companies because of this new situation and not providing insurance. if something's not covered by medicare, how does the consumer gets covered or pay for those medical issues? guest: unfortunately, the number of employers who are able to respond to general health care coverage has been shrinking. the medicare program does not cover 100% like many others. host: calif., independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call.

he said earlier about your attempt to change this provision in the law to switch the way this benefit tapped to corporations. please clarify, currently the companies that offer benefits to their employees pass a certain level. you want to change the they do not switch their employees to medicare. it seems that either way the government is going to pay because they are paying a subsidy to the company. there is no burden on the corporation. can you tell us what the impact will be percentage wise and what

are courses looking for some terms of what they are going to pay to their retirees and the impact from a financial stand. -- stand point? guest: let me give you an example. let's say it cost the company $100 for their retiree drug coverage. under the law, the company would receive $28 from the federal government to help them offset the cost for this coverage. for reasons that had to do with the method of accounting, it was a nontaxable subsidy. the purpose of its is it would be less expensive for the federal government to give

companies $28, but would allow and encourage the companies to continue to sponsor the coverage rather than have retirees moved over to the medicare program, for the purpose of getting their drug coverage. now more are going to decide to move their employers over to medicare. the caller is right. the the way it cost the federal government some money. it is a little bit of a trade of. it is important to note that these employers who are talking about it, the most generous coverage. these companies sponsor this for their retirees years before the medicare program was changed to do the same thing. if these are moved over to the medicare program, it is our

likelihood that they will continue to contribute something. the retiree may or may not get the same level of coverage. host: roanoke virginia, republican line. one person that called in was harsh against elected officials. but she does not seem harsh yet. whether you projecting the expenditure on? the government has no money to give out to people. state tax s. that is their revenue. -- a tax us. that is their revenue. where are you people going to get this money from? china? guest: a point that has not been made through much of the health-

care debates. one can say that as it relates to health care benefits, many can say it is a positive. but from whether the overall legislation is fiscally sustainable, there is a question about that. there are a lot of provisions in this legislation in order to pay for the cost of this legislation that at best, of wishful thinking, and at worst, smoke in mirrors in terms of whether or not the money will actually materialize. looking down the road, that could be a very serious thing for our policy makers to have to contemplate. citizens should be concerned about it rightfully.

host: some for some 500 companies sponsor benefits. if you want to follow more about the american benefits council. you can go to their website. we will continue our conversation with frank and texas, democrat line. caller: the morning. where does this funding come from for his employment? i like c-span to disclose how much they pay these experts and does the salary influence their opinion? host: we do not pay our guests anything to come on our program. guest: we are a membership organization. the companies that are members

make a membership dues investment firm, which covers all of our expenses. host: if you would like to know more about the organization, i encourage you to go to their website. tennessee, republican line. caller: i want to ask a basic question. several weeks ago, someone called in and asked how the guests were selected. the host had a smirk. he mentioned a host committee that chooses to the guest is. the person just before asked about how much you pay them to come on. i do not believe you pay them. they either pay you, because most of them are lobbyists. host: to be a guest, the money

exchanges hand. the decision on how we choose our guest are made by the producers and the executive producers of the show. do you have a question or comment regarding the impact of health-care? caller: your answer is completely different from what the other guy says. he said it was a committee. host: to you have anything you want to talk about health care insurance. caller: i am 72 years old. i do not take any medicine, not even aspirin. when they pass this new prescription deal, they turned it over to private health insurance. i get three letters a week or

month regularly to buy insurance. i do not do it. it is one big mess. host: you got that right. independent line. caller: my question is the way the health care is being sold to the american people. my question is pertaining to why a certain aspect is being left out of the discussion. uninsured people get into predicaments. they by law -- the health care professionals are required to treat them and bring them back

to a place where they are healthy again. i think this affects our health system. it drains it. guest: it is a train when people do not have coverage. people without coverage to not have the opportunity to have preventative services. it is more expensive to treat them. if we look at the overall legislation, the extent to which 30 million more americans will not have coverage and various preventative services and take better care of themselves is a real positive. whether that is how this is financed or the numbers add up, and it is a legitimate question.

some corporate critics asserted that the rapid response to the health care legislation was aimed to repeal the provision. how is this going to press the administration? will it have any kind of success? guest: you can say the old expression, we told you so. we were shoulder to shoulder

with the community saying this. to happen. if this provision was included in the final measure, companies would have no choice but to report these kinds of big accounting charges that you just mentioned. instead it was conducted that fund every company that sponsors this for retirees would have to take this accounting charge by not changing their benefits to no longer sponsor. it would account to $13 billion. the charge came from the other side the said companies were exaggerating, it is politically motivated and. that is not the case. i do not know that any companies were calling for a repeal of the entire 2700 pages.

with respect to these lines that have caused these big accounting charges, it is a big problem. to some extent, the damage has already been done. companies have taken these charges. the companies will not reverse these charges. for some it would be a good thing. for some companies, they have taken the charges and looked to the future. down the line, it will not be a benefit that they will sponsor any more. maybe they will help retirees paid a premium. many individuals getting their coverage through the medicare program. host: democrats line. caller: i do not think the health care bill does anything.

we are spending more than twice as much as other countries. these exchanges -- each state has landed other benefits. if you take insurance out in a given state, you have to cover what the mandate. a lot of these companies have self insured plans. they are exempt from the state insurance law. if you are buying insurance, will this cross state lines? will they be subject to michigan's mandated benefits and

then ohio is and maybe indianas? -- i will hang up and take your answer. guest: one of the biggest concern is for major employers, those that operate across state lines, is that the outcome of this legislation might result in the dismantling, which allows companies that operate in multiple states to provide the same set of benefits, the level of coverage to all of their employees, wherever they live and work. under these new insurance exchanges that will be set up in 2014, there will be operating under federal law so that individual state legislatures will not be able to say, in addition to what has been

acquired, this will add that benefit for it the package benefits themselves that will be established under the federal framework. it will be something easier or difficult to contend with, which is yet to be determined. the short answer is that the ability of states to do which you suggesting will be curtailed. host: is it determined by the size of the company and the number of employees? guest: companies with more than 50 employees is what it is applicable to. these new insurance changes that the last caller was asking about really intended to create a marketplace for people going into the individual market.

larger businesses will not be allowed to protest parade in this insurance exchange. they will see if the companies absorb any cost from their employees claims. host: republican line, louisiana. caller: why can't they leave the older people alone that have worked all of their lives to get these benefits from these big companies? another want to switch everything over to medicare. and i was 65, they switched me to medicare. not want to put this other company over to medicare.

i'm want to keep what i have, and they should stay out of it. guest: this is one of the unintended consequences. i do not think the obama administration are congress necessarily wanted the retirees move into medicare. over time, the lot more of that will happen. host: jacksonville, fla., independent line. hocaller: i have a question or suggestion. i would like to respond after he responds. one way we could generate tons of money to support of our health-care system that would eliminate some of the burden from businesses is to collect social security benefit for

contributions when you reach a maximum amount of $90,000 comedy stop paying into the social security fund. my suggestion would be that that would continue until you reach $250,000 in income. you would play into the social security system. this would take a huge burden of businesses, the middle class, lower middle class. the truly wealthy can afford to pay another 8% on their excess of $250,000. if you let me respond after he does, that would be great. guest: the way it currently works is both employers and employees who earn up to $106,800 make a contribution in

their payroll taxes for diesel security system. an additional amount for medicare. that figure goes up every year. both workers and employers contribute to that. the medicare limits, the cap has been taken off a couple of years ago. there is no limit in terms of what you pay for the employee and employer who each pay 1.4% of wages to this medicare tax. one of the things this new health care reform law has now done is added another 0.9% tax on wages that will help adjust the employee portion.

four people who are earning over $200,000 a year -- there is another 3.8% tax on unearned income, interest, dividends, annuities, just on the employee. that is a lot of money to help pay for the new health-care law. a legitimate question that many americans may ask is will this increase in tax take place, but would not attend been better to allocate those dolls for shoring up the medicare system itself, rather than paying for this other important health care benefit. host: go-ahead. caller: i do not think you

commented on what i said which is the truly wealthy, the people that make 5 million or 10 million can afford to pay the entire 9% over $250,000. host: will leave it there. guest: as we face deficits in the future, future congressmen will look for upper income individuals and corporations to pay for a larger share of that as part of our progressive tax system host. host: cincinnati ohio. caller: i have questions related to what would impact medicare. i've worked for a small doctor's office.

my only insurance as far as drugs are concerned, they are not paying for it at all. i am paying for drugs at full cost. there are certain drugs i cannot afford. now you're going to have businesses or myself cover other individuals when i cannot meet my deductible. the insurance itself, and $25,000 deductible for an out- of-pocket cost -- is that before it kicks in for my insurance. even though i make a modest income, i am a simple person, i

can barely afford what i have now let alone what it may increase to. to increase the tens of business as well as myself to cover all of these tests. guest: if the health care reform law were to do it all, more people covered, both the number and healthier people and it should help modify things and even it out somewhat. does this legislation have

enough features that will help contain costs? there are some modest gains in the bill would help along the lines. what more should have been done. one of the positive thing is the extent to which medicare system will have a better alignment of what we pay for it and the quality outcome. we would not stand for pain for good quality and receive bad quality -- for paying for good quality and receive bad quality. under the new law, the employer can provide an account up to 30% of the.

for the individual if the employee is willing to participate in a willis activity such as joining -- well as activities such as joining a smoking -- a quit smoking program or things like that. medical malpractice is not included in this bill. i am sure the caller is familiar with the services presented by doctors. those things were left out of this administer it -- this legislation. future congressmen will have to look at that if they are going to get serious about health issues at the heart of this question. host: national, tenn., --

nashville, tenn., democrats. caller: i am a small-business owner. i would like to expand to more employees in the next three or so years. what do you think this new health care legislation is going to do for small business owners that are looking to bring employees on board and get the proper benefits. what is that going to do for us in the small business sector? guest: he would have to get a lot larger in your company before you could govern the requirements of legislation. in some sense, i hate to say it, but time will tell. if they operate as they are intended to, there will be a more robust marketplace for small businesses like yours.

they could go in and evaluate the different coverage options that are available to you and purchase them. if there is good competition, it should be a net positive. on the other hand, there are new rules part of the law that insurance companies are limited in the amount they can charge young people versus older people. the net effect of that is going to be for the small business like yours or a young individual going into the marketplace. and they will get charged more because the insurance companies will not be able to charge older people like me more money. to that extent, those policies will be more expensive. host: our last call comes from

deerfield beach, fla., and the pentagon. -- independent line. caller: it is ridiculous that employers are responsible for providing health coverage for employees. think about it. would they pay for their homeowner's insurance, car insurance, were trees? do you feel that one of the unintended consequences would be if employers got rid of health coverage and let the employees get their individual coverage. that would