i think adam is right. >> how would you play? >> young people are drinking coffee in droves. it mightbe better . i like joes . etf x. coffee is big thing

this year. >> it didn't . you get the caffeine anyway. >> i want to thank all of you and don't forget our coverage, monday both network we mean business all of the time. david asbin with forbes it's back. are you ready to pay up more for government-run health care? a group of democratic leaders are raising the stakes and pushing for a public option. this is congresswoman jan chikowski. >> it would decrease the deaf faucet $104 billion over 10 years. >> of course not everybody agrees that government health insurance would save money. republican critics oppose the government takeover of health care saying it is too costly and could bank rupt the country. who is right? welcome to "forbes on fox."

let's go in focus. mike, you say we just can't afford a full-ploan -- full-blown national health care system. >> no, we can't. anyone who has tried it has experienced higher costs or less health care. we can see with obamacare that is a backdoor into a single payer system he had to implement a huge tax increase to pay for it. of course it costs more. >> the president was telling us this is what he has planned. obamacare is not a single payer plan which is national health care. but isn't that in fact what it is turning into? >> well, i think that there is going to have to be a single plan if we are going to reduce health care costs in society. will this reduce the deficit? no. it depends on what your goal is here. is your goal here to provide health care to people because the private sector has not

done a very good job. >> the government will do better? >> we have seen costs in the private sector go up two to three times the rate of inflation. >> the government takeover would be cheaper and more efficient than the private health sector? >> there would be more people covered and the cost would be lower if we had a government plan, a government -- >> is there anyway to prove that contention? >> no, i hear what mark is saying. and by the way this congressman is someone who said we should unionize doctors. we have a veterans administration who is doing health care that was not so great. i wish it was better. for the one size fits all approach, it is costly. we don't have the same demographics as britain and canada. even the health care costs rise dramatically in those countries. and this bill which i read is saying that they would pay out increasing taxpayer funds to increase coverage. you can imagine the costs for this bill would go up dramatically. >> rick, isn't this really

what the president's intention was to go to a single payer system? >> frankly i wish it were, but i don't think it was. >> hold on a second. he did say that at one point. i believe we have the tape of him saying that in 2003. let's roll the tape. >> i happen to be a proponent of the universal health care plan. >> there he said it. i am in favor of a single payer universal health care plan. >> what is relevant was in 2003 he was in fact in favor of it. to tell you the truth i think secretly the president is in favor of it. sadly it is no where near where we got in the affordable care act. >> we are moving toward it. that's the point of the congressman. >> first of all what the congressman has propose said not full blown national health care. it will compete on the changes with the private insurance companies. that's number one. number two it is never going to happen. we should all recognize

because she is the only one who is proposing. and number three, if in fact it could happen, the truth is it would save a hundred billion over 10 years because it would reduce the amount of subsidees that would be paid on exchanges to people in the lower income brackets. if you are truly a deficit buster, you actually should be for it. it is not going to happen. >> i will argue with the mathematics in a minute. morgan, the fact is that we knew we weren't going to get a full blown government-run health care system. we are going to inch our way into it. isn't that what is happening? obamacare what we saw passed a couple years ago was just the beginning of full blown government takeover health care. >> well, i do think rick makes a good point by saying it is unlikely this public option is going to happen. but i'm gonna jump on this idea of funky mathematics. this hundred billion dollar plus number that is getting thrown around is from a 2009

congressional office report. and then in 2010 the number was more like $68 billion. two different programs. and i think that is the big issue with the public option. there are so many if's and questions about whether this would make money or lose money. one of the biggest things being whether subsidees will be involved. >> mike, let's just pull back for a second. when government takes something over, doesn't it get more expensive and more bureaucratic than it was in the private sector? >> this is what happened with other countries who tried universal health care. you can get less of a supply too. look at canada. you can wait up to a year in canada for knee surgery for example. if you go to amtrak that is run by the government. they are bankrupt without a big subsidee, same with the post office. if you look at obamacare, the costs have risen dramatically according to the cbo. in the past year as it started to be implemented. >> for example, we got into wind power. after $20 billion of subsidee it costs more to get energy

from wind power than it did. or let's go back to medicine itself, medicare. look at medicare. the biggest government invasion in the health care program we have had in our lifetimes and they lose $60 billion a year on waste and fraud. you call that efficient? >> it depends on what your philosophy is here. >> wait a minute. wait a minute. >> mark, hold on a second. mark, just answer the question. is $60 billion of loss in medicare a year to waste and fraud efficient? >> if your figure is correct, no. >> the figure is -- by the way the figure comes from the hard right conservatives. >> let me answer the question. let me answer the question. look, it depends on what your philosophy is here. no government is as efficient as the private sector. but the private sector is rationing care. it is only available to people who have lots of money and people who are working at jobs jobs -- working in jobs where they are insured. there is 40 million americans

without insurance. do we want a certain elite group, a sliver of society covered by insurance and those people are then sub subsidizing the poor and the under insured or people going without insurance? >> who does a more efficient -- >> who cares? who cares if it is efficient. >> let's give the lady a chance, all right? do you agree? let me ask you, efficiency, when you look at medicare in the $60 billion they waste every year and you think of expanding that by a multiple of 10 in order to do the single payer plan, is that efficiency? >> i would imagine that figure is higher because you would have to pay for the cops and the bureaucrats to chase down the $60 billion figure. listen, what we are talking about is the system we have now is broken. i agree with mark. but the obamacare bill is really bad. it is a halfway house -- it is a halfway house to single payer. the mandate taxes are too

low. the mandate taxes are too low to have enforcement power. more will be dumped into the government option. by the way, nixon -- hang on. >> we are better without -- >> no. it will cost -- please let me finish. the nixon price controls we saw enacted in places like britain and canada. britain has fewer mri and scaner machines than canada. the wait list is long for people coming here for care. >> and morgan when we look for a solution that really would work, what we think of is putting the individual back in charge. when an individual is in charge of the cost and the care that he or she is receiving, aren't they maury responsible? more responsible? shouldn't that be the goal of putting the individual in charge? >> i think it is a great concept. going back to this idea of medicare, if we want to fix the budget we will have to take a red pen to entitlements in general. >> last word for morgan. thank you, thank you.

>> an amazing person and he -- yes, he is incredible. he has amazing instincts. >> it is always -- it is always exciting. >> so it is exciting. near caw -- neil cavuto is going to washington. he is the guest of honor at the president's inauguration. well, maybe not. he is hosting at 11:00 eastern and 4:00 p.m. on fox news and also on 8 p.m. on fox business. coming up, after the president says we don't have a spending problem outcomes a new report, $4 billion in taxpayer bucks just went to foreign firms. what happened to keeping the money here in the usa?

here we go again. a new report showing more details about just how washington is spending our tax dollars. this time $4 billion in stimulus cash going to green projects for companies that are based in spain. in spain, germany, france, italy, japan. isn't this money supposed to help american companies? proponants say the money helped create american jobs, but you say this is total misuse of taxpayers' money. how so? >> i just think the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. i'm sorry in the energy

field. we have natural gas creating jobs. solar and wind are pipe dreams. companies overseas may be doing it cheaper and better in places like china.it i don't even care if it is less than $4 billion. i don't like the idea of the phoniness of the administration saying we will create jobs here when backdooring money overseas. >> rick, i think bottom line is the government is lousy at making investment decisions with our money. >> it will would be a disyou are iting report. a disturbing report. all of these companies and there is one exception, all of the companies are united states subsidiaries of southern companies. now letie me give you an example of a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign company. we are sitting in one. until nine years ago this company we work at, fox news, was a subsidiary of a foreign company. we are very much an american company. jay this corporation is a u.s. -- >> this corporation is a u.s. company. >> they don't get money from

the federal government. h that's the point. that's the point. if you are getting subsidees from the u.s. government shouldn't you be a u.s.-based company? >> what this example says is the folly of president obama's argument that a stimulus would create a job in a particular location, ie, the united states. capitalists are fungible. what it says is the government should not be in the business ofai picking winners and losers. that should be based on economics and where people say they will get the highest rate of return. this is something the obama administration doesn't care about because he wants his own agenda which has nothing to do with realis economics. >> i don't know why we have to go to t mark. i'm sure he agrees with everything he just said. go ahead. >> well, you know, look, this is a very pro vin that -- provincial and backward argument. >> just call me provincial. >> the top hundred companies

receive 50% of their revenue from outside the united states. they are more engaged in some cases in foreign markets than they are here. are they u.s. companies? they don't pay u.s. taxes in some cases or are they foreign companies? and the fact we are subsidizing companies to do something we subsidize all the time. this is a small amount of money. it is a droper in the bucket. you can get all insensed about 4 billion. but that is walking around money. >> billion here, billion there it adds up. beyond that my tax dollars go into a foreign-based company. there is something wrong with that. >> i don't think so. as rick and mark just said we about american subsidiaries of companies. and really american companies and spanish companies and italian p cs and global -- and global corporations, as long as those tax dollars are going toward companies and are creating jobs for the americans which to be fair even in this report it talks

about it. many of the jobs went to american work ares. workers i'm okay with it. when you want to talk about the texas wind farms went to jobs in china that's not okay. >> don't you have an issue with the fact that a lot of money was wasted? it went to jobs that lasted a couple weeks and aren't there anymore or wint to cylindra. >> you have them locked into a fantasy land and noyo relationship with reality. i like how the president called the creditors spec leaters. the pie in the sky projects projects are entrepreneur. we see here in the united states a lot of crow kneism going on in the united states with the mandated renewable energy. we can see really serious gouging in california where price cost #r*z 50% higher because of the renewables and crony contracts between these guys.

>> he is hitting the nail in the head. president obama is so arrogant that he sits there without a job in the private sector. he is telling the american people i know better than companies, individuals and investors in a free market how money should be spent. >> we had a job in the private sector for 10 minutes. >> the po nie t is the -- back when the spanish government wash a socialist government they were funding some of these companies. one of the governments that got money, the spanish government, the spoacial list -- the socialist spanish government say they don't work and they don't create lasting jobs, and then they come to us and we give them the subsidees. >> and we subsidize companies all the time. >> if you want to talk about whether or not there should be subsidees, that's an honest debate. absolutely discussed. don't characterize this as giving it to foreign companies. >> it is. >> no, it is not. >> it is given to u.s. companies. >> the capital is based overseas. >> it is an unreasonable --

>> it is not misrepresented. we represented it fairly with all of our views fair and balanced. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. you think lance armstrong is the only one about to lose money in this scandal? think again. they will tell you why at the bottom of the hour. first, right here, a lawmaker is pushing a new tax on violent video games. is this a good move to control something like you are looking at or another government power grab? we? debate and you decide coming up.ri

if it is not child's play, then tax it. they are proposing an extra 1% tax on games rated teen, mature or adult only. she wants this hike in response to the mass shootings in sandy hook, connecticut. rick, you don't think this is a good idea. >> let the record show i am coming out against attacks. never thought you would see that. you can't allow one member of congress to decide that this is bad, this is this, this is that. we need more research to know whether or not video games are having this impact. if they are, then maybe it is appropriate. >> this is a local lawmaker just to make this clear. if you want less of something, tax it. so if you want less of violent video games, raise the tax. >> the tax is coming up in the state of missouri. i am just making a point, a broad point. yes congress can crush industries with taxes. and yes maybe the cigarette

and alcohol tax could curtail it. i don't like ks tays at all for the -- i don't like taxes at all for the record. why would the advertising industry be earning $250 billion annually? it is because they make that money and they t know they can influence behavior. that's my point about video games about behavior and violent behavior. >> i grew up with kids trying to counsel them against this stuff. i am against them, but using taxes for social purposes, that makes me a little uneasy. how about you? >> david, there must be something in the air today because i am actually on this. side on >> whoa! ouch. >> what bothers me about this tax is it is passing along the responsibility of raising a child, handing it over to the government and taking it away from the parent. yes, if you want less of something you raise the tax of it, but i think the parent should be responsible. >> morgan, in your household i understand there is somebody that watches too many of these games. >> my husband would cringe

hearing me say this. i am actually game -- possibly game for this tax. and the reason is because we don't foe if there is a link between video games and violence. there do need to be more studies. even president obama said that in the last couple days. that's going to cost money. we need to fund that someway. if it is a 1% tax, talking about pennies, and i am considering it. >> to tax or not, where do you stand? >> tax. it is pretty clear these games influence behavior and the increase in violence, and we can't ban them, so let's tax it and let's use the money for education and for clean up from the aftermath of these violent-related masacres. >> last word, thank you, folks. coming up, you don't have nonbuyers remorse because you missed out on these run ups. our informers have stocks you need right now.

at 4:00 this morning two intruders broke into the home of a woman and they demanded they give her cash. >> one of the men held me down and put a pillow on my face and kept yelling they want money. i never have been so scared in my life.