republican representative that he word of new york -- tnan hayworth of new york. we will focus on hu jintao's visit to washington. this is a "washington journal."

host: on capitol hill, the republicans in the house began debate yesterday over whether or not to repeal. this morning we want to hear from all of you and whether or not you changed your mind on this health care law. what has been your experience? do you still believe it should be repealed? the phone numbers are on the screen. "the baltimore sun" headline -- a new poll says 46% of those believe the law should be repealed. 40% say it should not. when you break that down by party lines, a 78% of republicans want the health care law repealed. 15% of republicans do not.

64% of democrats do not want to see repeal. 24% of democrats want it repealed. independents, 43% say repeal. 18% of independents have no opinion. we want to hear your thoughts. what do you think about this health care law? "the new york times" talks about the debate and the different aspects of its that you probably heard if you tune into c-span yesterday. here is the news analysis section of "the new york times ." "the cost of new benefits in the health care law would be more than offset by revenues from new taxes and by cuts in projected medicare spending, reducing future deficits.

repealing the law would add $ 230 billion to the federal deficit from 2012 to 2021. republicans dispute that." "lawmakers may find it difficult to follow through with some aspects of the law. if the cuts do not take hold, the cuts of the law could soar." it also says "the white house and congressional democrats say it could create jobs so employers would have more to spend on wages and hiring. they say the law provides tax credits to help many small businesses.

representative sam graves, chairman of the committee on small business, says the law could cost the economy 1.6 million jobs." bloomfield, new mexico. mary on the line for republicans. caller: i think it needs to be repealed. they did not address some of the very big issues. when they started this whole debate, i contacted nearly every congressman in the 111th congress with two simple questions. ok, we are going to have preventive care with conoco pay. great. wonderful. where are these people going to get care? at the top of the patients bill of rights should be the right

to actually see a doctor. i live in one of the largest counties in new mexico. i wrote letters to every single primary care physician in my county, which is bigger than a couple of states. not a single one would see me as a patient. not because i have a complicated medical history, but because of that one silly word, "medicare." medicare is my secondary insurance. they are prohibited by law to pay the doctor any more than medicare would. i have asked the congressman two simple questions. ok, where? i also asked him -- when they debated this the first time, how many congressmen called the

doctors in their district and found out how many primary care physicians will accept a new medicare or medicaid patient? those 30 million the people they're talking about, they are putting them on medicaid. where are those people going to find care? host: mary, republican. let's hear from a democrat. sarah in mississippi. go ahead. caller: they should not be debating this health care debate. they should be working on jobs. this is an excellent health care bill for everyone. in regards to new mexico, where i live, i do not have any problems. i do not have any problems getting in to see a doctor. we have people dying on the

streets that should not be. this should not even be tampered with at this point. we should have had a single payer system. no american is more valuable than another american. congress -- they are no more valuable than a guy working in a part-time job somewhere. they need to get busy on the bill and quit wasting our time. they need to leave this health care bill alone. thank you. host: we will go to an independent in tennessee. paul, you are on the air. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: it is amazing to me how the democratic party does not get it. we, the american people, acted in november to repeal this. receipt of a health care bill. it is ridiculous. you cannot force people to take

something they do not want and then find them when they do not want it or put them in jail. we have people fighting for our freedoms. we have congress standing up here telling us they will put us in jail if we don't take this insurance. this is ridiculous. it host: the argument is that is a way to bring down the cost of health care, if you bring more people into the system. you're obviously opposed to that. what is the alternative? caller: here is the alternative. get these doctors to stop ridiculous payments. they are taxing us to death. nobody wants anybody to think about health care. that is not the issue at all. the thing is that the doctors and insurance companies are making billions. the poor are looking for insurance that we can afford. we don't want to go to jail or have to pay a fine because we cannot afford this thing in the first place.

host: alexandria, virginia. jack on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. the american people, the taxpayers out there, have got to be crazy. these people like paul ryan are knocking the health care bill when they accept health care from the government themselves to the point where if they have a standard blue cross, which most congressmen do, it is subsidized by the government by several hundred dollars. in other words, they are on tv. they are criticizing government run health care with the exception of themselves. if the public knew -- the average joe blow that is making $30,000 per year -- is paying taxes to subsidize a republican

and hesman's health care is on tv knocking the workers and not wanting to get them covered. it is a scandal. somebody out there -- one of these reporters ought to make a report. the health care that paul ryan and these republicans get as part of their employment is subsidized by several hundred dollars every month. host: the debate started yesterday in the house over whether or not to repeal this. the caller mentioned paul ryan. here is his argument on the floor yesterday. >> this health care law, if left in place, will accelerate our country's path towards -- it will do as the president's own chief actuary will do, increase health care costs. we have seen premiums go up across the board.

we have party heard from thousands of employers across the country -- we have already heard from thousands of employers across the country. we're already hearing from the lack of choices that consumers will get. this a new lot is a fiscal house of cards and is a health-care house of cards. it does not make our health care system better. i would argue it makes it weaker. we believe we can get to the moment of having affordable health care for every american, regardless of pre-existing conditions, without having the government taking it over, without $1 trillion of tax increases and medicare cuts. we believe in this. let's have health care reform put the patients in charge, not the government in charge. host: democrats on the other side of the aisle also weighed in. the democrat congressman of florida counter argued with the republicans.

here's what she had to say. >> we've had a lot of talk about the jobs that it supposedly kills. let's look at the facts. of the 1.1 million private- sector jobs that were created last year, 200,000 of those were in the health-care sector. we've had an average of 20,000 jobs per month created in the health-care sector alone over the course of the last two years. there have been no job losses in the health-care sector. i challenge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on the republican side of the aisle, that are advocating the repeal of health care reform on the premise that it is a job killer, to name one area where the have been job losses. host: we get ready for a vote on the new health care law. we want to hear from you this morning. here is "the washington post"

this morning. the caller brought this up. this is in "the washington post" under the fact checker. "in many ways, it was payback."

host: new haven, ohio, mike, independent. your thoughts? caller: good morning. host: good morning. -- have a c caller: we have a mess in washington. i would like to have them in congress signed a contract -- sign a contract and not even read it. we're in trouble. it is not only the doctors -- it is outrageous what they are making, and the insurance companies. until we get the lobbyists out of washington that climb into bed with the senators, we're in trouble. from what i understand, there

are lobbyists that are staffers. host: on your first criticism of democrats, republicans are being criticized for not holding hearings on repealing the health care law and getting testimony from both sides on whether or not it is working or will work. what do you think about that? caller: the powers that be are not going to let this go down. they've already got it passed. the corporations are so embedded in our washington -- it is ridiculous. the only way for anything to get done is if there is a revolution. i'm a veteran and i'm about fed up with my washington. i'm sorry. thank you. host: we are having this conversation about whether or not to repeal the new health care law. the conversation also continues on our facebook page.

wisconsin, charles on the line for republicans. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: as far as the health care bill goes, why don't they take it apart piece by piece? there has got to be good stuff and there's probably bad. host: you want to see some compromise on this? you want to see some compromise on this? caller: yes. let the public know what is in this bill. bring it out on the floor and let the people know. people are arguing one way and the other way without knowing what is in this. let us take all the pork out of it, which i'm sure there's a lot of it. host: that was charles, a republican. we will continue this conversation, but first we want to talk about chinese president hu jintao's visit in washington.

margaret joins us on the phone. she is the white house corresponded with mcclatchy newspapers. let's begin with the 9:00 arrival at the white house. >> it's a very busy day. it is always full of pomp and circumstance. oldis really nasty and c outside. we have a series of meetings next. we'll have a bilateral between the two leaders. before we see the two leaders, there will be a huddle with both u.s. and chinese business leaders. we are talking about more than a dozen american executives from companies that are doing business in china and want more flexibility to do business in china. microsoft, goldman sachs, dow, boeing, and so on. several chinese leaders have an

interest in expanding chinese investment in america. computer makers, appliance manufacturers, and so forth. there will be a press conference. after that, there will be a state department luncheon where president hu will be meeting with secretary clinton and vice president biden. later on, of course, there is a state dinner and state reception. host: we will be covering the joint press conference at 1:00 p.m. today. live coverage on c-span2. we will also be covering the remarks at the state department lunch that is hosted by the vice-president. that is followed by the state dinner coverage, the arrival of

a guests, and the president and vice-president welcoming president hu. after the state dinner is over, on c-span 2, we will be taking your questions and phone calls. i want to talk to you about the joint news conference. this is something that president hu does not do. you mentioned four questions will be asked. why only four? >> it is not unusual. sometimes when foreign leaders, to the white house, there are just remarks to a the -- to the pool. this is something the white house insisted on. it is not customary in china. it is a different political culture there. this is probably something that he is hoping to put his best foot forward with. we are expecting questions on a

couple of friends. one is the human rights issue. there could be a direct question about the jailing of liu xiaobo or at least a question about his plans for china's future in terms of rule of law and human rights. of course, a big matter of concern for this meeting between both leaders is on the issue of business. both on pressure for u.s. -- to make it easier for american businesses to invest in china. there is the issue of currency and the question of whether china's currency is playing fair. there are also questions about north korea and iran that will probably dominate the private meetings between president obama and president hu. there are only four questions,

but i can think of 10 questions right now. host: has it already been decided who will ask those questions? did the questions have to be submitted beforehand? >> typically, each leader will be able to choose two of the questions. the way it works on the white house side, they may have internally decided who they're going to ask the questions of, but they do not tell the people. on the chinese side, my guess is that the chinese have decided who they will ask the questions to. their media is state-controlled and censored. it is different than it is in the united states. typically, each leader is in a position to ask two of the questions. host: has this been different for you from your normal coverage of the white house? are there different security requirements? how is it different from your

day to day coverage? >> i am a hard pass holder. they asked us to apply for credentials for each segment that we wanted to cover. that happened days ago. yesterday or the day before, we began hearing back that we were confirmed for a seat at the press conference and to cover the arrival ceremony. that is beyond the norm for the white house coverage. host: what are your editors asking you to go after in your stories? what dingell do they think your readers want to hear about? >> the overarching question -- what is changing in u.s.-china relations? that is the immediate question. what is the white house pushing for in terms of change over the course of the next several years? we are looking at chinese government, government leaders, including president hu,

beginning a changeover that will largely take place over 2012 and 2013. from the u.s. perspective, this is a time to begin pushing not just for the changes under president hu's leadership, but changes under the next set of leaders. host: ta tlev, thank you for your time. first, a couple of chinese papers. they have a reuters story that they have posted from washington. that is "the south china morning post" online. also, we have "the china daily" with this headline. in "the washington post" this morning was an advertising supplement. it says it was prepared by "china daily."

this is in "the washington post" this morning. santa cruz, california, dianne on the line for democrats. caller: it is hard to switch over to china from the health care issue. they are both such engaging issues. the one thing that people -- it frustrates me and of course the people in california. in the america i grew up in, we do not leave the weakest to die off. this is not the outdoor world of alaska where the weak die and

the strong survive. that might be in china. that might be india. that might be anywhere, but this is the united states of america. what is not been set is two things. wars that are costing us so much money -- that would repair our own country. two, the insurance companies have not had their get out of jail free cards for having a bypass to the antitrust monopoly law of the united states of america. host: paul on the line for republicans. rochester, new york. good morning. caller: yes, i want to see it repealed. i want to see it take into space in the next flight. if the democrats were being honest on their side and they put in the dr. fix in this bill, this bill would not score as good as it did. that has to do with the medical.

they put it in some other bill. they did not mention that in their arguments. on the other hand, the republicans are coming out and telling you that they like a lot of things that are in it. it's too much of a boondoggle to try to cut here and there. they want to make it affordable. if you open insurance across state lines. if i can buy something in the midwest -- these people have got to readjust their prices all over the united states. you have more people that are willing to buy cheap plants. they want to replace -- i am on medicare, but i'm not complaining about it or worried about if this happens or that happens. host: paul, do you think it's a good idea to slowly go after medicare and the spending that goes along with it in order to tackle our deficits?

caller: if we have to. host: paul was deferring to the numbers from the congressional budget office. it is broken down in "usa today" this morning. also, in other news this morning, here is "of hartford current" this morning with the news that joe lieberman, independent of connecticut, will not run for reelection in 2012. you can see the possible folks that may run for that seat. they all may take a look at that wide-open race. "the washington times" on the lieberman retirement and the news that can conrad -- that kent conrad will also retire. "democrats hope for keeping

control in 2012." winston-salem, n.c.. kenneth on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i would encourage people to read the health care legislation. we are one of the richest countries in the world, yet we spend a lot of money on health care. if they would just read it, they would have a different opinion. it needs some tweaking, but it is an excellent piece of legislation overall. host: what is excellent? caller: getting people health care coverage that cannot get it is one thing. making sure that children are covered is an excellent piece of legislation. over time, i think it will decrease the cost of legislation. host: the legislation or the cost? of health? caller: the cost of health care. it will decrease it. i did a lot of studies. legislation was a big part of my

curriculum. it appears to be the right way to start. host: "the new york times" this morning says that experts say they are not sure how effective the provision in the health care law will be to lower the cost of health care. "countries around the globe have struggled to control medical costs. if you're interested in that, it is "the new york times" on page a-14 this morning. republican line, good morning. caller: my insurance has gone up 60% since the first part of the year. they say it will go up again. what they need to do about the health care is regulating hospitals. i was in an accident a couple years ago. i carried some papers to the insurance company that i

received from the hospital and a double the charges. when i said something to the insurance company about it, they said, "we will have to pay them, anyway." if they need money for the health care, all they have to do is quit giving money away to other countries that do not need it. host: in economic news, "the wall street journal" front page. "more hiring than firing for the first time in a decade." lou on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: first of all, i think we should maintain the health care bill. i will give you a few reasons why. all the republicans that are watching your show this morning, where are they going to get health care if they're fired from their jobs? where are they going to get any kind of coverage other than walking into an emergency room and waiting for hours and hours

to be cared for? this is a safety net for everyone in america. secondly, it got rid of all the pre-existing conditions. if you listen to the words, it is not a diagnosis. they got rid of pre-existing conditions. what is a condition? if you have a cold when you are eight years old and it affected your lungs and you've got emphysema when you are 20 years old, you could be denied health care because it is a pre- existing condition. i think we should keep this health care bill. even if it cost a little more money, that's fine. we have wasted trillions of dollars on this iraq war that was based upon a lie. host: a lot of coverage this

morning in the papers about the news that sargent shriver died yesterday. he married a kennedy and headed up the peace corps. here is the usa today article, but is in many of the papers this morning. juanita, an independent. what is your thoughts -- what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. there are too many working people who cannot afford health care. my son is one of them. he lives in south carolina, where wages are very low. however, medical costs are equal to that of any other part of the country. we need to keep this health care bill in place so everyone in this country has access to health care. we are the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care for our people. that makes us look very bad to the rest of the world. host: ok.

juanita on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a freelance news writer. i think your viewers will be interested in a comment bart gordon made at a town hall meeting. i have been sending him e-mails. in regards to this health care bill, i have read it numerous times. i could not find anywhere where it said there would be a cap on the premium of people who make above the threshold for getting the government issued health care. they said that if you had a pre- existing condition, you could get insurance. i could not find anywhere where there was a cap. this was important to me. we had a family member who lost their job and then lost their

cobra because they did not find a job within 18 months. they did not smoke or drink. they did not have diabetes or heart disease. the only thing they had was as much and menopause medication. they could not find health care insurance. one company finally did in -- did agree to ensure this person to the tune of $600 per month. this was a concern. i finally got to ask bart board and if he could tell me whether or not there would be a cap on people who make over the income threshold. he said he could not. he turned around and walked away. he did not run for office again this time. when they say that pre-existing people can get insurance through this, that might be the law, but

that is not necessarily going to be doable. who can afford that much for a premium for health insurance? host: let's hear from a democrat. william in napa, california. caller: thank you. i believe the health care law should not be repealed. first of all, the republicans have the house majority and they will repeal it in the house. it is a waste of time. when it gets to the senate, it will not be repealed. it will be a waste of taxpayer'' time. i also think we need to focus on jobs. we need to focus on the economy. we need to get out of these illegal wars. a caller on the independent line said it was time for a revolution and i agree with that. thank you. host: here is an e-mail.

"physicians fear of being sued drives up costs." albany, new york. lynn, an independent. good morning. caller: i'm definitely for the health care proposal that had gone through before. i hope they do not repeal this. there are just so many reasons. i will give you an example. i'm on social security right now because of a disability. my secondary health insurance is going up. it has nothing to do with the bills, which a lot of the republicans are claiming is the reason why insurance rates are going up. my medicare d, the medication component, is also going up because the health insurance companies are increasing rates

on everybody. that does not have anything to do with the general public either. nobody is stopping to get into medicare -- stomping to get into medicare. with the increase proposal that was passed -- clearly, these rates are going up without that. also, this whole issue about jobs -- i'm trying to buy a car. i decided i wanted to go american this time. i looked at all the costs of the cars. i still cannot afford to buy an american car. car companies, as opposed to the japanese and other countries, the car companies have to pay the health insurance of their employees. i cannot go american on this and i really wanted to. i do not make $250,000 per year. i have to survive. host: here is "the washington post" on the federal page.

"the 112th congress has 20 doctors, including five surgeons, five gynecologists ama."ding to the we will be talking to one of those doctors, a republican representing the 19th district of new york. nancy hayworth will be our guest in about 10 minutes. new orleans on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i do not think the bill should be repealed. the republicans do not have any idea about jobs. they know it is not going to be done. the president is not going to repeal his own health-care bill.

i prefer to be in a government program, whether it be medicaid or medicare then at the hands of the insurance companies, whose job it is to deny you. it does not matter. they are in business to make money. if given the choice, i would rather be in the government program as opposed to the insurance companies. people make a big deal about it. it is just like giving your money to your grandmother for medical coverage. at least you will not get gouged every time. a person earlier said there insurance went up 60%. it will keep going up. host: you and others may be interested in "the washington post" fact checker section. "republicans repeatedly use this

snapping talking point to crash crowning legislative achievement, but it is simply not true."

host: baltimore, maryland. bob on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: hi. i am in favor of the republicans in congress repealing this health care bill, even though it does not stand a chance. the president has already said he will veto any repeal of this. i have learned that at least everybody will be on record. when all of the really horrible provisions of this bill come out, there will be people on

record for being for and against it. as far as the repeal goes, that is what i was thinking would be most important. host: could that potentially works the other way? caller: this health care bill is a train wreck. it is a train wreck. there's no question about that. it is just a matter of when everything happens. all the provisions that start costing people with more money than they can afford -- affordable is a ridiculous title for this bill. i prefer obamacare. host: craig, a democrat. your thoughts? caller: i am absolutely sickens by all the grandstanding the

republicans are doing. all they are doing is playing to all their tea party friends. this has no chance of passing. all they're trying to do is stick it to obama. host: i think we got your point. we will go to new york. keith, an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i like to speak as a small- business owner. when i look to bring people on in interviews, one of the questions they ask is, "do you provide health care?" of course, the answer is no because we cannot afford it. i lose a lot of potential employees because of that. they have families and children that they need to have health insurance for. prior to this health care bill

-- i still do not know if i can afford it, but at least with the tax credits this is an option i can look at. keith, have you looked at the tax credits? caller: i have looked at the tax credits. they would help me somewhat, and not 100%. it's not a single. it's part of a conglomerate of things. without this, the answer is strictly no. the other thing i think most

people are concerned about is the mandate. i have a problem with that, as well. i do not know if the government has the right to mandate my insurance. if you choose not to, you cannot then show up to an emergency room when you are sick or in an accident and then have me or the other taxpayers pay for your health care because you decided not to pay. if you decide not to pay -- if you do decide to pay, you get a card and you go to the doctor or something. if you do not have that card and you don't get treated and then when people find that they're not getting health care services, you will see how fast people sign up for this. host: one last call. dana on the line for democrats. caller: i just want to say that i belong to an hmo.

usually, when we go to a specialist outside of the hmo, they will send us a copy of the bill. they always send us copies. these specialists, especially -- that dealhey'll -- oh, my goodness. i spent just a few minutes with this doctor and he wanted a few hundred dollars for just five minutes. i wish i could remember what they actually paid him. i cannot. somewhere in my mind it sticks in their that they paid him a little over half of that. i went to a doctor who dealt with my hands. i did have several visits.

i think the total for the visits were around $1,500. host: we are going to be talking to a doctor next. we can't ask her about the expense. nan hayworth, a new member of congress and an ophthalmologist. after that, we will be talking to a democrat of illinois. we will continue this conversation about the debate in the house. we will be right back. "the wall street journa

♪ ♪ >> chinese president hu jintao is on a four-day visit to the united states, his first since 2006. learn more about him and watch c-span coverage of his other appearances online at the c-span library. all free. it is washington your way. >> it is a new congress and a new way to use c-span. congressional chronicle is a conference of resources to follow congress. research members, a new session time lines, and find video and text of all floor appearances.

c-span.org/congress. >> it is time to upload your video for the student cam competition. the deadline is midnight tomorrow. enter for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. this year's topic, washington, d.c. through my lens. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome representative nan hayworth, republican of new york. let's begin with the health care vote. guest: i'm going to vote yes. although the goals are hon orable, to make health care

insurance affordable intimate care effective and affordable, this bill will confer costs on us. it does not have a realistic mechanisms to remove the liability. it's on like anywhere else in the world. it will confer extraordinary power, if not immediately, then predictably and step by step on the federal government to make decisions that ought to be left in the hands of americans. those are the reasons why most of us will oppose that law. host: you are a doctor. are you still practicing? guest: i retired from practicing in 2005. host: you talk about the medical community and burdens on them. what did you mean?

guest: if you look at the way in which this law is set up, it is going to require that some very stringent controls on medical pricing are instituted. we all want to control costs and contain costs. the problem is -- when you take that action out of the hands of the people come out of the hands of patients, we cannot realistically assessing what is possible for providers to do. in many cases, doctors. look at what has happened in medicare. imedicare is supposed to have a rather drastic reduction in what doctors are paid for most of the services they provide. doctors have to work within the

marketplace of hiring employees, paying rent, paying for supplies, and paying for insurance. they simply cannot afford to see medicare patients for the rates that are under the schedule that are supposed to apply to them. we do not have a realistic idea on the federal level of what doctors and patients are undergoing across the country in communities. it will be a different experience for communities across the country. we make it very difficult. you cannot dictate what roughly 1/6 of the american economy is going to do. it's part of an entire economy could we have to deal with a lot of realities. host: what is the alternative for medicare specifically in order to not have doctors

refusing to see patients? guest: number one, is pretty clear that we're going to have a permanent fix in what is called the sustainable growth rate in the way in which we pay physicians. that is estimated in the neighborhood of $300,000. that was not accounted for in the affordable care act. host: how can our country for that when we are racking up deficits as we speak? guest: you're absolutely right. the only way we can afford it is to find a way to remove $300 billion from the federal government from other sources. host: your arguing no cuts to medicare and no cuts to doctor payments. guest: i'm arguing that it would create an access crisis and the very least a severe problem if

we do not allow for physicians' fees under the medicare system to be reasonably reimbursed. that means we cannot afford to have the very drastic cuts in the neighborhood of the high 20 percent range -- high catastrope alone meet the health care needs? guest: that is a great question. part of the picture is that we have to shift to something that is irrational pricing model, if you will. that means people who go to doctors or other providers need to know ahead of time what there is the schedule is. and provider start to compete on the basis of their fee schedules there has been so much

distortion introduced into our medical care system because of third-party payers. that doctor may send a bill to an insurer for $1,500 for 15 minutes, when in fact, that insurer actually pays that dr. $200 for 15 minutes or whatever $200 for 15 minutes or whatever the