>> it is not a bad fund but no emerging markets. how about china and india if you want to diversify overseas? >> the one winner in the senate's new healthcare bill -- lawyers. the losers? everybody else. that's the word from steve forbes. welcome to "forbes on fox." let's go in focus with steve forbes. elizabeth mcdonald, kneel weinberg and quentin harding. so it's all about the lawyers? >> well, personal injury lawyers are what viruses are to healthcare. they add $100 billion to the cost of healthcare and they poison doctor-patient relationships. doctors know everything they

say, and the worst thing is that the system doesn't bring justice to people who have been wronged. only a fraction of them get those big awards we read about. why not create healthcare panels, get the lawyers out. so is something is wrong, you gt compensated. >> healthcare reform without tort reform in it is useless. >> life is such a mystery r we're always looking for one cause to explain something. to me the relationship would be poisoned because who will be inside which insurance company? is your doctor inside your plan? that poisons the relationship, and can we admit it's a little more complex than that. obama said we should see about arbitration, new ways of deciding this, same as bush did in his speech to congress last week he talked about trying new models. republicans weren't interested are in that. i think we can work something out. >> but he says he has an open door but republicans can't get in to talk about this. >> by the way, the president said maybe defensive medicine. he said maybe.

he qualified it. he wasn't definitive. he talked about one pilot project. he was just paying lip service in his speech last week to the joint service of congress about whether or not defensive medicine and tort costs do add to the bill, and so my point is that why should taxpayers continue to be abused by lawyers profiting off the system, why should any costs, i don't care if it is $10 million or $5,000, enough! taxpayers have been abused enough. this defensive medicine costs $230 billion, $30 billion in malpractice costs. malpractice insurance premiums coming down a bit but still not enough to protect the taxpayer. >> here is the only bone they throw in the baucus bill to tort reform "congress should consider establishing a state demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the current civil litigation system. " is that the best they can do? >> it is the best from the democrats. lawyers are their biggest contributors. they aren't going to bite that dog. what i have to tell you is you

have to keep this in perspective. the malpractice costs have been rising 12% a year since 1975, but the fact of the matter is they are a rounding error when you look at $2.1 trillion we spend every year on medical costs, it is not a core profit. >> it is beyond money. it causes doctors to move or leave the profession. >> five out of six doctors say they have to order more referrals, more procedures, more tests because they don't want to get sued. i don't think it's just the rounding error. you have to look at neurosurgeons. it costs malpractice insurance, over $200,000 a year. those costs get passed on to their patients. >> and ob-gyn's, folks who deliver babies pay a fortune. >> here's my favorite one. two sisters were abused by their half brother. who is responsible? well, according to a recent jury verdict, the person who is responsible is the pediatrician. she has to pay $11 million.

great copy, but it is a small part of the big problem. if you want to save on medical costs, look at another proposal from steve forbes. he wants to have patients with skin in the game, cigna's accounts for help. >> that is much more powerful than getting rid of the trial lawrs. >> this doesn't preclude other solutions to the healthcare crisis. this gets to one of the key things, $300 billion and poisoning doctor-patient relationships is not a rounding error. >> we have to make it clear for the viewer. it is medical malpractice tort costs, $30 billion. defensive medicine, some say about $230 billion, and those numbers i don't think include the medical malpractice premiums that doctors have to pay which add to their costs that they put on the backs of their clients which all of that could get pushed on the back of the u.s. taxpayer. >> and when it is beyond money, the fact that it does affect the

lives of doctors an does in a negative way incentivize them, in some cases to get out of medicine. we need every doctor we can get right now. >> that's true, but it is an adversarial system based around the insurance market. look, in some cases insurers in california deny 47% of claims from people. that creates a lot of anger. in defense of the lawyers, you never would have found out how much tobacco companies were intentionally addicting america if it hadn't been for the lawsuits. the lawsuits create the environment in which we find out the malfeasance, because it is an adversarial system. >> it had to do with inside whistle blowers, nothing to do with "the wall street journal" who talked about how alcohol was being spiked into tobacco. >> at what point is individual responsibility coming in? the point is there are a lot of bad things you can do to your body out there that people

should be responsible for that you shouldn't be suing the doctors for. >> and i don't want my good friend to fall off his chair there, but i will agree about one part of canada's socialized medicine plan, which is capping pain and suffering awards to $300,000. that sounds reasonable. ly take that part of quentin's plan. >> quentin just fell off his chair! >> i'm pro-canadian. >> if why don't you have a looser pay system with the malpractice suits? >> you give credit to canada. i'll give credit to england. they have 1/10 the number of lawsuits because if you bring a frivolous lawsuit, you pay the court cost if you lose. >> why if something has been done wrong to you, why should you have to file a lawsuit? why isn't there a specialized court? >> i understand, but couldn't we have the loser pay system here? >> let's take that $11 millioner is dict against the pediatrician. it's absurd. the pediatrician is the loser.

she has to pay the other side's law fees as well? come on! >> we have a justice system for worker's compensation rights. why not set one up for looser pays. we have caps on medical. i don't think they are capped on medical expenses or lost wages but just on pain and suffering. >> california did it 30 years and that is one state where health insurance is still affordable. >> can we talk loser pays here? >> that's fine. you take a little risk. that way you go in with a legitimate geoffance. >> thank you very much. clunkers price tag more than tripled. housing credits set to double and we expect the healthcare price tag to stay the same. yeah, right. cashin' in is willing to tell you the truth about this but first, our economy needs more czars, a flip side that will have you flipping out.

>> from america's news headquarters i'm kelly wright. new developments in the murder case of yale grad student annie le. the murderer had reportedly tow add car from cromwell connecticut where ray mons clark was -- where raymond clark was arrest ared. he. clark has not confessed to the crime. a manhunt is underway for a criminally insane killer in washington. hes escaped to the spokane county interstate fair and authorities warned the longer he goes without his meds, well, the more dangerous he could become. he brutally murdered an elderly

couple in the '80's and was committed after being acquitted by reason of insanity. forbes on fox are returns now. for the latest headlines log on to foxnews.com. >> to the czar wars! lawmakers on both sides of the aisle telling him to cool it with the czars but neil says our economy needs more of them. neil, make the case. that's a tough one. >> there's nothing wrong with czars. it's just a bureaucrat. the only thing we don't like it is that it sounds russian which is almost as bad as sounding french. it is not that we have too many. it is that we have the wrong kind. why don't we have a czar against corruption, a czar against tax increases, a czar who would look over cost benefits and make sure we're not implementing stupid policy which does not benefit us nearly as much as the cost? >> jack, do you think we need more czars? >> absolutely not. we need fewer. we have upwards of 30, 35 different czars running various policy making decisions of the

executive branch of government. these people have not been elected, confirmed or vetted by congress. it's bad news. obama has gotten a slow start with his czars. they're not making a lot of progress. that is the only good news. >> it rubs against the american gain, the czar idea? >> quomption at all. smart people who are experts in their field doing work in the public service that. is totally american. what i like about it is that it is out this and public. i would rather have a czar that i know about working then bch an energy c.e.o.s meeting with the last administration to design energy bills. >> there is no senate confirmation hearing or background checks. both sides of the aisle have finger-pointing since f.d.r. and nixon and reagan and both president bushes and yes, the current president has appointed unaccountable czars. we don't know if they're lobbyists in government uniforms. >> quentin? >> george bush had 30 czars,

aids, birth control, drugs, health, homeless, religious studies. intercontinental hotel -- anyway, they come from the outside. they're actually private sector guys. they're not bureaucrats. to me, bureaucrat means go through, come up the chain, get confirmed. they are from the private sector and have a different perspective. >> hearing quentin using republicans to make his case makes me fall off my chair, but the fact is that checks and balances is the basis of our system. these guys don't have to be confirmed. they don't have congressional oversight. >> they don't. the whole thing is bizarre. that's why you have be cabinet secretaries. pay them a dollar a year but to give people onbehind responsibility and not have them accountable to congress, that's why congress is up in arms, unlike a cabinet secretary who knows where the budget comes from. these guys treat the chairman like peasants and treat taxpayers like surfs.

>> 16 czars is how many the reagan administration had -- bush, excuse me. but no matter how many you have, the concept doesn't have that congressional oversight and checks and balances that is the basis of what makes our system work. >> right. is congress even qualified? >> that's a good question for another show! >> we're kind of looking for a solution here with the smartest people making the smartest decisions. >> they say the problem of congressional oversight, the senator from wyoming, russ feingold actually wrote a letter to the president saying you show us exactly how this satisfies the appointment clause of the constitution. it is unconstitutional to make willy-nilly appointments of people like carol bounder. >> you're right. it is very sad in a government that we employ millions of people that they still have to bring in another layer of bureaucracy to deal with this. >> kneel, you want to chime in.

>> again, do you really want somebody who is going to be running a big piece of government who is politically connect enough to get through all of congress? we elected president obama to run are the country r let him run are the country and pick who he wants. let these people fail or succeed. >> we don't know again what kind of lobbying money is being put behind any czar behind any president. >> they can pick anyone they want. he doesn't even have to say who it is. we saw that in the last administration. >> then don't pay them! >> these are sheeper agents from some foreign governments. this is like -- if there is a problem, it gets exposed t has already happened once. what is your big deal? >> how? >> by fox news. >> by the journalists who have to do the leg work. why not put them up before a senate confirmation hearing? >> because then it will turn into a witch-hunt. >> may van jones' political

career rest in peace. look, this is a problem that voters are upset about. >> you need to bring back lenin and de-czar the government. >> oh, man! the chief of capitalism talks about bringing back lenin. well, a new government takeover plan that could have taxpayers paying for everybody's college tuition. if you thought healthcare was expensive, you ain't heard nothing yet. a cheer clear

>> first it was financial

companies and then auto companies and now college loans. the whites house pushing to take over the nation's entire student loan program. private banks out, uncle sam in, and steve says read between the lines. the government is planning a cradle to college welfare state. >> sure it is. over ten years this will add another trillion to government liability. they say the banking sector is making money off of this with the guarantees but the idea that the government can do anything more efficiently than the private sector, well, just look at fannie mae, freddie mac and amtrak. we have to say no. this is part of obama's plan to make college education a freebie in the next few years. very nice but unaffordable. >> cradle to grave in college loans, are you for it or against it? >> we value higher education. we thought poor people should have access to it. so what did we do? we gave a bunch of money to the private sector to make student loans. they bundled them and traded

them from chicago to wausau and made a mess of it. we're talking about cutting them out and giving the loan directly to the students that. is cutting out a couple layers of waste and fraud and is a net good. >> here is specifically what the president said talking to union activists last week "offering students a complete and competitive education from the cradle to the classroom from college through a career," the whole life of an individual, cradle to grave. >> i have a message for you quentin. the trouble with you and your socialist programs, whenever you see something big you want to nationalize t. >> yeah! >> look at the postal service. somehow the postal service can't compete with fedex even though they have billions of our taxpayer dollars. >> hold on! >> let's talk to a princeton grad right here. what do you think? >> the government is going to be involved regardless. they are the lender of last resort for college loans. when we look at the current system there is a lot of waste. when we give these subsidies to

lenders that is a huge amount of waste. this reform will cut that out, that $87 billion in savings will go to paying loans for other students who are low income, for example. that is helpful. >> does it matter at all that the american public doesn't want this? we had a fox news poll this week and 54% said these government takeovers are a bad idea. only 33% said it was a good idea. does it matter at all? >> it doesn't matter to the president, because in his heart he believes in socialism, but the problem with taxpayer subsidies is they always cause the price to go up. look what happened when we subsidized ethanol. the price of corn and and other farm products shot through the roof. a lot of the money is wasted. over the last 20 years enrollment in colleges and universities went up 40%. guess what? full-time staffers increased 100%. they have environmental protection people now. >> go ahead. >> subsidies are not always

evil. we subsidize the purchase of new homes and that actually helped. >> what better example do you need? >> beyond, that the government's role has been enlarging since the past year. when the credit markets froze, who had to come in and buy up these loans? >> this is mike's point. isn't it time to stop what doesn't work? >> well, then we shouldn't have any subsidies to the banks at all. >> i agree! >> by the way, bill, bill, the u.s. postal service sends a letter for 45 cents. what does fedex charge? >> well, i think the service is a little better at fedex. >> it doesn't lose money the way the post office does! >> again, what about to mike's point, the fact that it's time to stop doing what we know doesn't work. that's right. when government gets into it, again the idea that oh, we cut out profit, we'll make it cheaper, it makes it more expensive because they don't have the market incentive to make things more affordable and

more productive. incentive is underminded in the same way. college has gone up rapidly. station is going up rapidly because they're sub subsidizing it. we're hurting students not helping them. >> nothing nice about these rude moments but there is something nice about our iewd stocks companies with in your face reputations that are making money out of sight. that's next. discover gives you a cash back

bonus on every single purchase. what you do with it is up to you. what will you get back with your cash back? it pays to discover.

>> they're more rude than kanye west and joe wilson's bad behaviors rolled into one but they make a good deal of money for you. mike, you have one for us. >> viacom. this is where kanye told us the truth about country music. the ad market is improving. >> they have movies, t.v., internet, do you like them? >> they are a middleman. we don't he need them anymore because we have the internet.

>> i have a simple stock, altria since it spun off its cream cheese operation. philip morris. it is based on different kinds of products that give you different kinds of cancer. >> the recent legislation limiting tobacco companies to market their product helps them. i don't think tobacco is a good place to be. >> i said you are a man of steel. >> steel new core, a filthy polluting o stock but it will catch a bump up from stocks rising. >> i like commodities but it is pricing in the strong global recovery and i don't think that's the case. you might wait for a better entry point. >> have you had a guinness stout in your life? >> yes, i have. >> do you like it? >> i do like the stock here. recently a chinese investment fund invested in this company. they're making inroads in emerging markets including china. >>er i think