♪ host: good morning. the shooting death of the united health care ceo is probing the broader conversation about the problems with america's health care and health insurance systems. many people have stories about challenges or denials while at care for themselves and others

even when they do have insurance this morning we want to hear your stories about your personal experiences with america's health care system and when it comes to health care in the united states, what changes do you think are needed? if you have private insurance, (202) 748-8000. if you are insured through the aca, (202) 748-8001. if you have medicare or medicaid, (202) 748-8002. and for everyone else, including folks were uninsured, may be using va health care or even folks who work in the health care industry, (202) 748-8003. if you'd like to text , that is the same number, (202) 748-8003. you can also find us on social media, facebook, or on x.

there have been all sorts of manifestations of anger against the u.s. health care system since the murder of the ceo of united health care and that is captured in this article from cbs news as anger and united health care blues over americans pay more than ever for insurance cvs using data from the health cy research group to highlight the fact that average $26,000 per year.ly are of the for single worker they pay an average of $9,000 a year which is up 7% from 2020. and since 2000, the rise in health insurance premiums has outpaced inflation for all but a handful of years. many inside and outside the health care industry are complaining that the system is inherently flawed including the ceo of aust or health. here is a ceo about that.

u.s. health care history is now broken, oscar health ceo explains. this is after the united health care ceo brian thompson was fatally shot in new york city last week. there is health insurance providers have removed executive biography pages from corporate websites. this incident spark conversations among american forcing outrage that their negative experiences with insurance providers and the broader faults in the american health care system. -- spoke about the shooting and expressed some of these added frustrations about the state of the health care system in the united states. let's listen to a clip. >> we've heard from security agencies talking about a rise in violent and the health sector, largely in the facilities themselves, especially in the last year and a half.

what does that tell you about what you need to expect and how you are thinking about the company and where it needs to go in order to help reduce this tension that is clearly being felt by the american public? >> the american public exists in a system that was designed 80 years ago after world war ii, and it was designed in a way that we built a lot of hospitals across the country and we also provided benefits through employers as a way of making weight control work after the return of soldiers from world war ii. and i think that system is largely now broken and has been broken for some time. i've been in and of get for change for a long time and believe that we have ways to get it better in this country and i think it largely starts with making sure the health care system meet the needs of individuals, not the needs of groups. right now our system in large

part is built around meeting the needs of groups. host: stephen is in portland, oregon and is uninsured. morning. caller: hello. i've can uninsured all my life. what gets me is people think that if you had health insurance you are going to live forever, you are never going to get sick, you are never going to die. the murder of this ceo is very evil in my opinion. yes, there should be some reform but just because you don't have health care doesn't mean you get to go murder someone. host: how do you address your health care and your health care cost the right to life, given that you've gone without insurance for so long? >> i've had surgery five times. but i had to pay off my hospital bills through working. host: and what changes do you

think we need in the american health care system? caller: less rancor. less hatred. not all physicians are people, not all ceos are evil. that is an unreasonable expectation, that people are assuming. i'd seen all over the place people who are happy about luigi shooting this guy in the back and praising him. that is not being an american. that is not seeking reform. host: during interview, president-elect trump spoke about his own approach to health care. >> you said during the campaign you had concept of a plan. did you have an actual plan at this point for health care? >> you have concepts of a plan that would be better. >> still just concepts for a fully developed land? >> we have the biggest health

care companies looking at it. we have doctors who are always looking because obamacare stinks. it's lousy. there are better answers. if we came up with a better answer i would prevent -- present that answer to democrats and we would do something about it. but until they can approve it, we are not going to go through the big deal. i am the one that saved obamacare and i did the right thing. i could have done the more political thing and killed it. >> you did try to have your justice department effectively kill it. >> kill it from a legal standpoint but from a physical standpoint i made it work. >> in your concepts of a plan, will people with pre-existing conditions still have coverage and can you guarantee their prices will not go up? >> the answer is yes, you have to have it. >> what about the prices? >> i want the prices to go down. i want to have better health care for less money. and there are ways of doing it,

i believe. host: we have special phoneline for the segment. if you have private insurance, (202) 748-8000. if you are insured through the aca, (202) 748-8001. if you have medicare or medicaid, (202) 748-8002. if you're uninsured we have some other situation, (202) 748-8003. now to some of your comments on social media. on facebook, universal health care is the change that is needed for the american health care system. health care should not be through employers. and kevin hall says end for profit private insurance. we will go to john who has private insurance. morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have private ins and i have a story relating to it.

i've always been satisfied it. ve it through my employer and my family is insured and years ago, i daughter was having problems wit ears, she had tubes in her ears and they needed to be rem after several incidents that she had. in upstate new york and i've i'm always b satisfied with the outcomes. the last time i was told to go to an outpatient building and the procedure was done, the insurance company simply denied meayment. so when i inquired, i asked them why was my payment denied when you had aor. they say didt go to an approved facility.

bear in the doctor told me to show up there and other procedures of the samee down there and when i said why, why am i being denied? it was over $1000. he simply said they do this to us all the time, they simply deny it. and when i called the insurance company they said you can appeal it, well, i did appeal it. and you know what the answer was? they reimbursed me something like several dollars. and i mean like three dollars or four dollars for band-aids, some antiseptic, things like that. this is simply a system that is greed, pure greed. and the other thing i want to mention, and that won't take up your time, the astronomical cost of procedures and the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars. and we get these statements,

what would happen to the person, what does happen to the person that of course doesn't have coverage? they can't pay, they are bankrupt. and maybe somebody out there can tell me the number of bankruptcies that have occurred because of medical necessities. i could go on and on, i'm sure your callers can add to this. thank you for your time. host: i do want to point out, thank you for your call, more data that finds that people with private insurance are more likely to have denied claims than people with public coverage. looking here at denied claims, employer-sponsored or marketplace insurance, this is a percentage of adults in the past 12 months, their health insurance did not pay for the care they received they thought was covered. total insured adults, 18%. employer-sponsored insurance,

21%. marketplace coverage, 20%. medicaid, 12%, medicare 10%. percentage of insured adults who say that in the past 12 months their health insurance did not pay for the care they received that they thought was covered, that is up to 27% of those denials for people who are high lysis of health care compared to 40% of those who are low utilizes of health care. let's hear from mary in for washington, maryland two believe is a medical provider. caller: i'm not a medical provider, i have medicare. and i think that the only thing that is going to save peoples lives as we need a single-payer system. we need a universal health care system. it doesn't make any sense. you either pay or die. united health care is number one

in denying things. people usually put out a full clip on insurance and get the ratings. if you have medicaid, you get that booklet. and that booklet tells you what the ratings are. united health care is number one for denying women health care especially. i have medicare and i'm glad. i have kaiser and so far i haven't been denied anything and i'm a person who doesn't take no for an answer, especially for health. i have a daughter with disabilities, i am a helicopter mom when it comes to her. both political parties are responsible for the type of health care that we have in this country. when barack obama got in office and want virgil health care, nancy pelosi was the one that said that is not on the table, and it won't be. the number of politicians who take money from the insurance companies is just astronomical.

you need to put it out there so people can see. we need universal health care so people can get the same health air that the president it's, that the politicians get. we want the same health care system. we have good health care products, but we don't have a decent deliverance of the system. it is absolutely a killer. that is all i have to say about this health care system. we need universal health care yesterday. that's all i have. host: many people agree with the point, there is some polling om gallup as of earlier this month and 62% of americans believe the government should ensure health care coverr all, the highest number in over cade. and government responsibility haswn among pretty much everyone. republican up to 32 percent, democrats 65%.

90% of democrats are in favor of government responsibility for health care. cedric is in alvin, texas and uses aca insurance. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what changes do you think are needed in the american health care system? caller: well, i have aca, which is obamacare. when it is time for voting, they killed it, saying it was obamacare but it is actually the aca. a lot of changes need to be made, like that young lady said. since i have aca, it is political. lee tried to go to these facilities and use it, some of them don't want to take it because i guess just because of the name of it. i'm so glad i got it.

a truck driver an independent operator, i'm 60 years old. if it wasn't for the aca, i just had a stroke not too long ago, and thank god that the aca was here and i was uninsured before and i'm hoping that the next administration, especially in texas. host: thanks for your call. let's hear from amanda in mississippi who has private insurance. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. the aca was not saved by trump

he tried to get rid of it, john mccain save the aca insurance. i don't understand how people just embrace this man, embraces lies a just support those lies because he is a pathological liar. he did not save the aca, and he claimed he did. i have private insurance, but i do get health care. i have not had anything denied. i'm really clear on that particular component. i have cigna, and i haven't read up on aetna very well yet. but trump has nothing to replace the aca.

if he does get rid of it, he has nothing to replace it with. tell us what you've got. that's all i have to say. host: we've had several references to the aca and obamacare. msnbc's host made a comment about this back on december 10 saying it has been nea years since obamacare. the only major modern effort to form american health care was signed into law. over 25 million people remain uninsured. costs have come downot enough to prevent tens of millions ofcans from avoiding care or going into hundreds of aliens hou with nickel data. most people know it doesn't need to be this way. the u.s. is the wealthiest country in the world. it has extremely high quality doctors, cutting edge medical research and is unrivaled as a pharmaceutical innovator but because of the w insurance system is set up, the

u.s. spends far more money per capita than other nations, yet it is the only one lacking universal coverage and delivers worse health outcomes. cameron is in san diego, california and is uninsured. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i'm actually currently in between health care plans but i just wanted to note that access to health care is way too complex for the average american. there's so many stipulations and hoops you have to jump through to change your plan or understand your plan and i'm one of the few individuals let's also a broader issue with the bureaucracy and the fda. because i live in san diego which is a border town and i know several people who drive across the water to receive cancer tree and options that the fda won't approve.

i think we need to really reanalyze the whole process in general and how these things are decided. host: indianapolis, indiana, v.a. health care. good morning. caller: i have moji it. host: apologies, go ahead. caller: i am a vietnam that because that was exposed, i've had blood pressure that cause me to have a blockage in my carotid . 96% blockage.

when i went to the va, they missed it. president trump has said that if we had a medical emergency, we could go to a private emergency hospital. i went to some places, they took me into the emergency room, they found the blockage. and they took me into surgery the next day because they said if it was not removed, then it would kill only. host: what do you think should change in the united states health care system? caller: this is what i think should change.

the da paid for the surgery. and all of the follow-up except for the last visit, and now i am strapped with a bill from st. vincent. i was told the va would pay for it. i think that needs to change. i think that i put my life on my line and was sprayed with voice and. the benefits to be paid for, now you are going to strap me with a bill after something that would have killed me? i think that is a problem. host: let's hear from carol in miami, florida who uses that a care. good morning.

what do you think should change in the health care system? caller: well, i'm going to be honest with you. i'm perfectly happy with it. yes, indeed. i just went for surgery back on october 2 to have major surgery done on my lawn this, -- on my lungs, and it was through my medicare carrier and i was perfectly happy with it and they have been happy with all of my insurance coverage that i have had through my medicare insurance coverage. i've had no problems. so i'm so sorry to hear from the people that are having problems

with it, but i've had none. host: thank you for sharing that. there is a bit of a mixed bag in terms of how people view health care in the united states. some polling on this topic that the view of u.s. health care quality has declined to a 24 year low. some say the system has major problems and if we go down, we will see that of the people breaking the polity of u.s. health care, only 11% say that it is excellent, another 33% say it is good. fair, 33% and poor, 16%. this is an annual poll of health care. mike is in new jersey and uses medicare. good morning, mike. caller: good morning, i hope you

are well. the whole thing boils down to money. it is going to keep going on and on and on and go right back to years ago when entrepreneurs in america went over to china to sell them opium. it all goes back. and by the way, whatever happened to our center here? he was supposed to be sentenced in october. host: what do you think should change about the u.s. health care system to make things work better? caller: could you say again? host: what do you think should change about the u.s. health care system to make things work better? caller: it's got to have more control i guess. for the public and not for the

company. and the politicians, as he said, are probably just stepping over it for the wrong benefit. host: carol is in georgia and has private insurance. good morning, carol. caller: humana and the different 20% requested insurance that you are supposed to have, they are not being honest with any of the patients. once you get off regular medicare, you are doomed for a large bill because any health care system other than medicare only can deny you anything. and that is a horrible, horrible thing. host: are you referring to some of these medicare advantage program?

caller: i am. they are not being honest with people. you can never go back to it ever. they take advantage of these individuals. my private insurance has never denied me and i just went through an eight day stay at the hospital and they paid every cent. i didn't have to pay anything. and another thing that is happening to these poor people, innocent people, uninformed people is once they do leave medicare, their primary care doctor can direct them to greedy people. i did have that circumstance where my primary care doctor couldn't see me. i was getting ready to go into pneumonia because of an ear infection and she just wouldn't listen. so i took her advice, went to

the immediate care facility, showed my insurance, and they took me immediately with no questions asked. and they paid the bill. and again, i asked why was i build anything? they say because of your insurance. can i name the insurance so that these people have the opportunity to improve their lives? host: if you like. caller: mutual of omaha. they are great. they are wonderful. they are pricey, iris keeps going up $300 or $400 a year for both my husband and i and we pay over $5,000 a year. but it is well worth it for the situations that these individuals have on through. they don't have the unanswered bill paying, it is paid. host: we have cment from kristin in portland, maine who says could be at least start with universal health care for young children?

ages zero to five? give air children a healthy start. we could then raise the age over the years. that is one idea. let's hear from larry in houston, texas who uses va insurance. caller: thanks for taking my call. i feel sorry for the guy, i am a combat veteran myself. my wife is in the medical field, she has insurance. it's terrible. and it is sad, but that is what we get. we put these people up in office and these big pharma companies, and we are stuck paying the bill. we've got a free market country, but we know that is not true. coming from canada and mexico, this ain't no free market. they won't do that because it would hurt the big pharma companies. wake out, man.

the va is so terrible. i went in there for a toothache and had to go like two days later to the emergency room because i had an infection in my throat. i heard one girl go in there one time, a friend of mine, three months later she was in a coma. people do not care. you all are lucky they had obamacare, especially for the virus. we are going to be stuck with that health care. host: let's hear a bit from bernie sanders because earlier this year he spoke about health care in the united states at harvard university's school of public policy.

in this clip he is talking about the need for medicare for all as a single-payer system. >> so what is the solution? the basic solution from the medical issue is as a nation, it to conclude -- and by the way, most americans do believe this, that health care is a human right, not a privilege. and once you accept that understanding, then we can argue about how you want to go forward. i am not unsympathetic to the canadians. in canada, as you know, they spend about half as much as we do per capita, they are in the hospital for a month, you come out, there is no bill, you have freedom of choice of doctors and so on. other systems do it differently. but bottom line as a nation, we must resolve that health care is a human right, not a privilege. the function is for guaranteed

high-quality health care to all people regardless of their income not to make huge profits for insurance companies and drug companies. the debate over health care is not about health care. it is about economics and it is about politics. and it is about who gets what. and what we have got to do is to make sure that we don't have incredibly complicated systems, which we do. universal access, and we go forward. so in my view the solution is a medicare for all single-payer system. we have a medicare system today which is by the way under attack from the private sector it is a system that is widely respected. it needs to be expanded. in the program we have brought forth, we take it over years

spanning medicaid to cover dental, vision and hearing so it is more comprehensive. taking it down to people 45 years of age, 55 years of age, and eventually covering every man, woman and child in this country. host: some of the broader trends, national health expenditure includes both public and private, from $4.8 trillion - peperson in 2023, $7 trillion or $21,927 per person in 2032. national health expenditures is projectelimb from 17.6% of s domestic product in 2023,

nearly 20% by 2032 as rising health care costs outpaced the growth of the economy. back to your calls, fort dodge, iowa. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the lion in the room on the subject has not been discussed by anybody, and we talked about the health insurance provider and what people are claiming, but we never talked about what the actual hospitals are charging, but the doctors are charging in with the nurses are charging and what is paid to those people. in the last 10 years, i've had three incidents where i have to go to the hospital, and one was a bone broken above my left ankle which i was self-insured at that time it'd cost me a total of $275. the second time was i had a thorn buried in my left hand and

when i went to the doctor he dug around for an hour and finally pulled it out and it cost me $100 and a quarter. two years ago after i was on medicare i had two cysts removed from my scalp and it took them about 30 minutes to do that and it was a doctor and a nurse and it cost medicare $2200. something is really wrong with how we perceive what is being charged. we need to talk about what is being charged. i've seen doctors that have a home in our community out on the lakes in northwest iowa, have two properties on that. a doctor gets paid $2 million a year and the federal government takes $1 million in taxes and so forth. we need to look at some of that stuff and talk about that.

rather than just beat up on the insurance companies as the big devil in the room all the time because that is not necessarily true. we need to talk about the actual providers. i know they passed a bill a few years back that dealt with what these hospitals are charging, because most people go to the doctor or go to the hospital and have no idea what their procedure are what they should be going in to cost, nor do they care because somebody else is paying for it. but if they do have to pay for it themselves, they would be concerned with those things before they go or at most, after they went, and they might dispute it with the hospital, the doctor, the nurses and so forth. we need to look at that and talk about that a little bit because it is out of control, in my opinion. thank you for your time. if you have any questions i

would be happy to answer them. host: let's go to kristin in philadelphia who is uninsured. good morning. caller: thanks so much for taking my call. i'm currently uninsured, going through a super rough patch in life right now. but i've been all over the board. -uninsured, i've had medicare, medicaid. and i've also had private insurance. bernie really took the words out of my mouth. the only logical thing to do is provide all-americans americans with universal health care. i'm not really sure what is more important than the health of the people of america. as you said, a basic human right

or at least should be considered one. greed is really what it comes down to. the greed of a very small amount of people. who can make these decisions. i'm not sure where the empathy and the compassion went. it should probably make a comeback sometime soon. nothing else really makes sense besides universal health care. host: amy is in west virginia and uses aca insurance. caller: health care is so expensive and there is really no way to combat and it has become such a political issue and it really shouldn't he, because health and death are the great equalizers in life and we all need to come together on this. i come from a time when i could

not get insurance back before the aca. i'm a republican but i greatly appreciate the aca because i've been able to cover my family for what i think is a reasonable cost. i think the idea of sliding fee premiums are very important for people so that their premiums can be based on their income and that everybody can contribute to the extent that they can and still be able to keep their family above other expenses. i think one of the problems with the aca and all health care insurances is how difficult it is to understand what you are paying for and what you are getting. terms like out-of-pocket maximum, co-pay, deductible can be very confusing. you see in out-of-pocket maximum that is astronomical, people are immediately driven away from the healthcare.gov website when they see those things. but you have to have so much

understanding of how you get to that out-of-pocket maximum to make an educated decision, and i agree with the previous caller that it is just too difficult for most people to understand. i think another problem is the health care that people receive in the last months or years of their lives. i've gone through that with an elderly relative recently, and the astronomical cost in the last year or so for things that really didn't increases quality of life and the whole concept of a lifespan vs. a health span. we focused a lot on increasing lifespans but we need to be working more on preventative measures. unfortunately our system pays her procedure in those cases and we need to find a way to pay for prevention. we need to find a way to reward providers and insurers who help people get healthier.

host: i'd like to read you something and then get your response. you mentioned you were able to get insurance through the aca whereas you previously were not able to. i'm guessing that is because you had a pre-existing condition. caller: yes. they called it a pre-existing condition. i had had a miscarriage and a difficult procedure in taking care of the miscarriage. host: i'm so sorry to hear that. i'd like to read you a bit of a statement from former representative hank brown. talking about the stf health care and why it is so expensive. he said one of the main reasons for this increasing cost and ucti choic the health insurance industry consolidation that occurred in the wake of obamacare and similartate level initiatives around the country. a major component l with theitioof expanded coverage mandate, a list of

procedures known as essential health benefits that insurers offering plans were required to cover regardless of individual circums. the impact of these mandates and a the others that have piled on at ate level in the ensuing years has been to crea cost on insurers who then pass those costs along to consumers. that was in the washington examiner. what you were just describing as allowing you to have coverage, this former representatives is saying is one of the things that is contributing to the higher cost of coverage overall. what do you think of that? caller: i don't agree at all because i think the essential things that they are requiring them to pay for our largely prevented. colonoscopies, mammograms and so forth. that was another thing that i experienced when i went for my first screening colonoscopy, it is a procedure that is supposed to be covered so that everyone can get that preventative

screening which hopefully then leads to less cancers and so forth that are very expensive for insurers. and when i went, my colonoscopy was free, but they did a bunch of other lab work that really was unnecessary. for example, ekg on me who had no previous cardiac issues. and then they wanted to charge me for that lab work and i told them i was not paying that because these are essential screenings that are meant to help everyone regardless of their ability to pay to prevent serious problems with our health and i felt these were charges that were just tacked on because maybe they weren't getting the level of billing they wanted from the screening colonoscopy itself. host: let's hear from holly in alabama who has private insurance. good morning. caller: yes, i have private

insurance and my husband is disabled and he gets medicare. and two things are in my mind right now. his part b is going up. which to me is totally upside down to what we need in our country. i don't dare stop working because my private insurance, i'm going to turn 70, i don't know what would be covered or not because of his policies. and that is not right. it needs to stop. caller: hello, good morning. i'm 68 and i just recently found out, i have medicare, and

medicare used to have all of the bills, but when us lovely boomers started retiring, it got overwhelmed. united i think with the first company that medicare basically hired to handle all of this. i don't know what the current amount is that they decided on for each person that they covered, they get $1000 a month for us. i was shocked, i had no idea that is how they deal with it, so humana pays everything out of that. so that was a surprise. so that has to be considered in the cost. i never had a chance to use aca,

but i certainly wish it would have been around for a very long time because every time you got laid off from a job your insurance got up. you are trying to get a job just for insurance. and people with pre-existing conditions couldn't get insurance. anyway, i hope they figure it out. there was a call or a couple of calls back they need to cover the unemployed as well as the employed. it's definitely who we have in congress. all of their interests are centered around their stock ownership.

humana and united to me, making money on their stock and making money on medicare, and to me that is not right. host: let's hear from carol in wisconsin who has private insurance. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i have insurance through work and i just had a throat surgery, and it ended up costing me $7,000, which i had to pull out of my 401(k) to pay for it because the payment was so high per month for the hospital. i have friends, two of them that are on disability and one just had a brain surgery because she

has seizures and it was completely paid for. i have another friend that is on disability that had two shoulder replacement because she has rheumatoid arthritis and everything was paid for, and i'm sitting here paying $7,000 from my 401(k), and i'm also paying for my friends insurance out of taxes. host: so what would you change, that feels very imbalanced, i'm guessing. what do you think should change? caller: i'm not sure. i just know i'm one that is really getting socked by this insurance deal and just wanted to let it be known. i also work with people who have

state insurance, who have kids and are constantly taking their kids in to the doctor, and they are going into the doctor, and it is all paid for. and i am sitting here paying out money. host: paul is in chesapeake, virginia and also has private insurance. good morning. caller: i actually have two, medicare and private insurance. and one of the things that i will agree with bernie sanders on is the fact that the medicare should be covering vision, dental and hearing. because i have to carry private insurance for my dental and my

vision. i'm fortunate enough that i can do that. i guess the main reason i'm calling, the question is health care in the u.s. and what changes are needed. it should be insurance in the u.s. and what changes are needed. because i get my care from my physicians and my dentist, and i have had wonderful care. that is the quality of my care that you are talking about. that is coming from the individual who is taking care of me. cost, politics, that all comes into play in a whole different light. that is all insurance.

and this what happens with the affordable care act when leader pelosi one day before they had to vote on it said we have to pass it to find out what is in it, and that is exactly what they did. and this is one of the reasons the costs did go up. thank you. host: rachel is in florida and uses medicare. good morning, rachel. caller: first of all, i comment is that i do not believe that medicare should be approved for all. i waited and worked many, many years and paid into the medicare system to be able to get medicare at the age of 65. i am a retired nurse and i am here to tell you that if you are looking to make a lot of money, nursing is not the profession to go in. the other thing i would like to

say is i have a medicare advantage plan. i don't like to go to doctors. certainly don't like hospitals, and went to the doctor three times this year. twice primary and one to a pulmonologist. and about a month ago, middle of november, i had a back issue. i have a history of back issues from lifting heavy patients, working years and years in the emergency room. and my advantage plan, my primary called in the m.r.i., and the plan denied me. i ended up laying in bed for a month. i did make it to an orthopedic doctor. he called in to get the m.r.i. for me because he couldn't treat me without knowing what was going on with my back. hadn't had m.r.i. in three years.

and they just pushed it along. pushed it along week after week. and then finally with my insistence, they had a peer to peer review. some of you may know what that is. and actually talk to the doctor, and then they finally approved the m.r.i.. but that was not a good experience. and that was with aetna, by the way. another, i will make is one of the problems we have in this country is that the er is swamped, emergency rooms are swamped with people who have no insurance. and instead of going to a walk-in clinic, they will go in for an ear ache or a sore throat instead of taking annville, that is the problem. so hospitals have to foot the bill for that. that is one of the biggest problems we have in this country.

and of course, the insurance industry is just one big mass. it has gotten worse over the years. i know 35 years ago when managed-care came in, it was much easier than now. host: let's hear from colleen in florida who has private insurance. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think should change about the health care system? caller: what needs to change as the affordable care act is really not affordable for the middle last worker. they are paying about 10%-12% of their growth income. in california, $80,000 is middle class. they are paying about $9,000 a month and have several deductions to meet. so what i would say is that if you are making $80,000 or $300,000 or $400,000, you are paying the same amount of the

person who makes $80,000. about $900 a month. i think it needs to maybe be looked at where the higher income earners need to be paying a little bit more because it is clearly crushing her middle class. we don't have enough doctors to take care of the influx of people that we are bringing into the country, either. i have a friend with an aggressive brain tumor, can't get into to see a specialist for four months. i have beautician friends who can't afford the affordable care act because it is just too costly. if we brought the caps higher for those higher income earners, then we would have an excessive amount of money, a lot more money. if we want to provide medical for everybody and do what bernie sanders wants to do, and we would have plenty of money for that. and i think the politicians that have been in there for a very long time, what really made me see that they are not to a tune

with what is going on in the country is we had everything over there in china, medicine, ppe jerry covid, and these career politicians didn't think this was a bad idea. host: paul is in alexandria, virginia and uses medicare. good morning, paul. caller: i'm also a physician and about the close up my office. the overhead is enormous. one of the main problems with the system is that the insurance companies have usurped the credentialing authority of the state medical boards.

so a simple solution would be if the legislators would say anybody who buys insurance can be seen by any physician who is willing to take assignments, we would cut the power of the medical insurance companies, and you would do away with a lot of overhead that medical practices have where they have to tailor their claims to several different insurance companies. that would be a simple solution. host:et's go to facebook where david says everyone is talking universal health care and forget that is exactly what the aca

gave a and it is aister. if a doctor oer medications, proceduresetc. insurance companies shoulde quired to cover it, end of story. people should not be bankrupted by medical debt and insurance companies need to cover longerm care. and the whole inetwork, out of network needs to go. whatever doctor or hospital or pharmacy i choose should be covered. and then patricia says it's really not complicated. combined the va, medicare and medicaid. eliminating eligibility age for medicare and eliminate medicare disadvantage. and then you can end for-profit hospitals and surgery centers and raise the medicare tax. done. let's get to one or two more calls in this segment. keith is in richmond, virginia

and uses medicare. good morning. caller: i just wanted to call and let everyone know i have recently signed up for medicare myself. i'm 70 years old now, so i had medicaid. i went ahead and got part b. the amount that it is costing me is $185, which everyone has been kind of referring to. i'm still working and i'm trying to come off of my employers insurance and get on medicare because of conditions in my life, certain things i want to do just to get away from that. in the able to live my own life and have medicare because at some point i will have health insurance. i went ahead and decided that medicare would be the best way to go as opposed to some other

thing. -- i appreciate the advice that has been given to me. it helps me to understand where i probably may need to go. i just want to say that i am taking the jump and getting in medicare. i think it is going to be an advantage to me. i have humana as my supplement to my part b, so that i can have the truck coverage and things like that. i just want to say that, you know, for me, the 185 dollars is doable. with my private insurance, it was going to $25. $51 per pay period, which would be about $100 a month. with medicare, i have doubled my

amount that i will be paying out that i feel like it is important for me to do that. and for me and my wife, both on medicare and because of our income level -- host: we are just about out of time for the segment but we thank everybody who called in to share their stories about their interactions with the u.s. health care system. coming up next, author alexandra hudson will join us to discuss the effort to promote stability in american politics as well as her book, the soul of stability. -- promote civility, in american politics as well as her book, the soul of civility. david bobb will join us to talk about the ratification of the u.s. constitution's first 10 amendments. we will be right back. ♪ >> for more than 45 years,

c-span has been your window into the workings of our democracy, offering live coverage of congress, unfiltered: programs and uncensored access to what makes our nation. c-span exists for you. people who value transparent, no spin political coverage. your support helps keep our mission alive. as we close out the year, we are asking you to stand with us. your donations go 100% toward c-span's vital work. helping ensure longform and independent coverage continues to thrive in an era where it is needed more than ever. visit c-span.com/donate or scan the code on your screen to make your contribution today. together, we can make sure c-span remains a trusted resource for you and future generations.

>> new york city real estate developer larry silverstein acquired a 99 year lease on the world trade center just weeks before the september 11 terrorist attacks. tonight on c-span's q and a, mr. silverstein shares stories about the rebuilding of the world trade center complex following the attacks and discusses the business, political and engineering challenges he faced during his 20 year rebuilding effort. >> i said it's got to be replaced. because if we don't, it will become a ghost town. people will leave it and never come back. i said secondly, if we don't rebuild it, we are going to get to the -- give the terrorists exactly what they wanted. this is an attack, not on the twin towers, nothing like that. it is much more serious. it is an attack on americans and

what we stand for. we have an obligation to rebuild it. >> larry silverstein with his book, the rising, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by alexandra hudson. she's the author of the soul of stability, timeless principles that heal society and ourselves. welcome to "washington journal." you recently had an op-ed in the washington post where you said we should approach politics the same way presidents adams and jefferson did. and that is by not talking politics. why is that? guest: it is a great story that is somewhat forgotten to history.

adams and jefferson were good friends. they were the co-authors, the co-architects of liberty, the declaration of independence. and jefferson was adams's vice president when john adams was vice president and things began to go south. their relationship tension rose and it culminated in a very vicious presidential election of 1800. it was notoriously toxic and vitriolic. adams said if jefferson, our wives and daughters would be brutally raped in the streets. team jefferson said adams was a man of most hermaphroditial e character. jefferson won the election. it was at the expense of his relationship with adams.

they had not talked for 12 years after that. it was because of benjamin rush, a friend of both parties and a fellow founding father and noted abolitionist, he fostered the reproach and encouraged them to reconcile and they eventually did. they wrote 150 letters to one another over the next decade, until they both died. they talked about in these letters, everything under the sun. they talked about their grandkids. they reminisced on the good old days of being brothers in arms, fighting the american revolution together. they talked about their self-care regiments, their exercise rituals. what they did not talk about was politics. they conspicuously avoided controversial subjects of the day. they chose to elevate friendship over politics. they both reached a pinnacle of public life and they have lost

friendships and they had placed politics over friendship and they regretted that. i think we see that in the reality that they spent in the last decade or more of their life talking about everything other than politics. so many friends and family relationships have been severed or strained over political disagreements and as we enter the holiday season, it's important to remember that these relationships and bonds matter more than political subjects and political discussions do. host: what advice would you have for people who might find themselves being drawn into political conversations with folks who disagree with them? guest: michael oak shot, one of my favorite writers said conversation is an unrehearsed intellectual adventure. too often today, our conversation when it comes to politics is not unrehearsed. it is not an unrehearsed

intellectual adventure. it is a talking point where we hear people repeating and regurgitating what they hear from their favorite political pundit. when you feel a conversation, shift the dialogue. talk about something that is not the news of the day. i don't want to say the weather but even that is better than these monologues are dialogues where you have your talking points against our talking points. shift the dialogue and were member the conversation should be in india in itself. it's not about winning an argument. it's about enjoying the company and the dialogue and the journey of the conversation itself. host: some of these disagreements people have can be fundamental to their identity as a person. he might disagree with someone over the value of certain types of life or someone's sexual orientation or something like

that. what do you say of the argument that critics who say that this idea of civility is a way to stifle hard conversations, especially folks who might be in more vulnerable groups? host: it's a great question. i got some responses to my essay on the washington post saying we should radically not talk politics. i had people write to me and say how dare you ask me to be friends with someone who doesn't agree with my right to exist or be friends with a nazi or a fascist, what are you thinking? i really like this mental framework that i unpack in my group called the soul of civility, timeless principles that heal society and ourselves -- to heal society and ourselves. it's called un-bundling people. it helps us see the part of someone, the part of them that

-- the mistake they have made. the thing they have said or done that has hurt us. the person they voted for or the policy belief that they hold that we vehemently disagree with. -- the moral worth they hold as a human being and keeping in mind the bare minimum of respect we owe them by virtue of our shared humanity. it is seeing the recent tension or conflict we might have with them and the disagreement we might have with them in light of the history and the fullness and the context of our lifelong friendship or the family relationship, keeping the bond front and center and not just fixating on the things we don't like about them. un-bundling them, seeing the part of them that we disagree with and don't like in part of the whole and not ignoring the whole of them. which is so often done today, we want to cut them off and say you

have nothing to teach me. i want nothing of you in my life because of this one part of them. it is reductionistic and degrading of the personhood of others. host: we will be taking calls from our audience with questions about civility and its role in politics. our number for republicans is (202) 748-8001. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. and for independents, (202) 748-8003. how did you first become interested in talking about civility in this way? guest: i have been thinking about this topic my entire life. my mother is an expert on this topic. she's called cutie, the man is lady. she is one of four women who are

internationally renowned experts on manners and etiquette named judy. there are four of them. most prominently in washington is judith martin, the longtime washington post columnist who goes by miss manner. that's not my mother. -- has a kids album that teaches character and etiquette to young kids and children's conventions. i always am constitutionally allergic to authority. i don't like rules or being told what to do. when my mother instructed my brothers and i to set the table just so and shake hands just so, i always wondered why. why do we do things the way we do them? this project, my book, the soul of civility is the substantiation of a lifelong reflection and meditation on this topic of social norms and how they serve this joint project of living well with

others. that is going to be the origin story of this book. there is more to say about how my time in government made me question everything -- host: what happened? caller: i took -- guest: i took a role in federal service in washington, d.c. in 2017-2018. i went in bright-eyed and bushytailed, ready to make a small imprint in the world. i was fresh out of graduate school. i could not have been more disillusioned or discouraged i what i experienced and observed in federal government. all of a sudden, everything my mother had taught me was refuted by my lived experience. there were these two extremes that i saw in government. on one hand, there were people who were hostile, abrasive, overtly aggressive. i knew to stay away from those people. there was another contingent where they were polished and poised and polite, but it was

the people who would smile and flatter me and others in one moment and stab us in the back the next. the second contingent deeply perplexed me. i heard in my mind what my mother said growing up that manners matter because they were an outward expression of our inner character. and yet here i was surrounded by people who are well mannered enough but ruthless and cruel. what i learned from that experience is several things. both of these modes, the extreme hostility, the bullying people into submission and the extreme politeness, the tone policing, the polished that is actually fake and manipulative, these are two sides of the same coin. they seem like polar opposites but both have an instrumental logic when it comes to others. they see other human beings as means to their own selfish ends as opposed to the hostile

contingency of being steamrolled into submission. the polite contingency allows ponds to be manipulated and discarded when they are no longer of service. that's what i wrote my book about, in response to it. this thing that is prominent in our world that has a high view of the gift of being human. that's what my book is about, the humanistic manifesto of being human. which is why i am thrilled to be on the board of the pro-human foundation that really elevates these ideas of the gift of being human. host: let's get a question from trent in munro of louisiana. good morning. caller: hi. i wish i had more time to develop this. go deep with me, now. steve bannon is probably the

most well-known public intellectual for trump. and now he has turned into -- he thinks global war is coming and economic breakdown is coming. he think there are millions of illegals. he's not sure what they will do when it starts crashing. i'm taking your civility argument serious here. i'm saying we will see liberal, socialist, marxist, lgbt xyz people having to coexist as brothers in arms with the christian conservatives and theologically charged brothers and sisters in this country and that will take a lot of civility. but the pressure, let me take it one more step further and ask if you have thought about this. if this thing becomes global, the pressure, you have one billion christians and one billion muslims, a billion hindi's and one billion buddhists and that is 5 billion

people of the 8 billion people on this planet who care nothing more about anything else than their relationship to god and their ability to obey god. if this is the endgame, and my anywhere close to where your thinking is on this? and thank you for indulging my haphazard thinking here. guest: thank you so much for calling in and listening this morning and for taking this conversation seriously. i appreciate how much you care about the state of affairs in our world. and this is a drumbeat in my book and in my work. it's antithetical that outward thinking. the world around us and our immediate culture, they want to externalize what is going on and blame. there is a tenor of apocalyptic ism. it is this empowering.

the core argument i make in my book is that stop looking outward at the many sufferings and frustrations and hardships happening around the world. but also, look inward. look around you at what you can control. i will tell you a story. when i left government, the frustrating experience that i shared a few moments ago, i came home from work and said to my husband, i am done with d.c., the swamp and toxic politics, let's move to indiana. that is where my husband is from originally and where i am calling from right now. my husband said ok, sounds good, we will move to indiana, no take backs. we moved out here and we have been out here six years now. my friend came up to me after church and said hi, i am joanna, would you like to porch with us sometime? i never heard the word porch used as a verb before.

i was curious because we did not know many people in the midwest and i went to her home that afternoon. i realized the quiet and subversive resolution on joanna's front porch that way. -- not to have a structured dialogue, but just to bring people who might otherwise never cross paths into close proximity, just to be together and share space together and have unrehearsed intellectual adventures and have dialogue across and build friendships that are lacking in our world right now. as i wrote my book, i realized there are people across the country and across the world doing what joanna is doing which is quiet and subversive and saying because they are saying i can't control what is happening in washington, d.c. i can't control the president or the scandal of the day.

but i can control myself. and i choose to double down and reclaim my civic power and make my community and my family better and stronger and more beautiful. that doesn't mean putting your head in the sand and ignoring what is happening in the world around you but it is doubling down on focusing on what you directly have control over. the fact of the matter is we have way more power than we realize to make the world a little more gentle and a place for future generations, which is something that i as a mother of children, i am especially concerned about that. it is a big motivation for my work. host: wesley is in trenton, new jersey on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think that values and traditions that we get from our family and our culture and education and politicsy sport.

it is very divided and abrasive and ridiculous. the way i look at it is if some people were grown up and going to bible study and, learning their traditions and values from a young age and then also, just having -- being able to be in a polite society and be educated and read as many books as you can and be able to go to the country club for easter dinner and for easter lunch and just put on a tux edo when you are going out to a gaal a -- tuxedo when you are going out to a gala and enjoy society and get back. the obligation of the nobles is

to look out for the needy and not talk about politics, religion or money. that's the old scottish -- that is the scottish perception. you don't talk about religion, politics -- or politics when you are in a polite society. it is tacky. host: are you saying we should return to that system? caller: absolutely! i don't understand how you have all of these educated people with their attorneys and their business owners and everything and they are in congress, they are in the house and the senate. host: i want to give lexi a chance to respond. hold on for a moment because there is a similar comment that pairs well with yours that we received on x that said civility decreases as wealth disparity increases in my opinion.

this lines up with what wesley was saying about the difference between the past and now with people getting greater educations and greater wealth, a decline in stability -- we are seeing a decline in civility. guest: i think it is a great observation. you are right to connect the commenter and wesley's opinions. i say my book that there is an essential distinction between civility and politeness. this emerged from my experience in government that i shared a few moments ago about, again, seeing people who were polished and polite and well mannered but who turned on a dime and turned out to be ruthless and cruel the moment i and others no longer serve their purposes. i thought that does not feel right, there has to be more than this politeness. that clarified to me the

distinction between civility and politeness. politeness is mannered, technique and external stuff. whereas civility is internal. it's not just what we do and say, the stuff of politeness, it's a disposition of the heart and a way of seeing others as our moral equal who are worthy of a bare minimum of respect despite virtue of our shared moral status as members of the human community. and that crucially, to wesley's points, about this waspy ethic about not talking politics and religion at the dinner table. sometimes loving someone and respecting someone, doing this thing called life with others, that actually requires talking about those things, religion, politics. it requires being impolite, breaking the rules of politeness in order to actually respect the other. and disagreeing with someone,

voicing our disparities, our differences, that's a way to actually respect and love someone, say i respect someone therefore i will take your idea seriously and then you say i disagree with someone. i love etymology to help us understand the difference between civility and politeness. the root of the two words, politeness comes from to smooth or too polished. it tapers over differences. it is superficial and sweeps differences under the rug as opposed to giving us the tools to grapple with difference head on. civility, the latin root of civilization. there are habits, befitting a

citizen in the city which, are commenter said, requires speaking truth to power. it requires being impolite. there are more important things than being polite. too often, we settle for politeness in the world today. when we should instead aim for true civility which is respecting others enough to have these difficult conversations. host: kiki is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i wholeheartedly agree with the premise of civility. but social media, which i'm not on, does not reward civility. i would love to see it significantly change and be more civil. but, that does not seem to be

what sells. thank you very much. guest: it is such an important insight. thank you for bringing up the subject of social media. i unpacked in my book the soul of civility, the idea of cultivating our digital garden. it is this idea that there are, again, so much this is this and talks -- viciousness and toxicity in our culture. you are right. the incendiary, the vitriolic, the rage, it is rewarded. that's what the algorithm likes and what goes viral. even the hate clicks. even the people who disagree with you, they reward the craters that puddle the incendiary because of the hate clicks. it's what the algorithm rewards. i invert that logic. and i localize it. i say focus on what you can control. how are you personally using social media?

don't click the things you know are just there to beat you. -- bait you. i use the example of my own intellectual community, a small corner of the internet. it is called civic renaissance. it's my newsletter and publication dedicated to beauty, goodness and truth and reviving the wisdom of the past to help us lead better lives today. i invite everyone to join civic renaissance, comprised of 50,000 intellectually curious people around the world. that is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of people on the internet and on social media platforms. but, it is where i have chosen to cultivate a community around values that i care about. it is a slower pace and thoughtful. it is looking to the past to help provide insight to help us lead better lives now. is it single-handedly dismantling the toxicity in our

media culture? no. but i believe it matters. it is a drop in the bucket. that is all that each of us can do. it's easy to complain about how elon musk and mark zuckerberg are working the algorithm. but focusing on those things is incredibly disempowering and i would like to invert the question to you and to other viewers, what are we doing? how are we stewarding and wielding these enormous powers i we have with social media at our fingertips? and how can we use our little corner of the internet or how can we cultivate our digital garden to be places that cultivate seeds of light and hope and trust and joy and grace , especially as we enter the holiday season? host: dave is in columbus, ohio on our line for republicans. good morning.

caller: i just wanted to say you go, girl. this is so pertinent to what this country needs today. in fact have a group of people, both democrats and republicans, who go to these meetings promoting the thing you are talking about. one step further, you should get this implemented into the jr. high schools and high schools, universities, colleges and everyplace. one other thing was the constitutions bill of rights and so forth, i have not read your book at all, but have you implemented what the struggle was in the constitution and that was to get the bill of rights, and so much of this plays into what you are talking about. i will shut up from there and let you respond. guest: thank you so much for calling in. i am thrilled to hear that you are forging a bipartisan

initiative to start a conversation about these ideas and the tenants of tolerant society that respects human dignity regardless of race and politics and class. i'm thrilled to hear you are starting the conversation locally which i think is important. i'm thrilled to hear it is bipartisan which is essential to establish common ground in our shared identity as human beings and as citizens in this country. i hope my book can be a resource to you. i hope it can be a total to facilitate and foster this dialogue to you as you are having that. i joke that my book is a great gift for your best friend or your worst enemy which is sometimes the same person these days. in this crazy, beautiful, sad time that we live in. thank you again for calling in. host: salute is in washington,

d.c. caller: yesterday was my father's birthday. if he was alive, he would have turned 100 yesterday. he was a very thoughtful man. the thing he would emphasize to us is be an american. he is a former schoolteacher and veteran. the thing that he emphasized was being american. it does not matter if you are white, black or whatever your standards are. it's been done over the years but, it's like social media is the one determining civil actions now, and i can go in any direction. if you are with this group, that means you are against this group. i think at one time, we were americans. i go back to truman and eisenhower, you always had people that were grounded in

american culture. i think now that american culture seems to be each person has their own agenda and do your thing and don't cross over to mine or we will go to court. it separates us. you should be an american citizen and it does not matter what class, structure or race, it used to be a common thread that we are here together and we can progress together. i think we will be a more peaceful society -- thank you for taking my call. guest: it's such a great insight . your father, your grandfather who just turned 100, happy day. -- happy birthday. it's bitter for that, to him, the most important identity was that of americans -- it's beautiful that, to him, the most

important identity was that of americans. and that despite our differences, we have that to fall back on. this experiment of this joint project of self-government that is our democratic republic, which is beautiful. i think you are right that the ideal is not often realized in our public discourse and world today. too often, people fall back on a different identity that there americanness is not the most important thing about them. their political candidate or political issue, whatever it is that they are passionate about. i think what we have seen his people have misplaced their meaning, their ultimate source of meaning and identity. and in these smaller identities, that has made it impossible to have rational dialogue about these differences because you are not just having a detached

conversation about a political issue. you are having a conversation that touches the core part of who someone is and they feel like their identity is being assaulted when some buddy has a differing opinion about them. i do talk about in my book, the soul of stability, how we have misplaced our meaning in politics. these are areas of shared identity where people have derived their source of meaning from. people have made a religion and cultivated their core identity around politics and political issues which has been bad for democracy and bad for our public discourse. people can't have rational, detached conversation about these issues identity is at stake. and it is bad for our souls too when we externalize on things that are so transient.

as people come around the christmas dinner table with loved ones and family members, i encourage them to remember that superpower of the 21st century is something they can reclaim. that we don't have to be offended by someone. if somebody voices an opinion that seems to cut into the core aspect of who we are, our core identity, that we actually have a choice. we can choose to be offended by that or choose to let it go. and choose to reclaim that agency or that power. reclaim the power of the 21st century and choose to let more things go in the name of joy and peace this holiday season. host: we have a couple more people looking to talk to you. let's hear from faye in new york on our line for independents.

hi, can you hear us? maybe we can hear from jerry in new jersey on the line for republicans. caller: hi. i was just wondering, with this election, i saw muslims at one of trumps things and then i saw the jewish people. catholics and protestants and the amish and the women, black, white, asian, spanish, seeing the muslims and the jews and the catholics and the protestants are supporting trump made me feel like we are starting to come together. i know that you see -- trump was called hitler's 100 times, not see, stalin, -- nazi, stalin, putin, racist. i don't think that is

appropriate, either. the name-calling has gotten out of hand. i did see that i think we are coming together as a country and becoming more civil. seeing the muslims and seeing the jews together, supporting one person. the protestants, the catholics, the young, the amish. i think that a lot of people are getting tone deaf to the name-calling and are starting to come together as a loving country. can that happen? i really hope it can. thank you. guest: i am so encouraged to hear that you have some hope when it comes to the future of our country. the hopelessness, the apocalypticism tend to be the voices that dominate our public discourse. i'm glad you're looking at things and taking some hope. i also have hope as well. i hope that the conversation

that we are having right now will make a small bit of change that will make the world a softer and more gentle place for my children and future generations to grow up in. i do think, for my study of this topic, in my book, the soul of stability, i take the long view of this topic -- soul of civility, i take the long view of this topic. it's not a donald trump problem. the question of how to peacefully coexist is the most important question of our day. but it is not a new question. the oldest book in the world is a book on civility. it is a civility handbook that allows -- helps people to navigate life together. it haps across times and place and people have time and time again grappled with this question. it's not realistic to think this will go away anytime soon. conflict and disagreement will always be with us. the good news is that even amidst conflict and

disagreement, that is not the death note of a relationship or a community or a country. yes, we are polarized but it does not have to spell a civil war or the end of countries or families or our community. even if your hopes of coming together across these factions and different communities is not realized, that does not have to mean the end. there are two things to keep in mind. conflict can strengthen relationships. they can actually improve the life of others. it's about how we fight and how we reconcile. in terms of how we fight, it means not -- as you were talking about, not the name-calling. not calling somebody who disagrees with you a murderer or a fascist.

it's taking the ad hominem attack off the table when it comes to how we talk about our disagreement. and it is about whether we reconcile. that is the second thing that determines whether or not conflict can strengthen our bonds. are we coming together at the end and saying you know, we are reaffirming the bond and saying yes, we disagree on this issue and we have had it out and had an intense and spirited dialogue , which is the lifeblood of a democracy. we are seeing debate and heated dialogue away and wishing that away is to wish democracy away because we will not agree on everything. after that debate, do we say you know what? our shared life as citizens matters the most. as he did conflicts arise, it does not have to spell the end

of the relationship. you don't have to get up in a huff and walk away and cut people off. that conflict can strengthen our relationship. it's about how we fight, are we fighting respectfully? are we disagreeing with others? are we not name-calling and especially not engaging in violence or anything like that? and are we reconciling in the end? host: i want to review several ts whave received via text and social media. massachusetts.carol in boston, civility in politil never happen until the media falls into line as evidenced by abc's information settlement with presid trump. george stephanopoulos repeated on air thatrumpaped a woman. this type of rhetoric fuels negative information and brings about heated, baseless debate. the media is stirring the

civility pot. j on x says godless liberal vermin here, how do you expect th pple that trump calls enemies to be civil to the people who suprt him calling us enemies? -- guest: those are all important insights. they give this question of how do we do life together with others who think and say horrible things? my friend and fellow, daryl davis, he's an african-american jazz musician. he says music is my location but race relations is my obsession. for 30-40 years, he has been

seeking out and finding members of hate groups, members of the kkk, people who think that he is an african-american and should not exist, and he does that because he believes the power of conversation and of friendship can re-humanize our politics and our thinking. and today, he has converted people -- several hundred people away from these hate groups and they are still his friends, because he realizes that many people have these hateful views about african-american people. and they have never actually met an african-american person. and when darrell went out of his way to befriend them and show kindness to them, he surprised them and shocked them out of a stereotype that they held about what an african-american person was like and how they acted. that was enough to conquer their hateful, bigoted views. my response to people who say

how can i be civil to someone who denies my right to exist or who has this hateful view or who has done this? if darrell can and continues to reach out across these divides and surprise people with his kindness, with his micro glimmers, the opposite of a micro-aggression. when he asks questions and shows curiosity to people who hate him, then we can too. host: darrell has appeared on c-span quite a few times. folks can find clips of him talking about this topic on our website, c-span.org. let's get to one more call her before we have to let you go. ron is in florida on our line for independents. good morning. can you turn down the volume on your tv before you get going? caller: sure. i've got it down. host: go ahead. what is your question? caller: my question is i believe

that civility in this country will never happen until we tell the truth of the country and people recognize how this country actually came to be. we are not without sins. but we are definitely without taking care of the original sins of the country. and i think we have people that tell different stories so that, as generations come up, you have people that believe what we did early on never happened. so, until we start telling the truth, we won't find civility. host: let's get your response to that, lexi, before we let you go. guest: i think the caller's point about how our history has

become a subject of contention and even a forefront of the culture war, i think it is telling that that is a substantiation and a symptom of our divided times and across time and place, a shared history has been a thing that people have been united by and appeal to the mid-divided times like what we are in right now. instead, we are seeing it divide people. the 1619 project and the 1776 project. the founders are all villains or they are all heroes. in fact, what does it mean? i suggest this idea of not bundling people -- un-bundling people. we can see that people are not monolith locally -- monolithically evil or good. people are capable of being good and wretchedness. pascal said that humanness of

man is defined by the greatness and wretchedness of man. nobody is perfect. alexander pope, a poet said that to error is to be human. to forgive is divine. what does it look like to take that view and apply it to our founders and say yes, they made mistakes? they were not perfect but they created a beautiful thing in creating our country that unprecedentedly recognizes the basic dignity and humanity of all persons, even if it has been imperfectly realized in our history. and that we can take the good and condemn the bad at the same time. we don't have to either buy into these cheap monolithic narratives of americans being all good in every way or all people and throw the baby out

with the bathwater and say americans are people to their core. both are wrong and imperfect. what does it look like to reclaim a nuance and more accurate view of our country that allows us to love our country and be grateful for our country in a deeper way? host: thank you so much. lexi hudson is the author of the book, the soul of civility, timeless principles to heal society and ourselves. thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up, we will have a segment that was mentioned a bit earlier. the love rights day, which is -- bill of rights day, which is today. david bobb will join us to discuss the history behind this day, which is the commemoration of the ratification of the u.s. constitutions first 10 amendments. first, we will have open forum. you can start calling now. the lines are on your screen. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on the c-span

networks, the house and senate are in session for their last scheduled week of work for the 118th congress. both chambers are facing a december 20 deadline to pass government funding to avoid a shutdown. the senate plans to vote on house built a five -- house bill 25. charlie of the ncaa testifies before the senate judge judiciary committee about the growth of sports betting. live on c-span network, or on our free mobile video app. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live, on demand at any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. host: weekends bring you book tv, featuring authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what is coming up this weekend.

peggy noonan shares her book, a certain idea of america. which is a collection of her columns over the past quarter-century. and then on afterwards, james talks about the potential threats ai poses to the economy and national security in his book, money gpt. he's interviewed by jp singh. watch book tv every weekend on c-span two and find t full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store, where we have our latest books, apparel, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now.

>> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum, ready to hear your comments about the news of the week or other topics you would like to mention. our phone numbers for republicans are (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's start with brenda in michigan, who is on our line for democrats. morning, brenda. >> yes, good morning. i enjoy c-span. you do a great job. my comment is to have a peaceful world, we have to have leaders that recommend that. it seems like the people going into the white house on january 20, he loves chaos and he likes

to put people in their that don't follow the law -- in there who don't follow the law and are not qualified. we are in for trouble. we have to have leaders who recommend peace and unity and that's not what is going into the white house. it is a group of corrupt people and his leadership is awful. thank you. host: william is in wayne, new jersey on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i am bill baker from wayne. i believe that there is a solution to this drone situation that has not been examined as of yet. it is my opinion that there are specific frequencies that the drones are allowed to be used under. and that the fcc has issued

these sightings -- not these frequencies in order for people to operate them. most of them would be obvious. but, the key is that they have the right to block those frequencies. host: first, if you could switch down the volume on your tv but while you are doing that, i want to give folks a bit more information about the story that builds referencing. here it is from cnn, what we know about the mysterious drones reported from the east coast. this is the result of numerous unidentified drone sightings on the east coast in recent weeks. the drones have been spotted over residential neighborhoods. the sightings have put intense pressure on federal agencies to provide more information about the aircraft as officials have

urged calm and there is no evidence suggesting the sightings pose a security threat. the drone activity prompted at least one airport, new york's stewart international airport, to temporarily close its runways for an hour on friday night. it sounds like bill, you are suggesting a new policy be put in place around this? caller: i don't think it is a new policy. but i would like to think that the government might have a way of blocking frequencies in specific areas. for example, new york, pennsylvania, connecticut, they seem to be the hotspots. now, i honestly believe that a lot of these things are hobbyist. i don't believe we are being attacked by any foreign country or anything. what i would suggest is that they give fair warning that on december 20 from 4:30 in the

afternoon until midnight, we are going to block drone frequencies in a geographic area. and then, we will see how many sightings there are once this has been put into effect. host: ok. thomas in st. paul, minnesota is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i enjoy watching c-span. i wish i could have gotten in early. i wanted to pose a question to lexi about healing and civility. i worked in a probation office and have for over two for years. my clientele our youth under the age of 18. my comment is basically this. i hear people talk about -- let me put it this way. i heard somebody mentioned something about well, you know, they call him hitler's and a fascist and these types of things. we talk about healing but part

of the healing process is admitting you say things that have pretenses that lead people to believe it is true. my clientele have work sessions. some of them are repeating things that are leaders who will be taking power in january have said that people are eating cats and dogs. what scares me is that the youth are buying into this. and until we come to terms and people come to terms, i say this on both sides of the fence but mainly in the fact that republicans will not admit that this man said things that were inappropriate, that were misogynistic, racist and so forth. and then when you see him at the football game with a man that choke the life of another person

on a train, what type of message are we sending to the youth? that's the problem i have. if we are going to sit down and conversation -- have a conversation, let's have a conversation what i'm try to do with my clientele is say we can come together but we have to say hey, look, when you are wrong, you are wrong. i say this to my clientele all the time, i'm sorry, i made a mistake. that's my comment on that. have a great day and keep doing what you are doing at c-span. host: eric is in new york on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i too wish i had been able to talk with alexandra, i guess her name is. anyway, because it is right up my alley. over the past decade, i have observed how civility declines as peoples engagement and

identity alignment increases. i resolved to include people in a personal pole. -- poll. i asked people pumping gas, which insured inter-diversity, i asked people why thought were approachable. as i went along, i had more and more different kinds of people. i have called them before about this. i wish people would try this. my sense of politic is different from what could have been derived online. i looked them in the eye and used that powerful thing and said excuse me, can i ask you for your opinion? i've been taking a personal poll, do you think most people are nice? i would stick my neck out.

you would not believe the amount of responses in the positive that i got from thousands, literally thousands of years i s in the various public places that i found myself alone with someone i did not know. my take away is when you strip away the frames which i did in my personal pole and you approach people and look them in the eye, something different happens. the proportion of positive response i got from that exchange was amazing. so my view of the proctor of america is different than those who derive it from their favorite website. host: another eric calling in from palm beach, florida on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you, it is nice to call in today.

having a segment on civility which i saw and on rights, civil rights and the constitution and the bill of rights. i want to suggest the following please that there is an overlooked right when we look at the history of people, that would be people have the right to form a business and as a republican, republicans are oriented towards business. c-span not too long ago had a tremendous outstanding guest named adam winkler, a ucla law professor who wrote a book that he reviewed on c-span, we the corporation and historically he retraces the beginning of the country all the way to 1607 and 1620 when the virginia company founded the jamestown in massachusetts bay company landed in plymouth.

those were both corporations charted by the king of england to find riches and resources and profits. prominent people on those ships, the majority of them were corporate shareholders and noble women. he retraces history in the context of business and the way rights for people to form businesses and corporations have been upheld. the founding fathers had corporations in bridges and roads. i think it would be wonderful if adam winkler was invited to rejoin. if it burdens out, see how rights evolved. that more recent one where people think all of a sudden businesses got rights as people and all of that. i think a broader context would be beneficial and just understanding republicans believe business as business thrives and people are in

business can advance their careers, that that is a benefit to the country immensely. not to deny individual rights, but overlook commercial rights people have to join businesses and do that should be included in when we go over rights. thanks for taking my call in considering may be adam -- professor adam winkler on the show. thanks very much. host: troy is in georgia on our line for independent spread good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i listened with interest earlier the discussion, i did not get in so i would like to discuss that briefly right now. health care has been my life's work. i work my first hospital job in 19 82 as an orderly in an emergency room in the radiology

department and over the course of my career i've worked myself up to a masters level medical librarian in informational. i worked on different segments of health care from the clinical end all the way up to the administrative where i am now. and when i think of american health care i think of its beginning, the model, it is around the time of the great depression when kaiser permanente began group health care insurance and they started third-party payment which i'm sure i don't have to tell anybody what it evolved to now in the 21st century. some of the callers that called and touched on something i didn't hear them call it what i understood which is consumer sovereignty when we purchase health care. we have none. most people are not educated enough to make their own purchasing decisions once you are in the health care system,

especially if you are facing a complicated diagnosis. you cannot make your own decisions on who is going to take care of you, where you will be taken care of. a lot of variables get in the way of your ability to make these decisions probably the biggest one is your ability and knowledge to make them. health care for most of us was the biggest decision we are going to make. even bigger than probably our home buying decisions. you can layout millions real quick with complicated diagnosis. and yet we still do not have that consumer sovereignty. i'm a conservative free-market capitalist, but i have to say the american health care system as it stands now, just by its very nature does not sit well into a premium -- into a free-market economic model. host: what kind of model do you think would work better. caller: we are currently in a

hybrid model. a lot of patients are on medicare and medicaid and of course we have some safety nets lit the affordable health care act that a lot of people are still insured. so probably a hybrid model is the best model, but it needs to be tweaked and like any good health care worker i could probably work up a diagnosis for you but finding the cure that becomes a bit more difficult. i will say this. i think if an insurance executive to follow up this call he would probably say health insurance is one of the most regulated products in the country because they have to go through 50 regulatory agencies, every state has its regulations but these insurance companies have to meet with underwriting guidelines so the first place i would start is some type of oh my gosh, universal regulation

and we have to go from there. host: lou is in tampa, florida on our line for republicans. caller: good morning kimberly. i want to say good morning to america and i want to say merry christmas, happy holidays, happy kwanzaa to all faiths, we really need to get along and may we pray for peace in the world. just too much hate, we just saw the fall of assad, people want to be free, people were saying that they were happy just to breathe. we are so lucky in america and i am grateful that people like myself had a voice during the election to speak to the people and you do such a fine job up

there. have a nice day. take care now. host: steve is in ohio on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment about project 2025 and the heritage foundation which was established in 1973 by the coors family. since then, many billionaires are funding this prominent washington think tank. they advised ronald reagan back in 80. i think they gave him like 2000 ideas, two thirds of which were implemented. looking forward to some anti-union, some unionbusting tactics like reagan did in the 80's, airline air traffic controllers and steel and railroads, all of that.

i think the steelworkers voted for trump this time around, but they are in for a surprise because u.s. steel is probably going to -- that deal from japan is going to be broken up which they wanted. so you are looking for a lot of -- sure they want it made in america but they do not want to pay labor. they want you to have no benefits and they are just going to try to break our backs. i put my hard hat on for 35 years and wore my steel toed boots to work so i know what i'm talking about taking back to 1980 two in allentown, pennsylvania. ethel him steel shut down, second-largest deal producer. 100 50,000 lost their pensions, health care benefits. ok people, you are in for it. i'm a military guy, i still love

my country. i support all americans but you made a big mistake voting for trump. i've just got to tell you. guest: caleb in greens bill, mississippi. caller: good morning c-span and thank you. one of the callers said there's too much hate and we've got too much hate going on in this nation. i'm glad this is open forum. i believe trump is good for helping our nation get back on board with business, there's too many conspiracy surrounding stuff and politics is full of conspiracies anyway, that's just my opinion. i remember back when i was voting when hillary and trump were running with each other and i went and i pressed hillary and

when the screen went off it lit up green for trump. i was like what and then my screen went black like i was done. so somebody needs to investigate this -- the device is being used tha's being rigged. host: you mean like for a television live pole? caller: when i went to and pressed it at the building. all of a sudden he kept yelling it conspiracy election conspiracies and i was like what are you talking about. and lastly, everyone hundred years america repeats itself. from the 1700s, bubonic plague, 1800s spanish flu, 2020 now. if we look at a racial level back in 1919 -- summer of 1919

we had tulsa, all of these different racial attacks. now we here in 2020 talking about a mass deportation. history repeats itself. until we can understand history we will continue to repeat it. we need somebody with a business mind but we need somebody was fair as well. i'm hoping, you can get no position like that except through god's will. we can fight against god. -- we cannot fight against god and his will be done. thank you for having me. host: ohio on our line for republicans, good morning bryce. caller: good morning. host: what's your comment. caller: i was just calling about the drones that have been flying

over new jersey and that part of the country. i have heard that domino's pizza had an extra-large drone that could carry up to 300 extra-large pizzas and one of those i guess wednesday -- went down and they discovered it in a back yard in new jersey and you know who was down there getting pizzas off of it was chris christie. i guess he's on domino's list. it was the first want to get the big drone. host: let's hear from virginia in springfield, good morning virginia. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i'm also calling about the drones and i think maybe santa and his reindeer have just caught up with modern

technology. merry christmas everybody. host: we will have to end it there. coming up next, we are going to mark today which is bill of rights day with the president of the bill of rights institute who will join us to discuss the history behind the commemoration of the ratification of the u.s. constitution's first 10 amendments per we will be right back. ♪ >> for over 45 years, c-span has been your window into the workings of democracy. with unfiltered access to decision-makers who shape our nation and we've done it all without a cent of government funding. c-span exists for you, viewers who value transparentpolitical coverage. as we close out the year we are asking you to stand with us. your gift, no matter the size

goes 100% toward supporting c-span's work, ensuring longform in-depth independent coverage continues to thrive in an era where it is needed more than ever. visit c-span.org/donate or scan the code on your screen to make your contribution today. together we can ensure c-span remains a trusted resource for you, for future generations. >> james and bradley's biography of martin van buren is the first full-scale portrait of the eighth president in four decades. mr. bradley's the co-editor and teachers in the public history program at the state university of new york at albany. in his introduction james bradley writes as this biography will show reaching the nation's highest office does not van buren's greatest achievement.

he built and designed the party system the defined how politics and power wielded in the united states. van buren is known as the principal founder of the democratic party. >> james bradley with his book martin van buren: america's first politician. on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on than now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back we are joined by david bob, the president of the bill of rights institute. welcome to washington journal. can you tell us a little bit about your organization, what you do and why it was needed to set up. guest: the bill of rights institute teaches history, we equip young people to be able to live out the principles of the declaration of the constitution

so that they can see a just and free society, about. it is important to learn about the past but is also important to take the principles of our founding and put them into practice. teachers have a hard job when it comes to being in the classroom and talking about these ideas. we have to learn from our past and think about these ideas, these ideas don't come naturally to us. maintaining a free and just society is a learned skill. if we are able to help teachers in this very important task of teaching history and civics. we've been doing it for about 25 years. we have 70 7000 teachers across the country that rely on the free curriculum and the teacher training programs. >> let's talk about today's bill of rights today, can you remind us an overview of what the bill of rights is and when and why a

day to honor it was established. guest: it is the first 10 amendments of the united states constitution. the story is complex but to boil it down when the constitution was being debated in the idea maybe we should have a supreme law of the land, the people across this country looked at what do we want to put into it when you write things down it tends to memorialize them. we hadn't had an effective constitution until that point. the constitutional convention, for long hot months in the summer. and a bunch of delegates got together and debated this. what they started to see as their negotiations ended is there was an emerging group, a minority voice to be sure but a pretty loud minority group saying we need to protect individual rights in this document. so the people who debated that sent it out to the states for ratification and it was a pretty bruising battle. a lot of the state saying we wouldn't approve it unless there

is more concrete statement about what kind of rights individuals have. take a step back, that document which declared our independence talked about the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. so i think there was a through line here to the debates that happened after the constitution and what people across the country said is you have to do better. so some politicians initially who were not in favor of the bill of rights, notably alexander hamilton and james madison started hearing the will of the people and it was madison who was very careful and attentive, he assembled a list. and then they took that list and started saying we will have to whittle it down. we will have a kind of negotiated settlement for this whole thing. what list would make sense. back down to about 20 and that it became 12. the 12 were sent out to the states for ratification and the

12 came back with 10. three through 12 were adopted and on december 15, 1791, the state of virginia became the last that was needed for ratification and the bill of rights became the first 10 amendments in the united states constitution. host: according to this year's constitution day civics study, only 7% of respondents could name all five rights guaranteed just under the first amendment and 21% could not name any and just a few more numbers from that only when asked to name the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, 74% new included freedom of speech. 39% new it included freedom of religion, 29% freedom of the press, 27% the right to assembly, only 11% new that they had the right to petition the government under the first

amendment. why do you think people aren't more aware of what this amendment and some of the others in the bill of rights actually have in them? guest: one of the things i've seen over the years it might be true in washington dc where we are now is the sense of the constitution being for the people and of the people and by people is lost a little bit. it's complex, but at the end of the day though it's a document that if you sit down and read it takes about a half hour. we've made it a little bit more complicated than we need. and we are not devoting enough time in our schools. elementary school teacher has maybe 20 minutes per week to talk about these things. we need to start with the stories. the declaration of independence, it said something that no government in the history of the world said before. people have rights because they are people.

it took us longer than we wanted. it took a long time before we extended those to all people in this country, but we laid down a marker and said u.s. a human being have the right to life, liberty and property. that pursuit of happiness is one we are still on today. one thing i will note about those numbers is we don't find young people want to stay in that state of ignorance. i don't think we should blame them, not even our teachers. what we have to do better is model this for them and show them why it matters. it's made into something that sometimes is very abstract. let's make these things apply to everyday life and show people the promise of the declaration of independence, the promise of the bill of rights something that matters. host: speaking of this topic, you had a recent opinion piece

with the headline election highlights need for and warnings about civic education. what are these warnings? host: one of the things i'd -- guest: one of the things i just mentioned is the need for time in schools. we have a challenging system in this country but it is a good one. education is local which means there's a lot of decisions -- decision-makers. we are negotiating these at the local level. parents can entrust their kids then to different schools and then teachers complement the work parents to learning about history and civics. how do we make sure that every child in america is growing up with a sense of what this country is about. that's a big challenge. in the further we get away from the local level, the more washington dc or state capitals, governors insert themselves into these in a political or ideological way, the worse off we are going to be.

one of the things we've seen as we become more polarized, americans actually anchor around the principles of the declaration of the constitution but we perceive that we are very divided and when politicians seize on that and use civics as a means to stoke disagreement, that is a problem. what we don't want is for washington dc to take these things over and say here's the kind of official civics we will have. that's never been part of our government and i think it's a real strength. for example globally we've seen the toppling of the dictator in syria, but even regimes that aren't dictatorial oftentimes they will have a big fight over who gets to write the textbooks. and when you have that fight what you tend to do is reduce the value of the civics and history. people say it's just politicians and what they want me to think. civics and history has to be about people taking these ideas,

making them their own and then putting them into practice in everyday life. the more we make this an ideological or political thing, the worse off. host: some other resources for teachers when it comes to civics education, from c-span directly on c-span.org. we have a program called c-span classroom which includes free video-based materials for social studies teachers on various civics related topics. how do you think especially in our politically divided environment civics might be able to bridge that divide? guest: the resources are excellent and there is nothing better than going back to primary source documents. when you ask americans what do you anchor on. it is that sense the declaration and constitution do matter. we to bridge political divides is by having conversations that

matter, by not shirking that, two out of five young people in this country are in high school feel uncomfortable disagreeing with their friends and peers in the classroom. that has to change. i think what we have to do is disagree better. let young people know that if they disagree on matters of significance it won't mean you will lose your friends. and for young people to take that seriously they will have to see more models of that kind of thing. it's civil discourse and valuing of free that says it is ok to talk about religion and politics and financial things, you have to do it in a way in which you are respecting the other person and bringing the controversial subject into the classroom when you anchor around primary source documents it gives a footing to those conversations where young people can say i do want to see your view that may be different than mine and that is ok. i want my perspective challenged

by yours. we are sharper, better off. host: taking your calls with questions to david of the bill of rights institute. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. can also send us questions via text or social media. we received a text message comment from diane in ne jersey that says all americans should be able to pass the citizenship test. what do you think of that. >> as a mental kind of model it is the right idea, for those of you who are not familiar with this. it's 100 questions it's about pretty basic things related to what it means to be a citizen and it's given to those who want to become citizens for the naturalization process. there than efforts to institute this, to mandate this in states. i think all americans if you google it and take the test you can see it's a worthwhile

exercise because it is trying to anchor you on the things that matter. it is important to note those facts and figures but we also have to know why. that is something the naturalization test does not get into as much as we would like. great civics, great history learning. those are deep questions of inquiry and points to that point counterpoint where you are having that kind of verbal back-and-forth, the intellectual that doesn't have to be disagreeable. i think it's a good start but i think we can do better for all americans with the kind of critical thinking we see from the lifelong commitment to civics. host: maybe this is a difficult question but of the amendments in the bill of rights, which one is the most fascinating to you? guest: i think it is hard not to be fascinated at the ninth and 10th amendments. they do not get as much attention today but they are the taproot of what we might see as

popular sovereignty. the idea that the people rule in this country. think of what humility it took you the drafting of the constitution and then you send it out to the people. that's not been what typically happens in other countries. a lot of other countries it's the elites who rule and we never see a change from them. so the founders were trying to say can we get away from that system in which -- could we be ruled by reflection and choice, the ninth and 10th amendments say the people retain rights. host: so the ninth amendment says the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. th10th amendment says the pors not delegated to the united states by the constitution are per habit by it to the -- nor per habit by it to the states are given to the

people. host: -- guest: one of the big debates over the bill of rights was what if we start writing them down if we miss one or don't write down everything will people think that they do not have those rights. that was one of the objections and it was a reasonable objection. the soviet union had a beautiful bill of rights. many of the tyranny's around the globe today do. just writing down rights doesn't make them put into practice. people have to actually believe them. so we do not have a written confirmation of our right to say get in your car and drive into maryland and pennsylvania and keep going. but i do have that right. what's important to think about the declarations promised. because we are human beings, the 10th amendment is a restriction. we think of them is giving away

rights when in fact it's restricting saying to the federal government you cannot interfere, you cannot overly involve yourself in the affairs of state. the founders saw that too strong of a government, too invasive of a government would be a bad thing. when they were colonists, what happened with the british as they could search their home for any reason at all. that's an invasive sense of what power means. ninth and 10th are restrictions on power, on governmental power, but they are a great boon to the power of the individuals. host: you made reference to the fourth amendment. this once is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall t be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the

place of search and the persons or things to be seized. let's get to your calls. i'm sure people have a lot of questions. we will start in crab orchard, west virginia on our line for independence. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say is your guest and just about everyone else always speaks of the inalienable rights that are mentioned in our declaration, but that is an incomplete sentence. it's all most as if it is out of context. entire statement says those rights are gifts in dowd by our creator. that may be the most important part of the statement and that's all i wanted to bring up. people don't remember that our rights are gifts from god. thank you. guest: that's a great observation, you are absolutely right.

the declaration itself has four references to god and i think they tell an interesting story. two of them were included by jefferson and two were added by the content of congress. that reference the creator is the one that is probably the most pivotal. we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights paid cannot be taken away from us. they cannot be stripped by the government. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. also the legislative component of god's nature was the laws of nature, that was the second reference, there is also the supreme judge of the universe, that is the third reference. the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch. the declarations argument is pretty simple in one respect saying this prince, king george

the third has become a tyrant. because he takes the executive, legislative and judicial and pulls it into his own orbit and supposes he can operate in that way. i think with declaration is saying without getting specific to one religion it is saying if there is a superintending god, if there is a supreme being it would be only that being that would be able to handle all of this power, no one human being. no one human committee could take the executive, legislative power. host: let's hear from gary in winter haven, florida on our line for democrats. >> good morning. i wanted to talk about the second amendment. one thing a lot of people don't remember is earlier this year there was a school shooting in i/o and donald trump's response was you have to get over it and then recently there was a shooting for united health care ceo and you could hear the

meltdown on the right. and it came -- i realize the first time a board room gets shot up like it's a second grade classroom we are going to see a ban on assault weapons. i'm just curious about the second amendment and how that would play out. the other thing is people don't think of republicans wonders that legislation. california's restrictive gun laws were introduced in the 60's by republican governor ronald reagan when the black panthers were stockpiling weapons. so it is not unprecedented for republicans when they get freaked out enough. >> let's look quickly at the language of the second amendment which says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. guest: one of the great concerns

that people had at the time this was adopted was where we going to have a standing army or not. and many of those who were anti-federalist said as they pose the ratification especially without a bill of rights were worried about a standing army. this was adopted and it was not until very recently in a couple of cases including that that the supreme court weighed in to say that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. so for most of our history there's not much litigation. not many pieces that to the supreme court. what we do for example is bring this into the classroom so that teachers can learn the history, they can study the primary source documents, they can engage in the kind of debates that help sharpen their understanding of this. that's the essence of what this requires. as an organization we are not taking a stance on how the

second amendment should be interpreted but we think it is important young people and teachers should be equipped with the tools to be able to look at the documents and that's just what you did which is reading it and trying to understand the text and have a conversation around those topics. >> tom is in washington on our line for independent. the morning. host: mine is mostly on the education of the bill of rights, my daughter is a schoolteacher and we live here in western washington which is a very liberal area. and she is not allowed free speech. and this goes back all the way to the civil war when democrats lost the war and formed the kkk and they formed an agenda to actually not infiltrate, but to indoctrinate the children through the school systems and not teach that. this has been proven by the

stats stated on this program. people not being able to label them and you can ask for six year college graduates who fought in the civil -- in the revolutionary war and they can't even name it. they think it's germany, things like that. that's all because the schools have been indoctrinated and they don't want history taught because it shows that all through history when the democrat party was first formed they fought all against civil rights all the way through history, but it's been kind of indoctrinated in schools to not teach these, not teach christianity or other religions and all that. and i think that shouldn't be for schools, that shouldn't be a personal thing but people need to remember history and

understand i think it was 1909 when the first agenda of the democratic party included indoctrination of schools because it -- host: let's give david a chance to respond. guest: overwhelming number of americans today believe civics and history will lead to critical thinkers and informed citizenship. i think it is on that agreement we talk about polarization that we need to seize on and say how can we create more space where the teachers are supported by parents. what does the support mean. a lot of the times of the teacher is using let's say you want to teach the second amendment or talk about things in the news that are controversial, you need to be able to say on one hand this is a provision in on the other hand here is a different position. we build that into our

curriculum because it's from that kind of iron sharpens iron mentality that we think we get the kind of citizens that are open to other people's ideas. how do we do that? we need more time in school. we need more trust. when we as parents trust our teachers and say if you are committed to viewpoint diversity we have your back. wings talk principles and say carve out more time. building activities in which young people can build the skills that allow these principles to be put into practice because ultimate what we are looking for in civics is a change in the habits of hearts and minds. we want young people who are committed to the promise of the declaration of independence. john lewis and his fame -- in his famous speech on the march in washington set our task is to complete the revolution of 1776. i think there's something really powerful in that and something

that unites us around that effort if we take it seriously. >> pat is in new jersey on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: speaking about how the 10th amendment is really a protection against the growth of the federal government, it has been pretty much eviscerated by supreme court decisions such as mcculloch v maryland which said congress had unenumerated powers. they could do whatever they wanted regardless of what the constitution said. thank you. >> i think the historic record actually shows the enumerated powers of article one section eight still very much in play. i think there have been i think and this is again one of those debates that the bill of rights institute we teach. a back-and-forth over many generations about just how broad a scope are you going to give. what is the right delineation of

power between the federal government, the national government and the states. much of the relationship was changed when the civil rights amendments were adopted and before that the amendments around the civil war. so this is certainly a hotly contested thing. the important thing is in each answer to today there is still this amendment in effect, it's the will of the people and the kind of will of the electorate that's ultimately going to say how seriously will we take this. i will say one other thing about this related to the education. this is the kind of thing i think we need to bring out more is put a question to them. what is the right relationship between the national government and the states. one of the ways i think people can start to understand that best is if they get involved at the local level. because they then start to see

it's really difficult to start something like a farmers market. why is that difficult? why is it difficult to solve some of the problems like homelessness or pick any one of the things that are really important to people of any age in this country but especially to young people. we have a contest called the my impact challenge. it takes to the charitable sector, business and also constitutionally limited government so raising these questions around the size and scope of government. it asks them to get involved in their community at the local level, starts by looking at a problem, a challenge and seeing if they can solve it using founding principles and virtues. what we find after 500 some projects is young people are committed to trying to figure this out. they don't want and i don't think the american people believe that all of our problems will be solved by washington, d.c.. >> let's hear from stan in

kentucky on our line for democrats. caller: yes. the caller from west virginia called in and misquoted the declaration of independence and then you also misquoted. it does not say in value -- endowed by our creator, it says endowed by their creator which is a big difference. host: did you have a question as well? caller: no. host: let me pull up the exact language of the declaration of independence from the national archives. let's see. second paragraph, let's see. we will just read it. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness. guest: you are right about our versus their. i think the distinction is one without a difference. i think the affirmation is that there is an jeffersons language ratified by the content of congress that there is a superintending being. there's a lot of controversy about that relationship with god is to human beings, but they are saying we are not god. i think that's the essence of it. we are not the author of our own rights. it is saying these rights are not positive, they are not given to you just by government but there is a natural basis and you can know them through the natural law. that's the key point i think. >> robert is in waldorf, maryland on our line for independence. caller: good morning, merry christmas. this is a great subject, very informative. my question is if any of the two of you can answer this one,

anywhere in the bill of rights does it authorize or grant the right to an abortion? does it authorize the right to free health care. anywhere in the bill of rights it authorize the right of a living wage, can any of you show me that in the bill of rights? i know that you can but maybe like you say we can educate these young kids that nowhere in the bill of rights is an abortion are right. nowhere in the bill of rights is free health care a right. nowhere in the bill of rights is a living wage a right and i think you are dead on the money sir that educating the public. thank you and have a great christmas. guest: i appreciate the callers passion around this and i know this has a lot of strong opinions. i will tell you how we approach it in an educational context. each one of those topics that

you raised is one that young people and people of all ages in this country are going to continue to debate. we are a nation of 330 million plus people, we have the task of managing disagreement, not eliminating it. so for example when you go through the bill of rights institute, to the youtube page you can find a video about roe v. wade. the new york times when they needed to rely on a video for their coverage of the dobbs decision pulled this video because it is telling you what that speed -- what it says. our job is not to weigh in on each of these disputes but to go into the place where teachers especially can be equipped to go to primary source documents. we should read these documents from the founding era and from each era carefully. we should equip young people to be civic leave literate so that they can engage in the kind of conversations and debate

recognizing first and foremost we see this in the first amendment we have a guarantee of free speech. i think that has to go hand-in-hand with the responsibility of civil discourse. and what we want to do in our civic learning in classrooms and out of classrooms is to equip all americans to be able to have these conversations here it and do so with the recognition that we are going to disagree about certain things. the question in my mind is can we agree about the fact that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are critical. we will have policy disagreements for sure. but the question is what are we united around and i think that is a central challenge for young people and people of all ages back to those core big questions. >> stephen is in georgia on our line for independence. stefano, good morning.

>> thank you for taking my call. i listen every day so little nervous. it's the first time i've called in. but i really think this is a great show and i appreciate the guests points but one thing i want to point out is the declaration of independence as an important document as it is historically is not the law. it is not codified into law. one of the reasons that is important is in relationship to the constitution is that when people do try to insert religion or establish a religion in society they will refer to the declaration of independence which uses the word creator. the constitution does not. the founding fathers really wanted that word to be in the constitution they would've put it in the constitution but they didn't. that was my comment. i would like to hear the opinion and thank you >> the declaration

of independence does not have the same standing as is the constitution of the united states. the constitution is the supreme law of the land. the declaration is part of the organic laws for the northwest ordinance the declaration constitution, the bill of rights, these are part of the organic laws of the united states. abraham lincoln gave us an interesting guide to thinking about how the declaration and constitution are related. quoting from proverbs, the apple of gold the declaration of independence was made with the frame of silver around it. what he was trying to say is you set up the goal, the vision is human beings have rights and it's the governments job to protect those rights. it has to be powerful in protecting those rights. so you cannot forget about the promise of the declaration. that's why i have been anchoring on that for much of the day. not so much that we should have,

and i certainly don't think we should have an established religion. that's one of the great things of the constitution and the bill of rights, notice for example king of england still to this day is the head of the church. one thing we did in this country through the first amendment and the structure of the constitution is say our president has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. that means that the realm of religion is one of an individual within civil society. government's job is not to dictate that. that does not mean however the religion and politics and have nothing to do with one another. in fact we are given wide license in this country to bring a religious perspective and those that are born of nonreligious perspective into the public square. that's a very important thing. i know it is a complicated question and i appreciate the nuance of your question.

it's important to understand the declaration of independence is a big part of the understanding that we have about who we are as an american people and for that reason we put into the core of civics and history education. >> since we referee the first amendment we will pull up the languageorhat as well. ngss shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting e ee exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. rick is in woodville, virginia on our line for independence. good morning. caller: my question is about the interplay between the commerce clause and the ninth and 10th amendments. it seems like congress and the court particularly under the warren administration used the commerce clause to meddle in areas the framers perhaps did not intend congress to have

jurisdiction. i'm wondering what you're feeling is about the limits to the commerce clause and whether or not there is some primacy of it because it is in the constitution and takes place over the bill of rights. >> so the bill of rights part of the constitution. an additional 17 amendments were added, we have 27 minutes of the constitution even though they are all included at the end of a piece so they really have to be interpreted together as a whole. you can't have any disharmony between the bill of rights and the constitution. that was something that really worried those that were involved in that initial debate over the ratification of the bill of rights. are we going to create a kind of disharmony between the things that we put at the end and the text of the constitution. the caller, you are asking about the interstate commerce clause and this was used really as a

bedrock for a long time to say congress will not be able to interfere in the affairs of commercial activity. there is a lot of different casework, but in the 20th century, there's been a movement to allowing legislation to be deemed constitutional for questions that in the past really were not allowed. cutting to the caller's point, we have a big debate over how much congress can actually interfere or be involved in questions of interstate commerce and this is one of those things again in the bill of rights institute we take up that debate and put it to students and let them dip into these different documents and try to figure out what the truth of the matter is.

our point is not to come to a conclusion in a public policy way about whether this interpretation has been done correctly or incorrectly. host: patricia on our line for independence. caller: my question was standing on the bill of rights, i really didn't learn anything about like my heritage, native americans and why is it native american history basing upon everything on like the whole constitution and everything? why is it native american history being taught on our side versus versus the civil war and all of that. why isn't any of that being taught because i didn't know anything about how my people

died and why there isn't many of us left except for when i was 50 years old i saw a piece on i think it was nat geo, that's how i found out. >> patricia, did you want to know more about how the bill of rights shaped what we learned in terms of different history? caller: yes because it wasn't taught in school. guest: i'm sorry you did not have that opportunity and it's one of the things we care a lot about at the bill of rights institute. you can go to our website and you will find a 500 year history of the united states that touches on many issues on the native american journey in this. one of the key things i will say is it's vital each person in this country recognize that these rights apply to them.

our journey in this country has been one that is not a straight line to the kind of realization of the promise of the declaration. one of the key things i've learned over the years is in reading the writings of the founders is that they were aware of how rare what they were trying to do was. and many of them lamented the fact that they were not expending -- extend to enslaved peoples, to others the same rights. in some cases they lamented they did not do more. and i think it is ok for us to recognize that that lament was true. we wish there had been more. take the perspective of someone like the chief justice or frederick douglass, leaders that themselves new the taranto forces of government to not protect their rights. that did not eliminate the fact that these individuals said these rights still exist.

and that goes to the core things today, human beings have rights and its governments job to protect them. and when government fails in that path it's up to all of us to call government to account. and i think what civic education does well and what it should do well is let people know that we have to teach the whole of our history and we have to recognize where we failed, where we lived up to this promise and also to challenge everybody in this country to hold our government to account that these rights are extended to each individual regardless of where they live. >> i'll point out on your website you got several elections related to narrow american history including the stain on the american character, john marshall as one of the lesson plans available there on the bill of rights institute website.

last caller for today let's hear from philadelphia, pennsylvania on our line for democrats. >> good morning. to the young man that's talking about these bill of rights and civics and all of this other stuff, i'm a 79-year-old black man. when i was born blacks weren't even allowed to vote. let alone learning civics and all of this kind of stuff. gradually i was allowed to vote and stuff. but let me tell you something. this guy sitting here talking about all these rights, this man was born with rights. you understand. so it's easy to sit up here and

say all of this type of things about rights and all of that stuff unless you were born without them, you would appreciate. understanding education, you understand and yet we've got a man that was elected that wants to destroy the department of education. you understand? so it's mixed up and it's crazy. so i don't understand what you're saying. >> i appreciate what you are saying and i think i understand your perspective, i'll say one of the things that we take very seriously the bill of rights institute is to bring to bear the fact that as you pointed out these rights have not been extended to people, they have

not been extended to people equally. you are 79 years old and i appreciate the perspective you offered. one of the key things we anchor on the douglas said in the speech in 1852. the first half of the speeches about how wrong the united states of america has been to allow the extension of the institution of slavery. it was a speech in which douglas could not really say to his fellow citizens that they were his fellow citizens. he felt estranged from the country and yet in the second half of the speech what he attempts to do is say yet i still have hope and that hope is based on the idea that there are certain principles that are there from the get go. freedom and equality for all. do those prince was not applied to all? that was his argument. if we can look to them as saving

principles they can save him from his plight as an individual who for the first 20 years of his life was enslaved and they can save the country from the awful scourge of slavery. and i think what we've seen in the story of america is by comparing to those principles -- adhering to those principles in a jagged line, we more than any other have been able to extend those rights to people and be a beacon of hope for others around the country. it does not mean that we are perfect. it does not mean we have it all figured out but it does point to this as i believe you indicated to the educational imperative. we need young people to understand our history and our future based on this promise of rights and freedom and equality for all. that's the promise of civic education. >> david is the president of the bill of rights institute, appreciate your time this morning. thank you to everybody who

called in today on washington journal with your questions and comments. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern with another edition of the show. have a great day. ♪ [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. 2024]