atellite provider. president obama will give his seventh and final keynote address at the congressional black caucus foundation dinner today. hillary clinton will also receive the inaugural trail blazer award as the first woman presidential nominee of a major party in the u.s. live coverage at 7:30 p.m. astern here on c-span. >> now the future of the health care law and the cost of premiums in the near future. this is from today's "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: louise radnofsky is the health policy reporter for the "wall street journal," here to from the the news

withdrawal of providers. we are hearing this week on capitol hill. first of all, in terms of health care providers who are no longer participating, what did we learn? guest: we have had a couple of high-profile withdrawals from the marketplace. those best known for their brand names. united health care pulling out. they are not necessarily the biggest insurers that people who buy insurance on their own use. now these people have the option, when they go online in november when open and woman starts, perhaps just one carrier. different products but one insurer to choose from. host: one of your pieces in the carterek, "u.s. health acese was held law force

critical year." guest: the turbulence of the first couple of years of the law is showing up in premium increases. state regulators have had no choice to a -- approve these, because health insurers need them to keep afloat, essentially. deter and prices roman healthy people. it is what health experts fear as a death spiral, where prices spiral and the situation compounds itself. the obama administration does not think we are there. they think we are in transition. but people looking at this critically think it is the beginning of the end. host: the president did meet with insurance officials earlier. guest: the message communicated to the insurers, and he also took the externalized up of

sending a letter to every insurer on the exchange, was acknowledgment of their participation, and expression of , recognition that things are going through a tough time, and a request to hold the line, if you will. that the administration believes this can be solved, they can get through it together, they are taking steps to do things i have been asking for. host: if we go back to the passage of the law, what were they projecting? what was the administration hoping for five or six years ago, and how they met that point yet? guest: several things have changed about the law. but the idea of its core focus was this group of people who did not have enough coverage through their jobs or government program who had to buy on their own and were grappling with a market with serious problems. some of his sweeping changes came into effect.

everyone should buy health insurance at relatively equal price. but the price changes we are seeing is a erect consequence of that. i do not think people thought it would take the health insurers as long to get used to that. and we have also not seen the kind of enrollment we had expected, was because people are moving to single market and they are not signing up with the numbers and enthusiasm we expected. radnofsky talking about the news of their withdrawal from the exchange by several providers. we want to hear what your experience has been. here's how we are breaking up are the numbers this morning for our part of a conversation. if you get your insurance through the affordable care act, use (202) 748-8000. if you get insurance through your employer, (202) 748-8001. for all uninsured, that is (202) 748-8002. if you do not fit into those categories, (202) 748-8003.

the good news for the administration, the headline in the "wall street journal," the percentage of those uninsured low. record. health insurance in 2016, the number of people without health insurance was at 9.1%. people who have health insurance for all or part of the year was nearly 91%. 67% had private health insurance. 37% had some sort of coverage. -- how does the administration see maintaining that with the provider pool shrinking? guest: the health law has a historic impact on reducing the number of people uninsured. notstates that have expanded eligibility to medicare, there is still an uptick in enrollment, though there are still millions who are

eligible who are not enrolled. the dynamic and reducing the rate of uninsured -- what critics would say is it does not necessarily have the impact that it could have for the amount of effort expended on it. of course it brought down the rate of those uninsured, that is what it was trying to do most. host: of those states who have not taken the option to expand medicare, what is the primary argument? .uest: it is partly about money and the difference between medicaid and medicare. the states are concerned about the parts they have to pay, which is relatively small compared to the federal government. in addition, they are concerned about the long-term obligations of the federal government. they think it is an insufficient program right now, and they are concerned about growing it. host: on the political side, doesn't part of what hillary

clinton has proposed expand medicare? guest: he would like to give extended -- host: we have calls waiting period we go to brad in michigan, who gets his insurance through his employer. caller: i saw this coming. republicans did not sign off on it and it is all democrats who pushed it. i heard there is also a $6,000 deductible on these policies. is that true? if that is true, how can they call the health insurance? i cannot afford to pay $6,000 a year plus how many family members you have. host: among higher deductibles, is that indeed a fact? are people having to pay more for having to hit a higher mark for the deductible? guest: there are a range of

products offered, even on a single ensure, on h ealthcare.gov and state equivalents. but there's always a trade-off. we think we have seen shoppers have gotten more savvy about this. they are aware that a lower premium comes with this trade off. we also see from some people who have remained uninsured by choice, as far as a look at the options, is the height of the vote is a real reason for them to stay away. they do not see the point in finding the money to pay what is a hefty premium for them, which would then come with a high deductible. who stayt of those uninsured have to pay that tax at the end of the year. what does that typically average? guest: it has gone up. when people file their 2017 taxes, pretty much the maximum for 2016 going uninsured.

go up.inues to there are a lot of people who have exemptions to that penalty and do not have to pay it. what we are seeing from people who are not insured is even if they anticipate the penalty, comparing it to what they may have pay if they do not get a subsidy and deciding they are still better off where they are, that is a problem. likely tof person make this decision is someone will not payy and the premium. a person likely to buy insurance is someone who need care. host: let's hear what one of those uninsured people is experiencing. troy, ohio. welcome. i am 56. i have no insurance. only because of what i am hearing. this't afford to have insurance. besides that, is there not

something in the cause of sushi that states government cannot force commerce on the populace? they are forcing us to have it, then fining us if we do not have it. is that not unconstitutional? that to this conversation about the taxi mentioned, at the end of the year, for some of those who remain uninsured. there is this penalty. it is something people have to bear in mind, like they bear in mind it at the polls and premiums. on the constitutionality of the law and whether there is any legal argument that it should beene in place, that has well aired in washington. there are members of the supreme court may take that position. the majority have not. that is why it is what it is now. " thisthe "new york times week -- workers pay more.

health insurance exchanges are in turmoil. but it seems like a bastion of pay they say that an analysis by the kaiser family foundation released wednesday shows that the share of employers offering remains steady and because of premiums for health plans remain unchanged in the employ around. is that true? it is clear we have seen the spread of higher deductible plans in the employ around. they are not as high as they are on health care.gov or the equivalent. it is certainly something they noticed. we think it is very interesting. we have seen consumer start to act accordingly. epi-penhe pen -- the controversy stems from people seeing the full price of what they have to purchase. over that,rh recently see a lot more emphasis -- having seen that, recently we

see a lot more emphasis on that. mylan, the company that makes the epi-pen, what is congress want to hear? guest: committees want to see the pricing strategy, and other committees want to see what the government can do to increase competition. it is a life-saving emergency allergy treatment used by children. it has a lot of elements for this to be the right area for lawmakers to be involved in. and they are hearing from the constituents, because they have been paying it themselves because of the deductibles. host: look for coverage this week on the c-span networks on that hearing. we go to john in cleveland, who gets insurance through the affordable care act. health care was supposed

to be universal and fair to all. i have a question about that. people living in nashville county, ohio live -- in a sheville county, the deductible is 1500 higher. how is that fair and hoy is that ek tabble? >> i can't tell you but i can tell you how it's possible. that is that the health law allows insurers to, to go by a few factors. one is by the age of the person. they can't charge young people more than three times less than older people. but also something called geographic or community ratings. so within a state you can divide up if you are an insurer various areas, regions, rating areas and the state regulator will allow

you to choorge different prices. the idea is that health care costs are typically higher in certain areas. or health care needs are certainly higher in those areas. so they are doing this. individuals aren't charged based on their history. communities could be. >> followup question. go ahead. caller: so when the deductibles are so high. i'll not going to get an operation because my deductible is almost $7,000. so all these people with these deductibles are going to wait until they turn 65. it is going to impact medicare to the it might bankrupt medicare. they aren't getting it because they can't pay the deductible. everybody says quhen i go to medicare i'm going to walk in the door and start the process of going to the doctor, of getting better and costing the medical community. zoo how close are you to

medicare age to being 65? caller: i am 61 years old. if you ask people out there, they're not getting their medication. they're not getting their operations. they're going to wait until 65 because medicare and the government, has your guest considered any of this? >> i have considered this. this is part of the health care cost con ungrum more generally. if people delay care. if you're looking at this purely from an economic perspective. this is personal on a personal level and i don't mean to take away from that. if you look at this from an economic perspective there is a debate. when people delay care does that cost more? certainly for some conditions. there's a hospital bill bigger than a prescription drug bill. sometimes when people cut back on care they may be saving the system money and that over time never really brings the bill to

the government. we see people's behavior in response to deductibles having potentially unknown effects up up up what it is they prefer doing and whether later that procedure if they choose to have it is going to be more expensive. zoo this week on the affordable care act looking at a couple of ifferent things. we have had historic reductions in the number of uninsured people. the c.d.c. reported last week that the uninsured rate is at an historic low. the lowest that we've had in four decades. that's an accomplishment. since the passage of the aca, 20 million previously uninsured americans now have coverage. this includes millions of young adults who can now stay on their parents' plans until age 26. i just want to interject a

personal note here. my daughter, who everybody on this committee knows just graduated from college. she's 22 years old. she is also a type 1 diabetic. she just let to go teach in madrid for a year. she's on my insurance. and because of the affordable care act she can't get thrown off of my insurance because she has hah preexisting condition or because she's over 21. and further more we were able to get her a year's worth of diabetic supplies before she left for madrid. there are thousands of families in the united states who are benefiting in the way my family has. and i am going to fight until the end to make sure that they can keep these benefits and that we can keep expanding it so that every american has high quality health insurance. host: focusing just on that age 26 thing. a couple years experience of this now. congresswoman de get mentioned her daughter is on her plan.

what sort of evidence, what sort of data have we seen in terms of kids hanging on their parents plan through that critical time period? guest: 32 really interesting types of data. this is one of the single most popular provisions. one that got bipartisan support at various times when the act has been on the table for repeal certain members wanted to repeal it still wanted to find a way to preserve or restore the provision. really popular. on its cost, it's still a little unclear but we've seen some interesting signs. an employer-sponsored fund that allows people to keep their young adults dependents on until the age of 26 generally seems to be stable. doesn't seem to take a big price hit because people continue to buy family plans for longer than they would have anyway and that more or less evans out the additional claims that would have been incurred. sometimes the premiums are

different if you have additional members on it employers structure this differently. two provisions. the third thing is 26-34 is the highest rate of uninsurance. host: they're not on their parents plans. guest: and what the act needs for people on the individual market is the 26 to 34-year-olds are signing up. host: let's hear from kenny in kansas. good morning. caller: i'm an insured and i have two kids. i'm a single dad. i work for a body shop. low-wage, standard $25,000 a year. and boy, what i've seen with it's about uctible, $506 a month for family. but boy, for me, for what i

make, there's no way that i can do that so i just end up, when i do my tax return last year, when the tax returns coming up this year, i was already told by the tax preparer that it's already written down where for us three, my two teen aged kids and me, it's going to be $1390 penalty. so if you take 500 times 12, that's a lot more than 1290 penalty. i 'm -- i just thought would tell you what i'm going to be facing. host: appreciate you sharing that. what do you think? guest: this brings up a couple of issues in the affordable care act that i think supporters had hoped to address. one is that there are tax credits to offset the cost of premiums for people who fall

into certain income brackets and from the sounds of what the caller was saying he and his children may do that. there's also expanded funding for programs such as medicaid and the children's health insurance program that may again help insure certain members of his family. there's also tax preparers who are obviously, who at hr block in particular have been through the front lines because they see them every single year. what the penalty is, whether they're exempt, which is an important thing for people to consider. and if they're not, whether it makes financial sense for them to sign up in addition to whether they can get the premiums. that might change the pricing. >> clearly he's done the math and he's figured it's cheaper to pay that penalty. guest: and what we've seen is people don't always know about the trax credit but when they learn they don't necessarily always change their minds. host: what are his exchange options in kansas?

do they participate? do they have a state exchange? guest: kansas uses health care.gov along with a dozen other states. generally what we've seen is there isn't a significant difference related to a state's decision to use health care.gov and what's available to people. it's more preexisting scenarios that haven't changed quickly. so kansas has the market that it has not necessarily changed by this. medicaid is not expandd in that particular state. so eligibility is where it was at, which historicically has been very low for a single man but with children things change. host: he mentioned his premiums rising. ere's a tweet. guest: do you know what tate? host: he doesn't state what

state. the anonymity of twitter. is that a making a big difference with an organization like blue cross blue shield? guest: in many states are really the backbone of the exchange. they are big plans that people have known for a time. they're often the dominant insurer. so what they've been is considerable concerns and we look to this and other market leaders to see what's happening with the majority of people. what we've seen is double digits price increases. again the regulators have signed off on. host: let's hear from bill in louisville, kentucky who gets his insurance through his employer. welcome. caller: good morning. i'm thinking that it seems like everybody has forgotten how it used to be prior to the aca. i've got two questions because before if you had a preexisting condition you couldn't get insurance.

and if you had insurance and you were pregnant or a woman you had different criteria. my question is, had those insurance premiums under -- since the aca been in effect compared to how insurance premiums were increasing on the rate prior to that insurance company was just taking upon themselves to give to us? and secondly, the question is, if all the states had initially gone with the aca and tried to work to make it available to everybody rather than fight it the way it was fought over 50, 60 times would the premiums have been considerably less by now? thank you so much. host: that could be the $64,000 question. guest: the second question, it's hard to tell because the number of states didn't see their insurance market change

overnight from what they've been regardless of what they did or didn't do. a lot of the blue states very supportive had other issues that also didn't change overnight with their insurance markets. premiums certainly were turbulent before the affordable care act. this year they're turbulent in a way that really stands out. but the way insurance has changed has really been considerable and makes compares ngs hard. premiums are much higher than they used to be. plans are much more generous. they cover more, a set range of benefits under more mandates thaven they used to. insurance is available to everyone ypreegsly they were able to keep premiums low because they didn't insure people for certain conditions or at all. so the pregnant woman is a cost example. insurance used to cost more for women because precisely knew they were going to have higher claims. now, it doesn't. everybody pay it is same

regardless of gender. we see it in balance more women have signed up and that's one of the reason whice premiums sometimes are going up more than expected because insurers have the first couple of years in getting equal numbers. host: historicically are women more likely to use their health care coverage than men? guest: certainly insurers and their actuaries have thought so. the assumptions they made. generally they've got money on the line so you sort of want to bear that in mind when you're looking at the numbers that they produce. they have an incentive to get them right. people have called them on it and said i think you're wrong about this. and sometimes the insurers admitted that too. >> employer provided health care. caller: listening to your show i appreciate you taking my call. the gentleman who called earlier questioning the constitutionality of the affordable care act. i don't see any place in the constitution that even talks

about health care nor gives the federal government the right to do anything with respect to it. -- what good is insurance if you sign up and can't use it? some of these deductibles, just astronomcal. and some of the people that have the insurance will never be able to meet that deductible. so you really don't have insurance. and the reason we have a crisis in health care is because of government involvement. we don't have a crisis in computer electronics, in buying shoes or clothing. we was a crisis in health care, ie, the cost is too high because the government involvement, regulation, the restriction of doctors which drives the price up. and so forth. my parents grew up in the 30s and 50s doctors made house calls.

host: all right. we'll get a response. guest: one of the thing it is supreme court considered was whether health care was a product like shoes or like anything else. and one of the arguments that people certainly make is that health insurance or health coverage or health care had certain differences but also yes it changed a lot in the last few decades. things have really -- a broad debate about what health insurance should be for. a lot of variation among candidates. nsurance really big claims catastrophic events should that be encouraged? after, say a ok 27-year-old if they get into a catastrophic vehicle or accident? or should insurance be for day to day to pay for health care for them usually coming with a

higher up front premium but that people often on a day to day basis don't have catastrophic. what you see in the affordable care act is a combination of both the few things covered up front to preventative care without copays or provisions the law was designed to insure that people did have access to that. and then the big stuff. there's no lifetime limit. this will certainly kick in for that. but what people are seeing is that bit in the middle that in some cases host: that caller mentioned medical costs. in the "washington post" reporting about a labor department study.

guest: we've seen health costs be all over in the last few years. they were at growth historic rate between 2000 and 2009 -- it was very high and alarmed people. then from 2010 went to an historic low. d the question was whether this was ling aftereffects of the economic downturn. whether after things got better for them health costs would start roaring back. we haven't been far enough down the line to tell for sure. host: ed, good morning. getting his insurance through the aca. caller: good morning. i have a question for your guest but also a comment for you. one of the critical things is the pool. they're not encouraging enough young people to get into that

pool and your guest mentioned a moment ago, i'm impressed with her knowledge. but are you encouraging young people who don't have any health issues right now to get into the pool? i think it would make it a lot more attractive. and also bring down the cost. i'm retired and i'm comparing it with that i have already. and i think it would be much better. and another thing is too much olitical in things like -- these are health things that are frightening young people. really, what do you do to try to encourage? and are you in charge to get -- encouraging them to get into the pool? host: ok. you had a question for us here

at c-span? caller: what are you doing to try to encourage that? i think the pool needs to be expanded. host: appreciate your comments. guest: this has been something that the administration supporters have considered for a couple of years. what can they do to encourage young people to sign up. they've tried out various messages. we've seen that strategy evolve. we've seen emphasis on the penalties than we did in the first year. after folks on the ground notice that had the penalty. even if it wasn't popular. what the administration is struggling with is data to suggest that it's difficult to persuade people who feel that they're cash strapped. they would like to fix their car this month. they have certain obligation that is to them are more pressing and outweigh the need to get health insurance to protect the assets they don't have. maybe that car is what they

would lose if they had a big medical bill and they feel they're trying to keep the car either way. they have this dynamic that is not easily resolved by messaging or a single sort of argument the administration or supporters of law can make to them to get them to sign up for health coverage. some of the other proposals people consider are what can be done do make health insurance cheaper for young people which i think also comes with a trade-off because they're -- there are always tradeoffs. do you have a -- so you have a lot of competing interests. it's a tough question. no one so far, as far as i can tell, has figured out what an answer actually is that would make people want to sign up in large numbers. if they had it they would use it. if you find it, you should call me. host: tying in an earlier caller from kansas and the comments we played from representative deget, a tweet here. congressman tim murphy was

concerned republican tim murphy concerned about the rise in premiums. here's what he had to say. >> you had mentioned in your testimony that premiums have gone down in actuality or they've gone -- they're less than what cbo estimated. >> i think what i said is after the second -- after 2016, so current premiums, are between and 20% lower than in going estimates. >> than -- lower than estimates? >> lower than estimated. i can get you -- >> i want to deal with reality. because cbo is not held in the highest -- >> cbo. >> but estimates. have you shared this information with aetna, united

and humana? because the fact they bailed out of the market saying this is out of control, maybe you have a breakthrough that all these companies haven't seen. it's amazing to me health care costs have gone up. they've gone up about 69%. insurance premiums have gone up. so there's less selection. people enroll then disenroll when they're well. copays and deductibles are so high. so i hope you can show us the source of this. host: what is getting at here? guest: insurers did price lower than perhaps was expected for 2014 and 2015. the premiums didn't quite go down. but if you think about all the changes going on, some people had worries that the jump would have been higher. so what you saw heading into 2016 and now 2017 is insurers adjusting their expectations. they priced low in part because

they didn't know what to expect. and in part because they were optimistic and they wanted to give people an incrntive to buy coverage and comby with them. and you're seeing now some of those early enthusiastic insurers, in which aetna was one pulling back. united health is a different animal. its pull backs represents more what was expected. but aetna was overly enthusiastic. host: for viewers, what is the window for signing up? guest: the next open enrollment period starts november 1. t finishes january 2017. there are some life events that qualify for individuals to sign up outside of the open enrollment period. usually to do with losing a job. those have been perhaps wider opportunities in the past than insurers have been very concerned about what the congressman was saying about

the potential for people to game the system. host: let's hear from tony in tennessee. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions and a statement. you hear people saying about the deductibles. well, i have -- on social security and i know people that have a $6,000 deductible. and to save $30. they have a plan but nobody's interested because on tv it's nothing but hmo's. this and that. if they really checked google which one's the best it would come out plan a. but the other thing is that everybody, insurance companies also have to pay the doctors. and that's -- i know of one parent in las vegas, all the doctors that were taking care of pregnant women were quit

being doctors because their surance was so high they would make more money being something else. host: we haven't touched on the liability insurance area. the other side of this coin in 2er78s of medical professionals, doctors in particular. guest: well, we certainly hear it could bring down health care costs in general and premiums next. certainly it's a popular idea among republicans. less of a popular idea among democrats. it's hard to tell since nobody's really gone down that path. but there doesn't seem to be a sign that that alone would resolve the issues that the people are facing. certainly supporters argue that it couldn't hurt. host: the census bureau figures for the uninsured looking across eight years back to 2008 and the ark of the uninsured obviously falling well downward, especially since the passage of the affordable care act to 2015 or now just a

little over 8% uninsured in the united states. guest: 8.6% of the respondents said they were without coverage , and what we saw for the 2015 rate overall was 9.1%. we heard that their shift over time wasn't significantly significant. not necessarily in itself. everything but what you're seeing is a trend that points to health insurance coverage rates high. >> is there another big road mark landmark coming up for the implementation? these dates that come up where pieces of the act get enforced. what is next coming up or do we know? guest: not as much. it's true my reporting life has been marked by these mile stones and there aren't so many now. the biggest would be certain

presidential and congressional elections coming up. that's the next life event in the law which has had plenty of life events to date. a couple of supreme court cases. a couple elections. three open enrollment periods. host: here's lexington, north carolina. caller: hi. my biggest issue is being in north carolina one of the toughest places to get insurance. and i'm 28 years old. at the end of the -- with two kids and having issues, i went through in north carolina the insured and they keep -- i was overwhelmed. and with obama care kicking in i was a manager and people lost hours due to affordable care act. and it has caused more issues that think it has resolved them. me having problems at that and

taking care of two children, what are they going to do for north carolina? host: north carolinaance have to use health care.gov. guest: they do. and it's one of the states that looks like it will have one insurer. there may be different options in different areas. but certainly the blue plan there is the big one. so people have to look and see what they can do. host: let's start with the figures from the kaiser family foundation on the health care coverage.

are more workers choosing these? guest: yes. what we see in some employer scenarios is that the incentives for the employee to make that choice are very firm indeed in terms of premiums. so there's some steering by companies. i think overall the employers were affected by the affordable care act but the ways in which they were affected most sharply haven't panned down. a tax has been delayed until 2020 and may be delayed again. i don't think anybody expects to see the cadillac tax really coming back. but employers try to prepare for that. and don't necessarily feel inclined to turn back from that approach. the hours question that the caller raises is really interesting, too. the affordable care act requires coverage of employeing who work 30 hours a week or

more and it doesn't require coverage of employees who do not. so what we did see and clearly are still seeing has been some companies are cutting back. they weren't necessarily converting full-time jobs to part-time jobs but for employees that were on the cusp, 29, hours, companies wanted to keep them below that 30 threshhold to reduce their coverage. so you saw people losing hours around that mark in particular. host: pennsylvania, good morning. barry. caller: first, i wish c-span would get involved in the debates. i feel it would be more fair. i appreciate what you do. i don't think -- does anyone remember all over the united states when people didn't have health coverage?

and they were neglected because of that? it's -- if my health coverage went up one year before obamacare. i don't know if that's the reason because they knew they were going on the amount of people involved in the plan. i think it's wrong. there is no affordable coverage for people today. i understand -- who has thousands of dollars to put out? and what really gripes me is these people that say the government. it's the insurance companies. the government takes over looking the insurance companies and it's not the government's fault. it's the republicans that did not want us to have health coverage. host: on the insurance companies guest: the caller suggested that americans were roughly divided between who they trusted more or who they trusted less to run their health plan between the government and the insurance. so this tension has been part of the debate ever since.

it's never been resolved. people feel more strongly inclined to one or the other. without that, the likelihood of consensus needs to be a little bit slow. the clinics that the caller mentioned are also very interesting. it appears that six years into the affordable care act there's still a significant gray market in health care. people who are uninsured do not necessarily go without care. they might go without all the care they want. they find extraordinary ways to get it. they pay cash, barter, use the charity system. they're very creative. and because it's possible to do that often there's a disconnect between them and policy makers who assume that everybody has to have insurance and that everybody wants insurance. people who aren't insured explain they're able to get care. so they save their money so they can pay cash. and then the problem becomes very sticky for growing the insurance pool if that's the direction the government wants to go in for the policy makers in charge of doing that. host: you were educated at

oxford your journalism degree at columbia. you work for the guardian in the u.k. how different is covering the united states health care system from the british system? guest: i never covered it. i just looked at it for a number of years. and i would just say they're very different situations. the british health system came out of a different time and history. maybe that's what lawmakers had in mind in 2010 but what we've seen the circumstances weren't the same. so you have these very different cultures. certainly interesting looking at them. host: connecticut. richard. good morning. caller: good morning. actually i'm calling for a little different reason. a couple of years ago i did a recording called obamacare revisited. in there i said obama looked north to canada and the

government controlled single pair system and explained this is a quote. we cannot achieve a single payer system in the united states in one step. the american people will never ookssept it. we must move slowly and step by step to achieve a government run single payer system. that's what obamacare is all about. the government has spent billions and billions of dollars on this farce just to get to a single payer system. i also have gone and say the requirements in obamacare will make individual and group medical insurance prohibittively expensive. for individuals host: to be clear, are you getting your coverage through medicare? do you have other insurance that augustments that? caller: yes. and this, the fellow who called

earlier about waiting for medicare, by the time he's 65 they're going to be taken out two, three, four hundred dollars to cover plan b. host: we haven't touched on the announcer: we are going to leaveco the last few minutes of this "washington journal" segscompment take you live to the congressional black caucus awards dinner here in washington. around 9:00 p.m. eastern we'll hear live remarks from hillary clinton and president obama. this is live coverage now on c-span. >> shawnee washington. ♪ >> good evening. good evening, everyone.

this is indeed a moment, and as i look across this room, i see the makings of a powerful new movement made necessary and possible by the events and circumstances we are currently witnessing and experiencing in this country. there is black excellence, creativity, economic and political power and a great deal of love and compassion filling this room tonight. we have many allies and supporters here, too. as we have had throughout the history of this nation. most importantly, we have the next generation of leaders who are well poised to stand on our shoulders and those of our ancestors to lead the next movement. so many of you here have been on the front lines, fighting big and small battles, and moving the ball forward.

the congressional black caucus foundation has existed for 40 years to support our representatives in the congress. a major part of our work has been to develop and grow the pipeline of activists, champions, and creative problem solvers who will keep the ball moving after our current representatives have done their best work. since the foundation was founded, we have had over 3,000 interns who have worked in congressional offices. did anybody hear me? over 3,000 congressional interns to work on capitol hill. more than 100 fellows who have studied and worked on key public policy issues. and we have dispersed more than $11 million in college scholarship funds. give yourselves a round of a--

applause because we have only been able to make that possible through your generous supports and your efforts. our leadership institute eequips students with firsthand experience in and exposure to the inner workings of congress. the public policy process and key issues that affect our community. we have launched several new initiatives to expand our leadership institute. we began a china study abroad program. our pathways to c-suite internship programs and we have initiated emerge 535 which seeks to place an african-american intern in every congressional and senate office on capitol hill. we have also recently launched our executive economic summit theories which seeks to support african-american entrepreneurs' access to capital. all of these programs are building leaders and creating life-changing opportunities for young people all over this nation.

what is good for our youth is great for america's future. and i would be negligent if i didn't add that all of this is made possible by your ongoing support, your financial contributions, and your commitment to use your influence and other resources. to give you a bit more inspiration, i would like to introduce you to this year's outstanding cohort of congressional black caucus foundation fellows. they are highly skilled. they have advanced degrees. and they are committed to serve their communities and our nation. his year's cbcf fellows are -- and join me in welcoming them, please, to this stage -- dr. richard ezeke, transportation and environmental sustainability fellow, sponsored by state farm who works in the congressional black caucus center for policy

analysis and research. mr. jonathan riley, science and technology fellow in the office of representative g.k. butterfield. ms. kimberly toose, finance fellow, working in the office of representative maxine waters. abdul dennesy, donald m. payne foreign policy fellow working in the office of representative karen bass. ms. zoey kador, energy fellow working in the office of esing. ntative mark v ms. priscilla barber, energy fellow, working in the office of representative cedric richmond. mr. ronald maglo, congressional fellow working in the office of representative alcee hastings. and ms. nik keys, women in

health science fellow working in the office of representative robin kelly, ms. erin robinson, our inaugural stem fellow working in the office of senator cory booker. ive them a round of' plause, -- apluse, please. [applause] many of you may remember the movie testimony last year of one of our former interns, mr. rontel beatty. he shared the inpiring story of his humble beginnings and how the internship experience was his only access to his current career in public policy on capitol hill. tonight, i'd like you to hear from another one of our future leaders. watch the video and after it airs, you will hear directly from him. thank you so much and do enjoy the rest of your evening.

♪ >> the university, such a buzz word now. you hear it from every avenue, from every sector, from every industry. diversity is important. and it's the thing to say today. but the goal of diversity is nothing new for the congressional black caucus foundation. when you're a person like me who watched debates at night or woke up in the morning to read political news, you weren't sure if there were others like you. but to see students from across the country come together and be interested and also passionate about the work of politics and policy really made me feel like there was a home. and i think that the congressional black caucus

foundation internship and fellowship program does that. >> the internship program is important because it increases the number of african-americans on the hill which is something that's still drastically needed until this day. it lets us know that others care about us, that those who came before us are willing to look back and give us a hand and get where they are today. >> as a black person, it's nice to know that i'm valued. it's nice to know that i'm appreciated and i'm not just another person to say we met our quotas. >> when they send young people of color to the hill to work not only in c.b.c. member offices but to work on senate committees, house committees, they know that they're not only supporting and nurturing the young people that we're sending, but we're making the entire legislative process. not only for communities of color but for this entire world. >> they helped my brother's dream come true. my mother fought for me to be able to have these opportunities. and so not only did you grant me an opportunity, but you

pulled my whole family. >> so i would like to see the congressional black caucus foundation expand, double, triple, quadruple the number of interns and fellows that come to washington and to learn how to do this work. >> young people like me would never have the opportunity, would never have the chance. that's why these programs are important. that's why they must continue. that's why we have to create more and more opportunities for all those young people. who wouldn't have an opportunity otherwise. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to this stage congressional black caucus foundation leadership institute intern mr. noah mcqueen.

mr. mcqueen: good evening, everyone. words cannot begin to express what an honor it is to stand award ou at the cbcf dinner. to talk about the impact of interns and fellowship programs. during my years as a teenager, which weren't that long ago, i found myself in and out of courtrooms, standing before judges, hoping to get just one last opportunity that my life would not be defined by the mistakes that i made. but rather by the impact that i can have on communities like the one i grew up southeast d.c. like so many -- [applause] like so many young men, my story's not unique. it was filled with challenges that sought to defeat my purpose. i was raised by a phenomenal black woman.

i'm going to say that again. i was raised by a phenomenal black woman. [applause] but in a single parent household, it was oftentimes difficult for me to learn right from wrong. i had disciplinary issues that anded me in a -- the juvenileus stiss -- system. i fell behind in school but with perseverance i was able to arn a 3.5 g.p.a. and raising that g.p.a. to 3.5 f having a 0.1 cumulative. [applause] i know. i know. i don't look like it. not right now. [laughter] i decided that my challenges did not and would not define me. when i was 18 years old, i was

afforded the opportunity to be mentored by the president of the united states, barack obama. this was through my brothers keeper initiative. through the many, the many encounters with president obama, i remember one-time he told me, noah, you have got to sympathize , and i believe in that. since that day, i went to morehouse college in atlanta, georgia. [applause] when i am currently a sophomore, while i am currently a sophomore honor student on a fulbright academic scholarship -- [applause] i learned how to channel my cbcr strength to become a intern.

[applause] i love you, rk. love you. i will continue to challenge inner strength to help kids like me by paying it forward and giving back some in the same way f has given back to me. if you have ever wondered if these programs are important, i hope your member me. remember my story. the south -- young man from southeast d.c. with a challenging background who achieved despite all the odds. [applause] my name is noah mcqueen. i am a cbcf intern. cbc and the sponsors and friends, i would like to thank you for helping me chart a better course in life. i would like to thank you in advance for continued support of these programs to enable other young men like me to channel

themselves. thank you and have a blessed night. [applause] ♪ >> don't they sound beautiful? [laughter] it is worth repeating that the congressional black caucus foundation support of the next generation of leaders relies on a support of organizations and individuals who believe in the mission. please give -- i will say it again -- please give whatever you can to support scholarship and congressional internships and fellowships. you can give three ways. did ya'll hear me and/or say yes. i like that in ya'll. you can donate three ways.

cbcf tocheck, two text announcegive any to destination unmount, or -- amount, or go to the mobile website, which connects to the donation platform. we now have the opportunity to meet and acknowledge the esteemed members of the congressional black caucus. [applause] ♪ >> representative john conyers junior, 13th congressional district, michigan.

representative charles b. rengold, 13th district of new york. ♪ lewis, fifthe john congressional district, georgia. ♪ representative eleanor holmes norton, washington, dc. [applause]

♪ representative maxine waters, 43rd congressional district, california. ♪ representative sanford bishop junior, second congressional district, georgia. ♪ representative karen brown, fifth congressional district, florida. rown, fifthb congressional district, florida.

e. ksentative james congressional district, south carolina. ♪ hastings,tive lcl 20th congressional district, florida. representative eddie bernice johnson, 30th congressional district, texas. ♪

representative bobby rush, third congressional district, illinois. ♪ representative bobby scott, third congressional district, virginia. representative bennie thompson, second congressional district, mississippi. ♪ representative sheila jackson lee, 18th congressional district, texas. representative elijah e cummings , seventh congressional

district, maryland. ♪ representative danny k davis, seventh congressional district, illinois. ♪ representative gregory w meeks, fifth congressional district, new york. ♪ representative barbara lee, 13th congressional district, california. ♪ representative william lacy clay, first represent -- first congressional district, missouri.

representative david scott, 13th congressional district, georgia. ♪ butterfield,e g.k. first congressional district, north carolina. ♪ representative emanuel cleaver the second, fifth congressional district, missouri. ♪ representative gwen asked more -- s. mooore, fourth congressional district, wisconsin. ♪

representative yvette d clark, ninth congressional district, new york. ♪ representative hank johnson, fourth congressional district, georgia. ♪ representative andre carson, seventh congressional district, indiana. ♪

representative marsha l fudge, 11th congressional district, ohio. ♪ representative karen bass, 30th congressional district, california. ♪ representative cedric richmond, second congressional district, louisiana. ♪

representative terry a sewall's, seventh congressional district, alabama. ♪ representative fredricka s wilson, 20th congressional district, florida. ♪ representative donald m payne junior, 10th congressional district, new jersey. ♪

representative joyce sadie, third congressional district, ohio. ♪ representative hakeem jeffries, eighth congressional district, new york. ♪ representative mark bz, 33rd congressional district, texas. ♪ representative robin kelly, second congressional district, illinois. ♪

he says to introduce himself as the very sexy senator cory booker from new jersey. ♪ representative almon adams, 12 congressional district, north carolina. ♪ representative mark brenda lawrence, 14th congressional district, michigan. ♪

representative stacey plastic and's, virgin islands. virgin islands. ♪ representative bonnie watson coleman, 12 congressional district, new jersey. ♪ ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome the 45 in comparable men and women known as the congressional black caucus. [applause] ♪

♪ >> one more time, ladies and gentlemen, let's give a round of applause to the members of the congressional black caucus. [applause] time amazing for me every i see congressman john lewis, i think to myself there was a time when we would not have been coming through the front door, so that really is a special moment. as we acknowledge the members of the congressional black caucus who continue to serve, let us take a moment to honor those freedom fighters, pioneers and cultural icons and we have lost

since we last met here. let's watch and honor them. please, ladies and gentlemen, in a moment of silence. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] >> gone but not forgotten, thank you very much. i noticed a lot of people in the house that seem to be enjoying the wine that is accompanying

your meal. some of you are having more wine than food, and i guess this would be a good moment to suggest you take advantage of rate thisl cbcf weekend. when you are ready to order your al2016,de, click in cbcf and you will get 20% off the get aide it, and you can scholarship donation. you better do it now. >> yes, i think that is a great idea. moving on, it is now time to move into the part of the program where we honor the civics, heroes, and heroes who have honored the black community in ways that will reverberate for generations to come. >> we call these the phoenix

awards in honor of represents george henry white of north carolina observed in congress -- he was the last of 40 african-americans who served in congress after emancipation and reconstruction, all of whom were strategically removed from office through systematic voting disenfranchisement of african americans during the jim crow era. during jim crow. his departing speech on the house floor, he said, and i quote, "this is perhaps the negroes temporary farewell to the american congress. but let me say, phoenix life, he will rise up someday and, again. and so they have." [applause] >> indeed. more than 100 years later, we have 45 members of congress who

caucus and advocate together in the congress to serve and protect the interests of not only the african-american community but also the african ds for a as well as the interests -- diaspora as well as democracy as af whole. this is on behalf of the members of the congressional black congress and the cbc foundation to recognize individuals and, in one case, this evening, a group of individuals who represent the highest achievement, ideals and best interests of people of african descent everywhere. let's begin with our first on a re-. -- honoree. >> the first phoenix award this evening is entitled a congressional black caucus founders award. it was instituted in 2016 to honor public officials who embody the service, sacrifice,

and steadfastness of the congressional black caucus founders. this is presented to elected leaders who have made significant contributions to the african democracy and to american democracy and to public policies which have advanced the social political circumstances of african-americans. eonight's on a re--- honore is none other than representative charles reynold, one of the founders of the congressional black caucus. let's watch the video that place -- pays homage to his service. >> nearly a half-century ago, a young war hero named charles reynolds made a decision that reflected the boldness of the decision -- generation. he entered congress. as a 45 years serving strong voice for african americans and people of color, congressman reynolds is retiring.

he ends his career leaving behind a legacy making investments into african communities throughout the nation, including [indiscernible] is one of the most accomplished of his generation. he is a happy warrior who knows when giving matters, broad smiles and friendship are the full price. -- standsed stands up up for his outspoken believe in the limit and responsibility of power. his first fight in congress was to the house judiciary committee where he played a prominent role in the watergate hearings. after all of his ideological passions, he is one of the most pragmatic lawmakers, finding the respect of republicans with whom he has clashed over the years. he has extended that commitment to ensuring justice to

communities of color. in his early days in congress, he emerged as a leader on the war on drugs, the mess of inner cities being ravaged. he challenged the inflow of heroin that tormented urban neighborhoods. and our founding member of the congressional black caucus, congressman wrangled placed himself on the front line on the battle -- >> we have been looking in on congressional black caucus awards dinner. we will step away for a time. still to come in the dinner, we will hear remarks from hillary clinton and president obama, and we will return to the dinner in time to hear those remarks. in the meantime, we will show you some of "washington journal. " >> joining us from new york city is seth read wessler who has

written a number of pieces in the nation and elsewhere, investigations into the health care administered in prisons. these are private prisons, federal prisons kept across united states. first, you work for the investigative fund. tell us about that organization and the types of issues you look into. seth: the investigative fund which supports my reporting is an individual is -- independent from thetive reporting nation institute. i work on stories about federal law enforcement, immigration enforcement, inequality, mostly investigative work. and this story, the year-long investigation of something that few people really know about, the federal government or now nearly two decades -- for now

nearly two decades has privatized a subset of federal prisons that it has used almost exclusively to hold noncitizens convicted of federal crimes. you are a noncitizen and you are convicted of a federal crime and considered a low security prisoner, you are likely to go to a different kind of prison than a citizen convicted of the same crime. so this subsystem of about a dozen federal prisons has been operating for the better part of two decades. and the announcement from the department of justice last month will force the bureau of prisons to start shutting down those private prisons. justicedepartment of said they simply don't operate up to par. host: here is a number for the viewers and listeners, privately run federal prisons, 192,000 total federal inmates. 21,000 are held in privately held, privately managed

facilities that we are talking about. 14,000 held in other facilities. one of your pieces in the nation, seth wesller has the headline, federal officials ignored warnings about deaths in private prisons. what prompted your research? seth: several years ago now, i got a call from a woman as i do often reporting that her woman -- her brother had suffered significant neglect inside of up -- of a federal prison in mississippi, a place called the adams county correctional center. when i began looking into this prison, it turns out it was a privately run federal prison run by the corrections operation of america and that her brother had actually died after being held in that facility. i began to dig in to the details dynamicsaims and other

that i had started to observe. this including a number of repeated riots that would break out in these for-profit federal prisons used to held noncitizens. they continued to break out so i wanted to know why. i filed a freedom of information request. because i did not get anything back from the bureau of prisons i sued them, which led to the release of 30,000 pages of documents. the first story i worked on , i reported onar dozens of deaths. of prisoners held inside this group of a dozen private prisons, deaths a result of deeply and disturbingly negligent medical care. forle who were complaining

weeks and months, sometimes more than a year of significant illness and pain, and receiving nearly no substantive care at all. often, never seeing a doctor, being relegated to low level medical workers who did not have the training to provide the care these people needed. folks ended upse dying as a result. i asked a team of doctors to review 90,000 pages of medical files that i obtained through this open records request. medical files of 103 men who died in these prisons. those doctors, their reviews of the files, they agreed that in one third of the cases they could review, negligent or substandard medical care was very likely contributing to premature death. i tell the stories in my reporting of some of these men. men who were locked up in federal prison and died unnecessarily.

have they received better care, they may have been alive today. the most recent story i worked on that you mentioned relied on 20,000 more pages of documents that i obtained. in fact some of the federal government own monitoring report of these facilities. what i found, is since the beginning, since these startedes first operating in the mid-1990's, they have been documenting those very problems. monitors have been going into these facilities, sending monitoring reports back to washington, raising fives about serious deficiencies in medical care, and things of not changed. in some cases, prisons of gotten worse, prisoners have died, and the problems that led to those deaths have not been fixed. is our guest,sler we are talking about the health care or lack thereof, at privately run federal prisons. we invite you to join the

conversation. the investigative fund, they knew something was going on, u.s. government repeatedly ignored its own watchdog, dozens of noncitizens died in private prisons. the question is, why? why was the health care so bad? mr. wessler: the fundamental difference between private prisons and prisons run by , say we spendthat a $70 a day on a prisoner. thatpublicly run facility, $70 goes to the operation of the a privately run facility, some of that $70 the ,overnment pays the contractor

some of that money gets pulled off and becomes prophet. -- profit. is af the easiest ways lower staffing costs. that is the most expensive part of running a prison. so what we see over and over understaffing,st which is rampant in these facilities, but also the use of poorly trained or undertrained medical workers who are asked to do things outside of their scope of practice, outside of what they are trained to do. in the monitoring reports i have obtained from the federal government, monitors were trained to go look what is happening in these facilities and to report whether the companies are performing as the contract requires, those government monitors who went into the facilities, in 10 prisons documented that nurses were breaking state nursing

practice laws that regulated their performance. they were working outside their scope of practice to read it was systematic and leading to troubling things, including medical negligence and in some cases, death. monitors were asking for officials in washington, contracting officials in washington, to impose fines on these companies. in some cases, they closed down some federal prisons. but officials in washington, my sources at say, they refused to allow that to happen. open andilities stayed continue to operate with deep deficiencies. just last month after my own nation, ther the office of inspector general, the department of justice put out a report that these prisons do not operate up to par. they do not save significantly

on money, which is the whole purpose of privatization in the first place, and at they significantly degrade the quality of operations. and come the inspector general found that the bureau of prisons has not set up an effective system to enforce changes when the prisons are failing specifically in the area of medical care. host: we have called waiting for us, seth freed wessler. this one from georgia, on the independent line. want to commend your guest on the very good work he is doing. prisons,ts on private it is obviously profit-motivated. i am a student of history. i also surmise they use these people for slave labor for pennies on the hour. knowing how deep and dark all of it is, maybe human organs on the

black market, too. host: any comment? mr. wessler: i don't have any indication that people are being used for labor outside these facilities. people who are held in private federal prisons like people held in government-run federal oftens are very often -- do work for pennies on the dollar, doing basic operating functions of the prison. these prisons in particular rely on inmates to clean the premises, to mow the lawn, work in the kitchen. they do rely on nearly unpaid labor to run these prisons. host: you mention this is a together a subset of prison, mainly immigrants you said, in

these prisons. is there much effort at rehabilitation in these private prisons? these they readying visitors for trial, deportation, or both? mr. wessler: these are prisoners who have been through trial, have been convicted. half of the people held in these facilities are held there for a crime called illegal reentry, which is a criminal offense of crossing back over the border after deportation. they return after being deported, that is a felony offense. a pretty new crime, essentially. 20 years ago, several hundred people were convicted of border crossing crimes a year. last year, 70,000 people were convicted of these crimes. it now makes up about half of all federal prosecutions, these border crossing crimes. it is a huge part of who is help and these facilities. government has said

that these private facilities are an ideal place for noncitizens to be held. and they have said explicitly that is because noncitizens convicted of federal crimes will to civiltransferred immigration authorities and deported, so do not have to be provided the same sort of rehabilitation or reentry seat -- reentry services that they are supposed to be provided. --se are explicitly's explicitly stripped-down facilities. hundreds of roles that the bureau of prisoners -- prison over decades has used to guide the operation of its own prison. those rules or program statements do not apply to these private prisons. the private prisons are supposed to innovate and figure eight new ways to operate its prison. what is in practice is a significant diminishing of the of operations in

general. and in particular, of medical care. int: let's hear from joseph florida, republican line. is mr. wessler is nothing0% a job that most of us citizens know anything about. should get more help to look deeply into these things. if i had my own way with people's support behind me, we would close down all of those and have one prison, controlled by the government, with no franchise of any sort whatsoever. a prisoner is a prisoner. he is a human being. to doe people are bribed certain things, that is why we are getting these -- we had one prison -- if we had one prison system, we would not have these as well. host: a supporter on twitter

says these abuses came to light because a citizen dared to file a freedom of information act form and sue. one of the things that is really striking about these prisoners and people held inside these prisons -- prison in general separate people from their communities. in some ways, disappears people from normal life. removeds by design are from the view of most of us. are triplyners disappeared. they are in prison behind bars, and a private prison without public accountability or requirements of openness that many public prisons have. are many of these prisoners their the united dates --

first line advocates, the people who might make a phone call to prison administrators if something is going wrong, becomes very difficult for them to do that basic level of advocacy. these prisoners, the men held in these prisons, do completely disappear. it has largely been outside of the broader conversation of criminal justice reform because this population of people fit the strange intersection of the criminal justice system and the immigration system. these prisons are hard to get our head around. there has been very little discussion about them, the people held inside until recently. until my reporting, and recent decision by the department of justice to begin a process of closing down these facilities. in the next year, the number of people held in these prisons 22,000 tofrom about 14,000. over the next five years, as these prison contracts come to

an end, the federal bureau of prisons is expected to start terminating those contracts, moving people who are held inside to other prisons, publicly run prisons. within five years the number of private prisons will be zeroed out. it is not the end of prison privatization, other agencies continue to use them, like the department of homeland security, immigration, customs enforcement , which holds about two thirds of detainees and contracted facilities. the state continues to use private prisons to hold state prisoners, those convicted of state crimes. this is certainly not the end of private prisons. but the federal bureau of prisons is looked at as -- at as a model for other federal agencies. but in fact, the obama administration has ordered them to do a review of their use of

private prisons. that is expected at the end of november. the announcement from the doj otherto be seeping into agencies for changes. host: we go to joan in maryland on our democrats line. i really believe we should have absolutely no private, for-profit prisons of any kind. because there is a disconnect like other people have said. the families, we are relying on somebody to scream foul play. that will not happen because once they're out of the country, have no connection, who will say something is wrong? i used to work in a prison, a private, for-profit prison.

if you only knew how they were run, you would run and holler, whether you're a republican, democrat, or independent. you would not want one of your loved ones to go there. for people who have no clue what they are doing, when something happens to you, unless somebody spend a lot of money to come up with the answer to what happened, it is your unlucky day. i spoke to many men who have been held in these prisons. they talked about the terrible conditions inside. but i also talk to people who worked in these prisons, guards, nurses, doctors, physicians assistants, employed by private prison contractors to work inside these facilities. those people, whose livelihoods

rely on these federal prisons told me that the conditions inside are incredibly troubling. and in the context of medical they told me they cannot perform adequate medical care. a doctor in texas, the medical director at the big spring a 3500 person, sprawling facility on the grounds of an old, decommissioned military simplyhe told me he is not able to perform medical care as he believes it should be performed in this facility because his corporate bosses were demanding he cut costs, refusing to allow him to transfer prisoners who needed emergency or higher-level care out of the facility to the hospital. he was told right away he needed to cut down on the amount of emergency room calls. when prisoners were sick, they

said it cost too much money. not perform medicine as medicine is supposed to be performed. these are people who work in these facilities, not advocates or prisoners held inside, but people whose livelihoods depend on working there. i heard this across the board. man heldy heard from a in a facility in big springs. years ofe that after being a prisoner of the federal bureau of prisons, he had been held in others run by the government, after years and years of being a federal prisoner he landed in one of these private prisons in big springs. he said it was absolutely the worst place he had ever been, conditions there he said were terrible. he said people were not provided the kind of medical care the country expects they would be provided in the regular bureau of prisons facilities.

his spirits were really falling. the experience of being held in one of these facilities, people who have been held there tell me, it is different than government-run facilities. prisons can be terrible places to be across the board. these prisons can be particularly awful places to be held. host: we go to pat in iowa, independent line. >> i was just wondering about your investigative fund? how do you get money? people will money when they died to the fund? is it anything like the clinton foundation? how big is it? do you have enough money to do your investigations? cost a heck of a lot of money to do what you do. host: we will find out. mr. wessler: the investigative

unique a wonderfully entity, it funds independent journalists like me to travel and interview people like me to be able to this kind of work. thatis not a profession makes people rich. it is a profession and a kind of work that there is less and less support for. the investigative fund has made a possible for me and many other journalists to do work, public accountability work, to look into the way that governments and companies are operating to hold them accountable to citizens. it has made it possible for me to do this work. host: how does the fund raise its money? how do they get donations? mr. wessler: i think foundations and individual donations. i get grants for particular

projects. host: let's hear from frank in nashville on our democrats line. good morning. i want to thank c-span and your guest. it is very informative. prisonstion i have is, used to be run by government agencies. then all of a sudden, there was a desire for prisons to be run by corporations and businesses who desire to make profit. wondering, do you know what party is responsible for pushing this desire to privatize and take that response ability from the federal government? the decision by the bureau of prisons to privatize federal prisons came in the mid-1990's. it was a bipartisan decision. of timeuring a period

during the clinton administration when there is a push to privatize significant portions of federal services and adderall programs -- federal programs. the white house proposed a project to privatize a subset of prisons. they were public and congress-approved, a pilot privatize a single prison in the 1990's and see how it went. that prison opened, there was supposed to be studies of how it operated. but before those studies were released, the bureau of prisons itself administratively decided to open a group of other federal prisons that were privatized exclusively to hold non-citizens, convicted of federal crimes. the origin of prison privatization in the federal system in the bureau of prisons was bipartisan. it was democratic white house, republican congress that moved to begin this office of

privatizing federal prisons. have been signed since the that these prisons are not working. save on costs. there is no meaningful savings to taxpayers. the quality of operations has been degraded. but by the time those studies were released, these prisons had become an integral part of the carceralated -- in system. and there was of the war on drugs and the growing numbers of criminal prosecutions of people crossing the border. that pressure, that need for beds and growth in the population and the growth in private prisons, the federal government saw these private prisons as a quick way to deal with rapidly growing prisoners.

they said they would not -- the prison population was expanding. this was a way to privatize and .xtend the prisons have continued to grow. host: we welcome your comments on twitter. a couple comments here on private prisons. they say it is a boondoggle, which represents political corruption and tyrannical direction we are headed. they are justys doing it for the money, not to rehabilitate, it sounds more like torture. and a washington post opinion piece, after they decided to close these private prisons, wrote in part, if the private sector has not performed spectacularly on quality dimensions today, it is because

good correctional quality has not been strongly incentivized so far. the advent of performance-based contracting has the potential to open up new quality- this does of improvements. in the federal system may miss out on these quality improvements. your reaction? mr. wessler: this is the system that has been operating for two decades. my reporting suggests that this performance-based, incentivized and speeds ands fines based on performance has not worked to force quality operations. even when these facilities are told to fix problems inside, those problems have not been fixed. the federal government has not been exerting its full theseement muscle when companies fail to perform as the contracts require.

decades of two trying this out at this point. we have gotten to a place where the federal government has finally decided it is simply not working. but it is certainly the case that a big part of these failures rests on the government , on failed oversight. there is a robust system of oversight in place. there are dozens of people employed to oversee and enforce the rules in these facilities. but the muscle is not there. infrastructuret has largely not worked to force these companies to perform as they are supposed to. where itone to a place is become clearer the system is not working. host: let's go next to albuquerque, new mexico, anthony on the republican line. >> are some of these prisons privatized through the state as theents as well

federal government? mr. wessler: yes, many states use by the prisons to hold their own prisoners. some states hold around half of their prisoners in private facilities. others, just a few percentage of their prisoners. it varies dramatically. some are entirely publicly run prisons. stay prisons have gotten a lot of attention over the years, state private prisons, for similar types of failures. that is fairly negligence, understaffing, squalid conditions inside, high rates of the violence, which has also been found in these federal prisons. the same kinds of issues emerge

in state facilities, as well. my reporting is the first body of reporting to look at the oferal government's use private prisons, this subset that has been privatized. and you look at what happened behind those bars. those are the prisons that the department of justice has ordered. one of those state prisons reported on this week by the new york times privately run mississippi prison called a scene of horror, shutdown, writing about the mississippi prison that a federal judge concluded was effectively run by gangs in collusion with corrupt risen guards, closed thursday. prisoners transferred to other state facilities. conditions of the prison, the walnut grove correctional facility, were deemed so substandard by judge carlton reeves of federal district court, he wrote in 2012 that it paints a picture of such war it should be unrealized anywhere in the civilized world.

i know you did not report on this, but what is the delay in implementing a report like that? why would it take so long to shut down a place like that? mr. wessler: there is an institutional drag that happens. everyone knows these prisons are failing, but they remain open. prison that i reported on, the , has county in mississippi been feeling for years. it opened in 2009. monitors have been documenting grave problems inside. in 2012, that facility erupted left 20sive riot that guards and prisoners injured, and a prison guard was killed during that riot. monitors thet, federal government hires to watch over the facility, proposed that the contract and with direct incorporation of

america, that they walk away from that contract. but officials in washington refused to do that, the contract was extended after that. year14 and 2015, the period monitors looked at, they discover that five prisoners had died in the wake of substandard or negligent medical care. and yet, that is an contract was renewed once again. it is up for renewal one more time in 2017, and we will see whether the federal government does walk away from that it open in 2017, leaves until 2019 when the contract comes to an end. that is one of the prisons that the department of justice ordered be closed over the next five years. host: let's see if we can get one more quick call from colorado, are democrats line.

>> good morning. i one for a little bit. he was quadriplegic. i went in to check on him and was stillakfast tray there. it is really sad they don't hire enough people to cover the patient's in the nursing home. it is all a for-profit thing. i think there should be a really good investigation on these nursing homes. the only crime they have committed is they are old or disabled. host: do you see any parallels between the health care world of nursing homes, as she talked about and federal