booktv on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfold daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider . >> "washington journal" continues. host: 202-748-8001 the number for republicans on open phones. 202-748-8000 the number for democrats. .02-748-8002 for independents you can also post on our facebook page. this morning over the to the action when it comes to health care. heard about a possible test vote taking place on wednesday to see if it would vote to passage.

with that in mind, usa today takes a comparison of the house and senate bills on health care. when it comes to the increase of people without health insurance, the house bill had 23 million. the senate bill had 22 million when it comes to -- 22 million. when it comes to decreases in medicaid funding, 844,000,000,004 the house -- $844 billion for the house bill. $772 billion for the senate bill. the house bill allows for $117 billion and the senate bill hundred 7 billion -- $107 billion when it comes to funds to the state and insurers. these are just some of the

comparisons that are made in usa the senate bill. the cbo score that came out yesterday on the senate bill was released yesterday. the new york times shows you a series of graphics and gives you some of the highlights from yesterday's release. 22 billion americans that 22 million americans would be uninsured by 2026. federal deficit would be reduced. the savings could have been even taxer, but the bill repeals increases that the affordable care bill imposed from early on the wealthy to pay for expanded coverage. under the senate plan, federal payments would be reduced for enrollees beginning in 2021. in 2024, federal support would be sharply curtailed. also, premiums would decrease by

20% by 2026. the new york times adding that this would be largely achieved plans with skimpier higher deductibles. the senate bill would make the financial assistance for generous than under current law. chuck schumer took to the floor of the senate to talk about the senate effort on health care in light of the cbo score. he was what he had to say. senator schumer: it would make it harder for families with a loved one in the nursing home or disabled child to afford their care just so they can get a massive tax cut to the wealthy. this bill would defined planned parenthood, making it harder for millions of willing than that of women to obtain care. -- making it harder for millions

of women to obtain care. the bill would/tax credits that help families afford health insurance. in order to give in nearly $1 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest americans. the bill would punish any american who experiences a gap in coverage. it would lock them out of health insurance for six months. tens of millions of americans every year have a gap in coverage through no fault of their own. some lose their jobs, others have temporary financial problems. it is inhumane to say to those americans that you now have to wait in additional six months without insurance. imagine someone struggling with last innd they coverage. lapse in coverage. the six-month wait could well

become a death sentence. just some of the action you can watch as the senate commerce health care this week. you can find more information on our website, www.c-span.org. if you would like to read the cbo findings yourself and every thing else going on when it comes to the senate health-care effort, you can also find that online on our website. open phones now. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. we will start with rob in new york on the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i recall i had a claim that i got from the dermatologist for psoriasis on my elbows. it went from about $100 a few years back to about $2000. my insurance paid for it reluctantly.

these pharmaceutical companies are just out of control. host: mike in harrisburg, pennsylvania. on the independent line. caller: hello. i was wondering if people realize that nursing home care in the united states costs somewhere around $10,000 a month which makes it $120,000 a year. america's time when population is getting older, and republicans want to cut medicaid which is what pays for 65% to in thenursing home costs united states. explain to theto american public since they do not seem to understand what is going on here. host: do you pay for nursing home services for somebody? father no, luckily, my

is in assisted living which costs half as much, but i am very familiar with it. i was helping my mother and father with their health care. you have to make yourself destitute. your parents have to make themselves destitute in order to qualify for medicaid in the first place. now, republicans want to make it even worse by decreasing the amount of money available in the medicaid program. people need to understand that. dan: let us your next from out of pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning, sir. my name is dan, and thank you for taking my call. two comments. one, i think it is quite evident that if the investigation is done on both sides, republican are beingat,

supported in some fashion by the pharmaceutical industry. it is hard to pass any legislation for the constituency if there is vested interest. two, i hope everyone stays as healthy as they can, but what happens when you get old? rightat everybody has a to health insurance in the same capacity, because you are doing service for the country -- what kind of health coverage do you get compared to the average joe woman or lady on the street? -- average gentleman or lady on the street? could comment on that, i would appreciate it. danny on the line for democrats from indiana. caller: good morning. i was calling to get on when you had the guy before. i am reading here in the kinopolis newspaper --

indianapolis newspaper. the pharmaceutical makes $13,914 an hour. could you tell me -- and there are other pharmaceutical ceos who make about 9000 some dollars an hour. why pricesle see cost so much for medications? opinion --ieve my they want to give the wealthy a tax break, and then they will take that tax break and buy their agendas in the government. that is all i have to say. are: before you go, you

probably advocating for something like reducing ceo pay? that prices will go down in response? caller: don't you think it would help? there is no one on this earth who has that kind of money paid to them on the hour. doesn't anyone else understand what is going on? host: nashville, tennessee. our is brant on independent line. caller: thank you. for quick points. if it is devil to gavel, why not have some -- if it is gavel-to-gavel, why not have something in the evening? host: if i understand it, there used to be nighttime call in shows at the start of the network before we moved this to a formal daytime show.

sorry to interrupt you. go ahead. caller: it is worth another try. that they -- i believe veterans administration was able to negotiate for price reduction in pharmaceuticals. knowidn't george bush about that when he gave away that boondoggle to the pharmaceutical companies? i believe in medicare for all. i am more of an idealist. i think we should take the profit motive out of health care, making money off the backs peoplepeople -- of sick i do not think is moral. host: so change the way that hospitals provide coverage? how would that work out? theer: supposedly,

thenistration has 30% in administration. if you can take profit out of the insurance, then maybe they can coexist with a medicare for all. i am not sure if they are going to go down quietly. they seem to have taken over the industry over the past 100 years . host: we are going to hear next from richard in misery -- misso uri. caller: why are politicians try to reinvent the wheel? medicare is socialized medicine that is good for everyone. just ask everyone over 65 years old how good it is. host: are you saying open it up for everyone? caller: why yes. other countries have socialized medicine, and they seem to exist all right.

what good is a country if you cannot have good health? host: are you concerned that if you open up the coverage to all people that it would affect individuals like you and the coverage you get? caller: there is no free lunch. everybody will have to pay into it. we will all get the benefits. just like highways or the police department, or other socialized deals we have in the country. we all deserve a decent life. money is just paper. host: that was richard in misery -- in missouri. one more story to tell you. this in the washington post this morning about one feature of the to theand on -- add-on

senate bill. if coverage is dropped, there is going to be a six-month waiting period for new coverage. lostuld make consumers who their policy for six to three days or more face a six-month waiting. -- waiting period before they can get new coverage. an attempt to appeal to industry stakeholders. by the conservative health care bill passed last month i the house, the senate version would end the insurance mandate in 2020. the house would replace the mandate with a federal form of encouragement for people buying insurance to charge people 30% or more. the senate version lacks such a deterrent. the prospect has unnerved the insurance industry which has

consumers worried that they will not buy coverage until they get sick and need care. that kind of behavior would drive up costs and prices. let's go to mike in hawaii now. caller: good morning. i was listening to the last caller, and i think a lot of people believe that more money getting -- more people getting , butance means good health i think if we can encourage people to stop smoking and loose some weight than it can do a lot to make them healthier. if we can have the insurance companies discriminate or charge a higher price for people who are smoking and doing other things that make them a bigger health risk, i think that is a very appropriate way of charging people.

if they have pre-existing conditions that came about through no fault of their own, that is one thing. we need to take care of those people. but if someone deliberately hurts their health, i think they should pay for it. it is not fair for them to put the burden of their poor health on the rest of us. , ande out of the hospital there was a group of people outside in a small group. i went over by then, and they were all smoking. some of them even had oxygen containers out there, because they have lung problems. they can't smoke in the hospital, so they wheel out in wheelchairs just so they can smoke. something is wrong when we are paying for their health care. host: so, would you apply it to smoking or other things like age and other standards? weight, i think

people could really help themselves if they got outside -- just just a less j ate less. you talk about the poor not being able to get the food they need, but people at the lower income, the greater percentage of them are overweight. i think it comes from their mental attitude. being depressed brings them to the refrigerator to start eating. there is no one solution that will fit everybody. like -- for people who are causing their own health to go down, because they are eating the wrong foods or eating peopleh -- i have seen

from a dialysis group and most of them are overweight. it just seems like it could be connected. host: mike, thank you for your call. let's hear from tony in antioch, illinois on the republican line. caller: good morning. give me a moment here. my mother recently passed away. i kept her home to keep her out of a nursing home, because her care would have cost 10 grand a month. $75,000.are was hospice did absolutely nothing, but they came in and took some vitals. i was giving the medication and everything else. if it was not for my mother's insurance through united health , it was not for her superman insurance, i do not know what to say. program has a recovery

-- if you go into a nursing home and you are not prepared, you have to pay out of your pocket for that nursing home. awayare takes your house and your assets away. if you try to give your assets to your children, they go back like five years. it is a very technical issue here. sick, as people getting people are not sick because of over eating and lack of exercise , i was a v.a. ultrasound technician. said i have a vegetarian in here, and they are 80% included. it has to do with genetics. , letng, if a guy is dying him smoke and let him drink.

have the commercial with a 140-year-old lady smoking a cigarette and drinking every day. is that mean you will live longer? no, it is genetics. oklahoma,ael, from you are up next on the democrats line. caller: good morning. hope you are having a great morning so far. i have to laugh sometimes, because i don't want to end up bawling my eyes out every day all day long. yeare less than $50,000 a .s a disabled veteran i do have a back injury.

the guy talking about eating right and exercising -- well, no. ton i was hurt, i went up 500 pounds from about 250 pounds. i am now down to about 370 pounds. itm losing weight again, but is that i do not eat anymore 7.cause i am in pain for 24/ this year, we have a republican government running things. i wonder why in march of this year, my premiums all of a sudden jumped from $1.15 at prescription to $9.78 a prescription. that seems funny to me since they have not passed anything or said anything. yet, when government -- when

republicans took over all three parts of the government, my stuff went up really quick. it went up about eight times more or less. laugh athelp but just the stupidity of some people thinking that the government is going to help them when they are going to end up losing coverage. i heard earlier on morning joe , if over a 10 year period this bill passes, 227,000 people extra will be dying because of a lack of health care. inwill be the poor and those nursing homes. it will not be the rich up there in d.c. who work part-time and

get free health care. why don't they pay for their own health care? host: that was michael in oklahoma. usa today does give an opinion of the supreme court when it comes to religion and state issues. justice wisely left the crack narrow. it was a seven-two decision. the court held that religious institutions should be eligible for public funds that are generally eligible to other groups to carry out certain secular functions such as keeping children safe on a playground. it goes onto to say that the ruling found a sensible balance between two competing goals of our nation's founders. the state cannot prevent a church from competing for a benefit open to all. this had a response from

americans united against separation of church and state. he said, "americans should have the right is best to support religious groups of their "americans should have the right to support religious institutions of their choosing." that what theed church saw was akin to fire and police services. trinity lutheran church by contrast want to spruce up its facilities, and instead of asking its members to cover the bill, it turned to the taxpayers. that was from the usa today article about the supreme court case. justices will hear arguments about the travel ban case later

in the year. we have open phones until the end of the show at 10:00. here is fred on the independent line. caller: good morning. you can comment is that look at the last administration boomers,probably baby they won the war. they have hollywood, may have -- theyst of the press have about most of the press. everything you have discussed this morning, you can look at the united states population that health care is a right. it is not a right. you can look at the private sector that used to run halfway efficiencies. look at the medical industry and what lasik surgery. it is private, efficient, and the prices had run down and the quality has gone up. look at the supreme court

decisions. all the kids get to play on that playground. they are not going in to replace the church floor. democrats are out on the steps of congress last night. pusht fail, and let them and push the american public to see how bad it is. maybe then they will, around. the american public has gotten lazy. and bought in on hollywood everything that basically tells america that you are here for a free ride. the gentleman talking about obesity, that kind of defines the free ride. thank god for- c-span and open phones. host: you mean to go back and let the affordable care act fail?ll? -- let caller: yes, let it fail.

republicans are horrible about messaging. you have this bubble that is a swamp on washington. the problem is that you really have to confront that swamp. i am accusing c-span as being a part of it, but they constantly have to brush off. sean spicer does not want cameras in the press briefing room, that is fine. amazing how they are at war with trump, but it has been generational. obama was in there for eight years doing absolutely nothing. look at the problems he is having now. go, when it you comes to this idea of whether it fails or not, are you supportive of the republicans as far as the replacement effort? caller: sure, you have to start with something.

if they are going to pile on, then go ahead and let it fail. that way, it is like turning around a big tanker. it just takes them a long time to understand how horrible obamacare is. host: that was fred in indiana. the president sending out a tweet when it comes to health care. you heard our guests talk about this idea of the press briefings of late that are being done by the white house. a media critic from the washington post takes a look at that story this morning. saying for the third time in a row, the white house held its briefing court off camera. that meant that recording was forbidden.

only after the briefing had concluded did spicer say that the policies had been designed to thwart reporters from becoming youtube stars by asking snarky questions. that did not stop reporters from asking john spicer to -- asking john spicer -- asking sean justify the media blackout. he went on to say that some days we will have televised briefings, and some days we will not. on c-span, we will show you the televised briefings as we get them. this is just something to show you the media side of the back or from the white house. let's go to stan in michigan on the republican line. caller: hello. a couple of points.

whati am in support of inublicans are trying to do the health care rain. the other thing is that -- in the health care ring. the other thing is that, the previous caller ancient letting the aca fail. i'm afraid what will happen then will berepublicans charged with letting it fail. it will not lead onto the -- bleed onto the democrats. the previous caller said health care is not a right. i somewhat believe in that. and that, elective health care -- in that, elective health care is not a right, what health care -- right, but health care beyond

that is a human right. having health insurance is not having health care. insurance does not necessarily mean hitting health care -- mean getting health care. the only way this problem will be resolved is if the cost of health care is taking care of. too dear.s too, host: you are saying the costs when it comes to the actual health care providers -- the services being provided by the actual health care providers? caller: yes. one thing about the aca is that havewere going to try and programs for the elderly

to assess how they were doing and then based their health care on that assessment. i like that. but it would obligate the need to do a whole lot of tests on that person. so, it would be sort of seamless in other words. in other words, the person would present themselves with a problem, and then all of a sudden all of these tests would have to be done in order to come to a conclusion on how to treat the person. host: let me play devil's advocate. you think a doctor should have testsmit the amount of they do on a patient, would that affect the health care they get? caller: yes, but in the sense

-- personerson nearly presents a meeting with their doctor. an ongoingr has knowledge of what this elderly person is concerned with medically. my point is that i do not think this country can go the way of because if weope, go to socialized medicine men are economy -- medicine, then our economy will suffer.

you, stamp should we have to move on to another call. let's go to joan on the democrats line from minnesota. caller: hello. i understand that the senate and congress said they would not agree with the changes in the medical bill if their insurance were changed. i want to know if every member of congress and the senate are going to be limited to the same thing as the general public, or with a be having a separate type of insurance -- or would they be having a separate type of insurance because of who they are? i think socialization is the wrong word to use. if they are being taking care of by the government, then they are socialized as it would be for the general public. i remember years ago when i went

to a doctor, and i asked him why my bill was higher. he said, it is ok. you will pay what you always did, and the insurance company will pay the difference. in other words, it did not help me to have that insurance. now have my regular bill to pay and insurance to an insurance company. right now, people are reaping tons of money out of physicians. the little guy is paying and paying. my grandson had his tonsils out, and it cost $14,000. that was not just for the hospital stay. this is absolutely ludicrous. thingsing about calling socialized or not socialized,

that is the wrong word. the only people who do not like that word for the people who run the businesses, the s -- the capitalists who do not want you and i to have the benefits we are entitled to. joan.thank you, next is janice in connecticut. caller: there is going to be an interesting trend happening. because of the option of having insurance or not having insurance, more people are going to go to alternative health care providers. have two m.d.'s. i have a chinese medicine doctor. with.d.'s helped me

high-level cells on in your cancerous condition for high risk hpv. the traditional chinese medicine health get rid of -- medicine helped get rid of a lump in my breast. so what is happening is some health care will cover m.d.'s, but united does not. none of them will cover the chinese medicine. many allow a sex benefits program, but many do not cover that outright. for the most part, the majority of these services are out of pocket. people who have insurance are paying out of pocket anyway. what you will find is that people are saying, whether they

are lineal's -- they are millennials or people with a couple years before medicare, they are saying that they are paying for it anyway and not getting any benefit off of their regular insurance plan. if they have the option to not have insurance, then they are going to opt out. host: what is the cost like for the type of doctors you go to? caller: for example, when i have a thurmond graham -- a thermagr cancerch detects breast itn better than a mammogram, fastertually detect them can apply$175, and i that to my flex benefits.

my natural doctor, the visit is $80 out-of-pocket. host: do you not take prescriptions then? if you do, how you get them if your doctors cannot prescribe them? caller: most anytime i have taken prescriptions -- right now, i am covered by insurance, but many of my friends do not get the extra prescription coverage. .hey just get a generic they get it covered or cheaply if they hadply than a prescription plan. so, they're all alternatives -- there are alternatives. people will be comparing costs. a the time i get to having prescription, is it cheaper to

go through a wholesale farmer -- a wholesale pharmacy and get a generic rather than take a whole year for prescription coverage? so, they will start evaluating all those things. i gave you an alternative, but it is those alternatives that cover orrance will not the deductible will deduct against it. host: benny from alabama on the republican mine. caller: i have a couple of points. first, on the issue with medicaid -- i think probably one thate largest issues affect that at this time is the amount of problems within that system. know from the people i see around, i see about 100 people who were on that system and they should not qualify. there is nothing physically

wrong with them, they just abuse the system. entrancet out at the -- the entry-level and get the assistance, and it just progresses and progresses. they become a liability for the system, and it basically creates more problems. is -- on theng drug issue with these drug companies, i think one of the greatest things that could ever happen to the american general public is that they remove the ability for a patent to hold onto medication for a period longer than a year. you can back that up by looking at some examples. one medication is manufactured in great britain and sold in the united states. it cost about $5,000 of file. if you get bit by -- $5,000 a

vial. if you get bit by a rattlesnake, it can cost eight or 10 vials and it can put people into financial distress. in other countries, it is no more than $30 a vial. you can find more and more instances of drugs like that in these smaller, third world countries. you can get the medications for about a hundred of the cost of what you see in the united states. host: got you, benny. from the hill website this morning, we have a story. that househe said and senate lawmakers should receive an allowance. i really believe congress would be better served if there was a housing allowance for the

members. climate, no one is quick to suggest or vote for a pay raise, but you should not have to be among the wealthy americans to serve in congress. financial considerations are a big part of a surprise announcement in april that he was stepping down from congress -- and reallyon pushing his oversight committee gavel. his older daughter attends college in utah. his youngest daughter will attend college in a few years. he will resign on friday and pursue opportunities in the private sector. host: next caller from florida on the democrats line. go ahead. --ler: i am just wondering republicans spent how much time and money try to get rid of obamacare? how much money and time did that cost?

they plan to sabotage it and do everything against it, and i wonder why. i wonder about all the money. host: i am not following you. connect those two dots for me. caller: they have been trying to sabotage it from day one, because it is going to cost too much money, they say. everybody is making a lot of knows how everybody they do it, but no one seems to know how to put it all together. no one even thought about the insurance in the 1950's. everyone has gotten so damn g reedy. all the extra procedures and everything, why don't they just start all over and keep obamacare going and make it better? host: let's go to our republican line. steve in florida. go ahead. caller: as a republican, i have

to tell you that this bill is absolutely a disaster. i do not mind corporations making x amount of dollars and giving their executives golden parachutes and all this other stuff, but herein lies the problem. obamacare is imploding which i kind of agree little bit on because they are not funding it in the budget. incalls for yearly funding order to keep the subsidies going. the reason insurance companies are pulling out is because of what they must cover. republican who feels that a single-payer system is the best. when you take the profit out of individual health care and attend to the patient and not

the symptom, you are going to get a better result than you are going to get from these insurance companies. you might go into an emergency room and have to put emergency room care under your policy. the next thing you know, you could be holding you back. host: let's hear from our next caller on the independent line. caller: good morning. my little church has been trying for years now, the last year and a half, to get enough money together to provide every one of our parishioners with one of we wereump hats, but not able to get in on the first round of them. are $40 thatat have just usa on it. with the supreme court ruling where they are going to help finance churches and get them things they need, i am hoping we will be able to get financing for everybody in our church to

get one of those hats. i can visualize, someday when you go to congress to serve, you have to wear your red hats. even the supreme court one day we'll get to where re -- get to wear red hats and deciding over everybody. i hope you get yourself a hat, too. --ler: host: next caller. nancy, go ahead. caller: i am just wondering, the people who have to buy a plan did not qualify under obamacare -- under obamacare, i was being charged $75 for an office visit. when i had obamacare, in addition to paying my premium, my office visit payment went up

to $112. i can see where some people were very pleased with obamacare, but it did not work well for everyone. debbie in flint, michigan. debbie, go ahead with your question and comment. caller: good morning. i think it is especially rich in irony when you have republicans wanting to crash and burn this bill when they are the chief arsonists. i also have a problem with being called you beat. -- called elite. this is something the republicans have going. paul ryan's district says 55% of them do not charge planned parenthood, but he decides that his ideology is to squash planned parenthood because i do not like it. that is an elite, someone who thinks he is smarter than the

rest of his constituents. if he is not going to follow what you people believe, then get his fanny out of their. host: that was our last caller for the show. the house is about the gavel in. see you tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.. the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 27, 2017. i hereby appoint the honorable brian fitzpatrick to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2017, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties. all time shall be equally allocated between the parties