committee about border security. then the senate armed services committee looks at prevention and response to sexual assault in the military. on thursday at 10 a clock a.m. eastern, senate foreign relations committee hearing on u.s. -- venezuela relations with the usaid administrator and elliott abrams, the state department special representative for venezuela. at 130 p.m.,'s of supreme court associate justice samuel alito and elena kagan appeared before the house government subcommittee on the supreme court legit. watch beginning wednesday, live at 10 a eastern on c-span3, www.c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> up next live on "washington journal," your calls and comments on later, the president of the group positions for a national health program and american enterprise institute scholar joseph antos on recently

unveiled medicare for all plants and how they would change the u.s. of care system and then the editorial board member talks about climate change and how best to enact a green new deal. best to enact a green new deal. host: senate armed service chairman republican jim and half told and oh, radio station that president trump's emergency declaration is dead in the water. adding he was not sure how it would affect military. this as mitch mcconnell says there are enough public and senators who will vote for a resolution of disapproval to keep the president from gaining access to funds. committeeoday, senate looks at the role that vaccines play in preventing disease outbreaks. you can see that at 10:00 on c-span. when it comes to vaccinations,

some choose not to vaccinate for religious or philosophical reasons. for the next hour, we want to get your thoughts and comments on and it comes to vaccinations, should they be mandatory? .f you say yes, (202) 748-8000 if you say no, (202) 748-8001. you can but dissipate in a twitter -- you can participate on a twitter poll at c-span wj. wall street journal today takes a look at various dates as they deal with vaccination rules. washington, new york, texas, and illinois have reported measles outbreaks and more than 130 people have been -- one -- 150 people have been infected. some states have introduced --islation to eliminate

there are bills that would broaden philosophical or religious exemptions. they have been introduced in hawaii, arizona, rhode island, and west virginia. that story also sites that nationwide, vaccination coverage was around 94% around kindergartners in the 2017 to 2018 school year. the cdc highlights some of the measles cases that have been reported in 2019 -- in 2018. 372 cases were cited. the highest was 2014. cases. far, 206 that is from the center for disease control. there is a hearing today taking a look at the role vaccinations play. you can see the hearing last

week on c-span.org. if you go to that hearing, you can see in exchange that took place between the democratic congressman frank pallone from new jersey and the national institute of health. they discussed the role that the internet is playing when it comes to the uptick in measles cases. [video clip] >> what role do you see in the spread of misinformation online in the rise of these outbreaks? >> i believe it plays an important role. it is not the only one, but i believe it plays an important role. the classic example of that was the disinformation associated with the relationship between measles -- the measles vaccination and autism. when it came out years ago, there was a big concern this was the case. when it was investigated, it

became clear that the data upon which those statements were made were false and fraudulent. the person who made them had his medical license revoked in england. and yet, as you know, the good news about the internet is that it spreads important information. the bad news is that when the bad information gets on there, it is tough to get it off. and yet, people refer to things that have proven -- that have been proven to be false. disinformation is an important issue that we need to try to overcome by continuing to point people to what is evidence based and what is science-based. noto many respects, we do -- we should not be criticizing people who get this information that is false because they may not know it is false. we need to try and educate them to show them what the true evidence based is.

that is an important problem, disinformation. host: that hearing took place last week. another hearing today at 10:00 on a similar topic. you can see that on c-span. the topic of vaccinations and if they should be mandatory. you can let us know what you are thinking on it. if you say they should be mandatory, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, it is, (202) 748-8001. this is mark off of facebook who responded saying, if i want to take the risk, let me. that said, i choose to be vaccinated. chris off of facebook says, when it comes to vaccinations, it should be for medical exceptions only. no personal or religious exemptions. off of twitter, donna says, absolutely, if you're planning on letting your child out of the house. you can add your thoughts to the conversation. in texas, ronnie, you are up

first. caller: good morning. if parents choose to not get them vaccinated, they should send them to a private school or homeschool them. it is not worth the risk infecting the public. senator in texas that things that antibiotics can cure the measles. that is just part of the false, stupid narrative. i do believe that kids should not be allowed in public schools if they are not going to be vaccinated. i am 57 years old. i had all of the mandatory vaccinations like i am sure most people do. i am fine. i had the measles. i had no side effects. they should not be allowed in public schools if they are not going to be vaccinated. host: one of the states

wrestling with the issue is arizona. a recent story off of npr saying it is the outbreak in washington state that is making states tighten requirements. not in arizona. lawmakers have been considering bills that would make it easier to get exemptions. irene hi, the director of the vaccination center lobbies against vaccinations. sensiblet's have some conversations around this. among other things, the arizona bills would require that before immunizing a child, doctors hand ofr to the parents a stack papers that include the vaccine

description and instructions on how to report a vaccine related adverse effect. anthony in new york, go ahead. you are next on our yes line. yes, they should be mandatory. seething, you are going to a lot of diseases coming back from all of the illegal immigrants coming to the united states. it is just terrible. host: how do you handle those with religious or philosophical differences to getting vaccinated? vaccinations should be mandatory. host: joe is next who says no. she is in maryland. caller: good morning. coach.lifestyle medicine a plant-based person for over 30 years. i suffer from lupus and other

issues. i never take medications for the except for when i had brain surgery. the reason i'm saying it should not be because most of the medications out there are never tested on african-americans. we have little data on how effective most of these medications for these types of vaccinations really work. for over 30 years, the religious exemption has not been just a philosophical view. those who believe the plant-based lifestyle is the true best method of preventing degenerative disease, the data now proves it. around whatle data is called the religious exemption. for those who follow the biblical model of the plant-based lifestyle in genesis. host: how do you deal then with

children in an enclosed area such as school when you could possibly have a mix of those who have been vaccinated and not vaccinated? are there concerns you have about that situation? caller: i do not have any more concern about influenza or any other communicable disease that results from poor hygiene, poor diet, and lifestyle issues. that had thee outbreaks of measles is a tiny number when we compare the thousands of people who have not been vaccinated. young children all their lives who never had this problem. i think the focus on making vaccination meta-tory is not looking at the -- vaccination mandatory is not looking at the true cause of why there was an outbreak. host: i want to leave it there. this is from connecticut on our yes line. john, go ahead. caller: i think they should be vaccinated because the whole

world is getting people that are infected with different things. host: the previous caller says that when it comes to outbreaks, those are small numbers compared to the whole of the united states that causes very little concern for her. what do think about that? they should go with yes. profiles asa today teenager that will appear on capitol hill talking about this topic. he announced on twitter that he will be testifying on the importance of vaccines. an -- a video he released that he will be looking forward to speaking about outbreaks of preventable diseases and addressing misinformation that causes the outbreaks. he will be testifying along the washington state secretary of health and the president and ceo

of the immune deficiency foundation. you can see that hearing in front of the senate health committee on our main channel, c-span. that will start at 10:00. one of the driving forces amongst others about vaccination. should they be mandatory? .f you say yes, (202) 748-8000 if you say no, (202) 748-8001. from marilyn. go ahead. -- from maryland. go ahead. caller: thank you, my concern is --ut specific fascination specific vaccinations. immunologist. 2018, i published a why we shouldle,

not vaccinate with pathogen specific vaccines such as hpv and measles especially in these usedwhen the vaccines are [indiscernible] which is causing neurodegenerative disease. example, modify dna. -- modified dna. also, different segments of vaccines, which are inactivated. these are dangerous for immunity. antigen overload. missouri is next. .anielle on our no line

daniel from missouri. -- danielle from missouri. you are on. caller: i do not believe vaccinations should be mandatory. i believe the pharmaceutical companies are putting mercury in the vaccinations to make more money. as well as the hepatitis vaccination. megadose -- if you think about vaccinations for children, they give about two months, four months, nine months. by the time they are two years old, they have had about 20 sets of vaccinations. government is

trying to kill us off. they are changing our genetic makeup. host: how would you address the concerns of parents and a school situation where other children may not be vaccinated? much of an incident are there of a disease causing problems today because of non-vaccinations? there are not many. theink you have to outweigh pros and cons -- you have to weigh the pros and cons. the mercury is poison. they are putting that in to preserve the shelflife so they make more money. host: one of the topics that came up in the hearing from last for diseasenter uptake, talked about the in measles cases in the united states.

[video clip] >> we enjoy high vaccination coverage. there are pockets of people who are vaccine hesitant. occur.ks of measles those who choose not to vaccinate tend to live near each other. some of these are what we call close-knit communities. people who share common religious beliefs. or people have strong religious beliefs against vaccination. there have been 26 measles outbreaks. 12 of these were in close-knit communities including in a some ali community in minnesota in 2017. ali community in minnesota in 2017. vexing hesitancy is the result of a -- vaccine hesitancy -- misinformation

regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. host: let's hear from don in sacramento, california. caller: good morning. first of all, you guys, what is going on? this country is in peril. you guys are talking about measles. people want to talk about this cpac speech trump gave. host: you can always see that online. what is your comment when it comes to vaccinations? caller: you, i do not like you. host: we will go to helen then. helen is in fullerton, california. caller: about a year ago, i read an article about the causes for schizophrenia in scientific american. it was a summer article. it talked about how schizophrenia, and i know it is

tied to the occurrences of autism, children who get the vaccination. what they talked about was, they were trying to isolate what insed the prefrontal neurons the brain, the neurons to suddenly disappear. peoplezophrenia, usually are normal until the ages of 19 or 20. then they become schizophrenic and are unable to distinguish or process reality. what they found is the defect in the body's autoimmune response dna. what happens with all adults at 19 or 20, the brain starts to prune out the excessive neurons. host: with all of that being said as far as the idea of mandatory vaccinations, where would you fall on that? caller: i am getting to that. at the end of the article, what

i saw is that they barely alluded to children who developed autism after getting the vaccination. i have taught students with autism. the similarities i see between schizophrenia and autism are pretty strong. there is not a lot of similarities, but they are strong enough that i am seeing there is a connection. what this article barely alluded are given ahildren lot of vaccinations, it is not the vaccination itself that causes the autism. it is the body's response to the vaccination. host: as far as meta-tory vaccinations? -- as mandatory vaccinations? caller: i am saying there is too much too soon. the medical profession needs to take a step back and look at the inicidents and the risk of getting these other infectious diseases versus doing permanent

harm to the child. host: that is helen in california. the idea of vaccinations and autism is the subject of a story that appears on the times website. saying that more than 20 years ago, and you wake field came up with a hypothesis linking the rubella vaccination to autism. his medical license was revoked. his ideas have taken hold on the internet. number -- scientifically, ellis park writes that these questions have already been answered. study after study has about -- have found no link between the two. more evidence that measles and rubella vaccinations are not

connected to a risk of autism. we have seen vaccine skepticism growing. we thought it was a good idea to revisit the hypothesis and get scientific answers. no time to read all of the assessments from the authors of that study. you can find it on the time magazine website. next up, jay in maryland. go ahead. go ahead. caller: hello? i am here. i think it should absolutely be mandatory. i have two young children. fromast lady who was maryland saying it was only affecting a small number of thatren, one of the things thoseat to say -- to have

statistics, what you tell those people who are -- will you talk to those people who are affected by it? i definitely want my children to be vaccinated. not to spread it is very important. host: are your children school age? do they go to public school? caller: they are in daycare. one turned five. he will be going to kindergarten. comes, when the vaccination comes when the pediatrician suggests, we are definitely doing it. i have a colleague who decided that her daughter is not going to vaccinate any of the shots. she is sending her daughter to public school. riskis -- that child is a

not only to herself but spreading these risks for the children she is around. host: i suppose the public school cannot stop the child from going to school because of that? caller: no because you can sign a waiver. a parent can sign a waiver for a child not to be vaccinated. untilnot know about this she advised me of it. as a parent, hearing this, i hate to say it, i want to tell i want to tell her child to stay away from my child. host: let's hear from peter from new york. caller: good morning. i do not think that vaccinations should be enforced or mandatory. rather, education, teaching parents and the public about the

vaccination the consequences of getting vaccinated and the importance. that should be enforced and made mandatory. such that the conclusion we should all come to it would be to prevent an epidemic. host: why do you think there is not enough education or information to make these decisions? caller: i think there is generally speaking a lack of civics taught in our schools. in thatld be a subject area. host: apologies, kenneth in florida. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i believe they should be vaccinated. day, -- hello?he host: you are on. caller: i believe they should be vaccinated because i have a child in daycare.

toope the daycare she goes that they check and make sure you have your vaccination records. to the gentleman who called earlier, when i first started listening to c-span, it was like i was jumping up and seeing the headline of the day. c-span has really fallen to the appeasement of donald trump. host: that is not the case at all. we talk about a lot of political issues including president trump and a lot of issues. only because in part because there is a hearing today taking a look at this very issue. at 10:00, you can see it. we feel it is a public policy thing as well considering the health concern. that is why we are addressing it this morning. when it comes to outbreaks and backlash, the washington post takes a look at some of the cases happening across the united states.

including this, websites that have been a platform for the anti-vaccination movement. pinterest has blocked all searches on vaccinations to stop the spread of misinformation. facebook is considering removing anti-vaccination content. adsube said it is pulling from anti-vaccine videos. the u.s. house and senate have scheduled rare bipartisan hearings to investigate the matter. quote, if vaccine hesitancy exists or expands, it could undermine these important advances that lamar alexander , the chairmanay and the ranking democrat, -- adhering at 10:00 -- that hearing at 10:00 after this show ends. you can see it on c-span. c-span.org is where you can also monitor it.

if you are so inclined, if you go to our c-span3 channel, there is the hearing from last week. you can also watch that online. missouri is next. line.s alicia on our no caller: good morning. , -- the question today is whether we feel vaccinations should be given to our children, is that correct? host: that is correct. caller: i do not believe they should be given as a mandatory rule for several reasons. host: what is the top breeze? -- the top reason? caller: the top reason is the rate of autism and adhd. the neurological impairment that are caused by a lot of the vaccinations. host: how do you make that connection? how did you come to that

conclusion? caller: i studied that. studies,far as science, surveys, that kind of thing? caller: i am actually a nurse. a live vaccine is attenuated virus. we inject ourselves with a live virus, which can call -- which can cause a serious neurological disorder that completely debilitate a person. they have to relearn to walk and talk. reason we are the able to eradicate disease at the time we had the huge outbreaks of all the diseases that pretty much vaccinations were implanted for, i believe at that time, -- were implanted for, i believe at that time, it was good. i do not know what all they are putting in the vaccinations.

we do not have any bad diseases right now. host: some of the people, the ites measles as a concern. being a nurse, what do you think about some people being vaccinated and some not? alicia? i think she is gone. we will go to john in hawaii. thatr: i think [indiscernible] i do believe that children should be vaccinated. i also have a home in oregon. we have an epidemic in vancouver, washington with measles. also, the same people that are -- we are calling in the -- who

were calling vietnam veterans baby killers, some of them are in congress right now. they pass bit -- they passed legislation on late-term abortions. work,cinations do not also, why do people go to the drugstore and buy medication for colds? why not just have a cold and don't take any medication? this is stupid. why would you allow your children to go through the anxiety of having months, measles, -- having mumps, measles, and chickenpox, and not get vaccinated for polio? host: that is john in hawaii. for the last half hour, people giving their thoughts on vaccinations. you can add your thoughts at (202) 748-8000 if you say yes

that there should be mandatory vaccinations. if you disagree, (202) 748-8001. our colleagues at american history tv have uncovered, if you go back to the 1950's and 1960's, the federal government used to put out films on various topics. one of the films dealt with vaccinations in the united states. to give you an historical perspective, here is something on the measles vaccination courtesy of our colleagues at american history tv. http://twitter.com/cspanwj -- [video clip] >> the surgeon general of the night states public health service has this to say. years, the past several measles vaccines have been successfully tested both in this country and abroad. this painstaking evaluation was made possible by the cooperative

effort of scientists both in and out of government, by physicians, i the drug industry, and by -- by the drug industry, and by thousands of courageous pyramids -- graded pyramids -- courageous parents. the last best vaccines have been licensed for general use. as increasing numbers of children are vaccinated we will be on our way to eradicating the disease that through the centuries has killed millions of children and left others impaired mentally and physically. all of those who have contributed in any way to this cause for a better health can be proud of a great achievement. of official hours government licensing, supplies of the vaccine are ready for shipment throughout the country. vaccineroduction of the is in full swing. protected at each step i the

elaborate manufacturing -- by the elaborate manufacturing controls. that hasthe vaccine passed all of the tests is transferred to individual idols. these are then -- individual bottles. these are then freeze-dried. the end result is a single dose vial of the attenuated vaccine. vaccine isory of a told in the fears and smiles of a little girl who today is given greater protection than ever before against the infectious diseases of childhood. host: if you are interested in the historical aspects of vaccinations, you can watch the entire film. that is part of american history tv's railamerica series. you can find -- tv's real america series.

david is next in michigan. old.r: i am 55 years where are the autistic kids from my generation? the science people put forward as far as injections causing autism, that is bull. -- the autismhe it does notness, make any sense. if my grandchildren started coming down with measles, i would start suing the parents who are not vaccinating their children. it needs to be mandatory for the survival of the human race. thank you. host: from pamela in maryland who says no. good morning caller:. i say no -- good morning. caller: i say no because there

are too many concerns. if the children who are vaccinated are protected from the nonvaccinated kids, what is the mandate? why should all children be required to be vaccinated if the vaccinated children are to be protected? if you have these kids that are not vaccinated, they should not be a threat to the vaccinated children. the doctor whose license was removed, was it removed because scientifically it was proven that the information was bald? that's was flawed? there are too many questions -- was flawed? there are too many questions. i do not think our generation received the amount of vaccinations children today are receiving. host: that is pamela in maryland. taking a look at some of the states at how they are dealing with these issues. politico saying that oregon

lawmakers are considering a vaccination transparency bill. new york is simultaneously considering eliminating expanding exemptions that allow parents to opt out. one bill in texas would prohibit the state from tracking exemptions. there are been 74 cases of measles in washington state since january 1. the upright have turned 20 -- the outbreaks have turned 2019 into one of the most active years in recent memory. some legislators are advocating giving parents more control. that is on the state level. on the federal level, a hearing on this topic right after this program ends at 10:00. the senate health committee will be taking on the issue from various witnesses. you can see that on c-span at

10:00. in williamsburg, virginia, someone who says no. this is josh. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for providing this service with c-span. it is fantastic to have an opportunity to be heard in a nonpartisan platform. a mandate is -- particularly a mandate for a medical procedure would violate several codes of ethics. additionally, i am trying to be quick here. the science really is not there. i know a lot of people who are going to call in are going to this degree are this. themselves dos not meet the gold standard of

the scientific method. we do not have double line studies conducted for vaccine efficacy or for vaccine side effects. vaccine side effects are real. vaccine injuries are real. president reagan and the reagan administration disallowed lawsuits for vaccine manufacturers and established a vaccine injury fund. vaccine injuries are real. -- the vaccines insert suggests they are real. they do happen. doctors are supposed to be required to report injuries of vaccines -- instances of vaccine injury. many nurses and doctors are not trained to know when they have a vaccine injury. host: as far as putting people together, vaccinated and unvaccinated, how do you deal with that issue?

what about the practicalities of mixing these groups? caller: as simple as it sounds, i think a lot of these issues that vaccines helped in the past, a lot of the diseases with increases in hygiene and awareness have been mostly controlled. i do not think it is because of vaccines. i do not think -- the government ought to be mandating that a parent put their children at risk for vaccine injury. i am not going to say autism, but any vaccine injury. thank you. host: that is josh in williamsburg, virginia. glenn is next up on our yes line. caller: hi. i remember sugar cubes for vaccines. thank you brian lamb for bringing this to my mind.

all of theat smallpox, chickenpox, things areashat is coming from that do not vaccinate. africa, south america. that is where it is all coming from. it seems it is coming in on planes. host: central city, kentucky. go ahead. caller: i would like to see some studies on how many people who have had the vaccine and still had the disease. this year with the flu. people who have had the flu vaccine and are still having the flu. host: on that alone, you would say do not make the vaccines mandatory? caller: what i'm saying is, i wish they would do a study on how often it happens. host: when it comes down to

making that mandatory, you called on our no line. why do you think that? caller: i have a son who had the measles vaccine and had a bad case of measles. my daughter and grandson had a flu vaccine and still had the flu. they need to study that. host: for the next 20 minutes, we will continue on your calls on this topic of mandatory vaccinations. forn, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. sorry, totally wrong on that. (202) 748-8000 if you say yes. (202) 748-8001 if you say no. my apologies. we will go to shepherd in north carolina on our yes line. caller: hello. i think it should be mandatory. i remember when the polio vaccine came out.

, all thee measles vaccines that i'd taken, i have never had polio, measles, chickenpox, any of that stuff. i think it is because of the vaccinations. these people coming from the foreign countries that do not have the vaccination programs, they bring all these diseases. it should be mandatory that you get vaccinated. bies, i do not one them with children were not vaccinated. host: michael from pennsylvania says no. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i find it fascinating that the previous gentlemen was concerned -- the previous gentleman was sick.ned about getting

most of the vaccinations that were in question, this started in the 1960's. people like me, 60 years old. we are not affected by this. in the 1960's, they started adding mercury as a preservative. the vaccines got to a point when the mercury concentration was 250 times the concentration required to be considered a hazardous waste. they are injecting this into babies. -- that iste deaf all i have to say about that. host: you currently get vaccinations yourself considering you studied the issue? caller: i have not gotten a vaccination ever since. i only got one of these mercury shots for rubella in sixth grade when they started it? .

host: howdy people react when react whendo people you tell them? caller: they do not believe that the concentration of mercury was 250 times the concentration to be considered a hazardous waste. environmental engineer. i know what the hell this stuff means. host: michael from pennsylvania giving his thoughts. colorado congresswoman asking about the risk of getting vaccinated. here is this exchange. [video clip] inherentre the risks in the vaccine itself? i think that might be one reason why some children are choosing not to vaccinate their children. they believe the risks with the vaccine outweigh the benefits. >> i think you are right.

in the setting of not a lot of measles cases around, parents way the risks and benefits and think they should not vaccinate. this is an incredibly safe vaccine. it has been used for a really long time. robusty one of the most systems to monitor the safety of vaccines. that is why we can say with confidence this is a safe vaccine. the most common side effects are a sore arm, which goes away quickly. >> where can parents go to get factual information about vaccines? >> this is a really important question. as a parent myself, understand there is lots of information. it is really hard to sort through it all and make sure you're getting the correct choices for your children. the cdc works hard to make sure we put out scientifically credible information. it is one of our core missions. we also provide that information to health care providers.

parents say that the person they trust most to help them make health care decisions is still there health care provider. that is also for patients who are hesitant to vaccinate. parents should talk to their health care provider. they can help them sort through the information. host: if you go to twitter, you can participate in a poll. says if off of twitter i had a child in school, i would want to know if it is a requirement to be vaccinated in that school. that information should be made public. the only exception is for medical reasons, not religious. robert rogers says no sane person should have medicine forced upon him. next upyland, neil is here caller: good morning, pay -- is next up. caller: good morning. i believe the construct of the

question is not correct because it is not a binary choice having mandated or not mandated. based on the question, i think [indiscernible] that needs to be addressed at some point. livings a consequence of in a structured society. a consequence of that is dealing and living with societal norms and looking at the interest of the broader society. nobody likes being -- likes paying taxes. we want to clean water. we want to know that governments are there. in a similar way, a consequence of living in structured society is dealing with things like this. it is for the larger societal benefit. effectight be waivers in when implementing this kind of policy.

that is what i say it is not binary. host: give me an example of how it cannot be binary? what is the third option? caller: there could be some kind of waiver. in that case, we would have to know which families have opted not to have their children vaccinated. to make aants decision that is in the best interest of their family. if my family had opted to go the vaccination route, if my children were interacting with unvaccinated people, we should know and have access to the information of who is vaccinated and not. it does not have to be binary. there has to be some kind of process to say, this segment of society has opted to do it whereas this other segment has opted not to do it. host: that is neil from

maryland. a couple of presidential notes for you. site out of the bronx. theng an interview that former secretary of state hillary kitten -- hiller clinton gave about presidential ambitions of 2020. saying, i am not running. we will show you that later in the program. this is jeff merkley out of oregon who was talking yesterday about whether he was -- whether he would make his intentions known. he says he plans to run for reelection to the senate. democratst there are speaking about challenges we face. in the video, he denounced the climate crisis and saying that we are in a battle for the soul of our nation. our noa, california on

line. go ahead. this is carol. caller: ok, i am 60 years old. people shouldain be vaccinated. others should not. a flu vaccine. teat.me very add, verify i came to find out -- very fatigued. i came to find out i have an immune compromised symptom -- system. i found out shockingly that they are still putting mercury in the vaccines. basically very nonproductive. said, you, my doctor had a very were spot a very bad response to the vaccine -- a very bad response to the vaccine. he had my medical history and new was the vaccine.

-- and knew it was the vaccine. ks toearched and got lin call the government. when i hear about the government not knowing, i get very upset. i got a link to the cdc and said this is the vaccine i had and this is how it affected me. they said, your vaccine has this side effects. it can produce alzheimer's, neurological damage, and the list goes on. she said, even death. host: catherine is in kentucky on our yes line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would like to give you a somewhat different perspective. i have always been pro-vaccine. when my youngest son was however old, i did get him vaccinated.

the next day, he had an odd reaction. i took him to the doctor. the very last complication of the very last possibility of complications from what his symptoms were was an adverse reaction from a vaccine. because it was the absolute last thing that could happen, it was the least likely to happen. it did happen to my son. they diagnosed it right away. they called me back that afternoon. they said, your son can never vaccine as long as he lives. he will be ok because of the immunity. everyone else will have one, so he will never get whooping cough. 13 years later, he got whooping cough. he was quarantined because he could not take the antibiotic that could cure it. i sat home with him for six

weeks with a 13-year-old boy who could not go anywhere. this is really gross. he literally coughed until he cattle maybe 10 or -- in kettle maybe 10 or 11 times a day. if your life can take that, perhaps you should not have your child vaccinated. however, i would have done anything to have been able to prevent that. he missed six weeks of school. host: given your experience, your thoughts on mandatory vaccination, where do you fall? caller: perhaps there should be some spacing of vaccines or something like that. i am all for them because i do not want other children to go through this. and, i know that if he were a younger child, much younger, or

a much older person, this could well have killed him. many people died of whooping cough when it was commonplace. host: that is catherine in kentucky telling us her story. this is jim. jim is in manhattan, kansas. caller: hi pedro. what i was going to say was, i think the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk because if they did not wouldate, how many people contract a deadly disease and i -- and die? i am sure some people are going to be affected negatively. to many people are going contract polio if we do not vaccinate? host: ok, that is jim in manhattan, kansas.

yes, or no, a line for you and on social media as well. asking the panel she was asked about the advice the panel they would give parents you have concerns. [video clip] >> what is the most important piece of advice he would give to parents around the country on how they can best protect their children from measles? >> taking care of your health, eating well, exercising, getting enough sleep. those are all parts of a healthy lifestyle. the only way to get -- the only way to protect against measles is to get vaccinated. it is a safe vaccine. if they have questions, they should talk to their doctor. their doctor can provide them more information's about measles and answer their questions. >> do you have anything to add? >> i think it is important to

point out, obviously ditto what everything she said, we should look upon it in two approaches. one, it is for the safety of your own child. the other is that it is a responsibility to your own immunity. statementned in your this issue of immunity. we all have a responsibility to be under the umbrella of immunity. once it goes down below a certain percentage, you have danger for the entire society. something that is not appreciated is that we vaccinate children at 11 to 12 months. the boost at four to six years. those incidents -- those infants are vulnerable to measles if they are exposed. it is our responsibility to protect them. the only way you can protect those who are not old enough to get vaccinated is to be part of that immunity. host: more available to you if you want to go to our website at

c-span.org, you can watch the hearing from last week. if you want to find out more about the issue. from our michigan on the no line, this is elsa. caller: i am against it because in my family, i almost died of the tetanus shot. shots.almost died from seizures.n has believe it should not be mandatory. our yes line in woodbridge, virginia, kevin is next. caller: hello, pedro. this appears to be about an issue where we are all victims

of information campaigns. the physician who had his license yanked, that does not just happen. do. takes a lot to . it is a very detailed process. i have to caution everyone. everyone is looking at evidence from what happened to a neighbor or a friend or what happened to me. we do not have all of the details. unless we have immunization or pharmaceutical experts, we cannot definitively state at the vaccine is the problem. poliohat being the case, is almost eradicated because of vaccines. i know that everyone is protective of their families. we have to understand that we --e to go back and not just do not just read the papers. go back and dig.

go back and really look at it. thate would find out vaccinations for the most part, i cannot say for all the park, but for the most part, -- all the part, but for the most part, they are very helpful. host: rebecca from indiana. good morning. i am a medical doctor. as an expert in vaccine induced diseases in new york family court in 2003. vaccines cause disease. if people research this they can read the side effects listed in the package inserts. for the effects listed measles, mumps and rubella vaccine are headache, dizziness, diarrhea, vomiting, pancreatitis, diabetes,

platelets, and a reaction that can lead to death. , bronchial spasms, arthritis, encephalitis which is autism. i realized this in medical school when i read the symptoms -- retinitis and optic neuritis. host: with that list i will have to leave it there. i appreciate all the calls in the last hour. we move on to another topic entirely in our second hour. that of the idea or concept of medicare for all. topic as thethat legislative framework has appeared in the congressional hall. two guests joining us for that conversation. gaffney of the group positions for a national health program and joseph antos of the american enterprise institute.

later on washington post's stephen stromberg will discuss his take on the democrat's green new deal proposal. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country. [indiscernible] >> c-span's newest book " the president's." historians rank the best and worst chief executives. riding insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents.

true stories doubted by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders and the challenges they faced. published by public affairs. will be the presidents on shelves april 23 to you can preorder your copy as hardcover or e-book today at c-span.org/presidents. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1979 c-span was created as a public service by american cable television companies. we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite providers. washington journal continues.

host: a conversation about the concept known as medicare for all with two guest joining us here in studio. joseph antos from the american enterprise institute who serves as a policy scholar and joining us as well is adam gaffney from the group physicians for a national health program. thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. , when we hearney this concept of medicare for all what appears in your mind and what do you think of what has been introduced in congress or the ideas connected to this concept introduced in congress? guest: the concept of medicare for all is not an especially complicated one. the name, medicare, a universal program that is currently for seniors. we would apply that for all. meaning everyone in the nation. we makeditional point

is we think of it as improved medicare for all. this would expand medicare to everyone in the country. that would make it a much bigger program, making the benefits comprehensive and things like dental care that medicare does not currently covered. bywell as improving medicare eliminating cost barriers like co-pays and deductibles. that is the concept of medicare for all. there is as you mentioned a bill in the house and the senate, a medicare for all bill that would create systems for the united states. it is essentially a universal health care system providing comprehensive benefits to the american public. antos? i think thisis an aspiration as opposed to reality. guest: it sounds great for

everyone to have complete coverage for absolutely everything at no direct cost to themselves. that cost a lot of money. the bill that was introduced last week is not fleshed out enough to have a guess at a number. bernie sanders's bill comes in around $33 trillion over 10 years. that is a lot of money. that means we will have to tax the same people who are getting something they believe is free. we will have to tax them very heavily. in the real world nothing is free. the real question is, what can we do to improve health insurance for people and improve coverage without breaking the bank? gaffney, this idea of cost as you see it as an expanded type of proposal, how do you pay for the services? >> we are already paying for

medicare for all. through premiums, taxes, co-pays ended up doubles. i think the thirtysomething trillion dollar figure that joe pointed to is from a think tank -- libertarian think tank study which found that overall, although it would cost money with new taxes, overall health care spending as a nation would fall by $2 trillion over 10 years. we are already spending this money. we are spending it through premiums co-pays ended up doubles. we are talk about -- talking about financing it in a smarter way so that people a into the system according to their needs. they get the health care they need in terms of their means. -- needs. we are already spending this money. approximately two thirds of american health care spending is already financed by taxes. we were talking about having to

tax the remaining portion which is a much smaller number. we can't afford the status quo. host: if those extremes do take wrong with the idea of expanding these types of services if the money is there so to speak? guest: the money is not already there. let's take a percent of the bill. she add something even bernie sanders wouldn't do which is she would cover all long-term care services. at no cost to anyone. provision, not quite similar to that but there was a provision like that in the affordable care act that was abandoned by the obama administration. it was clear that except for a little budget trickery this was going to cost a lot of money. that was a proposal that required people to pay for it. here is a proposal where you don't pay for it so you are not

going to have expenditures that are already being made by people by the medicaid program but you will also substitute a federal program with federal tax dollars for the kind of services that don't get paid for now. that might be a great thing if you can do it. a lot of long-term care is provided by the family. it is not monetized. when you monetize that you have a huge fiscal problem. host: our guests are with us until 9:00. if you support this concept of medicare for all (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it (202) 748-8001. you can make comments on twitter @cspanwj. when it comes to the proposal i think the idea is to shift people into this medicare for all period for two years.

what was that due to the existing system we have in the u.s.? >> the existing system produces a weight and we need to do better. the administrative overhead of private health insurance plans are always excited -- cited as greater than 10%. traditional medicare is closer to 2%. that our current system imposes is norma's and we can do better. are 29ot forget there million people who remain uninsured at this time. people are underinsured meeting they have insurance but there co-pays and deductibles are so large they can afford to get the care they need. that is not a sustainable system. the funny thing about this when it comes to cost is that it is often stated we cannot afford a single-payer system yet the united states has a uniquely expensive health-care system and we have a single-payer system. places that have a single-payer system spend much less than us. there is a paradox that is confusing.

it is true that health care is expensive but we all need it. there is no long-term coverage in this country essentially except for medicaid which requires you to essentially become impoverished before you can have access to it. that is not a good system. buthealth care is expensive it was already expensive under the status quo and financing it publicly will make it less expensive and increase the efficiency, not the reverse. >> it is kind of interesting that people who support medicare for all like to talk about administrative expenses. administrative expenses are probably 10% of total national health spending. where the real inefficiency is is in the way we use healthcare services. we have expectations that far exceed what citizens in britain and other countries have about what kind of health care should

they get and how should they get it. can they go to any doctor or any hospital in the country? that is the general view in this country. we are not good at standing in line. that is an issue. that our health care system, i agree with dr. gaffney , we are in a health-care system going 90 miles per hour down the road. there is a brick wall in front of us. that transition from 90 miles per hour to stop at the brick wall is pretty painful and it will take a lot more than two years and a lot more effort and a lot more thought that has been presented in any of these bills. host: let me give you a specific. what happens to private insurance if this system becomes a reality? program,der her private insurance what essentially disappeared. she does have a provision that says if you want to contract privately with a physician or

anybody else for that matter for services not covered by the national plan, go ahead. but all services would be covered so that is that you and the unit system. is that transition. it is saying to people you can't keep the health plan you now have. even if you like it. you will move into this other thing. it will certainly be more expensive. host: dr. gaffney, because you are a position and you represent other positions what about this thought of private insurance going by the wayside -- physician and represent other positions what about this thought of private insurance going by the wayside? guest: very few people care about whether their health care aetna. is cigna or there is little brand to

private insurance companies. people care about access to doctors hospitals in medicine. there is going to be disdainful switch, -- this painful switch, nobody cares. that, representative jayapal's bill would cover all healthcare services, comprehensive benefits. there would not be a significant need for private health insurance. that is a good thing. we don't need unnecessary, wasteful attractive private health insurance companies that take money out of the system and add nothing of value. we need to give people choice. host: go ahead. was not a painful transition for insurance companies it was doctors and hospitals. they have the way their businesses operate. pharmaceutical companies,

basically everybody in the supply chain for health care is going to have their businesses disrupted. does notative jayapal talk about how she will pay for it. the sanders bill talks about moving to medicare level payments which means that doctors will get paid 40% less. hospitals get paid 40% less. maybe you can do that over time but in the short-term that is very difficult. you can't accomplish that in two years. does it and just runs the american enterprise institute in d.c.. theing us from boston is president of the physicians for a national health program is dr. adam gaffney. born the year social security was passed as a law. that means i am 83. i have a doctors appointment in a few days in the afternoon. without the va i would not have

insurance. i am old enough to know people who died who passed over because they cannot afford a doctor. i remember's doctors used to physicians graduating from medical school to keep the costs up. republicans kicked and screamed about the g.i. bill. saying it will bankrupt the country. we have been bankrupt by people dying because they cannot afford health care. i come from a farm. i grandparents couldn't even get social security. farmers were not eligible. your question to our guest? caller: i think it is a good idea. it will be paid for and it can be paid for. root out the greed and fraud. there is enough money to pay for it. host: thank you. guest: there is a lot to be said for rooting out the fraud. greed is hard to squeeze out. the fraud yes. joe has a good point.

we ought to do better in our health care system to make sure people get the care they need. we also should do better about making sure that people don't get services they don't need that are wasteful and could damage their health. we are not good at that. the health system is not good at that. the government probably does not have the magic formula to make that work. it really is up to physicians, hospitals and other providers understanding more about the patient and more about the science. then acting on it appropriately. we are not there, far from it. i agree with several points the caller made. every big program, every big societal social policy has been called unaffordable. in 1965icare was passed people said it would be unaffordable. people said hospitals would be

overflowing. arelines from that era hospitals cannot handle increased capacity. there are always claims the sort of social programs are not affordable. i think history is informative in that it shows that these things can be done. i agree that greed does explain a lot of the waste in the u.s. health care system. fromu look at the profits the pharmaceutical industry they are enormous, greater than other fortune 500 companies. there is a lot of fat in the system. by moving towards a publicly financed medicare for all system we can reduce a lot of that profit and make for a more sustainable system for everyone. host: from illinois on the opposed line, brian. the reason i initially oppose it is because of the unlimited nature of this. it just becomes, to be healthy you have to have decent food and have decent housing. you have to be able to get to the doctor and have a decent motor transportation.

it grows and grows. the left wants unlimited immigration so we will have everybody in the planet who wants to come to the united states. i am sure dr. gaffney would be forgiving them immediate health care. compliments of united states taxpayer. then dr. gaffney i have a little thought exercise for you. say you and i are identical twins and we are in the nursing home and we are 95 years old? how much of the government spend a keep us alive one more year? host: dr. gaffney, you start. guest: the question of how we should be treated at the end of life has nothing to do with the financing of the u.s. health care system. i worked in the icu where we deal with these issues commonly. it is not about money, it is about the best way to treat people and how to give them the best care. i am not in favor of rationing on the basis of age and i don't think we need to. there is enough money in the system.

there are times when people are so sick that certain types of health care are not in their benefit and that makes sense. that is what is happening now and it is difference than some sort of rationing system based on some metric from the government. natures of the unlimited , that is not what we are talking about. this is something that has been done in many countries. this is not a high in the sky we invented out of thin air. we already have one of the most expensive health care systems in the world. other countries have done this sort of proposal and they have done quite well. with better outcomes and less cost. i don't think it is really this kind of unlimited funding scenario that the caller described. host: if all these people come onto the current system or makes the case that quality of care will be diminished? guest: the united states already has serious problems in terms of quality health care. many metrics we will fall

behind. nations. health respects -- or care system is lower performing than many of the universal health-care systems of europe. there is no reason to think that publicly financed health care has worse quality. it is simply not true. are not talking about changing everything in the u.s. health care system. we will maintain the things that work well and change the way it is paid for i think single-payer financing gives you ways of understanding the quality and improving it. that is distinct from the status quo. guest: i think we have to focus that wouldly process occur come in financial process that would occur. we are talking about, certainly much lower payments to doctors and hospitals for their services. nobody has toays pay any co-pay payments, noted up doubles, nothing out of pocket. for an the recipe

explosion of utilization and that is not necessarily a good thing for patients. it is often not a good thing for patients. there have been studies over many decades demonstrating what dr. gaffney is saying. we have a lot of waste and excess in the system. removing all of the fiscal barriers, removing the caution signs and saying, run through that intersection, is going to cause more problems than less. that will then lead to a reaction. this is one of the many problems with legislation. you think through the first step. what about the second and third through end steps? that is where the trouble comes. host: from south carolina, leon, hello. i fully support medicare for all. i realize we may have to do it in a slower method to give some

judgment. this is ridiculous. twice as much as everybody else. check our lowt performance of so many things, even such as infant mortality and what we are currently doing for a great country i think is a disgrace. see any of the big paychecks that insurance executives and stockholders of insurance companies are getting, don't even give any of the me so much as are an aspirin tablet. thank you so much.

there is a lot of money in the system. no question about it. there is a lot of money in the insurance industry and the hospital industry. a lot of money among providers. especially physicians. not so much and nurses are people who provide services and long-term care facilities. it is doctors and hospitals. and insurance companies and drug companies. no question about that. what is the practical way to add chocolate this fiscal cliff -- edge off of this fiscal cliff? the bill says nothing about financing. it says it will be ok. i think the average person would worry about that. when you look at the recent polls by the kaiser family foundation they found democrats don't want medicare for all. -- wejority of democrats

are not talking about politicians we are talking about normal people, they would like some fixes for the affordable care act. in other words, work on what you have rather than starting all over. host: follow-up question, if i am a pharmaceutical company how my looking at this proposal? guest: i don't think you are worried because it is not going anywhere. they are worried about the things the trump administration is proposing that could seriously change the way they price their products and cut into their bottom line. this is a hypothetical political proposal as opposed to something that has any real legs. give it does go years and we will see. host: dr. gaffney? guest: we can agree the current government is not likely to pass something like this. that is how change gets made. policyline a proposal or and you push it forward. when the window opens you can make it happen. that is how medicare was passed.

that is how other social programs have been passed. i want to go back to something the other guests said. if we get rid of co-pays and deductibles there will be an explosion in utilization. the idea that we need to extract payments from patient otherwise they will overuse unnecessary medical care is simply incorrect. when you create these deductibles you reduce health care use across the line. kids don't get their prescriptions filled and adults don't get their prescriptions filled. adults don't go to the doctor or even go to the emergency room when they have acute conditions. people don't use health care because it is fun, they use it because they need it. the imposition of these high deductibles to try to give people skid in the game does nothing but push people away from health care when they most need it.

it is very important to point no, and a u.k. there are co-pays for doctor visits or deductibles for hospitalization. for the most part not for perception drugs either. these are taxes on the sick we do not need to have to have a sustainable health care system. the average physician base with a much lower payment rate is going to be saying how do i make up for my loss of income? i am not saying that is terrible, i'm saying that is a natural human reaction to a sudden change in commercial circumstances and what is going to happen is, why don't we do a next her test when we do something, we could prescribe an additional sort of service. come back next week rather than see you in six months when i would normally see you. this is the kind of overutilization we are likely to see. we see that right now in the

medicare program. , their social life revolves around the doctor's office. justified by medical concerns to some extent. to some extent there is nothing that says you should not come back to the doctor would like to see you come back. is some greater safety in that but probably not. it would probably be ok if you came back in a month rather than a week. --st: can i i just want to push back on the idea that americans are over utilizing health care. if you look at the number of hospitalizations for a year or office visits per year of americans it is not greater than other countries. americans are not using too much health care. that is a pernicious rumor. guest: i'm talking about the future under the jia paltrow proposal -- represented jia paul proposal.

there is overutilization. it will express under -- explode under representative jia paul -- represented a jayapal caller: love the program, more people should watch it. gaffney, -- i think the only country in the world that has for health care, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, if we eliminated that that would be a great start. ranked 37th in the world when it comes to health care and we spend more on health and,than any other country one more thing, the pharmaceuticals and profiteers in the hospital are in the back pockets of all these politicians.

look it up. who contributes to all of these politicians? look at their statistics. insane amounts of money. host: dr. gaffney, you start. for-profitree that corporate medicine to support job providing health care is wasteful. if you look at the track record of for-profit hemodialysis chains they have worse outcomes. there have been studies looking at for-profit nursing homes, hospitals and i would agree they don't do a good job and we want to move to a system that is probably financed and delivered by not-for-profit providers. that is something i would like to see the bills in congress go further in. in terms of the pharmaceutical because the reality is pharmaceutical companies are given a monopoly by the u.s. government for their medications for a limited period they can

price it at whatever they want and produce enormous profits. look at the ceo salaries and see how completely out of lacwhack -- out of whack those profits are. we should have a system built around the community and not towards the crew profit -- >> whether you call it profit or not there is the bottom line, it really drives everybody in all businesses, not just health care. not-for-profit hospitals, i live in maryland. we only have not-for-profit hospitals. it behaves just like any profit-seeking entity. they call a surplus but the fact is, if you do not create economic profit matter what the economy is calling for then you will not be in business very long. profit is part of doing business are not going we

to drive it up by changing the words that we use. more's -- take it think more seriously about the incentives that we have in our system as opposed to labels for what we call profit. host: our guests are with us. the is joseph santos from american enterprise institute, he is their health care and retirement policy scholar. adam gaffney is the president of for aonal's -- physicians national medical health program. dr. gaffney, does it have to be all or one. could the health care industry and medicare for all exist at the same time? guest: the way that medicare for all is described is in ways outlined in the bill and our proposal in additions for a national healthcare program is a universal program that covers everyone in the nation similar to what they have in canada and the u.k. and france. envision a, you can

variety of different proposals but that is not what we are talking about. universalking about health care, a public plan that covers everyone with comprehensive benefits. host: why not have some type of variation rather than a binary system? guest: very fair question. for a few reasons. the private health insurance imposes incredible waste. we need to achieve universal health care but it is true that our new cost, we have to look at the other side of the ledger and see how we achieve savings. one way we achieve savings is cutting down on the administrative waste and profit in the private health care industry. i cited the fact that more than 10% of private insurers -- it is not just a there. hospital orl at the doctor's office for a u.s.

hospital spend a quarter of their revenue on administration because that is the price of doing business to deal with all different companies. in countries with single-payer systems hospitals spend half of that on administration. the answer to your question is we need to achieve universal health care and we need to do it an an economically sustainable manner. host: this idea of a variety of plants versus one or the other? guest: i was with him until his last phrase. we have to start from where we are not where we are not. if you want to have a practical reform you have to figure out how you will go from here to whatever you want to go. whether it is dr. gaffney's vision or somebody else. whether you like it or not we have a mixed system. we will have a mixed system for a very long time.

you can't easily just snap your fingers and say ok it is gone. the very policies the government has that andurage efficiency occasionally encourage inefficiency. work on practical problems. rather than dreaming about a --ure that host: running a health care system along the lines of medicare for all. is there practical model that works? guest: we are working on it. we don't have the answer. take the private sector out of this.

some kind of government oversight to put it back in. somebody is going to want to care about the cost. if they don't care about the costs you will have fraud problems and inefficiency problems even worse than we have now. host: what is the best entity to care about those costs? note that overall costs have been better contained by public insurers over time by medicare than by the private sector. decadeso back over the the united states has had an incredible increase in health care spending that outpaces other countries. the central premise here that a public system is more expensive than a privatized multi-payer one is not worn out by any evidence whatsoever. in terms of controlling the cost , public systems give a

multitude of control, of different controls. jayapalepresentative house bill they would receive a budget to cover all operating expenditures. that would take the profit motive about and would allow them to focus on meeting the health care needs of patients in the community rather than focusing on providing the most lucrative procedures. generating profit types of care and services. the central premise here that is less costector of the public sector is not worn out by any evidence. host: let's go to new jersey. this is kevin on the opposed line. gentlemen, you are doing an excellent program here. one thing you have not addressed is human nature. mr. antos has addressed unintended consequences. as far as human nature.

doctors have to spend so much money to get through medical school. they have to spend so much time studying. here you are going to have the government tell them what they can make when the professional athletes make 20 million a year. you will not have enough doctors in the future. i will be long gone because i am all. nobody takes into account human nature. host: doctor shortage, is there a potential? guest: there is only a doctor if you don't accept the improvements in medical technology that increasingly make it possible for people without full medical training to provide services that previously were not available. fact we don't really have a doctor shortage. we have a shortage of efficient ways of dealing with things.

movely we have seen a towards advanced practice nurses being able to do things that 20 or 30 years ago did need a doctor. now you can use advanced practice nurses. just accept in the kinds of technological improvements. taking advantage of those efficiencies. we will get ahead of the game. we do not have a physician shortage. host: dr. gaffney, do you agree? guest: i greater is not a doctor shortage overall. there are not necessarily the right doctors in the right places. a distribution question. two points about the color's question. in terms ofproblem physicians not having enough time and there not being enough physicians is that doctors spend way too much time in the current system on administration billing activities. it is an enormous amount of

waste. that is the inevitable consequence of a privatized system in which they have to contend with and have contracts with and argue with an fight with various insurers. that is the first point. the second one i want to make is important. going to a single-payer system can be done sustainably. through increased efficiency in the administration side and reduce drug prices. and without any major change in the salaries of health care workers. one could argue whether that is good or bad. to reduce health care workers salaries in order to achieve a sustainable health care system. there is enough saving in terms of administrative -- i think that is a point we should take home. >> from mary in florida, go ahead. caller: i am someone who has experienced a lot of medical issues.

from the time i was 30 years old. i was denied coverage at one point. i have been capped out of a hospital when i was 47. putting in a place to die. i was readmitted because of other issues that came on. otherwise i was not allowed to have surgery that i needed to be alive. i have been able to be successfully cared for but unfortunately my husband died -- years before i could heal then i started incurring enormous debt from denials from insurance companies. i went to the insurance

commissioner to get this resolved. and it was done. , i had overying is 500,000 in medical costs denied that should not have been denied. ist ended up happening everything came out of my pocket. thank god i could afford it. if that only went until i could get an insurance policy because i type one diabetic. i was just told, no, you cannot have insurance. that ismary's -- host: mary's experience. sadly i think that the college experience which is really tragic is far too common. several of the things that she mentioned, losing health she lost itause when her husband passed.

getting lots of sales, going deeply into debt companies are things that are common in the american health care system. one study found the majority of bankruptcies have a medical cause. debt collectors and medical bills are extremely common. these are the inevitable consequences of the way we have decided to finance our health care system through private insurance companies. it does not need to be that way. we do not need to have medical bills. actt: the affordable care would have solved this problem. uphaps the caller did sign for the plan when it became available in 2014. certainly that aspect of the affordable care act was very positive. notidea that people should be excluded from coverage because of pre-existing conditions. the affordable care act deals with the official realities. that under the

silver planslled typically have five or $6,000 deductibles. they tend not to be high income people so that is a lot of money. could we rearrange that or do a better job of that? i think we could. the way to do that would be to recognize that we can provide help -- should provide help for those who need the help the most first. instead of the aca approach which is to put a lot more money for people above the poverty line joining the medicaid program. who needo help people help the most. we can resolve that problem without necessarily attempting or completely upending the system as we have now. we have to find a way to do this in a logical and orderly way so that we don't have situations where people suddenly find they

are out of luck in terms of getting care. concept, --oes this how does this deal with pre-existing conditions? guest: represented a jayapal has no -- representative jayapal's plan has no exclusions. the sanders plan is similar. that is basic for all these types of proposals. focusing on expanding coverage ,o everyone without exception but they are not focusing on how you pay for it. dr. gaffney how you pay for it and how does the treatment take place if there is no pre-existing conditions? guest: i certainly don't think people should be discriminated against by virtue of being unlucky because they have type 1 diabetes or in the xina -- or emphysema. i think that is barbarism.

doing such a great job of controlling health care costs. the deductibles that ordinary working-class people were having to pay in this country are beyond their means in many cases. there was a number that came out last year that found the average u.s. family has $5,000 in liquid assets. how do you tell that family you also have a $5,000 deductible? that is like being uninsured. it means that people ration their own health care use. hear constantly about the fear mongering, about government rationing of health care. we never hear about families every day rationing their own health care and not getting the care they need because they can't afford it. we need to change the conversation in this country. whatever the political obstacles are of achieving something like single-payer, if it is worth it it is worth it.

we have to push ahead even if the odds are against you. host: this is corey in denver, colorado. caller: thank you for taking my call. a few quick points here than i will hang up and listen to the answers. opposedemocrat and i am to the idea. i'm also retired and i get my health care through medicare. medicarepeople think is free but i pay $135 every month for the privilege of being on the program. if you want medicare for all then if every person in america is paying $135 a month then let's get on with it. there is another thing you have to consider. a lot of people compare united states and other countries come our country is so vast a countryically come our is so vast by population in comparison to these countries that you compare our health care

democrat and am a i have a fear that what is going to happen here is the medicare for all is going to turn into medicaid for all and that is where the money problems start. thank you very much for taking my call. host: dr. gaffney, you go first. many countriese in the world that have universal health care systems. some are big some are small. some have vast stretches of rural areas and some do not. they still achieve similar ends and goals. i don't think the fact that we are a large nation precludes us from having a good health care system. the caller mentioned they have it seems like overall have had a good experience. i think that is true of many if not the vast majority of americans when they turn 65. what we are talking about is giving that to everyone and

improving on the program at the same time. whether you are paying a monthly premium as the caller is or paying that more in taxes is irrelevant. either way money is money. people get medicare the same way when you are born you are guaranteed to be covered through this program. it would be great if medicare could be financed with a hundred $35 a month for you it cannot be. there is a growing deficit in the medicare program. the party trust fund will go bust another six or seven years. we are talking big money. as far as the part b premium is concerned that covers about 25% of the cost of the program. most people have some kind of wraparound coverage. it might be medicaid.

is because medicare is not a really good program in many ways. we don't knowt who that is. it is a considerable amount of money. it was not my intention but increases the cost of the program. a little bithave of financial drag on the system in terms of reasonable copayments then you are going to see a lot more utilization. officegressional budget says it is around the order of 20 or 25%. dr. gaffney agree that the current medicare system is not good enough and that medicare coverage is not good enough. we do need to fill in those gaps.

we do need to take up those medigap plans to plug up the holes. soy would not to do under the medicare for all plan because those gaps would be filled. in terms of the concerns of overutilization i think they are greatly overblown. there are only so many doctors in the country and so many hospitals. there is solely so much adequate care that can be delivered. to cause some massive increase in utilization. can look to the experience of medicare and its implementation in 1966. of hospitalse use are going to sort and it did not happen in the early years. a lot of this does not pertain -- these concerns are not well-founded. host: let's hear from arizona. theer: hi, thank you for

program. a couple of questions. we talk a lot about the financial aspect. one of the things that has bothered me greatly in the past and it keeps coming up is the concept that, do you want your government to be treating you and your doctor or do you want to use your choice of providers? stuff is crazy to me in the sense that come i want my government before i want a for-profit company to take care of me at least with my government i can vote them out. the rest of this discussion is intriguing but to me it is just common sense in so many ways. i worked for a fortune 500 company, wonderful insurance. i had no insurance and now i am on medicare. --on't have the medigap.

with the exception of dental and vision i cannot tell you how wonderful it is. put my moneyve anywhere better over the last 35 or 40 years. i guess those are mostly comments. i am glad she is satisfied with medicare. she is obviously a healthy person. she is not incurring a lot of bills. she did not have a chronic illness -- the bills will mount up. it is also program not a fiscally sustainable program as it is now. making medicare even more generous. which isng-term care incredibly expensive. let's not worry about how we are

going to finance that, it seems like the road to real problems down the road in terms of not necessarily rationing but in terms of big taxes. taxes that people will say, that is the way it is. when you have higher taxes at the level i think you will need then you will have a reduction in economic growth and that is going to affect everybody in a negative way. what we don't want is the health system to swallow the rest of the economy. host: dr. gaffney? have seen over the course of recent decades is that how care system growing at an unsustainable rate. the status quo is unsustainable. medicare is not a sustainable program fiscally but it is far more sustainable if it were private insurers doing the same job. if we think we can afford to

cover our seniors with medicare, the argument is that we cannot afford to cover seniors at all. that is not a claim anyone is going to make. that flies directly in the face of evidence. i do want to repeat myself too much but there is very clear evidence that public insurers do events for jobs -- host: do you want to respond? guest: the critical thing here is the way medicare barely gets by on a decade by decade basis is by paying 40% less than private insurers. you might say that 40% is waste. if you think about it in terms average physician who sees a lot of medicare patients that would be a huge reduction in their practice's income.

that has inevitable effects about how they want to practice medicine and whether they want to practice medicine. guest: not everyone has private insurance. people also have medicaid which pays less than medicare in general. many people are also uninsured. they may have very little money going for their health care. the 40% number which gets thrown around a lot does not account for the mix of payment methods. this is getting a little wonky, but a blend of payers can the difference between that blended rate and medicare is much smaller. nobody is talking about a 40% cut in the reimbursement of hospitals and physicians. there was an economic report from the university of amherst that came out earlier this year. it does in fact propose a mix of taxes that could fund a sanders like medicare for all bill. it is not anything that is unsustainable or unachievable.

let's go to maryland on the opposed line. i think we need a paradigm shift in this country regarding health. allink that health care for is going to happen within a generation. educatehat we need to people and have them learn responsibility. the way i would do this with would leverage the public school system. i heard the number of half $1 trillion a year on alcohol tobacco drugs and obesity. this is between health care and lost wages. that could cut into through education by a comprehensive public school education program i would go from kindergarten to 12th grade and teach everything from proper everything,ust

first aid, elderly care, how you take care of each other in a society. i don't thinkis we can do this immediately. within a generation i think this is possible. i am not opposed to health care for all. i think everybody deserves to be cared for. host: what about this idea of preventive care? everyone is in favor of prevention. the amount of damage i have seen the fact my practice is that it is important to separate things out. we need more education and prevention. we should not think of something -- that we need to do in terms of health care. sometimes prevention does save money other prevention costs money.

they worth it because save lives. the united states overall is not necessarily a less healthy country in terms of health behaviors than other countries. we do have higher rates of people being overweight we also have lower rates of tobacco use compared to european countries. blame high health care costs on the health behaviors of americans. we want to do everything we can to help people live healthier lives. a lot of the decisions people not about education but about a lack of choices and a lack of resources. a lack of quality was constrained choices. there is a lot to get into here. a change in behavior is not just a matter of education. as a culture with a psychological change it is difficult to come by. is this the answer? it is part of the answer.

this is a very long and slow process. i think we have to deal with the issue that is right in front of us today. we have high rates of spending. coverage forquate low income people. we have a considerable not of waste in the system. we have to work on the system as it is now. getting people to do a better job of dealing with their own health behaviors is a great idea and concept. kids andf you have had you have told them don't drink that soda you may be successful at home but chances are you are not successful at school. with the representative jayapal legislation as a starting point where do we go with medicare for all? >> there is a long way to go. let's be honest.

there is enormous opposition, there is corporate opposition is enormous. i knew group has informed to oppose this. it is being funded industry and the insurance industry. there is a lot we need to do in terms of education. the public is very much in support of this concept. some of the details are complicated. we need to do a better job of raising awareness about what this program would do, how it would affect people, how they would use it. as i mentioned earlier, no one has an expectation this is going to pass tomorrow. a lot of things need to change in order to make something like this into law. what we need to do is inform the political coalition and ensure that people coalesce around this idea as the health care reform for the coming years. our work is clearly cut out for us. guest: it is not true that the

average person supports this idea. recent pollon's said that the approval rating for something like medicare for all without being specific about what that means had probably reached about 40%. that means about 60% of americans do not support to care for all. i think that reflects -- support medicare for all. i think that reflects the faintness of the idea. people do not want to say, let's jump into the deep end of the pool. let's know what we are doing before we get there. the current bill and the sanders bill did not get there. joseph antos is with the american enterprise institute. also joining us, dr. adam gaffney. thank you for joining us today.

for the next half hour, we are going to get you to comment on some top stories happening in washington. among them, hillary clinton in an interview that took place on a new york station says she is not running for president in 2020. in the washington post, former director jim comey makes the case for the release of the robert mueller report. and, the nsa ending a phone surveillance program that came to be in the bush administration. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and, independents, (202) 748-8002. we'll take those comments when washington journal continues. thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> asked not what your country

-- ask not what your country can do for you, ask you what you can do for your country. >> the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. book, thes news presidents rank america's best and worst chief executives. it provides insight into the lives of the president. s. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and legacies have left behind. published by public affairs, it will be on shelves april 23. you can preorder your copy as a hardcover or e-book today at c-span.org/the president or wherever books are sold. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily.

in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite writer. -- satellite provider. >> washington journal continues. was in a local news interview on the news 12 website that hillary clinton was asked about a variety of topics. one of those topics, her intentions for the 2020 presidential campaign. i am not running is the flat response. here is a portion of the interview. [video clip] >> i am not running, but i'm going to keep working and standing up for what i believe. >> not running, she says, but still fighting on behalf of the 65 million plus americans who voted for her.

>> i am want to be sure people understand that i am going to speak -- that i'm going to keep speaking out. what is at stake in our country, the kind of things happening right now, are deeply troubling to me. we have gotten not just polarized, we have gotten into opposing camps. unlike anything i have ever seen in my adult life. host: that took place yesterday. in the pages of the washington post this morning, an op-ed by the former director of the fbi, jim comey about the mueller report saying the full report can be released. here is some of the argument he makes. recognizes the importance of transparency. --traightforward of straightforward report of what facts have been learned may be the only way to advance the public interest. the justice department shared

detailed information with the public after the killing of michael brown in ferguson. octoberon to write, in 2014, the justice department shared information about how a case involving corrosive doubts -- for years, -- in response to the allegation, the department did an extensive investigation that ended with no investigation -- the ended with no charges being brought. the case with hillary rodham clinton. we were in a criminal investigation of a candidate for president. saying i do not know all the considerations that will go into deciding what to say about the completion of the work and when to say it. it is always important to consider guidelines and routines. do not listen to those who tell

you transparency is impossible. transparency is not a hard call. in the find that online pages of the washington post this morning. if you go to the new york times, their front page taking a look at the work of the national security agency, saying they have ended the collection of data from cell phones and texts. they say they have quietly shut down the program. the agency has not used the system in months. the term of administration -- this is according to a luke murray of the house minority leader's national security advisor. there's are three topics you can comment on if you wish before our next guest. here is how you can let us know. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .epublicans, (202) 748-8001

(202) 748-8002 independent -- .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 several hearings taking place on capitol hill today. including the one we told you earlier concerning vaccinations, which was the topic of our first hour. if you stay on this channel after we conclude today, there is the hearing on vaccinations and preventable disease outlooks. you can see that on c-span. you can also go to our website at c-span.org. you can also monitor that on our c-span radio app. there will be a hearing taking a 's legislationat regarding ethics topics. that is before the house rules committee. that will be at 5:00 this afternoon. if you are interested in that, c-span3 is where you can watch it.

also for 2020 politics, you can at theopic taking a look economy. that will be with democratic presidential candidate amy klobuchar. that will take place at the center for american progress. all of these hearings and things we show are also available at our website. in wisconsin on a republican line, beth starts us off. caller: should have been democrat line, but that is ok. i was a delicate -- a delegate for hillary in philadelphia. i have seen over the years the terrible smears and lies against her. i guess i am a little bit relieved she is not going to run this time even though i think she is a great person.

i have a question for c-span. i am wondering how the decision is made to divide the lines up? topics whenon some you do -- you inflate the voice of climate change deniers. this morning, health care. peoplelate the voice of who do not want medicare for all . i am kind of wondering how the decision is made to go from doing three lines to two lines. host: thank you for the question. it is not an exact science. sometimes we present a topic such as the medicaid discussion. it is simpler to divide people

into whether you support or oppose those kind of things. a similar case could be made in our first hour. sometimes in these forms where we talk about a lot of topics that we present during the course of the time, it is important to put democrats, republicans, and independents. it is not an exact science is what i'm trying to tell you. it is just that sometimes we look at it and think what will work best for the segment. that is essentially how we go about that. on the republican line, teresa. go ahead. caller: i just want to make two point. on hillary, if you notice on the shows, a lot of the news he is inviting hillary to come and speak with him. he is trying to get elected. i feel like he is trying to get her up there and then get her with him and make her a vice

president to get her back into the white house. ueller investigation, when he came before the new after beingnate elected, he asked for protection. i think the democrats brought comey up there to bring up suspicion so he could keep his job and keep going on the investigation. the: when mr. comey makes case for the release of the report, what do you think about that? caller: i think that he is trying to save himself. i have been keeping up with it. on his opening statement, he backtracked when he started talking. he said he was in the white house when he heard the president talking to his son. then he turned around when they

question him and said he was in his office. host: let's go to joann in south dakota. the democrat line. joann in rapid city? you are on. caller: ok. joann, you are on the air. go ahead with your question or comment. fromr: yes, i am calling rapid city, south dakota. nationalts on the you cannot hear me? host: egg nor what is on your television and go -- ignore what is under television and go ahead with your comment. caller: i am concerned with the national security. i have a son in the service.

moralends a lot on the of his troops. without a clear understanding of where we are going in america, that is a fear for me. we need our foreign allies. trust the be able to world to try to work towards peace. dictators should not be leading our country. host: the nsa program dealt with the monitoring of calls and texts. it was darted during the bush -- it was started during the bush administration. it was the administration that started the program as part of the intense pursuit of al qaeda and conspirators in the weeks after the september 11 attacks. snowden disclosed the existence

of the program. again, that is on the front page of the new york times this morning. in new york, the republican line. caller: i have a question. i just heard the comment on hillary clinton. the problem with her is, she said she is not running for president. she is doing a good job of sabotaging and leading the democrats up to sabotage our president. i would like to know why she is not in prison for all the crimes she has done? she is responsible for those four guys in benghazi dying. she has responsible for leaking information to god knows how many all those foreign countries. where is the proof of that? host: that is rob in new york. sorry, this -- i'm

is florida. we will hear from elijah. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me on today. i wanted everyone to check out my digital media company. i've been studying this for a number of times. robert mueller has something he is going to be showing to everyone i believe in a couple of weeks. [indiscernible] hillary does not want to run again because of all the -- [indiscernible] some of the things she has done internationally with foreign relations. i am not going to get out too much information. , there is aossier

lot of information that is still coming out. host: when it comes to the robert mueller report, should be fully released or should there just be an edited report from the justice department? caller: i think it should be fully released. i do not think they will fully release it. i think there will be information that will be taken out for the protection of certain people and for the protection of the united states of america. host: laverne in virginia. on our democrats line, go ahead. toler: yes, i just wanted make a statement about the robert mueller report i have -- robert mueller report. i have been keeping up with it. the republicans are trying to nullify his report by putting out all of this craziness. i am very upset about the way the republicans are not actually protecting the people.

the people are paying for this report. the report needs to come out and let us, the united states of america, know what really happened. our national security in jeopardy. as far as hillary, i do not think she needs to run. i know that she needs to continue to be our representative in this country because she has been in politics for a long time. she does know -- she has been secretary of state. she has been the first lady. political -- some host: why not have her run again? does run again, there is a possibility that the

same people that tried to put her down will come back out into the woodwork. unfortunately, she should have won. i do not think the delegates were listening to what she was saying. host: let's go to shirley in ohio. on the democrats line. caller: thank you for your program. on the robert mueller report, i have one thing to say. the full report should be released. let the chips fall where they may. on hillary, with her running for president, i am glad she decided not to run because of her family matters. she has grandchildren. she would not put her family out there to be exposed to all of the. i am happy -- all of that. i am happy she is going to help other representatives that are running. she is a great asset to other

women. host: she previously put her family and history out the last time. caller: exactly, but she did not have her grandchildren. it makes a difference. my grandchildren are just appalled at what president trump has done. i have to keep them correctly that it is not ok to do what the president do. you do not go through life like that. there is a lot of world leaders that do not have no respect for president trump. it does not have anything to do with me as a democrat. i did not do anything to these world leaders. he did it. host: let's go to rick in south carolina. the republican line. calling about the robert mueller investigation. it is ok to release all of it or some of it, but my question is about the clinton investigation. why do we have to wait so long for it to be released?

75 years is pretty much passed all of our lifetime to see exactly what happened in the clinton administration. host: so you agree with jim coming that a full report should be released? caller: yes a full or partial. some people need to be protected. again, it is about the clinton investigation. people,en you say some who are those people and why? caller: the people that are being investigated or names that have not come out yet, basically. host: that is rick in south carolina. a bit of medical news, this is from than your times this morning saying that for the second time since the global epidemic began, a patient appears to have been cured of hiv. the news comes 12 years to the day after the first patient was

not to be cured. a surprise success confirms that a cure for hiv infection is possible. this story has prompted a response from president trump offices twitter feed showing the headline of that story. he added, such great news. brent is up next in michigan. hello. caller: hello. when the democrats nominated democrat, i i am a said to my republican friends i did not think she was electable because no one wanted to go back to the clinton years. i think it is best for the democrats if she stays out of the limelight. when trump was the republican candidate, i said, she probably is going to be elected

considering what trump is. that hillarythink still has a role even if she is not running actively? caller: i would prefer that she did not have a role because i do not think it helps the democrats. i certainly do not want trump to be reelected. -- a lot of think people like her, but she has too much baggage. host: let's hear from jack in florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that as a florida voter and a long time no party affiliate or independent, i am not allowed to vote in any of the primaries. i think that is not a good situation. i think another situation is that twice now within the time i

have been interested in politics, the elections have been thrown by the electoral college. the third thing is, everybody wants an independent not to run because they say it is going to be a spoiler. i think that is just to hold the two party system in position to run on a regular basis. i had to do some hard soul-searching in the last election because i really did not want to trump -- i did not want to vote for hillary clinton or trump. i eventually voted for hillary clinton. i strongly felt as though she had -- it would almost be like a dynasty. when jeb bush was running, i imagined how could this possibly be that within both of the

families that were running, they both had people previously at pritt -- as president. bushes too.of the host: that is jack in florida giving his thoughts on one of those stories. a new election being announced in north carolina in the ninth district. republicans frustrated and embarrassed by the fleeting areory of mark harris expected to mount an attempt to retain the seat. democrats energized by the scandal are similarly poised for a vigorous campaign. leading democrats have begun to coalesce behind dan mccready. houston, texas is up next. tony on the republican line. caller: good morning.

i think the robert mueller report should be released in its entirety. i personally did not vote for donald trump. caller,ke the previous i held my nose. i voted for hillary clinton. i am glad she did not win. i do not think she should run. she knows she does not have the strength of the voter populace to run again. there is a large number of african-american former democratic voters who will no longer vote for hillary clinton or a democratic candidate they have in the ring today. she knows the writing is on the wall. i think she should stay in the background. i do not know a democrat who wants to have her with them. donald trump is going to be reelected in 2020 for a variety of reasons. primarily because a large number of the african-american

electorate cannot vote for a democratic candidate who wants open borders and medicare for all. who is going to provide all of this free service? doctors are not going to get paid by government checks. they enjoy a good economy right now. they are going to go with the status quo. host: one of the other things to look out for on capitol hill ancerning comments by democrat from minnesota. this story saying that lawmakers could vote as soon wednesday on a house resolution condemning anti-semitism fronted by comments that omar made last week. the draft resolution acknowledges the consequences of perpetuating anti-semitic comments. not specifically rebuke

omar. it indirectly represents an uncomfortable development for democrats. mike do bonus writing that in the washington post. caller: good morning. we have listened for two years. democrats in the liberal media praised robert mueller as a god. his investigation was going to be the whole or -- the holy grail that was going to put donald trump behind bars. we paid over $25 million for that investigation. the democrats and liberal media now say that the robert mueller investigation was limited in scope and congress can do so much more. why did we pay for robert mueller if it is going to prove nothing? why are we double dipping? we had the pay for the

investigation. now we have to pay for this congressional investigation that is probably going to show nothing as well. host: the house judiciary committee releasing their list of people they are interested in talking to. iny from pennsylvania altoona on the independent line. caller: hi. omarglad they did not let come back to the united states. here is my question about hillary clinton. i do not think she is going to do a very good job with the democrats because if you are a criminal, she is just going to teach them how to take more money. it is just crazy. i do not know why anyone would listen to her. host: that is gary in altoona, pennsylvania. the last call for this segment. coming up, a discussion about

climate change. green newnude -- the deal. one of the senators running us to discuss those thoughts. stephen stromberg will join us next on washington journal. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. ask not not what -- what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> the people who not these buildings -- who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon. >> noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. true stories gathered by

interviews with noted presidential historians. challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind. published by public affairs. the president will be on shelves -- the presidents will be on shelves april 23. you can preorder your copy at c-span.org/the presidents. >> c-span, where history unfolded daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and with policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.

washington journal continues. host: this is stephen stromberg of the washington post joining us. he serves as an editorial board member and opinion writer. . if you have been to the washington post editorial page, you will find from the editors called, once a green new deal? here is a better one. guest: the green new deal as posed by president -- at -- as posed by democrats -- host: i apologize for that. we are going to talk about this for the neck half hour or so. if you want to call -- for the next half hour or so. if you want to call in and talk about the green new deal, you can do so by giving us a call. if you are a democrat, (202) 748-8000. if you are a republican, (202) 748-8001. if you are a independent, (202)

748-8002. host: i apologize. go ahead. guest: the green new deal has been in the news with alexandria oak osseo cortez. several residential hopefuls have also backed it. so, we looked at it and thought there is a way to be interested in climate change. to be concerned about climate change. to take it seriously, but not necessarily accept everything they are proposing. in fact, there is a lot of detail they are missing in their proposal. us. is there did concern host: what is the chief problem with the approach they are taking? guest: the main one we are worried about is waste. the fight against climate change, we do not have time to waste or money. every dollar has to be used in

the most efficient way. we think that is how you define taking climate change seriously. we set out to define a program that would do that rather than bundle together a progressive -- wish list of items. really focus on the core problem, which is reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse emissions. highwayu have mentioned jobs and infrastructure investments. are you saying they are not achievable or just the way they go about it is not realistic? guest: a little bit of both. question,ievability very ambitious -- a very ambitious of the green new deal -- a very ambitious version of the green new deal suggests we

can get to zero greenhouse emissions by 2030. that is not realistic. we cite an expert on energy markets and renewables who estimates that getting there by 2035 would cost something like $27 trillion. when numbers get big, they all mixed together. they all sound really big. this one is really big. we are talking about spending as much as we spent on world war ii every three years to get there. that is the achievability side. they are also not proposing what we would think is the most efficient way -- the most efficient methods of achieving that goal. it is that they are setting a very and possible target. they are also not proposing the best ways to get there. in our view, that would be carbon pricing.

host: let's go through some of the goals that you proposed. one of those would be to eliminate carbon dependency by illuminating incentives dented -- by eliminating incentive standards. also talk about the paris agreement accord. has this gained traction? white key you think -- why do you think this proposal is the best one? guest: it was proposed by ed markey. one of the cosponsors of the green new deal resolution we are assessing. it failed pretty famously in 2010, the first time they really tried to push, the democrats tried to push hard to pass climate change legislation. it has actually been ample minded in europe -- been

implemented in europe and california. a number of other states and jurisdictions around the world have accepted a carbon pricing program of some kind. we would say they have not been ambitious enough. priceed to put a higher on carbon dioxide emissions to reduce the amount of pollution that is put into the air. the concept is not some kind of new untested thing. it has been used. it has been used to cut down on acid rain, the chemicals that cause acid rain in the 1990's. it is not out of left field. host: how would you describe how cap and trade works in layman's terms? guest: cap and trade essentially says you are admitting a lot of carbon dioxide emissions into

the atmosphere, we want to reduce the on a set schedule. we want to know how much pollution the economy is producing in a given year and ramp that down. we put a cap. every year, there is a cap on the amount of pollution you can put into the atmosphere. underneath that, you say if you want to in it a ton of carbon dioxide -- two emit -- some other kind of industrial process, you have to give the government an allowance that allows you to do that. that allowance will cost you money. you can go to a market and purchased the allowance. essentially, it does come into criticism because people say, it is allowing people the right to people to buyg the right to pollute. the cap decreases over time. the allowances get more

expensive. the nice thing about this that economists will tell you is that this is the cheapest way to do it. it is the way to get the most benefit from every dollar you are spending. that is the real genius of a cap and trade program or a carbon tax program. host: if i am the company, i am going to do what i can to reduce the emissions on my own. guest: that is exactly a factor. what is efficiency driving about this is that at some companies -- is that some companies will fairies -- will face low cost for whatever they are doing. other companies will face high costs. the companies that face low cost , they will stop emitting carbon dioxide. the others that value being able to put carbon dioxide into the air, they will buy the

allowance. over time, they will get the signal that they will need to change over time. the cheaper stuff happens first. then you give the hard stuff more time to occur. you send this price signal throughout the economy. it affects companies and consumers. the price ofrs, gas might go up a bit. people will feel less likely to take unnecessary trips. people will see they have more of an incentive to weatherize their homes. the price of electricity will go up. -- ita comp ranz of plan is a comprehensive plan. you do not have to go sector by sector and say, in this sector, we are going to mandate this. in fact, you are sending a price signal to everybody. that is part of what makes it so effective. host: this is stephen stromberg, editorial board member of the

washington post. our first call comes from gregory in california. democrats line, you are on. caller: hello, stephen. climate change solutions are going to lie in the details. i have three detailed ideas i would like his thinking on. we have heard of transit oriented development. how about transit only development. the government does subsidized low market housing for people who will forgo car ownership. there will not be any parking spaces. they will get a transit pass. we had 10 years ago, here's another one. clunkers.h for how about a lifetime transit pass for your clunker? that would be much more effective. this was in the 2009 stimulus sponsored it was not,

by senator dianne feinstein. one more, pay how you drive car insurance. . let's reward people for driving ,n a way that is moderate, safe and fuel-efficient, which is also less carbon into the atmosphere. host: thank you for that. we will let our guest respond. guest: thank you for your call. you raised some really important point. in our really clear peace that a cap and trade program would not do everything that would need to be done. one of the areas where the government would need to invest we think heavily and smartly would be in public transportation. you bring up some innovative ideas for how to incentivize people to use public has rotation to develop -- to use public transportation to develop ways to use it.

only the government can provide an effective alternative top people who might not -- to people i might not be served as well by private alternatives -- people who might not be served as well by private alternatives. and other thing i would bring up is zoning law. making sure that cities are smartly using the land they have and allowing for density in a way that american cities have not in the past. that is a local issue. fundedtransit is federally. it is also a local issue. a five pagejust bill. the government has to have an active role in public transit and other areas. i went to make that clear

because some of the criticism -- i want to make that clear because some of the criticism we have got, you are ignoring all these places where a carbon pricing program, there would be gaps. there would be things it could not do. that is in some cases true. --are not saying this is there is efficiency. energy efficiency and how the government encourages more efficient appliances and cars. there is a lot out that has to be done. up to peoplel be theirregory working with local representatives and with -- and also appealing to congress to find the smartest ways to make that happen. host: the independent line from north carolina, this is richard.

caller: good morning. green newly think the deal is another way to expand the size of government, tax people, we straight personal preferences on issues -- tax people, restrict personal preferences on people. the climate is always changing. in recorded history, our paleontologists tell us there have been five ice ages. where i live used to be under an ice cap. the world is warming. we would be better served if we spent our time and money trying to figure out how to live with the possibility of what the climate is doing. do not get me wrong. i am all in favor of green everything and recycling and whatnot. i think we are doing other things that are much worse to the climate and environment such

as building monster houses on the coastline and expecting the sea level not to rise. guest: thank you very much for your call. i was a couple of things. view isew is that our -- our view is that the climate change crisis is real and the nce is positive on this. the climate is always changing. that is not mean that humans are not aiding and abetting and driving the change. if you look at the speed with which of the climate is changing, it is unprecedented in the geological history of our. their -- of the earth. there is more than a scientific basis. there is a wealth of scientific information and evidence nfluence on humans' i the climate. say someone says you have a 50%

chance or 30% or 10% chance or 5% chance your house is going to burn down. you buy insurance to protect against that threat. even if you're not quite convinced that the scientists are absolutely right about how fast warming is going to occur, the severity of the effects, you do want to have insurance thatst the possibility they could be underestimating how bad it could be. they could be underestimating as well as overestimating how bad it could be. there is a very good case even if you are skeptic to say, by some insurance. spend some money. make sure that the really bad outcomes do not occur. having said that, once you accept the imperative, you have

to try to figure out, how do you do this in the most effective way? how do you carbonized in the most ambitious way? net zero by mid century or so. how do you do that? avoid what, try to richard is worried about. big government. that youoid mandates do not necessarily need. government programs and spending you do not necessarily need. really focus on the prize. that prize is cutting carbon dioxide emissions. the way to do that efficiently, economists have been clear for years, is through a carbon pricing program. that should be the core of any green new deal. the green new deal is silent on carbon pricing. that is part of our concern.

that it is not going to be an efficient omma effective way -- efficient, effective way to get to the goal. it is available online if you want to read more of the ideas they present on this topic. brian, go ahead. caller: a lot of us would like to do the things you're talking about. the reality of it is we have to get our fiscal house in order. when i was in high school in the 1970's, we were 400 -- we were $450 billion in debt. we are a failure at capitalism. even under trump, we are spending $1.1 trillion a year. more than we have. we cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. you have to get the fiscal house in order. then, we can talk about the things you are talking about.

we are not even paying off the juice on the principal on the money we are barring. it should -- we are borrowing. it should scare the hell out of every american. no one else on this earth has this credit card. guest: thank you very much for your call. take the physical state of the country very seriously. in fact, one of the genius things about this plan is that it raises money for the federal treasury. if you have a carbon tax or a cap and trade program, there is revenue involved when people by the allowances that is needed to emit urban dockside into the air -- emit carbon dioxide into the air. there is a lot of revenue. some of that we would say needs to be recycled back to people so that low income people who are hit hard by high energy costs

would be made whole or better. even middle income, high income people who are low energy use rebaters would get a that is substantial relevant to how much the tax would hit them. you invest money in research and development so that you can develop the technology that is going to cheaply and efficiently hopefully d carbonized the economy -- d carbonized -- decarbonize the economy and get us there. you have a huge amount of money left over you can use for public transit or green infrastructure if you wanted to. there is going to be so much say,over that you could let's put that towards paying down the debt. let's put that towards reducing the tax burden on people in a

efficients cutting an -- cutting and inefficient tax. you can have that trade. in the bipartisan version of this bill, that kind of trade will be key because you will have to say, we are raising this through this cap and trade or carbon tax program. what are we going to do with that? republicans, tell us what tax would you like to cut? walking and chewing gum is an option under this plan. it is just not one that people often necessarily think about because they are so focused on the decarbonization side of it. host: this is the piece from february the 24th. how did this start? clear we have been very about carbon taxation and cap

and trade. favoring it for years. as editors overall. haveis new is that we since the beginning of the obama administration, we have had a new upsurge in interest in the green new deal. that is a new term in fact, but a new upsurge in interest on energy focusing on the climate issue. we are seeing more and more extreme weather. scientists are getting better at saying, it would not have been as bad probably without climate change. houston would not have been as flooded without the intense heat in the gulf of mexico. scientists are able to draw these connections. you also have a rising lineal generation that grew up with the science of climate change. -- a rising millennial

generation that grew up with the science of climate change previous generations did not necessarily -- science of climate change. previous generations the not necessarily have that education. factors, therewo is a sense that this is impending. reaction that and the to president trump and his denial of the problem is another factor. you mix that altogether and you have a surge of progressive energy on this. our hope is that it is channeled into the most effective policies. that was the inspiration for the piece. host: the republican line, this is from oklahoma. james, hi. caller: hello, this is james. wanted to make a comment saying that we need to follow through with what we are doing

now. we have public transportation buses. we do not need to spend a whole bunch of money. we just need to address what we have and build electric and get vehicles that do not pollute the air and get rid of the gas burning vehicles. make our corrections as we grow. inc. you. -- thank you. that thereare right have been changes in the economy. they have led to changes in the emissions picture. the burning of very cheap theral gas has changed emissionsr u.s. although there is some debate about how much and how good the transition has been. there has been a change in what

fuel has been burned there are zero emission -- has been burned. there are zero emission vehicles that have been rolled out. on the horizon are self driving cars that could reduce emissions from the transport sector. there are innovations that are occurring. the scaleef look at of emissions cuts that are required will show you that it is not -- it is a drop in the ocean. you should not underestimate the massive nature of the change. not just how we drive, and also where we get our electricity. we still burn a lot of coal in this country. coal is one of the worst environmental billings -- environmental villains ever discovered.

in terms of changing the chemistry of the atmosphere that warms the planet. the task is a lot bigger than sitting back and watching a few teslas getting sold. you really have to have a government intervention. we would say, find a government intervention. use the intervention that works with markets rather than against them. that creates market forces and incentivizes people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. incentivizes people through prices to weatherize their home. problem in a this scientistsat the suggest is necessary. host: jeremy is in wisconsin on the independent line. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. this question is fairly simple.

if your publication would expound on more -- the situation would make more sense. i appreciate your time. what you arethink -- i think what you are saying is, the green new placeould get us to a with emissions that science would suggest is safer than other proposals that would not necessarily get us to a goal of zero net carbon so quickly. before, the tricky thing there is, there is a trade-off over decarbonize inc. over arbonizing

decade. where we are spending our money and the practical ability to change the infrastructure, it is not a decade-long process. it is longer than that. one thing we reacted to and part of the reason to write the piece is that there is not -- is to say that there is not a choice. deal as ocassio cortez has proposed and doing nothing. in fact, there are a range of choices that are more reasonable than doing nothing or accepting this new path. ideas -- how do you follow-up? guest: this has been a campaign we have been on for a long time. this is one of the most

spectacular examples of an editorial line we have been pushing for a while. we will be following up. we follow the signs very closely. we have been writing a lot about studies that -- for example, ice sheets in the antarctic. to deal withw ways climate change and carbon emissions. we cover all of this. this is going to be -- a lot of times in the trump era, you can get caught up in running on the treadmill of the daily news. this is a long-term issue and there are other issues that get pushed off to the side because it's not the immediate -- there wasn't necessarily a tweet about it. aboutare sometimes tweets climate change but it's been

relegated and it should not be because it's a really crucial issue long-term. stromberg, here are some places you can find more on the new green deal. thanks for your time. that's it for our program today and another addition comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow and we take you now to capitol hill with a hearing just about to start, taking a look at the of vaccinations on the senate side, the senate health committee. that hearing is expected to start shortly. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> the senate committee on health education, labor, and pension will stick -- will please come to order. senator murray and il