>> here's a look at our live coverage for tuesday. , a look att 10:00 the rehabilitation of violent extremists from the u.s. institute of peace. , the federal reserve bank of st. louis president on monetary policy and the economy. , father ofdy parker a slain tv reporter in virginia talks about his concerns about immunity for internet service providers after video of his daughter's death was posted and reposted online. c-span2, the indian ambassador to the u.s. on the country's foreign policy agenda. and at 12:30, the senate cybersecurity caucus holds a discussion on cyber security risk and threats facing the health care industry. coming up in one hour, kaiser health news chief washington

correspondent here to talk about the differences between medicare for all and the public option. then at then at 9:00 a.m., rachel quester discusses her podcast and news of the day. host: senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has asked the chairs of several committees to engage in bipartisan talks with the hopes of coming up with, quote, potential solutions to help protect our communities without infringing on americans' constitutional rights. this action stemming from the shootings in dayton and el paso. and a tweet on the recent events, it was former president obama calling on americans to, quote, soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feed as climate of fear and hatred. this is the "washington journal" for august 6. we want to hear from you parents of children about how you are talking to them about the recent shootings and gun violence

overall. what are you saying to them and how are they responding? here's how you can let us know. if you live in the eastern and entral time zones it's 202-748-8000. if you live in the mountain and pacific time don't, 202-748-8001 is the number to call. you can also tweet your thoughts @cspanwj. nd you can go to facebook.com/c-span. "u.s.a. today" provides an article taking a look at parents talking to their children about the recent shootings and the ways they can do that. they offer these this advice. four s' as it's known as. one of those s' from parents talking to children, that of solace saying that they should provide comfort and consolation for any emotions and fears that help kids feel secure, with tips including let the child lead the discussion, asking children what they have heard about the incident and how they feel about

it, and clarifying any misconceptions, saying that it's particularly important for young children to have that done. the other s is security. "u.s.a. today" saying that parents should take steps and help children feel safe and protected as soon as possible. get them to a safe location. if they feel protected by people, if something were to take place, including tips -- tips including reassuring your children that he or she is safe and then maintaining a regular routine after such incidents. service is another s that they provide saying that provide essential services to make -- to young children saying that parents should watch younger children and their news diet. emotion alma turet varyies among children with many experts recommend shielding younger children from graphic individuals. t quotes the university of minnesota professor saying if your children learns from watching tv or friends, but with a strong support system at home, he or she will likely be fine and unaffected in the long run.

then the final s is that of support. if children are victims, give them a postincident safety period to rest and heal. saying that many children will respond in the short term with anxiety, fear, but if there is prolonged abnormal behavior after a tragedy, children should be seen by a pediatrician or a therapist. that's just some of the advice from "u.s.a. today" when talking to children about incidents that took place such as they did in el paso and dayton. for the next hour, we're interested in hearing from parents of what you're saying to your kids about the recent incidents and gun violence overall and how they're responding to that. again, 202-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones and 202-748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. cspanwj.tweet us @ parents offering comments about their children and what they're saying to them on our facebook page too. this is one viewer saying, how about we teach our kids off of facebook that killing another

human being is wrong. host: making comments yesterday about the recent shootings, one of the things that the president brought up was his concern of that, of violent video games. here's what he had to say. president trump: we must stop the glorification of violence in our society. this includes the gruesome and grizzly video games that are now commonplace. it is too easy today for troubled youth to surround

themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. we must stop or substantially reduce this and it has to be to begin immediately. cultural change is hard. but each of us can choose to build a culture that celebrates the inherent worth and dignity of every human life, that's what we have to do. host: that prompted a response from the entertainment software association in a statement yesterday. that association rates video game content, bills itself as the voice and advocate for the video game industry, saying more than 165 million americans enjoy video games and billions of people play video games worldwide. a spokesman said, yet other societies where video games are played as avidly do not contend with the tragic levels of violence that occur in the u.s. it was in a report put out by the trump administration taking a look at school safety overall, one of the topics of that report and that committee that looked at it was that on video games and violent content, it came to

these conclusions. it is estimated that depictions of violence are presented in 90% of movies, 68% of video games, 68% of television shoo shows and 15% of music videos. while no single factor causes someone to engage in an act of violence, some scholars argue that children who regularly consume violent images are more prone to social isolation and aggressive behavior. the report saying that dr. christopher ferguson, a professor of psychology, reported to the commission that studies that purport to link video games and violence are often not recommend cabble because return on the negative effects of violent entertainment has produced mixed results, debate about possible role of violent entertainment is a distraction from other factors. there's a link to that report by the way, it was put out last december. you'll remember that it was the commission that was headed by betsy devos, the education secretary. taking a look at the overall issue of school safety. this idea what have you're saying to your children about gun violence, particularly in light of recent days, jimmy in

california starts us off. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question is, how come c-span and the other media never have the gun manufacturers on to discuss or fess up as to why guns are manufactured and anything related to that, so that we can tell our children. host: what are you saying to your children about gun violence? caller: it's very bad. host: is that what you're telling them? caller: certainly. [inaudible] host: how are they responding to that or what do they say in return? caller: they're very upset. host: do they offer at least -- do you offer ways to kind of help deal with these kind of issues particularly?

caller: why don't the programs have the gun manufacturers on so they can have a handle on why they manufacture these guns? host: ok. that's jimmy. by the way, jimmy, if you go to our website at c-span.com over the years, we've had interviews with gun manufacturers, with gun industry folks, with those who support the second amendment, with those who oppose the second amendment. if you go to our website at -- website at c-span.org, you can find out more information to that. if you want to take it out, look for what other people have said about this issue as well. again, for those of you in the eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8000 and those of you in the moup dane and pacific time zone -- mountain and pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. there were a couple of statements coming out of the recent shootings that were coming from capitol hill actually. as many have called on capitol hill to, including some calling those back to the senate, to come back into session and to take a look at these issues. mitch mcconnell was one of those

people. talking about that. sending out a tweet, asking and taking a look at this issue. here's part of his response. saying it was serious bipartisan work that had last year's successful passage of the act and the stop school violence act. only serious bipartisan, bicameral efforts will enable us to continue this important work and produce further legislation that we can pass on to the senate and pass the house and earn president's signature. partisan theatrics and campaign trail rhetoric will only take us further away from the progress all americans deserve. that's the response from the senate majority leader. in michigan, this is greg. greg, good morning. how do you talk to your children about this issue? caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i've talked to -- my children are grown but i have little grandchildren and i talk to them all the time. i had three girls and a boy and they all took gun safety lessons and i was a hunter. i don't hunt anymore.

but i was a hunter. i think that the parents have to be able to show their children that legal ownership of guns is more important than anything else. and they have to show them the safety and the -- my guns were always locked up. they were never out in the open where one of my children could pick it up and see what it was like without supervision there. fortunately none of my children ever got in trouble with it. my grandchildren are the same way. they're young and their parents are talking to them about it. i think a lot of it goes back to the home. but i find it very disparaging in a situation where you would have guns in the house and the parents wouldn't talk to the children about the dangers of having a gun or handling a gun for that matter. host: what age did you start your children in training on gun issues or gun safety? caller: my kids, all took gun safety courses when they were 12

years old. not at the same time, of course, because they weren't all 12 at the same time. but 12 years old. but i had children with guns at the house and i had them locked up in the cabinet. it just seemed to me at the time that when you have any kind of a dangerous weapon in the house, it's kind of like driving a car. a car is a 3,000-pound weapon. if you don't teach a child how to operate that weapon, then you're going to have serious problems. host: that's greg in michigan. him discussing these issues with his grown children now, but also his grandchildren on these issues. tony in missouri. go ahead. ou're next up. caller: we got to be real about what's going on here. it has nothing to do with the discussion as far as teaching the kids. what's being inflated in this country right now is what's being inflated on tv. these kids are being encouraged to do stuff like this. any sensible parent is going to

teach their son, you know, to be careful, you know, as far as hunter. make sure you don't be pointed toward nobody. my grandfather taught me the same thing. but this is something totally different. this is a movement that's being encouraged by politicians, by the media, and it has to stop. i mean, we have to call it for what it is. quit talking about something that it's not. this has nothing to do with a parent not teaching their kid to be safe with guns. this has something to do with people using hate as a political tool to get re-elected. host: wait a minute. is that part of the discussion then as far as discussions with children on these issues? caller: we have to start somewhere. because right now these people are reaching our kids on tv. i mean, you can't be around 24 hours a day. 24 hours a day, you know, just talk to my kid. i monitor them. i watch them. but at the end of the day, like the site that 8chan or whatever

they went to, you have to really monitor everything now. that's the type of world we live in now. if i may ask, how old are your children? caller: i have a 3-year-old that stays with me. i have a 15-year-old son. and if i may ask, there's a big between of two of them. but obviously i have to be a lot more vigilant than what i had with my oldest son. because this is just crazy and not calling it for what it is is doing just as much damage as what the people are doing that's introducing it to these kids. host: ok. that's tony in missouri. if you go to the business section of the "new york times" this morning, their headline, why hate speech on the internet is a never-ending problem. it quotes a section of code in the communication decency act. no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated -- treated as the publisher or speaker of any information by another information content provider. the follow-up story that you can find saying that the federal law

section 230 of the communications decency act has helped facebook, youtube, twitter and countless other internet companies flourish. section 230 legal protection also has extended to fringe sites hosting hate speech. anti-semitic contact and racist tropes like 8chan where the suspect in the el paso shooting -- shooter host: you can find more of that at "the new york times" website. rom liberty, missouri, this is -- no, robert in new mexico. robert in new mexico. good morning. you're on. caller: we're about 150 miles north of el paso. it tears me up seeing this

stuff. this is just wrong. i'm acquainted to the lack of parental guidance. i had two girls when i was young. i raised them with guns in their lives. we're in new mexico. we have arms, firearms. it's almost mandatory to carry one. the problem is, people aren't teaching their kids how to be responsible with firearms. they're not even teaching their kids anything. they're letting their kids watch video games, watch these crazy movies that everybody's killing everybody and the kids get excited about it. if that's the problem, it's the lack of parenting. these people that do these kind of things did not get raised right. i believe that there should be more emphasis on the structure of the brain of these people. we need to find out what's making -- what triggers people to do this stuff. and get them away from society. we don't have asylums anymore.

we have crazy people walking in the streets all the time now because we don't have nowhere to put them. host: when it comes to the way you spoke to your children about gun issues and things like that, what age does that start for you? caller: it started for me with my kids at 5 years old. i take them out -- i live right next to the rio granled. i take them out with my guns and show them what guns do and how dangerous they can be. and how fun they can be if you use them right. i've had guns my whole life. i'm 56 years old. hiveb guns since i was 8 years old. i never shot at anything i didn't want to hit. i never shot at anyone in my life. i think it's a shame that people -- i mean -- blame the guns. it's the guns' fault. it's not a gun's fault. it's a tool like a hammer. it's just a piece of steel that has a purpose. if you want to kill something to eat, you use the gun to do it. but you don't shoot at people. unless you're at war. the second amendment crap -- host: have your children asked you specifically about the el paso and dayton shootings?

caller: my granddaughter has. i told her what i told my kids 100 years ago when bill clinton put the ban on assault rifles. i said, it's not the rifle's fault. it's the person that's holding the gun's fault. the second amendment, the reason it was made, is to be able to protect yourself from your own government. that's bull crap now. there is no government coming after you now. if you have the government coming after you, there's a reason. you're doing something wrong. host: we'll hear from jay. jay is in tennessee, woodlawn, tennessee. good morning, you're next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think on this particular subject, gun safety is is important much -- important. if you have guns in your house as an adult, it's your teach your y to kids about safety of guns and

all that. but i'll take this discussion a step further. the guy that called a little bit ago from california, wanted to bring race up into this discussion. and that's important. but the idea of teaching your kids to respect life, to respect teaching le, and by them the respect of the people, you raise them up in a culture that respect life. host: what -- you have spoken to your kids specifically about these recent shootings? caller: we've talked some about these recent shootings. ut i've also discussed other shootings that have happened.

it all comes down -- it all comes down to people respecting other people. regardless of what their beliefs are. ou know, how they view life. what i'm trying to say is, you know, we all have different views of life and the way we look at life. america used to be a country where people respected other people, even though we may not agree with them. host: ok. that's jay. we'll hear from angel next in maryland. hello. caller: hey, good morning. so to start off with, i'm active duty military. i work with guns every so often. i guess when i first joined the military, i was afraid of guns and i didn't really know how to handle a gun. a gun would only do what you tell it to do. that's the first point.

the second point, i do have a 12-year-old, a 2-year-old and another baby on the way. and i guess i'm kind of fearful. i have two boys and i can see my 12-year-old the way he reacts to certain things and the way he thinks i think is a problem with society. you have a common denominater with all the shooters. they're all males. white males, fine. but they're all males. i'm seeing that there's this big push toward the future is female . he's like, hey, dad, do you think the x-y chrome zome is going to disappear? i'm like, what are you talking about? he's like, well, you know, guys have been a problem for a long time. i'm like, no, we're not the problem. so i think a lot of it has to do with society leaving men behind. it's something that should be looked at. seriously, i'm not trying to say that's the entire problem. but i think government also has to step in and maybe put some there's f periods -- access to guns at certain ages,

the way society is nowadays, i don't think people are maturing the way that we did when we were younger. i think people are being a little more sheltered about the world and you see people with high rates of depression. the military has super high rates of suicide. and i see with the younger populations, you see -- you hear it all the time. from the older, oh, you guys have it made. back in my day. and i hate to be that guy, but i think resiliency is an issue that americans in general are having and maybe it's something we need to look at as a society. stop leaving behind behind and -- leaving people behind. i'm not sure. maybe you should have a psychologist on the show to talk about what's going on with american society. host: gotcha. one of the stories appearing in the papers today, particularly with the onset of school starting back up for some already in the next couple of weeks, is this idea of the

bulletproof backpack back in demand. saying that in the past some stores have reportedly sold out of the backpacks, which typically cost $100 to $200. months before the parkland shooting, a private christian school in miami sold protective panels that could be inserted in the backpacks. this year armor me, a personal defense company, run by arm for israeli commando host: the products are available at office max, office depot, k-mart. the company released a model that cost less than $100. companies have been criticized for falsely claiming their armor backpacks were certified by the national institute of justice which overseas -- oversees body armor use by law enforcement. it's not certified or tested the bulletproof backpacks. with no plans to do. so that's a calling to the

spokeswoman, department of justice there. shane is next. lakeland, california. go ahead. caller: good morning. so, first of all, i want to say i don't have any kids myself. but i do have a young nephew who is about 8 years old. and my parents themselves are mass shooting survivors. they survived the route 91 vegas shooting. and after that happened, they came up to me and my brother, his dad, and he said, why are people like this? and the easiest thing i can tell him was that, somewhere along the way, we lost love and respect for everyone. no matter what race they are, what religion they believe in, or -- and it's just love and respect for one another. that's what we need to start teaching our kids again. and if we just go out there and we teach love and respect for everyone, all this will kind of die down. host: has the nephew particularly asked you or his parents about these recent shootings? caller: i don't know if he's asked about the recent ones.

they live up in northern california now. but at the time that the vegas shooting happened, they were live down here with us and -- living down here with us. it hit them hard. after that, he goes out and he loves everyone. and that's what i want to see more. host: from luther in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. i want to agree with the gentleman who said before that this is not about teaching gun safety to kids. this is about explaining evil to children. it's a matter of explaining that we are all sinners, we all have problems, that we don't take out our problems on other people. a few minutes ago you were reading a section about bulletproof backpacks that we have to sell for our kid to go

to school. at the point where we are selling bulletproof backpacks to get our children to school, we need this to stop and say, what are we doing, where are we going? just think about that. you are going to buy a bulletproof backpack to send your child to school. what is wrong? thank you for listening. take care. host: charles is next in cleveland, ohio. caller: good morning. my comment is, modern communication technology platforms are saturated with violent images. i mean, whether the internet, smartphones, live stream, cable television, network, i mean, constantly being bombarded. and i mean we're just in the middle of this dessensityization

of these violent images. and children see it, i mean, you can't turn on the tv, five minutes going by, with an ad for just some type of ultraviolent commercial for a movie coming up. video gaming. it's just constantly there. 24/7. and no one's speaking about it. and it has to be affecting our brains. what are we going to do about that? host: what's the proper message for children then? with everything -- caller: how do you tell them, what, you can't watch the tv because it's too violent? i mean, you have to monitor them at a level that's almost impossible to do. host: does social media make that job more difficult then? caller: of course. yeah. i mean, every aspect of modern

communications technology. i mean, it's just -- it's just a fact. host: that's charles in cleveland, ohio. offering his thoughts. he brought up the online world. the "wall street journal" this morning takes a look at that issue with some information aying the social media platforms playing a role. host: if you look at peard from 2011 to 2016, that is a primary role, grew to 17%, with 56.3% as a secondary role. and 26.8% as no radicalization on social media. it also charts the top social

media platform's use -- platforms used by extremists from 2005 to twick. facebook leading that list -- 2016. facebook leading that list followed by youtube, twitter, personal blogs and the myspace page. stories saying that when it comes to the manifesto purportedly written by the alleged el paso shooter, a white male which referred to the hispanic invasion of texas' motivation for killing t quickly disseminated on facebook and twitter after being posted on the fringe online forum 8chan shortly after the attacks on saturday. there were at least 238 posts with links to the full text of the manifesto on twitter. host: ted is next from north branch, minnesota. go ahead. caller: this is ed from minnesota.

the answer to the problem occurred about 20 years ago when scott pelley announced that from now on it is not necessary to speak only english to get american citizenship. and science tells us that you only have four days to make a normal person. on the fourth day, a baby must smell the mother. if she doesn't feel the mother's odor, then that's the end of a perfect child being grown up. host: david in north carolina. good morning. you're next up. caller: i have three points. one is it seems like the federal its nment released some of theory about trying to control the education system about eight years ago or so. that seemed to add to the dysfunction.

we need a federal entity to come to the state where i live, the county where i live, and displace these judiciaries that allow thugs, plea bargains to go out here and spread drugs to kids. the clinical professional bullies across this nation, the ones that are going to be the judge and juries from what i hear of mental health industry, condemning people and taking away guns or whatever you guys are planning, without a court hearing and stuff, are really scaring me. host: let's take it to the issues of parents talking to their kids about this type of thing. how what are you doing, how old are your children and what are you saying to them? caller: thursday i had two f.b.i. agents here wielding guns. i had my son in the car. and i told them to leave because they were concerned about my social media posts, where i've been calling out the clinical professional bullies who tried to abduct my son using children

protective services last year. and rubber stamping judiciaries. that i'm calling human trafficking and law enforcement has been here to investigate the human trafficking i'm alleging happened. host: that's todd in north carolina. let's go to michael in maryland. hi. caller: hello. how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: there's three points i'd like to make. one of the things you constantly hear is the mental health aspects of things. you always hear about mental health, games and everything else like that. but there's been things that have been consistent with these shootings. that nobody really wants to address. the main thing is the white supremacist doctrines that are being perpetuated by every single one of these killers. every single one of these killers and shooters have come in with doctrines that have stated things, going all the way back to the turner diaries and everything else like that. that's never really addressed. host: how do you talk to your children about it? caller: how do i speak with my

children? i tell my children to be aware of what's going on. i'm after african-american male with black children. the one thing i make sure that they're aware of is to pay attention to all the signs and everything that's going on around them. host: have they asked about the shootings in recent days and what have you said? caller: what i told them, both of them are away, keep your head around. i had to explain to them the things that they wear, the things that they're doing and to be conscious of the things. of what's going on around them. host: the caller brought up mental health. a story in the "the washington post" about studies that have been taking a look at mental illness in connection to these type of violent acts that we've seen in the last few days. saying that most studies of mass shooters have found that only a small fraction have mental health issues and researchers have noted a host of other facts that are are strong predicters of someone becoming a mass shooter. a sense of resentment, desire for infamy, copycat studdy of other shooters, past domestic violence, nars similar and

access to firearms. in a 2018 report on 63 shooters, that was done by the f.b.i., they found that 25% had been diagnosed with a mental illness. of those, three had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and a 2015 study examine thank examined 226 men who commit order tried to commit mass killings, it was 22% of those that could be considered mentally ill. there's more of that at "the washington post" if you want to read it there. from north carolina, we'll hear from allen. caller: hi, thank you. it's kind of an old story but years ago i took my son hunting and he was into all these video games and all. but it didn't seem real to him. well, he got a deer and i made him butcher and clean that deer. all of a sudden, somewhere in that hour, he realized what a rifle can do to flesh and bone and that deer became real. it became a salient, living creature that he had taken the

life of. all of a sudden his perspective and respect for a firearm grew dramatically. before it was just something to go out and do and all of a sudden he realized just what kind of power was behind it and what kind of responsibility he needed to wield with that gun. quite frankly he quit hunting, he joined the military, he's done three tours and he's seen what it can do to a human being now after being in afghanistan a couple of times. i just think that the general lack of awareness of just what kind of power these things have over life and death, and i think we need to educate our kid with a little real sort of experience and living, if you get my drift. host: teaching them how to shoot or at least talking to them about the potential dangers or how far does that go? caller: first off, i wasn't about to let him shoot without knowing all the aspects of the operation of a rifle or a firearm. but then when we went hunting, of course, i wanted to make sure

that he understood just what happens when you pull the trigger and a bullet rips through a living body. boy, once we got the deer home and had it hanging and we butchered it, because we like eventson for thanksgiving, that sort -- veni sombings n for thanksgiving, that sort of thing. he saw the wound channel. he said, i did this to this deer? and i said, yes, son, you did. all of a sudden it was no longer just hunting and pulling a trigger, it was taking a life. i think that we just don't have -- i think that we don't live in a sort of realistic world when it comes to everything we see on tv. you just pull the trigger and you cut to commercial. i think we need to -- if you're -- if worry going to sell guns we need to sell guns, we need to teach people what they do and what happens when you pull that trigger. host: when you hear the president talk about social media or maybe violent video games, what's your response to that? do you think that facters in the

things you're talking about? caller: i think it factors in. i'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist so i don't know exactly whether or not we're the -- where the lines get crossed, where they don't get crossed, where there's real issue or not. but i do think that the more you see it and the more you see it as being innate and nonthreatening because you don't see the ultimate down the road sort of reality to it, i think there's a dessenstation that occurs. i'd like to see less of it. i don't think kid today should be able to buy a rifle until you're probably 25. i don't think a 21-year-old or even in college, yes, my son army when he was 18 but he was trained by the army to shoot a weapon. he knew what a weapon would do. i still don't want him to be able to buy a weapon at 21. i'd much rather him have a couple more years to think about it and take a full course and be 25 and, ok, now i'm 25, i've

taken a course, i know what's going on. i think i'm ready to own a weapon. but until they do, that i don't think you're ready to own a weapon. host: that's allen from north carolina. giving some of the things that he's taught his son about shooting and gun violence and the framework of hunting. you can add your comments to the mix for the remainder of time that we have for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8000. mountain and pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. patients only. we're interested in hearing from you about how you're discussing days of recent violence. gun safety. the related issues too. and you can let us know there on our facebook page, our social media sites. it's about social media that the president also spoke yesterday, in his comments about the acts of violence. this specifically on the role of the internet and social media. here's what he had to say. president trump: we must recognize that the internet has provided a dangerous avenue to

radicalized, disturbed minds, and perform demented acts. we must shine light on the dark recesses of the internet and stop mass murders before they start. the internet, likewise, is used for human trafficking, illegal drug distribution, and so many other heinous crimes. the perils of the internet and social media cannot be ignored and they will not be ignored. host: one of the comments coming out of the recent days is this from wal-mart about their policy on gun sales. saying there's been no change in company policy, according to a spokesman. saying with this incident having just happened, our focus is on supporting associates, customers and the el paso community. the retail giant offers guns in about half of its 4,750 u.s. stores. making it one of the nation's largest seller of firearms and

ammunition. it requires store employees to undergo active shooter training every three months and allows shoppers to carry firearms openly in cities and states where that's legal. the spokesman going on to say, quote, we follow all federal, state and local regulations, you're not going to see associates who are armed during their shifts. that's the statement from wal-mart. we'll go to janice next from california about parents and what they're saying to their kids about gun violence. good morning, janice. caller: yes. the as a teacher ame really -- as a teamer i'm really concerned what's happening in our society. i know that so many men are calling in today and very, very few women. i am very concerned about the guns. that gun that can kill or wound people in 30 seconds. not just people, but at least 30 people in 30 seconds. we're not talking about somebody who wants to go hunting or somebody who wants protection. we're talking about a weapon of mass destruction. and we as a society, we can't be blaming anything else except

that stupid weapon. we've got to ban that gun. host: we've had several callers this morning actually talking about the benefits of training and gun safety, particularly at a young age. it could change that perspective. what do you think about those comments, particularly as you've heard them? caller: it's very interesting but i come from northern nevada as kids i was young, we'd go out and shoot. we had no training, you were taught by other kids or by -- if we were lucky, you had a father that would teach you. but these -- we didn't have access to the type of guns that they have today. and so that's how i feel. i feel that telling them, oh, you have to have training, that is a must. but not on these weapons of mass destruction. they need to be banned. host: are you still a teacher? caller: no, i'm retired.

host: and are you a parent or grandparent? are you talking to children about these recent events? caller: i am a parent and a grandparent. and as of yet, i have not had to talk to those -- to my children because my children are talking to their children. host: that's janice in california. the governor out of ohio is set, according to the dayton daily news this morning, is set to announce proposals today to deal with gun violence and mental health and the -- in the wake of sunday's mass shooting. it was on monday calling the president calling for congress to enact so-called red flag laws. the president host: it will be at 9:00 this morning that the governor will hold a press conference to talk about proposals. you can monitor that and see what the local government there or at least the state government there in dayton is taking on

this issue and how they're handling this issue. pennsylvania is next. halifax, pennsylvania. jim, hello. caller: good morning. thanks for hearing me. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: this is a problem. people go through circumstances in this country and they get down hard -- down-hearted and at their wit's end here. you know, i like to tell my kids , just like them people out there in chicago, new york, where there's 25 killings a day, that's disgusting. a lot of drugs, but i challenge, you know what, i challenge the people that are running this country to start getting along and stop influencing this violence. whether it's mr. trump or nancy pelosi, they're all guilty of t.

host: what's the message overall to kids then? what's the message to children about gun violence, particularly if you're a parent? caller: that this is a very cruel world that we live in, that you cannot -- you don't know what to expect in this world. .o be on your guard continually i'd like to see mr. trump put a tax or a fee on the entertainment industry, that they cannot afford to put out these violent games. my grandson plays these violent -- killing and this is a 12-year-old kid, this is disgusting. mr. trump, put a fee on them, the entertainment industry, that they cannot afford to put this crap out. social media, that we isolate ourselves and just dwell on our

problems. host: you have talked to your grandson or his parents about the video games? caller: they know about it. the boy is not -- he's not a bully, he's not in trouble all the time. but that influence desensitizes and the graphic danger just the death. them games desensitize us and they're ruining this country. mr. trump, please put them out of business. host: ok. let's hear from john in massachusetts. hello. caller: hi. this is john. i'd like to tell you, when i was a young boy, i'd go to church and early mass, and after the early mass i'd go home and get my shotgun with an over-under fire and i'd split it in half and then walk to the hardware

store, get my ammunition, and i'd go down to the dump and i would shoot cans, things of that nature. and then later in life, when i was 15, i became a camp counselor and i was with the bad kids, they called them. what they really were were kids from divorced families. they weren't bad kid. they were great kid. i think the real problem here is us. your callers, us voters, us americans. we haven't accepted the responsibilities of our own behavior. talking to children about firearms, which i have plenty of, and all seven of my sons and daughters have had them, and my 14 grandchildren are learning, except for the 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds, they all understand the value of a firearm, not to

kill people, but the power of it. it, the ute power of no-return if you fire it. so that when you fire a gun, it isn't how loud it is, how fast it goes, it's where the bullet ends up. and basic skills, basic common decency, basic human treatment, i don't think we'd be in this situation other than what the woman said earlier about the guns that are really crazy today, they have so many firing shots and all that. host: ok, ok. that's john in massachusetts. we'll hear from another resident of massachusetts. this is david. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for having me onboard. i do have children and grandchildren. i'm retired military and i am a permitted gun owner in the state of massachusetts.

good morning, sir, how are you? host: you're on. continue your thought. caller: all right. so -- and one of my children is very much involved with video game industry. i talked to him about, you know, it has a lot to do with mindset. what is acceptable, what's unacceptable. guns and gun of play has been with us for many, many years. with movies from hollywood. now it's taken the form of video games. now we have facebook and what not. thank can spot -- that can spot a conservative or republican organization in a second and shut them down. but there's no facebook and other social media organizations don't step in and try to have y conversation in these chat

rooms or whatever that mediate or somehow or another diffuse some of the discussion that's going on. some of these people that become more extreme, they forget that we have -- we have the ballot box versus the ammo box. host: ok. that's david in massachusetts. let's go to trina in new haven, connecticut. hi. caller: hello, how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you, go ahead. caller: ok. i think that violence is just in the forefront in everything that in the videos, and our children are exposed to it. and i think society overall has turned its head with the fact that violence is in the forefront. i remember years ago when i worked for r.k.o., in the communications department, where they used to have restrictions

on the type of things that would be aired for children to watch. and it's like everything's like no holds barred with everything now. parents have to be held accountable for making sure that their children, you know, abstain from filling up on those type things and we have to be stronger in saying, hey, industry, let's cut this stuff out. in addition to the fact that we need to have more gun laws. we don't really need guns. we need to teach each other how to love and respect one another as people across cultures. i think if we do more of that, it will be better for us all. i know i've taught my daughter and children how to embrace that. and i just wish more people would. host: again, with the 10 minutes or so that we have for parents only, how you're discussing gun

violence with kids, especially in light of the recent shootings. 202-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. president obama putting out a long statement on the events and as part of that statement he said this. there are indications that the el paso shooting follows a dangerous trend, troubled individuals who embrace racist ideologies and see themselves obligated to act violently to preserve white supremacy. we should reject host: again, if you go to president obama's twitter feed, the statement is there, if you want to read the complete statement for yourself. from virginia, this is danny.

caller: good morning. this past weekend my daughter's a teenager, she had a couple friends over. you could hear the liberal or you could hear the conservative coming out of them through their parents. i said, ok, if y'all really want to see what an a.r. can do, we took an ar-15, i have a 300 wind chester magnum, we went to the farm, we got 12 gallons of water, we got water melons and cinder blocks. they sit there and they could usethe 30 and 300 which you for hunting, blows the fire out of the cinderblocks, the watermelon, the water jugs. the 223, i'm not -- i was just making a point to them about the gun makes no difference. a gun's going to kill you whether it's a small one or a big one, a .22. so you can't listen about the guns. you have to -- it has to be

safety, it has to be mental health, it has to be rules and regulations. none of them shot the guns, i made sure that i called their parents and asked them if it was ok if we could go to the farm of i just wanted them to see the difference between the a.r., which is a .223, what everybody says is the military killer gun, and an actual gun that you shoot deer with that's twice as powerful. host: before you go, after you took them out and demonstrated that, what was their reaction? caller: they couldn't believe the damage that the .300, they couldn't believe the damage that it did, especially to the cinderblocks and that the .223, which is the ar-15, they couldn't believe that it did damage, but nowhere near the damage of the hunting rifles. so everybody that says, oh, it's -- these are killer rifles, we need to get rid of them, you should only have a hunting rifle, they need to realize, hunting rifles are twice as

strong as the ar-15's. so i don't know what the answer is, i wish i did, for heaven's sakes, because i would hate to be a parent of any of those kids or any of the adult -- anybody that was killed over the weekend. but people just need to learn that it's not the gun. it's the people. thank you. host: danny in virginia. we'll hear from michael if arizona next. go ahead. caller: yes. good evening, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i know that there's a very serious problem with congress passing some kind of gun control law. it's beennger is that proven to me by some couple of sheriffs and what have you that a gun law regulating the

possession of weapons, especially people that already mass hem, will not stop explosions of people in schools. that makes it -- sense to me. but what else makes sense to me we don't want to jump too quickly into saying, well, we want to check them for people for -- do we think they can safely have a gun in their possession or are they insane? i mean, we have to check their mental and whatever mental state is there that we can check to killer e're selling a weapon to protect a potential

killer. host: ok. thank you for that. david in alexandria, virginia. again, parents only, discussing these recent gun violence acts. david, good morning. caller: good morning. so i'm a native el pasoan and a homeland security expert who regularly teaches active shooting response and crisis management to kids in high school. we don't go out and we don't listen to children first to get their gauge on what they think about the situation. what their concerns are and issues are. we need them to drive the dialogue. much after like a columbine, where there was a lot of outrage towards -- where he was asked what he would say to the victims of columbine, he responded with, i wouldn't say anything, i would listen. the children of marjory stoneman douglas had to shout to be heard. i think when we're dealing with the psychological impact, ramifications and crisis in active shooting responses, we have to have honest and frank dialogue with children, but we need them -- we need to cage it

with an understanding of letting them know that they are safe, they are cared for, and what we're actively doing to prevent these kind of crimes and violence against our student as i cross the u.s. the unfortunate that we don't do enough listening to these children. because that's really where the heart of this matter lies, to get a better understanding of what a lot of these crimes are based on. host: how do i get that conversation going? do you say, what kind of do yo questions do you ask? caller: so, a lot of them are open-ended questions. not simple yes or no. do you understand why violence takes place or telling them this is specifically why it happens. but asking them, why do you think these events occur? what would you do different industry in what makes you feel safe, what kind of things do you need to have happen to make you feel safe in your environment? and we're not just coddling or responding to making them feel comfortable, but we're getting a better gauge for sometimes we don't understand how important it is to outsource these ideas. there's a lot of information and discoveries we're seeing, like with this kid who won the google prize for microplastics.

there's a lot of wonderful information from our children and students and we're not doing enough to engage them as stakeholders in this process. host: ok. bill is next. bill's in columbus, ohio. caller: i was just wanting to say it seems everyone wants to blame trump, but when obama was president he made a statement during a speech that they bring a knife, we bring a gun. he's encouraging gun violence with that speech. i don't understand why everybody wants to blame the right. host: the topic today is parents and talking to their children about gun violence. what are you saying to yours? caller: do i tell them that it's st not the right, it's the left. the guy in ohio was a big leftist. he was a left wing socialist. i think the right, it's not the guns. it's people that kill people. i own guns myself. as long as no one kicks in my door, they're never going to be shot.

it's just for self-protection. host: do you have children and talk to them about safety gun sloo -- gun safety issues? caller: i do. i have two daughters and they have young ones themselves. they teach their kids about it too. you have to watch your back in a dangerous borled -- world. host: we'll hear from marlin in ohio. last call on the topic. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. after hearing the subject for quite a while now and really thinking thoroughly over what the issue is, and then also pertaining, i'm also a mother, i see a lot of people that call in and what i really think began this problem, if you don't mind me saying for the next few minutes, is we started in the 1970's as the me generation. we created a very selfish society that has created so many problems with our children. i've only raised one child. i've never had these kind of problems, my son is an avid video gamer. he doesn't own a gun, he doesn't believe in owning a gun.

my point is, i did not raise a violent child. i raised him in a christian home. and what i want to say besides, that i don't want to even go into, that but what i want to say is, i've come to the conclusion that for people to straighten this problem out throughout the country, we've got to get to our educators. the last person you had on before that talked about education, this is critical in the schools. what we have to do is, as i've learned as a parent and going to a school board, you need to get to your school boards, you need to have trained licensed counselors and therapists go to the children's schools, start them at age six grade level, 10th grade level and sere yor year. what we need to do in this country is we need to teach our children through the schools, not the parenting, that these particular things that we do, we own guns, we drink alcohol, we smoke, we take opioids, we do drugs or we get involved in

other problems in society. if we teach our children the rights and responsibilities of all these problems that they learn as they become adults, because they're going through that big mind change when they're educated, we can start solving this problem with our children. we can get the counselors child. we can get the counselors to get the messages through. do not many parents stand that talking about gun safety is not the beginning of the problem. these kids go through so much problems in school from psychological to mental, to physical, all through their school years and a need to be harnessed and cultured to be given examples. host: thank you. we have to the segment now. thank you to all of who have called in the last hour. we will change topics, talk about the issue of health care for our next hour. dominated last week's

presidential debates, this idea of medicare for all versus the public option. joining us next, julie rovner to explain. later, washington journal will feature podcasters all week long at my clock. we will be joined by a producer for the new york times podcast called the daily. coming up, on washington journal. ♪ >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington d c and around the country.

in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of governments. >> the them has live coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates at the iowa state there starting thursday at 1:45 eastern, which steve a lot followed by joe biden. friday, we are live at 10:00 a.m. eastern with leon castro and -- julian castro and beto o'rourke. we are live with jay inslee, kamala harris, amy klobuchar, kirsten gillibrand, elizabeth warren, and cory booker. watch the presidential candidates live at the iowa state fair. watch anytime online at c-span.org or listen live from

wherever you are on the go, using the free c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: this is the chief washington correspondent for kaiser health news to talk about a theme that emerged from the debates. medicare for all versus public option. how would you decide those thinks? guest: medicare for all, which is what some democrats have been running on for years, would basically take the medicare program that is popular. it serves 60 million seniors and expanded to everyone. in practice, that is not what it would do. it would create a more generous program that might or might not be called medicare and extended to the entire population. is idea of medicare for all the government would pay the nation health bills. a public option would create a

government program like medicare, medicaid and make it more available. now you have to meet qualifications to get into the government health provided programs. a public option would make it easier for people to get into government paid health care. for democrats debating of the issues, why are they firmly at the getting for these positions? what is wrong with the current system? guest: everyone agrees the current system is not working. people are paying too much. most people have insurance but a substantial number do not. people who do have insurance literally cannot afford to use their insurance because they have multithousand dollar deductibles. everyone agrees we need to fix what is broken. democrats agree everyone should have health care, that health care should be a basic rights. how you get there is the debate

and whether you do it in all one fell swoop like medicare for all, single-payer or gradually with the public option or whether you give people the choice of keeping their private insurance if they like it or going on a government plan. that is what the democrats are debating. guest: how my test -- host: how are my concerns? guest: you can be put out of business. it is hard to imagine there will not be some role for private insurance, even as the administrator, that a lot of large companies now, they self-insure but higher insurance companies to administer benefits. private companies administer medicare and i am not talking about medicare advantage. i am talking about service medicare. most of those bills are managed by private insurance companies. private insurance companies are washing this with rate wariness -- great where a mess.

-- wariness. providers are watching with more panic. providers say they can afford to take medicare now because private insurance pays them more . private insurance were to go away in large part, they would repave -- be paid less. host: we will talk on other themes ursus the public option. if you want to ask questions about it, we divided the lines differently. if you receive insurance through the aca, (202) 748-8000. for those who get insurance through employers, (202) 748-8001. if your uninsured, (202) 748-8002. the current medicare system as it stands, does it have the ability to admit all of these potential people? guest: the current program is in financial distress because we

have got 10,000 baby boomers a day who are qualified fifth for medicare. baby boomers are still young in their low spending days as far as medicare. something has to be done to shore up medicare financing going forward. people --except for they could but it would have to be some kind of new financing. supporters just what supporters are calling medicare for all is not medicare. it might be a brand-new program that the people on medicare would go into the people on medicare would get extra benefits. there is a lot of things not completely ironed out. host: you talked about new proposals being more generous. how generous and who is making these proposals? guest: according to bernie sanders, who has been pushing medicare for all since 1993, probably before that.

cosponsor.wer level under his proposal, people would not have to pay anything out-of-pocket. there will be no copayments. people on medicare now has to pay. in exchange, you would finance the bills through increased taxes. his argument is everyone would save money. that is probably not the case. juste who do not consume consume little or no health care -- and in any given year there is a lot of those people -- they would have insurance or it when their time came to have help expenditures, they would be covered. it's hard to know. and so you know what is going to be covered and what is paid, you have no idea how much it is going to cost. host: how do the candidates and their proposals still with rings like dental and eye glasses -- deal with things like dental and

eye glasses? guest: those are things that are missing largely from the basic medicare package. things like dental and eye coverage and foot care, things that are medical but not part of the medicare package. until 2003 prescription drugs were not part of the medicare package. under the proposal of medicare for all, everything would be paid. there is a health bill and senate bill and one in long-term care would also be paid. that is a huge threshold decision that would have to be made if and when coverage gets around. we saw kamala harris introduced her version of this. what of the main features and how is it different from the others? guest: it is an interesting hybrid. she would have medicare for all and it would be a lot like the current medicare program and

that you could choose to go into fiserv serve -- plan. you could go into what is currently called medicare advantage, which is managed care and it generally offers more benefits. in exchange you give up the chores of doctors and hospitals. you choose from a network. this popular because of extra benefits and it covers out-of-pocket cost that medicare does not. a third of medicare beneficiaries are in medicare advantage. you could choose the public plan of the private version of the public plan. is not entirely clear but it looks like provider insurance -- employer insurance would go away under kamala harris' plan. you talked about these

proposals since 1993. let's say a democrat does win. what is the potential as far as making these plans reality? guest: anyone who covered the affordable care act knows it was not easy. the democrats had 60 votes in the senate in 2009. it was still hanging by a thread. it almost collapsed any number of times. this, much more dramatic, you would need to get rid of the filibuster have 60 votes. you would need to balance the needs of the conservative string -- swing district -- all the things we're seeing now on capitol hill. it would not be easy. for those who think, oh it is ok if we elected democratic president and senate, this is going to happen. you're going to get a debate. what is going to happen from the debate? guest: this is our first caller. this is jim and missouri.

you are on with julie rovner. caller: good morning. like most people, i get my health and science -- insurance from my employer until i was hired -- fired at the age of 58. i am in favor of medicare for all. the way i would finance it would be to take the thousand dollar a month premium that my employer put towards my insurance, pay $500 and a new tax to finance the medicare. the other $500 goes in my pocket. to me that is a win-win. a new tax that would be painless. private insurance through the yearabout $16,000 a provided by the government.

no out-of-pocket costs. to thenot taken -- spin doctor for years. i have no plans on going to the doctor. if you want to keep your health care cost down, avoid doctors. there is the argument that if the government were to start paying for health care ,ather than private insurance many private insurance companies there isofit but profit in the insurance industry for sure and the ideas that if supplyrs did not have to insurance and more, some of that money could go back to the workers in higher wages and it could. most people, 180 million people, have employer-provided insurance but employers are different in how much of that they pay for. most of them pay for a substantial part but some employers do not pay for much. those people would save money with increased packets -- taxes.

people who pay a lot of that portion and if they are making a good salary might pay more in they do not use the health care system much would not use. it is always about trade-offs. everyone will be affected differently. host: there is a new taxing system to finance this. the middle class would be hit with the tax. if it is as generous as bernie sanders would like, it is impossible to finance it without having that tax go down to middle classes. his argument is everyone would be better off. many people would. some people would not. we learned this with the affordable care act. notfew people who were screamed really loud. you would expect the same under medicare for all. that is where the candidates are hedging their bets. they do not want to disrupt people's coverage if they like

it. nobody loves their insurance company but if people are afraid of change and sometimes their promised change would be better, and sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. this is from texas, john. caller: thanks for discussing this serious issue. one of the ways we could lower a --ost of insurance, is a asa. i am getting a serious discount. it gives us more control over spending. medicare for all is not about health insurance. about control. once the government has control over your health care, we are no longer a democracy. we are a communist country. what bernie wants to do is illuminate all options and control everything we have to do and no one in their right mind would hand over the health of their family to the government.

it would be insane. thank you. thet: hsa's are something republicans have been pushing hard. -- triple taxl preferred savings vehicle. you do not pay taxes going in, coming out. you pay taxes on what it earns. if you have enough money to fund your hsa and have few enough medical bills that your hsa will cover it, it is a great thing. a lot of people like them. there are difficulties. if you have an issue, you can negotiate. you can usually get a discount. if you pay cash, you do not have to go through an insurance company but it is hard to know how much things cost. that is something that compass working on that is bipartisan -- more transparency in prices of health care. sometimes if you call, a

provider will not be able to tell you. they literally don't know until bills get processed. hsa. are issues with host: the family foundation did a poll. in favor, 51 percent, opposing 42%. in july, a health-care care plan among democrats that 72% of supports, republicans 15%. what is meant by single-payer and what do these numbers suggest? guest: one thing is support for medicare for all is shifting. it sounds great. everybody likes medicare. it is already socialist. the government is paying for seniors health care. it is very popular. when you tell the public you can have medicare and not wait until you're 65, they say great. it means or taxes might go up.

then support starts to drop. it means the government will decide what benefits you get in support drops. we are at the stage of the debate where the terms are being defined. what is interesting is if you read into these polls is not just what the top lines is about support that what it says when you say, what if x, y, z and you see where the real support is. democrats are more in favor of government run, government paid health care. republicans are in favor of more and that has been the fight. host: these discussions about expansion, a lot appoint the veterans administration. -- are theions cautions of that type of service? guest: medicare is not a government run system in that

the providers are all private based. the government pays their bills. the v.a. is like the british national health system where the health care professionals are employed by the government. nationalized system. of privatefair bit insurance in england so while this discussion of, we are going to get rid of private insurance entirely -- there is not a single country that has no role for private insurance. the v.a. is more like the national health service. our system is malik canada's canada's more like system in that the government pays the bills but the health care providers are not government. host: are there cautionary tales from canada? guest: there are some. if you go to canada, most like their health care system. but there are sometimes waiting lines for things and people come to the united states to get care if they do not want to wait come up with hillary -- particularly

for elective care. people for canada by drugs because they are cheaper there. this is ron from new hampshire -- host: this is ron from new hampshire. caller: i love this show. you are great. should mention i did call on the wrong line. i do not have insurance. i did have a ca but i no longer do. i have a couple cap who -- questions. the middle class is shrinking as forest taxes. in the middle class are not happy. the rich pay little or no taxes. the ultrarich pay zero in taxes. the poor do not pay met -- much in taxes. that leaves the onerous on the middle class, which is making things difficult on the middle

class. if in thise to know next election cycle, we will see the republicans -- for the last 15 years, trying to get rid of the aca if they are going to defend it now and defend it against medicare for all, which is what the democrats are looking for. and i have to say, i do not believe medicare for all and medical help for our general masses in this country is going to destroy our democracy. i do not see it as socialism. i see it as a socialist program. we need some of those to tamper some of the wealth that the upper echelon is amassing. sorry to cut you there but

you put a lot there. asst: medicare is known social insurance. they are pretty popular, whether socialist. they were called socialist at the time they were created. fdr wanted to health care and did not think he could get through congress. none of these things are new. the colors right about the middle class being unhappy. both parties want to help the middle class. as to what the republicans will do, what is interesting is there is a court case going on that was argued at the federal euros -- appeals court in new orleans that could limit the desolate entirely.ca the republicans are scrambling to come up with a plan b. house is trying to put together a health plan even as we speak although it is not clear what would begin it. he would not be via for the correct but they say they would

continue to protect people with pre-existing conditions. that is the most popular piece of the affordable care act and that would go away if this lawsuit prevails. it says congress a limited tax for people who do not have health insurance as part of the tax bill in 2017. that renders the entire health unconstitutional and most lawyers on both sides of the issue say that is a dubious claim. it was that lower court judge that found it to be the case and during the oral arguments, two of the three judges seemed sympathetic to that. it may well be back before the supreme court, possibly as early as next year. how do pre-existing conditions fit into those plants? actt: the board will care still are protected. one of the big questions among the presidential candidates is do you build on the affordable care act? joe biden wants to do that. his plan would take the affordable care act and expanded.

-- expand it. take away the threshold. --rybody would get out of toss it and start over. that is the crux of the democratic debate. in their island, go ahead. i am a 41-year-old african-american single woman with three children and we have been on medicaid for 15 years. sucksy i see it, medicare . i understand from talks about that and people understand. .heir customer service sucks if you want to get treatment, you have to be careful how you go into that. i do not know what the argument is about because the service sucks anyway.

thaty seems to trust service. as a single mother who has been dependent on this, i have had a hard time. i made myself sick trying to find out how to get an appointment. they do not take appointments. they do not treat for dental care. they do not do anything besides treat people like guinea pigs, especially black women. who cares about medicaid for all? it comes to a time where you have to say, there is a major emergency. you get into a car accident or whatever, but on a regular trying to get treatment on a regular basis? they do not care about nobody. host: you major points. i think cullison medicaid, not medicare. health system is bureaucratic and difficult to navigate and can be difficult. a lot of people with private insurance who have the same feeling about the health care system -- it is a fair point.

medicaid is supposed to cover all the things the color is talking about and it does cover but it can be difficult to get. this is a more fundamental problem with -- part of it is because we have a multi-payer health care system. there are some new layers of bureaucracy. if the public sector takes over the entire thing, it will get worse. there are people who think if we get the private insurance out of it, there are people on both sides. getting2 americans health care through their jobs. their average premiums, 600 $96 for single coverage, 19,000 dollars for family coverage. average, workers contributing 18% for the premium of civil coverage. 85% of workers having an annual deductible for single coverage. for single coverage, 1573

dollars. how do those calls change under proposals? ultimately, no one pays out in a cast to get services? that is the ideal. guest: those big numbers -- that is not how much insurance costs. that is how much the average private insurance costs. the workers pay a percentage of that, usually a small percentage on average a very is. some employers are generous and premium.very little or they pay some premium but leave large deductibles and coinsurance for people to pay when they use the system. it depends. it is not how the system is structured. how much providers get paid. in the united states, we do not use that much more health care than our competitors and other industrialized nations but we pay more for the care we use.

our prices are higher than most other countries. as i mentioned, providers are concerned about having their pay cut. how much of that they could -- would close their doors and how much of that they like getting paid a lot. have to bere things straightened out. the buttigieg endorses medicare for all who wanted. guest: that is another word for the public option. there is medicare for all -- there are variations on expending a medicare like program to more people. some people are talking about medicaid for all. there are different ways to do this but it is basically saying, they do not want to take anybody's insurance away. remember back to the failed clinton health can -- plan. louiseusly had harry and

commercials from the insurance industry sitting around their kitchen table worrying about losing their employer-provided insurance. this is the irony. people do not love the insurance industry but they do not want to have it taken away. of these more gradual programs would give people a choice. if they could see the public plan is better, maybe we should move to that, then it would happen more as an evolution than a revolution. that is the debate sorting itself out. host: let's show you some of that with congressman john delaney and bernie sanders talking about their ideas. [video clip] health care for free. we do not have to be the party of subtraction and telling half the country that their health insurance is illegal. my dad loved the health care he got. he would never want someone to

take that away. half of medicare beneficiaries have medicare advantage, which is private insurance or supplemental plans. it is also bad policy. it will underfund the industry and it is bad. >> let me go to senator sanders now. >> the fact of the matter is loseof millions of people their health insurance every year when they change jobs, when their employer changes that insurance. if you want stability in the health care system, if you want a system which gives you freedom systemce, which is a which will not bankrupt you, the answer is to get rid of the drug companies and insurance companies and have medicare for all. host: when bernie sanders uses that word, stability, can you paint that in? guest: they are both right and wrong. they are both over talking

event, which is what candidates do. john delaney backed off his earlier claim that every hospital would close under medicare for all. he is just saying medicare -- many hospitals would close. senator sanders is correct that people will lose their insurance when they change jobs. that is true. it is a matter of which do you prefer and what are you more worried about? are you worried about profiteering in the health care industry? a you worried about the government determining what benefits you get? who do you distrust the least? host: charlotte, from texas, high. caller: i want to know why medicare for all? people that work pay into it. medicaid is freebies. if you really want medicare, you have to pay the premium that you

have to pay every month. the premium that you have to pay every month goes to supplemental insurance and a premium for drugs. he speaks about the advantage. most do not want to take it. how medicare, which is really medicaid, for all is a great deal. first of all, it is not medicare. medicaid you are talking about. they call it medicare for all because medicare is popular. people know what it is. the caller is correct. medicare has a lot of cost-sharing for its patience and people do pay. you pay the medicare tax -- what is withheld from your paycheck you sent to the government. there is a tax for part a of medicare. you get when you become eligible

that for free. there is a premium for part b and there is a premium if you have a stand-alone prescription to them. sometimes there is a premium if you going to medicare advantage. the medicare advantage straight off, you get more benefits and fewer out-of-pocket cost's. you do not get to every doctor or hospital. that is the way medicare is that appear that is not the way medicare for all would be set up. it is not really medicaid because medicaid is shared with the state. medicaid is a different kind of program. you could do medicaid for all and there is talk of that because the medicaid benefit packages much wider and there is less cost sharing because it is for people who do not have a lot of money so they cannot afford to help pay costs. there are variations in how you do this. i agree. it is confusing to call it medicare for all because they stumble over themselves. it is not medicare. host: how do proposals treat prescription drugs? guest: they would be covered in

the public option. the idea of freestanding medicare prescription drug plans, because it was the republican congress and republican president in 2003, that put the doctrine together and they wanted a role for private insurance, so they created these prescription only drug plans. the administration announcing efforts to import drugs from canada, can you sketch out what that proposal is and how does the canadian government do that proposal? guest: they are not thrilled. there are 37 million people in canada, smaller than california. there are not enough drugs in canada to provide the drugs for the united states. what it is doing is not supporting canadian drugs as -- supporting price controls. that is why drugs are cheaper in canada and other places. the government says we are not going to let you make big profits.

the and i states is the him the country where the companies can charge what they want. you have people traveling to canada to get going over the border and getting cheaper drugs. that works. if you can go to canada and save money on drugs and have a prescription and bring them back and border patrol will let you bring them back -- you obviously cannot bring large master resell and what the trump administration is looking at is some states and pharmacies, bring back drugs at their lower prices and sell them. it is not clear how would work. theould not cover most of expensive drugs and to would only work if it stayed small. it is not a long-term solution for drug prices and for everybody. it does allow the trump administration to say we will let you buy cheaper drugs from canada. host: stan in gainesville,

virginia. caller: good morning. i could talk an hour on this. the couple of things -- when people call in and say going to a universal health care system andedicaid for all, communism meant whatever it is, if that is the case then we have to declare israel and japan and canada and germany and all those countries communist countries. they all have universal health care. we are the oddball. when we're talking about the my costlook at individually. does the highest estimated that 10% taxes. w-2'sook at line 12 on my says how much my employer pays as a benefit that i never received. towards myg is paid the personurance,

can be quite higher. that is paid to the insurance company on my behalf. that money moves over to me as payments buthad my i also paid towards my health insurance. when you combine that amounts, i get paidsonally -- $70,000 a year. income,k at 10% of my people in $23,000 a year, that would imply that i am making $230,000. which is well above my future employment pay. when we look at the amount of money that i would actually be paying, if they write the bill in such a way that that money

would go to the insurance company comes to me as income, most people, not making over $150,000 would probably benefit greatly and those people paying private insurance will start seeing their fellow employees making $10,000 more a year. host: thank you. big if, if is a employers stop providing insurance put that money into wages instead. i am not aware. i do not know that congress can guarantee that. the amount that employers pay towards health insurance changes every year. there would be winners. there would be a lot of people who would pay a lot less. there it be some people who would pay more. that getse part brushed aside. also, it is individual. everyone has to look at their own paycheck and figure out what

is good for them. it is the president's job to figure out the solution to help most people. it is unrealistic to say everybody would be helped by anybody's plan. host: from tennessee, this is richard. caller: good morning. thank you for the conversation. it is informative for me the visible reason, my daughter enrolled in medical school. she is looking in the neighborhood of $250,000 to $300,000 in school cost. i look at this as medicare for all and everything is free. you are going to have a lot of .onsumers of medical care either going to be enough provide medical care? and theyat is a good question. there was concern monday affordable care act past there would be a shortage of health care professionals. one title of the affordable care

wenthat nobody talks about towards helping train more health professionals, not to stock is nurse practitioners and whoand other professionals can provide primary care to winter there were not be a shortage. 20 million people got insurance as a result of the affordable care act and there are issues with shortages in general but the affordable care act self does not create a shortage of medicare professionals. that is an issue -- the debt that medical professionals, not doctors but again health care professionals incur. that is one of the reasons they charge high prices. they have a norma's loans to pay off. there is a move towards trying to make health professionals school less expensive or tuition free. loan repayments, you can go and

the government will help you pay off your loans. those types of things can be expanded. you giveissue if everybody health insurance coverage and that the caller pointed out, make things free so people will use more health care. you'll get people who needed care who cannot get it before getting it or you might get a necessary care. that will be an issue. host: have you heard formal responses -- doctors, nurses, medicare for all public options? guest: the health care industry in general is not a fan of medicare for all. the association killed every proposal to expand health insurance. against, they fight its. they did not win. the affordable care act they did come into the fold -- negotiated with the health care industry because the sick -- the decision

was made you cannot fight the health care industry so you better get them on board. julie rovner talking about medicare for all and public option proposals, darrell from new brunswick. hello. caller: hello. i have a question about public option. i want to find out if i have private insurance, and i get sick and cannot work and therefore cannot my premium, what kind of health insurance what i have? guest: that was the idea of the affordable care act. you no longer have a job. for whatever reason, you will by insurance through the government. now you get a government subsidy but those are private plans under most of the public options being proposed. you would be able to go out. you could buy new insurance. plan, whatever is

best for you. host: from newark, new jersey, james. .aller: hi what bernie sanders is proposing, i am not going to take. i am not rich. i pay nothing when i go to the doctor. is.edical doctor, that because my health care takes care of me, physical eight. so, at the same time the work paid nothing at all. wiest do that in the 70's. remember? in this country.

thank you. thet: it is not so much company that provides the insurance. the type of insurance you have. some people are happy with their private insurance. that is one of the reasons we are debating medicare for all versus the public options. it seems like any candidates, the largest hurdle they may have his winning of the public were the idea of what they want change. guest: is important to have the debate. everybody is frustrated with the health care system. maybe not this caller. it is not functioning well. we are spending an increasing andnt of gdp as a society not necessarily getting the returns we would. we are way down the list. we are spending a lot of money and getting a lot of value.

everybody agrees me to do something about it. what is it that we as a society want to do? our system, how to sick that other systems and what of a doing better? guest: almost everything. a lot of our trade competitors do but to have universal health insurance. it is run by the government so they pay a tax but at least it doesn't fluctuate. there is more stability in those other countries. they control the prices. health care of hospitals and doctors, where they do that. some do a better job than others. depends where you live. if there is a single hospital system and the insurers have to take it or if there is a single insurer in the hospital has to take it, so there is difficulty in different parts of the country. if we rationalize it, some people like going to be

dislocated. they are going to complain. there a system that relates well to the united states versus the number of people? and why they do it well? guest: what we are bigger than most of the other countries. there are systems in europe that do it well. you can think of them if not communists than socialists. i spent some time in switzerland, which is fairly similar. it has an individual mandate. people have to buy private insurance and private insurance in switzerland is expensive. it took me a lot of figure out why do people like it so much. they paid high taxes in switzerland and it covers everything else. they do not have medical school if they go to medical school. they have paisley. they do not have to save for college. save forot have to

retirement. all these other expensive things that the american middle class a story about, they only have to pay for their health insurance. host: scott in georgia, hello. caller: i am an insurance broker. i have been in the business 20 years. in south georgia when we had had three or 45 insurance companies to pick from for health insurance. post apa, service for individual , you do not have competition. when you do not have competition , it does not give you a lot of choices. another thing to come in on, i have noticed how politicians speed up the insurance companies and it is always the insurance companies fault. ultimately, the providers are the ones making the money. you never are politicians question the providers themselves. withworking with a system

the providers. they are trying to pay. host: thanks. guest: yeah. this dates back to the clinton health plan. it was the insurance companies and drug companies who were the big enemies. everybody else was getting off and the caller is correct. the money is openly being made by providers. there are people skimming through it as it goes through, which is another issue. biggest hospitals make an enormous amount of money and they set the prices for the most are in a mosttals

every congressional district. hospitals are important. you need a hospital. this is the issue here. get the price and it is hard to get the price. host: and the hospitals in the congressional districts, i how -- consider this issue. that's good -- go to south carolina. david, good morning. caller: good morning. i am 65. it was kaiser permanente and richard nixon that enabled the aberration and health care that we have in this country. she is going to say not connected with the kaiser family was connected. the republicans in my lifetime have always been for the few, not the many. a were always for the bosses,

not the workers. they are for insurance companies as much as the right wing democrats are. they bought and sold. they followed the money. the profit between insurance companies and big pharma are nothing but late -- blatant usery. as far as the middleman, i do not want the government between me and my doctor. i would rather have a government i could vote out than a ceo of a corporation that can just take me for has much as he could get. guest: that is the debate. as i said, with 20 distrust least -- which one do you distrust least? host: from livingston in massachusetts, hi. caller: good morning. my questions are, what appropriation is covered or private insurance?

what is covered by the insurance company? generally, the is currents companies are the ones -- the insurance companies are the ones that decide the service. and the insurance company on the covert mostly company with a lot of employers, employees. most people as an individual cannot afford insurance. they do not cover individuals. cannot afford it. guest: the affordable care act -- theyrance company kept the percentage of profits. if that percentage goes up, that percentage could be a larger or smaller number.

that could be a big concern. it is hard to say how much the people had predators. there are a lot of people in medicare with government insurance who has a private plan. there are people in medicaid on private insurance that is contracted with the government to provide the care and there are the 150 to 180 million people who have employee provided insurance. the gentleman who loved these insurance companies, he loved that insurance. that company provides different toues at different rates different employers and segments of the market. we definitely have a hybrid system now, government and private. which one would you like to squeeze out and which would you like more of? host: a lot of questions about his health care programs -- what should have been asked or what was not asked that you thought was important to ask of these candidates? guest: i feel like there were a

lot of issues that went untouched. they did not talk much about drug prices. that is a huge issue. they did top -- not talk much about the opioid academic -- epidemic. there was one brief mention of mental health, which is an issue this week. they were a lot of things that did not happen. really wish somebody would ask more about the trade-off. the public versus private and would you rather vote that your congressman than not having any control over this. the ceo that you cannot reach. those acre issues -- a lot of the candidates got stuck in the weeds of their own plan rather than looking at the bigger picture of -- how do we want to provide health care as a society? host: from buck in north carolina, go ahead. caller: yes.

my situation is complicated. i am retired on disability several years ago. . have medicare i have private insurance from my employer. medicare sets what the doctors are paid and since i have gotten on medicare, the doctors get a lot less than what they did when i just had the private insurance , but my calls to month was just over $100. my private insurances about $250 a month. the leaking a have to pay for when i go to the hospital -- i am lucky i live in durham, north carolina. i do not pay anything when i go to the hospital. the other thing i pay out-of-pocket is my premium. i pay a toll payment from my medication. most of those are $10, except for the specialty drugs i take

which are $90 but that is for a 90 day supply. that works perfectly for me and i do not know why a system like that could not be implemented for everybody. it just seems like it is a win-win situation. everybody gets medicare once they retire and medicare sets the rates now. and it is usually a lot less than what my private insurance -- your private insurance paid up until you get the medicare. i do not know how the hospital is staying different. in the hospital for two months and major surgery, and i did not have to say anything. host: thanks. guest: somebody had to pay something and that is the argument it tends to go towards. private insurance pays more or if you are uninsured, you can see films. the cost gets moved around. the argument that it is great for me so it should be great for everybody best providers say we

cannot afford to do that for everybody. we can do it for this subset of people, but if this subset does not pay anything, then some subset of people has to pay with that person didn't. at what point is it sustainable for the health-care system that is the balance we have to find? been a years and the trump administration allowed rules to expand skinny health-care plans. what are they and what is the result of that in the expansion? big in the obama administration. the idea of short-term plans is if you are between jobs or a college student graduating and needs before they get a job, they need to talk for a couple months. they tend not to be very generous. they do not cover a lot of things. they can still not sell you based on pre-existing conditions

. they cannot cover pre-existing conditions. they are not compliant with you for the care act requirement. the obama administration limited them to three months. they were concerned people were buying them instead of dance. be trump administration reversed that. lasty these plans and they as long as 364 days. there is a concern people would be rushing to buy these plans instead of compliant plans. it has happened in some places. it happened a lot but we are starting to see stories of people who bought this insurance thinking it was real and they got sick and discovers nothing was covered. there is that part of it. it is not as disruptive. there are a lot of things going on. the insurance market has proven to be more stable. out -- signed up last year, find out the year

before. there has been a little bit of impact but not a lot. host: from massachusetts, catherine. caller: hello. i will try to make this brief. it is compensated. i was injured in may. i fell and hurt my right arm. with an elbow. since then, now it is august. i still have nothing is get my wrist x rate. i have cross. i pay single-payer $790 must. no copayment. i have to pay at least $2700 before they will even allow me to pay on the fifth dollars for a visit. since then i have had primary in july. that is the first time i could be seen. the orthopedic did not want to

.o with my wrist now i am told i have to go back to the orthopedic to have another x-ray on my wrist. when i questioned said, i was told because of the , required that i be saved for one body part at a time. i am paying for the full visit and i am up to five office visits and x-rays. had got to the emergency room when i fell, it would have cost me $1000 that would not apply to might do a bull. -- is making me go back. why couldn't i have been saved by the orthopedics for my wrist? our system does not function well. i hear these stories everyday

with hear them with people private insurance and public insurance. few people who- think the system is functioning well for them. that is where we are debating. host: the medicare for all proposal -- what should people pay attention to as these debates go on, as best guest: what they think a system would look like that would be fair that would work for them. this question of how realistic want, do we as a society to throw everything up in the air and start over again? maybe we do. maybe we want something more gradual. every system will have its trade-offs. some things will be better and some things will be more difficult. you will have to decide as a boat or what appeals to you. -- as a voter what appeals to

you. host: julie rovner of kaiser health news. today, we will hear from rachel quester with "the new york times ." they produce a podcast called "the daily." we will talk with her, next. ♪ >> c-span has live coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates at the iowa state fair. starting thursday with montana governor steve boyd, followed by joe biden. castrolive with julian and later, beto o'rourke. on saturday, we are live at 10:00 a.m. eastern with jay inslee, kamala harris, amy klobuchar, elizabeth warren,

kirsten gillibrand and cory booker. watch the 2020 presidential candidates live at the iowa state fair on c-span, www.c-span.org, or listen live on the go using the free c-span radio app. if you want more information on members of congress, o order c-span's congressional directory on www.c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we've been featuring political podcasters all week on "washington journal." yesterday, it started with larry o'connor, the host of "examining politics" from "the washington examiner." tomorrow, the host of "the global dispatch" podcast.

"i will tell you what" and then "congressional dish." ay, joining us is rachel quester with "the daily" from "the new york times." tell us why "the new york times" decided to go this route. born outhe daily" was of the question of trying to understand this moment. it launched in february 2017. maybe as journalists, we hadn't understood the country. to create a product that would explore the expertise of our reporters to really understand this moment. the show relies on new york times journalists to help us understand the news of the day, to go deep and understand the

context behind the headlines. that is the genesis of it. hearing from voices across the country to really understand the news and the moment we are in. host: expand that idea of understanding the country, understanding the moment. what are the questions that made you think we weren't understanding it enough? guest: i joined "the daily" two months and. i wasn't here for the very beginning of it. coming out of the election, maybe we didn't understand how the country was feeling, different perspectives. voices, hear from those not necessarily reading it and print, hearing from people on the ground and understanding the different

perspectives that people had, the different issues and concerns, and bringing that to life in an audio form. understanding where the country is, understanding the news and how people are interpreting it, how they are reacting to it. we really wanted to lean into the times journalism and expertise. leading into that to really get of new york and you see and hear from people in the country. new york and d see and hear from the people in the country and hearrk and d.c. from the people in the country. we feel an obligation to our listeners that if you are seeing news alerts, seeing things popping up, they want to understand what the big story of the day is. that's what really drives us.

we have a mission to explain the big headlines and what's going on. what is the big talker? what can we contribute? what can we provide context to? that is leaning on the expertise of new york times journalists to understand the news driving the day. host: how do you produce a podcast? podcast? is there a is it monday through friday, all week long? guest: it is monday through friday. we are up every morning by 6:00 a.m. it's about 20-30 minutes in length. host: rachel quester joining us as part of our podcasters series. it want to ask her a question about "the daily," give us a call. 02-748-8000 for

democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. taken uphis podcast the issue of the mass shootings -- what are you hearing? guest: this is not the first mass shooting we've had to cover on the show. we've been trying to figure out what is the context, what is the information we can provide? for the particular shooting in el paso, we decided to take a look at the location of where this happened. onspoke with our reporters the ground in el paso trying to figure out the story there. we spoke to a reporter who was doing some -- was looking into why this shooter potentially chose this walmart, the specific

location, the people who shop there. there's a lot of people coming across the border to shop there. they were doing back to school shopping. we thought it was important to understand that particular location and white was maybe chosen -- and why it was maybe chosen. trying to put some context around this tragedy. reporterso one of our following beto o'rourke on the campaign trail. she had been with him in nevada. their trip was diverted to el paso. she noticed this couple that approached him, the husband was speaking with him -- she eventually turned to them both and it turned out that they were parents of a parkland shooting --tim, walking all of our

joaquin oliver. that allowed us to encapsulate this unbelievable moment and coincidence where the family who had been affected by a mass shooting again found themselves forl paso for walking -- joaquin's 19th birthday. when moments like these have back andtake a step think ok, what is the greater here, here, what is happening that we can explain to our listeners this moment? our journalists are on the ground somewhere like el paso. they can encapsulate the feeling on the ground there, the response. what is the second day story we can tell? how can we continue to provide

context and useful information? that happens to be one of our tech correspondence who spoke to correspondents who spoke n, the founder of 8cha understanding parts of the internet where this is fueled. what is the first day story? understanding what happened. then taking a step back and looking at the larger institutions or structures in place that can potentially help us understand how something like this was fueled. we like to say that nothing happens in a vacuum. what are the larger structures and systems in play that can lead to something like this? host: how do you suspect your podcast will treat the politics of this situation as the discussions of gun control go forward? storytellers are

journalists. how are they thinking about this, what are they hearing? country andow the our leaders are looking at this moment, how they are talking about it. we like to step back and provide some historical context. is there a way to talk about this historically? what are the politics of it we can dive into? ouring on the expertise of reporters who are on the front lines of figuring this out. host: will your coverage of these recent incidences differ from previous shootings? guest: i think this one is different in that the specific location that was chosen, we can look to that to see, ok, what were the motivations here, what is the larger issue at play?

every mass shooting, we are covering what happened and the victims. this one in particular, it was looking at what we could see as the shooter's potential motivations here. andave to take a step back look at the systems in place that allow this to happen. when thee for the show las vegas shooting happened in october of 2017. after the initial coverage of that, we took a step back to look at the different playbooks of how various organizations respond to something like a mass shooting. we looked at the nra playbook to see how they respond. something we find useful, looking at that historical context, how people have talked about these things in the past, to provide a framework going forward to better understand what is happening when something

like this occurs. 202-748-8001 fpr -- 202-748-8001 for-800 republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8002 for independents. politics,mes to 2020 what have you learned so far about the 2020 political field and what you want to communicate to your listeners? guest: what we are trying to understand is that obviously the focus is on the democratic primary and the democratic party is going this -- undergoing this internal debate.

does it embrace policies like medicare for all or the green new deal or does it not and does it backtrack from that? what we've been trying to understand is that is a debate in the party right now. incident last week where one of the political reporters had interviewed kamala harris. we think it's important to hear from the candidates themselves so they can explain their positions. that will include us relying on our reporters talking to voters and seeing how they are thinking about the field right now. what we are trying to do is to humanize this debate right now within the party and understand the different demands that the party is trying to deal with and how it wants to present itself in the general election. we are in the primary right now so that debate is the fundamental question right now

for the party. we are trying to understand the candidates, what they represent within the party, relying on our reporters talking to voters and seeing what voters want and seeing what direction they want the party to go. host: what did you learn from producing the podcast on narrowing the debate field? guest: it was a fascinating look -- there's a way to talk about debate right after it happens. we try to provide the larger context of what's happening. you look at that debate stage, it's two nights, there's a lot of candidates. how did that happen? what did ultimately lead to? demands put on the candidates themselves, how that can inform their response to what we are seeing.

we want to provide framework, we want to provide context. framework forhis me to look at the debate stage, understanding what is happening there and why the responses are the way they are. that is beneficial, not just hearing what the thoughts are immediately afterwards but a framework going forward for ultimately how the voters decide on who the democratic nominee will be. host: mary in montana. ofr up with rachel quester "the daily" podcast. caller: i noticed in your recent podcast, there were a lot of episodes focused on domestic issues. i wonder what international reporting is done with the podcast. that can transform people's lives. host: do you listen to the

podcast daily? regularly, but i sometimes listen to the podcast. host: go ahead. guest: thank you so much. we've been thinking a lot about our international coverage. what really drives the show is the big news of the day. often, that does tend to be what happens in the united states. we need to recognize what happens around the world. entireths ago, we had an week devoted to the rise of populism in europe. we believe it's really important for our listeners to understand what's happening globally and how we can look at that and understand what's happening in europe and how that affects our country as well. "the new york times" has reporters all over the world. that's a great resource for us to tap into and find out what those stories are internationally.

that is something we are striving for more and more. it is so important. looking to your point about economics, understanding the economic situations in italy or .rance or germany host: recent episodes from the the economybsite, is booming, or is it? what is kamala harris stand for -- what does kamala harris stand for? guest: it is really the news that is driving the day. you mentioned the economic episode. we knew that the fed was going to be lowering the interest rate for the first time in 10 years. that's one of those stories you see on your tv screen or you get an alert on your phone, if

we have questions about it, we are wondering, maybe our listeners do, too. to editors come together discuss the stories in the paper that they. that allows us to tap into what this larger institution is thinking about. this is my burning question this to discuss themorning. this is what i don't understand and i need to figure that out. if we are feeling that way, we are hoping that our listeners feel that way. when you wake up in the morning and turn on "the daily," you better understand the world and what happened the day before, potentially. we never put on an episode that is a feature-length episode, more humanity focused or more human focused or a feature story in place of doing the news. we feel it is our mission to

look at the main story driving that day and we unpack it for our listeners to make it more digestible, make it speak to a larger context. we are a daily news show. it is our obligation to tap into the news, to tap into new york times journalism. for us, that is not just a starting with the headline. that might be the historical context. when you see a story, it automatically starts with what just happened. what do i need to understand before the news event that allows me to better understand the news? the headline you are seeing on might come 15 minutes into the episode. we know that nothing happens in a vacuum. contextthe historical that you need to understand so when you finally get to that news moment, you understand that?

the boeing story, natalie had this exclusive reporting to understand what was happening with the boeing planes. it's tapping into the unbelievable reporting that's andg on in this institution the obligations to our listeners to unpack and understand the news of the day. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. chris, go ahead. caller: i would like to ask rachel about what was discovered about the el paso shooting, the location and why that location was a walmart. guest: our colleague reported that this walmart is one of the

busiest walmarts in the entire franchise. it was frequented by many immigrants. it is close to the border, across the border from juarez. it was back to school shopping, it was at maximum capacity. you see a lot of immigrants coming to shop here. , thisis reporting showed was a specific target to target a specific group of people. migrants or people living in el paso -- el paso is a predominantly latino community. his reporting showed that that's why that walmart was targeted. host: rachel quester, does "the daily" taken editorial point of view? guest: we do not.

we want to report the truth as "the new york times." we are "the new york times," an extension of the front page. we do not have an editorial opinion. we like to invite on different perspectives. it's important for people to hear perspectives they may have never heard before. that's lawmakers on different sides of the aisle -- after the las vegas shooting, we spoke to a gun store owner where the virginia tech shooter bought his gun. we want to provide that nuance. we do not take an opinion. we like to invite people on to share their perspectives so we can better understand what's happening. host: will the podcast regularly feature conservative opinion nests or liberal opinion nests -- conservative opinionists or

liberal opinionists? guest: first and foremost, we go to our reporters to understand what's happened. if we want to hear from a lawmaker, that's when we will invite that on. for instance, the one off the top of my head is congressman well heard is the only republican with the district on him whenr, we spoke to the debate was happening within he hadublican party and an interesting perspective on how to deal with something like that. we go to lawmakers when we think that they can encapsulate that nuance we are looking for and give us a view into how they are thinking about the issue, various legislation, et cetera. most of the time, we are going to our reporters and relying on our reporters.

when we want to hear from a person on the front lines, that's when we'll go to a lawmaker or a voice in the country. host: tulsa, oklahoma. republican line. this is vincent for rachel quester. let's go to joe in maine. independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. callingunderstand why out the president even more --hello? host: you are on. caller: i don't know what happened. thank you. i don't understand why you're not calling out the president for calling out el paso as a hellhole or whatever he called it a month and a half ago. he said there was trouble down , telling lies like he

always does. call them all out. we have a peaceful city here. it that this guy just butt off?ies his guest: i can't necessarily speak to the president. the approach we take with "the daily," the approach is to understand why that specific place was targeted and what are the larger teams at play here. that's what i can say about that. president's comments in context and delving into what we think is useful to provide our listeners an attempt to

understand something like this. host: from niagara falls, anne anne is next. you're on. caller: ok. rachel, i would like to ask, have you interviewed any of the and theirle there feelings of how the politicians time like this a ? are they aware, had they been made aware to report if they see something or hear something, say something? have you ever heard any of the -- have you ever interviewed the young people? -- i: we have not spoken

can't think of an episode where we've done that. that is something going forward people's hearing from who are seeing these things on the front lines. parkland students, things like that. if you're talking specifically about mass shootings, it is very important, that is something we should be thinking about going forward. seeing, younger voices what are they thinking? thatg to understand where youth perspective is, understanding the issues they care about and how that is motivating them and what they want to be hearing. for a an opportunity conversation with somebody to get into the nuance -- that is something we will certainly be

thinking about going forward, the various voices we want to be hearing from. is it a younger voice, is it somebody in a school? yes, that is something we will definitely be thinking about. host: winchester, virginia. independent line. maria, hello. you will have to turn down your television. my question would be from the mass shooting -- do you think it will trigger more --ngs like they were sitting what the president has to say about anything. i'm not in a position to answer that question. timesy on new york reporters. i don't think i'm best equipped

to answer that question. host: what are the plans for today's podcast? guest: that's a great question. we haven't had our morning meeting it. -- meeting yet. is there further coverage we need on the mass shootings? is there more to peel back about , about whiteo supremacy? was anrning's episode interview with the founder of 8c han. it's just really talking amongst ok,elves and figuring out, what other service can we provide for our listeners? what are the earning questions we still have? -- yearning questions we still have? we want to be useful so when you

finish that episode, you feel like you have a greater understanding. that is a conversation we will have to have amongst ourselves. to the caller's point about international coverage, there's a lot happening, the trade war with china going on. there's other topics we need to be thinking about. what is the story that is driving the day? what is going to be most useful for audience? since you haven't had a morning meeting yet, walk us through the timeline of the day. what time do you produce the program? guest: it varies. there's a morning meeting of new york times editors. we meet as a team after that and discuss this is our third day coverage of the mass shooting or

there's something else starting to happen that we w need to explain or explore. it's an opportunity for the whole team to say this is what i still don't understand. did you see this thing is happening? this is something we need to unpack. we do that. then a smaller group of us break away to start thinking about the questions we want to ask a reporters. -- our reporters. we get on the phone with them and talk that through, get their perspective. we really rely on how they are thinking about these stories. that helps us to craft a question for a conversation with that reporter. inwill talk to that reporter mayberk or d.c. or

calling up someone on the phone in el paso. then we edit down the conversation, adding in different tape to add a comment from a politician or something like that and then the podcast publishes every morning by 6:00 a.m. host: tom in california. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to talk about how long the guy was in there and walmart -- in walmart. he was there for a half-hour shooting. he was a mentally ill person. away and the news reported it they captured him. he turned himself in after he drove away. with the fbi place there in el

paso, homeland security and all the police, this mentally ill people and all these drove away and turned himself in. host: rachel quester, you can address that, if you wish. guest: i don't think i'm equipped to answer that. host: what is your listenership like for the podcast? have you seen growth come out of it? guest: we are about 2 million listeners a day. we have a large audience here in the u.s. and around the world. that is something we are extremely proud of. it's been an enormous amount of growth in two years. almost 2.5 years now.

that's a great moment to talk life how it's bringing to new york times journalism. we are hopefully humanizing the reporters behind these stories, leaning into their expertise and offering a lot of transparency into the reporting process. they comehem how about this story, how they do the reporting, to establish a level of trust. host: how can people find you if they are interested in listening? guest: go to nytimes .com/thedaily. app, youple podcast can find us there or anywhere you listen to your podcasts. host: rachel quester is a producer for "the daily" podcast

. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: for the remaining time we have, we want to hear from you about your top political issue. you can talk about the current goings-on in washington, the presidential race, what have you. tell us about it. republicans,for 202-748-8000 for democrats. for independents, 202-748-8002. we will take your calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> the house will be in order. c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white ande, the supreme court public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite

provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ live coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates at the iowa state fair. starting thursday at 1:45 p.m. eastern with montana governor steve bullock, followed by joe biden. thursday, we are live at 10:00 a.m. eastern with julian castro and beto o'rourke. on saturday, we are live at 10:00 a.m. eastern with jay inslee, kamala harris, amy klobuchar, kiersten gillibrand, elizabeth warren and cory booker. watch the 2020 presidential candidates live at the iowa state fair starting thursday. watch live on c-span, www.c-span.org, or listen on the

go on the free c-span radio app. >> if you want more information on members of congress, order c-span's congressional directory on www.c-span.org. "> "washington journal continues. host: again, your top political issue, if you want to let us know for our remaining time. 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8002 for independents. president obama tweeting about the incidents in el paso and dayton. --

that prompted a response from president trump on his twitter "did george bush ever condemn president obama after sandy hook?" of hosts of the "fox and friends" program. ohio, independent line. william, good morning. caller: i want to praise donald iump for a job well done and want to praise the democrats running against him to keep donald trump honest.

trump to force donald be the best president he can possibly be. , donaldemocrats win trump is forcing them to be the best president they can be. america is a great country. i love the field that is out there right now and i love your show. keep up the good work. host: republican line, nelson in hollywood, florida. caller: hello. how are you today? -- bylling to point out the way, i happened to be happen to be-- hispanic, 70 years old. some of the mass shootings going , the person who committed the mass shooting was not a white supremacist. i believe he was muslim.

in parkland, the person who committed that atrocity, i believe, was hispanic. there's a lot of antiwhite commentary that's been going on for quite a while, which has me concerned. i don't want to defend white but there's racism, a lot of unfair attacks going on against white people in this country. it's been going on for a long time. after i got out of the military, in the 1970'sege and there was a lot of antiwhite and itc going on there continues to this day. i just wanted to point that out. host: james in massachusetts. democrats line. caller: hi, pedro.

i think what they are doing in el paso and what everyone is , they are trying to turn it back into a keep the borders open issue. the tweet you keep repeating on president obama, why aren't we hearing anything about dayton? because he was a staunch reporter of elizabeth warren? it doesn't fit the agenda of keeping the borders open in el paso. if you're going to give a ,ipartisan solution to anything you can't be pulling this hypocrisy stuff. -- please allow

me, pedro. i'm as white as your shirt. i hate your tie. caller: good morning, pedro. -- ibeen watching this tend to agree with john kasich, the former governor of ohio. he believes in passing a red flag law. we need some common sense legislation. the violence continues -- if we would just enforce the gun laws we already have, a lot of this violence would go away. enough of it would go away that people would start to realize we have laws that need to be enforced, they are not being enforced because of politics, money, whatever you want to call it.

make it more streamlined and more effective and things will be a lot better. host: tommy in tennessee. , a radical support of president trump, was sentenced monday to 20 years in judge concluded that he hated his victims but did not mean to kill them. obsessive -- doris is next up.

republican line from philadelphia. caller: hi. my name is doris. i'm calling in regards to hb cu's. pennsylvaniay of cu --he first hb host: continue on with your statement. we heard the first part. caller: i want to know what kind of funding and support for our --u innovation host: you have to stop listening to the television. just continue on the phone, please. i apologize for that. turn down your television or turn off your television.

that will make the exchange easier. that wet too long ago featured a whole series taking a cu's, talking about issues they had. if you're interested in finding out the perspectives we've taken in on this topic, go to www.c-span.org. type that information into the box. it will show everything we've shown on this series. from ohio, independent line. we will hear from may. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i love watching you. i want to say in reference to our country that we need a healing. i'm a christian, african-american. i didn't vote for donald trump or hillary clinton. i get a lot of flak.

i think we lose our humanization -- everywhere i go, even in church, people are always talking about if they are wrapped or right -- left or right. we've lost the humanist and that we needuman to come together as a country. i think about the scripture, galatians 6:7. trump is a christian and leader -- had we been in the peopleith brown or black and someone hollered out "what should we do with the president? " and someone said "shoot him," no one would say he was mentally ill. i never thought donald trump was a racist, but he traffics in

that for political gain. i'm hoping we open our eyes and have, something will happen. we have our bibles. we have to see what god tells us. don't be surprised that those of us who say we are christian see how our nation is going. host: usa today reporting this will bethat rand paul sidelined after undergoing lung surgery over the weekend. operation atan vanderbilt university medical center two had that damaged part damaged-- to have that part removed. he would have to limit his

august activities because of that, planning to return to the senate in september. democrats line. lewis, hello. caller: good morning, c-span, pedro. i listen to the news, keeping my eye on everything. why is it that every time a shooting,does a mass the first thing they say is mental illness? they don't want to call it what it is. it is a hatred for different people. klan doesn't like people of color. we know neo-nazis don't like jews. that's why little white boys are shooting up the schools because they put that ideology in them that white america also helped to kill adolf hitler.

host: camden in iowa. republican line. caller: hello. host: go ahead. asler: i wish we would unify democrats and republicans and others. i wish some of this bickering would stop. that would be my top political issue. host: bickering over what? -- we need toween be unified as americans. host: do you think that is possible in a political climate? have somethink we can other fighting stop. line bob on our for democrats from west virginia. caller: i want to thank you for not being the enemy of the people. you had the young lady from "the new york times" on there.

we've been taught honesty and integrity. host: ok. caller: what did you say? host: i didn't say anything. caller: we've been taught this integrity and our president -- does anyone know anyone in their life that lies 15 times a day? this is what our country is about. host: murph in west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a to start by saying concealed care holder. ironically, i was in a walmart in eastern ohio with my carryled cary permit -- permit. i was in the wrong place at the wrong time -- at the right time.

i would have been able to stop that individual. i'm a good guy with a gun. i would have stopped that bad guy with the gun. i would have given my life for someone else's if that tragedy were to occur. i'm a former corrections officer. i would have given my life for others. host: from oklahoma, this is sue. democrats line. caller: hello? host: hello. you are on. now is what's going on so depressing to me. i've been a democrat all my life. i have seen since trump got in office that are democrat party

-- theyemocrat party were so afraid that he wasn't going to accept what would happen in our elections and they have turned -- everything he does, i get so tired. i watch cnn and all these other shows that talk about fox news. it's really laughable. they can't look in the mirror and see what they do. party has left me completely. i do wish they would just calm down. not everything he does or says -- they make it into something racial now because they couldn't get this other stuff. this racial on binge. they are the ones tearing this

country apart. host: does that include the current field of democratic presidential candidates? caller: i don't know who i will vote for. i can't stay in the democratic party. it's gone too far. too far away from what i believe and feel. host: starting where? abortion,arting with starting with open borders, free this, free that, free everything -- our country can provide free everything for everybody -- can't provide free everything for everybody. i hope and pray that things will turn out for the best. host: amherst, virginia. this is harvey. independent line. caller: my comment has to do

with the divisiveness going on in the country as a result of the inability of the republicans and democrats to get along. we need an effort to establish a third party in this country. a party that is made up of christians who should be united in peace. the world is in chaos. 1948, they created the nation of israel. god destroyed the nation. there hasn't been a moment's peace over there since. understand and get out and vote. we can correct this situation. host: are you saying there aren't christians in the democratic and republican party? caller: there are christians in both parties, but the dominant

faces of both parties are corrupt. this nation is being impoverished. it's plain and simple. these --millions of going around. the nation is being flooded with opioids. does a third-party automatically solve these things? caller: the third-party would recognize what the true trinity is,what the true baptism and they can save this country. get up and stop screaming for term limits. there are term limits. two years for the house, six years for the senate. corrupt and he's not serving you, get up and vote him out. host: robert in minnesota.

republican line. i say we should ban and make it real strict for people to get guns. issues,e has any mental screen them in such a way that they go through their background and everything. if they have any kind of criminal background, just screen comb.ith a fine tooth thatshould have laws like where it makes it almost impossible for a person to get a unless they show they don't

have a criminal background or any mental issues. host: robert in minnesota. away.orrison has passed she was 88. passed away monday night, the first black woman to receive the nobel literature price. arizona,next. doris in democrats line. caller: good morning. i was just thinking about the callers colors back -- is againstaid she the democrats. if a republican put on a good program that works for all the people, i will vote for a republican. blind that i can say

that all republicans are bad. they are not. i see a problem in our country alongcause we are divided party lines. how can anyone look at this at thent and not shudder things he's doing to the presidency? it's not the country, it's the office. we will be looking at this for years to come. stop it. you have to be a man, you have to be decent. host: let's hear from gordon in tacoma,ingto -- washington. caller: good morning. i want one of your viewers to

give one case pursuant to law that the president has done. i'm looking for one case number. would appreciate one of your viewers calling in? host: why is it important to you? richard: i keep hearing people saying he could've done this or that and get this broad history of what he is doing illegally. there is should be one law saying specifically what he has done illegally and i have not heard anyone come up with one case law yet derek host: democrat's line area >> what do it take to impeach the president? that is all i have to say. host: why are you asking? caller: because with all of this going on and nothing has been done about it. andhave all this violence

all of this shooting going on, he isn't talking about regulations. host: by the way, i mentioned the passing of toni morrison. it highlights the fact she appeared on a program many times including a three hour program back in 2001, so if you want to get a sense of her writing and the themes she wrote about, go to the book tv website and find out more information there. michigan --troit, in detroit, michigan. caller: i am calling about the hate filled speeches from the democratic party. it has gotten ridiculous that they continuously speak hate. nothing good. discontinued hate speech -- just

continued hate speech. every single democrat has put it out there. haterats are spewing against every republican person there is. that is not fair and they should not be doing that. arlington, virginia, democrats posture feline, this is pablo. yes.r: hi, a lot of the topics today were talking about one common issue, which is lack of empathy and lack of communication. and i think it is due to the lack of sexual health and healthy relationship education. our kids are not learning in schools about healthy relationships, whether they are romantic,platonic, platonic with your family, with your neighbors, with people especially who are different from you, not really learning how to listen, and to form

healthy dialogue. geti think when we really to that conversation of, what are we teaching our kids in school? expect know, how can we to have healthy dialogue and issues and address these to -- andre listening when we are listening to what people's challenges are, how can we do that we are not -- how can we do that when we are not educating? anyone host: last call is for don in pennsylvania dear caller: hello. about the opioids and the senior citizens on opioids. ok.:

there is more attention -- caller: there is more attention being paid for the people on heroin. i went to a doctor. i forgot to say that. i went to a doctor. area pays more attention heroin,eople that do nobody has written any stories in the newspapers about how many seniors that were cut off due to opioids. and they had to go through withdrawal. and if you want opioids for -- and if you were on opioids for so many years, you would have to go to methadone. so now, if you go to that, now you are hooked on methadone. host: ok. that is don in pennsylvania dear

that was the last call of the programmed area another addition of ""washington journal" comes your way to tomorrow. we will take you to the u.s. institution of peace on a forum who are discussing citizens who have joined a violent terrorist groups. that forum is set to start momentarily. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019]

>> we live of the u.s. institute of peace darian we will have a discussion on radicalization of what to do with people who have been radicalized. the panel will talk about why language matters in violent radicalization with examples for the deliberate use of language has been used to reduce stigma and to great opportunities for reform. the discussion should get underway and just a minute. cliff covers throughout the day. the house coming in this afternoon for a pro forma session at 3:30 used in on c-span. no legislative business is expected in the sessions, but in the wake of the mass shootings over the weekend in el paso and dayton, it is possible we will hear a member or two speak on the house floor. that is coming up this afternoon at 3:30 eastern. .

>> good morning, everyone. welcome. i am the director of our organization at the institute of peace. for those that are new, we were founded by members of congress who were veterans of world war ii. they had returned from the battlefield