website, whether they like it or not to shop for a new replacement policy. they're finding premiums often more than 100% of what they're paying before. some even as high as 400% as i've heard from and rising deductibles as well. so, when was the president specifically informed of the regulation change and if so, was it pointed out that this totally undermines his biggest selling point? and i would note that on the screen in a statement that he made more than three years after the regulation change was promulgated, the president said again, the first thing you need to know is this, if you already have health care, you don't have to do anything. so he's been on the same page from the very start yet the regulations changed months after the bill was enacted that are now causing perhaps millions of americans to be

denied the ability to renew their individual coverage. why was that change made? and did the president know it? >> mr. chairman, there was no change. the regulation involving grandfathered plans which applied to both the employer market and the individual market indicated that if a plan was in effect in march of 2010, stayed in effect without unduly burdening the consumer with reduciing benefits and adding huge costs that would comply with affordable care act. that's what the grandfather clause says. the individual market which affects about 12 million americans, 5% of the market, people move in and out and often have coverage for less than a year, a third of them have coverage for about six months, and if a plan was in place and did not impose

additional burden, they have it, it's not grandfathered in. >> why not let the consumer decide whether to renew it. and why would in 2010 limit the ability for them to sign up-- >> we've outlined a grandfather policy so people could keep their own plan. we then began to implement the other features of the affordable care act. if someone is buying a brand new policy on the individual market today or last week, they will have consumer protections for the first time. many people in the under individual market are medically underwritten. that will be illegal. many women are charged 50% more than men, that will be illegal. you cannot, again, eliminate someone because of a pre-existing health condition. you can't dump someone out lock someone out. if a plan was in place at the time the president signed the bill and the consumer wants to

keep the plan, those individuals are grandfathered in and that's happening across the country in the individual market. >> we're learning in fact that folks who had a plan who liked it in fact are being told it's canceled in the last-- my time has expired. let me go to the ranking member mr. waxman for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have to smile at your line of questioning because everybody expected this hearing was about the website. stuart: miss sebelius says there was no change that you could be grandfathered in. >> she's lying because the grandfather clause for those plans, right in the law, had an old list of exceptions that made the grandfather clause meaningless. compare it with the grandfather clause for unions in the very next paragraph where there, that is guaranteed period, as the president said, without the long string of fine print to make it meaningless. stuart: got it. mr. waxman is on, getting political, go. >> he said tens of millions would lose their insurance, but in fact everybody in this country is going to have action cess to health insurance

because they won't be discriminated against. they said that it would explode the deficit and yet the reputable organizations like the budget office says it's going to save 100 billion dollars over ten years. so we've had a litany of objections from the republicans about the affordable care act which has driven this to such a frenzy, they even closed the government. so, now, we have you before the committee and you're being asked, i suppose later you'll be asked about the website, but let me pursue this question about individuals have gotten notices that they're going to have their individual insurance policies canceled and they'll be able to get another plan, won't they? >> actually, it's the law that they must get another plan. continuous coverage is part of the law. >> so-- >> and that wasn't the case in the past. >> and the affordable care act, we are going to end the worst

abuses of insurance companies. we're going to create consumer protections in the marketplace that they will be able to buy a policy even if they've been sick in the past, that women won't be charged more than men, that we're not going to let insurance companies deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. that we're not going to let them put these lifetime caps and they'll be in an essential benefit package so you're not just buying some things and have others covered. you'll have the minimum everyone should have. prescription drugs, mental health coverage and doctors and hospitals. are these important consumer protections? >> well, i would say, mr. waxman, they're very important. as a former insurance commissioner, i can tell you that the individual market in kansas and in anywhere in the country has never had consumer protections, people are on their own, they can be locked out, priced out and dumped out and that happens each and every day so this will finally provide the kind of protections that we all enjoy in our health

care plans, as part of a group, as part of a plan that has pre-negotiated benefits, we enjoy that kind of health security and individuals in the buying insurance on their own farm families, entrepreneurs, mom and pop shops, young adults have never had that kind of health insures. >> well, now they're going to have this health security. stuart: liz macdonald, quick comment on mr. waxman's statement, it's not a question liz: a clever statements was attacking the g.o.p. for bringing up talking points and the jobs and economy, but the thing is, this secretary of hhs is essentially dismissing the pain that millions of americans are going through, having their insurance canceled. >> this is coercive big brother pa ternalism. they're saying that you must have the plan that the experts say you must have. what they say the essential benefits are, you must have. if you're a 50-year-old company you must have maternity

company. if you're-- you must have-- >> and nothing. >> and pay for it. >> and the abuse of americans' costs going up needs to be addressed right now. stuart: the point is, the government will tell you what coverage you must have, you must pay for it. >> they are herding millions of americans who were happy with their plans, told they could keep them, herding them. you can hear the whiplash and forcing them to the government-designed plan whether they want it. stuart: congressman waxman has asked another fairly friendly question. >> i think that's a good result and i'm pleased with it and i think most will be as well. >> the gentleman's time is expired. miss blackburn? >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, during-- before, during and after the law was passed the president kept saying if you like your health care plan you can keep it, so at the keeping his promise? >> yes, he is.

>> okay. what do you say to the 300,000 people in florida, you just mentioned or 28,000 in tennessee that cannot get health insurance, their plans are terminated. is he keeping his promise to them? >> first of all, congress woman they can get health insurance, they must be offered new plans, new options either inside the marketplace or if they don't qualify for a financial subsidy they can shop around the marketplace, they will have-- >> what do you say to nbc news who says millions are going to lose their coverage. >> in all deference to the press corps, many of whom are here today, i think that it's rn po to be accurate about what is going on and i would defer, again, to the president of the plan-- ongoing coverage and they will be offered new plans. >> madam secretary-- >> what do you say to mark and lucinda in my district who had a plan, they liked it, it was

affordable, but it is being terminated and now, they do not have health insurance? >> insurance companies cancel individual policies year in and y year out. they're a one-year contract, they're not lifetime plans, they're not an employer plan. >> let me move, it's what they wanted and i will remind you, some people like to drive a ford not a ferrari and some people like to drink out of a red cup not a crystal stem. you're taking away their choice. let's put the screen shot up. i want to go to the cost of the website ap talk about the website. this is what is happening right now with this website, we've had somebody in the back trying to sign on. it is down. it is not working. last week, i asked for the cost from each of the contractors that were with us last week, so, can you give me a ballpark of what you have spent on the website that does not work that individuals cannot get to? what is your cost estimate?

>> so far, congress woman, we have spent about $118 million on the website itself and about $56 million has been expended on other i.t. to support the web. >> okay, would you submit a detailed accounting of exactly what has been done and when do you expect constituents to stop getting these kind of error messages? >> again, i was with the-- talked to the president of verizon over the weekend on two occasions. verizon hosts the cloud which is not part of the website, it is a host for a number of websites. >> right. >> the verizon system was taken down saturday night into sunday, was down almost all day sunday and they had an additional problem they notified us about yesterday and it continues on. so, i'd be happy to talk to the president of verizon and get him to get you your information

about this. >> let me come back to that because i want to get to this issue of exactly who is in charge of this project because you're now blaming it on the contractors and saying it's verizon's fault. let me ask you this, did you ever look at outsourcing the role of the system integrator and obviously, you did not, from the contractors that we had last week. you all-- they had several different people, whether it was you or gary cowan or michelle snyder or henry child that they thought were in charge. so who is responsible for overseeing this project? is it you or your designates? >> let me be clear, i'm not pointing fingers at verizon, i'm trying to explain the way the site operates, we own the site. the site has had serious problems. >> who is in charge, madam secretary? >> the person now in charge, as an integrator is qssi, one of our-- >> who was in charge as it was

being built. >> was this charge up until-- >> at that team, who is the individual. >> michelle snyder. >> michelle snyder is the one responsible for this debacle? >> well, excuse me, congress woman, michelle snyder is not responsible for the debacle, hold me accountable. >> chairman recognizes mr. dingell from the great state of michigan. stuart: on the stock market we're on the upside. 15-7 on the dow has been crossed. record high as we speak. i want a comment on what we just heard. marsha blackburn asking mrs. sebelius about two of her constituents who were swept off the plan they liked and chose. i thought that was a very dismissive answer. >> it was very dismissive and in fact, somewhere between 15 and 19 million people in the individual market will be affected by this. you recall all the times the president said we're going to cure the preexisting condition

problem, rescission problem, all of those problems affected that same very small market and suddenly they're dismissive of it. stuart: quickly. >> and quickly, madam secretary is essentially saying that youh though the health exchange websites have been crippled and marsha blackburn. >> not just the website problem. coercion, you must buy our product and pay what we say. stuart: and pay more. >> john dingell, democrat, michigan, asking questions now. >> not beating a dead horse, mr. bartan who gave us the beginning of our efforts today. madam secretary, as he reports to consumer receiving plan cancellation notices from their insurance companies, saying that plans are no longer available does the hca require companies to discontinue the plans that people had when the

law was passed? yes or no. >> not when the law was passed, the plans have not changed, no, that's the grandfather clause. >> because the plans existed prior to the passage of the law are grandfathered in as you have said. >> that's correct. >> so if an insurance company no longer offers a certain plan, that's because that insurance company made a decision to change their policies and that caused them to take away the grandfather status from their insurance purchasers, is that right. >> that's right. >> madam secretary, i want you to submit for the record a statement of what it is we can do about insurance companies that run around canceling the policies of their people and i don't have time to get the answer, but i want to get a very clear statement from you as to what you can do so we'll take some skin off folks that have it coming. and madam secretary, it's my understanding that these decisions of a business

character are most common in the individual insurance market and that much turnover already exists and existed prior to the enactment of the legislation? >> that's correct. >> is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> is it correct that 35 to 67% of the enrollees in the individual market leave their plan after one year for different reasons? >> a third or in about less than six months in the individual market, and over 50% are in for less than a year, yes, sir. >> now, in the cancellation letters which move around from the insurance companies, some insurance companies are suggesting an alternative plan at a higher price and they have the right to do that? >> well, they have a right to do that, sir, but consumers have a right to shop anywhere to compare plans and they have choices now that they've never had before and some financial assistance. >> and they had no right to enforce that demand on the

insurance-- >> absolutely not. no one is rolled over into a plan and in fact, individuals for the first time ever will have the ability to compare plans, to shop and to make a choice inside or outside the marketplace. >> looks to me like the insurance companies are trying to inflict on their customers the view that this is their right and that this is the only option available to them, that correct? >> well, i think that insurance companies would like to keep their customers, having said that, customers for the first time have a lot of choices because they can't get locked out-- >> and companies have no right to enforce that on the customers. >> there is no rule that says you have to stay with your company or you have to be rolled over. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> when they come forward and tell you that you've got to buy a particular policy, is that right? >> absolutely. >> the gentleman's time. stuart: and what do you make of that exchange. >> said that they have a lot of choices, they have no choice. they must buy the one size fits

all benefits package. like passing a law you can only buy a ford or sedan, no hatchbacks, no convertibles, the assumption is you're too stupid. >> representative dingell says he wants to take skin off the insurance companies. >> he's trying to criminalize the insurance companies for canceling policies they're prohibited by law to offer. >> it's illegal to sell policies effective right now because they don't contain the right coverage. >> exactly. and the law right here, and the june 14th regulations in 2010 forced the insurance companies to add benefits and prohibited them from increasing the cost or the deductibles to recoup it. >> and millions of people to see their policies cancel. the weasel words that are being used here are shocking to anybody who values democracy. stuart: give me a weasel word. >> more choices. when she said more choices. >> or right to-- >>en it's like going to an exchange is like going to a

supermarket that only sells cereal. stuart: you can have different choices, but you must have that basic system of coverage. >> the plans are all the same. only the co-pays and the deductibles are different. yes, the bronze, silver, gold and platinum. the plan is the same, it's the co-pays and the deductibles are different. >> going up for many people. >> and the panels of doctors. stuart: we promised you clarity, you're getting it. the dow is up, 33. back to the fireworks on capitol hill. >> to upload or change information on the website is prohibited. it doesn't say anything about privacy, but you have to accept that in order to go forward with the application. the next slide shows what's not public. and this is in the source code. we tried to determine this morning if it was still in the source code, but it's been pointed out the website is down. this is much more what i would say frightening to me. it says you have no reasonable

expectation to privacy recording any communication or data transiting or stored on the information system at any time and for any lawful government purpose, the government may monitor, intercept, search and seize any communication or data transiting stored on the information system. any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system may be disclosed or used for any lawful government purpose. sheriff campbell of cti federal says she was aware of it, but says it wasn't her responsibility to put that in the source code. were you aware of it and was it your responsibility to put this in the source code? >> mr. barton, i did not put things in the source code. i can tell you it's my understanding that that is boiler plate laboring language that should not have been in this particular contract because there are the highest security standards are in place and people have every right to expect privacy. >> all right, now, the last

time we could check, this was still there. you're given almost unlimited authority under the affordable care act to administer it. will you commit to the committee and to the american people that, one, you do want to protect their privacy and, you will take this out, fix it, make sure that it doesn't have baring on people that try to apply to the website? >> yes, sir, we've had these discussions with cgi and it's underway. i do absolutely commit to protecting the privacy of the american people and we've asked them to remove that statement. it is there in error. it needs to be taken down and we should be held accountable for protecting privacy, yes, sir. >> thank you, madam secretary. i sincerely appreciate that and i'm sure the american people do, too. my last question, or it's really a comment. i've introduced hr 3348 which says let's make this system voluntary for the first year since we're having so many

problems and let the american people decide. what that means if people choose not to participate they will not be charged a personality for nonparticipation. would you support such a reasonable approach to this while we work out the problems in the system? >> no, sir. >> okay, well, that's an honest answer. >> the gentleman's time is expired. thank you, madam secretary. >> the chair would recognize the gentleman from new jersey. stuart: representative joe barton, he's a republican from texas, he asked a direct question, are you going to preserve my privacy, and she said-- >> they were talking about financial privacy, but in the federal register, january 2013, this secretary has said, if you really want privacy, pay cash. stuart: but she did yes, yes, i commit to your privacy. >> that's right. >> we're talking about the financial privacy. >> the sharing of your family-- the viewers and your family information with other government agency. >> financial information. stuart: i'm going to get back,

there's a political slam in progress. >> there's a whole idea brought up today that somehow, you know, policies are being canceled and people don't have alternatives, it's just another red herring, you know, what i think my colleagues on the other side forget is that this is not socialized medicine, this is in fact private insurance in a competitive market. and if i'm an insurance company and all of a sudden everyone else is selling a better policy with better benefits at a lower price, i can't continue to sell a lousy skeletal policy that doesn't provide benefits and cost more because i'll be out of the market. so, that's what's happening here. the insurance companies are canceling lousy policies with high prices because they can't compete. and that's what's going to happen when you have a private insurance market, which is what we have here. we don't have a government-controlled system. we have private markets. so, i just wanted to make that point, but i have to drill down on what mr. barton said here. you know, before reform, the

individual insurance market was dysfunctional, premiums would shoot up as people got sick. their coverage could be canceled if they had a pre-existing condition and they did not have secure quality coverage. now, i've heard my republican colleagues say that patient health insurance will be at risk and its application process, and this is flat-out false. in fact, the aca, makes a giant leap forward for protecting health insurance by taking it completely out of the insurance application process, by banning discrimination based on preexisting conditions. mr. barton again is, you know, raising this red herring just like the cancellation of insurance, by talking about privacy. but, madam secretary. prior to the aca, when people applied for insurance coverage, did insurers make them provide a long detailed and basic medical history that now, because the law bans discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, individuals will not have to provide information in their applications, regardless of this clause, please comment on

the privacy issue. stuart: liz, you've got to say something about this. >> quickly, the irs said 10 million people could see their policies canceled. i don't think that's a red herring to the people who are going to see their policies canceled. again, congressman pallone hits it out of the park and clearly he's in an alternative universe to the people who are now seeing policies canceled that they wanted. stuart: he used the comment, lousy skeleton policies that people want and chosen. lousy skeleton coverage. >> this is the defensive lie they've created. the fact is the american people are intelligent enough to choose between the plan they have now and the offer on the exchange and you've heard kathleen sebelius say we're not going to give them that choice. we're canceling these policies and compelling them to sign up for these. >> one word headline, dismiss seive. stuart: we'd like your stories

if your insurance has been canceled. that's what these people are talking about now on capitol hill. if this applies to you, we'd like you to contact us, get onto our facebook page and tell your story, what's the deductible you've been forced into? what's the plan that you've been forced to get rid of and what's the plan that you're forced at much greater cost to take on? we want to hear from you. back to the hearings. >> could not get their health condition for a fixed tips written in. they have have a new day in a very competitive market, 25ers p-of the insurers are brand new to the market and they are offering competitive plans. >> mr. chairman, could i just ask that this document-- >> put it into the record, without objection. >> thank you. >> chair would recognize mr. hall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, i think congress woman blackburn asked you about the federal government and how much they've spent today and they're

spending money as we speak, it's down right now, isn't it? is that, are you-- you projected ongoing problems. >> i'm sorry, sir, i'm having a hard time hearing. what was the-- >> she asked you how much it had spent today and i'm asking you what you-- >> there appears to be a temporary lull here while the congressman ralph hall asks his question and mrs. sebelius hears it. and one. themes that are emerging thus far? >> the most important theme is that millions of people are forced out of a plan they were promised they could keep and being forced into a health eexchange by the government. >> miss sebelius is defending that forced move to alternate coverage. with the paternalistic plan,

you must get what we've chosen. >> and it came out clear from congressman dingell. >> and it's the insurance, stupid, who aren't offering the plans. stuart: who created the mess of the rollout. miss sebelius has taken responsibility, she says i'm responsible, blame me. she would not allow another young lady, miss snyder, i believe it is, would not allow they are to be blamed. >> the white house is lucky that technology isn't working, it's deflected from the bigger issue, the lie that you can keep your plan if you want it. all the focus would have been on that had the website would not have misfunctioned. stuart: and it's a lie is a strong-- >> it is a lie, the president said it for three years, but

the law itself section 2451 proves it's a lie. the fact that the unions are not having any of these problems because their grandfather clause didn't have the weasel words in fine print. stuart: let me sum this up, her performance, the performance of kathleen sebelius in 40-odd minutes of testimony appears to be what? >> deceptive. >> liz? >> testy and misleading, unfortunately. stuart: say it again? >> misleading, unfortunately. stuart: misleading. one quick point, the last 18 minutes, 28 minutes, the dow jones industrial average has been open and it has been higher. we hit an all-time record high yesterday and we're up another 12 points, 13 points thus far this morning. very interesting that the stock market keeps going up when you've got all of these negative headlines, chaos to the obamacare rollout. the government shutdown, the debt crisis and yet, the dow is currently just shy of 15,700. all right, back to the hearing.

>> here are some quotes from some of their recent letters. the situation we're in we would have to pay $170,000 in penalties under obamacare and the government picking the winners and losers, there's no wake be competitive if i have to raise my prices to cover $170,000. here are my options, do not pay the penalty. raise my prices go out of business. 8 a people lose their jobs. layoff 35 employees who don't have to pay the penalty and move more production to this country. reduce 35 jobs and here is a quote from the other, since their high labor low margin business cannot afford insurance, we're faced with closing our business perhaps through bankruptcy so there are heavy financial obligations that contain-- >> i want to go back to the stock market for a second. we're well above 15-7 for a moment there. we're in record territory. ed, real fast, this is about the federal reserve printing a

ton of money in a weak economy, am i right? >> well, you've got a weak economy. the economy's going to get weaker, i don't think it's printing money, stuart, corporate earnings are fairly okay i guess is the best way of putting it. this is earnings driven, not fed printing. the market is going higher and i sell into it at year end. stuart: this market is totally separate from the mess we've seen in d.c., totally separate? >> absolutely, what a mess it is. but you're right. it's completely separate and a separate universe and i don't know what universe they're in in washington. stuart: okay. we're about 50 minutes into our coverage of this, these hearings on capitol hill. as we said, we're not c-span. we are going to offer expert commentary as we move along through these hearings. we're expecting them to go on until approximately 12 noon or thereabouts. we are staying with it. okay? so let's go back. >> my time from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

welcome, madam secretary. you're a distinguished woman, you have distinguished yourself in your state. the offices that you've held and now working for the american people and i salute you for it. i want to really congratulate my republican pals for being absolutely, one thousand consi you love what's wrong with the website and you detest what's working in the affordable care act. and i think that that is on full display here. but let's get back to the website. stuart: this is very interesting. what we're seeing this morning is republicans asking penetrating, and i would say sometimes harsh questions of ms. sebelius, about the rollout and about the cancellation of private insurance policies. the democrats who are asking questions have really taken aim straight at the republicans. it's a highly politically

charged event with the democrats being, i suspect, i believe, more political than the republicans in that they are attacking their republican opponents. >> they're making it a dog and pony show when we really need some answers. i'm waiting for somebody to ask secretary sebelius about the cgi. why was the company given to a company that had a terrible track record, but crony connections to michelle obama? and how can you place such a bid. stuart: those questions are probably not going to come from the democrat from california, who asking questions now. >> she's giving her a badge for being a woman. stuart: that's important. if you've got a woman in a very difficult position explaining the appalling rollout of her product, she is a woman. >> it has nothing to do with it. >> that's true, she's being asked harsh questions largely by men, what are the optics of that situation. >> it's happened to me many

times, i think her gender should be irrelevant if people are sensitive to it, just remember, she is bullying the american public as harshly as any man could do it. >> i want these questions asked. was it your decision to launch october 1st, yes or no, did you discuss with the president whether or not to launch october 1st, yes or no, did the -- did you show the president the health exchange website, yes or no. did you discuss with the president whether or not to extend the deadline yes or no, including the employee mandate tax. stuart: that's important because the website crashed in a test days before the launch. >> those are confidence questions. >> why didn't miss sebelius go ahead and launch? did she tell the president it was a mess before it started? that's a good question. >> of course even the bigger questions are, why did this administration lie to the american people again and again? >> okay, the question right, that's just been asked, are there any penalties for the contractors, and here is miss sebelius' response.

>> and coordinate the activities moving forward which have to be driven with a very clear set of outcomes, very accountable time lines and deadlines and they will be helping to manage that process. >> on the issue of the security, there was a security breach that arose recently that i read about at any rate and what i think is very important here because the issue of privacy has been raised and i think that that has been answered because very importantly, there isn't any health insurance in these systems, but there is financial information. so my question to you is, has a security wall been built and are you confident that it is there and that it will actually secure the financial information that applicants have to disclose?

>> yes, ma'am, i would tell you that there was not a breach. there was a blog by a sort of skilled hacker that if a certain series of incidents occurred, you could possibly get in and obtain somebody's personally identifiable-- >> isn't that telling? >> and we immediately corrected that problem. so there wasn't a -- it was a theoretical problem that was immediately fixed. i would tell you, we are storing the minimum amount of data because we think that's very important. the hub is not a data collector, it is actually using data centers at the irs, at homeland security, at social security, to verify information, but it stores none of that data. >> thank you. >> so we don't want to be-- >> thank you. >> the time has expired. recognize mr. simkiss. >> welcome, madam secretary, before i start my questions,

"the washington post" gave the president and yourself four pinochios on the debate of whether you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. >> would you recommend to the president that he stop using that term. wouldn't that be helpful in this debate? >> i think he used the term at the time the law was passed. >> as of september 26th, also. >> that's why we-- >> and so the answer is you don't believe that washington post-- we'll hand this down to you so you can see it. have you ever shopped, i know you have, but this is for a-- at a grocery store with a coupon, ever used a coupon. >> yes. >> so, the coupon gives you the terms and conditions of when you go to the checkout to get whatever is off the price of the goods. when you all added the see plans now option, you in essence gave the searcher, in essence, a coupon based upon

what they're seeing there, the desire was, let the people know what the price is, however, as the news reported and i followed up in last week's hearing, was that if you are under 50 years olds, you get quoted the price of someone who is 27. if you're older than-- older than 50, could be 64, you get quoted a price of someone who is 50 years old. isn't that misleading? >> well, sir, the learn side of the website which has been up since actually-- >> so that's truthful then. if you quote a price. >> it is clearly a hypothetical situation. >> oh. >> for people that-- >> on the see plans now option, are you saying that this is a hypothetical? that's not what it says on the site. it says this is the price when you put in your age. and if your age is 49, it quotes you as if you're 27. >> sir, the only way someone

can get an accurate information about their price is to get their information-- >> let me ask you the question, when did you decide to use this below 50 at 27 and above 50 at 50 years old. when did you make that decision? >> that was decided by the team. >> by who? who made the-- the problem with this whole debate is you all won't tell us who made the decisions? >> i can tell you, i did not design the site. >> so who? who made the decision on this. stuart: we are going to break away from this. what i really want here is some clarity on this deceptive pricing by age. >> on the website. stuart: on the website, that was the charge by the republican from illinois. >> there if you happen to fall into that span and over end of it, when you go to buy your plan it's going to cost lot more. >> what was her response? >> well, it's just a hypothetical and he says, no,

nothing on the website tells prospective consumers it's a hypothetical. they're actually, they-- >> they think they're going to get the price. >> that they'll have to pay. stuart: so this is questioning about the website. >> right. stuart: the choices available to the pricing available, too? >> that's right. and he's suggesting it's a little hard sell, like the sticker place on the car. >> in other words, like a bait and switch. stuart: we're going to take a brief pause and ladies, i think you're leaving us, we apologize for that, you've been great, we appreciate it. and let me recap what we've seen so far, a highly politicized hearing. by politicized i mean that the democrats asking questions have largely gone after the republicans, not miss sebelius or obamacare. the republicans asking questions have gone after the implementation of obamacare and obamacare and the rollout. so, it's a highly charged political situation here. our experts have said that her responses have been somewhat

deceptive and somewhat dismissive. and i believe that is an accurate characterization of what we've seen thus far this morning. okay. we'll go back to it for a second. and a new round, a new team of experts in just a moment. watch this. my republicans' colleagues here reminds me of a story he wh -- when i was a boy, chicken little, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. unlike chicken little my colleagues are rooting for the sky to fall. republicans are holding this hearing today under the auspices of an investigative hearing and if they want to get to what went wrong with the website and how to fix it. i don't think, madam secretary, theres' one person in the room who is naive enough to see that the republican want to see this work. they voted over 40 times to repeal the law and stop it.

and rooting for failure. madam secretary, can you tell us what would be the impact on americans health insurance if republicans had been successful in their efforts to defund or repeal the affordable care act? >> repeal the affordable care act? >> i think the estimates of the congressional budget office his it would have increased the deficit by $110 billion in the first decade and 1 trillion dollars in the second decade. we know we have 42 or forty three million americans without health insurance at all, some of the medicaid eligible, and some over the medicaid eligibility, 30 governors so far, republicans and democrats have declared their support for moving ahead with medicaid expansion but absent that the affordable care act to those folks would be without any health security and in the private market what we know is it takes a real toll. the biggest issue is not just

the financial toll, not the community tall or the country poll which is significant. i have a good friend who runs the cancer center at the university of kansas. i was with him and cancer researchers recently and he said if you get a cancer diagnosis you are 60% more likely to live five years and beyond if you have insurance than if you don't. that is a pretty powerful statement for why we need affordable health care for all our citizens. >> thank you. the republicans have not been illegal to defund or repeal it but they denied requested funding and raised >> arguments about that panels and socialized medicine and worked to intimidate groups that could help the implementation effort that is spreading misinformation about the cost of coverage. we had some of that today and to dissuade the uninsured from seeking coverage. how are these tactics impacted

your ability to implement the affordable care act? >> i don't think there is any question that a lot of people need a lot of information. and millions visit the site or tried to visit the site, is why i am frustrated and disappointed that the site is not fully functional and why i am committed to getting it functional because there's a demand. we need to get information to people about the law. this is the law, it is not a debate. it was a law passed by both houses of congress, signed by the president of the united states, upheld by the president, the president was reelected, it is the law and people have benefits and rights under that law and we have to get that information so they can make good choices for themselves and their families. >> it is law and have cited disconcerting that republican colleagues -- stuart: i want to know. the suggestion was made this is the law. that was stated by democrat of

new york. this is the law. is it? >> this is the law that was passed in 2010. donna the employer mandate and a cap on out of pocket expenses, gone or replaced with a wishy-washy version income verification. obamacare as it is rolled out is not the law. it has been mangled and distorted by kathleen sebelius and the president in an illegal way. stuart: this is deceptive? dr. mark siegel is with us. you have been listening too. i want your comment as a doctor on what you heard so far. >> i love the were deceptive and agree with that. this what if you want to call it that is incompatible with the doctor's office. it is not what is happening in a doctor's office where doctors are overwhelmed, where most of these networks in obamacare have shrunk to the point where i and no other doctor will be accepting them. i can preferred agents to an orthopedic with a broken ankle the law doesn't work.

stuart: the hearing is centered on what kind of plant people are being swept out of and into in the private market. how would you characterize the plans available competing in the private market? >> there are commercial planes. you have a lot of choice about what you want and what you paid. stuart: that is the plan now. what about people being forced into? >> those are like public utilities like single payer care. doctors are paid medicaid rates. the government has total control over your doctor and the government has total control over what your plan covers. you don't have any choices any more. >> the bronze plant on the stakes changes actually has a lot of payment out of pocket involved. they have gotten rid of the out of pocket when met for 2014. you could end up broke when you get sick. stuart: i want to hear more about the deductibles and copays being forced upon people. it is an extraordinary story. i have not heard it mentioned

nor have i heard mentioned why the hat test of the rollout be before it actually arrived, it failed miserably but they went ahead in every way and we don't know of the president was told about it. charles: insurance companies give them a 1-year waiver too. they can raise prices over the next year to any level they want. stuart: kathleen sebelius said the website aircraft, it functioned but slowly. >> she probably ran away from it. i don't want my face on that web site. stuart: back to the hearings, let's hear it. >> they believe months of testing would have been preferable to two weeks. do you believe two weeks was enough time to complete testing of the entire system? >> clearly not. >> when were you made aware of the results of the test including the one where the system collapsed with only a few hundred users? >> leading up to the october 1st

date we had regular meetings with not only a team at cms but administrators involved. i was made aware that we were testing and as we found problems we were fixing those problems and errors the cpi report in mid august identifying some problems between august and october, that became for cd-i to fix those problems. that is why you test. >> in the washington post on october 21st there was an article that said about a month before the exchange opened the testing group of ten insurers energy agency officials not to launch the site because it was riddled with problems. were you aware in september that insurers recommended that the land launch of the exchange? >> was not aware they recommended that. i know everyone was concerned there were risks and likely to be problems with the new integrated insurance system. i don't fear anyone ever estimated the degree to which we

had problems in the system and the contract in partners did not. >> did each dhs respond to the recommendation? >> i wasn't in the meeting or what occurred and i don't know. >> can you add to that question for us? >> i will get back to you. >> thank you. >> mr. green. >> thank you. thank you for taking time to be here today. i represent -- stuart: the question was asked, you knew that there was going to be trouble, you tested, there was trouble but you lunch anyway. it seems to me that kathleen sebelius just said we didn't know how bad it was going to be even though representative joseph pitts said they knew in september it was, quote, riddle with problems. >> yes and the focus of this hearing should have been on the technology problems if that were the only problem putting fact

since that time it has become very clear the big promises in obamacare are the big problem. you can't keep your plan, you can't keep your doctor. this law was passed on a promise that we will help the uninsured and leave the rest of americans along, they don't want socialized medicine or a big brother -- >> the draft regulations passed in 2010 meant plans were going to change. we knew that three years ago. this is all disingenuous. if you put a high-volume of people on state exchange on day one and you can't handle the which she knew you had to get rid of the individual mandate a. it is irresponsible not to do that. stuart: what this hearing is focusing on is basically two issues. the appalling rollout, the chaos of the rollout of the web site and the changing of the rules so that people in the private sector, private marketplace were forced out of the plan that they currently have and want.

those are the two issues that are the center of this disputed rollout of obamacare. what we are showing right now you see on your screen, the web site is down. kathleen sebelius a moment ago said it didn't crash, it just slowed down. >> members of congress asked kathleen sebelius would you consider delaying the penalty on people who don't have insurance and she said very authoritarian, no. it is interesting. we are moving from a society where we are self govern to a society of supplicants asking the president, asking the secretary for changes. they shouldn't be able to change the law. >> if two million people are brought from their current policies and can't sign up on this nightmare mess and even if they could if they couldn't afford to how can they be mandated by the irs to pay a penalty. stuart: kathleen sebelius told us it will be fixed. by the end of november and certainly by the enrollment period of march 31st next year

it will be fixed. >> why aren't we confident? stuart: where are we? if we are asking questions, gene green, democrat texas asked a question. let's listen to whatever response is there. >> this market has always been the -- >> americans see those letters from their companies about cancellations eligible to purchase plans on the exchange. >> or out of the exchange. individuals who are not interested in financial help conduct outside the exchange, inside the exchange, there ensure can offer plans, they have choices they never had before. >> because of the benefits of the affordable perfect 80% of the premium dollar will come back to them. >> that is correct. >> i know that is not true in texas and i don't know any states that have the 80% requirement. >> no state had it. i would suggest in that broad

based prior to the affordable care act. >> let me give the example of one of the plans, a large company -- stuart: sorry for jumping in like this the the point constantly arise, kathleen sebelius said you have choices, you have choices, get out in the marketplace, you have choices. july have a choice? >> no. when you go on the exchange you don't have a choice. you have to buy the essential benefit package. is like going on one of the airline ticket exchanges can only go to toledo. stuart: you do have a choice. you can go bronze, silver or gold. >> think big. stuart: no choice in the basic package of benefits coverage. >> those metals as they say are different deductibless. then you pay the most at the outset and cover small co-pay when you go to the doctor, pay a smaller premium but you have a $5,000 --

>> one key point. what is disingenuous is if you try to go outside the exchange you end up with the insurance obamacare doesn't sanction or pauperize, we report people being dropped from their plan that is what i am talking about. you get it that you are dropped from immediately potentially. stuart: when you are awfully quiet this morning. taking names too. greg walden, republican organ just asked a question. listen in please. >> hhs is confident the marketplace will open on schedule october 1st and millions of americans will have access to affordable quality health insurance. i am just an average guy from a small town in oregon. when i read that it tells me you believe everything was good to go, the testing was in place and we should have full confidence everything would work, correct? >> that is what i find. >> i went into this believing

your response that things were ready to go. we should have full confidence. when somebody uses the worm extremely confident tells me you are extremely confident. we had the testimony from witnesses last week i asked about end testing and what the industry standard would be handed should have been months especially for a project of this magnitude and yet we heard was only two weeks. in august tci told cms -- cd i -- on august 9th there was not enough time in the scheduled to conduct adequate performance testing. did that make its way all the way to you and do you think there was adequate time? >> as i said before we did not adequately do end to end testing. the products were not locked and loaded into the system until the

third week in september. each of the component parts was tested, validated independently. >> they told us last week their individual modules were tested and met specification. do you concur with that analysis? >> i do concur with the testing that was done. >> it was end to end which is why some of us thought we could delay until was done right to avoid this collapse that is up on us and everybody agreed to that. the second piece gets back to the question i realize you haven't had a chance to read this morning. the four pinocchios about the president saying if you have a plan you will keep the plan. we heard that to mean i have got a plan with the company on will continue to have it even if they make minor changes when in fact your own rules as written said that isn't what is going to happen. if minor changes are made that means the plan changed and you don't get it.

>> that isn't true. rules did not say what you just suggested and i think the estimate given that there would be turned over in the market was really an outside projection. wasn't our rules, it was a snapshot of what happens in the market. plans to change so dramatically over time that the estimate was they would be -- not because of our rules but insurance companies, business. >> you set up those market rules, look like they have to comply with. >> only if they chose not to grandfather the policy. >> that meant -- >> any grandfathered policy stay in place still would be in place. >> if they made any change -- >> they could make changes in pricing, they could make changes in benefits, they couldn't dramatically disadvantage the consumer but they could have trend lines, they had a wide corridor to make sure similar plan so if a consumer like the

plan the plant if it stays -- stuart: i want to break in because i want an expert on this. kathleen sebelius just said that you could grandfather in a plane. you don't have to be kicked off of it. what is your take on that. >> what she said, there were wide corridors so insurance companies could just to the requirements, not true. insurance companies don't voluntarily dump half their market. they don't dump half their consumers in a state. they spend a lot of marketing money to get those consumers to begin with. the requirements forced them to dump their customers. stuart: requirements of government? >> the requirements that were written, the requirements that were written into the law and then into the june 14th federal register. >> draft regulations released by the irs, hhs and the department of labor said, they predicted 40

to 67% of those with individual policies would not grandfather -- >> 89% of small employer policies go by the wayside too. stuart: what strikes me about these plans and changes is the deductible factor. let me address this with you. if i go on the exchange and choose for example a bronze plant. i believe that carries at least $5,000 deductible. no matter what subsidy i received, i have got to pay that. >> as i said previously you don't have an out of pocket limits of you get really sick you eat that $5,000 and can go bankrupt. let's say you choose a silver plant instead because the debt of -- let me walk you through that. family of four with $50,000 a year in income will get hit with a premium under the silver plant according to the kaiser family foundation, over $8,000. the government will bring it

down to 3,000 by providing a $5,000 subsidy. guess who is paying. the taxpayer. completely unaffordable. stuart: it has not been raised so far. >> there's a reason they put the big deductibles on. to bamboozle the public. they thought people would limit the premium, the press would only look at a premium, they wouldn't see that premium is already spiking the but if you eliminate the $5,000 deductible the premium would be $5,000 higher. stuart: i am attracted initially by the monthly payments. stuart: that is the hook and died by and then i find i have a $5,000 deductible or more. >> get a lawyer. >> if you get sick you not pay $5,000. if all of your medical expense will come out of your pocket.

these of these attacksable. stuart: i'm getting a subsidy to pay my health insurance from the government, have to pay tax on this of the peter: >> really good question. i don't believe so. >> it is not taxable. >> peer insurance company. stuart: guess what. the price is going up and we have to pay the bill. we have to take a commercial break but we will be back with real coverage.

[ male announcer ] meet mary. she loves to shop online with her debit card. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts, and stole her hard-earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft. and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had felock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified before it was too late. lifelock's credit notification service is on the job 24/7. as soon as they detect a threat to your identity within their network, they will alert you, protecting you before the damage is done. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money,

your credit, even the equity in your home. my years as a prosecutor taught me that we all need to protect ourselves from crime. in today's world, that includes identity theft. it's a serious problem. we all have to protect ourselves. [ male announcer ] while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. that's right. 60 days risk free. use promo code notme. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. don't wait until you become the next victim. ♪ ♪

>> michele snyder is not responsible for this debacle. told me accountable for the debacle. i am responsible. >> individuals have gone on notices that they are going to have individual insurance policies canceled. they will get another plane? >> it is the law they must get another plant. continuous coverage is part of the law. it wasn't the case in the past. >> who was in charge? >> the person now in charge as an integrator is one of -- >> who was in charge? >> was in charge -- >> who is the individual -- >> michele snider. >> is the one responsible for

this debacle. >> excuse me. michele snyder is not responsible for this debacle. told me accountable for the debacle, i am responsible. stuart: some of the highlights from fireworks earlier this morning. the central issue is in discussion here, the cost of the rollout and who is responsible. kathleen sebelius says it is in the and policy cancellations by the million who is responsible for that and what the door means. we will go back to the hearings where kathleen sebelius is answering the questions of the number of enrollees. >> i am not asking about what they enrolled in or whether it can item in and said they were 65 and were quoted something that was 27 years old. that should be a pretty reliable no.. >> the system is functioning so we are not getting that reliable data. ensure is that i met with, there

are 700,000 -- >> reliability flies in the face of the testimony from the contractors. >> thank you, secretary severely yes, your testimony, i am concerned about the flawed rollout of healthcare.gov and your commitment to improving health care options for all americans and fixing this web site quickly. it is important to note in my home state of california -- stuart: democrat of california, making that statement let me recap what we heard with the number of enrollees. kathleen sebelius said any numbers you are hearing are unreliable. and x number of people have enrolled. she did not give the number.

yesterday said again today, no number available at this point. judge andrew napolitano is here. you have been listening and watching. what is your input? judge napolitano: a nice political performance to do a male culpa. doesn't relieve the awful burden the irs and government will impose upon people by taxing them for a product they can't buy. stuart: one thing that stands out to me is government enforcement. this law does not allow individuals to choose. it forces individuals to accept what the government is forcing. judge napolitano: the essence of the program is individuals and their physicians can no longer make decisions. the government will make some for them. stuart: is that accurate, dr. mark siegel? >> absolutely accurate. law, the response to her saying she is responsible, nobody elected kathleen sebelius to anything.

health and human services secretary means the president is responsible and the president should take responsibility and one more point, the individual market being the wild west. it is the wild west why are we overloading it with everybody else? employers will be dropping people is end up in the individual insurance market. stuart: liz macdonald is with us and you have a factual dispute for what kathleen sebelius said. >> at the state level and important point. have a dozen states, virginia, idaho, kentucky, louisiana, kansas now require insurance companies to cancel existing policies rather than change them if the grandfather coverage lapses so what happens at the state level is not being acknowledged in a hearing today. stuart: it is not a question of choice. you must change policy.

>> madam secretary saying the egregiously disadvantage the consumer we're talking about co-pays, $5. that is not egregiously disadvantaging the consumer, i will make another point. and permanent cancellation but they have to pick up mandated coverage. stuart: joining us is representative marcia blackburn who was that the hearing, she joins us on capitol hill. thank you for taking time to join us. you had the most poignant question of the day you have two constituents in tennessee. what are they supposed to do? what was her answer.

>> you know this is sing the story to get around, and they get a better policy. we cannot do what you had. and they lost the policy and some people want to drive a ford, not of ferrari. some don't want the fiscal skin. stuart: it is the central point of the discussion today. kathleen sebelius is basically saying never admitting people are being forced on policies always saying, what we are making them take and the

fundamental distinction -- >> that is exactly right. trickling down the point, a mandate, they are mandating the individual to buy something they say is better. it is fair the decision, and -- >> not only do people want to keep their beard but they can't afford a champagne the government is forcing on to them. stuart: how would you sum up kathleen sebelius's performance today? >> performance today has been very defensive. they're scrambling for answers. i asked her who was in charge? weiner but could figure out who was in charge and she was saying the cms team and she pointed to michele snider and she looked

around and -- blame me for this debacle. what we're trying to do is figure out who's responsible, how much money they spend and how far this mandate will reach. if you like what you have you can keep it. stuart: always appreciate you being with us. on a very busy and big day. >> the majority, the majority taking away choice from a minority, claiming its ideas about how people should lead their lives are better than the free choices of those who want to reject them. stuart: the classic clash of the individual who wishes to have choice and the government who wishes to impose -- >> it is also the rare piece of social legislation in american history that was enacted with one party support. lbj and fdr knew enough to compromise to bring meaningful

numbers of republicans in. barack obama couldn't do that. >> doctors also have no choice. judge napolitano: the government telling you how to exercise your professional judgment. the government can deliver the mail. how does a double dr. -- stuart: you are very quiet. charles: i said to the panel on sean hannity, you find it interesting the democrats are defending something similar to this, the same group of people who said banks and america were so evil and mean-spirited for foisting hire expensive houses on the unknown american public yet that is what obamacare is doing, that plan you have that you could afford is not good. we have a better one for you with more bells and whistles. it will cost more. what is the difference? from a philosophical point of view the hypocrisy of this is mind boggling. stuart: at the moment the hearings, the testing of lines

of code prior to the launch of this debacle. as it is admitted to be. testing was not complete. >> to charles's point about bells and whistles when you get to the doctor's office to find those are not even available because doctors are overloaded with too many patients if they are even taking this insurance which many doctors are not so you may be entitled to a service and not able to get it. stuart: i you telling me if someone goes to the exchange plans and choose as bronze, silver or bold plan lot of doctors will not accept that patient under that coverage? >> top hospitals in the country are not participating including ucla. stuart: why are they not taking it? >> they are not paid enough and too many restrictions. the kind of insurance obamacare is offering a painless the traditional policies. and the treatments i can order. your choice, lack of choice.

stuart: i thought this would be restricted to two issues. the chaos of the launch and the cancellation of millions of people and their policies but it is broadening out. it is on much bigger thing. this is a critique of obamacare and talent will function when it is finally functioning. >> a critique and reselling at the same time. no matter how bad this is is better than it was so excuse all the mistakes. >> a former fbi agent, chairman of the house intelligence committee who sides with the obama administration on many issues but not this and going for her jugular. stuart: there i wonder what president obama will say in boston. they are attempting to win the world series. president obama -- all making -- judge napolitano: the most enormous traffic jams in boston history because the president is a riding the day the red sox will win the world series.

he will take credit for the world series. stuart: he is going to boston to say romneycare when it was rolled out at the same slow start. charles: 1 make a side trip for a fund-raiser so crisscross town all day and do the romney thing and raise money and go across town again. your point the exchanges in this. is just a symbol for the wheels coming off the card. obamacare is in big trouble. they can't even get a website right it is a symbol for them not being able to get it right. stuart: she has great confidence there will be a fix to the rollout of the web site by november 30th, self-imposed date that they said it will be fixed. we are taking you away from the hearings because it has been in the weeds about source code, a computer code and what have you.

person another question now. >> that you expressed on this side of the panel are real because we want to see americans get health care. i think it is somewhat disingenuous for my colleagues on the other side of the podium here to have this false anger and false concern over a bill that they absolutely want to fail and have rooted for its failure and voted over 40 some times to repeal this bill, never putting an alternative plan on the floor for the american people but just to simply say they want to make sure this plan doesn't succeed. and i think they're real fear is that the plan will succeed and the american people will learn the real benefits of this plan, not a propaganda campaign that has gone on by the republicans for the last three years. madame secretary, i think one of the keys to the success of this plan is we get young people to enroll in this plan and i have

some questions about some enrollment concerns that i have. i understand you said approximately 700,000 people have applied for coverage via the healthcare.gov and state exchanges. >> they completed an application. >> which is different from enrollment. are you expecting, and i know you don't have the exact numbers yet but are you expecting a large number or small number of enrollments during the first month? what is your thoughts on that? >> our projections prior to launch were always that there would be a small number at the beginning. we watched the massachusetts trend which started slowly, there is no question that given our flawed launch of healthcare.gov it will be a small number. >> the massachusetts plan the first is 1 23 people signed up, less than 1% of the first-year enrollment in the first month and we saw the same numbers in medicare part b. the first month

of open enrollment back in 2006. madame secretary, young americans are the most likely age group to be uninsured and a lot of us are concerned that because of the problems we are having with the website that a lot of these young folks may not come back on -- they have short attention spans. i am four kids that all work on the internet and if they can't get something in five minute they are on to something else. what do we do? what plans are in place by your department to encourage young people to go back and revisit that site and to make sure we are getting young people looking at that site and accessing it? >> fix the sight. we don't want people to be invited back and then have a bad experience the second time around. i think that is absolutely right. the site is particularly important for tech savvy and regeneration folks who really need to enroll.

we have to fixing the site is that 1 and step 2 is getting information to folks that alive and exist. a lot of young people haven't followed this dialogue the last three years. >> we need a real marketing campaign and we need to reach out to young people, especially the end of november when this site will be working a lot better to make sure they're checking that site out. one of my four kids is self-employed, is 33 years old, is paying for blue cross plan and eligible for subsidy. we browsed that site and he will get coverage for half of what he is paying right now. that is good news. and we will save the money. if we had to prod him to go on that, with a one not doing unless it is easy.

>> the oversight subcommittee. stuart: very interesting. michael boyle, a democrat from pennsylvania, cited the case, $140 a month. goes on the exchanges and he will be able to get half of that plus a big subsidy and he and his wife having a big savings here. representative michael doyle is paid a great deal of money to be a democrat in the house of representatives, doesn't pay a dime towards his own health care. judge napolitano: the purpose of government is to take from you and give to others. stuart: we are joined now by a major supporter of obamacare. man of the left who we are always pleased to have with us

on "varney and company". juan williams, make your appearance. >> i hate to be the skunk at this garden party. you guys i'd definitely beating up today. stuart: hold on a second. how do you think i am supposed to react when representative michael doyle, democrat of pennsylvania told us that his son used to pay $140 a month but is now going to have medical insurance for have that with a big subsidy from the taxpayer. that is me. he by the way get free medical coverage because he is a member of congress and make a great deal of money. his health insurance, paying the subsidy for his son's health-insurance and i am supposed to be just wildly happy about this. what is your response? >> i love 1-sided presentations. i give you an a. that was terrific.

you are a taxpayer and we are all in the fox health care plan. don't know how much we put in but he works for the federal government. that is his job. most americans get their health insurance through their employer. there's nothing weird or unusual about that. the second thing to say is it is great news that people who would otherwise end up in the emergency room and raise the cost of all our health care bills now are going to have health care and is good news that young people like your son will have some kind of coverage. stuart: hold on a second. we have a medical doctor who will land to the point about not having to use the emergency room. >> that is one of the theoretical things about obamacare, several cities including one from mckenzie should people are twice as likely to use the e r n necessarily than people without insurance. >> what is going to come back and say no insurance is the greatest disincentives in the world. stop giving people the kind of

insurance you can use a necessarily. cosby emergency rooms, people are really sick -- stuart: address the issue of the deductibles which are just wildly out of control with these plans offered on the exchanges. i know you understand. $5,000 deductible seems to be an awful lot of money which we are demanding, middle america now pay. >> not demanding middle america a. let's get clear on the parameters. the parameters are we are talking about people in the market, in the individual market, 5% of the total market. we are talking about a limited group. 5%. >> as a comparison did of people, this is such a small group but we are focused. the second thing to say about the amount they would have to

pay as a deductible is guess what? they have insurance coverage and that is where it stops. $5,000 in case they have a catastrophic injury and terrible event. $5,000 deductible. stuart: the first five thousand dollars, trip to the doctor, drug, you paid that, you pay that until you hit $5,000. you are paying that. >> i don't mean to be condescending but i understood that. i got it. what i am saying is that is where it stops. they can now say that is the maximum in terms of what they paid previously. they were open to tremendous cost, bankrupting families and adding tremendous burdens to private employers. stuart: i believe you are factually wrong again. is not limited to $5,000. >> that is the deductible. stuart: there is the co-pay and when you reach a certain amount

you have to pay a proportion of the amount above that. >> i don't want to pile it on cket limit on the bronze plant, the $5,000 deductible, the out-of-pocket limit was waived, displaced from 2015 which means you not only have that, to your point, five thousand dollars deductible, the co-pay, you can go broke because they can't limit the amount out of pocket. stuart: are you a collectivist? >> what is that? peter: when you approve of what is going on in america today? we are all in it together, we all got to pay, we are all collectively being organized by the government and i think you approve? >> i approve of the idea that 30 or forty million people who don't have insurance or get kicked out of the private market because they have preexisting conditions or some other problem that suddenly we will have everybody in this country covered that is a good idea.

that is the reality in britain, that is the reality in almost every developed country in the world. stuart: hold on a second. charles payne has been awfully quiet. charles: maybe you can address it. the notion that a 31-year-old manson should be subsidized by taxpayers, there's something awfully wrong about that, of the american. that is not the country, how we became the greatest country in the world. we have all men in their 20s getting social security disability checks because they're lying about not being able to work. all of this is crumbling what we are as a nation. >> to me we are a compassionate people first and foremost and it is important to have a social safety nets. i don't know how you feel -- charles: we are talking 31-year-old, 25-year-olds. a social safety net. >> i don't care if it is at 3-year-old little child and the child is in need of medical care i think america is big enough to

take care of that issue and what we're seeing here with the president's plan, the affordable care act is america reacting in a way we have been trying to do it since teddy roosevelt by putting in place some kind of national health care plan. >> compassion--the kind of insurance you would need in an emergency, not the kind of insurance you could overuse so easily. >> why do you say over use? >> people go to the doctor and necessarily. they are not even sick, have the insurance card, i am going to use it. that is what i am concerned about and is the pattern. too many will bells and whistles and not paying doctors enough but restricting the amount of the week and order. stuart: thank you very much for joining us today. >> always good. now i have to get medical care for having gotten beaten up. stuart: you did not get beaten

up. we respect you. >> you guys are kind. stuart: that is not true. thank you very much. where are we? at the moment the hearings are in the weeds. i am not getting clarity from what they are talking about. a very weedy series of questions. i don't want to bore you with that. did you say go to break? in which case we are not going to bore you. we are going to pay our bills, medical bills, deductibles, co-pays, we will pay evan bayh running commercials like this. r. make a deal with me, kid, and you can have the car and everything that goes along with it. ♪ ♪ so, what do you say? thanks... but i think i got this. ♪ [ male announcer ] the all-new cla.

set your soul free. try align. it's the number one ge recommended probiotic that helps maintain digestive balance. ♪ stay in the groove with align. who found a magic seashell. it told him what was happening on the tradg floor in real time. ♪ the shell brought him great fame. ♪ but then, one day, he noticed that everybody could have a magic seashell. [ indistinct talking ] [ male announcer ] right there in their trading platform. ♪ [ indistinct talking continues ] [ male announcer ] so the magic shell went back to being a...shell. get live squawks right in your trading platform with think or swim from td ameritrade.

she loves to shop online with her debit card. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts and stole her hard earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she could have been notified in time to help stop it. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. don't wait until you become the next victim! call the number on your screen and use promo code notme

for 60 days of lifelock identity theft protection and get a document shredder free. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/notme.

stuart: a quick factual point. democrats insist it is only, quote, 5% of the people involved in this private insurance market. the 5% is 15.4 million people. what we have known in the hearings dr. michael burgess from texas asking if the president purposely misled the people on if you like your play and you can keep it. listen to this. >> he repeatedly came to this committee and misled us. >> i will not. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> personal privilege the record

ought to be clear about jeffrey, he was invited with less than a week's notice to come to this committee, couldn't make it that there and asked for some other day, went to a limb the and had nothing to do with the solyndra contract and compete for us to talk about it but his sole role was to represent o m b and there should not be any disbarment of jeffrey. a very well-regarded public servant. >> ms. matsui. >> thank you, mr. chairman, welcome, madam secretary. we all agree the web site problems must be resolved. and develop the internet and the concept of the sites, our expectations. and the website near the three years is inexcusable and after it is fixed by of the

administration will hold them accountable. we can't lose sight of the big picture that when this is said and done every american will have affordable, quality health insurance and health care. this is the goal of all democrats and republicans. dec air is working in california and is working in my district in sacramento and a wanted to you about a letter i got from a constituent. as a self-employed contractor employee i have had individually purchased -- stuart: doris matsui from california said we are on the weight to the point where all americans get quality and affordable care. i think you'll take issue with affordable. >> the kaiser family foundation said young people will pay 400 times higher premiums than the of been paying. >> older people with preexisting

conditions. why should a 25-year-old or 27-year-old pay for someone who has been eating mcdonald's their whole life, has diabetes and high blood pressure and heart disease. the person as charles was saying starting out in life. doesn't need it with the yoke of another insurance -- stuart: one of would love to ask representative matsui can you afford if you make $60,000 a year and you have two three children you can afford $5,000 worth of deductible plus co-pays? you can afford this? this is affordable? >> if you put in preexisting conditions with no lifetime limits and all of this there is no way premiums are not going to be high. you can have the government subsidize that the premiums are going to be high. judge napolitano: and her mind is a portable because he doesn't have to pay anything out of her pocket and get reimbursed by a subsidy on top of her salary. stuart: miss matsui is making the statement. we are about to have kathleen sebelius's response. the glorification of obamacare.

>> no consumption expenditure on health care. everything from health insurance to drugs rose by just over 1% in the past year. this is the slowest increase in 50 years. madame secretary, what does the at tell us about what has happened to health care costs since the aca became law? >> you are right and the last three years. and the extraordinary cost increases year over year. the medicare plan and the medicaid plan, private insurance, and underlying health care costs which affect every american. some of that is to do with the features currently in place around different care delivery and payment systems we are helping to drive given the tools we have on the affordable care act.

more quality outcomes, trying to prevent hospital readmission than looking at infections, medical, and prevent people in the first place or help them stay healthy in their own homes and their own places. the private insurance costs are going at the slowest recent decades. >> that is true. >> and also correct that aca premiums are lower than predicted by experts? >> they are about on average 16% lower than estimated that those premiums would be and that is the premium not accounting for the number of uninsured or underinsured americans who qualify for financial help since they didn't have employer coverage they get some help from the taxpayers paying for that coverage. >> madam secretary, when you spoke at the democratic national convention in charlotte last september.

one of the first statements you may about the affordable care act was, quote, but for us democrats obamacare is a badge of honor because no matter who you are, what stage of life you are in this law is a good thing. first, if you already have insurance, you can keep it. i call this a red herring that misled voters, intentional or not. perhaps had you known millions would lose their coverage, families could face financial disaster as one constituents recently told me, the exchange rollout would be laid -- stuart: i do hate to interrupt, a frequent guest on this program but interrupt we must. that comes to the end of our coverage on "varney and company". my thanks to the judge in charles and everyone else who helped us through this very interesting and lively day. we are not c-span, are we?

it is yours. dagen: we are staying on top of this toy. the president's health-care law on capitol hill and there's a lot of fire being thrown. connell: you have been watching kathleen sebelius on what happened with the launch of obamacare. >> in these early weeks, access to healthcare.gov has been a miserably frustrating experience for too many americans including many who avoided years, there's the entire life for the security of health insurance. i am as frustrated and angry as anyone with the flawed launch of healthcare.gov. let me sail directly to these americans you deserve better. i apologize. i am accountable to you for fixing these problems and committed turn your confidence back. dagen: talking about falling on your sword, kathleen sebelius looking to shoulder the blame