callers who say in order to get the world's attention and keep them from attacking us that we should carry the biggest stick possible? caller: well, i don't know, that don't sound good to me. if you get a bigger stick, then someone tries to get one bigger. if you can talk peace and get everyone on the same level, then you could go further than just trying to be the strong arm. host: all right, los angeles, california, very early out there -- the line for independents. caller: good morning. i have listened to talk shows for 20 years. i'm proud of the americans who call for peace and love anyone who talks about peace. the reason those people are scared -- always talking about

iran -- there are tooso many iranians here who are doctors and professionals. those here are probably the most civilized people this country has ever seen. the government in iran is of course of fanatics, but they're not stupid. hundreds of thousands of them have died over there. those criminals in our government of iran should be pressed about human rights, but not scared with bonds. host: are you from iran?

caller: i'm from an original royal family there and came to britain. they have stolen oil from us. host: when we talk about the things going on in washington and the emergence of the nuclear arms policy, do those you know seem satisfied in the direction this administration seems to be going? caller: well, yes, anyone who speaks of love and peace, people love them in iran. they have been suffering for so long that any word about the piece makes people hopeful. it is lovely to hear anything about peace and when the caller mentioned that -- my family was president after though shah lived, but the cia changed

things concerning khomeni. [unintelligible] many people who call in do not about the millions of great iranians who live here and all that they do that is host: good we will leave it there. obama to discuss the needs of the black community. religious leaders will meet with the president before breakfast. the reporters write that obama will sit down today with about 20 black religious leaders.

commenting on this situation, a reporter in "usa today" writes that obama ignores black joblessness at his own peril. it says that the rate is trending up while the break for whites is trending down. it says the harsh reality will not change as long as the obama administration thinks its rising tide lifts all boats approach is all that is needed to solve the problem.

back to the phones and our discussion on the obama administration nuclear arms policy. next up is melissa on the line for republicans in new york. caller: good morning. first of all, thank you for taking my call. secondly, i cannot believe that at 29 i need to be the voice of reason for the republican party. i completely disagree with what someone said earlier to the previous caller before them that they should be annihilated. that is not the language we

should be having. we should be able to have debate on issues. the one issue i find interesting is that in 2001 in june george bush laid out a framework for nuclear. he did reduce the nuclear arsenal during his presidency. it was not the republicans who were criticizing him back then, but democrats to discuss the urgency of reducing those, and then 9/11 happen. now it has become a partisan issue and it has flipped. we need to stop being partisan about things and focus on the facts and look back on history. if obama is doing these things now, let's see if the previous presidents have done it before. what happened in those situations? judge based on precedent.

host: do you think of a clear policy will be a significant factor in the election for 2010, and again in 2012? caller: the situation would jobs and health care will be major issues, but that could change. it all depends on what happens with foreign relations, and with other foreign countries as far as the nuclear weapons policy. host: thanks for your call. on the front page here, threats of violence are overblown, says the of irs. the reporter writes that the country's chief tax collector push back against assertions that working for the internal revenue service has become more dangerous.

back to the phones. the line for democrats, dubuque, iowa. caller: good morning. i want to agree with the last caller. i think it is very partisan that the republicans keep disagreeing with the president. these are some of the ideas they have had themselves. the republicans like to fight. republicans enjoyed hurting in killing people. i do not agree with that. what the president is doing is very good for our standing in the world to show that we want peace and love. i do not understand why the republicans only want to kill everybody. the caller who said we should just wipe iran off the face of

the bearth -- however he said i, he is wrong. we should push for peace. israel should stop building. we should be friends with is true, but we should also help pakistan. host: 01 for independents, st. joseph, missouri. -- the line for independents. caller: i'm taking an ethics class. when i hear you talk, i'm personally proud of our nation for standing up to say that we will not strike first, not be the one to cause all that suffering. i do not believe the majority of people in the middle east or russia -- the average person does not deserve it. they are just like us, trying to make it.

i am proud. host: carol, do you think the statement the president said might have a calming effect on some countries developing nuclear weapons? caller: i would hope so. i hope that they will take it that way. it is brave of us to step out to say we will not strike first. it says a lot about the progress of our nation, to say we will not use that extreme form of warfare and just annihilate people. it's as a lot about the progress of civilization. host: alabama, the line for republicans. fair hope. caller: first off, i agree with the caller a few calls back when she said that the caller before -- the one who said people

should be annihilated -- that is just crazy. also, with the nuclear arms deal, this reminds me of the show "24" that i just watched last night because they are trying to protect the u.s. from ctu. from nuclear arms from other countries. on top of that, we have the same thing going on now, which is backstabbing from one part of our government to the other. host: so, do think the policy the administration is putting forward will prevent the need for a jack bower-type % in real life? caller: right now is undecided,

but assuming they should have something, something more like in "24" like ctu to help with these terrorists. host: two stores regarding home ownership. the poll shows that people are less likely to take risks related to buying than in 2003. despite turbulence and the housing market during the last three years, most people still think that home ownership is important and preferable to renta. many remain skeptical that home prices will rebound soon, according to a survey by fannie mae to be released today. -- most people still find homeownership preferable to renting. here is the story -- surprise, home sales spring forward.

back to the phones. long beach, california, on the line for democrats. frank, what you think about the administration's nuclear policy? caller: what we're talking about here is a false contradiction. it says a reduction, not deletion. we're still going to have between us and the russians enough to kill everyone in the entire world. we're just reducing, and getting rid of some old stuff we do not need. the whole question about arms reduction is somewhat, a

contradiction -- a false contradiction. you hear from a lot of people another threat that israel will try to drag us into a nuclear war. we can get rid of a bunch of weapons and still have enough to kill everyone. host: next, on the line for independents. caller: i'm proud to be an independent. listening to people who are constantly like, obama he is a muslim, and liberals on the other side who think he does no wrong -- you will need mental therapy, you really do. if you think that he is a god, or pure evil, he is somewhere down the middle like all people are. concerning the nuclear weapons -- a think most of the time obama begins with the belief

that number one, america is wrong first, and then goes from there on each subject. he is that way with israel, health care, now with and a clear weapons. i want someone in the press to ask him, since you are saying we will not use nuclear weapons, are you saying that america was wrong when we dropped a new gone japan? -- we draw a nuke on japan? host: next up, utah. caller: i'm sure many people are as old as i and remember the missiles from october. the only thing that allowed the president, president kennedy to pack those russians down -- the fact that he was dealing from a position of strength.

the only thing that kept the soviets from running all over europe during the cold war years with the fact that they knew we could stop them with nuclear weapons. i'm not an advocate of nuclear weapons, but i am of being able to deal with this people from a position of strength. even now as president obama is talking about reducing nuclear arms, and talking about not developing any new weapons systems, the chinese are in the process of building new weapons systems. i'm sorry, but i do not believe all the tanks and missiles the russians possessed during the cold war years have just totally disappeared. host: austin, thanks. martin has this op-ed in this morning's "the washington times" with apologies to dr. seuss. he says "do you like my

healthcare plan? you can read more of that in the washington paper. our last call regarding barack obama policy comes from silver spring, maryland. anthony, on the line for democrats. caller: hello. i just wanted to say that i support the stance the president has taken. i would also like to suggest on the world stage more of the stance on the turn as far as allowing the use of nuclear weapons, maybe something along the lines of human rights

violations for any head of state who authorizes the use of nuclear weapons, just because there are so many people who died in japan during world war ii. innocent people who died in the use of nuclear weapons. host: we will leave it there. we want to thank everyone for participating in the last segment. we will take a short break. when we return we will talk with, the massachusetts human health and services secretary. this is "washington journal" and we will be right back. >> all this month, see the winners of the c-span's documentary competition. middle school students from 45

states submitted videos on one of the country's greatest strength, or to launch the country is facing. watch the top videos every morning at 6:50 a.m. eastern, and at a 30 a.m. during the program meet the students who made them. for a preview, visit the website. >> i know what the challenges. we are in a unique position to go to war. we need policymakers to develop a road map so that we can get it done. >> something about energy policy would like to talk about? at the new c-span video library you can search it and share it. over 160,000 hours of video from yesterday or 10 years ago. everything since 1987. the video library, the latest year from cable to america. "washington journal" continues. host: dr. judyann bigby joins us

from washington. she is the massachusetts health and human services secretary. good morning. welcome to the program. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: tellus about the parallels between what you have it in massachusetts and what has passed through congress? guest: the massachusetts plan which is based on a 2006 health care reform bill that gov. mitt romney in the legislature worked very hard to get together is based on providing universal coverage to people in the massachusetts. the way it accomplishes that is by expanding medicaid eligibility, providing state subsidies to people who are low- income and not eligible for medicaid. and also has provisions that

requires to do not make a fair share contribution toward covering their employees to pay an assessment. it has an individual mandate for people who have access to affordable health insurance to take it up or either pay a tax penalty. many of those features are part of the national plan. the other thing about massachusetts is we do have an exchange we call "connector." many years ago massachusetts started passing laws that protect people from provisions in the policies that would not allow them to drop people because of coverage or pre- existing conditions. many of those figures are part of the national bill. host: in "the christian science monitor" they had an article last week with the headline, who

is the father of healthcare reform? obama or mitt romney? the massachusetts bill included a moment such as the individual mandate. it is deeply unpopular among conservatives. mr. obama emphasized similarities. he did that partly to appear less radical and more bipartisan himself. in doing so he has also made problems for mr. mitt romney. is it realistic for the former governor to try to run away from this healthcare plan that he put together because it is so similar to what the president has signed into law? guest: i do not think that it is realistic. the reason the reform has worked

in massachusetts is because of the four elements i laid out, including the individual mandate. the governors from the supported the individual mandate. host: we will talk about massachusetts' health care with dr. judyann bigby, the health and he missehuman services secrf massachusetts. here are the phone lines if you would like to get involved. we have a special line for massachusetts residents. another article in "the new york times" -- massachusetts insurance regulators reject most requests for higher rates.

dr. judyann bigby, tells a bit more about that and how works? guest: one of the things we have seen is that the cost for small business, grew premiums, -- group premiums -- have continued to rise. the insurers filed on march 2 the rates they were proposing for implementation on april 1. the division of insurance looked at the ritz, compared them to the data the health plan submitted -- they live r at theates, -- they looked at the rates and found for the most part that they were too high. they rejected them, and asked for the companies to re-file and

look for a more reasonable increase. host: the next call comes from atlanta, ga., on the line for democrats. kenny? all right. the next call comes from boston on the line for republicans. caller: yes, i would like to hear your guest to respond to the fact that there are fewer doctors now in massachusetts since this bill has been passed and prior. do you agree or disagree? host: bob, before you go -- and before you answer -- do you think that if in fact there are fewer doctors, the think it is because of the health care plan put in place by gov. mitt romney? caller: absolutely. guest: i actually disagree with

that statement. if you look at massachusetts, we have more doctors per capita than any other state in the country. not by just a little, but by a significant amount. we also have more primary care providers then any other state in the country per capita. what has happened since health reform is actually we have implemented some initiatives to attract more primary-care physicians to commit to working in the state, especially at community health centers. there are public and private initiatives that have been successful in attracting primary-care providers to come and work under this reform bill. it is not true that we have fewer doctors in massachusetts since reform. host: next up, the oak grove,

md., on the line for independents. caller: dr. judyann bigby, i'm very concerned because just a whisper of health reform in missouri -- i was immediately drop from my insurance to pick up another advantage to be told, when this goes through, i will lose it, and my sisocial securiy will be damaged thdown the road. you did not have this happen. i have dementia, bipolar come of back surgery i never healed from. my doctor says that i will probably have to stand in line for months afterward to get my pain medication which they only give 30 days at a time. could you help me to understand that a little? guest: think you are referring

to the provisions in national reform that deal with medicare advantage. just remember, medicare advantage is the program where private insurers were paid a bonus to take medicare-eligible individuals, mostly elders. they the to keep the bonus as part of their profit margin. so when the national bill was passed, one of the things they are trying to do is find ways they pay for it. one of the savings identified was to decrease the bonuses that private health-care plans get for taking medicare advantage. frankly, this is not something the plans must pass on to the medicare members.

they could agree to take a lower profit margin, but continue to cover these people in exactly the same way that they are. but they may not choose to do that. it is unfortunate. host: massachusetts ,vince. caller: a couple of years ago i was not working. due to the economy and stuff like that. i did not have health care, did not look for, and did not use it. the year after that the state charged me $292 because i did not have health insurance. i did not like that. guest: and what this caller is referring to is the individual mandate, also part of national reform. the reason this mandate is so important is that there are many people who could get health insurance and do not, when they are