contending that only those ballots that spelled lisa murkowski's name correctly should be counted. and then payments to fannie mae and freddie mac losses came close to over $2 billion. both companies are asking for additional federal support. keith oleberman who has been suspended without pay for political contributions. we want to get your thoughts if you think that's appropriate or not. is it a limit of free speech? you can share your thoughts on one of several ways. by phone, our numbers are on the bottom of your screen. if you called within the last 30 days, if you can hold off today we would appreciate it. that doesn't stop you from reaching us on two other ways. if you want to do so via e-mail

and if you use twitter, and then c-span wj is how you reach us. we'll take those calls and tweets and e-mails in just a moment. several writeups this morning. this is the new york post. this story started because of a story that appeared on the politico's website which talks about this story.

on the piece this morning talks about other cable hosts

yet, the story this morning in most of the papers is about the suspension that took place yesterday because of contributions made without prior consent from msnbc. so your thoughts on it. again, if you want to give us a call this morning let's start

first in los angeles, california. jose, you're up early with us. caller: well, it's early, 4:00 in the morning. i had to get up the first thing i did, i love c-span, i turned c-span on. host: what do you think about this story? caller: you know what, keith has always been a very hard-core political hack and i think much like baseball when you're bidding against your own team and you're part of the coaching staff and you have something to do with rigging the game, that's the same thing i think these political commentaries are doing. and they're basically rigging the game by putting their own vested interests as far as

money contributions to the candidates since they don't -- or they want to help. i think the correct policy, i think he should have disclosed. they have disclosure rules and he didn't follow them and he should have been fired. and if he wanted to make a political contribution you have to disclose it because a lot of your sponsors might have a conflict or interest or they might have issues. so i think he didn't follow the rules, he should be fired. i basically don't like the guy. i think he's extremely hard core partisan left. >> host: so would your lie of thinking apply to all cable hosts then that would do similar things regardless of political affiliation? caller: what i would want is for there to be a government website where all these political commentators have their political contributions

listed. they way, people would know that's the way that he does. and much like the way you're doing now on fox and all the other stations that you're doing, you're basically saying that it's all over and basically done out in the open. it's when you don't disclose it is when you get in trouble. the difference between openly disclosing it and making sure that your cable company knows about it or your news company knows about it versus not letting them know what you're doing. host: thank you. one of the avenues is from the sources of these stories is the federal elections website which tracks political contributions. and if you go to fec.gov, there's the ability to start searching for contributions. seattle, washington, johnny on our democrats line. thanks for waiting. caller: yes. i'm delighted to be on. i think they're just going

after keith olberman the same way they did dan rather. when you look at all of the commentators out there, you can tell whether they're democrat or republican. and it's not fair. joe scarborough not only -- i don't know if he's made contributions or not. but when bush was in office, he was commentator out there at one o of his rallies clapping for him. that wasn't very effective. when you look at people on the radio, they're making contributions. i read an article that several people on cnbc have made political contributions. and there's -- they go after keith because he does a good job, but he also makes his editorial comments that hit the mark and i think it's ridiculous. >> this was done by his obe

company caller: that's what i mean. but they're own by corporations and his company is suspending him probably because the republicans won big in the house of representatives and they want to rein him in somewhat because it looks like the balance of power is shifting a little bit. and i think they're going after him. >> host: is it a limit of his free speech caller: i think it is. he's a private citizen, too. and fepts to make personal political contributions, as long as he follows the rules and, you know, he should be able to make it. i bet rush limbaugh makes a contribution. and so it seems likes there a double standard. i bet kennedy and all the people on fox make political contributions. host: those were highlight's as well. . thank you.

another call from the west coast. los angeles, california. caller: i guess a lot of us are up early today. anyway, the previous caller talked about it being a free speech issue. it is absolutely not. the only way it would be is if the government in one way or another limited his speech. this is not the government. this is his own company. and he broke the rules. a couple of things that weren't mentioned at least is that one of those three people he donated to was on his show the same day that he donated. if that isn't a rigging of the game, i don't know what is. >> one of the stories did mention it was representative griveda, i believe. >> right. and i believe he's pretty smug. he was all over fox when the parent company gave money to the republican party, and here he's doik the same exact thifpk that he cret sized fox for, for weeks.

host: la grange, texas. thanks for waiting. independent line. good morning. caller: la grainage, kentucky. >> my apologies. >> i look at this as a gag order that came up from corporate at msnbc. someone in executive position does not like olberman personally, and so, therefore, the gag order. now, keith is a counterweight and a counter balance of the insidious glenn beck and rush limbaugh, and if you remove him, then everything is -- we're losing everything on the left side. i'm not a democrat, i'm an independent. but boy, we certainly need a keith olberman to straighten out this mess. host: so overreaction? caller: absolutely. if the industry is going to

have an order like this up against one of heir personality , then all of the companies should have the same thing. why would you weight down one personality with one network that's in opposition or does not comport with the mode duss op randi of all the rest of the companies in the industry? >> thank you. from twitter league city, texas. you are next. caller: good morning. first of all, keith olberman is not a hack. he does get opinion nate at times but he deals with facts unlike some of these commentators on fox news. he is responsible for the rise.

i mean, it's not a fan tassic rise but he was responsible for the ratings going up. now, my problem with msnbc is if he think back to when i guess in 2001 or 2002, when the highest rated program but someone in corporate decided that he was too even or left sided or even handed or whatever in the current -- at that time. so they asked him. i'm sure keith will be back. but finally, shawn hanty does not just donate but goes to rallies. he raises money. you know, like one gentleman said, it's not a matter of free speech because it's the company, not the government. but i think it's rotten. thanks. >>

host: thank you. again, we're talking about msnbc host keith olberman suspended without pay for political contributions. three specifically mentioned. we're taking your calls on it. you can reach us off of e-mail and twitter, too. as you do all that, a couple other news stories, the president of the united states, an op ed obexporting our way to stability.

again, the thoughts of the president of the united states this morning in the "new york times." florida on our republican line talking about keith olberman suspended for political contributions for an indefinite period of time. caller: thank you for taking my call. i look at it as when he went to work for this company, he signed a contract and became an employee. and that contract i'm sure it explains all the rules and things that he can do. he stepped out of line, then he's being reeled in. so the company i work for, if i break the rules, i'm either put on some kind of suspension or either fired or whatever.

and the type of work i do i'm a plummer. if i went to work for a different company, they're going to have different rules. so it's just an individual company rule that he has stepped out of line. >> so it's the nature of his business though that really plays of importance here for you. it's the nature of what he does. caller: well, he is good at what he does. but at the same time, if he broke the rules, they're reining him in. it's got nothing to do with what fox does or any other company. the company he particularly chose to work for, they have rules. if he stepped out of line, he's got to figure out whether he can correct it or if they think it was serious enough that they're going to fire him. maybe fox will hire him and he can be an analyst on there as a counter point. host: american hero this morning off of twitter.

milton, new hampshire, on our independent line. kiverageds good morning. i'm going to turn the tv off so i can think clearly here because there's a time difference. i had a couple of statements about the "new york times" article. and the contributions. host: ok. caller: i believe that it is -- it doesn't matter which party. there's always been contributions from big corporations all over the world and there always will be. i think the americans should get together and concentrate on the contributions that are going to create jobs in america and increase our exports. it's amazing how those two could be tied in to the big plus. so my question to everybody out there is, what is the solution and the conclusion to the contributions? and how can we take this and create jobs above and beyond

the elections and the posters and stuff like that? how can we do -- i have a couple of different projects that i think could do something . generating materials, green materials from things that would normally end up in a construction dumpster in a land fill. and i think that if everybody got together and concentrated on the bottom line so everybody wins, which is getting the americans back to work and getting the exports going on. host: what do you think about msnbc's actions? caller: well, i think that there should be an independent third party oversight that should have some kind of rules and parameters for disclosure. i think the most important think that can happen from any kind of contribution is public tiss closure. and i don't think that should

be swept under the carpet. i think that people should be allowed to know who is contributing to who, and how much. and as far as the rules and the regulations, i think that whatever is going to help the economy is probably going to end up being the best and most honest contributors. host: do you think it's different because he's a media personality that he is being treated this way? guest: well, -- caller: well, i think when it comes down to public figures and some people trying to make a statement, they're going to have a lot more effectiveness if they take down someone bigger and more famous. nobody's taking -- nobody is looking at all the small contributions that are shady,

to say the least. host: florida, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wish you would keep people focused on the question. a lot of callers are getting off track. because your question is relates to keith olberman and msnbc's decision to suspend keith olberman. the issue really isn't about whether or not the rules are wrong or right. as of yesterday or whenever they made the decision, the rules were what they were. and msnbc, and therefore, he should have been suspended and i believe he should have been fired. you can debate tomorrow as to whether or not their rules are wrong or not. but you can't make excuses and say, well, other people make donations and we need

disclosure for -- full disclosure. msnbc has to abide by what their rules were. i agreed with the rules 100%. and i think i'm just -- on the one hand i'm shocked that he would even believe he could get away with it. i guess he must have thought he could get away with it. host: what do you think about anybody, though, the stimlar people in his position who make political contributions. should they all be treated the same? caller: yes. no matter what your -- i mean, i believe the best media folks in his position are -- they keep their affiliation, their party affiliation. they shouldn't talk about that. if you're a commentator or especially for reporters, but they should keep that private

to themselves and they should not be allowed to make donations. that's -- when they took that job, that's one of the stipulations that has to go along with that. host: the new york times has a story about what's done with political action committees after those who run them g out of office. it's permitting ex-law makers. it says --

champagne, illinois. linda on our democrat's line. thanks for holding on. caller: host: ok. caller, go ahead. caller: this is bernie from new york. host: hi. caller: i'm a republican and but i believe that olberman has a perfect right. after all, everyone knows what his political means are. he's on the left. he's contributing to the left. and he's not a reporter. he is maybe a columnist more of an entertainer than anything else. he is perfectly right. i don't understand why there's

so much commotion on behalf of msnbc. he is doing what he does. this is perfectly reasonable. and in addition to that, i'd like to say as far as nancy pelosi is concerned, please, please run. you go, girl. and i would like to also say i don't know how you guys keep a straight face. host: wisconsin, independent line. tony. i pushed the wrong button. caller: good morning. i have a question for you. what are the parameters that you have to abide to as an employee of c-span and are you able to contribute? and are you then able to endorse on the air? and why and why not? and if people really have a problem with keith olberman, they shouldn't make complaints to cnbc.

the complaints should go to general electric which owns cnbc. host: we don't endorse on air. as far as the policies that c-span operates by, i could read them to you. i don't know if those answer the question. you can probably go to our website. but that's a little bit of the way we operate. the caller beforehand mentioned nancy pelosi and her decision yesterday to run for minority leader. if you go to our site c-span.org, not only have we collect that had story as well and some tape from actually the appearance from ms. pelosi yesterday, but some other information there too. lexington, kentucky. james on our democrat's line.

caller: good evening. . host: go ahead. caller: yes. i'm a democrat. and my question is why do they care? nobody's interfering with big corporations as far as donations to the republican party and don't demand who is giving money to those? to those campaigns? host: why do you think that is? caller: really, i think the whole thing to me dust seem right. kind of like a setup. you've got keith, a person who i did nothing but the truth. he protects the truth.

i turn on fox news and i get the run around because i do my research and most of the that comes from shawn hanty and bill o'reilley. i wanted to believe in them but i don't see nothing but lying and deceit. and i get the truth from keith olberman. host: if this amend to mr. olberman, what do you think of the future of those in the media? what do you think about their ability to make future political contributions? and what does it mean over all about the ability to do their job? host: keith is american. and he is very passionate and he loves this country so much. and to me, i would just like the take the words of john f.

kennedy. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. host: off twitter. new york. thanks for waiting. caller: i just wanted to say that even though i'm a republican, i do watch msnbc, i

do glance at keith olberman's show, and my whole statement is that rules are rules. if you signed this paper and if this is what he said he would do to perform his duties for this job, then that's what it is. personally, ink that they should be allowed to contribute, especially people like keith olberman and the different pundits on the different channels because there's no question to which way they lean. keets is obviously a leaning left person. it would be more shocking to find out if he contributed to a republican candidate. but in something like this, to me you can't point to other -- you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. he signed this contract and he agreed to it and he broke it. that's it.

again that's in the "wall street journal" this morning. cincinnati, ohio jackie on our independent line. caller: hello. you know, the ruling with

msnbc, there's nothing wrong with rules and rellinglations. you need that. but it's the punishment that you send out. now, he vile yate the rules. but how excessive is the punishment? i don't think suspension indefinitely fits the crime. now, if he had to contribute to like the lady said before, a republican candidate, that is a conflict of interest. we all know he is a democrat. he appeals more to the left. but he's balanced. when i listen to him, when i tune in to him, i hear facts. i can go and look it up. when i turn on fox, i hear their opinions. they'll tell me what i just heard. they'll tell me what i just seen. and they'll give us a news clip. and it's nothing like what they opinionated it to be. i don't have to think, wait a

minute, the man didn't say that. but with olberman he puts facts. when i hear him compared to fox or even cnn. sure, you've got to punish your employees when they violate a rule, but tithes the type of punishment. and i think definitely is excessive. it would have been more property if he had been contributing. that is definitely conflict of interest. host: we'll take a pause right here from our topic to talk to you about our "newsmakers" program which you can see tomorrow right after this program. one of the things he did talk about was the bureaus request for more inspectors and $100 million of resources in the new congress with republicans in

charge. >> i think what everyone has agreed on was the views of our agency is that our agency has never had the adequate resources to do its job. there are agreemt among prodrilling and antidrilling forces, between democrats and republicans. and the budget for 2011 contained a request for 100 million additional dollars for us in order to build up the number of inspectors that we have, to build up the number of engineers that we have and to add various other kinds of both equipment and man power to do all the important tasks that we have. i am very hopeful that even with what's happened in the elections this past week, even with the emphasis on deficit reduction and budget cutting that that kind of consensus on the need for us to have the additional news sorses would

survive and they'll continue to have that pushed through the congress. because the fact is that even for those people who are pro-ippedstri and pro-drilling, what i've heard in the past is they want us to have the resources in part so we can process the permits in an expeditious way. if we don't have the resources to be able to do that, then people who want us to be granting permits are going to be disappointed. so it's a lose-lose if we don't get the resources. it's a win-win if we do. host: michael tomorrow on our "newsmakers" program right after this program. you can see it again at the evening at k. kings tree, south carolina. democrat's line. sherry. go ahead. caller: i don't think they should fire keith olberman or even suspend him. i mean, i think it's obvious what these people's opinions

are. and he's pretty up front about his belief. i think he is a valuable employee. i watch him every night. if i can't watch him i'll record it and watch him later. so i will surely miss him because he does tell the truth. i cannot stand a minute of fox because they're fighting even though they claimed they're unbiced. so i would hate to see keith leave that show. host: do you think it might impact the future of how he does the show when he returns? caller: i would like to keep him the way he is. he's very passionate in his belief and i've watched him for the truth that he brings. he just makes sense. host: but do you think this incident affects how he does his show in the future? caller: i think -- i can't see him change. what did he do?

he contributed to someone's camp pain? i don't even see, the only thing i can see is that he doesn't make any more contributions. host: hendersonville, tennessee. caller: i don't understand the controversy within msnbc or the hypocracy that they're showing. and that they have openly campaigned for a dractic candidate over the last elections, so many of their information shows, which are not journalism, they're entertainment. so whether it's one of the left side failed comedians who are doing their political commentary as entertainment or whether it's keith or whoever is different. the journal yissic side of the news should be kept unbuyiansed and unvarnished. but none of the networks do that. msnbc, cbs, none of them do

that. fox doesn't do it. >> talk specifically about the reaction of msnbc. >> i think it's incredibly hypocritical. if olberman had a contract and he violated the terms, fine. that's grounds for separation. there's no down about that. if you but if it's a matter of contributing to a campaign, the corporate mgb has been doing that for the last three our for election cycles quite openly. host: richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. i find this extremely ironic that keith olberman can be suspended for making a campaign contribution and yet he can refer to conservative columnists to michelle malkin as a mashed up bag of meat with lip stick and yet not be suspended for that. i just find that extremely

ironic. host: mill frd, pennsylvania. republican line. >> you know i'm praising the lord. he is mean spirited, nasty, surveily, rid cules people. him and that rachel woman. i'm praising god. i hope they get rid of her, too. thank you. host: so what about other -- the caller has left us. the "wall street journal" this morning, congress has active investors. this morning.

little rock, arkansas. lawrence on our democrat's line talking about the reaction to keith olberman. caller: hello. i think this is a violation. i don't think he's did anything that isn't being done by a lot of people. but the biggest story i heard was the expresident . nothing. host: tuscon, arizona. dean on our republican line.

caller: i just heard the last comment. maybe we should waterboard keith olberman. i'm a republican. obviously i don't care for keith olberman. but he broke a rule. they have a rule. but i think it's a way out. he's a pundit. he's not a reporter. if he says he's a reporter then he's obviously lying about it because he's pretty liberal. but i don't think it's a big deal. they should give him a couple days off or something and give him his job back. i like watching him and making my point when i hear him. with my liberal friends. you know. thank you. i host: chicago tribune hartford

current this morning. this is looking at official numbers released by the secretary of state yesterday

with all that in play as governors go, here's the countdown. detroit, michigan. george on our independent line. caller: this was a conconspiracyy by comcast and general electric to press the voice of anybody that complains about an absolute corporate power. facists will be taken care of with extreme prejudice. host: one more call. caller: my name is ryan. i am so mad at msnbc for

suspended keith olberman. he has so much about bill oh riley on the right, you know, talking nonsense about the democratic party enough. we need as a democrat, people like keith olberman to keep on saying what he needs to say, supporting barack obama, supporting the democratic side. for msnbc to just suspend him. who re we going to listen to now? i like keith. i probably -- they might as well cancel all the shows. i like chris matthews but i would rather them put keith back on the line. he's funny. he's not a bad guy. he does his job well. not as bad as bill oh riley. everything he has ever said has been true. i like the way he talks about george bush. when he messed up all those people over in iraq, i just

really wish that this doesn't happen. i watch msnbc on that slot. that's the last call we'll take on this topic. we'll switch gears, especially in light of this week's election. ron served as their executive director will be our guest to talk about his perspective of what happens to the health care law that was passed in light of a house-controlled or g.o.p.

controlled house. later on in this program we'll hear from james martin as well as the association on the same topic. we'll be right back.

host: ron, the topic of health care. what did it mean to you for republicans getting back the house of representatives? guest: well, this election was clearly about jobs and the economy. i looked at a lot of the pre-election surveys, and what those surveys tell me is that the american public does not want to repeal health care reform. they want to give it a chance. now, there's some who want to build on it and strengthen the it. you know, but i think if you look at the various areas, there's still a lot of confusion out there about what's in the legislation, how it's going to affect people's lives. one of the things that's happening is that at some of

the early provisions get implemented, a lot of people are now beginning to sort out fact from fix. when young adults are able to get coverages on their parents' policy up to age 26. children cannot be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. small businesses are getting tax credits. lifetime limits in terms of what insurance companies will pay out if you have something like cancer or a heart attack. those lifetime caps are being eliminated. people, when they get denials of claims from insurance companies, they now have a right to an external appeal. so there are a lot of things in this legislation that people are starting to get now. so i think the confusion that has existed, hopefully that's going to dissipate over time.

and as people get these benefits, their families will know about it, their friends will know about it, neighbors will know about it. i think support for this legislation is going to grow. host: so when you hear political rhetoric, especially from republicans, the newly minted republicans in the house, that talk about repeal, how do you treat it? guest: it's not going to happen. i know there are going to be motions to be considered and they may pass the house of representatives. but there are three reasons they're not going to become law. number one, the senate has 53 democrats. and they're not going to pass a repeal. number two, the president is going to take out his veto pen or whatever gets to his desk. but third, i don't think the american public is going to want to see this legislation repealed. they want to give it a chance. so i think that the likelihood

of seeing a repeal is slim to none. host: one of the people running to head the committee is joe barton. one of the things he talked about should he become chairman is the desire to see the health care law overturned. i want to have you listen to what he has to say and get your reaction. >> first and foremost is repealing the new health care law that most people generically call obama care. most of that will come through the energy and commerce committee. not all. some is ways and means and other committees. but the lion's share is energy and commerce. so my first priority would be to repeal that. and follow up very quickly with a replace and reform package that really addresses the health care needs of america. i think we have to do more than just repeal. go back to status quo. i think we also have to replace

and improve is system so that every american has access to qualified health care. host: he talks priority. and uses that word as guest: congressman barton and a number of his colleagues so far in this debate on health care they've only said one word throughout this process and that's no. i guess now there's a second word and that's repeal. i didn't hear anything from senator -- congressman barton in terms of what he would like to replace. what would he like to put in its place? and that's one of the problems that republicans who want to try to repeal the legislation have. they really don't have a program. i don't think that congressman barton is going to get further than possibly the floor of the house on a repeal vote.

you know, senator mcconnell actually in his speech before the heritage foundation said what he thinks the real stakes are. and he said his number one priority is he wants to beat barack obama in 2012. that's what this is all about. this is not about repealing the health reform legislation. because anybody who is a political realist knows that's not going to happen. so we're going to see a lot of heat, a lot of rhetoric. there may be some motions passed on the floor of the house. host: so if repeal doesn't happen, there are ways to dismantle portions of it, slow down portions of it through legislation? guest: i think what you may see happen that will be more significant is that a number of the opponents of health reform, they're going to try to what they call starve the beef. they want to make sure that

there isn't money in the departments of health and human services and other departments. and even the states to implement this legislation and. and now much of the money that's need sd actually embodied in the affordable care act. but i think there will be some fights with respect to appropriations. we may even see riders attached to some of the appropriations bills. i don't know whether this is going to lead to the same kind of budget crisis we had in 19 t 5. i think that the republican leadership would be wise to avoid that. it did not help very much in 1995 when president clinton pretty much came out on top of that after. so i think at the end of the day and when you get to 2012 this legislation is going to state instact.

and the real effort now is the hard work that is being done by department of of health and human services, social security revenue service to make sthaur this law is implemented. and one last thing. the rubber hits the road at the state level. the states are going to need help. and republican governors, even if they're ideologically opposed to the legislation, they know that their states are going to benefit. there are lots of resources that are coming to their state. so i think ultimately what's needed is that the states need the where withal to implement this legislation as effectively as possible.

host: our numbers are on the bottom of your screen and you can e-mail or twitter. go ahead, what do you see as a future for efforts being made on medicare, medicaid under a split party system? guest: let's focus on medicaid. there was a lot of mythology with respect to what's in this legislation. you have the opponents of health care saying there's going to be a $500 billion cutback in the medicare program and it's an attempt to scare seniors to make them feel they're going to lose benefits, they could be paying more. and quite the opposite is true. first, let's talk about what the benefits are in this legislation for seniors. seniors many of whom take multiple medsance, they fall in this big coverage gap that we you've mistically call the do nut hole. that is going to come to an end. now, already those people who

have fall into the do nut hole this year received $250 checks to help them pay for their prescription drugs. come january 1, their prescriptions are going to have a 50% discount. so that's going to be very helpful. ultimately, in 2020 there will be no do nut hole whatsoever. so the first thing seniors get out of this legislation is that this big gap in coverage which has been getting wider with each passing year is going to come to an end. second, seniors are now going to get pr ventive care services and the opportunity to have a mdcal checkup each year at no cost whatsoever. no deductibles, no co payments, no out-of-pocket costs. so now we can make this a health care system rather than a sickness care system. that's number two. number three, there are seniors who will have multiple

disabilities. and unfortunately, for many, many years the way people with multiple disabilities, we send them to a nursing home. that's not where seniors want to go. seniors want to stay in the home, in the community. this legislation provides many more opportunities for seniors who do have some disabilities to stay in the home and to stay in the community. and one last thing that's very important. a lot of us have been worried that the medicare program that part a trust nund might go belly up. and in fact, it was supposed to run out of resources in the year 2017. as a result of this legislation, the trust fubbed was extended by 12 years. so seniors can be assured that the care that they've come to expect will not be taken away. now, this $500 billion thrift that the opponents of health

reform keep on talking about really haven't been leveling with seniors. what is contained in this? it is really trying to squeeze out some of the waste in the medicare program. let me give you a few examples by what i mean by waste. the term waste is often just bandied about. host: i do one to get some caults so how about one prime example? guest: anybody in these private insurance plans known as medicare advantage, those plans are receiving huge windful payments over the next ten years. the winfall payment is about $135 billion. those are going to come to an end. that goes to the bottom line of insurance companies. you'll see insurance companies said this week that they did pretty well and in the last

quarterly earnings. that's a good part. well, that windfall is not something that medicare should be paying. host: let's take some calls. go ahead. caller: i'm just curious what this guy is talking about. we can't afford this. and there's just no way to sit there and pay for all these and keep the budget straight. this is lunesy. guest: i'm really glad he asked that question because it's a very important question. the -- what you'd have to do is not look at what the democrats are saying or what the republicans are saying. let's look at the congressional budget office, which is the nonpartisan arm of the congress. what the budget office is telling us is that in the first ten years this legislation is

actually going to reduce the deficit by approximately $130 billion. . .

hospitals are go to be paid very differently. they are now going to be paid in order to promote quality, not quantity of services. so, to the extent that the hospital discharges somebody, and that person gets it readmitted, that is going to be very costly. there are cool to be closer examination about whether people were treated properly. one other set of things i think is very important -- the insurance companies are going to be more carefully examined in two respects. if an insurance company wants to increase its premiums, those premiums requests, those increases are going to be scrutinized by commissions. money has been given to state insurance commissions to scrutinize those requests to determine if they are unreasonable.

if they are unreasonable, those insurance companies have to go back to the drawing board. the second inefficiency, there is a thing that people called medical loss ratios. how much of your premium dollar gets spent on really providing health services to people? this legislation requires that for small plants and for individuals, at least 80 cents of the dollar has to be spent on providing health-care services for people, not for ceo compensation, and the-nation, or marketing and advertising. for the bigger plans, it has to be 85 cents on the dollar, so that is going to create a lot of deficiencies. >> do you believe medicare users -- >> what we are seeing disappear,

the answer to that is no. there is nothing in respect to the services that are mandated under the medicare program that requires and the insurance company to reduce benefits. i cannot say what insurance companies are going to do. if they want more money to their bottom line, it is possible they may want to reduce services, but there is nothing in this legislation that requires them to do that. >> myrtl host: marco beach, south carolina. caller: this whole health care plan was put up to the people as being affordable. i have asked this question on this program twice, as well as my congressman and my senators, and i never got a reply.

now, i make $42,000 a year. but what does my premium going to cost the monthly since it was affordable? into adon't go off tangent. i want to know what it will cost monthly. i like to remain on the line to let you answer that question. guest: first of all, for your situation, if you want to purchase coverage on your own, here is what is going to happen. there is going to be a new marketplace that is going to relate a wide variety of plans. by the way, they are all private plans it. these are not government plans. these are private plans. you are going to be making the choice as to which planned you want to get into.

because you said you and your wife have an annual income of $42,000, you fall within that group of people who are going to receive it tax credit subsidies to help you pay for the premiums that you are: to have to pay your insurance company. i cannot tell you, since i don't know which insurance companies you are going to be selecting, what that insurance company is " to be charging you. that is one of the choices you are going to make. you are going to look at the benefits provided and then you are going to make that decision. each of these different plans is going to have very different premiums. but for somebody with your income, you oracle to receive a tax credit subsidy to help you make that payment. what do i mean by a tax credit

subsidy? this tax credit subsidy is going to be provided you -- is go to be provided to you at the same time that you need to pay your premiums. this tax credit subsidy is provided on a sliding scale, which means the the lower your income, the higher your tax credit is going to be. so the ultimate cost to you is go to a largely depend on a decision he will make on which private insurance company you are going to select, and then the tax credit is going to be calculated. >> you say it is affordable i have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to affordable. they may be charging me twice as much a month than what i am paying now.

if i take the least amount of coverage, which cannot cover a whole lot, it is going to be vastly more expensive. you top this as being affordable. >> there are other things in this legislation that relate to your question. there is not only a tax credit that you will be receiving to help you pay the premium -- and again, you are going to select the insurance plan. you are going to see for the first time there is going to be a website that you can code to that is going to provide information about each and every plant. you do not have that possibility right now. you have to go to an insurance agent to find out that information. what you do know that you are calling to receive that you do not receive today, you will receive a tax credit to help pay for it in terms of the premium,

and there is going to be an outside limit of how much you have to pay out-of-pocket. host:idaho, bonnie on our democrat line. caller: my question is, we have so many folks that are unable to afford health care. i live in the state of idaho and work in the state of washington. the difference between the two states is incredible. there are a lot of things that are not available in idaho that are available in washington state. va benefits -- will that be considered as credible insurance? also, federally funded clinics through the federal government's -- are those going to be available to more people?

there is one where i live in idaho, and those clinics serving the less fortunate people who do not have insurance, but they are so crowded it is hard to get in. guest: with respect to coverage, somebody who has that probably should continue it. that is not going to change. her last question related to these community health centers. these health centers do really important work, and one of the things in the legislation that is already going into the fact is substantial amounts of additional money have not been provided to community health centers. this will allow those community health centers to serve more people, and in addition to that, it will allow more centers to be

established in the communities that need them. host: columbia, south carolina. caller: i want to be the first person to tell your guest no. you want control of the government, the health-care system by the government. i know what you are after. you want bureaucrats in washington to tell me what i cannot have it. i want to say no to that. the whole shem you are pulling is to make demands on our private health care system, and that they are going to go away so the government can say we are here for you. i know in washington, d.c., the bureaucrats redistribute money for education in d.c. and get the worst showing from it. that is the same lottery you are going to use for the universal health care plan. you redistribute $500 million

for medicare to medicaid for people who have already worked for decades. you are shipping money to people that are unproductive. that is the same scenario we are going to face. i know that you guys are moving that way and want nothing more. you can give all of the plans you want up there. you never answer the question of how much it would cost him because you folks do not know and you want to control his health care. guest: jim is a perfect example of someone who has bought into all the different myths of this legislation. what is going to be established is a new marketplace of private plans. let me repeat -- private plans. these are not going to be government plans. these private plans are going to

be offering their services and their products, and then you choose which of these you want to enter. what the government is going to do is provide a web site that will describe all the of these different private plans, what it costs, what services they provide, and what kinds of networks they have in terms of care that you receive, and then you are going to make that decision. this is not going to be decided by either the federal government or the state government. what the federal government will do is provide subsidies for people who have incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level. what does that mean? for a family of four, that means a family that has income below $88,200. that is obviously going to go up

as the cost of living goes up. middle-class families for the first time are going to be receiving help to pay for the premiums. unfortunately, jim has bought hoch, line, and sickert this notion that this will be -- jim has bought hook, line, and sinker this notion that this will be a government-run plan. those on the left meant that. unfortunately, those on the right even though they want is a victory from their perspective, and it is only private sector plans that will be in this marketplace, they still talk about government takeovers. host: our guest, ron pollack.

st. louis, missouri. caller: wouldn't the open enrollment period begin? the second question is, would i be able to take my current health care with me under the new government regulations? thank you. guest: what kind of a plan to you have? caller: it is a collective bargaining agreement, ge neral, the best way i can explain it. guest: you are getting coverage to the workplace and you will be able to retain that. the idea was not to push people out of the coverage that they have, particularly if they like

it. you will be able to retain that. for those people who don't have those kinds of possibilities, their employer does not provide health-care coverage, or the costs are so high that they are unaffordable, they are going to be able to go into this marketplace that i described, and in terms of the enrollment period, don't yet know the precise date for the enrollment period. you are right in saying that many of the key facets go into effect on january 1, 2014. i am presuming that the enrollment period for that january period will actually start before january, a privately in the latter part of 2013. host: james martin from 60 plus

association will be our guest later. angela, good morning. caller: i have a couple of questions. first off, i live in the state of massachusetts. it i think the government is trying to model its health-care after our state. it is too costly. we have a $2 billion deficit. if one does not want to join, one gets penalized $2,000. this model that the government has patterned after our state, it is not going to work. host: if it has become too costly, why is that? caller: because too many people -- more people would rather pay the fines and go on national health. it has become too expensive. we have a lot of people that cannot afford it said it would rather pay the $2,000 and opt

out of it. that is the model that the government is using, which is not good for our country. yesterday's news show that aarp are raising rates 18% on people. what does that message sent to these people who are enrolled in aarp? guest: i think most people would be very happy to have the protection that people do have in massachusetts. massachusetts is first in the nation in terms of covering people. she was saying that a lot of people want to opt out of the system. massachusetts, by far, has a higher percentage of people with health care coverage than any state in the country. no state comes close to massachusetts. she may not want to opt into coverage, but her neighbors have

chosen. i think the coverage now is 97%. no state comes close to that. i cannot speak to aarp's premiums. host: "it is the hospital costs that are out of control." guest: clearly, costs are what is driving us. the out-of-pocket costs that people bear just to pay premiums over the last decade rose four times faster than wages. this is really significant. where these things tie in together, what the previous caller asked about people with or without coverage and costs, for those of us who do have health insurance who pay for

insurance or the employer pays for health insurance, a significant part of our premiums is devoted to actually paying for the costs of those people who do not have health care coverage. if somebody is uninsured and they unfortunately get into an accident or have a major emergency, the hospital passed to treat them. if the hospital cannot get payment from that individual, they have to make up for those costs. how do they do that? they shift the costs on to all of us that have insurance, and that translates into a higher premium. two years ago, the average premium surcharge to pay for these uncompensated health care costs was over $1,000. as we get more and more people with coverage, those of us who already have coverage, which are going to see that part of our

premiums come down. host: if all lot impacts insurance companies, is there a correlation between the impact companies will have and the services that doctors and hospitals will provide? guest: yes, there is no question that that is right. there often are intramural skirmishes between the insurance companies and doctors and hospitals. the costs are for the services we receive. it is in all of our interests to make sure the cost of these services are as efficient as possible. my hope is that we do a whole lot better in according to eric. there are a bunch of models out there like the mayo clinic and so on that try to work with a team approach. this legislation is designed to

encourage that approach. when you have that approach, you are less likely to have with full services provided to you. when i go to one doctor and that doctor does not know what another doctor has done, he may prescribe something that is duplicated or something that actually negates the other s ervices. hopefully with the incentives provided, we will have more of that prepared host: we have about eight more minutes with our guest. merrill beach, south carolina. caller: i think it has a lot of great services and can help a lot of people out. host: meridian, mississippi, line.n our democrat's

caller: i want to let people know how good this health care bill is going to be. my husband got cancer about a year ago, a terrible type of cancer, and he was fired from work within six weeks. his health insurance dropped after 18 months of cobra. all of you people out there who are lucky enough to get health care, the minute you get sick, you are going to be the first ones who run to an emergency room and one free care. with this limit, it is going to be subsidized so you are going to do well off of it. you are all fighting against your own best interests when you

really do not look at the background of this plan and what it will do for you. your people -- the people on medicare are complaining about the money being taken out of medicare. that is for waste, fraud, and abuse, and you are actually getting more which are medicare by getting free checkups and well cared visits. you are all fighting against a president that is trying to get this all going, which is supposed to help save medicaid and medicare so future generations can have it. if sometime in your life that you have a sick child or sick husband or anybody in your family and you don't have health care, you don't know how hard it is to get the appropriate help. they will ask you for $1,000 or $2,000, and you might get service and they might send you on your wit to somebody else --

>host: we will have to leave it there. guest: she raised something about somebody losing a job, and i think she alluded to cobra coverage. there is a very important point there that is worth developing. if somebody loses their job, the safety net right now is cobra coverage. the average cobra premium monthly is 1100 e. $11. the average unemployment insurance check is $1,333. that means that a person who wants to get coverage has to spend about 83% of their unemployment insurance check in order to get coverage. that is unaffordable.

we need more systematic help. that is why this tax credit is going to be very careful -- helpful for people in the middle class who have incomes below $88,000. one last and i think is worth citing -- one last thing i think is worth saying, you hear people saying keep the government out of my medicare program. people like medicare. medicaid is run by the federal government and it has served us very well. here we are going to have a more private system, but the federal government is going to provide a helping hand with respect to tax credits. host: baltimore, md., you are next. caller: i just wanted to make a couple of comments. i don't think anybody wants health care to be free. they want people to work.

they don't want to make them rich. they don't want to be made to have health care. i think you should be able to buy into a government system. older people say they don't want it to go back to a chop shop and work in the union. i get both sides. i think it needs to be more simple. sorry, i get so nervous. host: we will leave it there. darren is on our republican line. caller: the first statement i have is, you mentioned earlier this is not a government-run system. this is a private system yet it is mandatory. private systems are not mandatory. 70% of the people roughly do not want it. this is a government by the

people, for the people. you try to force us into a shows -- into a socialist system, not a capitalist system, which is what we want. the government is overriding the people's well, the choice of the people, and that is unconstitutional in reality. if this system is so great and they have put together such an awesome system, such a wonderful health care program, why do congressmen and senators and the dictator and office not have to fall under the exact same laws and rules of this system since it is so great to everyone? guest: i am glad he raised that point because the legislation does require members of congress to participate in these exchanges. actually, this system we are talking about where you have a new marketplace, which is

called an exchange, this was a republican concept. this is what governor romney proposed. prior to that, this was proposed by a number of key members in the congress by the republican side of the aisle. they wanted a system like the federal employee health benefit system, where there is a wide number of plants and then members of congress and people in the federal government select from those. that is now with the american public is going to receive. we are going to make sure, actually, that the american public now gets the benefits of what members of congress have been receiving. host: what about the lawsuits that still remain from virginia and it on the other states that have filed lawsuits on this issue? guest: the there are about two dozen lawsuits. we are signatories to one of the so-called briefs in those cases.

one case has already been decided with finality, and that was in michigan. the judge found that the law is constitutional. the judges in virginia and in florida, they have not issued a final ruling. i will say it is unclear where they will come out. i sat in the courtroom in virginia and then listened to the hearing. i don't know where that will come out. the judge in virginia said he would make his ruling prior to the end of the year. in florida, there will be a hearing that will take place on the 16. host: are the result sitting in a virginia court room and the others? guest: in florida, there were two different parts of the lawsuit. one was on this individual responsibility provision, and

one was on the medicaid expansion. the judge did not seem to by the medicaid expansion challenge. he seemed to be more sympathetic about people being required to purchase coverage. there was another case in virginia. this lawsuit was filed by liberty university. the judge in that case seemed to have a similar inclination as the judge in michigan. this is going to the supreme court, a bottom-line. host: ron pollack, thank you for being with us this morning. coming up, we are going to talk with steve from the associated press. he has spent a lot of time looking at foreign policy. first, we will take a look at

the news of the week through political cartoons.

>> ""washington journal" continues. host: as a result of the election this week, does this impact foreign-policy decisions by the president? guest: it probably will to some degree. i think it is difficult where the republicans will want to take things when they get into especially the house of representatives. i think there may be an effect on afghan policy.

as we all know, the president has called for the beginning of a reduction of u.s. forces in afghanistan by next july. there is a great deal of debate about whether that can really be done, if the mission continues to be to defeat the al-qaeda, to deny them presence in afghanistan. there will certainly have to be progress with the taliban insurgency. also, there probably is going to be in little bit of pressure on the president regarding israel and palestinians it. these talks have began -- have gone nowhere, essentially. they have not broken down completely, but the united states has been trying to keep pressure on the israelis in regards to their settlement policy and the west bank and east jerusalem.

the united states under president obama has been pushing the israelis to hold back on settlement policy, something the palestinians are demanding. i think there is going to be if the bit of a push for him to be -- to draw back a little bit on that from the republicans when they take control in the house of representatives it printed on russia, -- in the house of representatives. on russia, the president hoped to have that ratified by the senate. it takes 67 votes, as you know. they are going to try it in the lame-duck president word this morning, i just saw, senator bob corker from tennessee is now suggesting even though he voted on this private lee in the committee is wanting to push it back until the next session of

congress. senator dick lugar, who will be the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee -- won't be, i am sorry. he will continue to be the minority figure their. he is for the treaty, but he has been talking about maybe we should wait. i think there is a question even if it will get to the floor during this lame-duck session. it would probably have a better chance of being ratified that it does in the next session of congress. what is really important here beyond the treaty itself -- the russians have made it pretty clear that obama's desire to reset relations, which have become very bad in the last years of the bush administration, hang on this treaty. the russians are saying this is

something you have to show us, and it should be noted that the russian duma recently reversed itself on calling for a vote on the duma on this treaty because it has to be ratified their as well, saying they will wait to see what the americans do. host: my guest will be with us until 9:15. the telephone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. is the e-s [an.orspan.org mail. there is an announcement today that there is a trade deal coming out of the president's asia trip.

some of the political undertones of what is going on? guest: there are many things to say about that. this was a trip that was planned after having much of it postponed a couple of times because of domestic problems and issues facing the president. it was planned before the election took place, timed for after this midterm election. having said that, it gives the president after this significant backstay for his democrats in the congressional elections a chance to be abroad, to be standing as the president, the person in control of american relations with the rest of the world, and perform that job and to show himself as still the leader of the country that is the only superpower, the largest economy, and so forth and so on. as he goes into this trip, he

has had meetings already in mumbai, india, to date. i think there is a chinese drapery that hangs over much of the visit. the indians are concerned about the chinese it. they are in competition with them economically. there is a degree of competition geopolitically because they are in the same part of the world. the chinese have become much more assertive as of late, said the president is there not only to try to cement growing economic relations with the indians, but also to provide them with assurance that the americans are standing with them. i have read where the united states and india has more joint military exercises than any other u.s. partner in the world,

which was surprising to me, but it also shows the importance that the united states places in india. he is going to be moving on to indochina, a place where he lived for a time during his youth. they are building democracy in that country. there are still concerns about the military and how it operates there. there is still a great deal of corruption. the president will be talking about that. it is a visit with the president is saying i and here, i am paying homage to my country, my boyhood home. he will be meeting with the chinese leader. the south koreans are still very concerned about the north, as is the united states and the rest of the world, the nuclear program. again, the chinese will be a big

presence in these discussions before he goes on to japan. then there is the other summit of the asia-pacific countries, the southeast asia countries. also, after a difficult period of u.s.-japanese relations, he will be patching up a new political structure in that country. so, a huge agenda host: do leaders in pakistan show concern? guest: they will be showing concern because one of the great problems the united states has had in afghanistan has been that pakistan traditionally and almost wrote lee looks towards india as an enemy. it is very difficult for the pakistanis to about face and start looking to the west end toward afghanistan, where the united states is frankly having

a great deal of difficulty especially along the border areas. there has been a traditional link between the pakistan military forces and the taliban. the pakistanis are going to be saying wait a minute. the president is visiting india while he is trying to get our support for fighting the taliban and al-qaeda along our western border and in afghanistan, so there is this great tension there. as far as the indians are concerned, the united states has been pouring huge amounts of money into the pakistani armed forces it. when these two countries clashed, it is always militarily. host: over the last few days, there has been a lot of stories about the cost of this trip. guest: the president is spending the night in the taj mahal

hotel in mumbia where is that terrorist attack took more than 140 lives. there is certainly a great cost just in securing the president in that structure. then you spread them out into mumbai and more largely offshore, it has to be a huge cost, but i have no idea what it is host: the first call for you is from cleveland, ohio. caller: i wondered what your thoughts were about partaking in the u.s. caucus over there about human rights violations against the united states about the treatment of women that we are getting criticized by iran and mexico. what are your thoughts on that guest: i am not quite sure what

you are referring to. it is not necessarily a matter of international relations, also is it slops over into the relationship with mexico. i think there is a list -- i think there is still a great deal of debate about that issue in the united states. on both sides of the issue, there are strong arguments. with these two sides are going to have to come together and reach some sort of solution because it has become a problem that the tracks from states like arizona and all of the border states, from focusing on more major problems. if they can get this one salt, they will be in a much better position. the iranian complaints about the u.s. treatment of women, i think, is probably very typical of the i iranians trying to

perhaps change the subject a little bit and turning the argument around on the united states. host: vancouver, washington, the republican line. caller: do you know if the [unintelligible] has any way of knowing about the convention and if you will bring it up to south america or anything like that? my daughter was taken down there by my ex-wife. i have been going through this for years now. i realize to do not work for the state department or anything. does he have any plans to visit south america? guest: nothing that i know of it. he is certainly going to have to do that during the course of his

presidency because it is enormously important to the united states, and it is increasingly important especially economically. we have countries like brazil moving into the no. 4 spot in terms of the world's largest economies. host: falls church, va., on our independence line. caller: i was going to ask a generic question initially, and then maybe focus it. i know the u.s. congress once sworn in gets the visit by the special interests, covering many areas of the world. the most influential of being the american and israeli political action committee. part of the paralysis that sort of, you know, made up the situation in the middle east is

because the congress is so the holding to eipac aipac througho. do you think they have a general interest in seeing the palestinians have their own state as is dictated by our foreign policy? guest: i would hesitate. in fact, i will not speak to the wishes of that organization. i would recall, for you, that dennis ross, who is a very important figure in the u.s. middle east foreign policy establishment, recently spoke to that organization and he very carefully but did not pull any punches outlined what the obama administration is trying to do. he talked about the necessity -- the necessity of there being

some sort of give on both sides and mentioned this whole issue of doing sentiments in the west bank and east jerusalem. obviously, apec is an enormously powerful force because it influences in congress and throughout the united states. i think that, at heart, it is an organization that also knows it has to deal within the united states political system and also has to understand that some sort of commentary between these two forces and agreement will at some time come and is necessary, and that is necessary not only for the desires of the palestinians, but the long range security of israel. host: are there any future

meetings planned? guest: i think there are meetings going on right along, and what is encouraging, there are a lot of meetings going on in the middle east between the players. this is not something that is only between the israelis and palestinians. it is something that affects the larger middle east. we have seen a lot of egyptian involvement in the meetings with the egyptians. some other gulf states, jordan -- as that begins mixing it up, there is a far greater chance that there is going to be some kind of movement. the central issue is still held are the israelis and palestinians going to find -- give from both sides, come together, and start dealing with these issues? the question basically is, what happens to the border between

the israelis and palestinians of the west bank? if that can be solved, i think most problems fall in place. host: letter on, the president will travel to jakarta on tuesday and will make an address on wednesday. it in an op ed in the new york times, the president spoke about the economic gains from this trap. what hurdles does he have to cross to open up exports to these countries? guest: he is pushing the indians hard as he is on every stop for an easier time for american industry and businesses to get u.s. products into those countries. he just is preparing to announce a deal with boeing that boeing and finally struck to sell transport planes, a big amount

of money. ge is talking about having gotten a deal with the indians for electricity generation equipment. he is going to be going into korea where there is a pending free-trade treaty that he wants to see past but is being held up because many of the united states think koreans are not allowing enough u.s. goods in. the same thing with the japanese. overlying this, of course, is currency. the big problem for many in the u.s. congress, going back to that issue, is the concern over the way the chinese manipulate their currency. what they do is keep the value of their currency artificially low. what that does is make chinese

goods less expensive for americans to buy, and american goods more expensive for the chinese to buy. so there is a great deal of pressure that has been going back and forth especially from the americans to get the chinese to raise the value of the currency. they are doing it very slowly and probably not going to do it to the levels that anybody would like. there is a similar problem with the koreans, and the japanese. host: the republican line. caller: the economic plans that the president has today, what this trip basically would do for us -- i think you basically answer that to some extend. another thing, what with the

president do or what could the president do on the fair tax act? with that not help our world trade now and is that possible? basically it is going to help -- i know there is a lot of criticism about this trip. but everyone has to realize that is necessary for his duties. so, your comment on any type of fair tax act that might help. i guess they're trading and the marking up of their currency, would it not be true that if we could lower our taxes on our corporations that they could compete worldwide and not have to negotiate? guest: let me step back a bit and say, yes, you are right

regardless of criticism about the cost of this trip. the president has the obligation to represent the united states and work in its interest abroad. we have to remember after the president had a flurry of overseas activity in the early days of his presidency, he has now in the meantime spent an enormous time on health care, financial reform regulations, and then this election. a lot of what has been going on between the united states and the rest of the world, it is in process. secretary clinton has been promoting u.s. interests, but the president has not been able to focus on. it is presidential focus that

brings u.s. focus and world focus to these international relations, these very important international relations, not only geopolitically, but economically, especially now when the u.s. economy is hurting so bad. as to taxes, i am far from an expert on that. i think the problems that the u.s. industry faces, more than taxation, is the health industry and many other countries around the world receive in terms of subsidy from their governments to promote exports. i am sure you could say if we lower taxes on u.s. industry that would be an equal subsidy, but i don't think the two measure up. i think the united states will be fighting an uphill battle on that front no matter what happens.

caller: good morning. how are you? associated press? do you have time for a small debate? guest: i will leave that to my host. caller: how much of foreign policy is done without any american money? host: what do you mean by that, caller? caller: we have a world based economy, is that correct? guest: that is certainly correct. caller: how much of foreign policy in any matter would the united states achieve with american money? guest: i still don't understand your question. caller: foreign policy and

money, period. host: we will leave it there, caller. caller: sector for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. how long will the press continue to allow the republicans in gross whatever the president does, especially in foreign policy? right now, they are engrossing what it will take for the president to have this visit, talking about one-tenth of the navy has to escort him. but they probably and gross anything he does in a muslim country, being that his father was muslim. they engrossed and lied about the health policy, and the press allowed these and grossman's go through without challenge. how long are you going to do that?

guest: i think there is a great misunderstanding in what you are saying. there are portions of the media that promote one point of view or another point of view. then there are journalists like myself who are required to look at the points of view of all of the major players on any particular issue and report what those people are saying about those issues, bringing into that the context and the fax of that debate. it is my job -- it is not my job as a journalist to decide who is right and wrong, but to present the view and offer the available facts on a particular issue. then it is up to you to make your own mind.

obviously, from the tone of your question, you have a point of view. but it is not our job in the media to say that the point of view that is opposite yours or contrary to yours is wrong. it is our job to present the arguments, present the facts, and allow the citizens of the united states to make up their minds. that is the function of the press. as i said, there is a great confusion abroad in the united states about many media outlets that do promote one point of view or another point of view, but they are not doing journalism. they are promoting points of view. host: how about foreign policy going forward having to deal alongside with terrorism? guest: a huge amount. this brings into focus the need for our foreign policy to be

much more directed toward what is causing terrorism, where it is, and how foreign-policy can help to alleviate that, if possible. the situation in yemen is a nightmare, i think, for foreign- policy professionals in this administration, out of this administration, because what you see popping up is not somalia necessary, and it opens the lead for another way for terrorists who want to attack the united states to operate quite freely. there are many terrorists in yemen, as i understand it, but because of the nature of the country they operate pretty much at will. host: your organization is reporting that a judge in yemen

has ordered the arrest of a terrorist after america putting pressure on them to put pressure on terrorists. guest: it is among the united states, as they work overseas, would do the same way. they were out to capture or kill him. there is a great deal of debate because he is a u.s. citizen about the constitutionality and morality of doing such a thing. the u.s. government putting out an order to, perhaps, kill a u.s. citizen. he operates very freely in yemen and is heavily into the internet. he has had contact with a man who did the shooting in fort hood, or who is alleged to have done that shooting, and is supposedly tied up with the young man tried to blow up the plan going into detroit last

christmas. i do not pretend to be able to make a comment for decision upon new brightness or wrongness of this, but certainly we can see the focus of the u.s. government in yemen. the people in yemen are saying the same thing suggesting they are bound to u.s. pressure to get tougher. host: does the president indicate more involvement in this issue? guest: i think there's a great deal of involvement that we do not know about. there's a considerable use of the cia drones over yemen. i think the united states would rather do anything than get involved on the ground, and yet it is another hostile environment. host: naples, fla., for steve hurst who is a white house correspondent for the associated press. caller: thank you very much and

good morning. i have not read about an issue that i think may be important with respect to the president's travels which is how does our dollar affected to the country is going to? guest: the dollar has been somewhat lower lately which helps u.s. exports. what that means is that people in india, for example, are able to purchase u.s. products at a lower price because the exchange rate means you can get more rupees per dollar. that helps the united states economy greatly. something to think about in all of this, and i am not an

economist, but there is some talk that the recent action by the federal reserve to purchase several billion dollars in u.s. securities is something that is also forecast to lower the value of the dollar which, again, with help of the u.s. economy but it is causing some concerns abroad that it may also cause inflation in places like brazil and these other booming economies. host: the front page of "the financial times" talks about the g-20 meeting coming up. the governor of the global imbalances. what does this mean for the president? guest: he will have a tough talk when he sits down with hu jintao. i think the meeting will be in the seal when he is there for the g-20. there forl when he's

the g-20. the chinese know that in order to sustain their economy going forward that they will have to turn away, if they can come from an export driven economy to one where people consume things. as they begin moving more towards a consumer economy, as more and more people in china have the money to purchase goods, the united states wants to be in on that gigantic market. the problem the united states has in getting into the gigantic market is the fact that the chinese have kept their currency artificially low. that means it is easy for them to export and sell things, but it is hard for importers, like the united states, to get their goods into the marketplace because they are more extensive than the chinese counterpart. that is the argument in its

essence. the united states will be trying to solve that yet again. the chinese have let their currencies rise slightly. one question you could ask the administration is, "how tough do you want to get"? there is a point where the united states could impose a tax on the exchange of currencies that would help the united states currency. it would bring money into the treasury. do they want to get that stuff with the chinese? and they are now the second- largest economy and that they hold all of this american debt. i do not know. that is a decision that needs to be looked at by this administration and congress. host: 10 more minutes. new york is next. good morning to robert on our independent line. caller: lately i have been hearing a lot about jobs and how we will become more competitive

with places like india and china for middle class jobs. i am wondering if the president will be addressing how we will compete more so we are not -- companies, even though they are investing over there, will not be losing a lot of jobs over here, these middle-class, white collar jobs to countries overseas? guest: the president is on his bully pulpit right now telling americans that they have to get behind him in an effort to prevent the american companies that are going this so called "outsourcing." you hire people in india to run these call centers. you end up talking to someone in mind why -- mumbai. that could have been done here in the u.s., but it is being done in india and because they

can do it for a much lower rate. there is a possibility that the united states could impose a tax of some sort on u.s. companies that ship these jobs overseas. is that likely to happen in a republican controlled house? probably not. what he has to do is use his bully pulpit. there is some word from the chairman of ge, immelt, who indicated that ge is beginning to understand that perhaps u.s. industries and corporations have gone a bit too far in outsourcing and moving jobs and production overseas. they might be willing to draw back a bit.

perhaps the president is winning a bid using his bully pulpit, but this is economics. and simple. if you can get something done more cheaply and you are a corp. looking at your bottom line wanting your stock price to go up, what do you do? you try to save money. it becomes a matter of political philosophy, and i guess you might say patriotism, whether a president can convince those companies to begin drawing back from that kind of policies. who knows? host: to form governments look at these elections and it think the president is weaker? guest: i think we will see him politically weakened at home. now, what they have to understand is that at the same time while he may be in a dicey political situation at home, he is still the guy when it comes to dealing with the world abroad.

the congress can have effects on the way he deals with the the world abroad, but he is still the one who directs policy, lays out policy, and can take enormous initiatives. we have not talked about a run, for example. -- we have not talked about iran, for example. i think we will feel pressure to get tougher on i ran a. what can he do? on the one hand, the use of military force. on the other hand is a capitulation and acknowledgement that they will become a nuclear power. there are steps in between those two then points. the president will be the one who decides where he will come down in that spectrum of possibilities. the iranians should take note that the outcome of this

election will affect where he comes down. host: jacksonville, fla., on our republican line. caller: you have almost answered my question today. i wondered why the president has to go. the't we used to send secretary of state or the secretary of treated to deal with all of these problems? then the president could settle the things back home. i am just a very curious to know why we have suddenly come to this business of sending our very top man there who is really not knowledgeable in these things and has to take all of these people with him. guest: these top people tell him what is going on.

believe me. we have a president right now who is well versed in foreign affairs and world events. the very point of a president -- and there is a long history of this, it is to signal the importance of the u.s. plays in various relationships between the united states and india, for example. you will recall that the first state visit under president obama was the indian prime minister. this is an important relationship. obama going there takes time and it costs a lot of money and it becomes a distraction internally, but it signals to the indians have won four in the u.s. believes the relationship is with them. host: the trip will continue on until the 14th. on november 11th, the president will attend the g-20 summit in south korea. the following day will be the

news conference at the g-20 closing. he will be in japan on november 13th. this is a long trip in comparison to others? guest: a very long foreign trip. it is more or less dictated by the fact that the president had to cancel the couple of times especially with indonesia. he is spending more time with india, for example, that he has spent in any foreign country so far in his presidency. this signals to the indians just how important this is. the president of the united states does not travel hours and hours and hours a plane to take him away from what are difficult domestic problems right now to spend three days in a foreign country unless he wants to signal to that country just how important he views, and the

united states views, their relationship. this is also dictated by the g- 20 summit which is something he would not want to mess and the meeting in japan. these are important meetings and these are lining up together right now. it just happens they come after the election. a just so happens, also, that the news, as it affects the president, shifts away from domestic politics toward foreign affairs. as these trips are ranged, deals are made, agreements are made, and the leaders announced them. this looks good for president obama and the presidency and leaders of the other countries. everyone benefits. host: michigan, how one on our democratic line. caller: on one them to get out

of afghanistan and iraq. -- i wanted them to get out of there. president bush should have gone out of there. host: any elements of iraq policy to be dictated? guest: no. in iraq, the die has been cast. that does not mean the guy can be broken, but we pulled out combat troops earlier this year and there are about 55,000 other troops in support still there which will be out by the end of this year. president obama and everyone in the united states, i am sure, once that to happen. that is an agreement made with the iraqi government. they could still come back and say things are really too dicey for you to go home. this could fall apart, although

i doubt it. things may get very dicey in iraq before the u.s. is finally out of there. host: last call from our republican from ohio. caller: i have many consumer -- i have been a consumer of your company's products. i wish was more available to the public so we could pay attention to what you guys find out. let me make a few quick points. i think the guy that was confusing to you was basically trying to say how much foreign policy would there be without the u.s. foreign-aid helping to take care of a disaster? it ends up competing against the system which is another thing. that is when you got confused about. in reference to the sending jobs overseas, specifically the

service sector, a new company came on line a few days ago which is basically providing 6000 new jobs. these people answered the telephone and they are here in the united states. even when you talk to someone in the philippines, you do not understand. we just do not get it. my big deal has to do with the human being a total failure -- with the united nations. a total failure. kudos to the lady about the secretary of state's drawbaugh. i think hillary is not getting a fair shake. she could do a lot more. that lady has a lot of capital she can years overseas. guest: you walked up and down

the waterfront quite a ways. 82 foreign countries -- on a debt to foreign countries, there is this idea that the u.s. gives away a lot of money in foreign aid which is simply not true. it is a little bit more than 1% of the budget. countries like japan and the terms of a percentage of their budget give a far more than the united states. that is an argument that its turnaround a great deal. it is, in my opinion, far less in terms of what it should be with helping fellow human beings abroad. hillary clinton has done a bit of service. i think she gets a great deal of the coverage for what she is doing. she has dived into a very tough job at a very tough moment for a president who she fought mightily against in the lead up

to the race for the presidency. i cannot think of everything else you said. it is wonderful someone is creating 6000 new jobs. host: we will leave it there. steve hurst, thank you for spending time with us. next up, one more perspective on health care. james martin serves as the president of the six to close association and we will be right back after this.

>> this weekend, john of goldberg, best-selling author and editor at large of the national review online discusses the conservative movement, election results, and the next wave of leaders on the right. join our conversation with your calls come emails, and -- calls, emails, and tweets. >> on saturdays, supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> in part two of the abington school district case involving

freedom of religion, they felt students should not be required to read from the bible before class. today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span radio. 90.1 in washington, d.c., and online at cspanradio.org. host: james martin of the 60 + organization joins us. how much did you spend on this election cycle? guest: if you include 2009, probably a little over $20 million. host: what was so important? what was your main message? guest: we wanted to give seniors a voice on this health care bill, which is now called obamacare. seniors were up in arms in 2009 and 2010 saying let's do something about it. we take our leads from senior citizens. they were not happy with this

bill. our next move will be to repeal it. host: do you think is possible that a repeal was not even on a table, at least in his opinion? guest: he should ask the 60 house democrats who went down this past tuesday. there will be more in 2012. seniors are on the march. i like to say there is a tsunami headed toward capitol hill. that came ashore on tuesday. quite honestly, seniors were not happy with this bill. senior citizens who read that bill, frankly, they read it probably those -- more than those who wrote it. those who rode it apparently did

not read it. max baucus said recently that they did not have time to read every word. one man from michigan only said it was 1000 pages and it was over 2000 pink it would take two days and two lawyers to read that bill. senior citizens read it and they rejected obamacare. quite frankly, going back to what was said earlier, repeal will not be easy. we say repeal it and replace it, reform it. there are some good things in that bill, but you do not take a wrecking ball to a system that has worked so well for so many for so long and start all over. that is what we are opposed to. we agree with leaders in the house and senate now, certainly in the house, and we want to repeal it. one senator, i think it is senator mitch mcconnell, who

said we will vote on this time and time again. that is a good thing. then you get people on record. host: here is senator mcconnell earlier this week at the heritage foundation. >> they have the white house and the senate, so we have to be realistic about what we can and cannot achieve what the same time recognizing that realism should never be confused with capitulation. on health care, and that means we can and should propose and vote on straight repeal repeatedly. we cannot expect the president to sign it. we will also have to work in the house on denying funds for implementation and in the senate for votes against its most egregious provisions.

host: if a straight out repeal does not work, there are other avenues. guest: i like the way he put it. straight repeal and vote on it repeal -- vote on it repeatedly. the money comes from the house. yes, the president will probably veto it, but that puts other members on record in the senate and the house on obamacare. just before you went to the cut in the on senator mcconnell, in 2012 there are a lot of senators up for reelection on the democratic side. they're looking over their shoulder because of what happened to their colleagues in the house. i do not think they will be too keen on voting to keep obamacare in place. this is bad for seniors. seniors spoke out against it in

all of these town hall meetings. quite frankly, they were appalled by the cuts to medicare. i know others say they are cuts -- that "cuts" are a misnomer. we included the cbs news and others and they all call it "cuts of $500 million to medicare." host: they talk about filling in the doughnut hole, as it is called, and that adding in preventative costs -- preventive care for no costs. there are aspects of being a result of this legislation. about the's talk doughnut hole. low-income seniors are already taken care of in that doughnut hole. there was an inordinate amount of time spent in the doughnut

hole. there is not a lot of people who fall in that category. that is certainly not a huge part of this bill. preventive care? that is a good thing. getting rid of pre-existing conditions? there are good things in the bill, but you do not need it to program the 2000 page bill down the throats of these senior citizens. do not take a wrecking ball to it. that is what the seniors said loud and clear. host: what does starting over mean? guest: starting on scratch. president obama, when he was a candidate, i said we should sit down on c-span with doctors, providers, nurses, and members of congress who are doctors

themselves, democrats as well as republicans. let's go on c-span and sat around and let them talk about it. it was a closed door negotiating and we got this monstrosity. republicans offered a lot of amendments and a lot of ideas. they were rejected summarily by the president and his party. host: as something were to replace it, what would your replacement look like? if you were to start from scratch, what would you want to see? guest: first of all, and parental changes the way to go. -- incremental change is the way to go. a bill which, quite frankly, we talk about the $500 billion in cuts to medicaid, a huge tax increase. how will that affect the most? seniors. senior citizens have paid into

medicare all their lives. it is not whether you are for or against medicare. it is the law of the land. it was passed in 1965. seniors have paid their dues. then there told we're going to cut $500 billion out of the system and add 32 million new customers. there are about 75-7 7 million baby boomers about to be seniors. you cannot tell me these numbers do not add up. the rationing has already started. we can go into that in more detail. host: let me take some calls. the first call is from north carolina on our republican line. you are on with james martin. caller: good morning. host: go-ahead. caller: i will be 60 in december. just prior to my 50th birthday i

received information about the aarp. i am still a member and i am just about ready to cut up my aarp card. i had no idea that there was a conservative branch or a conservative form of the aarp. i have never heard of your organization. how did i not know about you? guest: i appreciate your question. we are relatively new to the game, i guess you might say, since aarp is now about 50 years old. we are in our 19th year. i started the 60 + association as a conservative counter to the aarp. someone brought it to my attention that the aarp is a

pretty liberal, left-of-center group. how is that possible? most seniors are more conservative, shall we say, in our viewpoints. most people who run the aarp are former staff members from capitol hill, liberals. they get a lot of tax dollars. they get millions and billions of tax dollars. they hawk a lot of products. we do not think they should use tax dollars to do that. at the 60 + association, we come from a limited government form. we have partnered recently with a group out of atlanta, georgia, the it called -- called the seniors organization. they offer a lot of productivity may take a look of them because you may find to your surprise that they offer products that can be very competitive with the

aarp's products that they sell through the mail. host: do they offer your organization financial support? guest: know, they do not, but we are partnering with them. they reached out to was in the past and the first came aboard about six or seven years ago. we wanted to see when they are made out of. they come from a limited government point of view and they think they can offer products that compared to the aarp. we are financed through voluntary donations. host: do you not take any money from aspects of the health community? guest: we do not. just voluntary donations. we are in our 19th year.

we have received anywhere from $1 up to $1 million. host: illinois on our independent line. caller: brian lamb wrote a letter to congress, not to president obama, regarding transparency. citizens united, we can forget about transparency. tom scully was on c-span and stated that medadvantage was a failure and no politician would ever admit it. president obama did. third, the hhs secretary under bush came from the leavitt's grew out of utah, the 12th largest -- levvit's group out of utah. -- 12th largest insurance

company. if you look at your health insurance in 2000 and looked at your insurance in 2008, yet in your market-driven economy, market-driven health care, he wants a price now. i would like to know the price of a gallon of gasoline -- what to know the price of a gallon of gasoline would be next year. could you tell me? guest: i have no way to respond to that. host: richmond, va., on our democratic line. caller: good morning. that lady before me hit every point absolutely correctly. the gentleman you had on earlier talked about health care. the republicans have spent the last two years schering older people. the country -- schering older

people. the country is aging. we have to dohingbout medicare. it was then the next two years repeals something they cannot repeal and waste time. you want people to come and storm washington. you cannot repeal it. i do not know why you are even talking about it. we need to move forward and try to fix it, do what ever. this is ridiculous. thank you. guest: i will point out that scaring seniors has been a motus operandi for years whether it is a social security scare tactics or medicare scare tactics. i have news for that caller. come 2012, there will be some changes if we do not repealed and replaced obamacare with a good market driven provisions.

in 2012, there will be enough senators on the republican side to repeal this in the united states senate. host: sioux falls south dakota on our republican line. caller: i would like to know exactly what you would cut on this obamacare bill. not just in a roundabout, but i want to know exactly what you would repeal. you talk about older people getting more conservative. i am 60 years old and out here, we do not have a lot of jobs that pay benefits when you get older. we are depending on our social security and medicare. i used to be a republican and i am now an independent because of these kind of issues.

i do not think we can just leave ourselves open to the free market because i can guarantee you as a man who worked in hard labor meinhold -- my whole life, i am worn out. i cannot depend on the free market. the republican party, when you talk about the older people that were voting to repeal this, i have seen people on c-span who called in and are mad at the democrats about social security. host: thank you, caller. guest: i, too, depend on my social security check and medicare. i paid into the system all my life. clearly this is a problem that

needs fixing, whether it is social security or medicare. i used to mix and match as a young man. i used to build houses when i was a younger man. clearly we have to do something. there is no one-size-fits-all answers to any of these problems. too often on social security, for example, we have heard this since the days of barry goldwater that republicans will take away social security. it is a canard now just like it was then. my mother worked in digger 80's and depended on her social security check as a huge part of her income. -- my mother worked into her 80's. it needs to be protected. host: go baltimore md., you are

on on the line with james martin. caller: i am an independent. i will tell you why i voted democratic in this last election. i am 45 within 80-year-old mother and i have to dave -- and i have two sons. balancing the needs of my mother and balancing the needs of my children is the problem i have. the problem i see in handling the finances of my mother is the waste in medicaid. i get her bills and i see that the statement where it shows $200 for a pair of diabetic shares. -- shoes. that is where i see the enormous waste when it comes to medicare and medicaid. i think that is a huge part of the problem when it comes to seniors which is unbelievable versus those who are poor and

without and those who are uninsured. that is why i voted to keep the health care bill. as far as the size of the bill, to thousand pages? this is a major landmark. i was not intimidated by that. i will tell you a quick story. i have a neighbor who is unemployed with stage four breast cancer. i asked myself, "how dare i be so selfish to say i want to repeal this bill when i am healthy"? i have to take a look at this thing and think i have a mother that is affected, poor children affected, i have a neighbor who is sick, i have a job and i am healthy. people who want to repeal this bill, you have to look at the whole picture. we have to stop looking at what this will do for us, for the seniors, for the kids come and look at the big picture. host: thank you, caller. guest: i agree with the deep

medicare problem. there was a quote from the democratic governor of tennessee who said this is the mother of all unfunded mandates and it is a huge problem. she talked about waste, fraud, and of years. that is almost one word now. there was waste, fraud, and abuse when it was passed and it is still a huge problem. that is not the silver bullet that will fix the problem. that is a major problem and those who get into the system, like in my home state of florida, people are getting jailed for fraud in the system. the caller mentioned a breast cancer drug. last month was breast cancer awareness drop.

-- awareness month. there is a drug on the market used for breast cancer sufferers and there was a movement by the fda because they may pull the drug. they made public because of the cost involved. i think it was september 17th that the fda was supposed to rule whether to take it off of the market. a few days before that, they decided to wait 90 days to make that ruling. i think that made it to after the november 2nd election. clearly, this is a huge expense of cancer drug. if they take it off the market, the susan g. common group and others have come out with

letters telling the fda to not go there. this is the first time in the history that they will approve or not approve a drug based on cost and cost alone. he received a recess appointment so he did not have to go before the congress for a hearing. basically, this man is rationing. he looks at cost and cost alone. that is a scary thing, especially for seniors. when i talk to seniors across the country, they understand. the men will listen and not their heads, but the women are up in arms. host: are there changes needed to the insurance industry? guest: absolutely. i think you should have insurance across state lines. the portability would hope this

be a market driven force. right now, too many insurance companies, their premiums are too high. if we go across state lines, that could reduce costs immensely. host: bloomington, north carolina. good morning on our democratic line. caller: the gentleman who said earlier that they will start budgeting out health care or whatever. there is already a shortage of doctors. i think it is a little selfish for people with insurance, not just seniors but others with good insurance, his say they are not willing to wait an extra week to see their doctor so that 30 million other people may have their lives saved. i think if they were on the other side of the fence that they might have a different view. on social security, and we also pay our whole lives for

homeowner's insurance. we never get that money back if our house never burns down. i think they should change the name to social security insurance. a lot of these seniors are the poorest people in the nation, but some of them are the richest. regardless of whether you pay in your whole life or not, when you get to a certain age you do not need it financially than it should go back in the pot for those who do need it. host: mr. martin? guest: warren buffett does not heed his monthly check, but there is a big difference between low-income seniors to rely heavily on their social security check, like a mentioned my mother who worked into her 80's, but there are others who do not need it but they pay in. the fact of the matter is that there is a level before the tax

kicks in for the wealthier seniors. someone said it that would add a couple of weeks to the system which is overburdened by the fact that we have too fewer workers. when the system started, as someone put it, they say the seniors conveniently died at 65. now we are living in to our 70's 80's, and a 90's which is putting its financial strain on the system. host: and your asks, i am 74 and i am for health care reform. my gap is about $2,000 in california. will i be able to drop the program and have similar coverage? i doubt it. talk about the cost aspects, at

least in your opinion, of the president's plan? guest: they are talking about billions and billions of dollars of new taxes being imposed on people and mandated. the $500 billion in cuts in medicare of there. i was asked once in indiana recently about the cuts to medicare. someone said i was lying about the cuts. perhaps you should talk to the cbo about the best committed cuts that cuts should -- that the cuts could be near $575 billion. we think that medicare needs reform. there's no question about that. that is the bigger program right now, bigger than social security, and with the unfunded

liabilities. and will be a huge problem with these 77,000,007 to be seniors -- 77 million soon it to be seniors. everybody gets caught in politics. every cycle, we are scared into the voting booth. i am getting angry here. i have seen this since i was a newspaperman in 1962 and john f. kennedy was in the white house. quite frankly, seniors have been used as a political football. it is time to stop that. seniors deserve better. they did not ask for some of these things, but they paid their dues whether it was social security or into medicare. host: do you expect to put the same amount of money into next

cycle that you did for this one? guest: i think we probably will. we spent about $20 million. some say that we have the 5.5 million seniors that belong to the 60 + association. a lot of them are leaving the aarp and flopping over -- switching over as they hear about us. we spent in the neighborhood of $20 million from 2009 and 2010. the battle is not over. for 2012, seniors voted in larger blocks and other segments of our society. clearly seniors are on the march. i predicted over one year ago that there would be a senior citizen tsunami, which has

become my favorite passage. i am proud of the fact that we put our statement forward in this election. we predicted succeed -- 60 plus changes in the house over health care. that number held up quite frankly. a lot people were saying 100 members coming down the republican side and that was pretty optimistic. i have gone out to many campaigns. i went to florida, my home state. spendingrevoked.com shows the over-spending. i joined it along with citizens against government waste and

citizens for prosperity. they were tired of over- spending. we sit around our kitchen table and look at our budgets. nt notes the governemt do the same thing? we had thousands of people telling us to send a message to washington. host: when is the township, new jersey. -- winslow township, new jersey. caller: i thought they were going to hang up on me. on seniors being used as political footballs, i think that is an atrocity. i speak for individuals and groups that have had to work twice as hard for whenever that

they have. i started my own company many years back which was very successful before the recession. i watched that the guy with the taxes and activity because of the economy. -- i watched that die with taxes. i have a lot of experience and i know how corporate people think. the bailout is a great example of how they will try to get out of paying for what they need to pay for to provide a golden parachutes for those who are in their favor. what in the government is prepared for the lawyers who will come on scene to try and teach the corporations how to figure their ways out to get the cheapest comparable way out when it comes to health care? host: we have to leave it there. thank you.

guest: there was a key issue left out of obamacare which is toward reform. the lawyers are making bundles throwing out the junk lawsuits. i know a doctor in arlington, where i live, and she told me she had to spend to wonder thousand dollars or something setting up her office and the huge insurance premiums she had to pay -- she had to spend $200,000 to set up her office. we will reform and replace obamacare. and has to be done. we have to repeal it. they need to sit down and do with the president said they should have done on c-span back in the 2008 election cycle. sit down with the doctors,

nurses, health-care providers, and others and work out a system that is good for everyone. host: from florida on our democratic life caller:. i have been watching c-span since the 1990's. i watch it every day. what i have noticed is this program and the way in has changed. when you had two individuals with two different views on a set topic, you have them there is the same time so you can resolve the issue. all you have now are people perpetuating whenever they say and do not see any type of a hashing out of the topic. host: that is not always how it goes, caller. caller: i would say that he was

in favor of bush's privatization of social security. if that would have happened, where would seniors be now with respect to social security? with respect to the size of the health-care bill, and the bill has a lot of legislation they have to write in because there are certain things that other bills keep that you have to put in so you understand that these are not overlooked or provide legislation to do away with other bills. that takes up a large portion of writing any type of legislation. it may be 900 pages of actual legislation but another 1100 pages of actual things that have to be present which have been changed because the present legislation. guest: 1 comment. i am from fort lauderdale. i grew up in hollywood, florida.

to the caller, i would say this -- you talk about privatizing social security. what a scare word that is. i have to tell you something. when i was working on this problem years ago, it was not president bush who came forward with those ideas, but it was senator moynihan of new york. they worked quietly behind the scenes with republicans tried to, with structural changes to the system. democrats and republicans alike worked together. every cycle, they always use the scare word "privatize." a former senator from nebraska came up with that word. they wanted to try to make changes quietly and not let this get into the realm of politics.

they say let's use the word " personalize" instead of "privatize." you are talking about a work time. would the senator was saying was let's allow "personalize" which is a softer word and controls your personal destiny. we like what charlie stenholm, a fine democrat from texas, tried to do to fix the system for future retirees and not let this get mired down in the political football playing it has become. host: tulsa, on "washington journal." you are next. tulsa, okla.? are you there? caller: i wanted to ask the fine

gentleman -- host: you are on. go ahead. we can hear you. caller: i wanted to ask mr. martin what would the criteria be for joining the 60 + association? guest: i am glad you asked. there is no price last. we live on voluntary donations from the public. our web site is www. 60plus.org. send me an e-mail and we will be glad to bring you a board. host: last call from baltimore, maryland. good morning. caller: i appreciate you letting me speak for a moment. what about instead of repealing the bill, find the faults in the

bill and just take those out and refinement rather than taking all the time to repeal it? it is causing problems between both parties and just move on so we can resolve the issues of on employment in this country? guest: great question. unemployment is a huge issue. i have to tell the caller though, that since the obama administration which huge majorities in the house and the senate rammed this thing through lock, stock, and barrel i think the public has been saying we need to start over. we need to start over from scratch and i agree. there are things in it, as the caller pointed out, whether it is pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, but clearly we need to start over and do it right. that is what seniors want to do.

host: james martin serves as the president of the 60 + association. coming up tomorrow, we will have a political roundtable featuring the christian science monitor and susan page from usa today. we will have scott keeter who will break down the various demographics that took place during the election 2010. then we will look ahead to campaign to dozen 12 -- 2012 with stuart rotherberg. all of that on "washington journal" which begins at 7:00 a.m. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]