones and audience. if you prefer to stay seated, steve elliott will have a roving microphone. just raise your hand and he will find you. we hope you will limit your questions to 30 seconds. what we understand that we have guests here in the room today, and certainly there will come, we would ask that you refrain from asking any questions of the panel, and at least hold those

questions until virtually every green spring resident has an opportunity to ask theirs. we think it is important. we have guests and we want to make sure that you have the opportunity ask your congressman and these distinguished panelists who i will introduce shortly, the questions. if your question is not answered, there will be index cards that will be passed out to anyone who has won we ask that you put your name and address on the no car. i hope we get through this, but looking at the room, it may be tough. it is my pleasure to introduced someone who most of you already know, gerry connolly. the last five years he has been

built on the board at the largest district. he championed an aggressive agenda that earned fairfax county the moniker of best- managed large county in the nation. i think many of you already know that. he has a long record of achievement on many issues, including those affecting seniors. since taking office in january, he has already earned a reputation as an expert on state and local government issues and on budget issues. he was recently recognized by a national magazine for his work on issues concerning the federal work force. recently he was elected president of the freshman class in congress. without further ado, i did you congressman gerry connolly. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. and i am irish, and i cannot

resist telling a story about mrs. murphy. she was riding around in driving too fast in a residential zone. she was stopped by a very young police officer three weeks out of the economy, and he stopped her and said man, you were going 50 miles an hour and a 25 mile an hour zone. what do you have to say for yourself? i need to see your license. she looked up at him and said, i do not have one. he said i will have to see the car registration. she said it is a stolen vehicle. he said i would like you to open the trunk. she said you did not want to do that, there is a dead body in there. he was flustered and called it back up. the sergeant came down and said i need to see your license. she said no problem, and here it is. she hands and the license. she said what about the vehicle registration. she said it is right here in the glove compartment.

he said open the trunk please. she said sure and it's clean as a whistle. he came back and said i do not understand you told my young officer you did not have a license. the car was stolen and it was a dead body in the trunk. she looked up with this we irish face and said i bet he said i was speeding, too, didn't he? the irish always thinking. thank you for giving us such a warm welcome as you always do. and i am a familiar place -- face. of course, now in congress. you need to know that your congressman has not endorsed any bill. have not said i'd like this bill or that bill. in fact, i have raised concerns.

there are three bills that need to be reconciled and house of representatives, so we do not have a final draft, but the working draft we're all looking at is this one. in case you want to know, did i read the bill, i took notes. i have read a lot. i have read hundreds of articles. i am reading a great book. i recommend it. i have gone through lots of briefings and other things trying to make sure i am educated in health-care and looking at all the right issues. i have concerns about the funding of the bill in nature of coverage. i have concerns about some of the reforms. when i look at health care reform, let me just share with you what i start with and maybe you do, too. all a lot of us like the coverage we have now, and by the way, how many in this room, medicare? [applause]

[laughter] i know the republic increasing capital and those that is a federal program. a lot of us have medicare. i just talked to my dad. who said i have been using medicare for 17 years. he and my mother are in frail health and have been great consumers of health care. he said to me, and they do not know if this is your experience, but he said in 17 years of being a consumer of medicare, not once have they made a mistake not once have they failed to make the payments they required to make. i am happy customer. this is important feedback to get from my dad, who as i said is a big consumer of health care. i think if you look at the economics of health care, we are in trouble. it is costing too much.

we spend $7,000 per person per year on health care in the united states. that is twice the median of all the other industrialized countries. we are king twice what they are paying. we are now spending -- in 1960 when i was 10, and john kennedy was elected president, we spend 5% are broke -- of our gross domestic product in health care. now we're spending 18%. by the time i am 100, we will be spending 48%, almost half of our economy on health care. that is not sustainable. you had even seen in medicare payments, in terms of premiums. medicare premiums are going up at 10% per year. it is taking a bigger bite of bader seniors in comes. -- bit out oe out of senior's incomes.

insurance companies' profits have gone up 38%. i want to look at three things. there are lots of the ticket this we will talk about today. i want to make sure that the 47 million americans who do not have health care coverage, and by the way, you and i are concerned about that not just for humanitarian reasons. they represent a tax on you and me. what health care debate result to if they do not have insurance? they go to the emergency room. uncompensated care in america cost $43 billion. you and i pay that tax. now, -- i want to address the 47 million who do not have health care coverage, to bring them into the system and that can help lower cost by having a bigger risk pools. the second thing i want to do is having meaningful cost of health care reform. let's start with medicare. i want to close the doughnut

hole on prescription drugs. i want to make sure all of our seniors have access to the medications they need and that no one in america over 55 or 65 casta make this terrible decision, to lead by a meal or the prescription drugs that i need? yew instead both the there are some specialized prescription drugs that cost a lot of money. i want to make sure a catastrophic illness does not bankrupt families in america. in our district alone, the 11th congressional district, last year, 1430 families filed for bankruptcy because of health care costs. any family in america, young or old, could be one accident or one illness away from catastrophic health care costs. capping health-care -- catastrophic costs so that the family is forced into that position is an important reform. portability of health care insurance is an important reform.

preventing insurers from cherry picking from existing conditions. you and i are of a certain age. a lot of my staff, some of whom are in this room are in their 20's. when i say to them is if you are lucky enough, everyone in america will have a previous existing condition. as we get old, we develop conditions. some are more serious than others, but let me tell you 45% of all insured americans have a previous condition. my wife is a diabetic. to develop diabetes because of asthma attack. they put her on the drug that trigger diabetes. it costs a lot of money to maintain her health. as she gets older, it will get more aggravated. we care a lot about the previous existing condition. millions of americans face the

same thing. all too frequently, insurers have actually exercised rationing by denying coverage for the previous pre-existing condition. we need of reform that will end and make that illegal. believe me, the insurers can afford it if their profits have gone up. the third thing that i want to see is that over time we get control of the long-term health care curb. so the cost to the families in america and federal government comes down. so that health care is more affordable for businesses. let me give an example. the cost of doing nothing is the costs continue to rise and more and more americans cannot access the health care they need. let's take small businesses. maybe most of the people in this room are not running a small

business that you know someone who is. 60% of small businesses just 10 years ago provided health-care coverage to their employers -- employees. today it is only 5 percent said. -- 5%. if we do nothing, the cost will get to 2.4 trillion dollars. what that means is we will have probably less than 35% of small businesses providing health-care coverage to their employees in 10 years. if we do nothing. i want to make sure that whatever we're talking about in terms of health care reform do those three things. let me make one pledge to you. i will not vote for any health- care bill that in any way shape or form does any harm to medicare. and [applause] thank you. i think that is an important principle. i want to vote for a health-care bill that improves medicare by

closing the dhunna hold on prescription drugs, and by the way, that allows us to pursue preventive health care. the draft bill keira, for example, would eliminate the co- payments for people who going to see their doctor for preventive health care. the more we can focus on preventive care we can effectuate savings and the long run. i have an open mind. i am here today to share with you into also listen to you. i know we're going to do that in a civil and respectful way. when we're finished, and you see the cameras in the press, hopefully the residents will show the rest of america how litani -- have a town meeting should be held. -- how a town meetings should be held. i cannot think you enough in advance. thank you for having me here today. [applause]

>> it is now my privilege to introduce barbara kennelly. she is president and chief executive officer at the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. mrs. donnelley has spent 25 years in public service at the local, state, and federal levels, including 17 years as a member of congress from connecticut. she is a former ranking member of the house ways and means committee, subcommittee on social security. she was the first woman to serve as chief majority whip in the u.s. house of representatives. she is also the first woman to serve on the house committee on intelligence. throughout her career she has advocated for social security, medicare, and other health and retirement issues. it is one other reasons we have her with us today. after leaving congress, she served as counselor to the commissioner of the social

security administration. she served on the 2006 white house conference on aging, and in 2006 she was appointed to the social security advisory board. i would suggest she knows her stuff. without further ado, let me give you congresswoman barbara kennelly. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for having me to this beautiful facility. and talking about know your stuff commodore congressman certainly knows his stuff. i've had been at a number of town hall meetings, and to hear him go through that bill is just music to my years. -- to my ears. we have 4 million members and supporters. they come from all walks of life, that the one common thing they have is their absolute passion about social security and medicare.

before i get into medicare, and i will not speak that long, because i know the questions you want to ask, i just want to mention social security. i think some of you remember when president bush decided he wanted to privatize all security. as a matter of fact, it was not a good idea. i went around the country talking to our members, and i would have audience is similar to this and they knew their social security was not going to have anything happen to it. it was safe. but they might have a daughter who is 47 years old and things had not gone too well, and they knew that daughter we need so security. every time the president would go to a town hall meeting, it grew and grew people -- it came to the people that it was not a good idea. i have people say to me all the time, if you do not have to worry about social security. i have to tell you something, we do have to worry about social security. the reason we do is the deficit that we have in this country and

the people that were against social security in 1935 of the same people who are for privatization and now they're saying, which that deficit the size that it is, and it is big, we cannot afford social security and medicare. that is absolutely not the truth. it is not social security that caused the deficit. as i recall, we all pay into that every single paycheck. let me get on now to medicare. do we have serious problems with medicare? if yes, we do. -- yes, we do. the fact of the matter is that medicare is a health care program. it is not immune to what is happening and what the congressman was talking about, the high inflation rate continues for help. we have to remember that medicare uses the same hospitals, doctors, same mri facilities.

although it is efficient, and it is not perfect, but certainly a lifeline, although it is as efficient as it can be, it cannot pull the tide of inflation. it is awfully important that any health care reform bill strengthens medicare and certainly does not weaken it. like the congressman, we have not taken a position on health care reform. do i want health care reform clucks of course i do. -- do i want health care reform? of course i do. let's go over to the senate. senator kennedy's health education labor and pension committee. they have the bill i love. i love it. but it is very expensive. let's talk about the finance

committee. those six senators must just love each other, because the meat and meat and they do not tell us what they're doing. that is why i cannot endorse a bill, and that is what the congressman cannot endorse a bill because we do not know what the bill is going to look like. remember, the house bill that is voted on the floor and the senate bill, then it goes to conference. i remember in 2003 when we had the medicare modernization act where we had pardet d, that came out of conference and i did not recognize the bill. a totally changed. that is why we're holding off. in my organization, for the last 25 years we have been protecting medicare and fighting against medicare cuts. we're certainly not want to stop now. -- not ogingoing to stop now.

i promise you if we do not do health care in conjunction with the crater, a broader health care situation down the line the only place you will be able to cut inflation, the only place because the only place the government has control over is medicare. what i am saying to you and my message today is, do not be against any medicare reform, because unless we do with the whole health care system, we will be out on a whim, and what they call it, they kycall it entitlement reform. that situation will start in the budget committee, and am i glad that this congressman belongs to the budget committee. he understands how important medicare is. he also understands we can be

very arrogant. we act like parcels a security system is the most generous one in the world. let me tell you something. the average social security check for a year is $13,800. let's not try to cut that too much. let's talk a minute before i finish about the $500 billion that we read that is coming at of medicare. i have to tell you that some of the $500 billion is really glad to help medicare because come january, if the congress does not act, the doctors will be cut -- what they get for servicing a medicare patient will be cut by 21 percent said. you know darn well if that is 21% for medicare, any doctor i know will look at the private person not on medicare. that is why we have to keep thinking about what we're doing. the donut holes, no insurance

policy has a doughnut hole, and we should not have it in medicare. the good news is is the house bill close the doughnut hole. the bad news is it takes 14 years to close it down a whole. what has happened is very interesting. the drug companies have put on the table $80 billion to say we will get 50% discount for nay brunn's -- 4 name brands when you're in the doughnut hole. obviously they are making a lot of money. we have to look at closing that doughnut hole. some people get in it and it is so hard to get out, you never get out. it improves benefits for low- income people. is it perfect? of course it is not. we fought very hard to have

annual out-of-pocket expenses capped. that is what you have in private insurance, not medicare. i have to tell you something. i think when we get older we need help. so the bills are not perfect, but my message to you is do not close the door on health care reform because medicare will be left out there hanging. you are looking at a woman's right now coup was in the congress in 1994 -- right now to was in the congress in 1994. over at the white house they wrote the bill. it was incredibly complicated bill and they waited too long to show it to the congress and the congress was upset because they had not seen it and it was too complicated. the insurance companies hated it. let me tell you something, i represented hartford connecticut four years.

the insurance car capital -- the insurance capital. before 1965 they would not touch anyone 65 and older. guess why? because if you're older 65 you have more claims. but when the 65 legislation was passed, all of those over 65 were put in a pool so there was risk sharing. that is what the program has worked. that is what we have to continue to do. are the insurance companies happy about this bill? of course not. they put something like $155 billion on the table, but they even know if this time the inflation for health care insurance has gotten so high that it is absolutely impossible for many people to afford it. i stand here as a woman, who by the way, voted for the bill out of ways and means. people forget there was a vote. i voted for the bill because i

could see what was coming. let me tell you something, the insurance companies never forgave me. let's stick with health care. before i finish, i was a politician for years. i understand why the opposing party is having a fit about this bill. they were in control for 12 years and it is hard to go out of control. they do not have a plan of their own, but the thing is coming down the road we need health care reform. if we want to keep medicare strong we have to have a good bill, and you have a good congressman who will help that happen. [applause] >> thank you. built patio has served as the state director for virginia since 1995. -- bill palio.

he has been with aarp for more than 21 years. he first served as a senior program specialist in a a rarp' program division. later she served as legislative representative where he's organized the federal advocacy activities and developed grass- roots activities in six states. on behalf of aarp let me introduce bill palio. >> thank you. think you all for coming to the meeting. i usually start with an opener that will not work with this crowd. basically when you got into the rest of virginia, i can say to

those of you will have not noticed, there is a major demographic shift going on in the commonwealth of virginia. the old dominion is getting older. it is true. let me show -- let me share data. by 2020, 20% will be over 65. the virginia retirement population by 2030 will be much like florida's today. things are changing. that means the way we age today probably will not be the same as the way we age before. and we ask this question, are we ready for this age wade? -- age wave? will you have saved enough money. will people worked long perplexed if they want to work longer, will the types of jobs there looking for the available? how are we going to stretch

health care dollars, and how are we going to develop the work force we need to deliver all of the health care? what about our communities? are the little ball for people who want to stay in their homes and communities as long as possible? how will we deliver those services to those cantankerous boomers who have their own way of doing everything. these are some of the questions we are addressing today. years ago as we were looking at the tsunami of aging we tried to focus on the major issues that we need to be thinking about today to prepare as for the future. two issues emerged that we call divide we fail. those issues were lifelong health and financial security. i want to take a little bit of time on the financial security, but not of lot. we know that retirement security is built like a school. basically you have social security at the base, you have

pensions if you are lucky enough to develop a pension director lifetime, and then you have savings and investments. unfortunately, each one of these lakes on the stool have gone a bit wobbly over the years. many believe that work might be the only alternative that many people face in retirement. with savings at an all-time low, and thus nips -- investments declining, savings will become much more important. and in britain yet, over 1,161,000 citizens receive social security benefits. -- in virginia. half of those, 65 and older rely on some security for at least half if not more than half of their income. and one at of 4 rely on social security for all of their

retirement income. we need to get that going again, because this program is going to be much more important in the future. we need to look at the system, we need to make sure it can deliver 100%. switching to health care. we know our health care system needs improvement. we feel it cost too much, at least to many people out, does not always deliver the costly one for the dollars we're spending. we need to reform the rules, the way we deliver health care and how we pay for it. well you and other citizens are the only people who have access to universal health care coverage, it is the problems in the entire health-care system that really threaten the financial stability and viability of medicare as we move into the future. aarp is committed to working for comprehensive health-care reform

in a way that protects and improves medicare, expands access to those who have no health insurance, slows down runaway medical costs, and improves the quality we received no matter where you are in the system. that is a pretty tall order. it certainly is not one to be easy. there is certainly no silver bullet to solve the problem. but we believe that if we all work together, and if congress can move beyond partisanship, we can find meaningful, common sense solutions that are good for every generation of society. we're in the middle of the debate right now, opinions are strong. i have been to a number of meetings where there have been very strong opinions but citizens are engaged, and that is good. hopefully congress will pass legislation that moves us and the right direction. we have to get this job done. the cost of doing nothing is way too high. at this point we have not

endorsed any of the bills moving through the house or the senate. we're very much where it other individuals are. we're looking at certain things we would like to see in health care reform. the final bill that we might endorse will probably have the best things in there for fourth are members and for society in general. -- for both our members and for society in general. there are still some who do not want to see any change in our health-care system, and they have been spreading of lot of misinformation, which cause the debate and does not solve the problem. i would like to focus on some of the mixed right now. i would like to share with you our viewpoint on three of the most common myths that we encounter. they are that health care reform will hurt medicare, we cannot afford it, and health care reform means rations.

let's take a look at health care reform. none of the proposals we have looked at would cut medicare benefits or increase the out-of- pocket costs for medicare services. it just is not there. as a matter of fact, we believe it done right, health care reform can lower prescription drug costs for people in medicare part d, close the doughnut hole, better protect seniors access to the doctor of their choice, which is being eliminated because of dr. reimbursement rates, it reduced the rates of preventive services so you can stay healthy and save money by providing new services that reduce unnecessary and preventable hospital remissions. we would like to dialogue with you about this, but that is what we see. health-care reform will

strengthen the financial status of the entire medicare program. and what about not affording health care reform? both the president and congress have committed to producing legislation that will be paid for. it was not saddled our children and grandchildren with unnecessary debt. it can be done if we do it right, but we have to hold the president and congress accountable to answer that question. do not forget, as research for that answer the cost of doing nothing is also really, really high. if we do nothing to fix health care, families with medicare and employer-based health-care coverage will likely see their premiums nearly double again in the next seven years. that means a greater share of our take-home pay goes to pay for health care every year. and it grows at a rate that outpaces both inflation and

wages. we have a chance to make real changes and slow down growth, but at the same time improving the overall quality of health care system. we cannot afford not to reform health care. finally, health care reforms means rationing. this one has been kicked around for awhile. none of the health-care proposals we have seen it being considered by congress would stand between individuals and their doctors or prevent americans from choosing the best possible care. health care reform will not give the government the power to make life and death decisions, regardless of a person's age. the decisions will still be made by the individual, their doctor, and their family. health care reform will insurer that medicare doctors are paid fairly so they can continue to

treat medicare patients. health care reform is not about rationing. it is about giving people the peace of mind of knowing that they can keep their doctors and always have the choice of health plans that they want. it is about guaranteeing that you will not be discriminated against because of your age or your pre-existing condition. it is about introducing more choice and competition so that consumers can use their buying power to better control costs and get more, not less health care for their dollar. there are several real and difficult choices that need to be made, and we need to consider how to do those best. we do not need to get the verdict by misinformation which takes us away from the real issues. there are real issues that i hope will be discussed today. keep in mind, when one of the three americans see someone in their families get pills due to

cost, when countless bankruptcies are related to medicare expenses, when the number of the uninsured approach as 50 million, when government is betting on health care rises -- health-care costs rising so rapidly that it threatens other things in the budget, the fact is we cannot afford to fix our health care system. we pledge to cut through the noise and find the facts about what health care reform means for you and your family. i hope you join us. if we work together and work in a bipartisan way, together i think we can make it better. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. the next guest is the former national legislative chair for the virginia chapters of narf.

he worked for many years, 33 years total for the department of agriculture, including the foreign agricultural service. he joined narf in august 1995 and has served as national legislative chair for the springfield chapter, president of the springfield chapter, and national legislative chair for the statewide virginia federation of chapters. he also chaired the legislative committee for narf's legislative committees. [applause] >> thank you. narf has a laundry list of issues. you will find them outlined in

this brochure that is out on the table in the back in the lobby. i was wondering how much i would be boring you if i went through some of them last week when george burke had the insight to call and say do not talk about that. talk about health care. that is what we will stick with. and how we view the current health care reform activity. >> a [inaudible] >> coup in here is a member -- who in here is a member of narf? how many are federal retirees? a larger percentage. let me say that we do not have, like our other panelists have

said the same, a current position on health care reform because there is no specific health care reform position to have a position on. you have seen the phone book congressman connelly wave at you whip check represents the -- which represents the house bill. i hit the senate finance committee bill, when there is one, will be smaller and more streamlined -- i hear the senate finance committee bill, when there is one, will be smaller and more streamlined. narf's health care attitude primarily is that it is not going to affect us terribly much in terms of the current bills we have seen. most federal retirees can take their health insurance plans into retirement with them, and after they turn 65, they can combine them with medicare and

medicaid, and so the health care reform measures which are aimed at covering the uninsured people have very little effect on us, but there are many issues that we have. for one thing, we support premium conversion, this is a benefit federal employees have, which allows them to pay for the health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars, and retirees do not have that benefit. i am trying to get that measure attached to the health care reform bills. congressman connelly supports a separate standalone builill, but that is a long-standing issue, and certainly will be affected

by the overall question of whether the -- of whether to tax the value of employer-paid health-insurance premiums. we certainly favor ending the doughnut hole. you have heard a lot about this. i assume everyone knows what this is. we favor expanding coverage for seasonal federal workers through the employee mandate. we favor expanded medicaid eligibility, but the problem there is how it is going to get paid for. we favor affordability credits for low-income workers and retirees, which are included in the house bill. and increasing the health insurance age cutoff for coverage of dependent children to 26.

it -- at our last convention be included -- the included the recommendation that age cut off raise to 25. we're glad to see it is 26 and the senate health bill. we are concerned, as they said, about taxing workers and retirees on the value of employer-sponsored health insurance, and would oppose it. it is currently not part of any of the three bills, but certainly has been talked about and talked about in the senate finance committee. it is a cloud on the horizon that we're watching. we are concerned about opening the federal employee health benefits program to non- civilians. this is another measure that has not been included in any bills yet. had has been talked about considerably for the next -- last few years. our position is that we would

not oppose it is separate risk pools were maintained. we're concerned about the effects of reform on employers and health insurance carriers. the combination of a public plan option, taxation of health insurance, benefit packages, for example, could affect employers ability to offer competition and plan choices such as we now have under the federal employees health benefits program. as far as enhancing long-term health insurance, we do not see the house and senate bills do very much at all for the current proposals. the prospects of slowing the growth of medicare and medicaid payments for providers worries us, because i believe it was the congressman who mentioned the fact that if we cut back on

provider payments, we will see them back out of medicaid programs. that is a short summary of our non-position on health care reform. i will wrap it up, and we can open questions. [applause] >> thank you. i'm going to hand this meeting over to the guy you really want to talk to, congressman connelly. i may come back at the end when we have to cut it off and leave the room. we are doing something slightly different in order to get as many questions as possible, steve will be on this side with a microphone. sharon is on this side with a microphone. rather than people moving all around the room and get to microphones, we will come to you. we think that will expedite things and make it happen quicker. without further ado,

congressman, the floor is yours. [applause] >> can you hear me? to be fair to the residence, this is a residence for and, we're going to take questions first from the residence. there are about 400 of us in this room. we want to be fair to residents. i know we have outside guests, and if we could get questions from them, we certainly will. let's start over here. give us your name please >. >> i am a resident at green's spring. i have concerns of a charred 3200 -- hr3200. i am opposed to this.

i do not want to read it all -- >> why don't you tell us the subject. >> it deals with readmission procedures, and there will be no judicial review. the secretary of hss is above the courts. if your doctor recommends you need to go back into the hospital after a state that existed prior -- a stay that existed prior, the secretary will make the decision and not your doctor. i oppose that. page 239. the government will limit and reduce fiscal services for medicaid and seniors. i oppose that. andhr3200 -- hr3200 -- i have

seven questions here. >> we have lots of people with lots of concerns, if you want to get me the details i will be glad to take them through consideration. on the problem every admission, let me say that one of the things i think the bill is trying to get at is that a very high percentage of people who are discharged from hospital end up being readmitted within 30 days. it very high percentage. one of the reasons is because of infections that they got in the hospital or that the treatment was not adequate. . .

>> let me introduce debi troutman, a senior member of the congressional staff and has been part of the process of reversing this draft on the staff level. by the way, is a nurse herself. do you want to comment on the provision itself? >> thank you, it is a pleasure to be here. miami nurse and i am happy to be here and talk to you about health care reform and to see so many of you here to comment -- so many of you here. to comment about this, what we are trying to do is improve the quality of health care. we heard a story that is not unfamiliar to many of you in the room, but there is an 82-year-

old gentleman who had come in the hospital and his wife had recently died. for six months he was on his own and he was discharged from hospital on a different and -- eight different medications and was required to follow up with five different doctors. he could not do it. his wife was his primary support. he ended up having to come back into the hospital. we do not want to prevent that man from getting care. we want to make sure that never happens. so the hospital has responsibility before he goes home to make sure that his care is coordinated, to make sure that he can get the prescription medications that he wants and that he is able to get assistance to the follow-up services. the language in the bill is intended to prevent that type of situation from happening and it is all about trying to better coordinate care and have hospitals be more responsive all. >> thank you. and i read, we will take the other six you have got and get back to you on that.

-- irene, we will together six you have got and get back to you on that. >> my name is michelle marcoses and i am a former fda employee. my question is about the insurance companies, they pay a lot of money to buy votes in congress and i think maybe something like the mccain-fine gold might be applicable to set limits that could be burned with your money. >> the question was, the insurance companies, aren't they making a lot of money and are they also spreading a lot of lobbying money to members of congress? clearly, the insurance industry does not want competition. clearly the insurance company is benefiting from the system right

now. the way they're doing that is, frankly, the denial of care. we just talked a little bit about rationing during the bill does not ration health care. the fact of the matter is, though, if you had to be exposed to private insurers, you know that they very frequently denied care and they are frequently whimsical, with capricious reasons and they jeopardize lives, in some cases. i repeat a statistic, the profit of the insurance industry, the top 10 in jurors in the country that dominate 90% of the market went up 428% last year. they are doing fine. but the way they did that is by jumping up premiums, jumping up deductibles, designing less carrot in the claims anna increasing -- less care in the claims and increasing deductibles. the pharmaceutical industry went

to the white house and said, ok, i will tell you what, voluntarily, will promise to give you $80 billion to $85 billion in savings. the american hospital association said, ok, we will put $130 billion on the table and -- in savings that we will voluntarily provide. the insurers put in $0 on the table. they need to be heard from. we need to make sure that they are doing their part. and we need to make sure that as we are listening to various voices on this debate, we understand who represents koon. by the way, i want to welcome -- who represents home. by the way, i want toç welcome delegate vivian watts, a former senator. [applause] my former opponent from last year is here today. [applause] a former senator, my friend, jay

o'brien is here. today, where are you? he may have left here -- the j., where are you? he may have left already. [laughter] yes, sir, tell us who you are. >> we have a problem that i cannot understand. most of the industrialized nations have universal health care and they have had it been for many, many years and they are not going broke. how come we have so much trouble with this thing that we talk about? many institutions and people saying we cannot afford it, why is that? other people can afford it. >> what is your name? >> william. >> thank you, what a great question. by the way, there is a great book that just came out last year called "over treated" and she does an economic study to the cost of america -- to

america from an economic standpoint. we spend twice what other nations spend and for that money was alive a good portion of our adult population uncovered. if you look at the health profiles, we are in the middle level. we do not have the best outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality and life span. we are not getting what we are paying for. you would think that spending twice what anyone else is paying would get us gold-plated health care. it does not. the reward system is a fee-for- service system that once the wrong things. there are lots of models in the united states that show us how it could be done, still using the employer-based private insurance system. we're not going to change that. we could make our system a lot more efficient. the draft bill does attend to

effectuate savings in the existing system. for example, just over payments to insurance companies estimated a cost of 100 -- of $77 billion for medicare. i just saw my primary care physician and he told me that his overhead is the enormous. it is at least 30% of what he does. it is just filling out the right people work for everybody. instead of providing health care, and he wants to provide health care and do a lot less paperwork. lot of documents, lots of over treatment, lots of procedures, imaging, all of that stuff that we have to get our arms around in the u.s. to get better outcomes. you looked at the cleveland clinic and others, and they have models that work very well. they have better systems and better outcomes. we can do it here in the united

states based on our system, but more efficient and it is right now. -- then it is right now. >> my name is catherine and i may greenspring resident. thank you to the members of panel -- of the panel for coming today. i am an ordinary american citizen but i have a lot of common sense and from what i know about this hr3200 reform bill, i do not think it passes the smell test. is bad for our personal health and it is bad for the economic health of america. my husband had alzheimer's disease for 10 years. sadly, he died last year, but i have the freedom to talk with his doctor and parses paid -- participate in his treatment. i would lose that right under this bill. some panel of bureaucrats would decide what his treatment would be and whether or not it would be cost effective.

i agree that our american health care needs reform, but we can do lots of things to improve our present health care. i do not think we need to throw out our present health care and have a new government system. i am totally against the government taking it over. [applause] i wanted president obama to succeed, but i am now terrified at the way -- at the direction of this company under president obama, harry reid, and nancy pelosi. [applause] they have spent billions of dollars in the last few months and we areç trillions of dollas in debt. congressman connolly, you are our rep. you represent a week, the people. i employee -- implore you to vote no on this bill and prevent our -- i implore you to vote no on this bill and prevent our company from -- country from sliding further into recession.

>> thank you. first, i am sorry for your loss. my grandmother had alzheimer's and was healthy otherwise. she lived a long time with this debilitating illness that was so devastating, to see someone you love gradually fade away as the person you knew. i have deep empathy for what he went through. but we say that while -- for what you went through. but let me say that all there may be an impression out there, especially for those who watched too much fox news -- i cannot help it, i am a democrat. but there are no panels that are going to tell you or your doctors with a loved one is going to get, suffering, for example, from alzheimer's. there are going to be studies looking at comparative effectiveness so that we know what treatments make sense. let me give an example. we now know that in the treatment of breast cancer, many women -- and maybe there are people in this audience who

suffered from breast cancer -- for many years, the prescribed treatment was a radical mastectomy. which was a devastating surgery for women. and their loved ones, but you know, it involve the removal of the entire breast, lynn clans, muscles. the recovery was long and painful -- lymph glands, muscles, the recovery was long and painful. a study revealed that actually a lumpectomy, removing the growth itself and aggressive chemotherapy and radiation is just as effective, if not more, then the radical mastectomy. we now know more about treatment, prostate cancer treatment, heart treatment. what this bill does is try to make sure that the treatment we are putting out is, in fact, efficacious. it is effective. it is what we need to try to cure the disease or manage the

disease for our loved ones. there is nothing in this bill that creates panels that will supersede this. there is something else that kathleen said that i want to say honestly to this audience, when i asked a little earlier how many of you are on medicare, almost every hand went up. when we ask how many were federal retirees, a lot of hands in this room went up. medicare is a federal program. medicare provides something, and some of you in this audience are old enough to remember when senior citizens have a lot of trouble getting health care coverage in america. medicare in 1965 was a program put in place by a different president and a different congress over lot of opposition. i was a young man in 1964, i high school debater. the topic that year was, does medicare equalize socialized medicine? that was the national topic and

i had to debate both sides of it. do we regret that we instituted medicare? i do not. it has saved lives of senior citizens and has provided quality health care for millions of americans. we need to make sure that it will be there for the next generation as well. that is how i'm going to look at it. i am not committed to any particular bill, but i am committed to making sure that we do -- i agree with you -- we build on the system we have. we are not trying to change it. and we are not going to federalized healthcare in america. but we already have to -- we have to recognize that the federal government already has a strong presence in netiquette -- in health care. it is in medicaid, medicare, veterans' benefits and military. [applause] yes, someone else. i see an old friend. >> welcome to greenspring,

congressman. my name is charles fletcher. i'm a born and bred northern virginian and i am a resident of greensprings i would like to bring just a different tack to this if i may, to this approach to medical reform. the approach is really talking about government control and it is something that concerns many of us. this government control with the new president we have has tendencies leading us to think along the lines of socialism, which is not in the best interest of this country.

>> wait a minute, green springs roles, civility and respect. go ahead, charles. >> thank you. we have found entirely with the type of government control of these things in other countries has not been that successful. we're looking for a form of medical care that will be successful for the type of medicine and great medical care that we have had in this country. we want -- we do not want to destroy it, but to improve it. we need to be very careful in a move that we make, mr. congressman, and we ask you to be very careful as you move in that direction. >> charles, thank you. charles and i go way back. we were both civic leaders in our respective communities and i

am glad to see you again, charles. i think that those are very useful warnings. i do not want to see wholesale change in our health care system in america. i want to see government protect our citizens and try to extend, encourage the extension of coverage and i want to see that through a series of rational incentives that do not entail a government takeover of medical care. the way we would do that, really, is a single payer system. junking everything and move into a single-payer system would be a government takeover of health care in america. although, there are people who believe in that system, and they may be in this room, but there is no legislative proposal is going to pass the house and senate involving a single-payer system. the most we are debating is how much federal regulation will there be to bring down costs and will there be a public option as

one of a number of options available to citizens who are in that pool who do not have health care coverage now. as you know, that is a big debate. the senate does not want a public plan, obviously, but probably the majority in the house, do. that will have to be debated about. i believe that a public plan could bring down the cost of premiums and deductibles and by providing competition and people want to opt out into it. no one can be mandated -- and people want to opt into it. no one can be mandated into it. >> i am millie, and i am a resident of greensprings. we are considered an have been considered to be the greatest

generation. and i think that this generation is kind of afraid of what is coming next. i have several statements to make. this has been a good pep rally for reform of health care and i do not think there is anyone here that would doubt that it needs to be reformed. but whether it needs to be reformed by the government taking it over eventually or not makes the difference. in most of the countries where you find, for example, canada, britain, germany, italy, and some of the other countries where you have found government takeover of health care, -- any place -- from 50% to 70% to require that they opt for getting private insurance also because the government health care does not cover everything that they need. they have to wait, it is

rationed. they have long waiting lists. for example, in germany and in the netherlands, there is a sort of sub rosa form for endç of le consultation. in the netherlands, it is not voluntary can i just add a couple of things? >> really quickly. >> this program, whenever it goes into affect -- whenever it is passed, it go into effect in 2013 and will be revamped every five years. anything that might be passed now could be revised by government control in five years after it goes into effect. we need legal reform. we need portability. there is no doubt we need a catastrophic disease, pre- existing conditions, but many of those things can be done without

government control. >> ok, well, thank you, millie. let me just say that millie has covered a lot of reforms i certainly support. we might disagree about, can we effectuate all of those reforms without legislation? let me just tell you, if the insurance companies wanted to pledge right now that i will never deny coverage on a pre- existing condition, there is nothing stopping them. but they are the ones who are doing just that, and frankly, we have got to have protection for the public. sometimes the government actually plays a positive role in protecting public interest. we're going to ask the question of irrational costs in our system. how come other systems are less expensive and more effective than ours? whatever we do in terms of health care reform, it has to build on the existing system of

private, employer-provided insurance. we have some big federal programs, most of you participate in one of them. but we have a vigorous private insurance program in america. that will remain a model. that is not going to change. we will not have a federal government takeover of health care in america. but we have always had a strong presence of federal involvement in america since social security passed in 1935. can it be more efficient? can it be better? that is what i want to do. i want to make sure that medicare is not only available to all of you in an improved form -- no service changing other than an improvement of those benefits, but i also want to make sure it is there for the next generation, the second greatest generation. >> i have a question and not a speech. [laughter]

[applause] i am perfectly satisfied with medicare blue cross blue shield. it will lie, according to your understanding, be able to retain that under the legislation that you have talked about? >> ezell lee, if you have coverage right now, it could only get better. -- absolutely, if you have coverage now, it could only get better. >> i'm tom harrison and i speak to you as a constituent. >> if you could just speak a little closer to you -- to the microphone. >> very well, my subject is the constitution of the united states. when i entered my military -- the military, my oath of office was to defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. i do not think the health care bill is about health. i think it is about power. [applause] let's see what has happened to

our country since the 20th of january. the financial sector has largely been taken over. we have legislation -- the president does not have the constitutional authority to fire a ceo of a large company and take over three-quarters of our motor vehicles. cap and trade -- >> do you have a question in there? >> yes, my question to you is your sincerity. if you believe in this, i would ask you to cover congress and all federal employees with the same insurance that you are in forcing on us. [applause] -- enforcing on us. [applause] >> tom, like you, i have taken an oath six times representing this committee to uphold the constitution of america. i take that oath very seriously. two things, your comment that

since january 20 there has been  of the financial- services industry is wrong, plain wrong, sir. in fact, the takeover, if that is what it was, the intrusion of the federal government in an unprecedented way in the financial services of america occurred in the previous administration. t.a.r.p. was a program of the bush administration, not the obama administration. it took over a number of financial institutions and built them out in unprecedented raise -- unprecedented ways. in return, the federal government became a major stockholder in a number of financial institutions. that was done by hank paulson, the republican secretary of the treasury, and ben bernanke, a republican fed chairman who has just been reappointed by a democratic president. that predates january 20. it goes back to september 15,

when the financial meltdown occurred in the u.s. and we were looking at the worst financial meltdown since the great depression. i do not know that there is anybody in this room that remembers the great depression. [boos] but the largest bank failure in history occurred in 1921 -- 1929, right? no, it occurred in 2008. the largest corporate loss in american history occurred in 1929, right? no, it occurred in the last quarter of 2008. it is called aig, which had been bailed out by the previous administration to unprecedented degree and then their executives were allowed to give out bonuses. dealing with the issue of financial industry, even though it is not on health care, i just want to be sure that we get our facts right in terms of who did what to whom, and when.

with respect to -- shy subject -- should i subject myself to the health care and this bill? at first, i will be eligible for medicare in a few years. we often hear about members of congress getting special privileges in terms of health care. when i got to congress, i was looking for the special privileges. where's the line to sign up for them? i got the same benefits package to sign up for that any federal employee gets. there was not a single thing offered to meet other than for an extra payment, i could use the services when i am in congress, physically there, in the capitol hill position, for a fee. i chose not to get because i have my own doctor and i live here, unlike many of my colleagues that have to live far away. but i do not get any special health care benefits that any

other federal employee does not get. the point of health care reform is not to make sure that everyone has the minimus health care, but to improve everyone's health care. thank you for your question. steve? >> i worked for 40 years as a registered nurse. i have very strong feelings that health care is our right, not a privilege. i think is going to have to be something in the government section. there are millions of people that are above the medicaid level, but cannot afford health insurance. i think those people are maybe the most important to cover. i feel in many ways, we are fat cats, we are able to live at a luxury level that a lot of people cannot live at.

>> thank you so much. nurses have a special place in my heart. my mother was a nurse for 45 years in boston, massachusetts. and she was a night nurse, so i saw her go out so many years without sleep trying to raise a family during the day and worked so hard as a nurse at night. in give me a profound respect for the profession -- it gave me a profound respect for that profession. by the way, any of you that have been in the hospital, you know that nurses make the institution. they humanize what is otherwise a very impersonal health care system. nurses really care and make a difference. i agree with you, and i think that is a great principle. in the u.s., health care ought to be a right, not a privilege. and by theç way, even if you gt outside of the humanitarian aspect of that question, economically, it is a huge

problem that lots of americans do not have health care coverage. some of the young people who opt not to have it, we want them in the risk pool. they are helping. some of them work at small businesses that to the cannot afford to provide their employees -- they would like to, but they cannot because of the rising cost of health care. as recently as a decade ago, 60% of small businesses provide health care. today, it is a little bit less than 40% and in 10 years it will be less than their -- than 30% if the cost trajectory currently continues. there are stunning statistics about the consequences to you as an individual if you do not have health care coverage. if you are a child in america and your appendix burst, your five times likelier to die from peritonitis then if you are and

injured child. because what happens is the parents, not having insurance, hope for the best and hope it is just a bad tammie. by the time it is clear is much more serious than that, there's a high risk for the appendix to burst. if you have an insurance program, you will get the kid in to the pediatrician and get the care that the child needs. there are real consequences. if you have cancer and are uninsured, you are twice as likely to succumb to the disease than someone who can afford to make the treatment. fothere are economic and social consequences to a system that allows 47 million people to the uninsured. -- to be uninjured. -- on injured. aha -- that allows 47 million

people to be uninsured. >> we who live in this country, which is founded on the basis -- >> if you could speak a little closer to the microphone. >> oh, is on. we, who live in this country, the land of the free and the home of the brave, are to be feeling that this is it a moral issue and the congress ought to feel that very strongly because of the 47 million people who do not have health insurance and we are our brothers and sisters' keepers and we need to keep that in mind we are talking avaunt costs and feeling very comfortable -- talking about costs and feeling very comfortable because i do have insurance. my question is, who is responsible, largely, for the huge $70 billion debt that we

are in? >> i do not know if i want to get in to blame. all of us are responsible for it. health care is almost one-fifth of the economy. we want to keep it there. we do not want it to grow much more. we want better outcomes. we want more coverage for more people. we want to protect seniors and make sure those benefits are there for future generations. we want to make the system more efficient and make sure that we actually improve health. one of the things that the draft bill does do and gets no credit for it is that it is a vividly promotes preventive health care. let me give you an example. there are four things that we

know that if we did as a country could significantly positively impact the health care america. do not bring some much. drink in moderation. do not smoke, do not ever start. watch your weight and exercise a little bit. those four things could have a profound effect on the health care of america. i talked to an employer in the district -- in a district in maryland about a month ago and they told me that there ceo had a heart bypass and after that he had -- he got religious about health andç what he ate. he is in great shape, by the way, after the surgery. he started, as the ceo, he invited people,, walk with me on your lunch break. you do not have to, but if you like to, i will give you a pedometer and you can join me.

just a simple voluntary change in their company, encouraging people to walk several times a week at lunch hour reduced the company's health-care costs by 5%. we know the preventive health care has pay off. especially if we can start people young, if it becomes a lifetime habit to care preventative lely about their health. unfortunately, the congressional budget office cannot get its arms around, how much does that say? how do we quantify that in terms of dollars and cents? unfortunately, health care does not get any credit in the bill even though we know more than intuitively that it would affect trade savings. we have all but to work together. there is a lot that we have to do, but we have to get it right. we have got to make sure we get it right before we vote.

yes, sir, you have been waiting patiently. >> i am a greensprings resident and i have a master's degree in government finance. my name is edward demeter. i am also a combat veteran, fighter pilot, serve my country with all of these decorations, and i am worried about the situation now, particularly my grandchildren and so forth. i think we will all agree that everyone here is a well-meaning person. if we want to do something positive. if i spend money i do not have, in deep trouble. while we are doing all this, i hope we do not bankrupt the country. if you looked at everything, this is what they are really worried about. i speak seriously now, for my

own experience -- from my own experience. what is the problem? to hide the soaring costs of the note, both from prescription drugs and from the hospitals. i cannot believe that they can suck up $100,000 of your money and be there for a week or two per person. for instance, my brother is just coming out of the hospital now with his second heart attack and i look at his bill and it is like, i cannot believe it. what can we do? we all agree there seemed to be -- there seem to be excess profits. the three things, the pill makers, the doctors and hospitals, and the insurers. you remember in the old days when we used to have price controls? my question to you now is, is

there some way that can be redone to prevent excess profits? >> edward, thank you for your question and, by the way, thank you for your service to the country. i do not know that we are going to go to price controls, but i do know that the more the week create large, competitive tools, we bring -- the more we create large, competitive pullools, the more we bring down the cost of the health care. >> [inaudible] >> edward is saying, isn't that a monopoly? well, medicare, sort of is, i will grant you that. in a sense, the government is competing with the private sector. most americans have private insurance and are happy with it.

but they're anxious, understandably, about the rising cost of that and will it still be there in a few years? with respect to prescription medicine, which you raised specifically, again, i think competition would be a good thing. remember that when the medicare part "d" drug program was adopted by a previous congress and a previous administration, i want to point out two things. that congress and administration did not pay for that benefit. this bill,ç for good or ill, according to the congressional budget office, is fully paid for and does not add to the deficit. i think that ought to be added to the criteria for anything else for us to vote on, is it paid for? we do not want to put that on -- that burden on future generations. but the the thing was, explicitly in that generation -- in that legislation creating the drug benefit, not only did it create a loophole for the

seniors, but it explicitly negotiated the price of pharmaceuticals. why you think that was? how could that happen? we go back to michelle's question. that was the influence of the drug companies and, frankly, the congress. it means your drug prices are higher than they need to be, even under copayment on the medicare, and your doughnut hole is reached faster because the cost of pharmaceuticals is unconscionably high. we know that other countries -- going back to william's question -- actually have the same drugs at less cost. remember the issue of real importation of drugs to canada? these were drugs introduced into the united states. they were marketed for sale in canada where they were much cheaper. it will be imported from canada back into the united states and were still cheaper than buying them here where they were

produced. how could that happen? i think competition is a good thing and i think it can help out -- bring down the cost of health care. whether it be drugs, services, doctors' visits, and especially whether it be insurance. jamie, are you going to take over? who you have? -- who do you have? if you would just bring in very close your mouth. >> i am joan and i may greensprings resident. i'm concerned, what they planning on doing for the military retirees regarding the attrite care for life? >> the question is, what are we doing for retired military veterans the affect the try care -- for the veterans? the tricare program, we are

trying to make it even more efficient. there are lots more discrete things we are doing, depending on whether you are army or not. for example, right here in our district, at the army hospital for example, they're building an enormous complex with lots of outpatient services for army veterans that will be a center of excellence in terms of medical care. but we're trying to make the veterans of systems a lot more efficient in terms of medical care and it has set some standards that are very useful to learn from because they had made some real strides in recent years. health care is available -- i mean, the men and women who served our country, the deal was, they answer the call. i think the other part of the deal is, when they come home, we take care of them. [applause]

we have got lots of people wanting to be recognized. bear with me. i know not everybody is going to be able to stay forever. >> i am libby, from green springs and i want to thank everyone for coming and giving us their opinions on what seems to be insurance reform as well as health reform. i have a question for you, congressman. i know you are new to the congress, but not new to public service. do you believe that americans have rights and freedoms that cannot beat of britain -- that cannot be a bridge or controlled by the government, no matter -- abridged or controlled by the government no matter what kind of control seems to be good at any given time? [applause] >> as i said to tom over here, like him, have taken the oath to

uphold the constitution of the u.s. i am a passionate believer in the constitution of the u.s. i am a passionate believer of the american system. i am a passionate believer in having free debate, like we're having here today -- a respectful, but free debate. i wrestle with the issues in terms of what is gogd for my constituents, what is good for the country, what is the right thing to do. i am certainly wrestling, as you can tell, with the health care debate right now. i do not believe that we can take away any rights that ought to exist and i am always looking for ways to expand the rights that we have in our constitutional system. and i think america does that over time, by the way. we are not a perfect system, but we are protecting ourselves -- perfecting ourselves according to the constitution of the united states.

>> i do not question hawethe neo overhaul our medical care system, but i think many of us feel that the overhaul of the tort system should be an essential part of that overhaul, and i do not see that in any bill or project that is going. can you tell us if there is any anticipation? >> what a good question and i agree with you. the question is, is it possible -- is a part of the cost of -- the high cost american medicine, defensive medicine. health care physicians are worried, looking over their shoulder that someone is going to sue them? my answer is, that is probably true. in fact, we know anecdotally that that is true. lots and lots of studies have been done about this question

and what is a little bit surprising is, it is not a huge contributor to the cost of medicine. it is a contributor, but not huge. let me give you an example. in a state that rigorously controlled not practice award, texas -- malpractice awards, texas, texas probably adopted some of the most stringent rules for whasomebody suing a hospitar is surgeon in the u.s. and the "dallas morning news" actually did a study several years later and they found, number one, the alleged savings that were supposed to accrue or not passed onto standard -- on to consumers. and in many cases, health care costs rose in taxes at a faster rate than states that did not have strict limits. -- in texas at a faster rate

than states that did not have strict limits. we would be wrong to assume that somehow just by tort reform we can bring down the cost of health care dramatically. not really. it will affect positively, i think, the growth rate in medicine, but that is not the biggest contributor to the health care cost spiral. and by the way, there are two provisions added to this draft in the markup in the energy and commerce committee in july that address this issue. do i think they addressed it adequately enough? no, but they do start to address this issue specifically and i expect to see more on it with legislation. >> thank you, congressman, and panel for this great discussion. i am one of the lucky seniors who is able to afford green

spring. my question, or my comment is, i wonder if those who are so afraid of government takeover health insurance are also and concerned about the 428% rise in profits for the top-10 private insurance companies, if i heard you correctly, congressman, who have 90% of the business. i think we should be concerned about a private, and greedy takeover of health care as well as other concerns. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] no, somebody recently asked -- you know, somebody recently asked, in some cases, is of the

federal government monopolistic? and i said, well, you could make that argument may be with medicare. but there are whole regions of the country where one health care provider dominates the çindustry to the tune of 90%, d that is virtually a monopoly as well. i want competition in the system so that people have choices. i have been dominating the answers here, and i do not mean to. we have got a wonderful panel. i would like to give them the opportunity to comment on some of the questions and then they -- we will come back to the questions, or answers, that they have heard. >> we have been quiet because you are doing such a great job. but i listened and i look out at you as you listen to the answers, and the conundrum that is congressman has is you really reflect what is happening in the country. some of you want the reform. some of you do not want to reform. and that is what he is going to have to deal with and he is going to have to balance.

i look at this audience and it looks like me. we are older. i have got medicare and blue cross. we're going to be ok now matter what happens. i have studied and studied this question. i am convinced that doing nothing is not the answer. and it has nothing to do with most of the people in this audience. what it has to do with is my four children and 10 grandchildren. it is going to be tough for the congressmen, but to do nothing is not the answer. [applause] >> i have been waiting for something that the congressman said that i could jump in and say, wait a minute, and i have not found anything yet. aarp is committed to being a protector of medicare as we go through this debate. not so, please, when you hear

that a particular piece of -- if so, please, when you give it a particular piece of legislation will hurt medicare beneficiaries, check it out. you want to be a source that separates the myth from the fact because aarp has pledged that we will not endorse a piece of legislation that hurts medicare beneficiaries. and the other thing on barbara's comment, too, you know, this is democracy. nobody gets exactly what they want. as we go through this debate and we reach across two different thoughts and ideas and if we are committed to the same goal, we will come up with something uniquely american. the real problem is just putting our heads in the sand and trying to move on. this problem is not going to go away. we have been debating this problem for 60 years. i hope we will stay engaged and come up with the right american

solution. >> [inaudible] >> yes, there is a website. you can go to aarp.org to get more information, but healthactionnow.org will give you current information about the myths as is being debated. you can also sign up from -- 4 e-mails from aarp as -- you can also sign up for e-mails from a r.paarp. >> the phone book is going to have to go to conference. the senate bills will have to be matched in with it. who knows what provisions are going to come out? we are all still in a very

amorphous situation. if we're talking about web site, there is a kaiser family cam foundation website that does side-by-side comparisons of the various bills that are in the congress. i can give that to you if you are interested in looking at it. it is www.kff.org/healthreform /sidebyside and i trust everybody got that. if not, i will be happy to get it to you afterwards. >> i do a number of these meetings around the country with other members of congress and i have to say to you that your congressman has conducted himself -- not agree with himç about everything he has to say, but he

is knowledgeable about what is happening and you are very lucky to have a man like that representing you. no matter what happens, i you know he will listen to you. you might not always agree with him, but he always understand what is going on. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you all very much. by the way, people are getting a little tired, but if we did not get your question or you have another one, we have cards in the back and if you want to write them out, we will answer your questions by e-mail if you give us your e-mail, till the cows come home. this lady there. >> my husband and i are almost three-week residency red greensprings -- three-week

residents back here at greenspring. >> you just moved in three weeks ago? >> three weeks ago. >> give your new neighbor a hand. welcome. [applause] >> first, you said this was not going to get political. you did a bush bash. i do not appreciate that. secondly, when numbers are being quoted, they need to be verified because we have seen huge differences in the numbers. secondly, the debt that came to the obama administration from the bush administration has been tripled, doubled, i mean, i do not even know how to write a $7 trillion. i think people ought to think that we pay as we go.

my parents got off the boat. nobody gave them anything. and i think that if we are going to be able to balance a budget, not go broke, and in church every illegal and every person -- insure every illegal and every person that has a sense of entitlement, that something has got to give. >> you said your parents got off the boat. from where? >> pullen. >> my parents came here from ireland. first, as far as bush bashing, i do not know what you're talking about. i said that since january 20, thom said that there was a financial takeover. i just pointed out that all of that occurred prior to the current administration. [inaudible] ] -- >> [inaudible]

>> no, actually, the clinton administration was not involved in the takeover of banks. we can argue whether or not that was a good or bad thing. many people here -- you just moved into greenspring. i do not know where you move from. if you move from fairfax. ok, then you know my record. we have to balance the budget by law. the we are not allowed to deficit spend at the local level. most state constitutions do not allow them to spend with definite -- deficit spending i will tell you, and there was just a report today, that when you look at what was not funded under the previous administration and you look at the economy that we inherited on january 20, about $5 trillion of the projected $9 trillion over

the next decade ago or so, was inherited. that is not bashing anyone, but it is a matter of fact that in the year 2000, we experienced for the first time since andrew jackson two consecutive surpluses where the federal government was actually in surplus and we were projecting surpluses as far as the eye could see. we were paying down the national debt to the point that alan greenspan, the then chairman of the federal reserve, a publicly worried about what it would do to the u.s. treasurys. if there was no foot -- no debt to finance, would that do to the treasury department? we, in eight years, took twoç - a two consecutive year surplus and projected surplus as far as the eye could see, bringing that to virtually zero, and we doubled the national debt in eight years. we left a $500 billion deficit

last fiscal year and if obama had not done a thing, a projected $1.3 trillion deficit this year. there was a war in afghanistan and iraq and were very costly. and you talk about pay as you go, the previous administration suspended it. i just voted for the reinstitution as -- of paygo. hopefully, we will exercise a lot more fiscal discipline as we move forward. i think there's plenty of blame for both parties. thank you, zelda, and welcome to greenspring. >> i am bob at waupun court 511. i have a question for barbara.

i have read letters signed by her since day one and my question is, at this stage today, do you, barbara, feel that ncpssm is making headway? >> yes, i do. i do, because our membership is holding steady. we hear from our members. we have a membership department. we have a grass roots to permit the goes out and meets with our members. i talked to our members and get anywhere from eight to two -- 8 to 10 calls on some evenings. what we're saying is medicare and social security are necessary for any industrialized nation that is worth its salt. and we have to have social insurance for our inpuretirees. otherwise, things just will not work. and our members feel that we or they would not join us. to join us is just $4 per year.

it would not sell anything or endorse anything. we just go up on the hill and around the country and say, our country needs to keep and need to subsidize and have social security and medicare, not only for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren. that is our message. . . with rights, responsibilities. we hear that there are 47 million people without health care.

we hear that health care is a right, not a privilege. ok. i think almost everybody here would agree with that. maybe not. the doctors, the drug companies, and the insurance companies have had no trouble at all exercising their rights. they seem to have had a great deal of trouble exercising their responsibilities. my question is how can we, people generally with no political connections -- >> what do you mean? i am right here. [laughter] >> ttouche. what can we do -- what can i do

to enlightened these folks about these responsibilities. and do not tell me to write my congressman. i have already done it. [laughter] >> we get lots of mail and we are happy to get it. i think that you raise a really profound question, both the practical question and a normative question, in terms of what is, in each of us, what is our responsibility. for our own health care, for that of our loved ones, four strangers, for part of our community, nevertheless. a young boy died who was 12 years old. he was uninsured. he had a tooth infection. and his mother could not get anybody because of their lack of the insurance status to treat this young man. the tooth infection led to a brain infection and he died. by the way, when we talk about

cost, if that story does not move you, the cost of treating the tuz infection was two and a $50. -- of treating the to the infection was $250. what is our responsibility to that young man as a society? i do not want to take away anyone's medical care. i want to enhance it. but i also want to make sure that families who have young children like that little boy do not ever have to experience that terrible, terrible sophie's choice in medical care. this young gentleman has been very patient. then we will come back to you, ma'am, ok? >> [unintelligible] >> you are good to have the last word. i'm going to stick around if you want to talk to me.

yes, sir. >> last week, in one of his speeches, president obama -- can you hear me? >> i will repeat the question. i can hear you. go ahead. >> president obama, last week, referred to the public option and he was joking about the wary of a good number of people about the government getting involved in too many things and he showed that the post office, probably the greatest example of public auctiooption, was really down.

fedex and ups [unintelligible] my question to you is that he did not take a public option out of the picture for the health program and i want to know how you feel about the public option. >> the question is how do i feel about the public option. i did not catch your name, sir. >> roy press. >> president obama cited the post office in a competition among ups and federal express and the post office. i think that is one analogy. i don't know if it is a perfect analogy.

personally, i think that a public auction is probably a good thing. it gives people an option. they do not have to use it. no one ever has to select it. as everybody gets insurance, they figured that maybe a third of the uninsured would opt for the public option. two-thirds would opt for they private insurance. just like there is a federal employee program -- i have a manual available to me and i can pick is best for my family. this is simply to create an option. i believe that the congressional budget office said that, with the,option -- with the public option, we save $350 billion.

that is why the insurance companies are pulling out all the stops to try to kill the public option because it represents competition. they had even said that it will drive us out of business. there is no study that suggests that that is the case. in fact, they will get more business because we are dealing with this pool of 47 million parent when you talk about monopolies -- 47 million. when you talk about monopolies, only one entrance -- only one insurance provider dominates the market. that is not competition. we cannot get our arms around the cost factor unless there is some competition. the senate is looking at the creation of a series of nonprofit cooperative, sort of like what we had for electricity and some farm and credit co-ops that have thrived and done very well.

is that a model that can work? we have to look at it. the senate is pretty enamored with that model. the house is enamored with the public option. i want something that will bring down prices for our consumers and would raise efficiency in the system. the. option is -- the public option is probably something that i will have to vote on in the house. it is not theology for me. >> i am a resident of greenspring. i am very happy with my medicare and my insurance. it has done well by me. but i can see a lot of problems out there that really need to be worked on. someone mentioned in germany and other medical care. my young son lives there.

he had a heart attack. he got wonderful care. he was sent to a spot for several weeks. -- he was sent to a spa for several weeks. he has great medical care. but we're comparing apples and oranges. they are both free, but they're not the same. >> [unintelligible] >> wait a minute. there is a back-and-forth of all of these things and i have real concerns about these small business people and the unemployed, about people who lose their jobs and they can go on cobra. how are they going to pay for the cobra? it is expensive if they do not have a judge. all of a sudden, after so many months, the cobra runs out after a year or so and there they are

with no medical insurance with a family that needs medical care. what is going to be done for these people. thank you very much. this is a good meeting. >> i am sorry. i did not mean to interrupt you. let me start with cobra first. cobra, as you know, it is a federal law that requires employers, upon the termination of an employee, to make available to macon -- continue to them -- to make available to them continued private insurance. cobra, for most people who are now unemployed and not getting an income, it is beyond their reach. they cannot afford it. it is a nice right to have, but it is not one that most people can afford to exercise. it is kind of a false benefit, in a sense.

the costs are almost prohibitive for many families. one of the things about health care reform that we're trying to get at is, first of all, if we succeed to bring out -- bring down the cost, tom, you ask me whether i would be willing to give up my federal insurance for some other plan. one of the reasons that federal insurance is affordable and has so many options and a low administrative costs is that there are so many of us in the risk pool. i want to create other risk pools, especially among those 47 million people who are not covered right now, and the now public option has the potential to bring competition that will bring down the cost.

that is the idea. we have to double check it. that is sort of my answer on cobra. you mentioned germany. so many times, in this debate, we have some big rhetorical flourishes that do not always involve fact i said i was irish and sometimes -- do not always involve a fact. i said i was irish and sometimes, people like to tease, but they do not always have [unintelligible] if you listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think -- apparently in britain and canada, people are dropping like flies because of lack of health care. they are all bitterly unhappy and are waiting in line to come to the united states for treatment. everybody likes to complain about their system. but if you tried to change the

national health care system in britain, you'd be tarred and feathered. likewise in canada. is there a problem with their system? yes. i am not advocating this. there's a lot of thought that it is just dreadful and thank god we are here and not there. but there are things in their system that we want to observe and learn from. it is a lot more expensive than our system in terms of what they spend on health care. it has less administrative overhead and a lot less paperwork and the outcomes are better. they are better statistically. can you get top-quality health care in the united states that is honorable in the united states? yes. absolutely. but tens of millions of our countrymen and countrywoman do

not access that health care system because they cannot afford it. we want to change that so that, moving forward, future generations, your children and grandchildren, do not have to worry if they're unemployed or economically in a tough spot if they lose their health insurance. thank you for having us today. thank you for your hospitality. the key to our panel. -- thank you to our panel. [applause] >> as the debate over health care continues, c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource. go on line and follow the latest delays. what's the list events,

including town hall meetings, and share your own feedback. there is more at c- span.gorda/healthcare. >> senator edward kennedy's motorcade left the family home in hyannis port this morning. it should be at the jfk presidential library shortly. he will lie in repose for a day. we will have live coverage of the arrival at the library. we will also be alive at the library while the senator lies in repose. tamara, a memorial service is planned at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will show you that live as well. the mass at our lady of perpetual basilica will be li ve as well.

the kennedy motorcade should be arriving shortly at the john f. kennedy presidential library. we will have that for you live. in the meantime, we have a portion of today's "washington journal." in honor of senator kennedy. obama says that "the extraordinary good that he did lives on." you may remember a letter sent to the senator asking for a change in the law in massachusetts. from the store this morning, governor patrick saying he is breaking his silence on the future. he is embracing the request that the governor be given the power to appoint someone to the seat until voters can appoint a permanent successor in a special election. we're joined by phone by tom. this question came up following the election of barack obama

with a number of vacancies in delaware, illinois, and new work. there seems to be no clear mandate into what stage should be doing. is there? guest: the states have some discretion in this regard. the constitutional provision allows for state legislature to give it their governors the authority to make temporary, special appointments until an election is held. that has really been the pattern since the passage of the amendment providing for the direct election of senators, the 17th amendment. it was the practice before that when the legislature was out of session and there was a vacancy in the senate seat.

the governor would often make a temporary appointment. that was the norm. but states have the authority to forgo that, that temporary appointment and keep the seat vacant until a special election can be held. roasted do just that, including in the immediate case -- several states do just that, including the commonwealth of massachusetts. host: under the prairie law there would be an election in january, and during the five- month period, the governor is facing whether an interim governor should be appointed -- that is under the primary lot. what is the history in massachusetts? guest: that is what makes it so politically awkward for the democrats are no.

in 2004 mitt romney who is a republican was governor. john kerry was the democratic nominee for president. democrats in the state worried that if kerry elected, romney will appoint a republican to serve in his seat until the next election was held. therefore, they changed the law prohibiting any temporary appointments by the governor, and specifying that the general election was to be held between 145-160 days after a vacancy is created in the senate seat. now, as you indicated there is a lot of talk about changing the law again to go back to what had been the previous practice.

the governor certainly favors that, but some of the democratic leaders in the legislature are a little reluctant since it looks so transparently an effort to help the democrats get someone in that seat during the critical legislative. this fall -- period this fall. host: here this headline says " who's in line to take the lion's seat surceas?" in other states including hawaii, utah, and wyoming the

governor chooses a temporary center from the names submitted from prior @ incumbent from prior incumbent's party. oklahoma allows of women's only in limited circumstances. alaska has passed a law with legislation and a valid item providing for special elections. but their current status in alaska is now remains unclear. guest: yes, you can see the diversity in our federal system was states really having the power to use or not to use this special appointment power. they can condition it. with some states they say the appointee must be of the same party or must be nominated by that party's central committee in the state.

but certainly the most common practice is to allow for those appointments by the governor. that has been the practice. there have been 184 such appointments, i believe, since 1913. of course, this year we have seen a number of appointments, and some like illinois have been very controversial. even new york state filling hillary clinton's vacancy in the senate was controversial. host: finally, in terms of the senate as an institution the story this morning in the paper, as the democrats now lose their 60-vote majority, does this have any impact on health care? guest: potentially. it was never clear that

democrats could marshal all of those who caucus with the democrats on the closure but if there were no republicans in support of it. there are some moderate, conservative democrats like ben nelson of nebraska who might not have gone along. nonetheless, it is seen as potentially pivotal. it could come down to a single load. therefore, democrats are very, very concerned about getting that seat film as quickly as possible. guest: tom host: tom mann, thanr being with us. guest: happy to be with you, steve. host: we're joined from clifton

park by jay. good morning, how do you think that states should fill these senate vacancies? caller: by the way, i thank you for c-span. i went through along with everybody else in my state the whole ridiculousness that went with replacing hillary clinton which sort of became a cult of personality thanks to caroline kennedy's nomination -- but i think that the gillibrand has been a perfect aplomb and. it puts the governor in the bull's-eye for various interest groups who want their interests address. the model floated right now in massachusetts as the governor

appoints someone immediately so the state is not working with only one senator -- that is good, but there should also be a special alexian special180 days to give everyone in the state -- a special election within 180 days to give everyone the opportunity to get their person and beyond the field of special interests. host: thank you for the call. here are the lines. we're asking you how you think the states should fill a senate vacancy. good morning, pat. caller: personally, i applauded massachusetts in its intelligence to actually have an election to fill these vacancies

when something happens like that. but i'm upset that the process could be circumvented with an appointment by the governor. and election -- an election is a true process of the democratic process. it will show exactly who, to the people's ability, will be the best representative. host: the me go back to the reporting from "the wall street journal" -- under law, a special russian must take place between january 18 and february 2.

next is lee, joining us from oregon. good morning. caller: yes -- god rest his soul. he wanted it one way when they thought that kerry would be voted in, now they want it ever would. that is ridiculous. it seems like these guys get up there and on both sides they're just a bunch of elitists. but god rest his soul.

host: in terms of massachusetts law or any other state, how you think the vacancies should be filled? caller: well, every couple of years one side or the other is not right, so. leave them so couple of years ago if it was it was because of romney. -- once other the other is not right, so leave them alone. kennedy was the one who made such a fuss about it last year. set it one way and leave it alone. host: here is the headline -- and here's a piece by george wilson calling ted the most

important kennedy. we're joined from joinednow. caller: by women, we need to have a move where governors appoint women. down here in florida there is a strong movement among republicans to appoint a woman. there's a phone number that people can call the governor c rist to appoint a woman. host: would you think should get it? caller: paula here in lakeland is a wonderful person who has worked for environment and good transportation. she could work with senator olympia snowe and they could do wonders. host: next is david from springfield, massachusetts. how do you think that governor

patrick should decide on this case? caller: think he should make an appointment until the special election comes around. host: who you think should get caller: iit? caller: there are a lot of great people out there, but i think he should appoint himself as his approval ratings are pretty low. host: vicki is urging murry to support her husband's request. he and the house speaker of massachusetts whose support would be key remain publicly non-committal yesterday. france's is joining us from tennessee on the republican line. caller: good morning.

i want to say that i thought in the u.s. that the law was king. we do not change the law on time whim. they changed it in 2004 when they thought would be one way and now there with the ginger five years later for similar political reason. if it is supposed to be the law that is king. the current law if it was sufficient in to those of four should be workable today. host: carla is joining us from massachusetts in munson. caller: first of all, governor deval is not very popular with a lot of issues with taxes. we have waited so long. senator kennedy basically has not -- he has not voted in 97%

of the votes for the state since the first of the year and i think that the state should be given a chance to elect someone into the position. host: let's look front page of this paper in connecticut. we're joined from utica, new york, by mike. you dealt with this last year with senator hillary clinton is resigning her seat. caller: yes, when you spoke with the gentleman in the beginning of the program and you showed some states and how they handled it -- host: yes, we can show it again. caller: one was to temporarily appoint a member of the same party, and i agree with that. if you have a governor of a different party putting in a senator from his party that was not elected, the party that was

elected in this case it was the democrats -- if someone appointed republican, you're serving the election of the public which was to elect a democrat. yes, have the governor fill the vacancy from somebody of the same party, and then within 160 days or so, have the special election. host: we're getting this information from the non- partisanship research service and you can go to the website to learn more about the rules on a state-by-state basis. we'll look at some west coast papers. here is kevin joining us from silver spring, maryland. we will go to the jesse in deer river, minn.. caller: good morning. you should hear from the people

who they want to place in the senate. massachusetts is an extremely liberal state. what is the current law there to replace senators? host: right now the election would take place in january, february for the senate seat which means there would be a vacancy until then. there would be a primary scheduled for november. then a special election in january. caller: i do not think liberals have anything to worry about because massachusetts is an extremely liberal state. host: the question is whether they should have an interim senator for the next five months. caller: personally, i think they should allow the people to decide -- period. host: will go to kevin next from maryland. caller: yes, i was looking at a documentary on msnbc last night

and a lot of people do not realize that senator kennedy had written the letter months in advance. a lot of people think he did it just before he died, but it was months in advance that he wrote the letter. host: he did it about a month and a half ago. should they change the law in massachusetts? caller: they could. the republicans do it all the time when they want to justify what they are doing. what is the difference with the democrats? host: good morning, john. caller: i agree. i agreed with the woman who said he was so sick -- they have not had anyone there for months now. when you are that six you should have probably resigned months ago. they have had no representation. i'm calling on the independent line and my point is that we need another party. it is not even a free election.

it will be a democrat or republican just like every election. there is no independent party in this country. i pretty much feel like it is a two-way street, not even a free choice because there is known to keep these guys honest. to hear them call in every day, being independent, i hear them every day -- you hear liberal this, a conservative that, the democrats, the republicans -- we need a couple of more parties just to get some real changes. obama is for change. if you want real change get a couple more parties in here and you will see some real representation, changed. until then it is just the same old two guys up there. host: 1 message from twitter. let me come back to more of your phone calls. here is some reporting from a

couple of newspapers beginning with the front page of ""the new york times" -- ted kennedy was in a wheelchair at the end, struggling to speak. but from the time his cancer was diagnosed 15 months ago, he spoke of having a good ending for himself. by every account he did. he took phone calls from president obama, house calls from his peace. just a few weeks ago he crooned after dinner with his son patrick and also with his with his wife. it shows that he was at peace with the end of his life and grateful for the chance to savor the salty air with his loved ones. good morning, how do you think that senate vacancies should be filled? caller: they pushed kennedy, and i don't even remember how many years ago -- but he pushed to

have it with the governor could pick because of the time they had a democratic governor. i do not understand how they could push that and nobody sees -- first, my condolences to his family. my heart goes out. but he was wrong then and is wrong now. i do not understand how they could even put this into motion. it has already been settled and the need to vote on it. they could expedite the vote. but to change just to benefit -- probably the democrats would win anyway. it they need to keep the law like it is. host: the hometown newspapers in boston were full of stories and a sidebar pieces on all of this. including this piece from the boston globe.com that says there is no shortage of potential successors. also, on the republican side,

some names mentioned include the state's attorney general. the peace points out that vicki reggie kennedy, issue decides to run, would be interested in her husband's post, and should be a formidable candidate, a good speaker, but has denied interest in the seat up until now. we're joined now from boston by nick. caller: good morning. i want to listen i answer the question exactly. what should the state of massachusetts do, correct? host: yes, but we are also asking about other states as well. on the issues of states' rights, the french state stew of different ways. in some states you have to appoint someone from the same party. caller: to me is almost ridiculous question. what they should do is do what

the law says. it says to "allegedelect" --andy the way, and democrats are the ones who did this. it is a little awkward for the democrats of a sudden to try to change the law. furthermore, this bonds against the other issue. most of the country has an issue in this. the states' rights are continually being stomped on by. federal by the state's laws should be here for the elections. that is how kennedy should be replaced. we can change the law again if we want to, but my feeling is that it is obvious the states should follow the law. what ever, thank you. host: one of the photographs from this from page of ""the new york times," says kennedy was

working on the patient's bill of rights legislation. on the final days inside reporting, the reporter mark has the page -- this is the jump page -- his children had expected him to hold on longer. his son patrick and daughter kara could not get to hyanis port in time. the priest was called to his bedside. mr. kennedy spent his last hours in prayer. he told his friends recently that he was looking forward to reunion with his seven departed siblings, particularly his brothers whose lives have been cut short. caller: good morning. host: how do you think the states should fill these vacancies caller: they should

allow the law to work the way it was designed to. they should keep the seat vacant until january and then have a special election. we cannot just keep changing the laws to suit the situation of the moment that is what everyone seems to be doing over the past couple of years. they should allow the law to work the way it was designed to. host: here is the front page of "the washington post" on his first day in the senate when he was elected in 1962 and took the >> this is a live picture outside the john f. kennedy

library in boston, massachusetts. this is the shot from the plaza. the military honor guard is awaiting the senator edward kennedy motorcade that left the family home today in hyannis port earlier this afternoon. it has been on route to boston. it is expected to arrive in just a few minutes. once here, the senator will lie in repose for a day. at 6:00 p.m. eastern time, the library will be open to the public for those who wish to pay their respects. we will have live coverage of that as well we are waiting for the motorcade. we understand that it is in boston and should be arriving in just a few moments.

>> this is a view of side the john f. kennedy presidential library in boston as we await the arrival of the motorcade of senator edward kennedy. the motorcade left earlier from hyannis port this afternoon. it should be arriving here at the library in just a few moments. the senator will lie in repose for a day. a memorial service is planned for 7:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow. we will have live coverage of that as well here on c-span.

[applause]

[no audio]

[no audio]

[no audio]

[no audio]

>> as we look live outside of the john f. kennedy presidential library in boston, senator kennedy's motorcade has arrived now, having made it from hyannis port to boston. kennedy will lie in repose here for one day. it will open at 6:00 p.m. eastern today. we will be there live as well here on c-span. tomorrow, it is a memorial service that is planned for 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will show you that as well. on saturday, there will be a funeral mass at ou